So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Obama

I'll make this brief.

Apparently a lot of you don't get Barack Obama.  I saw this problem coming a mile off, especially during that brief window where Kos didn't care for Obama and preferred Edwards.  The problem is very simple, and the way it's played out is pretty funny to me.

Barack Obama isn't a knife-fighter.  He doesn't slash, he doesn't go for the face.  Barack Obama finesses his opponents.  He outthinks them.  He seldom lands a blow because he seldom needs to.  He's great on the counterpunch, but his heart really isn't into bloodletting.

The netroots wants someone to make the Republicans pay for what they've done.  The netroots wants someone to kick their asses, if not kick in their teeth.  Well guys, if that's what you want, you don't know Barack Obama.

And I do...

This is the guy who, when he was in charge of the Harvard Law Review, made it a point to include conservatives in the publication despite the fact that those who preceeded and followed him generally did not.  This is the guy who takes the time to understand the other side, and learn from their positions.

This is what post-partisan "new politics" means! It means you don't try to get cute and attack Senator McCain in any way related to his military record.  First off it's a phenomenally bad idea.  Whether it is right or wrong the American people believe very deeply that McCain's heroism is sacred.  It's frankly a bit overdone, but the polls show it consistently and my own life experiences make this plain.  You can't touch it.  You just can't.  Secondly, it goes against everything Barack Obama has run on.

You guys have deluded yourselves to no small degree if you expect some kind of progressive Smackdown champ.  Barack Obama is a Constitutional scholar and an inclusive thinker.  He is not into direct confrontations.  Look at how he's run every campaign and every major legislative effort.  He seems to avoid the head-on collision and tries to outfox the other side.  He generally succeeds.

What General Clark said was factually pretty correct, but it was waaaay off message.  Whilst Barack Obama is saying that he wants a more positive kind of politicking one of his most prominent supporters tries to cut John McCain off at the knees.  It doesn't really matter that Clark was correct!

Barack Obama gets to determine the message and underlying theme of his campaign.  Anyone involved in it needs to understand that.  If Barack Obama doesn't think that going negative, especially on an issue like McCain's military record, then frankly anybody in that campaign is doing themselves a disservice.

Clark was right, sure.  That doesn't mean that this was the right time or the right way to make this point.  Barack Obama has done pretty well for himself and for our party by his own techniques, and his methods don't involve a methodical deconstruction of his opponent(s).  He's more subtle than that.

You're going to have to accept it.  Obama hates the Right less than we do.  I want somebody better than me.  I want somebody who tries to make our political process more enlightened and less warlike.

Obama will hit McCain on the issues and on judgment.  I don't expect him to hit McCain on McCain.  It's totally out of character for him to do so.  

Obama is generally risk-averse (politically) and generally courteous, whilst keeping people at arms-length.  Get used to it.

FYI, this doesn't mean that us regular folks can't say and do what we like. I'm referring to people who work for Obama or hope to.

Tags: Chill, Ease Off, Please (all tags)

Comments

173 Comments

Tips?

For the high road.

For knowing that we don't have to go there, and we sure as hell don't want our surrogates going their own way.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-30 04:10PM | 0 recs
I think you're wrong.

It's not a matter of the netroots wanting red meat, here.  It IS finesse.

Obama is what we die-hard chess players call a positional player rather than a tactical player.  

Rove would definitely be a tactical player, and a brilliant one at that, a player who pulls off brilliant, short combinations of moves that seem to defy expectations of the normal rules of chess.  

A positional player, on the other hand, lines up his pieces to control important ranks and diagonals and strategic squares and attempts to create and exploit small weaknesses in the other side.  It requires longer-range thinking and the ability to make subtle assessment of the board.  

Perhaps I am wrong, but that's where I see Obama's success coming from.  For all the belly-aching we have had about whether Obama can survive some horrible Swift-Boat adventure, Obama has been steadily improving his situation on the fundamentals of MONEY (a much better predictor of victory than polls) and GROUND-GAME.  

As for the bitter back and forth, Obama has done well to play a subtle game of distancing himself from the worst attacks against his opponent while at the same time expressing outrage against such attacks against him.  Hillary-ites know what I'm talking about.  This is strategy, and he is very good at it.

So let's not confuse this with Kumbaya politics.  Obama is in this to win, and if you don't believe that, ask yourself how the hell he got where he is if he isn't.  

by Dumbo 2008-06-30 04:57PM | 0 recs
I think you just agreed with reaper...

...while calling him wrong. I like your analogy of the positional vs. tactical player, but that isn't inconsistant with anything in the diary. There are many in the netroots who just want a hard hitting bloodbath right now. They aren't goping to get what they want--Obama plays a long-range game, and you're right, he is very good at it.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-30 06:12PM | 0 recs
hope you saw olbermann

no matter what obama does on fisa the gop is going to paint him as soft on terror.

what is obama's campaign doing to paint McSame?

for a while it was a bush third term, but I haven't heard much of that lately

by TarHeel 2008-06-30 04:57PM | 0 recs
Not too keen on your sig...

The primary IS over

by lolo08 2008-06-30 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips?

Barack Obama isn't a knife-fighter.  He doesn't slash, he doesn't go for the face.  Barack Obama finesses his opponents.  He outthinks them.  He seldom lands a blow because he seldom needs to.  He's great on the counterpunch, but his heart really isn't into bloodletting.

What utter bull.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."  -- Barack Obama

by Xov Wonk 2008-06-30 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips?

Followed by the diarist's comment, "He's great on the counterpunch"

Oops. Sorry I ruined that for you. My bad.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-30 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips?

Are you quoting Barack Obama or Sean Connery from The Untouchables?

by nathanp 2008-06-30 09:32PM | 0 recs
I would hazard

no guess about Obama's personal beliefs.  I don't think we really know who the hell the people who run for President really are at a personal level.

Having said that, there is much in your diary I agree with.  

by fladem 2008-06-30 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips?
Really enjoyed your diary. It's amazing what this young "inexperienced" man has accomplished. He just gets stonger and we can expect the new ideas
to convert more and more voters.
by Politicalslave 2008-06-30 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips?

Then why is his lead shrinking?

by MNPundit 2008-06-30 07:51PM | 0 recs
Where?

He just opened up in Gallup again, and has yet to trail there since the end of the primary.

by iohs2008 2008-06-30 08:30PM | 0 recs
Rubbish

Obama has held an average lead of five of seven points over McCain since June 20. He isn't tanking at all.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/349/6 8525830gx6.jpg
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/general_election_mccai n_vs_obama-225.html

by EnzoValenzetti 2008-07-01 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips?

Loved your diary, because it gives such great perspective from the inside of the circle.

This is the new rehash of "Obama leaves no fingerprints".  Except that you see the fingerprints.  I see the fingerprints.  We all do.  You just deny that the fingerprints are right there.

If Axelrod told Obama that going after McCain's record would be a winning strategy, Obama would have been silent while his toadies repeated the talking points.  That's how the campaign has worked from the beginning.  You've seen it done.  I've seen it done.  Everyone else here has.  You just claim it doesn't happen.

A great perspective from inside the circle.  Thanks for sharing.

by SuperCameron 2008-06-30 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips?

Tips for new trolls. It's best when it's your first day here to try and pretend that you're a Dem., this way your "concern" might seem legit. Rookie mistake. I guess you'll have to re-register now.

Oh and your welcome.

by venician 2008-06-30 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips?

If Obama loses this election, you can look in the mirror and know why.  Your attitude is a direct reflection of Obama's.  Like attracts like.

Cheers.

by SuperCameron 2008-06-30 08:49PM | 0 recs
I know you can read MY thoughts, boy...

MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW

by Dracomicron 2008-07-01 04:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips?

TR'd for "toadies".  It's disrespectful, and obviously intended to incite Obama's supporters.

by ThinkerT 2008-06-30 10:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips?

It's not disrespectful in the least.  Anyone who deliberately repeats someone else's lies for the sake of the campaign or because it's so important to "win" is a toadie.  It's bad enough that there are so many who go on the tv to do it.  If it's the average Obama supporter, this country is doomed.

by SuperCameron 2008-07-01 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips?

How did you manage to write all that and say absolutely nothing?  The Republicans are wrong - I don't want this post-partisan "new politics."

by daria g 2008-06-30 10:59PM | 0 recs
Not everyone want's the Jihad?

"The netroots wants someone to make the Republicans pay for what they've done."

No, I think the most ANGRY and most unsophisticated netroots folks want the Jihad candidate?

Personally, I want FDR, who smiled out in public, and had his opponents legs cut out from under them (pun intended) behind the scenes.

He seems so benign and fatherly, but he was ruthless when he had to be. But it wasn't malicous, it was just to get the results he knew could drag the country back from the abyss.

