"He could be reciting a casserole recipe and they might still be cheering."

Nice insult to millions of your fellow Democrats (and growing).

If you don't know the specifics of what Obama stands for (he's got policy statements on everything under the sun on his website, in his speeches, etc.) that's your own ignorance.

Don't impute it to the rest of us.

I almost wrote this exact same post, but you beat me to it.  I've repeatedly said that Obama is not consistent about whether he's going to be a bipartisan president or a partisan warrior, and it worries me.  I lean toward thinking that he's just as partisan as Clinton (certainly his "issues" section of his website gives me that impression), but he's using rhetoric to spread a message that I think he knows is false.  It's impossible to be a bipartisan president that acts decisively and furthermore, it's impossible to take an absolute stand.  My question to Obama is if he's an absolutist or a relativist, because I don't honestly know.  At least with Clinton, I know there's an absolute position she'll take no matter how unpopular.

I was accused of being racist before for not supporting Obama, and it scared me.  I got even further pushed into the Clinton camp that day.

I would be more inclined to support Obama if he dropped the unity bit and talked to me as a moderate about how the left has stronger values and cares about America more than the right.  I wish he would just do that and put my fears to rest, but somehow I doubt it.

Excellent!
Many Obamabots don't have a clue about Obama's positions and voting record which conflict with his campaign rhetoric.
They're just following.....o.o.o.o.o.o.o.THE ONE.

And Oblahma further misleads his cult by claiming he supports universal health care.

Oblahma has run a very dirty campaign.
Much dirtier than Rove - because Rove was able to keep the Repubs unified - but Obama has created much division among Dems.

I think that my main discomfort with his message is not that he inspires others to hope. Obama is a great orator, a great inspirer and hope he continues to use his gift of speaking for the common good.

However, I think the total message he is trying to convey to voters is in some way dishonest. It reminds me of Robert Owens attempt at Utopian Socialism. I do believe in the good in every human being, but I think it is impossible to achieve political unity...something that has not existed since the founding of this country. The message has appealed to the hearts of many wise voters, but I, myself, cannot conceive in my mind how exactly the bipartisanship will work.

It is nice to have inspiration, but it must always be mixed with realism.

Excellent diary, BTW. You made great points without ever insulting anyone. And I'm seriously considering dropping the Democratic Party over this.  I remember when sites like Kos were about Democrats (remember the encouragement for Casey, the pro-life Senator? He was a Dem after all!). Not about a demagoguery and Clinton-hating.

Anyone who suggests that the majority of Obama supporters have a clue about what he stands for --other than the platitudes of "hope" and "change"-- is being disingenous at best.

Sure, he might have some policy statements floating around.  But right now, he's just playing the inspirational preacher roll.  Why?  Because he doesn't have to go into specifics right now.  When he gets into actual details, Senator Clinton beats him badly.  But when he's waxing poetic while she's waxing prosaic (i.e. actually giving specifics), he's attracting the masses.

It's exactly why I can't support him right now.  For as many times as I've heard him, I still don't have a clue how he would govern.  He has some kind of strange idea that the GOP is going to somehow be hypnotized, I guess, into going along with a progressive agenda.  Or, he'll compromise with them, and then I would ask, where is that progressive agenda?  

He talks about being able to cross the aisle and work with the GOP, but the candidate who's actually accomplished that is none other than Hillary Clinton.  Imagine that, the woman he claims is too divisive and too mired in the us vs. them politics, is the one who's actually worked effectively with Republicans in the Senate.

I just don't buy into his rhetoric.  I'll keep an open mind, but if he doesn't start getting into details without political-speak, I will NOT support this guy.  

Yesterday alone he gave himself some wiggle-room on Iraq, stating that he reserved the right to assess the situation there after taking office before arbitrarily pulling troops out.  Now to me, that's sensible.  But to the far left, that's apostasy.  But, it's getting very little play.  It's just more of the rah-rah Obama stuff in the media, and how Hillary's campaign is collapsing.

If I only could right as articulately as you.  You cannot have a movement if the movement is just about putting one man in office.  Rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric are just very beautiful words, which cetainly have their time and place in politic.  But that is not all the time.

I still would still vote Democratic if he were the nominee, though, without hesitancy.  

If i could only "write" then I would not be stupid

If Obama was the "uniter" he claims to be, why has he divided his own party sooooo much?

The thing is, you have a segment of the population who feel that their voice hasn't been heard. They feel this is the guy. They have already crowned him. Barack really is a special talent, he's a tremendous speaker but this isn't an election about the issues.

It's about "big picture issues" and making history as opposed to policy. Barack is gonna wanna ride the wave of change past Hillary then get into some policy discussion because McCain is going to be very formidable and he's going to have to eliminate the stature gap.

I've been trying to curtail the amount of time I spend on political websites, since it's not a good use of my time and the food fights get to be rather frustrating.

But I generally agree with you. At the risk of overgeneralizing, here's how I see the campaign:

Hillary Clinton is trying to sell you on her policies and on her ability to carry them out. Listening to her, you understand that her campaign is her policies, and her policies are her campaign. That's why her speeches are so full of details (much to the media's disapproval), and why her events often involve her giving lengthy answers to specific questions from voters. She thinks what sets her apart is that she's spent a lifetime studying and working in public policy, and she knows what makes good policy and how to get it passed. The country is broken, she says. I know how to fix it.

