It's Got to be Obama by Cenk Uygur

[cali]

Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:23:21 AM PST

At this late juncture, are we really going to turn back to the establishment? Are we going to hand the reigns of power back to the people we already know can only give us limited results?

Don't get me wrong, I loved the Clinton presidency. But that was a different time. A time for school uniforms and triangulation that brought you balanced budgets. Now, triangulation means you invade two random Middle Eastern countries instead of five. We can't afford that kind of triangulation.

Cenk Uygur's diary :: ::
Hillary Clinton promises to be a steady leader that steers the ship a little leftward than it has been going. Give her credit for not over-promising. But is that what you really want?

I'm not naïve. I don't think Barack Obama is going to save the world and change everything we have ever come to know. But he is poised to try a little harder to make a little more change than the same old, same old, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

It's unfair to wrap the Clintons up with the Bushes, but we know what we're going to get with Hillary. The same old rabid attack dogs, the same defenses, the same middle ground (except as I explained above, the middle ground has shifted dramatically to the right, so this middle ground would suck) and the same establishment fighting back and forth over familiar terrain.

<snip>

If we choose Hillary, then we have to defend her for the next nine months. I can and I will. But I'd rather play offense. I'd rather talk about how inspirational and hopeful and terrific our candidate is, and honestly, how theirs isn't. It should be the Republicans playing defense this time around. Let's make them.

Let's vote for the guy that history has brought us. We have a chance to pick a once in a lifetime, inspirational, transformational candidate. Are we really going to pass that up?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/5/122014/0773/242/450283

[Rageneau]

1. IOW, we can go back to what worked beautifully or we can take a shot in the dark.

Hillary represents what once worked so beautifully, and Obama represents a shot in the dark.(And if Hillary had said that, she'd be charged with racism for using the word 'dark.')

IOW, we KNOW the kind of approach, the kind of rhetoric, the kind of actions, the kind of appointees. and the kind of results that we can expect from an HRC administration. Obama, OTOH, is a brightly-covered package that tinkles when you shake it and feels good against the cheek. Maybe it can do the job, maybe it can't, but it sure makes us feel good.

So there's your choice in this oh-so-important election:

Cool and efficient versus warm and fuzzy.

[cali]

3. It worked adequately- not beautifully

It brought us triangulation and DOMA, NAFTA and Welfare reform along with the good. It brought us unneccessary scandal and impeachment and a losing battle with the repukes. It brought us the 1994 repuke sweep of Congress. It brought us Mark Rich and Travelgate.

We don't need to go back to the '90s and a pitched battle mentality that we largely LOST. We need to move forward. And both candidates are largely unknown as to whether or not they'd be effective in the Oval office.

[Big Blue Marble]

4. Many of us disagree that it all "worked so beautifully"

That is the myth of restoration. Your analogy is false. Obama is hardly a shot in the dark.
He has a very strong resume of service, intelligence, and compassion.

The future is full of potential.

This not the nineties. The challenges we face now are much different.
You are asking us to depend on old solutions when we face new challenges.

Why do we want to lock ourselves into the known? We need to go forward with new vision, new hope so that
we are able seek innovative solutions for the challenges ahead.

[lxlxlxl]

5. The difference in between dems and repubs -- we have more than one family qualified

It's not a "shot in the dark". It's a rejection of the oligarchy that runs our government. Democracy does not function when small groups of people swap power every few years. This is a core belief in this country that has complicated effects on everyone that lives her

[KoKo]

7. ....the "devil you know.....might be better than the devil you don't...

At least she can "hit the ground running," and not have to take 6 months to a year "learning the ropes."

Apologize for the tired old sayings....but they seem to fit in this case.

[thereismore]

2. I am with Cenk. Triangulation on Social Security would mean what?

Voluntary privatization, syphoning money into some black hole in Dubai.

[fenriswolf]

6. I gotta hand it Cenk is very good at calling it like I see it

and I see it exactly like that.