I am strongly leaning toward voting for Kucinich in the New Hampshire primary, and advocating that others vote for him. I know he has no chance of winning anything, but an individual voter is only capable of sending a teensy, tiny, itty, bitty, micro message anyway. So why not vote for the guy I actually agree with on about 95% of the issues, rather than continue to look for razor thin policy differences among the three front-runners.

I suspect you guys are overreacting to campaign rhetoric. Let them all make whatever fine words and project whatever images they like. (I'm basically still with Max's original preference ranking.) 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

So why not vote for the guy I actually agree with on about 95% of the issues, rather than continue to look for razor thin policy differences among the three front-runners.

Regardless of who is elected, from either party, they are going to be a disaster on foreign policy. This is because our foreign policy is controlled by wealthy campaign contributors and unrepresentative swing-state voters. Taking back our foreign policy on behalf of the American people will be a very long fight and it will require completely restructuring our existing system of campaign finance.

On domestic policy, however, I think it is clear that Edwards is the most progressive of the three plausible Democratic candidates by far. He's also the most likely to win the general election. It doesn't seem like much of a contest to me.

Hillary Clinton is a Republican in all but name.

I think Obama's delusion is that the contending parties are desperate for someone they can sit down with. As if they're saying, yeah, we're all hysterical - if only there were some reasonable daddy/husband figure to slap us and tell us to get ahold of ourselves, then we could finally accomplish something.

Instead, Obama will find himself sitting down with one group who, by their political DNA, are willing to compromise, and another who, by their political DNA, want all or nothing. In victory, they crush their opponents. In retreat, they scorch the earth so that no one can benefit by what they leave behind. They do not bargain or barter except for even more gain. They laugh at compromisers - bipartisan compromisers, like Joe Leiberman, are tools to them, and that's all that Obama would become in their hands. He'd spend all his time making compromises just to bring them to the table, at which point he's left with nothing to bargain, which is the point.

My impression is that when Obama talks about unifying the country, he means it in a much different way than -- to pick an example totally out of the air -- Joe Lieberman does. I think Obama's honestly trying to reach out to the people who have been continually bamboozled into voting for candidates who will work against their interests. Repub leaders have been smoke-screening their actual agendas with "abortion!", "gay marriage!", and of course "terrorism terrorism terrorism!", and generally quietly screwing their supporters (and everyone else) on other issues.

I hate to be the one spoiling the party by repeatedly bringing up Edwards' Senate career, but he was pretty useless. He did a lot of good work on the impeachment proceedings, but not much else. And yes, at the time, he was definitely a "centrist" in the Harold Ford model. His newfound progressivism is something not visible before 2005.

As far as Obama vs. Clinton, I wonder if someone didn't hit Max with a wet mackerel. My appreciation for Obama is that he espouses some very progressive views (one might almost say leftist), but makes them sound like basic common sense that no one could argue with. Clinton has the ability to take middling, watered down milquetoast reform and get 40% of the country furiously opposed to it.

More division doesn't necessarily mean that progressive policies are getting a hearing.

And here we go tripping down the well-work path to yet another Democratic defeat.

Do you folks get that the under 30 crowd is decidedly Dem? Or that independents are decidedly Dem? Let's just throw them under the bus, shall we?

I suggest that Dems take a good hard look at the GOP and what their extremists have done to them. Not a pretty picture. And I suspect that a lot of you who say you are Dems may vote that way but aren't actually members of the party.

Independents favor Obama--they split on Hillary. And Edwards is so far from front-runner status that I didn't bother to look. Young people favor Obama. And, by golly, some Reps are coming that way.

The idea of winning a general election with these folks and actually having coat-tails for down-ballot Dem candidates is scaring the pants off some of you.

Yep, let's move Hillary up--a DLC'er married to one who founded the DLC.

Do you actually believe that Obama joining with Lugar, a Rep, to fund securing nuclear materials is a bad idea? Surely, you jest!

Don't forget that Dean talked about reaching out, and he wasn't put down by the blogosphere as wishy-washy for it. He was the hero.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Bearpaw -- I'd certainly like to think so too, but do we have anything more than personal impressions? Do you know if Obama has ever explicitly discussed what he envisions with bipartisanship, post-politicality or other forms of unity?

