Can we all agree that it CAN'T be acceptable for Obama to go to the right on any more issues?

[Ken Burch]

Can we all at least agree that he has to stay as progressive as he is now to be worth electing?

I'll work for him regardless, but we all know it would be a waste of time to elect him and not have him be even an inch to the left of Bill.

And remember, he has a big lead to in the polls, so we can't actually cite desperation.

It isn't enough to just elect somebody who CALLS himself a Democrat. We learned that that was worthless in '92.

[Enrique]

1. I disagree

i don't think being dogmatic helps advance progressive causes.

[Ken Burch]

6. It isn't dogmatic to avoid moving further and further right.

Clearly we lose if Obama runs as a DLC'er.

[Enrique]

21. it can be dogmatic to fixate on left vs. right

real progress happens issue-by-issue, not by advocates of leftism convincing leaders to be more leftist.

[depakid]

92. "we lose if Obama runs as a DLC'er."

That has been the unmistakable pattern for Dems over the past 14 years....

[Ken Burch]

10. But you're not progressive if half your program ends up sounding like conservatism.

Clearly selling out on FISA didn't gain us any votes. Nobody who liked FISA was going to vote Democratic anyway.

[Undercurrent]

2. No, we can't agree on that.

[Ken Burch]

5. But he has to stay to Bill Clinton's left to be WORTH electing.

It can't be good enough to go back to the Nineties. And since we're not going to have a strong economy for awhile. that can't even work.

[wurzel]

13. Clinton was "Republican Light". Obama is not.

[IowaGirl]

179. Actually, Hillary has a higher progressive score than Obama...

according to: http://www.progressivepunch.org/

[Radical Activist]

105. We know. That's why we nominated the liberal instaed of Hillary.

Stop trying to turn Obama into Clinton. He isn't.

[JoFerret]

123. Um

Not wishing to start anything here but...my take is: Hillary just figured it out earlier and Obama is catching up in that race to the middle ground. It's never quite that simple of course but I don't see what suggests Obama as anything but a centrist democrat from the start. And when it comes to winning elections that is not a bad thing.
Now let's all settle down and get him elected.

[Ken Burch]

7. So you'd settle for nothing more than power in name again.

Even though it goes without saying that Obama would be doomed to failure in office if he governed as conservatively as Clinton did.

The Nineties were a dead zone, for God's sake. We have the right to expect more than that now. The country is moving our way. There's no need for retrenchment this time.

[wurzel]

36. Could Obama possibly be a greater failure than McCain?

[Ken Burch]

40. No, of course not. But a centrist rather than a progressive Obama presidency would be hollow

Like the Nineties, which were good in a vague, mundane way, but which didn't really make things better and which cost us a chance at a realignment then.

[wurzel]

43. Obama has to get ELECTED first!

If he doesn't it doesn't matter how progressive he is.

[Ken Burch]

47. He was leading in the polls BEFORE this week. He already looked strong.

The only justification for this week's rightward moves would've been if Obama had been ten points down.

[wurzel]

50. Dukakis and Kerry also "looked strong" in June.

If he hadn't made those meaningless moves he would be ten vote down right now. Soft on crime. Soft on Terrorism.

[Ken Burch]

59. Dukakis and Kerry failed because they didn't fight back against smears

Or at least not until too late. It was that, NOT LIBERALISM. Why can't people accept reality on this?

[wurzel]

69. You seem to think most voters are "Liberal". They aren't.

They are not "Conservative" either. They are just gullible.

[AndyTiedye]

177. Yes They Did, But the MSM Refused to Cover It

The Mighty Slime Machine gave wall-to-wall coverage to the Swift Boaters, but none to Kerry when he responded to them.

Advertising time costs us a million dollars a minute during prime time.
The Swift Boaters got several billion dollars worth of free airtime in 2004.

The only kind of response that would have been visible would have been to spend ALL of his money in August on ads to fight it.
Then he would have been out of money in September and October, and doomed.

The only way it will be different with Obama is if he can raise billions of dollars to buy ads to fight the Mighty Slime Machine.

[Window]

101. Thank you.

[wurzel]

3. Obama is just playing the game.

He is not going to allow the M$M to tag him the way they have tagged every other Dem that has run for President. There are also a lot of Dems needed in the House and Senate if the Repukes are to be neutralized.

[TheDonkey]

9. which is a good thing imo

the media is so ready to pounce on him like they did Kerry. Obama's team has learned.

[Ken Burch]

14. Kerry was pounced on because of the flip-flops and the refusal to fight back against smears

He could never truly have been called "too liberal". He was too mealy-mouthed.

Anyway, if he goes any further right than he has this week, what's the point? We couldn't, for example, still work for him if he decided to keep the Iraq War going after all. I hope even you would agree that that would be a deal-breaker, since it would ensure he'd be completely conservative on domestic issues.

[wurzel]

32. Kerry was pounced on because of M$M alleged flip flops.

He certainly never flip-flopped more than Bush. And McCain is still being described as a
straight shooter" by M$M. And he is the biggest flip flopper in recent history.

[Ken Burch]

39. OK...the ALLEGED flip-flops. My point was that what killed Kerry's chances WASN'T

"excessive liberalism". It was Shrum and Cahill's insistence that Kerry NEVER fight back against smears. He finally did(after telling them where to get off)but by then it was too late.

We need to have CONFIDENCE in our ability to promote our ideas. And we need to accept that the country is moving TOWARDS us and that we don't have to act(if we ever did)like progressive ideas are shameful or permanently unpopular. In short, we don't have to surrender to win.

I support Obama, but I don't want him to piss his principles down to nothing. Is that so hard to understand? There's no reason for progressives to be told "shut up and let the 'grown-ups' run things". The "grown-ups"don't know how to win.

[wurzel]

48. Progressive ideas can only be promoted through power.

I think you vastly underestimate the power of the Right. The time to promote progressive ideas is when you actually have office. Do the Republicans ever promote their agenda during an election? Of course they don't. And they just keep on winning. That's politics.

[Ken Burch]

52. '92 proved that running as a centrist can't lead to progressive policies afterwards.

Of course the right has power, but it has power because it has confidence and pride in its principles. We should have confidence and pride in ours. Our ideas, for the most part, are popular and gaining in popularity.

We don't need to be to the right of the people. We represent majority opinion on many, many issues. We don't need to run like it's shameful to question conservatism.

[JVS]

64. No. The clinton administration showed that governing as a centrist does not work.

It doesn't work because even if your opponents like your welfare reform, they'll still attack you because they'd rather do it their way.

This does not change how to get elected that much,

[wurzel]

65. Did Gore run a progressive campaign? Yes. Did he win? No.

You can argue about the Supreme Court. But the M$M was able to make that election about gay marriage, gays in the military, abortion rights, "family values", guns, and taxes. This is a war and the first casualty of war is truth.

