You've finally given me a reason to rethink my Obama support.

I might find myself nodding in agreement with the Broderites on some future occasion.

shudder

I don't have to start respecting Joe Klein if he starts gushing over Barack because he develops a mancrush on him, do I?

You have to remember that the people involved in Unity '08 are not starry-eyed idealists any more than Michael Bloomberg is really focused on bringing the country together.  Setting aside random clowns like Sam Waterston, these are basically political figures with a political agenda.

Some of them are Republicans who want the Republican agenda to remain relevant as the political tide moves towards the left.  Others are conservative Democrats who have become increasingly marginalized over the years and want to stay in the spotlight.

You sure didn't see these people run a third-party candidate in 2004, in the era of the so-called "permanent conservative majority."  No, it's only when Democrats are threatening to win that suddenly it's very very important for us all to remain unified and stake out a position squarely in the middle.

And yes, an Obama candidacy would probably ruin their schtick, but don't go thinking that would stop them.  It's their political agenda they're pursuing, not an actual spirit of unity.

Gary Hart who supposedly is involved in Unity08 has had very kind words for Sen Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/ obama-and-the-courage-of-_b_79776.html

I would encourage you not to believe a single word Bill Kristol says.

If McCain doesn't get the Republican nomination, he doesn't have much to lose. Anyone think there might be a Unity08 McCain-Lieberman ticket? That would have the Broderites swooning, but what proportion of real people would go for it? A scarily large proportion, but enough to win? And how many would otherwise be voting Republican and how many Democratic?

I wouldn't be surprised to see Unity '08 try (and fail)to try to take over the Obama campaign.

The otherside of that coin is that if there is a deal or two that can be made to keep them from doing something stupid no one is more likely to make that deal than Obama. (Edwards certainly wouldn't do it...and I don't think Clinton would either.)

Ok....
Unity?
A couple of comparisons
Let us look at a couple of things..

Obama's response to Katrina.
(read the first sentence)
http://obama.senate.gov/statement/050906 -statement_of_senator_barack_obama_on_hu rricane_katrina_relief_efforts/

Yes both white and African-Americans were effected/affected..
but the 9th ward was destroyed...
Here is where (9th ward) and what Edwards said
when he announced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sBpBouaD Xk
(please watch the whole 9 mins)

If HRC folks want this...fine
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

You don't have to be a fan to understand that Springsteen is a rich guy who has never forgotten where he came from...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYsSVNl8x mE

This election is more than who we believe we need to lead...but who we must have to lead..

1. is partisanship

but the bigger one is

2. moderation

If dems nominate Obama and Repubs go to the right.

there will 100% be a third party because obama is down the line with the Left on issues.

How can you be both very partisan and embrace ideas from the other party? It doesn't work that way. The problem with partisanship is that it often puts beating the other guys above getting things done. I never considered myself particularly partisan because that is how I view partisanship...that all changed thanks to Mr. Bush and his band of lunatics, thieves, and general scum of course.

Now I want to beat them too; but it still remains in the back of my mind that unless we get a bunch more house seats, to 60 in the senate, and a strong leader in the White House, we have to actually work with the other side after we are done winning.

I would like to see the Dems backing the Unity '08 idea, like David Boren and Sam Nunn, discuss on MyDD what they think the Democratic Party is getting wrong on policy issues.

I think by engaging these people they would start to distance themselves from Unity 08, which is a shadow campaign for Bloomberg, IMO.

This is pretty important stuff. If john stays in the mix, if delegates keep getting picked up, if the debate starts to actually be about change, then John rises. Big states falling his way, bigger Union help, more money flowing in.

Things change on the ground, recognition happens, mistakes are made, debates happen. I think 25% would be respectable too, I'm pushing for Hillary Clinton to come in third again. But I dont have the feeling this is over by a long shot, John is the real thing, it keeps coming out. How good he is is being communicated through, not by, around, not with, the main stream media. Its "The Obama and Hillary Show" still, even though John Edwards beat Clinton convincingly in Iowa.

Convincingly because it was supposed to be Obama or Clinton, convincingly because it was supposed to be the inevitable HRC, But John came second despite the "huge rush to Obama," and the frontrunner HRC.

What are your goals for tomorrow night (none / 0)

If Edwards doesn't come out on top, I would like to see him get 25%.