I know when Max Speaks, I'm supposed to listen, but I can't get my buns in a twist (I'm not as limber as I once was) over this formulation:

The last thing we need, at a point where the Democrats can establish a decisive margin of political power, is somebody out to unify the country. I fear that Senator Obama is turning into the DLC candidate, in all but name.

In fact, I have a hard time understanding why people on my side of the political spectrum find this formula so appalling.  I do have a theory:  Outsiders (so anointed by themselves individually and as a group) have bought into the formulation of the Inside-the-beltway types, to the degree that they conflate uniting the country with uniting the political establishments.  Nothing could really be further from the truth.  In fact, if I had a nickel for every time I've seen someone on the Blog left claim (rightly) that the "people" already are united behind progressive principles, I'd be able to put a few more coins in the campaigns of Edwards and Obama (not Clinton currently, she seems more willing to draw on larger fry than myself). 

It strikes me that the way to "establish a decisive margin of political power" is to unite the country, and then leave the political establishment to follow behind, or not, depending on their interest in staying vital or diminishing into obscurity.  After all... this is pretty much what FDR did.  He didn't so much just overwhelm the republicans as they were, but he gave them the option of becoming, for all extents and purposes, moderate democrats in all but name, or just disappear into a whimsical and romantically dusty trophy of bad ideas of yore.  Many preferred to remain on the public stage.  Throughout the forties, fifties, and sixties Republicans didn't attack social security with any success...they didn't oppose publics works projects... they inaugurated the biggest of them all, the interstate highway system.  They also inaugurated modern aid to higher education (national defense education act) and were more pro-civil rights than many democrats (remember dixiecrats?  remember Earl Warren?).  The first modern day Black United States Senator was a Republican. Most republicans were minor partners in a national consensus until the Southern Strategy converted them and they accepted a regional tactic as a key to national power.  The strategy played on racial fears of whites across the nation and the rest, as they say, is history.  (Yes, I know this is an oversimplification).

So unite the country behind progressive ideas and then whup the reactionaries hip and thigh in the name of the American people.  Who can best do that?  Someone who can articulate those ideas to the American people in a voice that sounds authentic and consistent.  Edwards can, I think.  Obama can, I think.  In both cases, because their personal histories have lived through so much of it.  Obama and Edwards represent the dream (myth?) that makes America.  Hillary Clinton does too, in strange ways...but she's spent too many years escaping from that dream rather than identifying with it, MHO. 

I'm standing in the corner of Digby on this one.  I think she's in line with what the trends are, and perhaps less exhausted by so many years of outsider status as others may be.  Give me a politician who can make the people recognize their essential unity, and I'm not going to worry about that politician's ability to unite the establishment, or run roughshod over it.

aMike

Yes, actually. During his time in the Senate, Obama several times found Republican Senators with whom he surely disagreed on a lot, but who agreed with him on one particular issue, and worked with them to get legislation on that issue enacted. Specifically: Lugar on nuclear non-proliferation and eliminating stockpiles of conventional weapons abroad; Lugar again on avian flu; lobbying and earmark reform with Tom Coburn; Katrina oversight legislation with Coburn (again); Lugar, Nrm Coleman, and Gordon Smith (and three other Democrats) on raising CAFE standards.

In each case, as best I can tell, he did not compromise his principles (or at least: while I'm sure he must have given a bit here and there, looking at the resulting legislation I think: gosh, this is very good legislation!, not: god, what a sell-out. Whatever the compromises are, I can't spot them.)

What he did do was: first, to increase dramatically the chances of his legislation getting passed by getting GOP sponsors; second, reach out to people on the points on which he agrees with them, rather than compromising on the points he doesn't; third (to judge by the number of repeats in the list above) build up trust with people so that he is more likely to get them to work with him again.

I think it's great.

This is a sobering article for me. As a white liberal Southerner who is completely fed up with having to live with racism all of my life, I have a strong bias toward Obama. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the same issues that Max has raised. It is a lot to think about.

I still think that Obama's experience of life has given him a valuable perspective, which he will not abandon.

In view of his experience of life, I suspect that "unity" has a special meaning to him that actually is a positive force.

I doubt that "unity" signifies empty political posturing or givaway compromise to Obama.

