" It's really a question of weather the Democrats are going into battle in 2008 as Obama's personality movement or as a progressive partisan movement."

No, that's simply the way that you've decided to cast his candidacy.

To go in one cycle from John Kerry, one of the most broadly experienced and qualified nominees in my lifetime- to Obama- who would easily be the least- would be quite a seismic shift, and I just don't see how it could (and I pray it won't) happen.

Wow! Couldn't stand having a pro-Obama diary at the top of the page could you Jerome.

Good post. It very hard to believe that Obama would get a lot support from indies and moderate Republicans once the GOP has done its thing. More than Clinton, perhaps. Fewer than Edwards, I'd guess.

One thing working in Obama's favor is that the press loves him. That's a fact, something that hasn't been true of a leading Dem since--since when? You suggest. Jerome, that the MSM will turn on him but experience tells us that once the they have a crush a la McCain, they tends to stick with it.

I've argued in the past that Obama should use the Democratic primaries to practice the techniques that he would use in a general election against a Republican.  Obama (and other candidates) need to go negative against their current opponents in order to sway me to the opinion that they have what it takes to win against Republicans.

Is going on the offensive against Krugman the type of aggressiveness that you would want to see from Obama if he became the nominee?

Liberal + Black = death

Because I actually read the diary, I will answer the question it poses:

Do you believe that this nation is going to transcend partisan politics in 2008?

No, I do not.  In fact, I believe the divisions are more acute than ever.  And if anyone recalls the results of 2006, one realizes that the American public is clamoring for a partisan Democrat who will actually enact progressive change.  To dismiss the results of 2006 as so much political toxic waste is a grave error.  Indeed, it will alienate a large portion of the electorate that became energized during the 2006 cycle.  Because I desire to avert an electoral disaster, I believe our candidates should marshal this energy, not squander it in the name of a nebulous post-partisan politics.  

"Edwards, who has been through this in 2004, realizes the value of partisan alliance and has positioned himself accordingly, through both message and online tactics."

yeah, its working really well for him...

So first Obama is attacked because he's not progressive enough, and now he's being attacked because is too progressive.

Sorry Obama doesn't speak the language of the blogosphere. And why should he? Normal people with real lives are connecting with him. He can afford to leave you people behind.

Okay, so not everyone who runs the site is an Obama supporter: I stand corrected.  This was a great piece because it underscores that Obama is really an "accidental" senator in that his primary and general election opponents in 2004 were both scandal-laced, and even in his state senate district he never really faced significant Republican opposition.  Clinton is ready to "go to war."  I'm not knocking Obama because he's black.  I'm black.  And I don't think Jerome is racist, but the "you will be banned" comment went a little far!  The only thing I can say is that liberalism of Obama's type is best when it is tempered with down-home authenticity, toughness and religiosity in the manner of Carter.  Carter wasn't a movement.  He was a visionary whom people trusted.  The electorate is different from the American public.  The electorate is conservative.  The American public is liberal.  The electorate only votes for those they know they can trust.  When Obama says that he wants to take away people's guns and appreciates when teenagers get pregnant and get an abortion with no one finding out, the electorate will place their trust elsewhere with the quickness.

So what is it?

Basically, even if Obama was sufficiently progressive for you people, his past views will doom him, because they're too progressive?

Gimme a break.

Jerome, I really appreciate it when you lay out the reasons you are skeptical in a complete post like this.  The other stuff comes out as totally disproportionate to the supposed offense, so it seems personal.  

I do hope Obama and his campaign thinks carefully about these issues, because I know we all want to win in November.

Clinton has her partisan base in order?

Which candidate between Obama and Clinton do you think will be more hospitable to the netroots?  With Obama, you will have a seat at the table and if your argument is good enough, it will prevail.  With Clinton, you will have nothing.

Like a lot of people, I was inspired by Obama's 2004 keynote at the convention.  My kids like him, and I really wanted to like him.

But he lost me by repeatedly saying and doing things that attack me, as a progressive Democrat.  Why would I want to support or even defend somebody who won't support or defend me?

He may think triangulating will win him the election.  I doubt it.  And even if it wins the presidency, Bill C showed us that it's a recipe for minority status in Congress.

I don't even know whether Obama understands the kind of defending he'll need if he's the nominee.  I fear he will never know what hit him once the Rove and Norquist and Limbaugh and Robertson people get started.  If he thinks they'll make nice just because he's made nice, he hasn't been paying attention for the last 20 years.  He'll get shredded and so will we.

So let me get this straight.  Someone can slyly argue that race prevents Obama from succeeding (which is the definition of racism), but to challenge the assertion is prohibited?  That's censorship and totalitarianism and it doesn't make a difference that you consider yourself liberal or that you like black babies.

This is precisely why middle america distrusts so-called liberals.  Because they are just as full of sh*t as everyone else, but holier than thou about it.  These are the same people who drove Nader to run in 2000 and who will cost us another election.

I am a little confused as to lumping Edwards with Clinton.
The Edwards' positions have been first in most cases and certainly the clearest. What are HRC's positions?

I believe Edwards will be the greater force...
An Edwards/Obama ticket would sweep and transform America..and in 8 years?

He's not black, he's simply too green.

and....he has some very anti-middle class economic positions, that too.

I do believe, however, That if not Edwards, an Obama candidacy, even if racist America did not elect him, would bring about serious Dem majorities in Senate and House. HRC simple won't do this.