[Ken Burch]

82. Uh, gay marriage was 2004, not 2000.

And there's no evidence that Gore would've done better if he'd run further right. Those 2 1/2 million votes that went for that other candidate were lost because the party treated progressives like shit, and had been doing so for a decade. We never learned from that.
2000 proved that CENTRISM doesn't work, not "liberalism"(and, btw, Gore DIDN'T particularly run a progressive campaign. He ran a catatonic campaign. If he'd run as the man he was in "An Inconvenient Truth", Gore would've carried 40 states.

[katandmoon]

115. HELLO! Gore won the popular vote. The Repugs stole FL. Next!

[Ken Burch]

137. The way to avoid being "tagged" is to actually DEFEND Democratic vaues when they're attacked.

"liberal" is only a bad word because none of our candidates ever remind people what's good about it.

Leaving attacks unanswered and giving in to the other side never works.

[dkf]

4. I consider myself moderate actually.

And my biggest gripe with Bill is that he didn't accomplish much, not that he was too much to the right or anything like that.

[opihimoimoi]

23. Obama has the right Direction...what paths does he take to reach his goals

lies in the group of Promise and Change from the Present....He is ADVANCING HUMANITY....he is doing the Positive Polarity Change thing....something them Pubs cannot do...they will mask their goals with window dressing and out right lies...the Negative approach.

Obama clearly knows the Neg Polarity is to be used only while defending...not offensively..and the peeps respond with acceptance and support.

Its beyond moving RIGHT or LEFT....its the Promise of Polarity Change which gives us MUCH HOPE...for our FUTURE.....

It is Time for a Change...a good change.......and Obama is the best bet at the moment....

[Skinner]

8. Can we all agree? Of course not.

Welcome to the General Election.

Barack Obama's job right now is to get elected president of the United States. Nothing else matters. That means appealing to undecided voters. It is not his job to appeal to liberals like us who already support him. In fact, if he were wasting his time trying to make me happy right now that would be a serious problem. I'm no fool -- I know that my political views are far more liberal than the average undecided voter.

Oh, and it's ridiculous to call Bill Clinton's election in 1992 "worthless." Compare Clinton's presidency to George W. Bush's presidency and then tell me it was worthless.

[Ken Burch]

19. But Skinner, there's nobody out there who will only vote Obama in the fall

If that person thinks more things will stay the same than change. There is no center anymore.

And besides, the consensus among progressives that the Clinton Administration was a betrayal and a failure was what STARTER DU, wasn't it?

The country is swinging left. What do we have to gain from being to the right of the people?

[Skinner]

33. Uh, no.

I'm pretty sure DU was started because the Republicans stole the election in 2000. I'm one of those rare online activists who prefers to fight against Republicans instead of fighting against Democrats.

As for the proper positioning for Obama in the general election, I trust the judgment of Barack Obama, David Axelrod, and David Plouffe. They have already shown themselves to be extremely capable at what they do.

[BzaDem]

51. Count me as a rare online activist who prefers to fight against Republicans than Democrats.

Hopefully more people will join this group as the GE moves forward. I wasn't here in 2004, so I don't know how it was then.

[Peacetrain]

91. You can have all the greatest intentions in the world

but if you do not get elected.. it is dust on the wind.. I am with you on this on Skinner.. Obama has to bring that center in.. and those who are "holding his feet to the fire".. may want to hold the administrations feet to the fire.. Mccains feet to the fire.. their own representatives and senators feet to the fire.. just waling on Obama, well does not seem like a winning strategy to me.. especially if they have nothing positive to say about anything that he does.. just saying

[Hawaii Hiker]

100. Clinton was great for countless reasons - and his 1992 election saved the Supreme Court

Ginsburg was confirmed to the SCOTUS in 1993, Stephen Bryer in 1994...

Pretty frightening thought if Herbert Walker Bush would have won in 1992..We'd have 2 more VERY far right of center justices instead of the 2 gems Clinton picked if Bush 41 won...

[IowaGirl]

183. Yes, check out this chart for the difference on judges during

the different presidents. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1328

[LaurenG]

126. Sometimes I just wish I could hug a poster

this is one of those times. Thanks! Barack Obama's job right now is to get elected president of the United States. Nothing else matters. That means appealing to undecided voters. It is not his job to appeal to liberals like us who already support him.:applause:

[retread]

11. I will be disappointed in Obama the politician if he does NOT move to the center. I will

be disappointed in Obama the President and Obama the man if he remains there once elected.

[Ken Burch]

16. No one EVER "moves to the center" in a campaign and then moves left afterward.

It never happens.

[JVS]

38. That's kind of hard to verify as we have only won 2 presidential elections in the last 30 years.

[retread]

85. In the last 40 years we have ample evidence of a move to the center then to

the right afterwards. Was there a Democrat in the last 40 years who MOVED to the center and stayed there after he was elected? Both Clinton and Carter were center before running.

[Ken Burch]

94. Carter moved sharply to the right after winning. He abandoned his plaftorm commitment

to national health insurance and put nothing in its place.

Carter also made the Republican choice of putting low inflation before full employment as the prime economic goal, thus ensuring a recession and creating the "misery index" Reagan nailed him with in that debate.

If Carter had stayed with national health insurance(even using it as a bargaining chip to get a comprehensive system short of that, had not been adamantly pro-nuclear power and had NOT backed Somoza and the Shah to the bitter end, he'd have beaten Reagan solidly, if for no other reason than that there would have been no support for progressive challenge to his renomination.

Carter was elected to be populist.

[retread]

124. Carter ran as a moderate and a born-again Christian. n/t

[Ken Burch]

130. He promised national health insurance and a cut in the war budget.

After 1979, for no good reason, he lowered himself to being Scoop Jackson.

[retread]

162. Carter was never anything but a moderate Republican wearing Democratic party clothing.

He ran as a moderate and a born-again Christian in both the primaries and the general. He portrayed himself as a more moderate son of the South than George Wallace and as a born-again he would be an anti-Nixon. In the primaries he positioned himself between Jackson and Wallace on the right and Udall on the left.

[bornskeptic]

114. FDR certainly did in 1932,

and that seemed to work out pretty well.

[Lorien]

163. Um, once elected he'll be thinking about a second term

besides, the "center" is now the Right. The Left is now the center.

[madfloridian]

12. Shhh...you must be careful what you say...

:sarcasm:

[Ken Burch]

26. Er...I'm not sure exactly what you meant by that.

please send me a pm to elaborate.

[madfloridian]

31. I am being sarcastic.

I was told that last night. Over and over when I posted about FISA in this forum.

I should have used sarcasm tag.

[Genevieve]

15. No, nt

[brindis_desala]

17. Compared to Bush Clinton was the second coming

[Rageneau]

18. I'm waiting for him to change his mind on the IWR.

[shayes51]

161. Some of his recent positions do put his

claim that he would have voted against the war in doubt.

