He is the very definition of a mensch.

I see nothing but Democratic death if Obama is the nominee...unless the voters in the next 10 elections prove me wrong.

If Obama becomes the nominee, he will need to counter the same "tax and spend liberal" label Republicans use every four years. Lest Obama forget, he will have to reach back to the Clinton years to summon Democratic Party credibility on economic governance to win working-class voters away from McCain.

Key phrase

the wrap up summary of the article:

And one more thing: let's hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he'll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.

This is such an important point - and a valid comeback to those who are whining about Hillary saying McCain has more national security credentials than O! and how could she- how dare she- what on earth was she thinking!!! We all know Obama's national security creds far outshine John McCains. Gasp! She is insane and obviously intent on destruction of the world. Because we all know it is sacrosanct and you do NOT criticize the other Dem in favor of any Republican, right?

Well how dare Obama repeatedly denigrate the Clinton administration's record? ESPECIALLY when he's lying or just ill informed about the stats- whichever is worse I don't know. Leaving the Reagan era in its "transformational" terms and HW getting a big pass for such shining foreign policy. But slamming the Clinton years over and over and over. Trying to clump it in with the GW Bush administration. Yeah- indistinguishable... right.....Talk about hurting the Dem party. The one time in 3 decades we manage to win a two term presidency and restore a broken economy, prosper and enjoy peace... our shining hour of success in national politics in so many decades -- and he feels he has to trash that? In favor of how he'll be adopting HW Bush and Reagan policies?

Give
me
a
break

Yes We Can

IN ADDITION, Obama et al has managed to take a lifetime of work on behalf of AA's by both of the Clintons and turn them into racists and "massah".

"Reality-based community?"

Clinton was able to move the ball only slightly. Our economy even under Clinton's excellent stewardship was more built for creating Millionaires and Billionaires than creating a Living Wage and good benefits (paid vacations, universal health care, the right to strike without being replaced) for average workers.

Obama is no Saint or Savior, and Obama should stop running down Bill Clinton. Obama hates The Clinton's and they hate him. That happens.

But the Clinton Years were not the best model for the Democratic Party. Clinton's accomplishments were far superior to Bush, but the Middle Class and especially the old Industrial Working Class have been in a full scale retreat for the last 36 years.

As Democrats we should dream big: Living Wages, Full Benefits.

Only in America would so many people work for so little without rising up. Every time France tries to take things away from workers or young people, they riot.

"creative class" [cough]

right?

Have we seen the end of the two party system?

Developing story over at the Huffington Post. I hear you won't be pleased when you find out what she said. Stay tuned...

**

Our politicians should run to bring an improvement in the real income of Americans.

Much of the "dot.com Boom" was lost in 2000.

Our Economic problems are real. We cannot go back to Industrial America, but to say that everyone did well in the 90's is simply untrue.

Neither Obama nor Clinton have any plan that will help workers make a living wage. McCain couldn't care less about the Middle Class.

Republicans believe the Market solves all problems, which it does by making a vigorous class of Billionaires and Millionaires at the same time as it makes an enormous class of people who are just barely holding on.

During the great boom, starting in the last two years of WW Two up until 1972, ordinary Americans became Middle Class.

With the collapse of the Industrial Economy came The Information Age. A much higher per-centage of income goes to big earners and to Hedge Funds and share holders.

I beg to differ with the underlying proposition.  Check this out:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/bartels-bash/

Ever since Reagan we've seen that the Republican philosophy has dominated American politics.  Yes, there was the first two years of the Clinton administration where important fiscal policies were enacted with a Democratic congress.  But, it was not long before Newt and his friends were in power.  That is the point that BO is trying to make, but HRC supporters seem to have a psychological block that prevents them from seeing this.  All the disastrous problems we currently have are the result of Republican's being dominant since Reagan.  Having control for two years is not a victory, it's a failure.  Then, Newt was able to push his "contract with America."  And, after Clinton, why was it so easy for Bush to undue everything?  Again, it's because the R philosophy has been dominant.

Did HRC ever try to pass legislation where she need to win people over and build coalitions?  No.  Were either of her campaigns difficult challenges?  No.  Her current campaign is the first time since the health care debacle that she's been in a real fight (never mind her propaganda about a record of being a fighter.)  Did she learn anything from the health care debacle.  No.  She's being belligerent and attacking, she doesn't (and never will) understand the nuance required to persuade.

Imo, Democrats are navel gazing weaklings who seem to be drawn to political fratricide.  I have always considered myself a Republican.  I even campaigned for McCain in the 2000 primary.  But, I did vote for Gore and Kerry (I even predicted Bush would attack Iraq before he was elected.)  I've also always voted for women, as a policy, no matter what their party was (where I live, WA, this means I've voted for a lot of women Ds; for local, state wide, and national offices: we have a lot of women running for office around here.)  So, although I consider myself an R, I've voted D at least 80% of the time.  I've always had an uneasy feeling about Ds (wolves [Rs] v. wolves in sheep's clothing [Ds], as X put it.)  Early last year, before, I was paying attention, I assumed that I'd vote for HRC for president.  But, once I started looking at the contenders I realized that BO was much better.  

Now I'm learning more about Democratic activists, thanks to blogs.  And, I'm finding that Democrats are extremely weak and fearful, even more than the characterization that I had always envisioned, and disliked.  All of this fretting about what the other side will do is mind numbing.  It's an odd way to run a political party.

If Ds want to spend energy pretending that R philosophy hasn't been dominant, then they will never be able to recognize reality, and they'll certainly never be able to change a reality that they can't even see.