What you identify as Obama's greatest problem is his greatest strength...  The fact is, the right and the media just can't seem to get a solid hit off of him.    Every attack just glances off.  He hasn't had to attack the right wing noise machine, because he hasn't NEEDED to attack it directly, and he most likely never will.  The right has tries to smear him, but they slide off of him like teflon.. actually, that's not even the operative phrase... they never get a direct hit on him, just glancing blows... He has a special way about him that allows him to dodge bullets with impunity.

Thanks,

Mike

"But there's been more and more of a dissonance growing between Obama's campaign and among progressive partisan Democrats"

Ha!!!!!!!!!! In your dreams.

His poll numbers are creeping up in all states...evidence doesn't seem to support this notion.

Your quibbles with Obama ("He's built up a cult of personality!") demonstrate that you haven't learned anything from 2000 and 2004.

Sadly, personality is everything in elections. That's why John Edwards and Barack Obama are strong general election candidates (with weaknesses, yes, but still strong), while Hillary Clinton will have major problems connecting with people.

Charisma and personality are what drive voters to ignore negative messenging and accept positive messenging. They are the cornerstones of successful political campaigns.

That is what I wonder.  I have met a lot of very smart people in my life.  A few of them are the type that know that they are smart, and think they are smarter than they are.  They tend to over rely on their ability and it gets them in trouble.

I worry Obama might be one of these.  That he might think is so intelligent that he can get by or get around a problem with just its wits.  That he can talk his way out of it (or give a good speech).  He shows some signs of having this type of ego:

1) He appears thin skinned.  Novak and Krugman didn't do much to get way under his skin and to illicit a response that wasn't proportional to the percieved threat.

2) He doesn't take personal responsibility for mistakes.  He consistantly blames low level staffers when this blow up publically.

3) He appears leary to let us learn too much about him.  I have a real problem with the reasonsing that he gives for changing the names of friends and associates in his book.

Add to this that Obama has never been tested.  He has never ran a race where his opponent has taken it to him and knocked him down, forcing him to get off the mat.  You know that in a general that will happen.  Kerry got sent to the mat with the 'Swiftboats' and he got up, but he was slow to get up and it cost him.  Kerry was a veteran campaigner that had been in some tight spots previously.  Obama has no such experience to draw on.

Furthermore, what Democratic voters need to understand is that to win the general election you have to do more than make some movie star, or U of I prof, or some liberal activist in NH feel good.  You have to convince middle America, unaffiliated voters, who make will make a snap judgement in the final week, that you are the best person to defend them economically, militarily, etc.  

These voters are not going to stare starry eyed at Obama, gushing about a some mythical movement that no one else can see, as they listen to a long speech.

I do think it is important to point out that a liberal has not won the White House for a long time.  I believe that the conservative movement hit its apex at the moment of the Terri Schaivo incident is receding, and will die a slow death.  That being said we are not far removed from that apex, and the conservative movement is still strong.  Many Americans still identify with it to some degree or another, and I don't think are ready to elect a liberal President yet (I said yet).   You make a great point about winning, and fighting.

Lets now throw this election away.  We can build our majorities in the House and Senate AND we can elect a Democratic President who will sign their laws, end the war in Iraq, and appoint the right judges to the Supreme Court.  We need to go with with strength and experience, and someone who knows how to win in a general election.  That is not Obama.

Last note: I don't think the dicussion of race is off the table, nor is gender, or religion or anything else.  Anything the Republicans will use against us has to be thought about and discussed.

Jerome, good, thoughtful post. But I'm not sure I'm sold.

If Obama gets nominated, what are you supposing the partisan base is going to do? Sit at home and let Rudy/Romney/Huck win?

IMO, no Republican and their campaign is anywhere near as formidable or experienced as the Clinton Camp. This fear of the Republican noise machine is irrational, being as 2006 showed us their tactics have worn thin and they don't play with the American voter.

IMO, Sen. Obama's transformational politics has less to do with making nice with Republicans than putting the ideological debates  of 1968 in the dustbin of history, something that I do believe will have great resonance in a general.

Lastly, I don't see how anything Sen. Obama has done seals his fate in a manner more damning than Sen. Edwards' decision to accept public funding. At least Sen. Obama will be able to hit back against the Republicans in the general.

This politico article just shows Obama has as much conviction as any other typical politician.

He has masterfully hoodwinked a lot of people , including a some of his worshippers on this blog that he his the second coming of Jesus Christ.

You have to give credit to a politician that can actually do that .

All his claims about courage of convictions , no poll testing positions , triangulating etc. has always been a facade to me.

Don't get me wrong I like Obama and I give him kudos for haven been able to pull it off with his supporters up till this point.

I have never thought Obama was not a liberal , infact I have said it numerous time that I see him as a pragmatic progressive but with a less firm ideological base of Hillary Clinton , that is why I can support him because he would probably end up governing from the middle.

The issue I have always raised is that he is just a typical politician like any other politician but has a special gift to make people think otherwise.

This article just shows him to be another politician , if you compare with he said then to now.

Someone should tell Obama to stop blaming everything on your staff.
 

Oh and one more thing -

IF Obama wins the primary, then he probably has "partisan Democrats" all lined up behind him, right? And your criticism will be silly! Or do primaries not count? Is the only thing that matters the opinion of elite bloggers with hidden agendas?