[grantcart]

20. I agree that you should find a public office in your area run for it and show us how its done

[Ken Burch]

22. Obama won 66% of the vote in a Senate race in a state that voted Reagan twice

without moving right on anything.

I'm just saying we don't need to lower ourselves to Clintonism again. Is that asking too much?

The country ISN'T permanently conservative. We don't have to settle for trivial increments.

[opihimoimoi]

28. I agree....

:toast: :beer: :bounce:

[grantcart]

44. Yes it is asking too much

he has to increase his vote total from the primaries by a net 50 million vote.

He actually knows what he is doing and irritating the left is part of the plan, Stan.

That is part of the price we have to pay for the fact that he is carrying the "most liberal voting record in the Senate".

You are going to hear that 5,000 times from now until November 4th and in order to get the middle part of the country to get comfortable with him he is going to have to show some distance from us.


His statement about the 2nd ammendment makes me gnash my teeth, not because it means that he believes that gun rights are somehow in the constitution but that he has given in on the idea that the 2nd ammendement has something to do with individual rights which it clearly does not. I lived in Spokane, however, when the idiots there voted Tom Foley out of office after he thought that assault rifles should be banned (after a crazed gunman killed 10 doctors and nurses at Fairchild Airforce Base) even though Foley had been a lifelong member of the NRA.

So now we have a candidate who has a crazy minister, a muslim sounding name, is mixed race and marries into the AA community, and I say we give the guy some room to manuever but is just my two cents worth http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6421082&mesg_id=6421082.


If your going to throw a hissyfit and show how unhappy you are with Obama I suggest that you make it as severe and hostile as you can and be sure to get media attention. That will help him convince some of those 50,000,000 that kind of like him but haven't yet voted for him that he really isn't the most radical liberal in the Senate.

But if you have it all figured out and it looks so simple why don't you go down run for office and show us all how easy it is.

[Ken Burch]

49. Reagan got in without dissing anyone on the right.

I knew Obama wasn't as progressive as I'd have liked, I just didn't want him to slip further away, since it wasn't necessary. He was AHEAD in the polls. You don't need to trim when you'r leading, you only need to do it when you're behind.

And as to the voting record, at some point, Obama is going to have to stand up and say "Hell yes, I voted for those things and they were good for the country". If Kerry had done that even once, he'd have kicked Bush's ass. Progressive ideas aren't in the permanent minority(now that I know you're from Spokane, I can understand your view of things a bit better) and at some point we need to actually DEFEND our core values. Kerry and Dukakis lost solely because they WOULDN'T defend theirs. We don't need a defeatist strategy any more.

Would you at least agree that switching on the Iraq War would be a bridge too far, since it would mean Obama was agreeing to also be conservative on all domestic issues do to the war's costs?

We can win on our values. Obama's speech in 2004 showed the way. Have confidence is all I'm saying.

[grantcart]

54. I have confidence - in Obama.

[Peacetrain]

86. Yes!.. I totally agree

no base can do it alone.. even that little pimple in the white house right now..ran much more to the center in 2000 .. compassionate conservatism and all.. and then went hard right when in office.. people seem to forget that.. they think rove had him in the religious base 24/7.. that was just to get him to win the primary.. he had to center then to come close to winning the election.. of course then stealing florida nailed it for him..but that is a different discussion..

[ZombieHorde]

24. You are being silly. We all knew this would happen.

On a side note; Bill Clinton was far from worthless as President. The Judges alone have great worth.

[dkf]

35. Bill Clinton was a good caretaker President.

He tried to right what was wrong, appointed good judges, and was generally responsible, except that bit of humiliation he put us through at the end.

But, he didn't do much to advance us from where we were. And his successes were fleeting and completely unwound by Bush.

[Zhade]

144. Yep - good as a caretaker for the first b*s* by helping cover up the BCCI scandal.

Wow, that really helped the world.

:eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

185. Caretaker = better than John McCain

[katandmoon]

25. I agree -- I have NO interest in voting for another weasel!

I've held my nose and voted for enough of them already. NO MORE! Obama is showing himself to be a moral coward. That disgusts me. If he doesn't stand up for what he believes, if he doesn't hold true to his promises, if he continues to flipflop whichever way the most politically expedient wind blows, I see no point in voting for him because he'll do the exact same thing as President. If he's afraid of Republicans even now that they are in a downward spiral and when he has EVERY INCENTIVE to stand up to them, then he will show the exact same weasely, cowardly behavior in the oval office. I know my words are strong but I am really, really pissed and disillusioned. I wasn't an Obama supporter to begin with, but I am the bluest of blue Democrats and I would never vote for a Republican. But given the amount of Republican positions Obama has been taking, I'm not so sure I won't end up voting for one if I press the button for Obama in November. He needs to be held to account for going back on his word. Words have meaning to people. In his ivory tower, where he recites words written by others, I'm not so sure he realizes that. It's sad to see so many people refuse to hold Obama to account in the interest of getting him elected. What happens once Obama is inaugurated? If this Democrat isn't held to account now by his constituency, he sure won't have any incentive to take our positions on issues once he's President.

[martymar64]

165. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because . . .

the alternative is a known quantity and so much worse. I wasn't the biggest fan of the Clinton admin, but the Reagan and Bush admins were horrible. If McCain comes in, I'd seriously think about taking to the hills like the militias did in the Clinton years and fight for secession.

[blondeatlast]

27. No, we can't. I'm certain his progressive values will win him re-election in '08;

for now, he's doing things as they should be done.

[Kahuna]

29. No we can't agree. Most people who have voted in numerous elections

realize that candidates tack to the center in order to appeal to people outside their base. These people let the political rhetoric go in one ear and out the other.

[AndyTiedye]

30. Move to the Right to Win Primaries, Move Further to the Right to try to Win the General

[JVS]

34. The rightward swing in this primary wasn't done by Obama

Unless you want to call KY, Rural TX and OH, and WV the heartland of liberalism

[AndyTiedye]

68. Obama Was Not Immune to the Red Shift

Pandering to Donnie McClurkin's homophobia.