America doesn't want an angry curmedgeon in the WH, which was Reagans sunny disposition trick.

by WashStateBlue 2008-06-30 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Not everyone want's the Jihad?

As much as I like FDR, I want someone more like Bobby Kennedy (both way before my time, so I'm going on history here).  We'll never know how Bobby would have been as a president, but he was progressive to the core, and he genuinely cared about people (FDR too).  Maybe FDR and Bobby are closer than I thought.  Both good people, both had affairs, both were major progressives, both knew how to play politics, both from famous political families.  Hmm...I smell a book here!

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-01 03:37AM | 0 recs
The Aikido Candidate?

I think we've all had enough of watching political cage matches at this point.  But the question that the Obama campaign needs to address now is whether deflection is a methodology for him or his policy persona.  If Aikido can get healthcare past the Ultimate Fighting thugs, that would be beautiful to see.  I'm all in for Obama and have been since December.  I'm not looking for more political courage on the campaign trail, just a little more intellectual courage and innovation with regard to policy positions.

by Strummerson 2008-06-30 04:17PM | 0 recs
Ummmm

DUCK and cover! I hear incoming.

by jsfox 2008-06-30 04:18PM | 0 recs
I agree 100% with the following statement

It means you don't try to get cute and attack Senator McCain in any way related to his military record.  First off it's a phenomenally bad idea.  Whether it is right or wrong the American people believe very deeply that McCain's heroism is sacred.

by soyousay 2008-06-30 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree 100% with the following statement

SO, when did anyoen 'get cute' and attack McCain related to his military record?

Clark certainly did NOT do thtat, and that's what's wrong with this discourse.  

by emsprater 2008-06-30 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree 100% with the following statement

I think you misunderstood - I believe what the diarist intended was that you don't attack McCain in any way that can be interpreted as being an attack on his military record.  You're right that it's what's wrong with this discource, but the problem is that it's been what's wrong with our national discourse for several elections and not going to change for this one.  

Winning the game by the rules you have, not the rules you should have or wish you had - or in other words, finessing the system.

by ThinkerT 2008-06-30 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree 100% with the following statement

you don't attack McCain in any way that can be interpreted as being an attack on his military record

The Republicans will DISTORT comments in order to have the media interpret statements as an attack.  They will keep distorting, and the media will keep following right along, unless someone in a leadership position stands up and fights back.  Where some see "post partisan," I see caving in without a fight.

by daria g 2008-06-30 11:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree 100% with the following statement

I disagree with you.  I think there are far too many low-info voters who will always push back against any attack that even seemingly implies something negative about a Republican's military service.  When it was done to Kerry, on the other hand, no problems with that.  Apparently it only matters when it happens to "salt of the earth" people (which has to be the most ridiculous method to choose a president, and one of the more common ones in certain parts of the country).

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-01 03:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree 100% with the following statement

I didn't take "get cute" as positive language.

by soyousay 2008-07-01 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree 100% with the following statement

SO, when did anyone 'get cute' and attack McCain related to his military record?

Clark certainly did NOT do thtat, and that's what's wrong with this discourse.  

by emsprater 2008-06-30 05:24PM | 0 recs
I think I get "new politics" now

"new politics" means Obama is a saint, and he will never have to be mean, and because of that politics will be really pleasant.

by catfish2 2008-06-30 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I think I get "new politics" now

And here'ts the first fish who doesn't get it, but needs to get over it.

by venician 2008-06-30 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I think I get "new politics" now

""new politics" means Obama is smart guy, and he will never have get bogged down in the wars with the radical right, and because of that his politics will be really effective.

I like Bill Cliton a lot, but he had to play defense all the second half of his admin, because the Republics dragged him into a streetfight.

Obama wants to try something different?

It's hard for a lot of progressives still stuck in the 90s, but the Millenials all get it.

by WashStateBlue 2008-06-30 04:26PM | 0 recs
Is Obama the first to try "new politics"

it's a wonder nobody's tried it before. You all make it sound so easy.

by catfish2 2008-06-30 04:36PM | 0 recs
To everything, there is a season

Timing is everything...

It's the generational shift, like Kennedy had.

Remember, Truman (just like Bill) thought Kennedy was not qualified to be President.

If Obama wouldn't have done it, the next candidate up would have done it.

Seibilus, for one, plays the same style in Kansas.

That is whay Obama feels closer to her politics then he does to Hillary's.

by WashStateBlue 2008-06-30 04:40PM | 0 recs
OK this is your first campaign.

"The millenials get it."

by catfish2 2008-06-30 05:32PM | 0 recs
Explaining my TR

Belittling another poster (your title) and condescending to an entire segment of the base (your comment). If I'm misreading, feel free to open dialogue with me; I check back semi-frequently and will undo the TR if I'm wrong.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-06-30 07:50PM | 0 recs
Belittling anyone over 21 to say

the millenials get it.

by catfish2 2008-06-30 09:53PM | 0 recs
I didn't read it that way

And I'm older than 21 myself, but I see how it could come off that way. I'll rescind the TR; let's both try to assume the best of our fellow democrats. Mea culpa.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-07-01 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: OK this is your first campaign.

I'm 28 and I get it too -- except I would express it differently: that you detractors are stuck playing Chess while Obama's campaign has been playing Go since the primaries.

In Chess the rules are simple: checkmate the king. You can't checkmate the king without attacking him.

In Go on the other hand you can lose every single battle and end up winning the game because you're advancing on territory across the board, while the opponent is focused on a handful of small battles they consider "crucial".

Clinton lost the primary season exactly because she was playing Chess while Obama was playing Go, winning in margins across the board in states big and small while Clinton was giving it all for the "crucial" states.

Now all her former supporters demand that Obama starts playing Chess simply because it's the only game they understand. Well frankly I trust the Obama campaign to understand strategy more than I trust the Clinton campaign to do so.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-07-01 12:01AM | 0 recs
Zero Sum

Go.  Love it.  And not before time, either.  Peaceful, contemplative and yet so bloodlessly and emphatically victorious.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-01 03:07AM | 0 recs
Re: OK this is your first campaign.

Well, my first REAL campaign was doorbelling for Jack Kennedy with my mom, who was a precinct worker for the Kennedy campaign.

My ass has been embedded in Democratic politics ever since, but thanks for asking!

You see, unlike a lot of boomers, I recognized the change neccesary from the politics of the 90s?

So sad, many are still stuck on the cul-de-sac politics of that era.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-01 07:08AM | 0 recs
You Said It

Funny, that.  But true.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-01 03:09AM | 0 recs
That's how I read the diary, too.

by Dumbo 2008-06-30 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I think I get "new politics" now

Yes, politics will totally rule, if you're David Broder.  Every afternoon in Washington, David Broder will consider his approval of politics, drink tea, write a thoughtful column bestowing his approval upon the wonderful civility of it all, and take a nice nap, and dream of the magical Unity Pony.

by daria g 2008-06-30 11:19PM | 0 recs
Clark ain't backing down

Read the General's statement here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 608/Clark_wont_back_down.html#comments

By the way, how come Obama was so willing to engage in a knife-fight with Hillary but seems unwilling to engage in a knife-fight with McCain?

by Blazers Edge 2008-06-30 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark ain't backing down

He didn't get into a knife fight with Hillary Clinton.

Also, strictly from a pragmatic perspective it's just a really bad idea to engage McCain on his biography.  It's his absolute strongest point.  

Even Democrats tend to respect John McCain.  You wanna beat John McCain?  You tie him to Bush and you make it plain to the electorate that electing John McCain will hurt our country in ways we simply cannot afford.  McCain is all over the map on policy, and he doesn't have the intellectual depth that Obama does on policy issues.

Hammer him there.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-30 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark ain't backing down

He did get into a knife fight with Hillary.  He(his campaign) called her a liar, manipulating, triangulating and someone that would do anything to get elected.

He used a Republican attack ad against her and even acknowledged it's use, and endorsed it.  That's a tactical air to ground fire mission...yet, he puts the kid gloves on for McCain?

I don't know bot...Gun control, FISA, and now this...

If the netroots wanted a real fight they would have supported Hillary, because she was and did indicate that she was spoiling for a fight with the Republicans and was ready to go toe to toe with them on this very type of issue, so I don't think it's quite the case.  I think everyone is just waiting for him to take a stand.  We need to remind him that his primary campaign slogans still need to ring true now also.  Change starts here...now.

These recalculations and his hesitancy is what will lose him the election if he keeps listening to those pushing, pushing, pushing him to the center.  The same people who told Gore to ignore Bill, and not engage directly with Bush and the same people who told Kerry to not get into a direct confrontation with the President are advising and pushing Obama to the center.  They have already lost 2 elections for us.  If they keep doing it, they will lose another yet again.

by TxDem08 2008-06-30 07:00PM | 0 recs
That's not what's happening here.

