YES! YES! YES!

This is absolutely the correct assessment.  I'm so tired of hearing all the "progressives" whine because Obama isn't tree-huggey enough for them!  Don't you people get it yet, the country didn't elect a "progressive" POTUS, they elected someone they thought was open-minded and willing to play whatever side was necessary to accomplish the goals americans found most important.  In this case, it just so happens a lot of these goals are more progressive in tone, but don't delude yourself into thinking the country has gone progressive.  We ALL want healthcare reform, economic repair, ending of the wars, and a return to sanity and quite frankly the GOP hasn't shown they were up to the task.

"Progressives" have managed to brainwash themselves into seeing Obama as something he never promised or tried to be...a fellow progressive.  Obama may have some progressive rhetoric, but he has consistantly put out the message that he is walking his own path, sometimes that path is a little "progressivey", sometimes it may be a bit centrist, sometimes it may look almost conservative.

Let the man govern and have a chance to show some results before we give up on him.

oh quit with the the emotion and give me a valid and logical arguement why DADT is anything more than tangentally related to recruting foreign borne soldiers.

By that logic test we shouldn't be recruiting any specific group (college grads, women, athletes, racial minorites, etc) until DADT is repealed, and I would say that's a fairly extreme arguement to make.

This smells a lot like a straw man arguement.  What I mean is, just because we want to have more foreign born people in the military doesn't have a concrete relationship to DADT.  In fact, both could be pursued as perfectly viable ways of getting people with different skill sets into military service.

This feels a lot like progressives are trying real hard to have something to whine about.  Has anyone asked Obama about his ideas on DADT because the linked articles have a whole lot of supposition?

There's a value add to having foreign born people in the military, and it is an issue that has come up again and again, human intelligence and the ability of US operatives to infiltrate and operate on foreign soil.  The reality is, it's probably a VERY smart idea to recruit people, especially those from the middle east, into the US military because we can then use them for intelligence gathering roles that the typical "recruitment poster" looking soldier can't fulfill.

Just a thought.

bingo.

Anyone who thought Obama was going to bring in a bunch of brand new people REALLY misunderstood what change was about.  Change is about a different ideology and set of objectives, that doesn't automatically mean "fresh faces".

In fact, the really big problem is peoples implicit assumption that the ideology of the people that Obama picks for positions is more important than the fact that they work for Obama, that assumption is a bad one.  At the end of the day, Obama sets the agenda and the tone, and the most important factor in all the people he has and will choose is are they capable of following his lead.

And the congregation said Amen!

Too much "analysis paralysis" going on.  Inherent in that analysis is that any appointments ideological slant is automatically how they will do their jobs and completely negates the fact that they are, in the end, a subordinate of Obama and his agenda.

The real question isn't whether Obamas appointments are "center", "center-right", "left", etc, it's "can they take orders"?

Eww.

Very true illustrious.  I don't understand why anyone has a real problem with it.  Of course it's a political tactic, they're friggin politicians!

What did you expect Biden to do, appoint some unknown quantity whom he has little or no influence over?  With the magic 60 so close?  Are you people high?  If I was Biden I would have researched whether it was possible to nominate a finger puppet for my old job, just to eliminate that whole independent thought possibility!

People, this is how you actually gasp get your agenda passed.  Sometimes you have to work the system to your advantage.  Biden has done absolutely nothing illegal and I think putting a known political ally (who arguably owes you a favor or two) in your former spot is smart.

"Here's to hoping that their governing skills are in the same neighborhood as their electoral skills"

I think that's exactly what he's going for, a campaign team.  Let's face fact, with the legislation he's going to need to push it's going to look a lot more like a campaign than anything else.  The public has to be sold that what I imagine is going to be huge and sometimes draconian changes are truly necessary.

Then wouldn't it be easier just to day 6pm EST?  That just means the central folks may rush a bit to make it in at 5 (and find out they had another hour), but it seems less confusing and less likely of someone messing it up.

Just a thought.

I like the diary over-all, but it is starting to annoy the crap out of me that none of these post-mortems seem to be giving any credit to Obama himself.  If you read your diary without context it makes it seem as though the ONLY reason Obama is where he is because of Hillary Clinton and/or John McCain.  Other post-mortems seem to be throwing all the credit to Howard Dean for his "50 state strategy" or "pioneering the internet"

IMO, the reality is that this is just as much about Obama as it is everyone else and I wish someone would give him his due.  Obama ran a campaign with the discipline that hasn't been seen in modern political history, has a basic eloquence and ability to motivate people that is pretty unique, and has shown himself to be an incredibly level-headed and even keeled leader that is just what this country is hoping for.  Even in his faults, we have seen him willing to admit his inadequacies and instead of arrogantly ignoring them, actually evoling who he was as a candidate.

I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone else, but I wish people wouldn't make it seem like all you had to do was replace Obama with any other "generic Democrat" and get the same result.  I daresay that if anyone other than Obama was at the top of the ticket, the results wouldn't be nearly as impressive as most of us believe they will be.

I don't really care if Obama wins Georgia or not, they aren't really counting it in the EV tally as a "must win" for him.  The really big news is that the race is close there, which means more resources the GOP has to dump into a place they normally don't have to worry about.  At this point, the more Obama spreads the field out, the bigger advantage he has overall.

How long before we can count Arizona as a battleground state too?

Todd, I think you are over-analyzing and thinking too much.  I don't think McCain is sitting around going "thank God Rep. Lewis made that statement.  Now people will stop talking about the lunies at my rallies and instead compare me to George Wallace, bombing schools, and other who have incited riots.  Wonderful!"

In reality, the race card had been played so much this election that I daresay it isb no longer the Achilles heel to Obama that people think it is.  In this case, clearly Lewis and Obama are responding to a valid and unambiguous problem, not some "he said, she said" situation.  McCain is trying to say that there's no reason to bring race into this, there clearly was.

Obama played this right, give Lewis a light tap on the butt for going a bit far, but providing him plenty of aid and cover to continue the assault one step removed from Obama.  

They've done such a botched job of rolling out their "plan" that it isn't going to get much play.  It's a big old convoluted mess that even the GOP base appears to be rejecting.  If Obama comes up with a coherent equivalent, or blatantly lifts Clinton's and gives attribution, game over.  If Obama doesn't, still not a game changer.

Ruthless and efficient counter-attack.  That's the only suggestion I make to Obama.  Give them no quarter, leave no idiotic statement unanswered.  Cram it down their throats and let them choke on their own lies.  And I'm not talking about some kumbaya "can't we all just get along" way.

Enough!

We're also overlooking the very real possibility that the GOP "attack machine" may be out of order.  What I mean by that is the party is thoroughly splintered right now on the economy, there's no clear ideological or logistical leader, and a lot of the GOP just isn't all that hot on McCain.  I don't know how much political currency the GOP is willing to throw down for McCain, especially given his recent tact from their core ideologies.

We will see in the next few weeks, but I think the lefts fear of "the great GOP smear machine" may be a little blown out of proportion, and that's not overconfidence, just an assessment of the GOP compared to previous election cycles.