I am amazed at how many people miss the boat on Obama.  Have you not seen that he is the best counter-puncher the Democrats have had in a very long time?  What happened to Hillary's abortion attacks last week?  What happened to Bill's Iraq attacks a couple months ago?  In both cases the campaign already had material that countered the attacks in the hands of the media before the attacks were even made.

Obama will do just fine against the Republicans.  And how quickly we forget how pathetic the "experienced" Kerry was in dealing with Republican attacks.  

Jerome,

I started out reading this post thinking, "wow, Jerome is actually being sort of reasonable and just explaining his concerns in a helpful sort of way..."

Then you started doing what you usually do:  distorting and cherrypicking to make Obama look bad, or weak, or unelectable.

It is ironic that after months of you and other JE supporters harping about how Obama is insufficiently progressive, you choose an article that is all about how Obama is an unrepentent liberal.  Rather than being reassured by the article that Obama really is a progressive, you are now trying to turn this into an electability issue.  I gotta give you credit, you are consistent:  you criticize Obama no matter what he does or says.

The meme that Obama has not been tested is bull.  Team Hillary has some of the toughest, meanest oppo folks in the business.  They have been testing him for months.  I strongly suspect that Team Hillary has been dropping little planted media stories all year.  They have had paid bloggers spinning for months.  IMO, Obama has shown that he can take a punch and that he is an excellent counter-puncher.  

With regard to vulnerability to attacks, your post fails to mention what I think is most important:  what determines if an attack will stick is whether or not it fits in with pre-existing doubts in the minds of the voters.  Obama is less vulnerable because he is far more authentic than Gore, or Kerry, or HRC.  Obama's personna is honest, ethical, and caring.  This makes him a much smaller target than HRC for intance.

Edwards problem is that his political message is somewhat incongruent with his past positions and votes.  This makes him vulnerable to flip-flop attacks.  The mansion, the haircut, and the hedge fund attacks stuck, in part, because they fit in with voter doubts about Edwards past as a wealthy trial attorney.

I think Obama is perfectly capable of taking care of himself.  If you don't want to see him seperated from the liberal base of the party, then quit attacking him and distorting his record.  The reason there is seperation is because people like you have been trying your damnedest for months to tell us that Obama is not a progressive.

Try getting out of the MyDD bubble once and awhile.  In my conversations with a wide variety of people.  They consistently say that they like Obama with comments about how honest and sincere he seems.  You suspect you travel is a highly cynical crowd.

...is it will be easy for the Republicans to paint Obama as young and inexperienced.

Last week while on 'Hardball', Matthews was interviewing Roger Simon of the 'Politico', a pretty good veteran reporter that has been around.  

Matthews basically laid out the strategy that Obama and his supporters hope for.  Chris was in effect making it sound inevitable.   Obama wins Iowa, gets the mo and wins New Hampshire and them rolls through SC and Clinton is done.

Simon made an interesting observation that I think caught Chris off guard, as it ran contrary to the line of conservation he was trying to push.  Simon basically said, or Obama wins Iowa or New Hampshire, gets peoples attention, and Democrats in other states step back and ask, okay can he win the general, is he the right candidate.

Obama may be doing well enough in the polling now, and getting enough new media buzz, that some people are already starting to ask that question, as we see with the Politico piece.

I think Democrats who want to win are smart to ask it sooner than later.  

Beating Hillary is the tough part. Once that is accomplished, beating the GOP will be easy. The pendulum has already begun to swing--the GOP has worn out its welcome in the Oval Office.

maybe those questions get asked but what's the answer an unlikebale Hillary that is viewed as dishonest by most of the country? In addition she just would hav ebeen found to be too polarizing for democrats in iowa and NH, it will be Hillary that can't win the general.

the utterly predictable Obama troll at Daily Kos, would respond as follows:

Let me get this straight - (0.00 / 0)
You posted complete LIES with no evidence. Digby linked your post with complete LIES with no evidence - so now you'll pat her back and link to her - where she just makes shit up about Obama too?
You know - credibility is paramount - and if you guys want to claim that bloggers are journalists and that you all have ethics and credibility - then you'll have to actually STOP acting like mainstream full of shit journalists and start backing up what you say.

You said that you heard from "sources" that Obama's campaign was doing oppo research - NAME THEM or don't make the accusation.

You linked to Jerome - who clearly hates Obama - who has dropped in credibility with every single article he's posted this year - and who just recently smeared Oprah and Obama with completely fabricated LIES. No one has yet to make an attempt to prove the claim from that story.

Let's get down to the facts here Chris - if you're able.

Seriously - at this point I don't know why any of you have any credibility LEFT at all. I don't read MyDD anymore at all - shall I stop coming here too? That's what I do when journalists and bloggers make it clear to me that they have no interest in facts - I stop reading.

by: Elise @ Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 22:20:44 PM CST

Look in the mirror. (0.00 / 0)
Your comments here are ugly. Why the need to smear? Don't have anything positive to say about your own chosen candidate?
The fact is - several bloggers have smeared Obama - without PROOF. They have smeared Oprah - without PROOF. When you have no proof, you are not credible - and no one is listening.

by: Elise @ Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 18:47:12 PM CST
[ Parent ]

You've proven one thing with this comment... (0.00 / 0)
that you don't know a single thing about Obama.
So, how about you go to his website and read his policy proposals and read about his past accomplishments in the State Senate and as an organizer. Then you can come back and withdraw your assertion that he's not progressive.