Obama is smart; look at the primary. He fought Hillary in the way she is vulnerable. Fair or not, she is seen as manipulative and false. It's her asset and her vulnerability; too good at reading the polls and reacting swiftly. That calculating image was her Achilles' heel, but the talent that created that image is also what brought her so very close to a comeback when she located, isolated, and pursued the exact message for the voters she was courting.

Obama will fight McCain in the way he is vulnerable, and I'm sorry but that's not on character. Besides the (in my opinion bullshit) reverential treatment of the man because of his war experiences, he's got his media 'base'. If McCain's character could be assassinated, his own behavior would have done it by now. If the media doesn't ding him for calling his wife a cunt or leaving his crippled first wife for a rodeo-queen heiress, he's unassailable.

Now I realize that Clark was doing no such thing. He answered a direct question directly and insightfully, but the McCain myth has a mystique to it, and simply shining the light on it won't undo that. In fact, a full frontal assault on a basic tenet of McCain's argument (I'll be a good President because I'm a war hero) serves only to put people on the defensive. It encourages a descent into those old Vietnam era battle-lines between those who venerate military service and the dirty hippies; it pushes the right-leaning moderates to take McCain's side simply because Johnny didn't dodge the draft and did his country proud. Clark didn't do anything morally wrong; politically though? He fucked up.

Winning the primary battle is all about selecting the battlefield. Fair or not, stupid or not, relevant or not, McCain's strongest suit is his biography. Whether or not it was an attack, even going into that territory allows the media narrative to dwell there, and in that place the terrain advantage is McCain's. He's been desperately trying to make this campaign about his service since it began. What do you think of Medicare? "Well, as a POW I...." What should be done about the economy? "Well you know, I learned a lot about hardship in Hanoi..." The man desperately wants to frame this election in terms of his military service; Clark gave him that.

Obama beat Hillary by moving the battlefield away from her her strengths and onto her weaknesses. Here are the perceptions, correct or not. Strength: fighter; weakness: two-faced. So what did he do? He neutralized 'fighter' with talk of post-partisanship and moved the battlefield to consistency (cite: "I was the only candidate against this war from the beginning").

He's doing the same thing with McCain. McCain's hero image is the impenetrable fortress. He doesn't even want to talk about McCain's biography except in the brief, dismissive, moving-along "While I honor John McCain's service..." prefix no one even hears anymore. You don't assault the Maginot Line; you go around it. Strength: biography; weakness: policy. Suddenly, Obama is a wonk. Let's cut the the character crap and talk brass tacks. Service aside, this man is bad for the country. Just as he played at the intersection of his strengths and Hillary's weaknesses before (Iraq vote: codeword Judgment), he wants to do the same thing now. Don't debate the biography. Don't even encourage people to think about it. Dismiss it and move on.

It hurts to see a valued attack dog saying what we've all been screaming get hung out to dry. Clark kicked some ass, and I think his perfectly fair, factual statement will have positive ripples, but those ripples will materialize best divorced from the formal campaign. Clark's no rockstar. Soon enough the narrative will shift back to Obama, and when it does, he wants the media to leave McCain's service behind and stop reminding the American people how much they love this mavericky war-hero. It's the corollary to the common wisdom on how you deal with smears; if it doesn't help you, it doesn't bear repeating.

Wes Clark made his point and planted his seeds. The ideas are out there, and they will serve Obama best if he leaves them alone and lets them grow naturally. The media unfairly made this into a character assassination, but whats done is done. Obama isn't here to go to bat for Clark; Clark is here to go to bat for Obama. He'll take the PR hit and get the idea out there; Obama will denounce it, benefit from the idea's gradual percolation, and allow it to subvert McCain quietly without arousing the "RAWR PATRIOTISM" crowd.

Renouncing the comment moves us past it faster. The sooner we get past this, the sooner Obama can reap the benefits. The worshipers put their backs down and start to think about what Clark said as Obama quietly, subtly, blamelessly alludes to the idea. Long after the mess is forgotten, he points out McCain's sudden tie to a swiftboater ( can't you hear it : "That's exactly the kind of old politics we're trying to close the door on with this campaign). Clark goes away for a couple months and gets a haircut, and by the time he shows back up most of America has forgotten that this is the guy who dared to say their beloved straight-talker was blowing smoke.

Clark and Obama are both best served by letting Clark get off the stage double-quick before this defines both him and the campaign. Denouncing the comment is the fastest way to do that. I love the man for saying what needed to be said, but now's the part where he takes a short-term hit for the team and we all move on.

The big seat, 3 justices, and a big majority in the legislature; if Obama wins this, we aren't just looking at a good four or eight years. This is a realignment. Republicans still haven't been able to undo the social programs that happened the last time Democrats had this kind of control. If we can get in there, by hook or by crook, the long term effects will be incalculable. Obama has to win. If that means a good man takes a fall for him here, it hurts me to say so, but let it happen.

Go donate.

Go volunteer.

Get your enthusiasm back up. Even if he's the most triangulating centrist Democrat in history (which he's not), we will still see incredible leaps forward under a unified, three-branch Democratic government.

He's doing what it takes to win, and thank God for that. Most years I'm an idealist; this year winning is everything.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-06-30 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: That's not what's happening here.

This should be a diary. Not complaining about it being too long, just think it deserves to stand out from a comment section. Extremely well-reasoned and well-written. Kudos.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-30 08:43PM | 0 recs
Thanks! nt

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-06-30 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: That's not what's happening here.

Brilliant comment.

by fogiv 2008-06-30 10:29PM | 0 recs
Re: That's not what's happening here.

He fought Hillary in the way she is vulnerable. Fair or not, she is seen as manipulative and false.

It's not fair, and it's a personal, character based attack, and had no place in the primary, and progressives should've stood up and said "no" when he did this instead of egging him on.  "Winning" by throwing out progressive, liberal values you were fighting for in the first place - what have you won?  At best, the right to govern from a position that is NOT progressive or liberal?  There are many ways to win, especially in a year that is overwhelmingly favorable to Democrats, I don't see any need for him to run to the right and not take on any tough fights along the way.  I don't see scorched-earth tactics as a requirement to win either, and I don't believe in them.  

by daria g 2008-06-30 11:10PM | 0 recs
Re: That's not what's happening here.

First, let's not pretend like Hillary was a saint during the primary.  The difference between the two is that Obama (largely) let his surrogates do his attacks, while Hillary's came directly from her and Bill.  Doesn't make either one more right, but the perception it created was important.

Second, since when is not attacking your opponent a progressive ideal?  Progressivism to me means moving toward a more fair economy, supporting social rights, and becoming a part of global diplomacy.  Progressivism to me has nothing to do with how politics are played.  Let's all keep in mind that politics is the means, not the end.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-01 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: That's not what's happening here.

She was hoist with her own petard.  Remember 'Well, now the fun part starts.' back on the second of December 2007?  Fun... always in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-01 03:52AM | 0 recs
Re: That's not what's happening here.

Sure I remember that.  What is the problem?

by daria g 2008-07-01 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: That's not what's happening here.

Forget it.  If you can't even see it with the benefit of hindsight what's the point?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-01 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark ain't backing down

None are so blind as those that will not see....

Yeah, he's being SO gentle with McCain he has been ripping him for weeks?

On policy, which is probably what drive the bitter folks like you, still TRYING to fight the wars of the 90s into mass confusion.

Ghosts, you are still chasing ghosts.

The rest of us are moving on, but you, Texas Un'Darlin, are mired in the past.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-01 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark ain't backing down

" The same people who told Gore to ignore Bill, and not engage directly with Bush and the same people who told Kerry to not get into a direct confrontation with the President are advising and pushing Obama to the center.  They have already lost 2 elections for us.  If they keep doing it, they will lose another yet again."

--------------

Look and you will find Donna Brazille at the bottom (or at least in the middle) of all 3 campaigns.

If you want to win you gotta cast out the Brazille.

by wblynch 2008-07-01 10:25AM | 0 recs
Really???

Attack the strong points worked well for the last two elections.  Rove, slimy b*st*rd that he is, gets that nothing is too low for the electorate.  Who knew that attacking a Vietnam Vet's record, mocking his purple heart, would help win the presidency for a former drunk and druggie who went AWOL on his service?  America LOVES its vets?  Could have fooled anyone in 2000 and in 2004.  Rove had W Bush trash two vets (McCain and Kerry) .....and it worked.  So history says you are wrong.
Even the Obama campaign figured out "trashing strong points" work.  Hillary Clinton was admired, respected and loved in the AA community and Axlerod took a page out of Rove's book and turned Hillary into a racist, effectively taking away any support she had from the African American community.