If we interpret everything Obama says in terms of exactly the same frame of reference that we would use to analyze a statement by any other generic politician, I suspect that we will be ignoring an important dimension of his personal motivation. In other words, I am not convinced that Obama is a cynic.

Right on, Max. Couldn't have said it better.

I don't know how the myth that Obama represents big change keeps getting perpetuated. His rhetoric might be inspiring, but his frequently articulated willingness to accommodate neoliberal economic ideas does not bode well for the middle class.

--Andrew Hiller

jhc,

Personally, I don't think the problem with Obama is cynicism. Like you, I believe he means well, and I think he has some truly admirable rehtorical skills.

But I think the problem is actually that he very much believes the things he says. If you listen closely to what he says and give a good look at his policy proposals, it's pretty clear that he's not terribly interested in rocking the boat (unless pressured to do so by John Edwards).

I believe he's sincere about unity. But I think he envisions unity as a compromise between business and labor, hawks and doves. The problem is that, at the moment, business and militarist interests have an undue and hugely disproportionate influence on our country. They need to be pushed back hard. And there's plenty of popular will to be harnessed in support of such a push. The boat seriously needs rocking. Obama's just not that guy.

--Andrew Hiller

Oh please. Name one specific "centrist" policy he advocates! Why does everyone get a pass to make complete and total straw-man arguments against Obama? Somehow this whole post, and many of the responses to it, manage to NOT INCLUDE one single thing Obama has actually said in its proper context. Why is that?

I fear that Senator Obama is turning into the DLC candidate, in all but name.

Max, I don't think so. It's early yet, and Obama is saying he's anti-DLC.

article excerpts: Obama has sought recently to draw more explicit contrasts between his views and what he has portrayed as the conventional thinking and behavior that have caused problems for the country, especially in the rest of the world. . . "Her argument is going to be that 'I'm the experienced Washington hand,' and my argument is going to be that we need to change the ways of Washington," he said. "That's going to be a good choice for the American people."

Ethics reform is jive. If that's the meat of Obama's campaign we're in worse trouble than I thought.

Invariably on the Internets, substantive criticism of any Democrat leads assorted people to scream about purism, the psychology of the critic, or character assassination.

I think Obama is a fine human being. I have never said or intimated otherwise.

I am interested in policy. That's what I write about. Politics is only interesting as an antecedent to policy. The rest is gossip.

I'm absolutely willing to do that if Obama supporters will admit that he's a professional politician, and quit acting like he's so pure. He may be the best choice, but the debate would be a lot more valuable and honest if we acknowledge that he too has modified (in some cases moderated) his positions on major issues to increase his electability. And, he will continue to do so because he's a politician.

He has shaded the truth about lobbyist fundraising. He changes the inflection of his voice and choice of language depending on the crowd he's speaking to. He seems to not want to be seen with some of the hard core black and left-wing activists that he came up with when he was a community organizer. He comes out with a bold statement about unilateral military action to compensate for a statement that made him seem soft. He takes nit-picky pot-shots at his main primary competitors.

His campaign seems to claim that living abroad when he was 5 gives him some great international perspective that will guide his decision making -- in a more meaningful way than others who've been involved with global issues their whole professional life...all those "Washington insiders" who've all had it all wrong. He's got some serious policy positions but a large part of his presentation is a set of lofty ideals that many others have espoused but never been able to pull off. Other than being a fresh face how exactly is he going to take what will be perhaps the most harshly partisan Congress in history and suddenly make them work together? They have their own priorities and if they see an opportunity will do whatever the hell they want, as Clinton found out in '93. Saying you'll be effective and a unifier is pretty damn easy compared to doing it!

None of this is in any way damnable, it's just politics. And maybe he's the best choice but it can't just be because "he really means it" and the others are all jaded hacks. That just doesn't ring true from a historical perspective.

Uhm...Ronald Reagan has done more for his party than any other politician has for his/her respective parties in the last 4 decades.

And he did it by uniting the country.

And he didn't have to become a moderate, centrist, DLC-ish Republican to do that either.

That first article you linked too:

I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.

Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.

Obama's message of "both parties are to blame" is a huge turn off for me. He is either naive or playing dumb.

The reason the country is bitterly divided is not because of Hillary Clinton or any Democrat but because the GOP has been practicing scorched earth politics for three decades now and all Dems want to do is play nice.

