Barack Obama won the 2008 election by convincing voters with his campaign based on hope and trust. His success was beyond his supporters' wildest dreams.

However his core support -- progressives -- were alarmed even before he took office, when he announced centrists Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emmanuel as his choices for Secretary of State and Chief of Staff. Subsequent to those choices, he raised hackles on liberals by pointedly ignoring even considering Howard Dean, who had played an important in his victory, and Russ Feingold, who has a history of standing up for liberal causes when centrist (and even moderate) Democrats hid in closets or under desks.

Worst of all, he has continued to pursue his strategy(?) of seeking bipartisan support for his programs, despite rapidly, growing evidence of entrenched Republican intransigence.

There's more...

From Truth2Tell at DemocraticUnderground:

Rahm Emanuel goes to the White House. Goody for him. Now we can maybe get a real progressive Representative from the 5th Congressional district in Illinois. Here's my choice:

Chicago Alderman Tom Tunney

More here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.co m/Truth2Tell/216

Me likes.

There's more...

OK, here is a wacky thought.  How about BHO picks Rahm as his VP?    While the obvious downside is two guys from Illinois, there is quite an upside.

1.  White male on the ticket.

2.  Young guy, but with plenty of WH experience.
   
3.  Solidifies support with the Jewish Community.
   
4.  Puts a Clinton loyalist on the ticket.
   
5.  Puts one of the Democrat's most talented politicians front and center.
   
6.  The VP is the hatchet man, and who better than Rahm?

Sure, many non-college educated white southern males are not going to vote for a black/Jew ticket.  But heck, BHO wasn't getting those votes anyhow.

There's more...

I must agree with Rahm Emanuel when he tells other Dems  not to go on the Colbert program. No, I definitely don't see this as a Rahm power grabbing ploy but more to prevent others from being demeaned by Colbert and made to look foolish. I refer to the recent Chris Dodd interview as a perfect example. Colbert's line of questions and his own comments were demeaning and belittling to Dodd. Colbert's goal was to make Dodd look and silly. Only in the broadest sense could Colbert's remarks be considered as entertaining or to be "good-humored."

I think Colbert is bright and witty, except when his interviews cross the line such as the Dodd interview, leaving Dodd who apparently is a gentleman, to look like a fool. I've seen Chris Dodd speak before Congress, most recently concerning the troop surge. In my mind, Dodd made more of an impact with the five minutes he had to speak then all combined that entire afternoon! I would go as afar out and say that Dodd would make an excellent candidate in 2008, except for the fact that he does not have the funds or organization to win the nomination. Personally, I would prefer seeing Dodd with his integrity and the respect he commands than Edwards, Clinton,or some of the others.

There's more...

Last week on Charlie Rose, DCCC chairman Rahm Emanuel had this to say when asked about why President Bush could not make his case to the American people to save his party before the 2006 midterm elections:

Bill Clinton's first lesson in politics to me: elections are about tomorrow, not yesterday.  And George Bush and the Republicans went into the elections saying "give me credit for yesterday."  Big mistake.

They didn't discuss this idea any further, but it struck a chord with me.  Certainly, electoral outcomes are the result of myriad circumstances and choices, with poll points lost and won from this television ad, or that vote on an obscure bill, this silly gaffe, or that photo op.  The reasons why things come out the way they do are complex and subtle, and that's why we have far more supply than demand for political punditry and analysis (ahem).

But there are always the larger themes, the big picture of any given election, and each side competes with the other to determine what that theme will be.  Since 9/11 and until last week, Republicans had successfully made each election about national security, or, more personally, "who will keep you safe?"  I thought about that after listening to Mr. Emanuel, and it made sense within the framework of his lesson from President Clinton.  It was all about the future tense: al Qaeda will try to attack, and the president and his party will keep us safe.  We will defeat the terrorists in this war that will go on for a long time.  It is a dubiously positive message, to be sure, promising doom, only to be thwarted by the heroes in the government, but it was forward-looking nonetheless.  For the most part, it worked.

So how well does this idea of elections being about tomorrow, this ethereal, non-specific concept, hold up when looking at elections past?  Let's see...

There's more...