So let's be at least honest here.  If Obama wants to win this thing, "respecting" McCain is not the road to take. And when you say "democrats even respect McCain" it is laughable.  Republicans were happy as clams to trash McCain in 2000......and to trash Kerry in 2004.  Military service means nothing.....it is all about the SPIN game.

by Jjc2008 2008-07-01 04:17AM | 0 recs
Wonderful advice...

...if we want to lose.

The Swift Boat attacks aren't what sunk Kerry.  Kerry's failure to respond to the Swift Boat attacks is what sunk him.  

I'd hazard a guess that most people knew that it was probably bullshit, but the deafening silence coming from the Kerry campaign on the matter led to some ugly speculation and questions about his willingness to fight for the country as president if he wouldn't even fight for himself as a nominee.

Furthermore, that was all Bush had.  Kerry was strong on all the issues.  Obama is strong on all the issues, he has no need to go after McCain's record.

by Dracomicron 2008-07-01 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Wonderful advice...

"The Swift Boat attacks aren't what sunk Kerry.  Kerry's failure to respond to the Swift Boat attacks is what sunk him."

BINGO. That two week period where Shrum and the old liners were telling Kerry to ignore the Swift Boaters cost him the election.

Had he gone on TV the next day, and called them out PERSONALLY Mano-y-Mano, he would stopped the bleeding, changed the story, and at least not looked like an elite wimp.

If it wasn't the key moment he lost, well....  

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-01 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark ain't backing down

Oh come on. He has been fighting McCain, but, he CAN'T go where Wes can go.  

Wes has the military bon a fides to go where Obama should not.  

And, you all know that?  Come on, at least admit it, that's what's going on here?

Obama has been ripping McCain over policy for weeks, but going at his Military bon a fides is no place for him to go.

Wes, on the other hand....

by WashStateBlue 2008-06-30 04:28PM | 0 recs
Do you not remember 2004?
George W's service to the country was a joke, and John Kerry won a purple heart and WHO trashed whom on military service?
Get real.  If the democrats play this stupid game again, afraid to attack, afraid to call out hypocrisy, then we will lose.
by Jjc2008 2008-07-01 04:19AM | 0 recs
Not relevant

McCain's military record, however spotty and entitled due to his family name, has no bearing on where he'll take the country as President.  That's the gist of what Clark was saying, though he flubbed it badly.

We can beat McCain on the issues.  By doing what Obama has done, he also undercuts some of the shadier attacks by Republican servants.

by Dracomicron 2008-07-01 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you not remember 2004?

"If the democrats play this stupid game again, afraid to attack, afraid to call out hypocrisy, then we will lose. "

Wow, are you calling Wes Clark NOT a democrat?

Let me do this ONE MORE TIME for you folks evidently new to politics:

Campaign surrogate makes controversial charge against opponent; Candidate DISTANCES himself from the comment, stays on the high-ground; Opponent is forced to respond to surrogate; News Cycle continues.

Any comparison to Kerry misses the point: Obama wasn't in the military, if he is seen attacking McCain over his military service, the blow-back WILL BE the news cycle?

You Clintonites are so whigged out about "hard-working white people" I.E. the Appalachian vote?

Point is, if you are Jim Webb or Wes Clark, you can go at McCain's military background.

If you are Barrack Obama, it's quicksand.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-01 07:25AM | 0 recs
Give me a break

John Kerry was advised as the candidate to "not stoop to W's level"; to ignore; to let surrogates do the dirty work.

And that strategy FAILED....

and if Obama does not have the b*lls to be honest about this (Wes said nothing wrong), then he is going to lose

by Jjc2008 2008-07-01 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark ain't backing down

I wondered the same thing myself in regards to the way Obama fought the Clintons.

I don't once remember him calling any of his surrogates to task for statements they made about them.  So why attack Clark in defense of his GE opponent?   Especially when Clark did nothing of the kind of 'attack' that folks here are claiming he made?

Good grief.

by emsprater 2008-06-30 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark ain't backing down

I don't once remember him calling any of his surrogates to task for statements they made about them.
Of course you don't. You were too busy jumping up and down and screaming about the evil obamatrons to pay attention.

You guys are funny. There are a bunch of you posting diary after diary about him throwing people under the bus and then you have the gall to say you don't remember him ever taking his surrogates to task for statements they made. I'll bet you remember the remark about Hillary being a monster alright. Do you remember that the person that made that remark was asked to leave the campaign the very next day? Of course not, because then you'd have to let go of some of your anger and that just wouldn't do. Anger is the only thing people like you have going for you.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-30 05:47PM | 0 recs
Actually, now that you ....

bring it up, I do remember that.  So you are equating an Obama staffer calling Hillary a 'monster' with Clark's statement about McCain?

Ludicrous.

However, I will say that I have  never once 'screamed about evil obamatrons', and I plan on voting for him.  I just dislike hypocrisy.  I also dislike the explanations that I see here from the deeply involved Obama supporters claiming that it allows Obama to get this message into the political discourse and remain 'clean' of it and 'above the fray'.

That's not 'politics of hope' nor is is 'change', it's just the same old odwnright dirty tricks we've seen from the GOP for some time now.   Nothing wrong with fighting fire with fire, but please don't try to feed me dog shit and tell me it's caviar.

I also like Clark, and feel that he deserves much better treatment than the Obama camp and the Obama netroots have given him, overall.

by emsprater 2008-06-30 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, now that you ....

I was not equating what was done with Clark with the occasion when Hillary was called a monster. You said you didn't remember Obama ever calling one of his surrogates to task and I gave you an example. Then you call that ludicrous. You did this even though I quoted the part of your statement that I was replying to.

I didn't disagree with your comments about Clark. I feel somewhat the same way. He is my second choice for Veep. My first choice is Edwards. Your first choice is probably Hillary and I respect that.

I don't really want to get into a pissing contest with you. I've noticed that you have recently begun to enter into discourse and seem to be holding back on your anger about how things went in the primaries. This doesn't mean that you will ever be happy about that or will 'get over' it. What it does mean is that I think you have the best interests of the Democratic party at heart and are coming to realize that continuing to indulge that anger will only hurt the party.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-30 06:51PM | 0 recs
Thanks.

Clark is my FIRST choice for VP.  I have continually stated that I do not want Hillary on the ticket.  For Hillary to be placed on the ticket, to me, looks like giving her the "Miss Congeniality" award, or the 'also ran' trophy.  She deserves better, and can have a much more important role in other positions, IF the folks in the party who detest her so much will swallow their bile and realize her attributes far outweigh her negatives.

Most of my 'anger' about the primary has been directed at the DNC for their treatment of voters in FL and MI, and yes, I know about 'rules', but I also know about voters who had nothing to do with the changes that caused the mess, and their shoddy treatment by the DNC.  Other than that, the way the media stacked their coverage to be negative of the Clintons, and the influence of the 'ABH' crowd early on, folks I beleive who only detest her because of the AUMF vote and her reputation that was created by the VRWC, I had no problem with the primary.  Obama played better politics.  But that's not 'politics of change' or not being a 'typical politician'.  I can understand that.

What I thought was ludicrous was the equating of a very truthful statement by Clark with a very inane statement by an Obama staffer, and yes, I know you were'nt really equating them, but using them as examples.  But, following Obama's 'can't let that stay out there' model, I had to make a statement.

Yes, I am 'getting over' my aggravations and my dissappointment from the primary.  I can deal with the fact that in the end, there could be only one, and we had two very good choices.  It does dismay me that the 'winners' still for some reason have to try daily to denigrate the 'looser'.  I think if they could let go of that, we could all be friends again.

by emsprater 2008-07-01 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks.

Clinton supporters and Obama supporters see exact opposite views about how the primary was conducted and who was worse towards whom. I don't even want to get into the FL/MI mess. You've heard all of the arguments from both sides on that issue.

One statement you made stood out to me.

It does dismay me that the 'winners' still for some reason have to try daily to denigrate the 'looser'.  I think if they could let go of that, we could all be friends again.
This is another place where the two sides see mirror images. If the statement was changed by switching the order of the words 'winners' and 'losers' that statement would make perfect sense to an Obama supporter.

I believe that as the GE progresses there will be less and less sniping by both sides. Once people learn to let inflammatory comments slide they will begin to focus on November and the bitterness will be put aside for now. That's my hope, anyway.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-01 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, now that you ....

I like Clark as well. I'm sure we all do. I've made a couple DIARIES calling for Clark to be VP.

But General Clark is not stupid, and neither is Barack Obama. One of the most decorated men to ever wear a uniform made valid points about McCain's military (experience) for Executive leadership. He he STILL is getting slammed by the media. I just watched The Verdict on MSNBC, the host Dan Abrams is ordinarily very fair and very sharp. He let his guests completely chop up the facts about what Wesley Clark said. This is after Clark was just on fully explaining his position and how it was taken out of context.

The former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces can't even comment on McCain's experience (as it pertains to the Presidency) without media going on a feeding frenzy. If Obama tried to jump on that ship he'd get eaten alive.