It's true that Republicans make it hard for good people to have an honest difference of opinion, because they're neither. Still, there's more to Obama than typical, know-nothing Broderism.

After 8 years of Karl Rove crapping in the pool, Clinton seems a little timid with the Chlorine. Edwards has leaped forward to letting the gardener go swimming too. Rightly so, but absent a cleanup, why would the gardener want to?

My order-preference is Obama, Edwards, Clinton. 

And he did it by uniting the country.

 Were you around during the 80s? Or have you been reading the corporate media's version of the Reagan years?

 Reagan was one of the most divisive presidents in US history. He launched his campaign giving a racist speech in Mississippi. And no, he did not have sky high approval ratings. That is another lie spread by the corporate media.

You are confusing Reagan with Eisenhower.

Er, he poached moderate Dems and nearly swept the electoral map, and creamed an incumbent by nearly ~10 points. I know people hated him, but he certainly built an impressive political coalition that sampled from both sides of the political spectrum.

Though Eisenhower is just fine as an example as well, if you'd like.

So...anyone who doesn't see the world through your rather simplistic lens is either naive or dumb.

That's an awesome way to approach conversation.

Obama is believing his own PR waaaay too much. You don't sit down with these guys and give things away. You lead. Don't sit down. To the barricades. Cut to the Revolution.

Agree totally. Edwards seems to understand the era we are living in.  We are not going to end the bitter divisions in this country with "reaching out" to the GOP or "civility" as Obama seems to think.  We are going to have to take on the powers that be behind the GOP and defeat them. And it's not going to be pretty. It is going to be divisive and ugly.

I am in agreement with Max. And I take his meaning to be not so much an elevation of Hillary but a downrating of Obama. I have been heading this way for a long time. He's now squandered the capital he earned by being against the war in 2002. If he'd thought he'd be running for pres, he probably wouldn't have been so courageous. Sure, you can spin the bomb-Pakistan thing away, but not to me. What I saw was a guy who was afraid to be out on the limb he walked out on. I can't use that. Better someone who doesn't take leftish positions at all, then one who takes them, and then immediately retreats because he can't take the heat he's generated. And he's my Senator, a big disappointment. I wanted a good Senator, not a rock-star candidate. Feh.

Actually, my other Senator did that retreat thing too. What is it about Illinois Democrats?

So finding a point of agreement with Lugar (R) on securing nuclear materials is a compromise and foolish? Is it ideological or practical? Is it an example of empire-building?

So we aren't to "play with" someone like Lugar on this issue?

And no coincidence that the Democratic Leadership Council was founded smack dab in the middle of that "Reagan revolution," in 1984-85, after Reagan's re-election, with hope that some of those lost voters could be won back, when the mainline Democratic party was despairing of being able to win any majority anywhere ever again.

A proud founding and active member was this guy from Arkansas, who had proven that, yes Virginia, a Democrat actually could be elected governor of a state in the deep south, and funny, he became the next Democratic president of the U.S., something many people said might never happen again in their lifetime. He did it the first time even though there was a strong independent in the race, against Reagan's V.P. running for re-election(who once earlier enjoyed an approval rating of like 90%), and practicing "third way" principles, promising to always being open to working with his enemies no matter how nasty they were, this guy enjoyed a 2/3 job approval rating all through his second term which happened to include an impeachment that distracted time from all that he could have accomplished.

Is this what you want in your next President ?

http://tinyurl.com/2kap8l

Wow.

But you didn't mention that he managed to withstand the mobilization of Christian conservatives that gave Congress to the Republicans for 6 of his 8 years.

.> who are dissing him for wheeling and
> dealing with Republicans

Every Democrat who has thought he was "dealing" with Republicans for the last 10 years has gotten himself, his party, his voters, and the nation well and truly burned. See for example "FISA renewal". Though the use of such scorched Earth tactics (and strategy) the Radical Right has managed to move the dial on the national conversation over to the 9-10 range. So now the Radicals are going to turn the face of their party (although not the wheels and levers) over to some leftover traditional Republicans and allow them to "negotiate" with President Obama.