Barack Obama's campaign is not about policy. Yes, he has policies on his website. But they're not the body and soul of his campaign; they're more like the clothing. They feel like academic exercises--almost like a homework assignment that every presidential candidate has to do. Does he believe deeply in them? It's hard to say--he talks about policy only very generally, using platitudes that everyone believes: we have to insure more people, protect the environment, and educate the children. But on specifics he's much less firm. Health care is a good example. In January 2007 Obama gave a stirring speech declaring that "the time for universal health care has come." But then his actual plan wasn't universal. First he ran commercials saying it was, then stopped doing so. Then he started criticizing and mocking the need for mandates. Pressed to explain what he plans to do about free riders, David Cutler, one of his top economics advisers, says Obama is "open to mandates", even though his rhetoric is completely opposed to it. This is not the behavior of someone who is deeply involved with his own policies.

Instead of policy, what Obama is selling is himself. Electing him rather than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards will bring "change" to Washington. Not because he has better policies. Not because he has more experience. Just because he, unlike Clinton and Edwards, will somehow bring people together. Why are we supposed to think he is uniquely qualified to do this? Because he says so. Atrios was being a little glib, but there's a kernel of truth in the way he summarized Obama's campaign: "The system sucks but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me."

Much of his rhetoric focuses on this. After Iowa, he gave a speech that said something similar to "They said this day would never come. They said our hopes were set too high." What day would never come? I could see someone saying that the day he signs a universal health care bill. Or the day he signs ENDA. But on the day that he wins an election? It's a very self-focused message.

What I don't understand is why so many people are willing to simply believe he stands strongly for liberal policies, when he hasn't made them a centerpiece of his campaign. Rather, he's given plenty of reason to be skeptical. He's running against universal health care. He spoke approvingly of Ronald Reagan. He allowed an anti-gay singer to help him raise money. He refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsom in the middle of San Francisco's gay marriage controversy. He called labor unions special interests. And yet so many people are absolutely convinced that he'll be a liberal champion. Why?

Unlike some folks who are understandably frustrated, I will not hesitate to vote for Obama if he is our nominee.  I am a loyal Democrat.  I vote straight-party all the time, with the exception of Bustamante in 2006, because the guy was a bad egg who I just could not vote for.  And of course, we cannot and must not allow the right wing to continue destroying this nation.

However, Obama is approaching Bustamante-like levels, as his campaign gets dirtier and dirtier, and so I can certainly understand fellow Democrats' anger and frustration.  For me, the Harry & Louise-like flyer was a "camel's back-breaking straw" - I never imagined a "Democrat" would ever sanction such a ridiculous piece of crap against another Democrat, one who has been true to the party for over 30 years...one who has fought the good fight in favor of universal health care.

Who is the real "progressive" in this battle?  IMO, since it's clear that Obama doesn't have the guts to wage war in favor of true universal health care, the answer is clear.

John

I've spent most of my time responding to comments on here, but I just want to take a moment to compliment arkansasdemocrat for a very well thought out AND written diary.

Thank you for articulating some of the things I have been having trouble saying.

Bravo and recommended

The reason I am uncomfortable is that I don't see any clear explanation of exactly what type of "CHANGE" Obama wants. I am confused because he claims his view of Iraq is different when it only differs from Hillary's in one way. Obama confirmed Bush's choice, Casey, for an appointment, while Hillary voted against the same Bush appointment. Obama refers to Social Security as a "crisis" and here we go again with that. I could go on about how our life expectancy has gone down and how Americans are working longer, but never mind. What really confuses me is that Obama voted PRESENT, that is, he took no action for change of any kind, 129 times in the Senate. Obama is out for Obama. Just in case you think I am racist, I voted for Jesse Jackson in the 88 primaries. I will vote for McCain (no I will not leave it blank or stay home) if Obama is nominated. I need to know what he really stands for. Since his rhetoric does not match his behavior, I have no choice but to believe his behavior.

Read It and then complain you don't know any details about what his policies are.

didn't vote for the war

I admire Hillary Clinton for the same reasons many admire her and I'd like to see her become president.  But, in recent weeks, I've finally come to a realization ------ I dislike Obama and his movement far more than I like Hillary.  I've been around for over 50 years and I am a fair student of history.  Movements like these never amount to all that much good.

A large block of the Democratic party is seized by a severe case of the stupids.  This was completely apparent in a Luntz focus group on Fox News today.  All these people were gushing over him.  Then, they were asked to name one accomplishment by him and none of them could give anything even resembling a credible answer.  

A number of them were swooning about how he might be the one to bring all of us together.  The obvious question that should be asked of these doofuses is  "Why?"  Just because he gives a speech saying we don't get along and that's bad?  Sounds like a brilliant plan to make Washington hum like a smooth bipartisan machine!

This campaign has upset me like no other.  Like you, I wonder if I could ever vote for him.  But, I'll go even further than that.  If all these Democrats can buy into such banal flap doodle,  then I very well may be in the wrong party.  Maybe more Democrats should become religious.  Perhaps they wouldn't feel such a desperate need for a secular, liberal televangelist as president.

Excellent.