Obama knows it, and CLARK knows it. I have no doubt Clark expected Obama to take the position he did, and has no problem with it.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-30 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, now that you ....

"He he STILL is getting slammed by the media."

I think that's the answer to why Obama had to call him on it.  

I want Clark as VP, though I now realize I'm likely to be disappointed.  But the real problem (politically) with that Clark said is that it could have been said differently.  Instead of stating that being shot down does not make one qualified to be president, why not just say that being in the military does not make you qualified?  It would achieve the same point without any chance for negative consequences (though it would hurt Clark's chance of VP obviously).

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-01 03:52AM | 0 recs
My take

Clark bungled it when he said that being shot down was not a qualification to be president, but that McCain showed courage and character after being captured, and those are things people look for in a president.

It was a seemingly conflicting statement, and what Clark needed to do was clarify that all he was talking about were the strategic-level planning skills a president develops a need for (and, incidentally, the kind that Clark has as former Supreme Commander), not the burnishing of status as a war hero and POW.

I like Clark a lot, but he's not very good at politics.

by Dracomicron 2008-07-01 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, now that you ....

In reality, I think that Clark's still being slammed by the media is largely our fault.

If we had a rapid response team that went out and repudiated the GOP frame of what Clark said with the rebuttal of the TRUTH of what Clark said in toto, we could slap down the media charade.  That's why 'we' as a party get slammed by the media all the time: we don't have the equivalent of the rabid talking heads to combat them on their own turf.  Faulty 'facts' get spread every day as truth and go unchallenged.  Half truths get foisted as fact, sound bytes become the full statement when they are not, and we let it go.  We also give in to the media's tactics when we do what Obama did and rebuke a statement that was true because only half of it is being made the issue.  Clark deserved better, and Obama is falling right in line for the media circus.  I'm dissappointed.

by emsprater 2008-07-01 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, now that you ....

"Instead of stating that being shot down does not make one qualified to be president, why not just say that being in the military does not make you qualified?"

THAT is what's getting missed in all of this. Watch the video. Clark was baited into saying it that way.

(paraphrasing)

Interviewer: "You know Obama never rode in a fighter jet and got shot down"

Clark: "Riding in a fighter jet and getting shot down doesn't make you qualified to be President."

Republicans: "Yes! Let's take that out of context! Beautiful!"

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-07-01 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, now that you ....

"The former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces can't even comment on McCain's experience (as it pertains to the Presidency) without media going on a feeding frenzy. If Obama tried to jump on that ship he'd get eaten alive."

Chewed up and spitten out. Why don't the Clinton-Ites get that?  Actually, I think they do, but just are looking for reasons to trash the candidate.

"Obama knows it, and CLARK knows it. I have no doubt Clark expected Obama to take the position he did, and has no problem with it."

Sure he did. Wes is a big boy, he can surely handle himself just fine from the chattering pundit class.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-01 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark ain't backing down

I wondered the same thing myself in regards to the way Obama fought the Clintons.

I don't once remember him calling any of his surrogates to task for statements they made about them.  So why attack Clark in defense of his GE opponent?   Especially when Clark did nothing of the kind of 'attack' that folks here are claiming he made?

Good grief.

by emsprater 2008-06-30 05:49PM | 0 recs
Tipped and Recced

Thank you.  This election isn't about smashing windows and burning down government buildings.  It's about retaking the White House and building a filibuster-proof congress.  Period.

Anybody that doesn't see that as priority #1 between now and November doesn't know what they're doing.

by spunkmeyer 2008-06-30 04:28PM | 0 recs
And if that doesn't work...

then we go to the smashing of windows and the burning down of government.  j/k?

by nklein 2008-06-30 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

Obama does not practice the politics of contrast, he is not a straight up fighter for any particular principles. But he is quite skilled at what I consider the knife fighting of politics, character assassination. It usually takes his targets a little while to realize they are bleeding.

by souvarine 2008-06-30 04:30PM | 0 recs
LMAO.

This is snark right?

I mean riiiigh?

by LatinoVoter 2008-06-30 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: LMAO.

No, it is not.  Now go back to your fantasy land.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-30 04:34PM | 0 recs
What a racist fucking tagline.

Doesn't anyone else get it? He "did" two women. He is "riding dirty". You might as well call him Barky.

by turtlescrubber 2008-06-30 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: LMAO.

Your sig demonstrates that you still don't know the meaning of the term "riding dirty."

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-01 03:53AM | 0 recs
My sig is a quote

from Obama's friend and spiritual guru. I just changed WJC to BHO and Monica Lewsinky to Alice Palmer and black people to Hillary.

If you have a problem with the use of "riding dirty" take it up with Rev. Wright.

by LatinoVoter 2008-07-01 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: My sig is a quote

Nope, my point is that your use of it illustrates that you don't know what it means.  There was and is nothing offensive about the original quote.  I can only assume you are one of the people that (incorrectly) believes it means rape or anal sex.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-01 12:11PM | 0 recs
LMAO

I love that you're projecting your sexual views onto me. LMAO. I know what riding dirty means, thank you very much.

Here is the original quote by Rev. Wright.

Bill Clinton was riding dirty. He did us like he did Monica Lewinsky.

Since you see nothing wrong or offensive with the original then stop whining about my remix.

by LatinoVoter 2008-07-01 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: LMAO

I find nothing wrong with the original, because it means hiding something.  If your quote uses that original meaning, then I don't find it offensive at all.  Sorry that I jumped to the thinking that you were another idiot who thinks it means sex (there have been quite a few responses stating as such on this blog).  Mea culpa

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-02 11:28AM | 0 recs
Thank you for this diary...

See I am one of those Democrats that want to see Republicans pay.

What I thought was a lot of thirdway rhetoric coming from you is now clear to me.

I just hope that the blogosphere and activist base understands your point.

If we do, we are unstoppable.

Thanks again.

Recced.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-30 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for this diary...

Thank you.

What do you mean by "third way"?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-30 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for this diary...

Little bit of insider baseball there,  third way is a PAC or as they say 'strategy' center.

Anyways I know one of the directors there, she left a very very liberal media outlet to go there.
I have picked up that the group also represents a philosophy.

anyways, check them out http://www.thirdway.org/

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-30 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for this diary...

"very very liberal media outlet"

Oh my god, they still exist??  I thought they were extinct?  It's certainly not CNN or even MSNBC, and NPR has become more and more centrist.  I am hoping it was the NY Times!

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-01 03:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for this diary...

I want to see Republicans pay, too...  I want the fighter as well... but, discretion is the better part of valor.... sometimes walking away from a fight is actually a victory.  Just ask George Washington, who won the revolutionary war mostly by running away from battles he couldn't win (and tiring out the British in the meantime), then striking hard on ones he could... on the battles that really matter...

There's also the Star Wars reference that letting your feelings control your destiny is a sure way to the dark side.  We certainly don't want to emulate the GOP... not when their name and tactics are so despised by the public right now...

by LordMike 2008-06-30 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for this diary...

Have you read 1776 by David McCullough?  Lots of insight into Washington and his troops.  Good read.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-01 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: So

great diary.  you should cross post at daily kos...

by elie 2008-06-30 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: So

Thank you.  

Why'd you TR me earlier?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-30 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: So

no way!  must of been a mistake.  i will go fix now....

by elie 2008-06-30 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get

Obama is a great speaker, and McBush is dull, boring, terrible.  Any time that McBush, McDole wants to go head-to-head with Obama on speeches he is making a mistake.  McBush made a terrible error today.  McDole looked very petty by continuing his bashing Obama on Clark's comments.  McGaff is hurting himself by being negative, and it makes him look like Dole.  I hope McSame continues on this same theme tomorrow.

by Spanky 2008-06-30 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get

Can you use actual names, because I really don't understand any of your post. Who is McBush, who is McDole and who is McGaff?

This kindergartener technique is far more annoying than funny. Use the actual bloody names for chrissakes.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-07-01 01:16AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently ...

Thank You for writing this.  But to those that say Obama won't engage in a fight, what have you been watching?  He's not going to get in the gutter, but over policy, he comes out with guns blazing.  That's what he's been doing.  Him going after McCain on this point is a phenomenally horrible idea.  I really don't get the lust for blood on this issue.  Its just not Obama.  Go after him on FISA, not this BS.

by cycl06 2008-06-30 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

I rec'd and commented your copy of this diary on DKos...

you took the words right out of my mouth (you'll be hearing from my copyright laywers!!! ;-)  just kidding!)

The fact is McCain WANTED this fight... it's a fight he cannot lose!  The GOP strategy is (and has been) all about distractions... Obama hates distractions and sideshows... by denying McCain his gift, Obama dis'ed him hard...

