I lean Obama, but stuff like this drives me up the freakin' wall. We are all united around puppies and sunny spring days, but we are NOT united around corporate greed, war, spying on American citizens, abortion, etc.

"am I the only one who remembers the last 7 years?"

The truth is we all have Bush to thank, not only for his incompetence but for his pushing the Republican agenda to its extreme, for bringing the country together.

People who live poor and vote rich (John Grisham) may have second thoughts in voting for the next president.

I'm pissed the the DNC allowed the Obama campaign to hijack our response to the SOTU.  

There is nothing about either Obama or Sebelius that convinces me that they have any interest in fighting for Democratic values.

Obama will be eviscerated by the the business end of the GOP attack machine.

Thank you, Todd.  I couldn't agree with you more.  And thank you for mentioning the 'common good', which far too few progressives understand.  For example, if progressives had a framework, then  a speech like the Dem-SOTU would have at least mentioned the frame.  So, we have a ways to go ourselves.  Let's remember, the right wing (frame) had to wrestle control of the Rep Party away from the Rockefeller-Nixon-Kissinger moderates a full generation ago.

Forget Sibelius for VP and get Jim Webb.  He is articulate, a military hero himself, and will throw McCain's b.s. right back in his face.

you are either:

prochoice or anti-choice-divided public

prowarin Iraq or anti war in Iraq--

support stem cell research or oppose

support balance our budget or borrowing money from our children

---
Politics is war without the bloodshed. Thank God for that.  Look at other countries around the world where it is the exact opposite.

These people who want a utopia where people come together to solve problems don't understand that you have to fight for what you believe and win as much as possible or you won't win at all.

Thank you for this post.

You have nailed it when it comes to my major concern over Obama - he doesn't advocate for my (our?) positions - he advocates for some other position but he's running as a Democrat.

I know Obama supporters don't want to hear it, but I lived in Connecticut for 10 years and that was the way Holy Joe Lieberman talked all of the time.  Hell, the only time he expressed Democratic positions was when he was forced to during the 2006 campaign - and you know how well he's stuck to those principles since then ("No one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do."  Bull.)

we're all on the Obama express for now. We can expect more of this, I think.

You don't like Kathleen.

But please don't confuse reaching out to republican voters with capitulating to bad ideas from republican politicians.

It is very important that while criticizing republican politicians that we don't appear to be demonizing and insulting republican voters.  These entities are different things.

Living in Kansas, I have never seen Kathleen capitulate to the Republicans in the legislature.  And she never insults republican voters.

Nothing wrong in saying bipartisan talking points in a speech. Those are just buzz words that work with the masses. What I want to see is partisan ACTIONS.

My problem with Kathleen's response was it fit the right winger caricature of elite liberals. She seemed lifeless and bland. What we needed was a response like the one Jim Webb gave.

Maybe Biden could have given a response because he is good at that talk type of stuff.

I agree. She fit the Dukakis mold of boring lifeless speakers. No personality at all. All this money goes into consultants and no one gives speech lessons to our top politicians? Less money on ads, more money on learning how to speak in public. I dozed off during parts of her response, so I really cannot comment on her entire response.

One thing I will give credit to Hillary. She went from a really shrilly public speaker to a pretty decent one in recent years. She has worked hard to improve that aspect of her public persona.

What kills me is how the liberal like The Young Turks are now also all for Obama, but they criticise Sebelius and editorials in the LA Times that say exactly the same thing he does.  It is all a personality cult around Obama.  They are the same kind of voters who wanted to have a beer with GWB.

Let's not forget that Democrats themselves cant even find a common strong message to convey on important issues like Iraq.

I agree 100%. Fucking lame.

Combine Congressional Democrats with a Obama and there is more mush.  I'm not a Hillary fan, but I almost think she would have more fight sometimes.

However, with Edwards out, we really don't have anything but the image of change.  If you don't go after corporate ties and power, you aren't moving off the dime at all.

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

Well said, Todd.  This is the fight we find ourselves in, for the ideological soul of the party.  

Do we go with an ideologically weak candidate who does not really believe in partisan labels and wants to meet Republicans whereever possible (no doubt by graciously meeting them closer towards their terms, thereby watering down and essentially destroying important ideals we are on the cusp of achieving at this point)?  A guy who appears ashamed to use the term "progressive" or even "Democrat"?      

 It is maddening how Obama appears to avoid talking about Democrats, progressives or otherwises.  It is almost as if he is stuck in the mid-90s when the world "liberal" was a curse word to be avoided at all cost to be somewhat electable in purple or red states.  Jerome Armstrong pointed out that in the latest ad they are not even masking it anymore.  When Republican Lugar came on to praise Obama, the word REPUBLICAN was displayed in bold letters, but McCaskill only showed a D- in front of her name.   Yes, Obama, Republicans notice these sympathetic nods and bows in their direction, but so do we.  

Obama tries to win this race primarily with minority support from party-Democrats and a rather cool reception from most of the Democratic constituencies (labor, low-income workers, women, gays/lesbians, etc.) to be made up by "just enough" support from these core Democratic groups combined with more Independents and cross-over Republicans.  I am confident that at the end of day core-Democrats will come out in droves to prevent this hijack of our party.  

No, I think he is questioning the strategy. Democrats that won last cycle in red states, like Tester, were ones that proudly explained what Democrats stand for. It is a winning strategy.  The strategy of blurring the difference between republicans and democrats is a losing strategy.

You think you guys would be better at recognizing frames.

Her speech said:

Democrat = Americans

Democrat = "us"

Democrat = Majority

Think about it, if the Democrats = Americans, us, and the majority, what do you think that makes Republicans (who definitely are not Democrats)?