I was a Dean supporter, but when Kerry won the nomination, I was happy to support him and proud to have him represent our party. Unfortunately, I don't see myself at this point excited about a Barack candidacy. I'm even finding myself open to voting for McCain in the general until, of course, I reach my senses, and the reason being the dirty politics played by the Obama campaign and his supporters. True, the Clintons played a negative campaign, but nothing to the level of her opponent. The character assassinations against the Clintons, the milking of the "we just hate Hillary and can't articulate why" by the Obama campaign for all its worth, recycling anti-Clinton  GOP talking points, dividing our party with threats  (my supporters would not support  Hillary should she be the nominee) and the fear-mongering that Hillary would lose in November. There was a time when I would have never seen a Republican as an option when I went to the polls, but the fact that the "Obama movement" is making the GOP's  candidate more attractive day by day to someone who votes the straight Democratic party line, at least to me, is disturbing. Obama has my vote, should he be our nominee, but I will find it a very difficult vote to cast.

Excellent diary and many excellent comments.  I have been hearing a dispair with the nastiness and anti-Democratic tone of the Obama campaign increasingly from Hillary supporters and also from supporters of candidates who have dropped out of the Democratic primary race.

I'm over on Raising kaine and I discovered some partial privatization in Obama's social security plan because I've been researching Obama's real policy positions plus his economic advisers and they are going ballistic over there.

I pulled it literally from his own website, right there, in black and white.  

Now bear in mind I worked on the Jim Webb campaign so it's not like some stranger is posting crap on the site, plus I'm pulling statements off of Obama's website and his economic adviser's website.

Inability to look at reality, this thread on Raising Kaine.

he speaks about "the party" and "our party" not the Democratic Party. I often wonder if he is running for the Obama party.

cult of personality. What does it remind you of?

"This is shocking. I view the Obama campaign as a stunning and alarming example of groupthink, which makes me very uncomfortable."

How is this a problem? Barack Obama and all of his policies are doubleplusgood.

I can't wait until Obama is president. All sorts of things will be improved... there will be a New Way. And I'm sure ALL of us will be involved. We can put forth our ideas, and he will carry them out.

OH! I have an idea! When he becomes president, I propose that we have something called, "The Two Minutes Hate". Every day, at a certain time, every T.V. in America can show a picture of Hillary Clinton, and we can scream hysterically at her for a full two minutes! Awesome. Obama '08.

What are you guys smoking?

If Obama is not a true Democrat, how is he rated the most liberal senator by the National Journal? (and Clinton is 16th).

In his speeches Obama almost always refers to "us" and "we" and not to himself individually - where do you get the idea that its all about him personally.  Many of the people I caucused with in Wa. this weekend believe Obama epitomizes the ideals of the Democratic party.  

You need to take it down a notch.   I've never heard Democrats talk about another Democratic candidate the way you people do here (yes, the posters on Daily Kos are a bit strong, but I don't hear the hate that constantly comes through on this site).

Obama is a liberal and a Democrat.  He has all of the upside of Clinton with none of the down (such as those unfortunate pro-war votes in 2002 and 2007).  

As a final point, ask yourself, what healthy, functioning democracy repeatedly elects its leaders from the same family. If we were living in someplace like Upper Volta that might make sense, but not here.      

I'll try to make this simple.  Obama's movement is about taking back this country from the grip of conservatives who have led us down a scary road for the past 28+ years.  This country has moved steadily to the right, even during the Clinton years for which I'm thankful for them putting up a courageous fight against the right-wing, and Obama is trying to wrest power from those who got us into wars of choice, income inequality, poor healthcare, a worsening educational system and yes, even a hyper-partisan environment that makes people cynical of everyone who doesn't agree with them.  Obama doesn't claim to be a savior who can make all of this happen, but a person who believes that enough people believe in something similar that they can wrest this country back from those who have controlled it.

Now some believe just fighting fire with fire will work.  So be it, but I'd like to highlight that it doesn't appear that we will ever be as good at the current game that Republicans created.  Others believe that you have to change the dynamic, catch your opponent off-guard and force them to play your own game.  These are tactics in just about every great military book written in history.

Lastly, I'm a long-time supporter of the Clintons.  I defended them through their Presidency and continue to defend them against unfair attacks against them.  I will gladly vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, but I believe that Obama prevents a better way to take back this country.  That is not some cultish belief borne out of worship of Obama the person, it is a rationale reasoned belief based on the evidence that I believe that is at hand.  I don't begrudge any of you for disagreeing with me and thinking that Clinton is the better candidate, but I do begrudge the condescension by some of you to the many Obama supporters who have come to his side based on a well thought out opinion.  

I know that tensions are high and that many of you feel like Hillary has been treated unfairly.  I agree with you, but you have to stop putting this all at the feet of Obama and his supporters.  You knew coming into this that her scrutiny was going to be greater, but most of that has nothing to do with Obama.  Chris Matthews loves McCain and Guiliani and hates Hillary with a passion, which is why I don't watch his show.  Stop taking out your hatred for him and others against many of us who really do have great respect for Hillary.  No, rationale person can say that both sides haven't taken shots at each other whether it be candidates or their supporters.  I'm hoping that comments like mine will tampen down the anger that will split this party in two.  Because if we continue down this road, the only people who are going to win are Bush and his friends.

I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY appreciate this diary.  You have captured my feelings perfectly and have expressed my thoughts much better than I could have.

When a candidate runs on "unity" and then turns on his own fellow Democrat with half truths, innuendoes, misrepresentations, and who makes comments such as "I'll get all her votes, but she won't get all of mine" and whose wife will have to "think about" supporting Hillary if she is the nominee...that justs smells to me.

Obama says he didn't vote for war when he wasn't even in the U.S. Senate to have to make the difficult choice, and then when he should have been there for the Iran vote, he just didn't show up.  Can't have it both ways, buddy.