Now, what's McCain going to do with his "Swift Boat Defense Group"?  Wave his hands in the air from nonexistent attacks?  McCain is going to end up looking like a fool, and in three weeks, people are going to understand that Obama's move was quite smart after all.

by LordMike 2008-06-30 05:23PM | 0 recs
McCain's problems

CSPAN had a voter focus group on last night and it was one of the most fascinating thing I've ever seen.  I watched for almost an hour.  Anyway, one of the criticisms that kept coming up about McCain was his age.  He's just too old for many people.  And there is literally nothing he can do about that.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-07-01 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You

By the way, this isn't a new line of attack by Wes Clark.  He tried the same argument in 2004 against Kerry during the primaries.  It sucked then, and it sucks now.  The American people are always going to side with the grunt over the officer.

by XoFalconXo 2008-06-30 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You

Any Democrat should be able to win this year, given the horrendous economy.  It's a good time for a little populism, yet Obama's running to the right.  He seems to think he can buy a victory.  He already looks cautious and weak.    

Read Krugman today. Our nominee should be laying out a progressive agenda.  Does Obama believe in ANYTHING?

by Upstate Dem 2008-06-30 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You

"Does Obama believe in ANYTHING?"

Bitter, just so so bitter.

Too bad, your Clinton loss anger continues to blind you.

Sure, this looks like a year for a Democratic win.

But, Obama is trying for the mandate, he is trying to win states we haven't won in for a generation, he is trying to send massive amounts of new folks to the polls to elect democrats up and down the ticket?

You CAN'T change the country by playing the 90s 50%+1 campaign of the DLC?

Funny, you all get so wacky about Obama not winning the midwest vote, "hard working white people", so you want him to trash a war hero without being one himself (as Wes is) and just get annihilated by the blow-back from the Republicans in those states you frett about?

Silly, circular fire-squad thinking, typical old style democratic losing strategy.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-01 07:39AM | 0 recs
Hmmmm......

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6 /30/204344/452/729/544393

If anybody is willing to rec me over there, I'd appreciate it.  I've got 60 rec.  I wonder how many more are needed to get me on the rec list?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-30 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

A lot of people are raging cousins of the PUMA people and don't know it. They want revenge instead of results. Not against Obama, of course, but Bush and the Bush administration. It's getting in the way of results.

by Addison 2008-06-30 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You

 OK, assholes ( meaning those who think the democratic President should be a mirror image of GWB), I think you may have have to grow up. When you are as old as I am, you won't have as long to live, but you'll know that politics SHOULDN'T be a game of 'king of the hill'. Oh, fuck it - play some silly game. I have grandchildren. You? Maybe not.

by xdem 2008-06-30 07:46PM | 0 recs
Obama the Samurai

Masterful post.

Obama has the skill of a samurai, capable of striking the heart of his opponents without them realizing it until it is too late.

Finally, Hillary supporters, Barack never attacked Hillary personally.  He attacked her campaign's empty slogans and it's pose towards him.  

This itself was brilliant.  And, with a wink and a nod towards Wes, he is doing it to McCain.

Thank you Lord, for community organizers.

by ChangeMatters 2008-06-30 08:37PM | 0 recs
Reaper, I'm not so sure this was a rejection

as opposed to plausible deniability.

I listened to Clark on Dan Abrams, and what struck me were 3 things:

1) He didn't respond in any way shape or form to Obama's "denunciation". He didn't say "I think Sen Obama misunderstood my intent". He implied the press took it out of context.

2) He stayed on message. He used the term "judgment", and referred to this as an "election of change". Coincidence?

3) Finally, he did not back down. If anything, he made his point more crisply and precisely. He's STILL pushing back against the war hero as Pres thing.

As you point out, Obama is the LAST person that would criticize McCain's "war hero=President" meme. And yet, here we see said meme being criticized, by a former Supreme Nato Commander-slash-Rhodes Scholar. An impeccable critic, if there ever was one.

Frankly, I think it's a stretch assume that Obama is this lucky, and by lucky I mean:

The one thing he can't attack is being attacked by an impeccable source, who now putatively is operating completely on his own, yet at detriment to McCain, while building Obama up.

Ain't that much luck in a field of clovers. This is a pincer attack.

by Neef 2008-06-30 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Reaper, I'm not so sure this was a rejection

What baffles me is how Clark's words are so misconstrued. I thought it was painfully obvious that Clark was NOT attacking the honor of McCain's service. He was simply pointing out his military experience is unrelated to the Presidency.

Any five year old would have seen it that way.

And yet, even after Clark spelled it out again, even more clearly, they still attack.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-30 10:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Reaper, I'm not so sure this was a rejection
Because this is how the Republicans have won the last two presidential elections, by turning every statement into an attack on their candidate's "patriotism".
They aren't interested in taking comments at face value, they are interested in getting out their message by any means possible- through fear, through lies and appealing to the worst part of us.
Obama needs to be above all that. But we don't. And neither does Wes Clark.
by skohayes 2008-07-01 03:36AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

You said it.  And many progressives still don't 'get' Obama, but at this stage it doesn't matter as long as they are committed to electing him.  Then the fun will start in earnest.  Let's get a cloture-proof super-majority while we're at it and give the gift of governance which keeps on giving.  Then watch Obama instigate changes we can't believe we ever could believe in.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-30 10:19PM | 0 recs
It's getting to be a pattern, isn't it?

Maybe you can defend Obama's rejection of Clark's comments. Or his sudden embrace of the new FISA bill. Or his support for expanded capital punishment. Or his backtracking on public financing. Or saying his rhetoric on NAFTA was overheated. Just today he resurrected the old canards about how Vietnam War protesters spit on veterans and trashed the symbols of our country.

It's good politics, it's pragmatism, it's moving to the center. Etc.

But at what point does it stop being understanding and start being rationalization? At some point should we start to think he might actually believe what he's saying?

by OrangeFur 2008-06-30 11:36PM | 0 recs
Start complaining now

I think he needs to hear the criticism. But realize that we're all going to have different priorities, and different outrages. I'm disappointed by FISA, and the Vietnam thing frankly isn't a blip for me, but I don't believe for an instant the Clark thing wasn't carefully orchestrated.

So one of us thinks the Clark thing is awesome, and has more respect for the strategist, one of us complains and reminds Obama that even sham bus-throwing bears a price.

I think it works out as long as each of us is clear about our principles (and their limits) and communicates that honestly. It's his job to make a coherent picture of that whole.

by Neef 2008-07-01 04:22AM | 0 recs
When in Rome, throw the Christians to the lions!!

Its not that progressives will not vote for him. I am afraid that he will lose the active financial and volunteer support that has carried him this far(yes you may argue that this is a small portion of the populace but it is also an active portion of the populace both in terms of money and time). If it is a calculated gamble, he is playing with fire. I think a lot of the base tolerated FISA, gun control,death penalty etc.  as a political necessity but bashing MoveOn and Wes Clark to burnish his centrist credentials lost him the support of opinion leaders and a good many of his base. In my opinion, if Obama rolls over and plays nice, it will not prevent the Republicans from slamming him repeatedly on inconsequential issues. It is time for him to hit back hard - he let the Charlie Black comment go and that was really stupid. He should be as vague as McCain is about his patriotism when asked about whether McCain is honorable,honest etc. I admire the politics of non confrontation but when in Rome, throw the Christians to the lions!!

by ozeki saketini 2008-07-01 01:47AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

funny. Whenever it was shown that Clinton included conservatives and Republicans in her work, she was condemned by Obama supporters for it and was called Republican lite.

Latest news is that Obama wants to expand Bush's faith-based intitiative program.

This follows his "finessing" on FISA, withdrawal of troops from Iraq, gun control, public campaign financing...

The only people who don't get Obama are the ones who've been supporting him by rationalizing his bad moves and calling them change and reconciliation while insisting Obama is going to undo everything.

Puh-leeze.

by Juno 2008-07-01 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

Nope.  I think you kind of misunderstand why I preferred Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the primary.

I knew Barack Obama's instincts are to the left but his approach is more inclusive and centrist.  I expected him to do things like what he's recently done (a certain degree of moving to the center happens with every candidate, and you damned well know that).  Read up on Obama's time at Harvard Law Review - it's instructive.

Obama moves to the center because that's honestly how he handles discourse and politics.  He's done that since before it was politically useful for him to do so.

Hillary Clinton moves to the center, or to the right, as a calculation and frankly at times dishonestly.  She doesn't believe in the Lieberman-Kyl mess.  She goes to those prayer breakfasts in order to build bridges with Right wing Senators, which is great, but it's obviously a degree of conspicuous calculation.

I have simply concluded that Senator Obama is more honest in this because of how he behaved when he was younger.  He's doing now what he did then.  Hillary Clinton is doing the opposite of what she did when she was young.

Read up on their earlier lives, as its quite instructive.  She's sold out no small degree of her principles whereas Obama hasn't really done that.  It's not his fault the netroots assumed he was one of them.

