• on a comment on Not a good thing for Dems over 7 years ago

    I agree in the abstract, but in the heat of an election closer it can be tough.

  • on a comment on Not a good thing for Dems over 7 years ago

    My statements sounded "somewhat naive"?  Oiy.  You are just determined to keep digging yourself deeper.

    I guess I'll respond with this:  I assume everyone on MyDD knows at least as much as I do, and that everyone means well--no matter how "off" the occasional comment may turn out.  

    And I'll leave it at that.

  • on a comment on Not a good thing for Dems over 7 years ago

    Good point, but there's a much simpler way to respond:

    "If you don't know what Dem candidates should say in resonse to the NJ ruling, ask for help."  

    What's so ridiculous is the argument that because one person doesn't know how to frame a subject or turn of events to the advantage of Democrats, ergo, it should be avoided.  That's just the most ridiculous argument I've heard in a long, long time and its' being made all over this thread.  

    It reminds me of the father who can't figure out how to assemble a Christmas toy, but instead of asking for help turns to his child and says, "Uhhh....This toy is too dangerous--we need to throw it away."  

  • on a comment on Not a good thing for Dems over 7 years ago

    Oiy, that's right.  I forgot that you're the only guy who knows "how politics works."  What an idiot I was to think I had something of any value to contribute to this discussion...

  • on a comment on Not a good thing for Dems over 7 years ago

    Are you seriously suggesting that "depressing" the vote--discouraging people from voting--is a principle that Progressives should support?

    That's nonsense.  Victory by discouraging voting is what Autocratic Conservatives advocate.  Progressives encourage people to vote.

    All people.

  • comment on a post Not a good thing for Dems over 7 years ago

    I can understand the fear, but the NJ ruling is only a gay rights "issue" for Democrats afraid to move beyond thinking of elections in terms of issues instead of thinking of them in terms of principles and values.

    The solution for Ford--and for every other Dem candidate on the trail right now--is not to duck this "issue" in fear, but to stand up and speak their mind about the principle of equality.  And let the Conservatives look like dogs trying to respond to that.

    Remember, when Dean said he believed in equality for all Americans?  Conservative voters respected him, even though they disagreed with the "isssue" of "gay marriage."

    I'm afraid it's the strategists who have this one wrong. Ford's response has made him look weak and fearful.  

    (BTW:  In this TN race, I don't think this will make a darn bit of difference either way...)

  • comment on a post Spooky over 7 years ago

    It's a great ad, even if I'm not sure I understand exactly which audience its intended for.

    I think, though, there is really something in this idea that a certain kind of voter really wants to believe Lieberman when he talks this way--they really want to buy into the idea that there is a 'plan to win' in Iraq.  It reminds me of that old line about people being conned not by the conman, but by their own greed.  

    I hope we win in Connecticut, but either way--the clarity of thinking by Progressive organizers coming out of this race will be a huge dividend moving forward.

  • I haven't 'attacked' Obama, unless you define 'attack' as 'not singing his praises.'  

    But in general, I think it's important for Hill staffers and everyone else to see a range of views when they read these threads.  Obama has all the sycophantic praise he needs this week in the big cap media.   Better that we just voice our opinions freely here.

  • I read the biography when it came out.   This new thing isn't really a "book" so much as a vehicle--produced more than written, and intended for people who don't know anything about him.  Reading it won't tell me anything I don't know already, and it would have set me back $25--which I chose instead to donate to Matt's kitty so he could get his butt to CT and kick some ass for Progressives.

    I think I know enough about Barak Obama to have an opinion--and probably more than 99.9999% of the American electorate knows about him, which is enough for me to feel prepared at this stage, given that I'm not an Illinois resident.  If he decides to run for President, I'll figure out from there what else I need to do to keep current.

  • Aw, c'mon. It's Sunday night!  That "iTunes version" was a good line.  (sigh)  Has Democracy really lost all sense of humor in Albany?

    I admire all the "Obamarketing"!  Don't you?

    1. Audacity of Hope (Live at Dem Conv)
    2. Audacity of Hope (remix ino 2006 campaign)
    3. Audacity of Hope (hardcover)
    4. Audacity of Hope (paperback)
    5. Audacity of Hope (iTunes version)
  • Seriously.  Educate yourself on the issues, Rosenberg!  You're like dead wood around here...

  • comment on a post Why Barack Obama Should Run for President over 7 years ago

    I watched the MTP interview this morning and was struck by two things:   1) Obama sounded like more of a novice than Edwards did at a similar point, and 2) he's channeling Clinton.

    Is he as 'audacious' as everyone says he is?  I'm not sure I see anything audacious, but he has gotten very good at senatorial equanimity.  Everyone seems to think he's full of passion, but the only time I've ever seen him passionate is when he showed up at dKos to tell us all to behave.  

    But all this talk in the press is probably a result of something more than book sales.  Beyond thoughtful considerations (like this post by Stoller),  I think maybe he's being pushed behind the scenes by the Clinton folks who might see him as an ideal VP.  Many times in the Russert interview, I could swear I heard Obama echoing the "anti-ideology" argument of Bill Clinton's speech last week.  Hmm, I thought.  I suspect Clinton's "no more ideology" message could be the "bridge to the 21st century" tagline of the, uh, 21st century.   And either Obama is already on board with it, or he thinks that's the winning angle moving forward.

    Either way, I look forward to reading the new book.  

  • on a comment on What A Dem Landslide Could Mean over 7 years ago

    Hmm.  The ornery voice in my head wants to part with you on that rule about elections being the ultimate arbiters of political power. I know that sounds ass-backwards, but I just don't see tectonic change happening in singular moments.   As I read it, in valuing elections as you have, as the key events where political alignments happen, you are asking that we put aside the idea of hegemony--or at least hold it at arm's length.  But then again, maybe you're right.  Maybe that's how we should be looking at things right now...

  • comment on a post What A Dem Landslide Could Mean over 7 years ago

    I don't know about a realignment in the political structure, but I think we are headed into a very significant 'protest vote' from the Right.   That means we're going to see a big turn against the Republicans next month, then that same electorate will probably  go back and vote for Republicans in the general.  

    This could also mean that we're in a temporary stretch of "good man" vs. "bad man" politics that has shaken things up, loosened some gaps in the political structure that has forced some old wood to slip out and the opportunity for some new to slip in.

    All the stuff in the blogs--the big conversation--has been more about the form of government, than the challenge of governmening.  So there's no platform vision per se from someone like Markos or Bowers, no list of priorities, no sense of what the promise to the people should be.  Only a charge to the Duma, so to speak.  I don't know that we've ever seen such a situation:  where the leaders of the "movement" have absolutely no interestin becoming the leaders of the system once the movement succeeds.  Typically, someone like Markos would have emerged with clearer leadership aspirations by now.  So it's a strange  dynamic,  a vacum of sorts.

    Having said that, I'd say the major realignment could well be in the media, not government. This whole 2004-06 run of events could really not be about the Democratic Party at all, but about the return of partisan journalism to the U.S.A. (c.f. "FOX NEWS" in your 2050 highschool civics textbook).   It may take some time also to see how that plays out, but in the short run, I think we will see a flood of ad money into the net in '07-'08 that will change some lives significantly.   And that money seems to be the large amorphous mass that shifts or mantains the ballast in our system.


Advertise Blogads