[JVS]

73. Pandering by disagreeing with those views? That guy was there for his music, not his views on sex.

[Lorien]

164. That's right. McCain embraces his base and panders to them

Obama seems to be taking his base for granted and panders McCain's base. Won't the people feel that the Right is the place to be if BOTH candidates appeal to Right Wing voters? This has ALWAYS been a losing strategy for the Dems. I'm just amazed that the party hasn't figured it out by now.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

[JVS]

171. I think you're incorrect and that you are not aware of the splits within the Republican party...

to a great enough degree to be sensitive to what McCain's actual signals are. Rachel Maddow a couple months ago was talking about how she wants to debunk the idea that McCain is a "Maverick" as is popularly proclaimed in the press. McCain's whole maverick gimmick is designed to pander to the center. It's a way of saying "He does what's right for the country, not what the party bigwigs say". Similary McCain has criticized the Bush administration for incompetently handling Katrina. Finally, how often do you see McCain talking at churches or paling around with preachers? All of these things are repudiations of what one could call the excesses of the Bush administration, but if one realizes that the Bush administration is the logical execution of GOP thinking, then they actually are moves that chase the middle at the expense of the base. Claiming to be a maverick courts the center at the expense of the DC GOP establishment, similar to Carter's outsider routine. Don't think for a minute that the hardcore republicans don't like these people. They've liked them since 1992 at least. Saying that the people have a right to expect competent government in emergencies like Katrina is another appeal to the center at the expense of those who are more interested in the dismantling of gov. programs than providing such services, this is the business (or secular) section of the base. Finally McCain's refraining from becoming buddy buddy with the religious right (Huckabee was their favorite and sunk Romney's chances) shows that he has more interest in courting moderates than kissing up to the relgious base of the party that scares moderates away.

[elocs]

37. Do we take a vote? Would only left of center Democrats get to vote?

Do those of us who are left of center get to decide for the entire Democratic Party just who gets to be a Democrat? Do we tell those who are centrist or even conservative Democrats that they are not really Democrats and do not count except when we want their votes? Do we come up with a list of exactly what and what not one is allowed to believe and still be a Democrat? How small and exclusive can we make our tent? How many people are there who are not hardcore Republicans, who are in the center of the political spectrum as a whole, who some consider themselves to be Independents and who are looking for a reason to vote for Obama, but all they hear is the right defining him as a Liberal? Does Obama help himself with the entire electorate by making himself appear to be more Liberal, perhaps more Liberal than he really is?

Oh, and polls in June don't mean as much as the results of the election in November.

[Ken Burch]

45. I just want the guy to stay true to himself and to the promise of that speech in 2004.

And since the early '90's, it was "moderate" Dems who had kept the progressive majority in the party out in the cold.

It's not about "litmus testing".

It's about populism vs. elitism.

Centrism is elitist and(with its support of globalization)anti-worker. It's also anti-democratic with its opposition to public financing of elections and its refusal to support the abolition of the Electoral College.

Progressive ideas, especially economic progressive ideas, are populist, in that they seek to direct the benefits of the economy to those(the working people)who actually create the wealth, rather than the chattering classes.

I want us to include the majority by including the excluded and the powerless. This means rejecting "moderation", since "moderation" means cheerfully signing off on injustice and the status quo.

[wurzel]

58. I just want the guy to win!

We are not going to get health care with McCain. Nor will we get a fairer share of the economic pie. Remember the only way you are ever going to increase your income is though a tax cut. Certainly not through raises from your employer

[Enrique]

81. all these labels!

what a hodgepodge of labels!

[Blue_In_AK]

41. Ken, I'm not happy with the rightward trend,

but I'm not surprised. Politicians are politicians, after all, and I'm afraid that Obama will be compromised just as much as any other politician seeking the office of president. It doesn't seem to be too hard for (at least a few) senators and representatives to stay true to their ideals, but once someone goes after the presidency, especially in the general, all that idealism and stuff goes out the window. Then it's all about pragmatism ... and unfortunately, we on the left seem to be the "ugly stepchildren" in American politics. They may pander a little bit to get our votes, but when it comes to following through, they fall short in the interests of "unity" and "compromise."

[mrs_p]

42. looking back at the last 7.5 years

i disagree - he is absolutely WORTH electing. waste of time?? do you think he will continue the majority of bush's policies in the middle east (including the torturing/sodomizing of innocent iraqi children to get their parents to talk - if that is actually true)? do you think the environment is important - that we should be able to breathe clean air, drink unpolluted water, and go to the beach without stepping over dead waterbirds due to offshore drilling? do you think the little wo/man should be getting a bit more money from working his/her petunia off for corporations? do you think protecting a woman's right to decide what she should do with her OWN body is important in the least?? i'm sorry, but these types of posts are po'ing me the heck off. are you serious?? what do you think the alternative looks like?? and we hear that the global markets are going to crash. obama is absolutely worth electing - b/c, honestly, i don't see how we can survive staying on this current course any longer.

[Ken Burch]

57. We can't survive on this current course. But Obama won't be able to change that course

If he commits himself to anti-liberal centrism on the stump.

He at least needs to leave the door open.

The Clinton approach can never be worth repeating. The '94 Congressional wipeout proves that approach hurts the party as a whole.

Progressive ideas AREN'T unpopular. The country is not insisting that Obama reduce himself to bland incremental centrism to win.

I choose optimism.

[mrs_p]

63. i understand what you are saying

but i still disagree that it is not worth electing him. mccain or obama, that is the choice right now (unless one decides to vote third party on principles alone). obama will be leagues better than bush was and mccain ever will be.

[Ken Burch]

74. I didn't say it wasn't worth electing him at all.

I do think that no further rightward moves are needed or can be justified. The way to win is to organize, mobilize, and persuade people that change is necessary. Nobody would buy an approach that said "This administration is rotten. But don't worry, we'll keep more things the same than not if we win". People don't think like that.

[BzaDem]

46. If you really think that it is not worth voting for Obama if his views approach Bill, then you have

no credibility.

Thank you everyone else on this thread for pointing that out.

In fact, the more Obama pisses you off, the better Obama is doing to actually get elected. I expect about one of these threads a week or so from you, which would indicate that Obama is doing a good job of trying to win over undecided voters.

[Ken Burch]

53. Power in name isn't worth having. And that's what centrism means.

The Democrats need to accept that the country is moving left and that progressives aren't the enemy. That isn't a hissy-fit, it's reality.

[BzaDem]

60. Sigh.Guess there will always be some. It provides a good measure of how Obama is doing w/undecideds.

[Ken Burch]

62. You can't assume all the undecideds are on the Center-right.

It's no longer appropriate for our party to take the "they've go nowhere else to go" approach to progressives.

[BzaDem]

71. What evidence do you have for anything that you are saying?

Undecideds are undecided between Obama and McCain. Not between Obama and Nader.

You keep claiming that the majority of America is much more progressive than it really is. Yes, the Republicans have a major brand problem due to the last 7 years of Bush and his policies, which is why Obama is favored to win. That does not mean that America has suddenly become more progressive at heart. Hopefully, energizing a new generation of voters will help with that, but that is not enough to claim that a majority of Americans are as progressive as you. That is called denial. You can continue to put your fingers in your ears and say that "America is as left as I am, and will vote for a candidate who is as left as I am," but all that serves to do is help Republicans to win.

It isn't an accident that Bill Clinton was the only Democratic president since 76. And exit polls indicate he would have won even if Perot wasn't in the race.

