Oh you mean more blogging same, not John "More of the Same" McCain.

I'm looking forward to your posts.

I have ALWAYS disagreed with Barack Obama's political style, his Unity Schtick. I have always advocated for Politics of Contrast/Fighting Dems. In some ways that is now a moot point because Barack Obama has been denied the Unity Schtick by the events of the campaign. He is now a Contrast Candidate in rhetoric.

You think Obama's rhetoric is that of contrast? I think McCain is taking that away from him now. Did you hear McCain's snore-inducing maunderings on Tuesday? Change, hope, believe, new technologies, blah blah blah. It sounded just like Obama.

I wonder how things might have turned out if Republicans had risen up and cut their extremists off at the knees? I feel fairly certain some 4K+ American soldiers would be alive today if they had.

My parents were party activists. I met my DH at a voter registration rally. He was an organizer for Students for McGovern. Our children are all politically active. It's in our blood. I was always so proud of what the Democratic party stood for. But now I just don't know.

I especially enjoy and learn from the difference of opinion. Hey, that's when you can REALLY learn something and make informed choices. I didn't and don't come here for a fan club tea party.

I am a huge Hillary supporter. I've been smitten with her since taking my then teenage daughter to hear her speak at a luncheon in Denver many moons ago.

I've learned more about myself and the political process during the last months from reading TL than I would have ever imagined.

1. Obama has said he would fight telco immunity, even support the Dodd filibuster. Will he do anything now, or is it politically important that he not stir that up again? To protect his national security cred?

2. Will Obama try to get his supporters in the Senate to back his stand? Thinking especially of Rockefeller, but he would need to lead people to new stands to back up his prior commitment against telco immunity, etc.

3. Do we really know his stands on lots of issues?

4. What do you see as his political/Senate actions in the near future (between now and convention, then convention to election)?

If the answer is yes, ok.

If the answer is no, I think that is totally ok too!

I have ALWAYS disagreed with Barack Obama's political style, his Unity Schtick. I have always advocated for Politics of Contrast/Fighting Dems.

And I always agreed with you on that too.

I just think it's funny because Obama is the one who embraces that style, versus the blur the differences approach of the DLC.

If you watch Obama in action, you'll see he is doing that even now.  Displaying and highlighting the contrast with John McCain.  What's most impressive, is not just his humor, but how he will go headlong into an argument rather than trying to avoid it.  The avoidance issue was the problem with Kerry, Gore, Dukakis and so on.  They were afraid of saying something that might offend someone, somewhere.

I can't advocate anyone refusing to vote. It is a personal decision based on personal feeling.

I can, however, say that the extent to which I have been sickened by what you have called, "the most biased Media and blog election coverage I have ever seen" has at least greatly dampened my enthusiasm for participating in this process.

In my view, a large part of this bias is misogyny, pure and simple.
The media and the blogs were rampart participators in this scourge of sexism and racism directed at Senator Clinton, but the Obama campaign bears some responsibility for it as well.

Here's why I will remain a refusenik or PUMA.

The Democratic Party has failed to deliver any meaningful opposition to Bush over the last few years. This election rewarded those in leadership at that time (Pelosi, Reid, and Daschle.) More importantly the Party destroyed any vestiges of integrity on May 31, 2008 (that includes halving Florida, not just stealing Michigan's votes). Now it has humiliated Senator Clinton into an early concession when any other race would have gone to the Convention.

Combining that with Obama's lack of preparation and willingness to toss aside all those who oppose or (now) simply embarrasses him results in a powder keg. It will literally leave those of who believe in one person, one vote with nowhere to go. It rewards a candidate who engaged in scorched earth tactics of racism and sexism. Most damningly it elevates a candidate who feels no loyalty to any platform or policy because he literally owes no one. They created the victory for him out of thin air for him.

His supporters are verbally violent, and he knows it.

Donna Brazile, on more than one occasion, has said if Obama doesn't get the nomination, "there will be blood".

Palestine, Hamas, and who knows who else, are using the internet to garner support for Obama. What will they feel comfortable doing should Obama be in charge?

Obama is rude, dismissive, and arrogant with the people of this country. He doesn't understand the domestic issues outside of South Chicago, and he shows no interest in finding out.

Like GWB, he will be the "decider", and his friends will be treated first. His earmarks to Father Pfleger fly in the face of his "special interests and earmarks" arguments. He definitely pays his debts with taxpayer money.

He can't speak to his policies without a teleprompter reminding him what they are that day. I don't believe a word he says.

His casual need to lie about the littlest things, and his absolute intent to lie about the biggest.

I do not believe his intent is honorable for the American people. I do believe he and Michelle are devoted followers of the preachers of the TUCC.

The reports that his representatives at the caucuses were less than honorable, and the likelihood the results were gamed.

He won't stay in a job long enough to become efficient before he's on to his next ambition. I see him sitting in the WH writing his next book.

Hard work isn't his mantra. And, what needs to be done in the country right now needs someone willing to do the work.

His inexperience isn't something that can just be ignored. He has absolutely no leadership background. If he wants to claim his campaign team, that is not the kind of leadership we need. They don't even scrub their own web site of the violent threats against Senator Clinton.