I'm just a year younger than Obama, but sometimes I feel like I need to treat him like my teenage son and say, "Don't be so cocky and full of yourself...people don't like it very much."

Well, I'm one of those people.  I think this big movement is doing us more harm than good.  It's horrible when you're actually afraid to mention to a fellow Democrat that you are backing Hillary for fear of a backlash...Reminds me of having to deal with Republicans in my very red state.

You know, I feel the same way as you but basically in reverse. I am not comfortable voting to return the Clinton's to the White House. I can't stand the idea of Republicans appointing any Supreme Court justices, so I'll probably swallow my pride.

Obama's crowd during the Super Tuesday speech freaked me out. It just did, ok? Glad to know I wasn't alone.

It seemed to cross that line that separates excited supporters at a rally and an overzealous cult. I'm being honest here. Its not a slam, its a genuine concern. I know the dangers of groupthink.  We should ALL know the dangers of groupthink.

So while I applaud the supporters of Obama for their enthusiasm, we need to get a grip here.

He a talented speaker and politician. Thats it. For nearly 20 years, this guy has been a close friend, associate, and lawyer to a corrupt Chicago slumlord. Evidence like this (and the Exelon business) is important.

He ain't Jesus. He ain't even Bill Clinton.

Let me see if I understand this post: Obama isn't a "true Democrat," and because he's not pure enough for you, or you have an irrational dislike of his supporters, or both, you are actually contemplating a vote for McCain and against the country's best interests in the general election?  And you are concerned that Obama might not be a "true Democrat"?

It never ceases to amaze me that Clinton supporters lecture Obama supporters about the so-called cult of personality surrounding their candidate.  After all, it's not like Clinton has been in the public eye continuously since 1992, or that her nomination was considered inevitable a few short months ago based solely on name recognition, or that one of the major bases for her popularity has been a belief that she would return us to the "good times" of the '90's, even though nobody can clearly explain her exact role in Bill Clinton's presidency.  Clinton's "cult" may be different in degree but not in kind; she inspires a sense of adequacy and competence in many but not genuine excitement.  Whereas Obama supporters are strung along by words such as "hope," Clinton supporters hear the word "Democrat" and blithely follow their dear leader along, no matter how right-leaning the path becomes (flag-burning legislation, AUMF).  Same sheep, different attitude.

You see how easy it is to slam half of the Democratic Party without really trying?  It is one thing to compare the two candidates and argue as to why one is better, in your opinion; it is another to say that the supporters of your opponent only support him because they are mindless cultists.  I trust you can appreciate how deeply insulting your post is.  

Perhaps people are afraid because it's been a very long time since such outpouring of feelings has been seen. But it's nothing to be afraid of. It happened before and it will happen again.

Behind the noise, the exuberance, the chants, the tears, lies a deep commitment to a process that at the end of the day binds all together. It could just as well have occurred in the Hillary campaign.

not someone.  

Exactly right.  In fact I think they are always about something.

Lame. As usual for MYDD. I posted this yesterday, for what it's worth:

The Obama people I talk to have a common narrative, that is conveniently ignored on this site: they want a return to progressive politics WITHOUT the distraction of focusing on Hillary and the undeniable baggage her candidacy brings.  They believe that bright progressive politicos exist apart from the Clintons (image that!) and that we'd be doing the shrewd thing to embrace one of those folks and seize the electoral opportunity that is waiting.  That's it. No Hillary hate, no paranoia.  No Obama worship.  The sooner the MYDD crowd recognizes this and contends with it, the better.

There's a very good analysis of voting patterns at RealClearPolitics this morning that Democrats should read. It will give you a picture of the coming general election with Obama as the Democratic nominee.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horsera ceblog/2008/02/the_state_of_the_democrat ic_ra.html

At Taylor Marsh this morning, a preview of coming attractions with Obama as the Dem nominee:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/d-s-hube/20 08/02/11/another-flag-issue-obama

Obviously, the wingnuts are restless. They've got their nominee and they're reading for a fight.

John Cole does his best, but they've got their teeth on something and they're not letting go.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9657

Yeah, we're in a post-partisan era alright. Look! In the Sky! It's a Pig!

Obama movement does engage in group-think, of course, and that means they lose perspective about their icon, their "movement" leader. His audiences are filled with idealistic "cult of personality" followers, who have lost all ability to think critically about their candidate. It's all about vague, vacuous sloganeering about "post-partisan politics." But, I can assure you, the GOP is not about being "post-partisan." They're going to re-define Barack Obama because he is the easiest target to re-define as a candidate. People don't know him; so they project their own needs onto him as a candidate. The GOP can't re-define Hillary Clinton; she's a known quantity. Obama is a blank slate for most of the electorate, and when the GOP gets through with him, he'll be destroyed. The Democrats will lose in November, and Obama followers will be sitting with stunned looks on their faces wondering how it all happened.

Edwards so publicly that I was asked to advocate for Edwards in forum of other activist Democrats( before he dropped out).

That forum was one week before JE dropped out. Based upon the comments and questions after that forum it was clear that activist democrats in MA were still wrestling with the question of whom to support and I understand completely what the diarist is saying because I heard versions of this diary that evening.

After Edwards dropped out, I can only tell you that the angst among activists that I spoke to and those involved enough in politics to vote in the primary in my town - it's funny how people speak to you about politics when they know that you are involved in Party politics - it provoked conversation, doubt, analysis( and we split 48% Hillary and 47% for Obama in my hometown during the primary).