[Ken Burch]

87. Clinton won on charisma and because he had a great rapid-response team.

Clinton WOULD have won on any platform, including Jesse's. It's about confidence in the message, belief that our ideas can prevail, and the generation of genuine enthusiasm. Obama can win through enthusiasm much more easily than he can through trimming.
We don't need a defeatist approach to politics anymore.

And I wasn't claiming the people are as progressive "as I am". But they clearly are to the left of where they were in 2004. Bush's approval ratings show this, the level of opposition to the war shows this, support for real health-care coverage(including single-payer)shows this.

You have got to accept that the U.S. ISN'T a conservative country anymore.

[BzaDem]

90. I agree that we are to the left of where we were in 2004, and that the U.S. isn't a conservative

country. It is somewhere in between. And not centrist on every issue. Conservative on some issues, quite liberal on others.

As for getting votes, it is just mathematics. I find it hard to believe that with the stark contrast already between Obama and McCain, there are many undecideds. But there are, and the mathematical fact remains that if Obama moves way to the left, and causes the undecideds to break 60-40 for McCain, we will lose, regardless of the enthusiasm. Enthusiasm helps get votes indirectly. But votes are not directly weighted based on enthusiasm. That's why the percentage of enthusiastic voters for Obama is over 40 points head of the same number for McCain, yet in the same poll, they are within 6%.

In any election with a sizable number of undecideds between the two major candidates, going to the middle on some issues is required (or at least helps a lot).

[Ken Burch]

96. Well, this week was middle enough. There's nothing else he needs to go there on.

The anti-Iraq War thing has to stay sacred.

[elocs]

55. Because the simple truth is that the next president will either be Obama or McCain.

I really wonder how Democrats who are so critical of Obama during the campaign believe they are helping him to get elected? Of course, a president McCain will give them something to be worked up about each and every day.

[Ken Burch]

61. I'll work for Obama. I just don't want it to be a hollow victory.

We are in the lead and you never need to move right when you're in the lead. When you're in the lead is the time to set the agenda and defend your values. You look like a leader when you defend your values. You look like a loser when you trim.

I just don't want this to be worthless. It would be worthless if we lowered ourselves to the '92 approach again. That has to end badly the second time if it ended badly the first.

[mrs_p]

66. i don't think

we should feel safely in the lead right now. i wish i could be as optimistic as you, but i think we should be fighting for this election as if we are way behind. 'cause i know the corporacracy and their republican enablers will not fall without taking every thing/one they can with them...

[Ken Burch]

83. The way we should fight is based on mobilization, mass voter registration and a populist program

We aren't going to get the habitual voters. It's the habitual non-voters we need to bring in, and that means championing the powerless. Obviously, the party chose, once again, not to even try that this year. But it is the path we have to take.

We have to represent the unrepresented majority.

[jonnyblitz]

56. well, I will yell and bitch lots but I will still vote for him in November.

voting Republican, which is the alternative besides staying home, is never an option for me. I just don't like being told on a discussion board by his most ardent supporters that i shouldn't or can't complain and that complaining while cause McCain to win.

[NancyG]

67. No. Whatever it takes to get elected.

The Supreme Court. For decades. We gotta get the presidency and Congress.

[Ken Burch]

77. We don't have to be just barely different than McCain to get it.

The country is moving away from the RIGHT. Why do so many people here have trouble seeing that?

Our ideals are not unpopular, and activists are not the Democratic Party's enemy.

[Zhade]

145. And if he decides not to end the war?

Hmmm?

[kenny blankenship]

70. During the election, Obama CAN'T appear to be "to the left of his own party" on any major issue

[crankychatter]

72. one more perceived faux pas on Obama's part and you're gonna re-fight the Primary eh?

if I said "fuck you" would you be offended?

[Ken Burch]

76. Would you care if I was offended?

I'm just saying that we have the right to expect something more than getting elected from the guy. Election without commitment to progressive ideas isn't worth much. I'll be working to elect Obama, but I'll be damned if I accept the idea that progressives have to
be put "out in the cold" yet again for him to win. The country is moving in a clearly progressive direction. A centrist campaign can't take advantage of that.

We don't need to assume we're a permanent minority.

[pollo poco]

75. Why do we all have to agree on anything? n/t

[Ken Burch]

80. We don't HAVE to. I was just hoping that we would.

Do you think it would be worth even bothering this fall if it became clear that, in office, Obama wouldn't even be a millimeter to the left of Bill?

It wouldn't be as bad as McCain, but why SHOULD we have to settle for that?

This isn't a permanently right-wing country. We don't have to assume our ideas are unpopular.

[Crabby Appleton]

78. No. nt

[DJ13]

79. Obama's biggest mistake will be moving right

The country is ready to try alternatives, they WANT liberal ideas in place of the conservative ideals that has screwed this country up.

Obama's campaign team needs to understand that Obama is already winning, even with the Republicans trying to label him "the most liberal Senator" for months now, and that isnt because the voters want another moderate.

They WANT a liberal.

[wyldwolf]

84. lol

More "progressive" naivety.

Hey, why do you call YOURSELF a Democrat?

[Ken Burch]

89. Democrats are supposed to be to the left of Republicans.

Except in the slave states, they are.

Most Democrats(and most Americans) support economic populism, single-payer health-care, an end to the Iraq War and stronger unions(all the national polling services show this).

Even gay marriage isn't that much of a deal-breaker anymore(the marriage ban would lose in California if the election were held now, according to the newspaper reports and polls in that state).

Don't you EVER question my party status. Unlike you, I never could've been a Democrat for Nixon.

[wyldwolf]

95. not in every instance and certainly not as left as you'd like them to be

[Ken Burch]

97. Well, in your case, it's not in ANY instance. You don't disagree with Republicans on anything

That I can see.

[wyldwolf]

99. lol. I think it's so funny how Democrats (for decades) have...

..defied the pouty whiny "progressive" movement. Has it ever occurred to you that most real Dems see you as party hi-jackers and don't want any part of you? That's why you keep losing.

[Ken Burch]

104. Most Democrats don't want the party to be just barely different from the GOP.

Why would ANYONE want that?

And if it weren't for progressives, the Democratic Party would never have had any ideas. It's thanks to us the party stood up for labor, finally broke with your wing and ended Jim Crow, tried to protect the environment, and work for a country where no one is discriminated against.

All ideas that had majority support. As did the anti-Vietnam War movement(remember, Nixon didn't run in '72 as the "keep the war going" candidate. He ran as the "vote for me and the troops are certain to be home soon while I tie up the loose ends". There's no way Nixon would have taken 49 states if the voters knew he'd start bombing Vietnam again right after the election.

You have NO special claim to being more Democratic than I am. You never did. Unless, perhaps, you think the true voice of the Democratic Party was Grover Cleveland.