He never was.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-01 04:32AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

Wow.

I rest my case.

by Juno 2008-07-01 04:43AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

Btw, nothing is Obama's fault.

Nothing.

Like Bush.

They're two great leaders who are responsible for nothing.

Interesting.

by Juno 2008-07-01 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

Yay for mindless responses wholly devoid of substance!

Are you capable of responding to my argument in an adult way?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-01 04:46AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

So when you say it's not Obama's fault, I can't respond to it?

Hmmm....

And per usual, those so inspired by this wonderful man who is going to bring all this change and end all this division and who respect differing opinions...responds by personally insulting a dissenter.

Sigh.

by Juno 2008-07-01 04:47AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

I didn't disrespect you by default.  You've earned it.

Why don't you actually respond to the substance of what I said, as opposed to whining about things you do not like and mocking me?

I made salient points which you ignored in your reply.  Why bother even replying to a particular comment if you see no point in dealing with what the comment says?

To repeat:  Barack Obama's early life is instructive.  So is Hillary's.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-01 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

You didn't say  "It's not obama's fault"???

Coulda swore you did.

Btw, another person wrote a diary here the other day also insisting that Obama's recent capitulations and flip-flops aren't his fault.

I recall Bush supporters also insisting that nothing was Bush's fault too, that he too was a helpless victim of circumstances.

I've earned your disrespect because I've called people out on BS and do not march lockstep behind the magical Obama.  Anything short of that is worthy of disrespect.

Same with Bush.  IT was the same damn way.

by Juno 2008-07-01 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

He said it wasn't Obama's fault that the netroots underestimated his centrism.

Then, in your own mind, you decided to morph his idea into the following:

"As an Obama Maniac Cult Follower, I hearby state that Obama bears no blame for anything related to him. Furthermore, only Hillary Clinton can be criticized for campaigning as a centrist, but Obama must be praised by all."

And then you posted a response to the statement that was in your head.

And you wonder why people have a problem with your conversation style?

by glopster 2008-07-01 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

I should opt for your style instead, including making up quotes???

Hmmmm...

Doesn't seem very Obaman.

Right, Obamans "underestimated" Obama's willingness to move to the center and that is not Obama's fault.

So on the one hand, according to this diarist, it is me who doesn't understand Obama, but according to you and others, it is his own supporters who didn't see this in Obama, when his detractors did and were called trolls and other horrible things for pointing it out.

Curious.

It also wasn't Bush's fault that he was given false information and bad intelligence.

Nothing is their fault, but they're great leaders and Obama is very inspirational except that his own supporters are admitting they didn't see at least this about him.

Hmmm...

by Juno 2008-07-01 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

Actually, you have no basis for assuming what I believe regarding Obama and centrism. The substance of my comment was about how you take posters' statements, generalize them into your own reality in which Obamans all decide how to think as one, and then respond to your own idea of this generalized reality.

Your response to me was a case in point.

You said

"according to you and others, it is his own supporters who didn't see this in Obama, when his detractors did and were called trolls and other horrible things for pointing it out."

I challenge you to point out how you came to the conclusion that according to me...ANYTHING OF THE SORT

If you take the time to read what I wrote you will notice that I did not state a personal opinion on the matter of Obama's centrism one way or another. The subject of my note to you was about how you tend to do, well, exactly what you just did.

In case you are curious, I am personally not surprised by Obama's centrist positions. I preferred Edwards' populist message, but chose to support Obama's style of centrism over Clinton's when Edwards dropped out. I don't fit into your neat box where all Obama supporters are gaga over him and defend his every comment, but I do support him 100% over McCain-there's simply too much at stake not to.

I have read a number of your posts and I'm really not sure what your angle is. You seem to be obsessed with seeing all Obama supporters as mindless loyalists, and you add way more negative (in my opinion unproductive) comments to the conversation than useful ones. Do you want Obama to win? If not, why not? If so, why not take a break from your crusade to paint all Obama's supporters with the same unflattering brush and try to appreciate that his base of supporters is as diverse as our country is, and find some positive segments of his base to focus on?

by glopster 2008-07-01 01:42PM | 0 recs
Don't bother

Juno has three stock responses.  You can just c&p these into any thread about Obama and you'll have all Juno is capbable of expressing:

(1) Obama is just like Bush and his supporters are like Bush-worshipping cultists.

(2) Hope and change? (in response to any harsh comment from an Obama supporter).

(3) Obama flip-flops.

Repeat as necessary until other commenters gets tired of arguing with an auto-response script.

by JJE 2008-07-01 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

Right.

Bush has the same style: he's the magnanimous one while his goons do all the knee-capping.

Far as I can tell, Obama has conducted his campaigns by trying to force the competition out so he has none.

You sound yourself like a bully, yet you adore Obama for his non-confrontational style.  You like Obama because he considers all opinions and positions, yet you say things like "Get used to it" and exhibit a real hostility for people you claim "dont' get Obama."

In other words, you negate a major theme of Obama's, that he can influence people to change and end divisive politics.

Too many of his supporters treat Obama like a leader of a cult, like Bush supporters did and do, rather than a person running for a very serious job. It's about the job, not the man.  Bushies and Obamans make it about the man and then fix the facts to suit the agenda.

We've been there. It doesn't work.

by Juno 2008-07-01 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

I can see the dilemma of whether someone is a troll or merely a dissenting Democrat in the same terms as whether such abject and stupefying lack of understanding could be feigned or, indeed, genuine.  For the sake of your reason I am hoping it is the former and for your integrity the latter.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-01 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

gee, a personal insult from yet another who wants change and to end divisive, negative, personal attack politics.

what a shocker.

by Juno 2008-07-01 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

Serves you right for being such a w*nker.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-01 12:50PM | 0 recs
Better than the rest of us?

you've got to be kidding. I'll lay double odds for the fighter against the compromiser.

But, hell, that's me. I'm still playing the stock market...

Obama will return the civil service to a meritocracy, and that's all I really care that he will do.

Low expectations? you betcha.

by RisingTide 2008-07-01 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

Ahh but I do get Obama. that is why I didn't support him in the primary and why I don't support him now.

He said all along he wanted to work with repugs and bring us together. What does that mean? When it comes to repugs it means giving them exactly what they want and then trying to claim you got something in return. We have lots of those guys in congress right now.

Usually that is called a dino and I don't need a dino for the democratic party nominee. There is absolutely no evidence that Obama believes any of the things the net-roots thinks he does.

I don't want someone who from the start (ie even in the primary) said he wants to work with repugs because this is the people he wants us to work with:

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

I prefer someone whom I am sure "gets it" when it comes to what the repugs really want.

by Bornagaindem 2008-07-01 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of

Your approach is about as forward-thinking as that of Sisyphus.  We're gonna be doing this, exactly the same way, for the rest of our lives and beyond.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-01 04:47AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

It's only DINO when it's Hillary who works with Republicans.

It's evidence of sheer genius and magnanimity when Obama does it.

See?

I don't think it's that Obama finesses or works with or anything like that. I think Obama has a problem with needing to be loved. That is one of the things that makes me very nervous about him.

His supporters rationalize all of his twists and turns.  This is what Bush supporters did too.  I only see more of the same coming down the pike here, ironically enough.

Very worrisome.

by Juno 2008-07-01 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

I wish there was some way to link various the schools of opinion on Obama to age (eg. a poll?), because a lot of skepticism among Democrats, I think, is coming from people who are over 40 whose whole sense of politics is derived from Woodstock/McGovern and the liberal smackdown which occurred during the Reagan years.  They sense that the Clintons are unique assets, sort of wolves in sheep's clothing, because they have the instincts of McGovernites the mental toughness of politicians who fought the GOP machine and won (and  they doubt Obama on both scores).

And here's the thing.  Such voters miss a lot of what is going on.  Look at polls, and Obama is winning the 18-34 vote by as much as 2/3rds and even 3/4 (and that's huge, no Dem has done this in recent times).  And whatever one thinks of Obama or the primary result, this requires some explanation.  That it represents a big opportunity for Dems should be self-evident.  But many older voters, I think, simply aren't noting the phenomenon.  It's like we're watching two different movies.  

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-07-01 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob

Bush won too.

I don't invest a lot in what the American Electorate chooses.

Young people are idealists. Older people are experienced and have a better understanding of history.

Indeed, Obama has gone very Clintonian of late w/r/t many policies. He's also capitulated on FISA, gun control, public financing of campaigns, and now he wants to expand Bush's faith based initiative program.

Not only is Obama not anything new, he's reaching back to the very things his supporters were critical of!

by Juno 2008-07-01 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

Not only do you not see it, but you refuse to understand it when someone explains it to you.

His tenor and his approach is as important to many of us as any particular issue might be.