I came away with the distinct impression that Edwards would have shocked people with the results he could have garnered in MA.

And I don't need to rely on my impressions to know that Kennedy's and Kerry's endorsement infuriated local area Democrats.

My mother lives in senior housing in my hometown and she was a faithful chronicler of "which way the wind was blowing" in that complex and the real news was that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama was exciting those seniors - the constant refrain was "I can't believe it's just days before the Primary and I don't know who I'm going to vote for".

One more telling thing: this was the first primary I can remember that no-one from the local Democratic Town Committee held a sign, a committee I am a member of, for either of the candidates running - I saw 2 people, who I didn't know, one holding a sign for Hillary the other for Obama.

Maybe the situation I have described is unique to MA.

Here's another telling anecdote: because I was so public in my support for Edwards among Democratic activists, I had received an email from the local Democratic Chair of a neighboring town  asking if I would agree to be the local contact for the Edwards campaign because she was having difficulty getting a response from the Edwards campaign and she had been asked to submit an article to her local town paper about the primary. She herself was heavily involved in the Obama campaign. I agreed. When Edwards dropped out, this woman, rather than let the submitted article stand and trust that the editor of the paper would decide how to deal with the Edwards reference, got into a miscommunication with the editor with the result being that Edwards' name came out and my name stayed in as the Clinton contact person; I was then given the correct name and phone number for the Clinton person and asked to "pass it on, won't you, if you get any calls? I don't think you will,( remember that this woman was the Chair of that town's Democratic Town Committee ) I don't know anyone supporting Hillary"......

Hillary Clinton won that town 65% to 35% for Obama.

I'm sorry that this comment is so long, but the point I am so badly trying to make, is that there is a true divide among Democrats and this diarist speaks of some of them and it is only getting worse as people focus.

It is something we should admit to rather than disparage each other for.

This site has turned into a Temple for the Goddess Hillary.

Obama loses 1 in 5 democratic voters in the general election. That's a huge deficit to over come. You're right. He'll go down in a huge landslide and it'll be the biggest wasted opportunity since 1972.

I'll put this down as just another elaborate excuse to divide us.  I really don't understand the need some people have to place their candidate above everything else.  OK, you like Hillary.  I understand that.  I respect that.  Plus, didn't Paul Krugman already write this op-ed yesterday?  Or was it last Monday?

You can hide behind feelings and rationale all you want but your message is still the same:  I would rather kill the Democratic party than vote for Barack Obama.  I know that wasn't in the title or the text of your diary, but I got the message just the same.

not all Democrats are died in the wool, far from it.  Anyone here remember Reagan Democrats?  they are still out there being thumped by healthcare and the interest rates on their credit cards, having supported the war but not how it was conducted, unfamiliar with 9/10th of he names on the Obama  endorsement sheet and they don't watch much MTV.

There's also a GOP base out there, currently in complete chaos, ready to galvanize around something.  Hillary, Obama, it makes no nevermind to them.  Both are supposedly pro-choice, both want to end the Reagan tax cuts, one seems really weak on Islamic extremism.  (guess which one)

Meanwhile, enter McCain, stage not quite that right.  Even for all the kissing up he's been doing to Bush he's earned his reputation as a "maverick" and a "bi-partisan".    Vets are gonna love him to death.  He'll be able to argue "new not dirty politics" with anyone and with McCain-Feingold, not rhetoric.  Once the GE takes off look for him to hit the issues where Obama is the weakest -- that old bread and butter, patriotism.  Sitting down with extremist dictators.  
Then he'll manhandle Obama on experience.  What the country needs now with the problems we face.  Tested.  Tough.  Not one to sip lattes with the Hollywood crowd and Kennedys.  All those fun things energizing the Obama base are going to blow up like cherry bombs in his hand come October.

HERE'S A SOBERING THOUGHT -- MAYBE THE REST OF AMERICA IS NOT READY FOR ALL THAT CHANGE.

the diarist feels it's a groupthink that's dividing us!  

good.

to understand the "movement."

This is nothing but pure coalition politics - whereas you and your Clintonites understand politics only through the lens of the Clinton cult of personality. You guys apparently find meaning through conflict with Republicans, failing to realize that the Clinton's are just as responsible for the battles of the 1990s as Gingrich and Starr.

Obama's movement is about a coalition of new voters, the young, traditional Democrats, Independents and even some liberal Republicans that don't define their political experience in terms of how many times we can come together to defend the Clinton's against the bogeyman GOP.  

... and his supporters are too enthusiastic...
It's just awful.

What an absurd position to take.  

I'm a strong progressive/ lefty, and I support Obama.  There are a couple of positions that are not precisely aligned with mine, but for the most part, Obama represents my values and policy positions.

I don't think Obama walks on water.  He has his flaws just any other human being.  If he fails to become the candidate, the movement that has propelled him to rockstar status will continue.  It's been building since the Dean years, and will continue to build until we change this nation and sweep in a progressive/ people-oriented culture of politics.

Obama is only a vehicle for people to express their desire and hunger to rid our country of the Bush years.  He's not its raison d'etre.

If Clinton is the nominee, I'm sure we would see a similar groundswell around her candidacy - but not as strong.  Obama has the ability to motivate the nation to be better than it is/ has been over the past eight years.  That's important.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Obama is just another Harold Ford, Jr except he's more intelligent and has better handlers.