He's THE most progressive candidate we have. Period. He has NEVER changed his position on any issue to become "more" progressive - unlike Kucinich, Hillary, and Edwards.

by: Elise @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 11:23:39 AM CST
[ Parent ]

Expect iterations of the above from Obama supporters whenever Bowers writes an article.  All of them have read the memo, and all of them will repeat it online.  Welcomoe to the age of simulated activism.

no Hillary they will simply go after her for being a corrupt "bitch". but my comments are not sexist because i'm just pointing out what Republicans will say about her.

Jerome,

Thanks for this post.  It's good to hear where you're coming from.  Ultimately, I think that Obama's campaign is incapable of leading a successful progressive partisan movement while using his unique characteristics to expand our coalition.  

Time will tell whether that's wishful thinking on my part or not.  Regardless, I don't see Obama's "weaknesses" as any more glaring than Clinton's or Edwards'.  Accordingly, I'm more than willing to give Obama a chance to really change the entire national dynamic.  Even if he fails, I think he has just as good a chance of at least winning the WH as Clinton or Edwards.  

At any rate, good to understand your thinking and I hope you'll still be willing to support Obama if he wins the nomination.  As you correctly note, he'll need all the help he can get once he has to face off against the GOP smear machine.

Obama was for DOMA IN 2003 now he is against it .

- In his Illinois campaign for a Senate seat, candidate Barack Obama said in a questionnaire he was against the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. In 2008, Sen. Obama, now running for president, said he is for a repeal.
Advertisement

Obama filled out the questionnaire, dated Dec. 15, 2003, for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn 4155/is_20070606/ai_n19203493

And he wrote that he favors normalized relations with Cuba, which he came out against in the Black and Brown Forum a couple of weeks ago.

Politics of conviction , yeah right.

Sooner or Later , his inconsistencies and facade would catch up with him.

From the Iran vote , to ducking of votes , to present votes , to mudslinging , the list goes on.

Say something in public , do something else under the radar.

I have wondered how he got away with it for so long.

She has negatives in the 50's and cannot win.

...on his concerns.  I've given Obama money and I'm firmly convinced he would be a transformational President.

But I'm concerned, and always have been, about his ability to get elected.  And, yes, PARTLY because he's black and has a funny name...those are still real obstacles.  Of course he can't control that, but he has to overcome it with a great campaign.  And I can see the problems Jerome outlined as being potentially real ones.

Now there's a strong counterargument that ultimately partisans will unite behind him, just as we united behind John Kerry no matter how strongly many liberals wanted someone else up until Kerry became the presumptive nominee.  And if that happens--it just might--then Jerome's, and my, concerns will have been empty ones.

If Obama's too centrist, I can't support him because he's not on our side.
If Obama's too liberal, I can't support him because he's unelectable.

If Obama's too black, racist America won't vote for him.
If Obama's not black enough, minorities won't trust him.

If Obama's too aggressive in fighting Bin Laden, he's pro-war.
If Obama's not aggressive enough, he's a weak dove.

If Obama wants to continue the war in Afghanistan, he's pro-war and somehow pro-Iraq.
If Obama wants to end the war in Iraq, he's pro-terrorist.

If Obama's defends his policy proposals, he's a slanderer.
If Obama doesn't defend himself, he's too weak to even take on liberal columnists.

If Obama handles the media well, he's unprepared.
If Obama handles the media poorly, he's unelectable.

If Obama falls behind in the polls, he's a loser.
If Obama leads in the polls, he's going to crash.

If Obama helps build the party with his PAC, it's unethical.
If Obama doesn't help build the party, he's selfish.

If Obama creates a party-centered campaign, he's unprepared and unelectable.
If Obama creates a candidate-centered campaign, he's a cult leader.

We get it. Obama's loses no matter what he does.

Jerome,

So, if Obama is our guy and Edwards is not, where will we be next year? We're obviously not going to sit it out and we're sure as hell going to fight like hell!

Obama was one of the first netroots candidates! We made him. He is one of us even if he pretends not to be. Unlike Kerry, Obama won't be foisted upon activists. We are genuinely inspired by the guy and the hope for the future he offers (in terms of race and national unity). It may simply be that 2008 is the year that we must engage in the campaign to take the nation forward in those terms. If so, then so be it. We'll all be there and for once we won't be supporting a guy because he isn't the GOP's guy, but because we see something wonderful in him.

Excellent post Jerome! I do not believe the nation will transcend partisan politics in 2008. I want a partisan in the White House. As polls have shown, most of America does to. You point out the problems I have with Barry. He's not a partisan. I shutter to think what type of back room deals he will make to sell out the party. You see, the problem with Barry is that he's a "Compromise Agent" and we have no room for that in our Party. I suspect Barry will come to the table ready to compromise every DEM ideal and stance in order to make the deal and make him look good. This is what it is about for Barry.  I've said this before; we (DEMS) need a fighter in the White House.  We need a "Partisan". Someone who will fight for our (DEM) ideals first, then compromise. There is a difference. I just wish the Barry supporters would think about what you put forth in your post.  I don't have a problem with Barry governing from the middle, but I want him to fight.  Fight for us (DEMS).  Identify with our side; DEM ideals. I just don't see or feel it happening from Obama.

Very interesting post.  This is a nice companion piece to Bowers' musings yesterday on OpenLeft.

