Also, while the Ad has a bipartisan/unity feel, all of the issues discussed are progressive: organizing factory workers who lost their jobs, tax cuts for the working class, healthcare for children, arms control, and ethics reform.

Yeah, for real... You think there's anyone who's not aware Obama is a Democrat? I've always found this a rather stupid knock against candidates. Then again, I live in a place where you'll get the door slammed on you if the first words out of your mouth are "I'm a Democrat."

Obama cartoon

all the people denying what you say is true are ignoring the fact that people are looking for real solutions not just a restatement of the fact that there are problems.  We all know there are problems.  A republican could make that same commercial...Huck maybe.  But it is the solutions that matter.  Obama thinks that the republicans are going to co-operate if we just play nice.  It doesn't work that way.

In this ad Obama calls his health care proposal "EXPANDED HEALTH CARE."   Not UNIVERSAL, not covering everybody, but EXPANDED.   I have always believed that UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE is the one litmus test for true Democrats.  Obama can't bring himself to embrace that goal.   This EXPANDED health care system won't amount to much after the post-partisan, bi-partisan negotiators are through with it.

the ideal ticket.  

Since Murdoch is raising fund for Hillary - why not put him on the ticket to blunt the Bloomberg run.

I feel like we've been over the partisanship issue a million times and we will never see eye to eye.  Of course, this sort of proves the point: how can you unify the country if you can't even unify the party around the issue of whether unity is possible?

I think it's no coincidence that Obama's message has proved particularly appealing to the younger voters who didn't experience the political battles of the last couple decades and can't understand what all the fighting is about.  To these folks, I can only recommend Barney Frank's excellent essay in which he explains exactly what is wrong with Obama's argument that he doesn't want to "refight the Washington battles of the 1990's."

Of course, Obama also has many supporters who lived through the battles of the 90s, just as I did.  But what sets the two sides apart is that, while any good progressive has a list of mistakes made by the Clintons in the 90s, most of us believe that the hyperpartisanship that began after Clinton's election in 1992 was fundamentally the fault of the other guys, and not our own.  We know that the basic reason health care reform failed is not because Hillary had too much secrecy in her task force, but because the Republicans agreed to oppose it in lockstep on the grounds that passing any sort of reform would be too much of a boon to the Democratic brand.  We know this because conservatives like Bill Kristol wrote memos like this one:

"Health care is not, in fact, just another Democratic initiative . . . the plan should not be amended; it should be erased. . . . It will revive the reputation of the . . . Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests."

Some veterans of the 90s ignore this sort of evidence and hold fast to the belief that all the non-progressive stuff that happened in that era can be laid squarely at the feet of Bill and Hillary Clinton.  These people, for obvious reasons, are more likely to align with the Obama camp.  And while they occupy a different demographic than those who have no political memory of the period at all, they share one thing in common: a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of Republican partisanship beginning in 1992 and continuing through the present day.

Those of us who lament Obama's post-partisan message do not simply lust for battle, nor do we long for partisan revenge above all else.  Our position is much simpler:  Given that the Republican Party opposed our most important initiative in lockstep in 1993, given that the Republican caucus is even more conservative than it was in 1993, and given that their obstructionist tactics have carried straight through to the present Congress in which they have shattered all previous filibuster records, they will not change their approach merely because we try a different way of asking them.

Whether you see this primary as a battle between cynicism and hope, or as one between realism and fantasy, is pretty much a function of which side you're on.  Pundits are fond of claiming that the Democratic candidates don't differ much on the issues, and there's a lot of truth to that, but the difference I've just outlined is just as fundamental as a difference on the issues.  And it makes a big difference which way we resolve it.

They are pretty overt about it, notice "Republican" spelled out and jumping off the page, Dick Lugar, and the lone Democrat only with a "D".

argh no open thread....

But.... but..... Lou Dobbs says an independant candidate is going to come out of left field, transform the race and win the White House in November.  He's so sure of it.

one thing people should not under estimate is the media's power to reverse those numbers. it was by sheer force of will that the media kept alive mccains political career when everyone thought it was clearly dead. if blooomberg saturates the airwaves with 500 Million dollars worth of ads, and the media start to jam this bipartisan/nonpartisan line down peoples throats, I wouldn't be surprised to see him get more support than even Perot if he were to run.

I think it would be a mistake to conclude that the reason there are so many more voters in the primaries on the democratic side is due to Barrack Obama. The pundits have repeated this over and over, but I'm not convinced.

I think there is a much simpler explanation: the American people are sick to death of the unparalleled disaster of the Bush administration. Added to that, they want to make sure that someone like him doesn't again get elected. These have been a horrible 8 years by any measure. That includes the economy, the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the huge deficits. But also things most Americans would never have thought possible, such as the use of torture by our leaders. To everyone I talk to, whether democrat or republican, they can hardly wait until Bush is history. I think this is where the crowds are coming from, not the silver tongue of Barack Obama (or maybe I should say, his 26 year old speech writer).

There's a crucial difference between the "unity" encouraged by Unity08 and Sam Nunn / Chuck Hagel and the unity encouraged by Barack Obama.

Nunn/Hagel seek a magical "center" of American politics, where the majority of Americans supposedly sit (of course, they don't).

Obama resets the debate - successfully - by convincing the public (Ds, Rs, and Is) and the media that his progressive positions are, in fact, mainstream. By casting his positions as those that are pursued by all Americans, he does a major service to progressives. It's different, but I think it will work if he makes it to the White House.