Truman was to the left of you on economic issues. So was FDR. Johnson was too, as well as being on race(Johnson failed because he kept the war going even though he admitted in 1964, on the tapes the LBJ library released a few years ago, that the war was unwinnable) The 1968 primaries proved most Dems weren't hawks.

The Dems wasted eight years in the Nineties by leaving us out in the cold.

[wyldwolf]

107. and it isn't. But from a viewpoint from so far left everything looks evil

[Kahuna]

160. Well stated, Wyldwolf..

:applause:

[1Hippiechick]

88. No, nope, Nada, No way -- LISTEN to his rationale. I believe that CHANGE = UNITY n/t

[depakid]

93. In other words, you believe enabling far right policies are acceptible

in the pursuit of "unity."

[1Hippiechick]

102. No, I believe in everyone coming to the table & having dialogue as a starting point

[Bluenorthwest]

110. Note on that table for everyone

Obama talks about working across Party lines, and has done so often. This week, Sam Brownback, one of the Republicans Obama has actually worked with, told the press that Obama only talks about working b-partisan but actually works far left. This is the kind of loyalty and consistancy that can be expected from the rival Party, a Party that never stops being a Party. Any moves toward bi-partisanism must be carefully undertaken, because the other Party will not be forgetting that they wish to defeat us. One can smile, and smile, and yet be shown a villian. At least it may be so in DC...
Brownback answered Obama's good faith as republicans always do, with a stab in the back. They think being cooperative is a sign of weakness and they act accordingly. They do not respond in kind, and that must be remembered. If we put down our bludgeons, we must remember they still hold theirs.

[1Hippiechick]

116. Sorry you are so cynical. But, what is going to change that is the grassroots participation of

everyone who becomes involved in this election. This is the only way the people are going to be able to regain some semblance of power that should belong to us. That's why I am working my a$$ off to get ppl registered to vote. We will let our vote do our talking come election time, and those RW war-mongering elitists CAN be voted out of office. An additional aside that receives no attention here: Laws need to be changed regarding electronic voting tabulation to include crosscheck paper verification! What good is it to vote if "the machine" alreay controls the outcome?

Oh, I forgot to address your bludgeons comment. Cooperation is a 2-way street. He extends the olive branch....

Hasn't Obama already made a reference to "someone bringing a knife to a gunfight?" And, I think just this week he mentioned, "I don't cower" or "I don't do cowering."

I think history will show him to be one of the most brilliant presidents in our history, should he be elected.

[Ken Burch]

136. No Republican will ever believe in "dialogue"

Their idea of dialogue is that we should do what they want without question. No Republican in Congress or the Senate will ever be capable of being moderate again.

[Ken Burch]

133. Unity between Democrats. That's enough.

n/t.

[Bluenorthwest]

98. What I want to see

Is Obama remaining Obama, not trying to figure out who to be to win. Hillary would have been stronger in the Primaries had she been herself instead of the creation that a staff of people thought would win. People see through all of that. And they hate it. Even when they are hearing what they want to hear, if it is a mere pander it fails.

I do wonder however, sense there are more Democrats than Republicans, why we hear Democrats claim to need to appeal to Republicans, and yet we never hear Republicans saying they have to move left to attract the indy voters and unhappy Democrats. That trait, that one difference-we try to win them, they talk to their own, is why they win with less registered voters. To many they look like they have ideals, and we look like we try to figure out what ideals we should claim to win. It is just wrong. It makes it seem that the Republicans are the 'real government' and we are trying to be like them. Right now, the majority of America hates the GOP with a purple passion.

What is that old saying about people voting for a real Republican over a fake one everytime? Looking like a public relations excersize is a losing path.
To win, he has to be himself, not a composite of things to appeal to all voters. Not left or right, he just needs to be as he was in the Seante and on the trail. People want to vote for Barack Obama, not for a McCain subsititue. Democrats exist on their own, not merely as defined by the rival Party.

[Breeze54]

103. Fuckin' A !!!

:kick: & recommended

[Lerkfish]

106. ... or else.... what, exactly?

define "acceptable".

and isn't this just a coy way to work against the nominee, and try to keep it skating within the rules?

[wyldwolf]

108. he'll pout and stomp his feet?

[Ken Burch]

138. It's never childish to defend your principles.

Why should I accept your idea that progressives have no right to ask anything of this party and its candidates?

We aren't to blame for all the defeats.

[wyldwolf]

139. but it is absurd to project those "principles" on others

[Ken Burch]

141. "project those principles on others"?

:wtf:

Pointing out that most Democrats hold progressive views on most issues isn't "projection"(you're using a psychiatric term in an inappropriate political context)it's simply reality.

Most of the country isn't the white precincts of Georgia, Wolf.

[wyldwolf]

142. yep, projecting, then conspiring to hold the party hostage if you don't get your way

[Ken Burch]

147. Actually, that's pretty much what the DLC has done for the last sixteen years.

Your group assumes it has a natural right to dictate the party's principles and control everything the party does. The DLC was never satisfied with being one equal element among other equal elements in the Democratic coalition.

[wyldwolf]

159. I have a perfect example of you doing it in this thread. Provide me an example of your claim

[Ken Burch]

168. There's not just one single example. There's every public statement Al From has ever made

And my stating that is enough. The DLC thinks it's entitled to eternally run the party, not just co-exist as an equal group among equal groups.

[wyldwolf]

169. since there are so many examples, provide just one

[galledgoblin]

109. I agree

people will vote for Obama even if he is a "durty libural"!

no, I'm not naive, the moderates in this country have realized the right does not offer answers, and we're going to see record turn-outs in November.

hell, moderate right-wingers would be more pissed if they voted for him because they thought he was a moderate centerist who then made a bait and switch and became leftist when elected!

[IndyOp]

111. No. It's like this -- you live in California and you want to go to New York...

and there are lots of places you want to visit in between. You have your set goal and lots of intermediate goals, too.

You have two choices for your travel: Dynamic Donkey Railway v. Egregious Elephant Airlines.

Dynamic Donkey Railway refuses to stop at many of your intermediate destinations, so you'll have to stop at available intermediate stops and take some buses and rent cars and then get back on the train and eventually you'll get to Boston. BOSTON? You need to be in the New York! Fuck Dynamic Donkey!

What about Egregious Elephant Airlines? You want to go to New York from California? Well, they promise to take you to New York and they'll put you on a plane and fly immediately over the Pacific, over Japan, to Poland. From Poland you can walk to France and then swim to the UK. On your way, you'll be mugged, your children beaten by bullies, and your spouse will be drafted to serve in the Romanian military for 30 years. Your only chance to get back to the U.S. and land anywhere near New York is to get on one of the planes used by the CIA for extraordinary rendition. Of course, you board the plane expecting to return to New York, but, well...

You have to get to New York. Neither transportation option is acceptable. You have to pick one and USE it to get what you need.