And Obama will succeed in "negotiating" all the way back to... 8. Or maybe 8.5. Which will be followed by another Radical presidency no later than 2016 and maybe as soon as 2012. Whoo hoo. Can't wait.

sPh

PS The vast majority of Democrats, and 99% of Democratic politicians, are Christian, and many of them evangelical. I find it telling that the Radical Right meme that Democrats don't "respect" or "talk to" Christians is so deeply embedded in you that you don't even realize you are spreading propaganda when you repeat it. Separation of church and state was placed in the constitution to PROTECT Christians by the way.

Other than being a fresh face how exactly is he going to take what will be perhaps the most harshly partisan Congress in history and suddenly make them work together?

He will be able to do it by using the powerful combination of the bully pulpit and his golden oratory to motivate the people to call their senators and representatives about the issues he wants to move them on. If a president can do that he has a greater chance of getting a bold policy through than anyone who is using what is typicaly thought of as political advantage like Sen Clinton would. Listen to one of his stump speaches on C-Span. He is already working on this tactic by telling every crowd that his presidency will be a group effort and that he will need their support after the election to move our agenda.

I also think he will if nominated use his experience as a community organizer to run a campeign that gets people who do not usualy vote motivated to register and vote. He is not only going to try to go after the swing votes like every other candidate. He is going to expand the electorate the same way he has expanded the donor base.

No it is not. It is making ones case in a diplomatic way and bringing along all who are willing to join you instead of persuing the foolis strategy of "If you ain't with me your agin' me." Look at how President Regan governed. I disagree with almost all of his policies but his strategy of apealing to the hopes of the many instead of the vitriol of the base was clearly a winning strategy. Bush's divisive strategy is good for only short term gains and promoting moral bankruptcy and coruption.

Give me a freakin' break. Obama the DLC candidate? Simply because he said he thinks he'd be better at unifying the country? That's inane. In the first place, he would be better at unifying the country, and his reasons for saying so were not only clear, but they were also correct. Did you actually read what he said? Nowhere in his statement did he even suggest that he planned to push the country to the right. And nothing about his record suggests to me that he would.

A Hillary Clinton presidency would be, for most Republicans, the same sort of torture George W. Bush's presidency has been for Democrats. That's just a fact. Obama is right. He'd be better at unifying the country, and it wouldn't be because he'd push us to the right as Bill Clinton did and as Hillary would undoubtedly do. It's because he'd be a better leader than Hillary (Remember leadership? Ah, it seems so long ago...). If anyone will toe the DLC line, it's Hillary. But I suspect you already know that...

Your post articulately makes the argument that I have been trying to make. Thank you.

To me that pretty much makes the point: why should _anyone_, Republican or Democrat, have had to "compromise" with Lugar on nuclear counterproliferation? Is there any question that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing? No. Is there any question that the distribution of ex-Soviet nuclear material and knowledge is a bad thing? Not anywhere in the world I am aware of, including Russia. Did we have a very, very effective program put in place by Bill Clinton and Al Gore to address these issues? Why, yes we did.

And what happened to that effective program? It started to wither and die of neglect under the Bush/Cheney Administration? Why? Partly because they weren't interested - but partly because **it was an effective program initiated by Bill Clinton and Al Gore**.

So now Democrats are supposed to line up and "compromise" with the Radical Right to help put in place a program *that we already had but the Radicals destroyed*? What is the cost of that compromise going to be? What price will the Democrats have to pay in Congress and the traditional media? What type of beating will they take from Bush/Rove - because they ALWAYS take a beating from the Radical Right even when they DO cooperate and compromise.

And please - give me some examples of Lugar exercising Congressional oversight - real, deep-digging Congressional oversight - over the Bush/Cheney Administration. I think you will find that Lugar talked semi-moderately-Conservative and then rolled over as soon as Libby, Addington, Rove, or Norquist called and barked.

sPh

Depends on what he means by that. Myself, I'm still mad as hell at the Democrats for 2000-2004. Watching Gephardt and Daschile repeatedly roll over and play dead for W was sickening. Things didn't start improving until Pelosi and Reid took over.

Obama worked with Cornyn to publish bills on the Internet. Is that good or bad for you?

It's called unity of purpose and not compromise (known as selling your soul in some circles). Obama's legislative career contains these sorts of examples.

And you, I suspect, are one of the "revenge" Democrats.