This is how Sebelius won back Kansas for Democrats, by showing Kansans that Democrats were the majority, the sane, and the Republicans were the crazy partisans who put their party above state and national interests.

The thing I worry about is how Obama will be able to campaign against "the Maverick", a man "known for reaching across the aisle", a "renegade" of the Republican party.

It seems to me they will both fight about who can be the most bipartisan in "getting things done for America".  Thats going to be a wash.

If it comes down to experience, Obama loses.  If he changes his message to talk about Democratic values, he loses the independents.

Clinton would not need to restrain herself  and will be unabashedly for Democratic values.  Which I think most of America is ready for.

is how you will have to govern.

Obama's domestic proposals are the least progressive. If he is elected president, bringing modest proposals to the negotiating table with a bipartisanship mandate will IMO result in weak, ineffective legislation.

To fulfill his mandate, he will always need to reach a bipartisanship solution. I've yet to hear how he can accomplish this with people who are dedicated to making you fail in the most humiliating way possible.

He may be able to win this way, but I don't see how he can govern with that type of mandate. He will be the one with the mandate to be bipartisan, but the Republican legislators will have no such mandate.

1. I'm gay
   
2. I'm going for my masters, so I'd say academic
   
3. I'm young

You'd think the CW is that I'd be for Obama. However, I'm for Hillary. I don't buy Obama's campaign. I don't mind him so much, but his campaign has really lacked IMO. Todd hit upon some of the key points in his post.

Galgameth--Gays are a core constituency of the Democratic Party. All of my gay friends are for Hillary as well, for the same reasons listed in this post mostly. We'll see how PA goes, but I bet Clinton.

The raw political ineptitude of some Democrats occasionally verges on the surrealistic. Todd Beeton's piece, and many of the comments in this thread are a perfect example.

A candidate comes along with a political strategy to appeal to independents that is based on moderating rhetoric rather than compromising on policy. Poll after poll shows that it works. The endorsement of Ted Kennedy, one of the most stalwart champions of our partisan values shows that no principle is at stake.

And you reject it because it fails to gratify your thirst for partisan triumphalism. Is it that you fail to understand that occasionally politics involves -- politics? Talk about naive.

If you're nostalgic for the DLC/Clinton strategy of picking fights with the Republicans, while actually adopting their policies -- you might just get your wish. Hillary still has the institutional advantage in this race, and might just win the opportunity to get squashed by McCain in November.

But while you're remembering the last 16, the last 7 years, take a moment to think about how we got there.

Sebelius is Obama without the oratory skill.  If you want to know what he's selling - on an intellectual as opposed to an emotional - level, all you have to do is listen to that speech, which she delivered the day before she endorsed Obama.

There's a reason why conservatives don't fear him and guys like Brooks love him.  Hint, it ain't because they think he's going to succeed in pushing the Democratic agenda.

I think those of you who are "hyper-partisan" badly miss the point:

The best way to "build the party" is to reach out to people who are not already self-identified Democrats, but who are potentially receptive to Democratic values if they are framed in a way that is acceptable and accessible.  This is precisely what Obama is doing:

Bringing millions of young and alienated people to the polls;

Winning an overwhelming majority of independents;

Getting disaffected Repubs to give the Dem party another look.

Large majorities of these people will vote for down-ballot Dems.

This is the very heart of the "community organizing" approach.  You have to start with people "where they are," not "where you want them to be."  Once people start tuning-in and paying attention, you can start educating them and increasing their knowledge and understanding of the process.

Preaching to the choir is not a winning strategy.
I find it amazing that the same people who applaud Dean for the 50 State Strategy cannot see what Obama is doing.  Get a grip people!!!

Obama is building the new Dem majority, with numbers large enough to actually get something done.

I think you are missing the point.  It looks like a reframing to me.

Democratic Majority = American Majority
American Majority = Democratic Majority

Nothing wrong with people thinking 'American Majority' when they think of the Democrats IMO. We are the party of the people after all.

I couldn't agree with this post more and it is my pet peeve about obama and why I want hillary to win. I don't think he gets it,

Doesn't anyone remember that the attacks on Clinton started the day he took office. What the republicans learned from that is that it works  and they were able to compromise the effectivness of a ery popular president. the same thing will happen when the next democratic president takes office and I want one that has already developed the armor they are going to need to get things done. There is so much to fix after all.

You may have seen this video already but I sent it out to everyone I know and titled it;

What republicans mean when they say they want to compromise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjMiDZIY1 bM

I found her speech lacking as well, which sucked, cause like Markos said, she seemed to hold out a lot of talent previously.

Did anyone here see her DNC speech this year?  It was terrific. Progressive and Democratic partisan.

I think she got suckered into playing an Obama-like message.

One thing that Sebellius proved to the world: how utterly boring and empty Obama's words really are. If it weren't for his so-called oratorial gifts, he would have been laughed out of this race a long time ago for his sheer vacuity.

The irony in all of this is that Obama's Children of Hope and Reconciliation (the group that was what, 12 when Bush was first inaugurated) don't get that they're actually supporting keeping everything as it is; AKA the 'status quo.'

He had to be shamed into getting his advisors to put together a progressive policy agenda.

So what chance, if elected, does Mr. Reach Across The Aisle have of enacting that reluctantly assembled agenda.

Zero.  After all the other side's positions have to be considered, right.

So I'm inserting mydd.com in place of dailykos in my daily net viewing schedule.

Dailykos drops out of the mix.

KOS has gone way over the line and probably damaged himself long term because of his strident support of one candidate and his vicious attacks on the other candidates.  

What's happened to the progressive community and the Democratic Party during this primary season is truly depressing. Fractuous in fighting is sapping our strength.

We've allowed the media to dictate who our candidates are and who we should support.

And we've probably snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.