I think Obama has the personal qualities to win with the campaign he is running.  His appeal and his ability to inspire and communicate make him unique among this generation.  The appeal is similar to that of JFK in 1960, who also ran what could have been considered a non-partisan campaign based on broad notions of idealism.  More recently, Ronald Reagan was able to ride personality to the White House in the 1980's, and was able to enact right-wing policies despite a Democratic Congress.

That is not to say Obama won't have a movement at his back.  I don't view this as a zero-sum equation.  I highly doubt the partisan-democrat crowd is going to sit idly by in 2008.

Yglesias has a great take on this issue:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/a rchives/2007/12/the_trick.php

It'd be great to see a back and forth on this issue.  I'm very curious to see how it all plays out.

Brilliant post. What is exactly Obama's base? This is a guy who has managed to achieve high political standing without ever having to resort to a partisan knife fight.  I'm knocking his talents at all, but a lot of other brilliant talented people in US history ended up falling victim to bad timing.  

If Edwards gets it he will have the Steel and Mineworkers, rural farmers, pooverty and fair trade activists, and lefty sections of the blogosphere of the party to thank. That's his base he needs to stay true to. If Hillary gets it she will have to thank the public workers unions, the old Clinton machine, and the tons of state and elected Democratic officials.

If Obama get, he will have to thank..Oprah? That's a problem. It could end being Carter like situtation. Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere with little political support from traditional Democratic bases to win, largely based on his own personal honestly. When his back got pushed to the wall, he didn't have a base to hold him up.

"First, let me just say that anyone who accuses skin color as some part behind the reasoning will find themselves banned--there is zero tolerance for accusations of racism."

I guess I'm torpedoing my future here on MyDD, but I really don't understand this statement. How does one "accuse skin color" anyways? Are you're saying that anyone who accuses you of doubting Barack's electability because of his skin color will be banned from your site?

While I personally did not get that from your piece, at the same time, as a biracial person myself, I'm totally offended by your attempt to completely shut down any discussion of race as a factor in your thinking. I guarantee you that the vast majority of blacks who aren't supporting Barack right now believe that white America is not ready to elect a black President. I think they're wrong, I think America is ready, and I believe that the election will turn more on the other issues that you so lucidly raise in your post.

But the fact remains that if you asked any average person on the street in America to analyze Barack Obama's chances in the general election, their first thought will probably be whether or not America will vote for a black man as Leader of the Free World. For you to shut down any discussion of this point in response to your blog questioning his "electability" in the general just tells me you're not willing to engage in an honest exchange of ideas.

Of course I don't think you're a racist. But you don't have to be a racist to consider the impact of race in politics in America. Just a realist.

So, I implore you not to ban me. But if you must, so be it, I can't stay silent about this one.

Tom Edsell shows us a couple of polls that show Americans may not be ready for a President who admits to cocaine use as an adult, as Obama has.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/11 /as-iowa-nears-clinton-al_n_76235.html

Can you imagine what these fear-mongers would have done to JFK?  Or poor MLK?  To these so-called liberals there is no room for disagreement or moderation.  They are Leninites, ready to shoot everyone, and they start with their natural allies.  And they are at heart liars because they will not admit their real concern so they mask it in duplicity.  No one is fooled.

Obama has the highest approval rating of ANY senator , including half of Ill evangelicals and R's.  Why do you want to shoot liberals in the foot by saying he can't win because he is to liberal?  I've heard republicans say they are against Affirmative Action, but can handle it when the hear Obama talk about it.  That they understand why we need a solution to Immigration when the hear Obama talk.  and so on, on a plethora of issues.  Chiefly the War -where he is not Pontius Pilot.  You are too cynical, too use to Politics as Usual, if we listened to you this country would never get anything done - because it  is not 'safe' to do anything.  Go ahead Jerome, play this election safe...let's stoop to the Republican level with our own Karl Rove's an tear apart the nation our way.  As for me, I'm going to believe that there are moments in history that transcend issues, partisanship, and gamesmanship - moment like now. Sometimes our challanges are bigger than our alliegances.  Like Obama said this weekend the question is not "can I win" but "should I win."  I'm voting, and a lot of the nation will be voting for, the candidate that should win: Barack Obama.

The article your citing ends with "what happens if both parties nominate candidate who can't win?"  Do you really think any of the Republicans can win?  Perhaps McCain could, but the rest will self-destruct.  Just look at Guilani imploding over the past two weeks.

When a campaign says, when faced with the candidates answers to questions from a liberal group: "Some of the answers accurately reflect Obama's position. Others do not." What am I supposed to conclude Obama's positions are?

As far as I can tell Obama's positions are whatever is convenient for Obama, regardless of what he said in the past.

seems to invariably blame others for his mistakes?

Wow.  You begin by saying partisan progressives won't support him and then say he's unelectable because he is a progressive.  Would you have preferred he answer the opposite on all those questions? It makes no sense but when the progressives pick the candidate with the least progressive voting record of the three as their candidate, I guess I'm just not hip to the reverse psychology that's at work.

I love the way you threaten to ban anyone who charges racism and then you throw in a nice little fear of racism comment to set the tone.  I am not saying you are a racist, but you are a fearmonger and your analysis of the Harold Ford ad is wrong.  If it speaks to the weakness of any of the Presidential candidates it speaks to the weakness of Edwards, not Obama.

The ad is not about race, it's about sex.  The ad didn't have legs and impact because of racism.  It was effective because it made Ford out to be a hypocrite.