You keep going back to what Clinton did or would have done, yet you completely miss the fact that we're focusing on, at least some of us, is the approach.

I can lead you to water but I cannot make you drink (cue the kool-aid jokes, right?).

Barack Obama is a pragmatist who makes decisions based on what works (strongly favoring progressive values but not held captive to any ideological orthodoxy).  Hillary Clinton panders more than I'm comfortable with.

One is doing what you think will work best or you're most able to accomplish.  The other is crafting a Senatorial voting record specifically to allow her to run for President.  There is a difference.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-01 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

You need to get on the same page with your fellow Obama acolytes, who are now saying that Obama does indeed pander and make politically expedient decisions (when we said it, we were called trolls, of course)but that he's only doing what pols have always done and that he's doing what he has to do to win, which was a terrible thing when Clinton was doing it.

Obamans are all over the road.  It's my position that has remained consistent.

by Juno 2008-07-01 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

The only consistency on your part is a consistent unwillingness or inability to understand exactly what it is we want, or why it is we preferred him.

You cling to that lack of understanding as a shield, as a way of feeling right and superior, which is funny because all you are here is confused.

You refuse to understand what we're yammering on about, and insist on defining it on your own terms.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-01 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

It's hard to understand ever-changing positions and rationalizations.

by Juno 2008-07-01 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

Let me guess: you're suddenly FOR blending Church and State because of the way Obama has approached expanding Bush's faith-based initiative.

You're suddenly FOR giving immunity to telecom companies who spy on Americans because of the way Obama approached the issue.

You're suddenly FOR disallowing bans on guns and support Alito and Scalia and Roberts and Thomas because of the approach Obama took toward the ruling.

Uh-huh.

by Juno 2008-07-01 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

I agree with most of the Heller decision.  The 2nd Amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms.  I've believe that for years.

So has Obama, by the way.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-01 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

And Obama thought the ban in DC was Constitutional.

See, it isn't me who is blind. It is you and many of Obama's supporters, who change their reasoning to suit Obama's proclamations.

The problem is that, for Obamans, it isn't the issue, it's the man.

If Obama says it, they will follow.

We've had eight years of that.  I don't want more.

by Juno 2008-07-01 06:44AM | 0 recs
He didn't say anything different in his statement

he just said that he agrees with the court that the 2nd amendment is an individual right subject to reasonable restrictions.  He didn't say that the gun ban was unreasonable.

You'll look a lot less foolish if you do a little research before spouting your bullshit.

by JJE 2008-07-01 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: He didn't say anything different in his statem

He said he believed the gun ban was Constitutional but then defended the Court's overturning the gun ban and saying it is not Constitutional.

by Juno 2008-07-01 06:55AM | 0 recs
He agreed with some of the reasoning

and expressed no opinion on the holding.  Like I said, do your research.

by JJE 2008-07-01 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: He agreed with some of the reasoning

He said he felt the ban was Constitutional then defended the Court's decision that it was not.

Period.

Btw, do you find it a tad ironic that it is I and not the Obama supporter who can get through a post without personally insulting the other person?

This has been a pattern with Obama supporters.  I'd have thought it'd be the other way around, frankly.

by Juno 2008-07-01 07:00AM | 0 recs
Do your research

Is not an insult.  He didn't defend the court's decision that the ban was unconstitutional.  You either don't understand the decision, his statement, or both.

by JJE 2008-07-01 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Do your research

Ah, yes, so we're getting into Bush-style rationalizing and nit-picking via semantics.

Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat.  Remember that one?

Ugh.  At least four more years of the same.  How ironic.

by Juno 2008-07-01 09:24AM | 0 recs
Actually

we're getting into accurately describing a legal decision.  You know, nuance, accuracy, and intellectual honesty?  You share a Bush supporter's disdain and contempt for such things.

by JJE 2008-07-01 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Uh-huh.

And the nuanced explanation of his about face on public financing and voting to continue funding the war and...

Same old, same old with supporters explaining it all away instead of holding politicians accountable and answerable.

No change.  I was so hoping we'd get back to where the president serves us, not the other way around.

Bummer.

by Juno 2008-07-01 10:02AM | 0 recs
You're not interested

I pointed out your argument about the court case was flawed and rather than acknowledge your error  you're just picking up more shit to fling.  Typical Bushite spammer.

by JJE 2008-07-01 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: You're not interested

Except that it wasn't.

He uses the same style of getting out of things that Bush does: plausible denial.  And his supporters behave as Bush supporters did as well: he can do no wrong, his explanations are right on the money, etc.

I was truly hoping we'd get back to where we hold politicians accountable.  Guess that'll have to wait.

by Juno 2008-07-01 10:55AM | 0 recs
Yes yes

You've demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that you've no interest in the issues and just want to compare Obama to Bush.  It's very droll but it tends to bore after the thousandth time.

by JJE 2008-07-01 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes yes

Yeah, that's it.

(Rolls eyes)

by Juno 2008-07-01 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

His tenor and his approach is what I call B.S. on, ranging from naive to disingenuous.   It's precisely because I don't believe in his tenor and his approach that I'm so underwhelmed with Obama as our candidate.  

I'll play the cards I'm dealt but it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.

If Obama gets elected, it will be interesting to see how this board reflects feelings about his tenor and his approach vs. what he has actually accomplished 18 months into his presidency.

Gertrude Stein said of Oakland:  there's no there there.   Pretty much what I think of Obama...kinda like a sweet cotton candy that isn't very fulfilling in the long run but tastes great in the moment.

by InigoMontoya 2008-07-01 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-01 06:08AM | 0 recs
I got Barack Obama

and his post-partisan politics. And so did many others. That's why we supported Clinton. ;)

But now we have no choice. However, as he takes "time to understand the other side", we can try to make him understand us, on the left. We can do so by pushing issues important to the left. FISA is an important issue to many on the left, and now many are petitioning him through his campaign site
Please Vote Against FISA group on MyBarackObama.

Having a candidate who used the internet so efficiently has it's advantages. Now we get his attention by organizing well on the internet.

by devil 2008-07-01 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I got Barack Obama

I absolutely respect that and what you're trying to do.  There's nothing I can find fault with in holding his feet to the fire.

I'm just not surprised by this, and more generally this is what I wanted from him.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-01 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I got Barack Obama

I guess the reason many are surprised is that Obama was portrayed as the anti-clinton, in the sense that Clinton triangulates, whereas Obama was a straight-talker, with a progressive agenda. Too  high expectations were set about him transforming american politics. But, now people see a politician trying to move to the center (as have all recent dem leaders of the recent past) and are ... disillusioned.

Most of the Clinton supporters including me, who now support Obama were prepared for this, but to many it comes as a surprise

by devil 2008-07-01 08:52AM | 0 recs
I'm not sure

he was ever portrayed as a Progressive. The meme I heard over and over was that his and Clinton's positions were essentially indistinguishable. I suspect they remain so.

In many ways the Primary devolved to identity politics precisely because of their ideological similarity.

by Neef 2008-07-01 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not sure

Yes, he never said that he was a progressive, and neither did his campaign. But he was the choice of the progressive blogosphere (it must be assumed that he was considered progressive or that the blogs simply hated Clinton and went against her instead of for Obama).

Though the idea was never actually pushed, I believe that it was assumed/implied in many progressive blogs that he is a progressive, and hence the current surprise.

by devil 2008-07-01 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Obama

This is Obama's inexperience showing through.

A lot of us watched the campaigns of Jimmy Carter in 1976, Walter Mondale in '84, Michael Dukakis in '88, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

You should believe that "nice guy" campaigns just don't work that well for Democrats.

Talking about knife fights... well Obama better bring a damned cannon and don't stop firing till November 5.

Hit fast and hit hard and don't back down or wimp out.

Obama better get some backbone or they'll grind him into hamburger.

by wblynch 2008-07-01 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Obama

If there's a knife, McCain will never see it.

Brute force is fine and all, but simply playing the same game the Republicans do will fail more often than not.

They're better at it.  Obama's not playing by their rules, and frankly the more people laugh at him the more it helps him.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-01 07:36AM | 0 recs
umm

"This is the guy who, when he was in charge of the Harvard Law Review, made it a point to include conservatives in the publication despite the fact that those who preceeded and followed him generally did not"

are you serious? Do you know how Law Review works?

by sepulvedaj3 2008-07-01 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: umm

Yes, actually.  I'm a 3L.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-01 07:59AM | 0 recs
Tip'd and rec'd!
After what Kos posted last night, I think you should cross-post this on Kos!!
I don't agree with everything Obama does or says but that doesn't mean I'm willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater!!  This election is too damn important!
I have faith in Obama to know what he's doing.  After all he did beat the "inevitable" candidate for the nomination. Many people (myself included) thought it would be impossible to beat the Clinton Machine!!
by PurpleMyst 2008-07-01 08:27AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------