A political party, a candidate is a means to an end -- we use them to go to where we want to go -- I'll be using Obama in the near future to get to where I need to go.

I am angry at Obama not towing my personal line about withdrawing troops from Iraq. I am mad at the Democratic Party for not towing my line. I am mad at my fellow citizens, including possibly YOU for not towing my line. I have a responsibility to the Iraqis to continue to do what I can for the benefit of all beings.

[1Hippiechick]

118. Loved your analogy until you got to the last paragraph about towing your personal lne. It's like

this, as I mentioned on another thread: you find the one 'whatver' that most closely resonates with you and matches your own personal philosophies, knowing that not "one" anything is going to be a perfect match, and you go with it, warts and all, concentrating on the positives.

Similar to what you meant?

Edited to add the following:

BTW, McBomb uses Incontinental Airlines exclusively.

[IndyOp]

122. The last bit is not so great, indeed, but it is also true -

I am - I think legitimately - very angry that Obama and the Dems aren't supporting prompt withdrawal of U.S. troops. When British troops withdrew, violence in that sector dropped. A huge majority of Iraqis want U.S. forces out now. There are over 1,000,000 Iraqis dead and I am angry.

My meaning is as you suggested that we find what matches best and work with that. I think the mistake people made with Bill Clinton is after electing him they turned out somewhat -- and we have to tune in and keep pushing once we elect Obama.

:hi:

[1Hippiechick]

129. I could not agree with you more,particularly about the loss of life. n/t

[1776Forever]

112. In my humble opinion - We have to accept Barack for Barack! He isn't going to be EVERYTHING we want

and neither would ANYONE! Come on! He says himself we will disagree with him sometimes! What the H do you want a robot? I trust him to do the right thing in my view in a majority of issues and that is that. The alternative is obstructionism and more corporate welfare - duh!!!!

[1Hippiechick]

119. Saluting you. Excellent post, succinct, to the point. Applause! It resonates with ME!

[Unvanguard]

113. It is acceptable for him to move as far to the right as he must to defeat McCain.

And not a degree more.

[1Hippiechick]

120. Ding ding ding! Anothah winnah! TY ! n/t

[Ken Burch]

132. He's already done that this week. No further rightward moves can be jusftified.

n/t.

[Unvanguard]

150. How do you know that? How much are you willing to risk on that judgment?

Elections aren't about toeing a particular ideological line; they're about winning.

[Diamonique]

117. I will agree that Obama must do whatever he thinks he should in order to win this thing.

The perfect can be the enemy of the good.

Let's get this GOOD guy into the White House!

[1Hippiechick]

121. D.I.T.T.O

[azmouse]

125. Very well said.

I agree.

[Kahuna]

127. Amen Sister!

:yourock:

[Occam Bandage]

128. "it would be a waste of time to elect him" See: Gore, Al. See, Bush, George Walker.

[Ken Burch]

131. There are a few things even YOU would have to agree would be deal-breakers

IF, God forbid, he suddenly decided he supported the Iraq War after all. That would make it pointless to go on.

[Occam Bandage]

134. There is only one thing that would be a deal-breaker: if, on the whole, I were to believe

that he had worse overall policies than John McCain. You can't move the country left by watching Republicans get elected.

[Ken Burch]

135. Going pro-stay in Iraq would automatically prove that though, right?

Since staying in the war would make it impossible for Obama to be progressive on anything else.

BTW, I don't want to "watch Republicans get elected". I equally don't want to see any more Democrats get elected and govern like Republicans. Our party wouldn't survive another Carter/Clinton-type era. That would have to destroy us.

[Occam Bandage]

155. Depends on what you mean by that.

"Pro-stay-in-Iraq" is a vague phrase that could mean any number of things. I've seen plans for a complete withdrawal with exception of a small counter-terrorism/military-advisory force called that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

140. No. He could be as Liberal as Diane Feinstein and still be worth electing over McCain

I disagree with your core premise. In 2000 we learned why we were much better off with who we elected in 1992.

We have a Supreme Court sliding off the cliff, we have 2 wars counting and another pending with Iran, and Planet Earth is having a heat stroke. I will gladly counter a President Obama from the left if need be, it could be a lot worse than tnat.

[Rowdyboy]

143. Right, like I'm gonna sit home after 8 years of facism because Obama isn't perfect....Screw that!

I for one am voting for Barack Obama in November. Hope you have the sense to also.

[Ken Burch]

148. I've already said that I will.

I'm just trying to avoid having the party follow a course that once again destroys all the enthusiasm anyone feels about the race.

[Rowdyboy]

152. I can tell you in advance that I'll be furious if he reappoints Robert Gates

as Secretary of Defense. I don't particularly want to see any Republicans in the cabinet and I know he'll have several. Health care is a central issue to me and I think his health plan without mandates is terminally flawed. On top of that I'm not over impressed with his background on gay rights. But he WILL end the nightmare in Iraq and he WILL appoint solid, rational, non-right wing justices to the supreme court.

You and I are really not so far apart. I don't think Obama needs to move any more to the center-hell, I think the center has moved WAY to the right in the last 15 years. But whatever he does I will be there to vote for him because I have to. I have nieces and nephews and they have kids and I don't want them stuck in a Republican theocracy which is where this country is headed.

Excuse the rant. Sometimes I do get a little excited about Obama but then I log on to DU and come back to earth. Talk about destroying your enthusiasm.....

[Zhade]

180. And if he decides NOT to end the nightmare in Iraq?

NT!

[Blondiegrrl]

146. I don't agree that he's "going to the right."

I think he's compromised on some things, and on other issues he's maintained his original position, despite that position being more in line with the right (his view on the death penalty, I mean).

I don't think Obama has made any fundamental changes in his platform, and I feel compromise is sometimes necessary for unification.

[Buck Rabbit]

149. Sorry Ken, this leftist respectfully disagrees.

He could move even further right in his rhetoric and still be worth electing.

He is an African American in a country of varying degrees of racism. The outright racists won't vote for him so they are not his current audience, just like us leftists who will absolutely not vote for McCain are not his audience.

There is a huge group out there who will vote on charisma and emotional and a feeling that the candidate they select will take care of them. They are afraid of radicalness in either direction. They don't know squat about issues that cant be jinglized or explained in less 25 words. These people, the fluid mass who decide our elections have to be played to. Reagan was the master at it and created "Reagan Democrats". Bill Clinton courted his "Soccer Moms". Barack Obama oozes hope.

No candidate deserves as much latitude to pander from us on the left than Obama (or Hillary were she the nominee) because they have to overcome
such a huge handicap (their race and gender) right from the git go. The fence sitters who want to love him because he is so charismatic have to be persuaded to let go of their fears of something new, something untried, something slightly scary.