The ad begins with a guy saying Ford is being supported by the porno industry and ends with a slut saying let's fuck.  That's what the ad is saying, not lock up your daughters, Mandingo's come to town.  Everyone knew at that point Ford was black and there is no fear to be spread about him being with white women - a tactic which might make sense to fight integration and busing, but not a Senator going to Washington.  The context of the ad was him attending a party at the Super bowl thrown by Playboy, while running around the State as a devout born-again Christian, handing out business cards with bible verses on them.  He gave the ad it's power when he responded if the objection is I like Women and Football, then I'm guilty as charged.  Funny, but not effective. The accusation was you preach one thing and act another, and his statement just backed it up.

It's the hypocrite, phony factor.  It's Edwards caring about the poor and getting a $400 haircut.  It's Edwards preaching about the Environment and building an obscene carbon footprint as a dream house.  It's Edwards calling the War on Terror a bumper sticker and voting to invade Iraq to stop terrorists from getting their hands on Hussein's WMD.  Who is the real Harold Ford?  Who is the real John Edwards?  

That's what the ad was about, not racism.  And to say it was, to fearmonger on a falsity is....well, let's just say it is wrong.

Taylor Marsh is now discussing this questionnaire on her popular radio show.

Well said Piuma....

I share Jerome's concerns about Obama's electability. I have similar concerns about Clinton and Edwards, and each of the other Democrats. It seems to me that a lot of the discussion Jerome has elicited consists of candidates' partisans ignoring the obvious defects of their own favorite while putting other candidates under the microscope. The party and the country both deeply need these partisans to come together when a nominee is selected and go all-out with their support to defeat the real evils the present Republican party represents. Anti-Clintonites, this includes you.

That said, I have two points to make. First, Jerome has erected a barrier to discussion regarding Obama's race. If this means that he will ban any comment accusing him of demeaning Obama because of his (Jerome's) own purported racism, I have no problem with that.

If, however, it is because he feels that any discussion of the effect of race in the general election, I fear that Jerome is constructing a gigantic blind spot.  I cannot agree with his statement in his 2nd paragraph that having black skin is as negligible as being a woman, a southerner or a northeasterner.  First, I'm not at all convinced that being a woman candidate for president doesn't carry with it a built-in disadvantage. In fact, I think that one reason that so many Republicans have such virulent opinions about Clinton is that a female leader doesn't comport with their underlying authoritarianism.

The fact is that the Republican party has only achieved its dominance in the last several decades by constant appeal to innate fear of the other, the stranger, that resides deep inside all of us. (And I include myself.) The reason that Stephen Colbert's routine about not seeing race is so effective is that it punctures the liberal myth that they (we) are "past" race. I don't believe that any of us, meaning the entire human race, is past race. If you travel abroad, you'll find that racism, or nationalism, or tribalism, is rampant everywhere. It is the constant job of all of us to confront the prejudgments based upon race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation that well up from inside us unbidden with the higher levels of brain function, and thereby wrestle them to the ground.

I have grave doubts about polling numbers that indicate that most Americans would be willing to vote for a black presidential candidate at this time. People do things in the anonymity of the voting booth that they won't admit even in an anonymous poll, and often won't even admit to themselves.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama's votes in a general election mysteriously falling off by 5 to 7 percent. That is not a general condemnation of Americans as racist, but it sure is enough to lose an election.

(I do want to note that there is a tremendous generational shift of attitudes about race, as their is about sexual orientation. I just conclude that Jerome is placing us farther along that curve than we are right now.)

Point two.  I have always been dubious of Obama's campaign philosophy of being above partisanship. (I'm not opposed to the philosophy in general, just to its centrality to his campaign.) I know that polls always point to the disgust the people have for the current hyper-partisanship, but I'm not so sure that is the deep meaning of the results. I think that the people are reacting to the REPLACEMENT of partisanship for consideration of issues in the media, to the sense of problems not being solved, and to the fact that most Americans are more inclined to sensible iterations of progressive goals than conservative ones (with the exception of guns and some "value" issues in some segments of the population) and that the progressive measures haven't been advanced.  I don't think most Americans understand how Obama, if he were elected, would bring about an end to partisanship, or anything like it. I'm not sure that Obama knows how he would take significant steps in that direction.

Finally, as a corollary to my second point, I have a troubling vision of what might happen if Obama were elected. It is the same vision, though watered down, that I had when Perot was running for president or for Bloomberg were he to run. If Perot had been elected, he would have been a president with no real party structure standing behind him. He would have had to try building cross-party coalitions on every single issue, and his only real tool would have been the bully pulpit. I think he would have been an enormous failure as president. I think that the further President Obama pushed his anti-partisan agenda, the less effective his presidency would be.

My conclusion is that the current level of partisanship is with us for a very long time, and that only two things can help change it: (1) Regaining control over the mass media in a way that lets all voices, not just conservative voices, be heard, and (2)a long period of Democratic rule that accomplishes real progress, so that the Republicans are seen are the childish, bitter bomb-throwers they are.

With all that out of the way, I want to emphasize that I like and respect Obama and find a lot of the recent attacks on him to be unfounded. I hope that he has a great future in our country's politics. He might well unite voters in a way I am just not seeing, and he might surprise us all with his accomplishments. If he is the nominee I will work hard to support him, and I hope that everyone in the party does likewise.