We want to get the hell out of the Bush years, and at the moment Obama seems to be the guy to do it.

Why is the idea of a popular Democratic candidate so abhorrent?  

Are you guys begging for the tedium of the Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale presidential campaigns?

I've followed MyDD for years.  The most recent posts  from rabid pro-Clinton / anti-Obama types had me worried that the Democratic Party was splitting apart.  Then I compared MyDD's site stats with those of DailyKos - where the posts are more balanced and less rabidly anti-Obama.  Fortunately, DailyKos has ten times the daily traffic.  Wheew it turns out that the crackpot posters on this site don't reflect any material division in the Democratic Party. You irrational Obama-haters who cannot appreciate that either Clinton or Obama would be a good choice for the Democratic Party are a very small part of the Party.  Go vote for McCain if it's going to make you feel better - it's not going to make a difference.    

People are excited about Obama because he's the first "insurgent" Democratic candidate to have a real chance at winning the nomination in decades and based on the polling, he doesn't look like McGovern '72. He's just tapping into a huge reservoir of pent-up energy that has flowed from Gary Hart to Jesse Jackson to Jerry Brown to Bill Bradley to Howard Dean. Not that they're all on the exact same page, but a few months ago, Barack would've been this year's version of those candidates. Still might be, depending on how things progress.

But I think it's a little silly to think the Obama's supporters are unthinking when it's obvious that if there's any bright line split between the candidates it's between the "high information" voters, i.e. college educated, caucusgoers, etc. vs. the "low information" voters, i.e. big-state primary voters, newly-arrived immigrants, non-college educated, as further evidenced by the fact that the more people learn about Obama, the more likely they are to vote for him.

Yes, Obama does in fact understand that public speaking is about creating not just an intellectual connection with the audience, but also an emotional one. More Democrats should try to learn the same lesson, maybe we'd win more elections.

But that does not mean that his supporters are somehow blinded to reason and logic and are caught up in some kind of cult of groupthink. Most, I've found, could articulate plenty of great reasons to support him.

Finally, I'll say this: many of the Hillary supporters who can't seem to understand the appeal of a candidate who doesn't use his speeches to articular a laundry list of policy prescriptions on every topic are really missing the point. As Democrats, we have long since come into general agreement on "what" needs to be done; the place where we've always failed has been the "how" do we do it. Obama is jumping past that "what" because he correctly assumes that we all agree on that except with respect to the most insignificant of details, so that we can focus our attention on the "how". People are going crazy for him because they realize that he just might be right and, if he is, we will see changes that we've been fighting for our whole lives, but rarely winning.
 

I really enjoyed reading your diary.  It's sometimes hard to understand the thinking of someone I disagree with but you laid out your thoughts nicely.  Thank you.

In return, I'll try to give you a little insight into my thought processes.

Re: the 'movement' aspect of Obama's campaign.  The civil rights and women's movement were about changing the mindset of people, tossing out the old way of thinking and bringing in a new way of thinking.  Obama is suggesting we need to do that with respect to politics and government. So in that respect it is a movement.  Keep in mind that the civil rights and women's movements had specific changes they wanted to accomplish but the speeches did not lay out the plans in detail. No specific changes could be accomplished without getting the help of the American public so the mindset had to be changed first.  Obama is taking this approach...I think it is the right one at this time.

Think of it this way.  In business, a company starts with a mission statement.  Then when they make individual decisions they hold them up to the mission statement to make sure they fit with the company's goals.  Obama is defining the mission statement, the country's goals, in his speeches.  IMO he should start his presidency with the goals laid out and then start working out the details.  Doesn't seem right to have all the details worked out first.

Response getting too long but I hope, at least on that point, I helped a little.

What could I add to that?  You nailed it. I'm extremely uncomfortable with this cult of personality.  Yes, I have met Obama supporters that cannot tell me his position on any issues in detail, but they tell me "he's COOL!".  

We live in a celebrity-obsessed world now.  We have "American-Idoled" the presidency. There were plenty of very very well-qualified candidates in the Democratic field when the primary began. Some of which would have done a much better job of running the country than anyone still in the race, BUT they didn't have star power, they weren't "rock stars", and the media didn't have a story to sell by writing about them.  

I have no interest in a candidate that causes people to swoon or weep. The idea of a "movement" frightens me, as it's personality based, not substance-based.  Obama's being vaulted into pop culture by the 20-somethings who have not been through a general election before, and want to be part of a movement. Doesn't matter that once the election is over, the weeping fans become totally irrelevant as they find another celebrity to elevate and idolize, and all of the problems the president inherits come crashing down in a hard reality.  

I do notice that whenever someone questions this personality-based movement, they act insulted. Yet, I still haven't seen anyone articulate the issues and plans that make Obama a better choice. They can say "universal health care", but if they read the fine print, (and regardless of the ads he's running now) it's NOT universal.  It's those details that get lost in this movement.  

Somebody better look up groupthink from the Psychology and Organizational Behavior literature.

Groupthink isn't everyone agreeing with someone.  Groupthink is not being able to think for themselves.

The only example I see among candidates in Groupthink is voting for Bush's war.

Somebody better look up groupthink from the Psychology and Organizational Behavior literature.

Groupthink isn't everyone agreeing with someone.  Groupthink is not being able to think for themselves.

The only example I see among candidates in Groupthink is voting for Bush's war.

Yes, Obama is a movement. That movement is based on a collective desire to change the process of how politics has been waged nationally.

