Clinton came to learn this.

I was hoping Obama would not have to go through the same thing.

Go educate yourself if you have no idea what the arguments are.

I am heartily sick of your ignorance.

Pre-caucus anxiety syndrome, perhaps?

As for apologies, for what, may I ask? My comment thanked you for deleting a comment that was offensive on multiple levels, as you yourself indicate. I in no way meant or tried to mock you for doing this. My thanks was sincere. So I'm puzzled as to what I'm supposed to apologize for.

I may not always agree with you but I generally respect your opinions, and of course your passion and dedication. But seriously, you have a tendency to overreact, and misinterpret or totally miss subtext (and my sense of humor), that I very rarely encounter elsewhere in the blogosphere.

Obama does not argue his point well here. It is too elliptical, the logic doesn't flow properly.

I may be misreading it, but here is what I think he is saying, with my estimation of it at the end:

"If you know who you are, if you know what you stand for, if you know your principles that cannot be compromised..."

that will resonate with the electorate, and

"then suddenly there are going to be some Republicans and some independents, outside of Washington, who I believe are also frustrated with our government, have also lost trust that they are being listened to..."

and these voters will join with Democrats in his movement and support him in November, giving him a victory significantly greater than 51%, creating an effective mandate for change. This electoral support, together with Dem gains in Congress, will establish a "Working Majority."

As the leader of this working majority, he can then "afford to be polite. you can afford to be courteous. Because you've got the numbers," as in popular support for his programs, and "you've got the votes," meaning Congressional support for his programs.

With all that at his back, he will be in a position to negotiate from strength on many issues. He can then be polite to his adversaries, and "you can sit across the table from people you don't agree with, you can reach across the aisle..." But if , say, "the insurance companies get in my way," i.e., they don't play ball, then he'll "just push them aside, very politely, and go ahead and do what's right for the American people..."

________

It does make sense to me. It bypasses the rhetoric of "conciliation" and "negotiation," which I believe have mostly come from opponents, pundits, and other critics trying to define him, not from his own rhetoric.

But the big problem is at the start: Obama hasn't yet declared unequivocally what he stands for, hasn't espoused his "principles that cannot be compromised." He has not, and apparently will not, run on a Progressive ideology. And he has so far not defined a new, coherent ideology, as opposed to simply an electoral strategy.

The real issue to me is not what he means, but whether he has the stomach, desire and intention to actually fight them, and this isn't just a put on for the credulous masses (of which I would be one if this turned out to be the case). Or, perhaps, he's convinced himself that he means it, but will prove to lack the moral fortitude to see it through, a la Clinton. That's my biggest worry.

Of course, he will not only be up against big corporations and their lobbyists if he tries to push through a progressive agenda, but other powerful entrenched special interests, including PACs, the military, big media, the GOP, and more than a few Dems--the latter perhaps his most intractable future adversary.

The Emanuels and Hoyers of the party are unalterably opposed to a progressive agenda and will fight him or anyone else tooth and nail to prevent it in all but the most superficial way. No amount of snark will help him then.

Still, I am not entirely convinced that he's either insincere, or is sincere, but lacking the skills and/or courage for such sincerity to mean anything. And since we may well end up with him at 1600, I'm just hoping for the best.