I think you forgot a few thing in your list of qualifications:

1) 3 years in the US Senate;

2) 8 years in the Illinios State Senate where he Chaired the committe on health and human sevices;

3) 12 years as a civil rights attorney;

4) 12 years as a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago;

5) Elected 1st AA President of the Harvard Law Review and graduates magna cum laude.

6) Community organizer on Chicago's south side.

7) Graduated magna cum laude from Columbia in International Affairs.

He passed numerous pieces of legislation in Illinios including ethics reform, children's health care, death penalty reform, etc.  In DC he was the Dem point man on the ethics reform package that passed and is considered the most significant reform since Watergate.

I don't mind disagreements in electability discussions, but it would be nice if we would start off with some accurate information.  Thanks.

    It would be so easy for the GOP

   the man wants to BAN making guns
    the man wants to BAN owning guns
    hes against the death penalty
    he wants to let crackheads out of jail
    he wants to let illegal aliens on your roads
    he wants to raise your taxes by 1 TRILLION $s        
    he was college professor
    he was/is a HARVARD lawyer
    hes the chicago Daley machine
    Rezko!
    he goes to  church who's rector hates whites
    his brothers are both in the nation of islam
    his grandma has no elect or water-and hes okw/that
    his middle name is hussein
    his last name is obama
    he doesnt LOOK like you
    he is a liberal democrat
    Young Hollywood likes him
    will smith says hes gonna be the NEXT black Prez
    how can he understand YOUR lives?
    he says hes experienced enough for the WH because he lived in indonesia when he was 6
    who IS his guy?

   ---

   people - this is just stuff i made up in 2 minutes. this IS the kind of stuff they will say.

   Have you ever sen the stuff that comes out of RNC fax machines?

   They would love you to pick him.

areyouready that was funny, racist and pathetic but it did make me laugh, thanks!

Having a base to push back isn't a necessarily condition on electability - having a platform that transcends the attacks takes care of that. You're argument reduces to a dislike for the man's platform. Fine, we can agree that he isn't the most progressive of the candidates. But - unlike Edwards - Obama has a good chance of actually enacting some of the planks on his platform. His presidency would constitute progress, even if it isn't Progressive.

Digby has a post on Sen. Obama :

Running to the right on health care and social security combined with the anti-gay gospel singer, taking Robert Novak smears at face value, repeating Jeff Gerth lies and now going after Paul Krugman, leads me to the niggling awareness that this is a conscious, if subtle, strategy. Any one of those things could be an accident, and perhaps some of them are. But taken as a whole, conscious or not, liberal fighters in the partisan wars are being sistah soljahed. Unlike the big issue of Iraq where being on the right side is being on the left side, these little digs and policy positioning are all sweet spots for the Village --- and sore spots for the base.

   Perhaps that's the smart move. It has long been known by just about everyone who matters that the rank and file activists of the Democratic party are a huge liability. And anyway, where are we going to go? Mike Huckabee? Ron Paul? We have no choice. So, no harm no foul. Running to the right of even Hillary Clinton on health care and social security and using GOP talking points and symbolism is probably all upside. It may be the best way to insure a win in the fall. But I can't say that it looks like either a transformative inspirational politics or a willingness to fight the conservatives and win on the merits.

   I still don't know who I'm voting for. I've criticized all of them and I have defended all of them against the media's predictable demeaning coverage. But in the end, when I choose who to vote for, I'm going to take into account which candidates see the political culture and the quality of the opposition for what it is and what it isn't. Obama is a tremendously exciting and talented politician and I would vote for him against any Republican out there without blinking an eye. But as a certified DFH, I really wish he weren't running this way. Paul Krugman most certainly is not the enemy and neither am I.

I would like to thank you for presenting your political philosophy so clearly.  It's important to have these sorts of discussions, and appreciate the view from the other side.

That said, this argument strikes me as both anti-Democrat and anti-democratic.  You want us to win office, but not by actually competing in the battlefield of ideas.  Presumably you still want us to pursue progressive policies in government, but apparently without ever being honest about them in the campaign.  In my opinion, that is the recipe for electoral disaster... if not in '08, then in '10 and beyond.  You can't win a debate if you don't even show.  And frankly, you don't have to win every debate in order to pull out an election.  You just have to win respect, and you do that by being strong.  Strong enough to stand by your convictions.  And, yes, strong enough to listen to your opponents and include them in the conversation, too.

If we do that, then maybe we can have an election victory that actually means something.  Then maybe we can build a movement that's about more than party labels.  

I followed the link to Tom Watson's post and the thing that struck me was his point that we're just now finding out about this questionnaire now.  One of the side effects of Obama's MSM love is that he hasn't gotten a lot of critical coverage.  I don't honestly know much detail about his past or how it might fair under GOP smears.  I think Dems would be better served by a closer look at Obama's past.  I don't expect to find anything there that's particularly scandalous, but I don't really want to find out I'm wrong about that in October 2008.

Because Obama hasn't run a national campaign before and had a weak opponent in his Senate campaign, he hasn't had the scrutiny Clinton and Edwards have had.  He needs it and we need to see how he handles it.  He may do a great job - that would be an important thing to know and very reassuring.

Like Watson, the main reason I think Hillary can withstand the smears is that everything that can be said and more is already out there.  Once you've been accused of murdering one of your best friends there's not a lot left.  What can the right possibly say that everyone hasn't already heard?