To dismiss Obama as a phenomenon of personality insults the millions of us who support him for substantive reasons. Many Clinton supporters fail to understand this.

You need more substance? Fine. His web site and book, "Audacity of Hope" have plenty of specific policy proposals, or clear indications of policy direction.

I think this is the most important point you make "Movements are generally about something, not someone."  I have always disliked cults of personality, what movement does Obama represent?

I would say people idolize the Clintons and they are the cult.

I would say Hillary is destroying the DP.

We need new leadership and new ideas.

What about the Clinton tendency to surround themselves with sycophants who worship every word they say and fight for them no matter what the consequences are for our party or country. Mindless obedience is a Hillary Clinton trait and far more worrisome than someone being a "hope monger."

Remember FDR didn't get specific in 1932 and neither did JFK in 1960. LBJ didn't come out and say in 1964 that I will be the civil rights president.

... according to Jennifer Donahue.

Not race nor gender, she contends.

For me, Obama's identity is "Republican!".  Bring out right wing smears from the 90's and I think Republicans.  Can't help myself.  And I hated Republicans then more than I even hate them now.

The identification, Obama's brand, as Republican means that I don't think he'd be any better than McCain.

And I'd rather have McCain in the Whitehouse in 2008 with a strong Democratic congress, and a do-over in 2012 with a GREAT candidate, not just one who THINKS he's great.

A retired neighbor this morning, who is home all day and has plenty of time to find out stuff, told me that she "didn't know anything about Obama" but was liking him...I warned her not to expect much change and she said that "she didn't expect any change."  I informed her about how he rewrote his nuke safety bill and said to be on the watch for the stuff to start coming...

The more I thought about this conversation, the more disgusted I got.  If this is what American voters know/expect then we're in big trouble.  They appear ready to buy image and, at the same time, have very low expectations regarding improving the country.  I guess John Edwards was too challenging to their brains...

Let's presume Obama is the candidate in the fall, shall we?  Let's just all act as if that's going to be true.

He needs NOW to stop running his campaign like a revival meeting.  Ditch the halo, tone down the chanting, start truly uniting the party instead of assuming the rest of us are all going to follow like sheep without a choice.

the majority of Americans want POLITICAL CHANGE.  They did not ask for, nor will they stand still for, a political change conflated into a cultural revolution.

The guy is scaring middle America, get it?  It may not be a cult, it may not act like a cult, but from out here in the bleachers it sure as hell is starting to look like one.

You know the biggest difference between Clinton and Obama?  She has never once taken her eye off NOVEMBER.  He is so busy building his movement he's bought into his own hype.  We are unstoppable.  Yes We Can.

Try that sh!t on a front porch in my neighborhood and they'll set the dogs off on you.  

Think. Think.  We just might have some insights out here.

Obama's been pretty clear on why he hasn't promised universal health care.  He doesn't think it can be done all in one go.  It's more realistic to cover as many people as possible now, and then continue working towards universal coverage, instead of taking an all-or-nothing approach.

If Hillary Clinton had thought that way in '93, millions of Americans would be insured who aren't today, and the health care debate in '08 would be about filling in the cracks, not insuring tens of millions.  Never has Obama said "we should never have universal health care."  But he's realistic about how to go about it.

On another note, the "youth" vote. Many of the youth were maybe 10 or 11 years old during Bill Clinton's presidency. Since that time, republicans have re-written history in the way they did with Reagan. ONLY, if these kids know the true history at that time could they make an "educated" decision. The 90's under Clinton were a time of great prosperity and ended with a balanced budget. I do not believe the masses realize what that would have meant for this country if it had been sustained.I'm afraid that all they know is the president got a BJ. I thank the media and the effective republican, right wing conspiracy, Rove operatives for this. The unfortunate thing is Obama has gone along with the effort.

I really can not believe that you would be willing to THINK about giving up the Supreme Court.  More pre-emptive war....etc the last goes on. Just remember any Rethugican is going to essentially be Bush's 3rd term.  It's funny many Hillary suppporters accused Edward's suppoters of being "Naderite" when in fact what you are arguing is "Naderite".  I love the hypocracy here.

"Without Latinos, Asians, & Working Class Whites & Moderate/Conservative whites - IT WILL BE A LONG NIGHT for the Democratic Party in November."

I think 15%-20% of the Democratic electorate voting for McCain is a reasonable estimate if Obama is the nominee.  The estimate was 25% for Reagan against Carter.

In a way it is "groupthink"

A significantly more diverse group think Obama should be our Party nominee than the group that may think Clinton should be the nominee.

A significant number of people are uncomfortable with this http://www.dlc.org/

by the way I was 42 when Clinton was elected..
I remember that in 1996 when Dems should have won more seats in the House and Senate...we lost seats.
It was not the BJ...it was him looking at us in the TV eye and said "I did not have sex with that woman"
I believed him..(Please no need to compare the lies of death from Bush and what Clinton did..I am fully aware of the difference)
Does anyone believe that without the Monica thing Gore would have not lost to the Supreme Court?

Excellent diary and comments. Including those few from Obama's friends, though they seem dispirited here.

My guess is there's a cooling already setting in. I saw Barack at the Meadowlands, and did feel the enthusiasm, but I have been cooling by the day ever since as I read the building mass of concerned comments like these thoughtful ones here.

His active support for the Odinga (Luo) party in Kenya, which is fundamentalist islamic and seems to want to bring in sharia law seems to me set to go off like a time-bomb if he is up against McCain.