Give the brother a break, he seems to know what he is doing, and once elected, rest assured we will nominate the correct supreme court justices and he will sign whatever legislation the progressive caucus in congress manages to get to his desk.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

151. I think that's right.

He's given a few inches to the center and right and now he needs to stay in in the left wing of the party.

[mtnsnake]

153. Can't you make your point without disparaging Bill Clinton?

What is it with that?

[Ken Burch]

156. It's not wanting to repeat the same betrayal.

The progressive wing of the party(as well as workers and the poor)never deserved to be kept as thoroughly out in the cold in a Democratic administration as we were then. Treatment like that naturally creates trust issues.

[BzaDem]

157. Did you vote for Bill Clinton? n/t

[Ken Burch]

167. Yes. What's your point?

n/t.

[retread]

166. Agree. n/t

[lojasmo]

154. Oh good lord.

no.

[papapi]

158. I wish some of you were as old as me...

after six repugnantcans for a total of thirty-six years

and

four Democrats for a total of twenty years

I can assure you that ANY Democrat will be better than a repugnantcan. The U.S. Presidency is NOT an absolute monarchy and WHOEVER is seated in the Oval Office is going to have to work with ALL the branches of government in Washington in order to progress towards anything that will better our society. I have been following Obama for quite some time and I have never seen any other politican like him. I have every confidence that he will do his utmost to make the decisions that will help ALL Americans achieve greater things in their lives. That is all.

[DeschutesRiver]

172. Don't know if I am as old as you (i'm 50)

But I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment. I am an Independent, and had promised myself that I would at least remain open minded enough to consider his bid, along with that of the Democratic nominee (back when O and H were still fighting it out).

Well, done with that bit of objectiveness awhile ago - and I am voting Obama. I don't care to see a President cater 100% either the the far far left or the far far religious right. Any president who did either would not get elected, and be squashed politically if he or she got in office and tried to take it too far.

Our country is composed of more people than just the far groups on either side of these two "parties". I am right in the middle of reading Obama's Audacity of Hope. And came to realize that all the talk everywhere of Obama's far far left leanings were just talk - picking up his book and hearing his two cents worth on his politics was an eye opener.

He is about as center democrat as you can imagine (if he needs to lean a bit, he will go either left or right, under the correct circumstances). The man thinks for himself, and has a clear grip on the reality that we don't have a monarchy and that we don't want the effective equivalent. If you haven't read his book, find it down at the library - yeah, it is dry, but it gives a perfect picture of his leanings/learnings/perspective. I was pleasantly surprised to find out just how much he understands the requirement of finding a balance, and how appreciative he is of the difficulty of doing so. Anyone who thinks he is far left can't have read his own words.

I too think he is good man who has more "try" in him than I've ever seen in a politician. I feel encouraged to follow his example of going about my business with a bit less conflict in the face of contentious people/situations, and a bunch more stiff upper lip/get out the happiness. I think he can help our country deal with the brewing sh*tstorm of financial mess that is unwinding over the next few years. There won't be concrete answers to any of our many problems - this kid has what it takes to work through various potential solutions, and the flexibility to adapt and/or tailor things based on changing circumstances. I think finding this nominee was a lucky break for the whole country - refreshing.

[papapi]

174. We're looking along the very same line of hope.....

I've read most of "The Audacity of Hope" and understand exactly what you're saying. Absolutely refreshing and finally politically invigorating. :bounce:
I'm 54 by-the-way.

[DeschutesRiver]

182. Nice to connect with someone who sees this too

and is in my age bracket:) Sometimes I feel that being over 50 might put me in the minority on this board.

Here's hoping for a good result this fall - first time I've been this excited in many years.

[LWolf]

170. No.

How about this: we all agree that HE'S BEEN THIS FAR RIGHT ALL ALONG, AND WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE POSITIONS THERE, and that those who nominated him don't care, or are, or were, in denial.

Can we agree on that?

[Divine Discontent]

173. where I certainly don't like some of the things I've seen.

I believe political posturing is being made to essentially thwart McSame's chances. I bet you a 1000 that the Obama camp feels pretty good about their chances right now of Barack getting elected in November. McSame is faltering, not gaining traction, and the looney's who send email forwards to us all aren't gaining supporters... there's only so many absolute racists and 'republican to death' voters out there... I believe he will be what he said he will be when he gets in, and even that was something that I wasn't fully for, in agreement with what you're generally saying!



New Obama/Anti-McSame Items!
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[BlooInBloo]

175. hahaha! That is: "If does does anything else I don't like, I'm taking my ball and going home!!"

:rofl:

[World Citizen]

176. The seriousness of the threat.

I guess I feel that the threat to the world is much more serious than you do.

For me it's as if, there is a giant meteor heading for earth and we have only one device to divert it, but you want to argue that maybe we shouldn't use it because the company that built it doesn't give enough health care insurance to their employees.

[Barack_America]

178. We absolutely cannot...

And, frankly, I'm through discussing this until mid-November.

[Undercurrent]

181. No.

[Raine]

184. No, I don't agree nt

[Hippo_Tron]

186. I'll take Clintonism over McCain any day of the week

I'd prefer Obama be more to the left than Clinton but McCain will continue the rapid destruction of this country. I don't subscribe the the "let the system self destruct and then rebuild it" philosophy. Too many people die in the process.

[TheKentuckian]

189. I wouldn't say the country is too far right of center

but the electorate is right of what most here think of as center. To the electorate Bill Clinton was just left of center, just like right now our biggest problem is that the same electorate thinks McCain is just right of center because of his "Maverick" reputation.

I assure you that the undecided isn't waiting to see if Obama is liberal enough. These are for the most part not issue voters but a group trying to decide either who they like the most or who scares them the least.

Not being anti-gun, not siding with the terrorist, and taking a stand against baby rapist probably resonates with most of those personality voters.

Surely you all must see that the Republicans win for one reason, they do whatever it takes to win. Only after a complete fiasco do you see any breaking ranks. The Republicans get in line and get to push their agenda. They never get it all through but they get lots of chances to keep their crap in circulation and minimize ours.

Democrats lose only because we have a permanent 10% protest/stay home vote by whoever is bitter that their agenda isn't front line and/or some dislike the nominee for whatever reason.

We have too many people that fail to understand that the more and longer we can remain in control, the further in our direction the country comes. Too many miss that the Republicans are losing, we aren't winning. We are in position to take control by default, not true preference or trust.

Our level best platform is populist themes stressing American jobs, American ingenuity, American Dream, American energy, Change for America, a prosperous America, and a simple sentence.

A vote for McCain is a vote for more of the same.

Everything else is clouding the message. Change or the same? McCain=same.

That's it. At least for the people we need with us to win, if we get out to the polls and take who we can with us.

[Norrin Radd]

187. He should do whatever it takes to get elected.

:sarcasm:

[wyldwolf]

188. these kinds of grandstanding posts by revolutionary wannabes are losing their bite on DU