And while I'm generally sympathetic to claims of staffers making mistakes, since campaigns are huge organizations that rely on low-paid staff and volunteers, I don't think you can claim that a campaign manager misrepresented a candidate's positions on issues.  How can a campaign manager not know the candidate's positions and if she or he can't speak for the candidate, who can?  I know they said the manager hadn't run the answers past Obama, but it strikes me that that's because they didn't need to.  

OMFG!!!!  You put the finger on it, and I thought I had already sussed it out.

Good job!!!

I'm noting this on my blog, with the tag "good writing"

machine?

Well, the same way he is against the left-wing one - yourself included. I'd say...that points to his numbers rising and his support broadening.

Ban me if you want - I couldn't care less at this point since this site has lost just about every speck of credibility it ever had - but honestly, will there EVER come a day when you are able to post something about Obama and it won't include utter lies and misrepresentations? You're as bad as Sirota - and both of you are as bad as any right-wing MSM hack.

This primary has certainly revealed the true colors of a lot of bloggers - and the results are anything but pretty.

May as well push that "ban" button, Jerome. I won't be bothering to come back anyway. I only bother to read sites that actually have credibility.

Jerome, you begin by saying you have a nagging skepticism which deserves an explanation, and then proceed not to give that explanation.  Anyone who has read your stuff knows what really bothers you can be written in one word:

Axelrod.

And the explanation for why can be written in two:

Professional jealousy.

Aside from the emptiness of waging a campaign on the cult of personality, the current Obama strategy is fraught with danger.

First, the media giveth and the media taketh away.

The see-saw (darling of the media one day and the target of media slash and burn the next, hasn't begun to play out with Obama.

His best insurance isn't running as a personality, but rather on the strength of his positions.  And, in recent months it seems like Obama is focusing less, not more, on the issues.

Second, it is also dangerous for Dems to assume that ideas will get more fleshed out (to our liking, presumably) later.  It is not going to get any better than this (for Dems).  It only goes donwhill with more and more appeals to Independents and Republicans.  This is OUR primary.  And if Obama is already marketing to Is and Rs then he never will market to Dems.  We are cooked.  You can stick a fork in us.  Where issues are concerned we are dead meat.  And this is from our side of the aisle.

I like the guy.  But I am really afraid that, where positions that matter to us are concerned, we are really being had here.

Jerome, I happen to agree with you about Barack Obama's chances.  Nonetheless, I have to take issue with you about the role of color-aroused decision-making in the presidential race.  Considering that no Black person has ever been nominated to national ticket of either of the two political parties in all of the history of the United States; and considering that there is only one Black US senator among a hundred, even though the country is 13% Black; I think there is insufficient evidence to conclude that skin color no longer plays a role in American politics.

Jerome, above you said:

"First, let me just say that anyone who accuses skin color as some part behind the reasoning will find themselves banned--there is zero tolerance for accusations of racism."

Are you saying that you know that skin color does not play a role in your analysis, or are you saying that it could play a role, but you will not tolerate discussion of the role it might play?

Anytime you start a discussion by insisting that the point most people will want to explore is off limits, you acknowledge the necessity of exploring that VERY issue, in order to satisfy people's curiosity about it.

Saying what you have is analogous to saying, "Let me explain why I don't believe Hillary Clinton can be president,  but anyone who accuses me of sexism will be banned."  Why would anyone accuse you of racism or sexism if its so patently obvious that none of either is involved?

And why would you expect an issue that seems so clear to you to simultaneously be so UNCLEAR to others?  

Why would a non-issue become so contentious that would you have to threaten to ban others in order to stifle their dissent or get rid of them entirely?

If you exile everyone who believes that color-aroused decision-making is not dead in America, do you think that will have a disproportionate impact on any particular demographic group's participation at MyDD?  For example, in light of studies that show a 30% gap between Blacks and whites in our opinion as to whether color-aroused decision-making has receded, would exiling everyone who disagrees with you about this have a disparately negative impact on Black people.  Does that not concern you at all?

Twice above, you say that you have "nagging
doubts" about Barack Obama.  Black people and Black political candidates will be very familiar with this phenomenon, because whites very often seem to have "nagging doubts" about Blacks. And most whites deny these doubts as you have, eny until they get into the voting booths and express them openly.

Jerome, above you said:

"I don't even view Obama as black or with racial distinction. Identity-wise, I can understand why he's seen as such, but in that regard (and I have two kids with this same beauty), it points to a bright future when such fallacies such as 'race' become historical dust, and racism ceases."

I agree with you that we should get beyond color-aroused decision-making.  However, I'm afraid that your insistence that we have done so already shows a level of denial about the nature of color-arousal in America that borders on the delusional, with both feet on the wrong side of the border.  

I have to tell you, Jerome, that I feel sorry for your two children who have other-than-white skin color, but who lack a father-figure who can realistically help them to deal with their experiences in America.  They will have to grow up in the real world rather than in the world of your fantasies, and they will have no reality-based paternal guidance to help them with these issues.

Obama has no experience of the hostile and polarized political environment that he'd enter were he to win the nomination,

you've never heard michelle obama talk about barack's state senate years.

you can list all the issues you want, in the end, voters go with their gut. what they feel about the person. pollster after pollster has attested to this.

would you support edwards if he were black?

would you support hillary if she were black?

i hope it's not obama's palestinian comment that has gotten under your skin.