You're also guilty of thinking in a 1992 or 2000 mindset here. Working across the lines doesn't mean just splitting the difference, but talking about issues in ways that appeals to everyone, not just for the slight plurality of people who refer to themselves as Democrats.
Obama is really putting a lot of emphasis on the early states, which I think is a pretty good move. The kind of coverage a candidate gets from winning Iowa and NH might be more valuable than trying to win via a national strategy in late '07.
Given how volatile this process is, I don't see how anyone could really be worried about their candidate...at least the top four dems.
Obama says he doesn't want to use nukes, and he's attacked, from the left? Huh? WTF? He says he wants to go after terrorists that are being protected within the borders of Pakistan, and he's attacked, from both sides?
This is bordering on idiotic. All this is really showing is that we, collectively in the blogosphere, spend WAY too much time following politics.
Troll-rated for complete effing stupidity. I like to tell people that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals don't oversimplify every issue to the point that it is broken down into the lowest common denominator. That's is exactly what I think you are guilty of here.
Using the Reagan comparison(which SHOULD refer to the vehicle for change brought by his campaign as opposed to his methods of governing) as though you haven't devoted to it a single second of thought, is just downright embarrassing. You're just spewing the same nonsense over and over again, and for what?
Apparently you didn't even read my post before you responded. But is it really necessary to try and personally attack people with whom you disagree? I didn't attack you...only disagreed with what Jerome wrote.
Is that what this debate has come to? WTF are you thinking?
Seems like a comparison of the Reagan model for getting elected, not the Reagan model for governing. That's a very important distinction...I wouldn't in my wildest dreams believe that Obama would be Reaganesque in terms of his policies or methods.
A little too simple of a concept for Jerome to have devoted to it a front-page post.
To be honest I'm liking what I'm seeing from her, for the most part. She'd certainly be formidable in the general election against any of the Republicans.
I'm kind of surprised at the rhetoric that we get from the Clintonians around here...its almost like they think, "Hillary is our nominee, so just shut up and friggin' deal with it." For there being so few of them here they sure make a lot of noise. Notice that there are rarely a lot of Clinton diaries on the Rec list.
I don't know what they'd expect the other candidates to do...perhaps just lay down and give up because Hillary is preordained and clearly, through no vetting process yet established or performed, is our best possible choice.