The Luos seem to have set the church fire in Eldoret.

I saw a sharia kind of government arrive in Khartoum, and believe me, you dont wanna know...

I really do believe Barack is not himself a secret moslem, but folks here should google that sleeper story, and see if that isnt the most perfect subject for swiftboating.

Poor bastard. Frankly I think he's toast. Naive toast, but still toast.

you know?  sometimes this pops into my head and it just shakes involunarily.  
Six years.
After 9/11
we are running a man
with a Muslim middle name
who went to school in the Phillipines

then I remember I'm not supposed to think about that and just wait for some Republican to beat me over the head with it.

I had that same involuntary head shaking thing when I found out Kerry had posed with Jane Fonda and done the whole Hanoi thing.  Like apparently a regular garden variety liberal Democrat wasn't good enough in 2004 -- let's find the one with the most excess liberal baggage -- oh yeah, I remember now, the baby boomers were going to lap that Hanoi Jane stuff up because they all hated Vietnam. riiiight.

But no no.  Let's not bring up the whole Muslim thing.  We should be ready for a president with a Muslim middle name and a Muslim father who wrote a book called "Dreams of My Father" about..ah, his father.

Yup.  no potential problems there.  Yup.  No one's gonna vote with that crap in mind.  no.  All of America is going to be so swept up in Change and Hope Obamaism will just sweep the country like it is in the primaries.

The youth vote will turn out, the Independents will love him, African Americans will turn out like never before, all of Hollywood will be there, everyone with a college education in the social sciences will surely turn out and the old fart Democrats will vote for whoever gets the nomination, guaranteed.

and the POW with the silver star and 25 years in Congress that the great wide middle has been begging to run again for 8 years will go home with his tail between his legs so Obama can talk us out of two wars in the Middle East.

sounds like a slam dunk to me.

Please forget I used the "M" word.  Sorry.

There is another group that will conceivably abandon Obama in the fall, and that is white women.  Many of us are beyond furious about the grim specter of mysogynism that has surfaced during this campaign.  Obama's supporters say this isn't his fault.  Well, yes it is; because of the disunity he is promoting the media feel free to disgorge the most hateful anti-female propaganda agasint Hillary Clinton, which in turn hurts all women just by its repetition.  For him to say that he will "get" Hillary's supporters, but she may not get his is the height of arrogance. The big surprise for Obama will be when many women either don't vote at all or decide that at least with McCain we know what we are getting.  And that McCain, unlike Obama, knows something about national security.  They both don't know much about economics, but McCain admits he doesn't, while Obama obviously thinks he does, but doesn't. Which one is more likely to listen to advisors?  We've just barely survived a president who applauds himself as the "The Decider" when he has no idea of the subject matter about which he is deciding...but thinks he does. Do we want another arrogant novice in the White House?    

Question: (and please answer it honestly) Have you gone to his website and read up on his policy proposals? Because if you haven't and you're expecting him to read all the wonky details to you at this stage in the game...I mean, c'mon dude. Get serious.

Because I'm not hearing much detailed policy from Clinton's stump speech either. A lot of talk about "hard work" and "being ready on day one". Ready to do what? Tackle our "problems" and "issues"? Which ones? Schools, health care and the environment? Great. Whatever that means. All I've learned from her stump speech is that "together" if we "work hard" we can "take back our country" and blah blah blah etc. I think she's going to "hear my voice" or something too.

See, it goes both ways. I'm sitting this one out because I don't really care which one wins. I'm good with both of them. But don't think for one minute that the Clintons haven't shucked out major portions of the Democratic party platform for their own personal ambitions or built a cult of personality around "the Man from Hope". Get a little perspective.Hillarye and Obama are both professional politicians, thus they're both kind of sleazy. And yet they're both going to be awesome presidents. Even if it means they have to take turns.

About people here in the US. He felt we were like children when it came to politicians. The politician would stand up and say nothing, then we cheer and clap as though something was said. It made no sense to him.

This thread has really given me some insight as to what is driving the ongoing primary fight. Very interesting.

Being a newbie, I won't presume to engage in a substantive debate. I really just wanted to see what the pro-Clinton site was saying.  However, on a nonsubstantive level I would note three things:

(1) Anyone self-aware enough not to fall for the cultish mass hysteria that drives Obama voters should also have enough self-awareness to recognize that their opinions might be growing more radical due to the frustration of watching their candidate lose. Many posters here do seem to understand that.

(2) Clinton supporters may well be right that all of Obama's supporters are stupid sheep and that Latinos, whites, Asian-Americans, Christians, and  non-college graduates are too racist to vote for a black man with a Muslim father.  I'm sure you'll be waiting for your chance to say the big "I told you so" to the stupid cultists who hijacked the election from the one person who can possibly beat McCain in the fall.  Just please don't make your lust for your "I told you so" moment turn into a self-fulfilling prophesy. This country needs every anti-McCain vote it can get.

(3) Try to hang on!  Your mourning for Sen. Clinton's campaign will end once we're in the heat of battle against McCain. I won't tell you to embrace hope, but at least don't give in to despair.  All campaigns have to have losers, and supporters of losers. This was your turn to be those losers, but you have another chance right away to fight for the winning team. Embrace it.

Hmmm
of course these progressives will be dismissed also..

http://www.burntorangereport.com/

Regarding experience, please compare the passed legislation records of Clinton and Obama in the US Senate.  Feel free to include both of Clinton's terms.