NH has, I believe, 27 delegates at stake tomorrow.

People should get over the media's frame of "wins" and "losses" in the primaries.  The game is to pick up delegates.  The media's game is to horserace and claim that someone's a winner and a loser, thus hoping to influence the race.

If you frame it in terms of delegates collected, it reduces the potency of the media's argument.

If Edwards wins 25% of the vote, he picks up 7 delegates, added to what he collected in Iowa, he'll have 21 delegates after Iowa and NH.

If the polls are right, and Obama picks up (rounding up) 40% of the vote in NH, he picks up 11 delegates in NH.  Add that to the 16 from Iowa, and he's only won 27 delegates in two contests.

Just 6 more than John Edwards.

I would like to finish ahead of Clinton tomorrow, but if we cannot, 25% would be a darn good showing for John Edwards.

Regardless of what happens tomorrow, either everyone wins (wins a certain amount of delegates) or no one "wins" (because Obama will still need over 2,100 delegates) to win the nomination.

Stop letting the media decide elections, after only a few contest and a handful of delegates.

by wetheleaders
on 1/07/2008 at 2:12 PM EST

I had a chance to do this over the holidays...

I've got some wingnuts, some moderate Republicans, some liberals, some yellow dog Dems -- but mostly -- low info, apolitical relatives.

I think we underestimate the frustration the general electorate has with politicians and politics at our own peril.

Look at the polls, issues, and resonance on BOTH the right and left.  There is very much an undercurrent of disatisfaction and anger -- but Americans are no longer interested in who to point a finger at, they want health care, iraq, terrorism, retirement funding, you name it - solved.

Please don't think me a concern troll or a johnny come lately -- I've been heavily invested in this "movement" since a quirky Vermont governor brought me into the political mix over the summer of 2003, when he was the only one trying to resurrect the Democrat's partisan chops.

BUT -- we need to be on guard that we become nothing more than a better informed, slightly less shrill antidote to talk radio.  

In other words, let me put it this way...  I got involved in the progressive movement because I love America.  I want to win elections because I love America and I think progressive policies are what is best for what ails her.  

In other words - it was patriotism that drives my progressivism.   Over the last year - I really started to ask myself.... Was that still the case?  

Was I donating, writing, and volunteering because I loved my country --- or because I loved my ideology and wanted to stick it to the bad guys?

I gotta be honest... for a good portion of 2004 to 2006 - I wanted to get the bad guys.  I wanted to win in 2006.  I wanted to shove a minority chunk of congress up the ass of every last GOP operative, talk show idiot, knuckle-draggin' theocon, and the rest of the charlatans.

Don't get me wrong - I got no love for this "Unity" bullshit.  Partisanship has always been a part of politics - American or otherwise.  It need not be a corrosive thing.

I'm just saying -- we would do well to keep in mind that we're small minority of the electorate.  An awful lot of folks just are not and will never be invested in every single fight the way we all are.

Unity is about fiscal conservatism.  If they feel the dem nominee is too progressive they will run.  They dont care who wins in the GOP, after all almost all are republicans.  Add a few blue dogs and voila new party just like the old party.

The unity attitude is bullshit at this time.
Unity will come about when we have 61 Dem Senators
and a veto proof House..with a Dem President.

We had "unity" for about 3 days after 9/11.
Then those in power decided what unity was.

If the Dems can Sweep, then we get to decide
"unity"

But we can Unite over THIS...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWsGyNsw 00

Best thing that can happen to any Dem nominee will be a Bloomberg candidacy. The only people searching for a savior are the GOP. Dems are by and large satisfied with their field meaning close unity and support for the eventual nominee.

Factor in independents idenfiying more and more with Dem candidates and you get a situation where moderate Repubs disgusted by Romney, Huckabee and McCain head to Bloomberg and the rest of the GOP supports the nominee, but with lackluster enthusiasm and low turnout.

This spells Donkey victory every way you slice it.

Bloomberg needs to make a decision already.  If my informal poll is any indication, his NYC constituents are getting tired of the I'm Not Running but Maybe I Am.

Reminds me of another NY politician who couldn't decide whether or not to run for President - Mario Cuomo.  Maybe Bloomberg will have a plane idling on the runway ala Mario in 1992.