And BTD, do you see any avenue for primary/caucus reform coming from this?  I just can't see it, at all, and that's a huge problem.  

I feel similarly about bond measures on the ballot in SF.  They end up on there (partly) because they are the most desirable and the rest of the city has limited performance/control...so the corrupt aspects grow and are nurtured and rarely get cut because you can always shift things around and go to the voters for kittens and libraries and parks and teachers (oh my!).  

Most were so happy, overjoyed that a black man had done something like this. His stands were not mentioned, or if they were it was to say that he should say and do whatever is needed to get himself elected. That was mostly in response to one or two callers who were upset that it had been Hillary Clinton and not Obama who had commented on the Sean Bell verdicts and that Obama had to be coaxed into saying anything about the Jena, TX, teenagers.

One caller said he hoped Obama would not be elected president as he did not want to see a black face as leader of US imperialism. Definitely an outlier sentiment.

One woman feared his nom win, and possible general election win, would actually slow down improvements in attitudes towards blacks, by  giving white people and any racists a get away from charges of racism card. She feared they would think that since they voted for a black dude, no one could call them on any racist attitudes. But most callers were ecstatic that a black man had won and thought it marked amazing improvement in black standing in this country.

How will Obama campaign? Govern? How will he handled the race issues that may come up, that are inherent?

He really needs to avoid using what many came to call "the exclusionary 'we'."

He used it again in his speech on Tuesday.  It may have helped him build a "movement." (Whatever that means.)  But it's alienating.

And now that he's on the big stage, he needs to reach out to people who will vote for him, but aren't interested in joining a movement.

one of his senior advisers assured me Tuesday night [Obama was not] going to spend a lot of time in the next few months wooing Clinton supporters whose feelings may be hurting. . . . Anita Dunn said. "But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans . . . Obama has become the Macy's of Chicago when they took over Marshall Fields. They also were not going to try and woe the Field's customers and they are tanking here.

**

sometimes it might be helpful if you addressed those of us who have been so turned off by obama and reassure us as to why he is worth voting for.

at this point i am skeptical of his ability or his desire to promote democratic values in a significant way. just to choose one example, i like some others am not confident he wont sell out roe v. wade--i understnad him to be threatening us with the issue now and thus "playing" with an issue that no dem. nominee should play games with. (my wife's comment about this move of obama's is that he is like the typical guy who insists that women and owmen only are always responsible for providing the contraception.)

i want to  be persuaded to like him as a dem. candidate (as opposed to voting him b/c he his called the dem candidate) and i hope you can help with that.

I wondered what the media and blogs would do once Obama was the officially nominee and they didn't have a reason to beat up Clinton anymore. Yesterday, I checked TNR, The Atlantic, TPM, and guess what? None were focused on Obama, his campaign, what a potential Obama admininstration might look like. No, they were still beating up on Clinton, or, in some cases, both Clintons. Today, they are still beating up on Clinton.

Give they give it up?

I'm beginning to think Hillary hating is an addiction the Hillary haters, especially in the political media, are going to have a very hard time over-coming. Which is unfortunate because it makes it very difficult to see Obama clearly and get a handle on who he is, how he would govern and, most especially, how much actual enthusiasm there is out there for his possible presidency (and how committed it is), as opposed to mere hostility toward Hillary or hysteria at the idea of a woman leading a major party and/or the nation.

In my Washington state caucus, most of the new Obama supporters were middle aged men. Rather than speaking positively for their candidate, they all ranted against Hillary, "Billary" or "the Clintons." I wondered at the time, what happens to Obama's campaign when Hillary is out of the picture? Does it collapse? Do the Billary haters lose interest, wander off to McCain?

Clinton should take a long vacation after her endorsement on Saturday -- get out of the country and away from the media. And force the media to focus on Obama.

It must be tedious to keep holding a single set of perspectives.

I will cover this race as I have always, by providing my honest opinions about political tactics, strategy and events. I am no cheerleader. If I was writing for the front page of a big Democratic activist blog like Daily Kos, I would feel some obligation to be a cheerleader.

I think it's pretty clear that Obama is a politician through and through, surprise surprise. I'm not 100% of any of his real opinions on anything to tell you the truth. But given the party he is in, I suspect he will hold onto the positions he has espoused. And in the end, all politicians are this way.

I'll be very interested in arguing and yelling about all sorts of strategies and issues and the like through the general. At the end of the day I'm a Democrat. I'm very upset at the left blogs and media and Obama campaign and party elders for the trash they've spewed. I'm not sure I'll ever forgive any of them that. But I think Hillary is very smart and capable and will find her way through it one way or the other. I think she may very well take the Ted Kennedy path to service and be one of our greatest Senators. Time will tell.

 "But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans . . "

All that's important is what the Village wants.

That's why the Village is behind him.

(This will not include any assertion that McCain is fit to hold the office.)

Breaking the hold of the Kennedys on the Democratic Party is a way to go forward:
"One of the problems the Democratic Party has is that it is still living off the legacy of someone who's been dead for almost 45 years," says Bob Shrum, the longtime Democratic strategist who has been one of Ted Kennedy's closest advisers for decades. "Clinton could have renewed that legacy, but some unfortunate events intervened. Obama has the capacity, potentially, to do that--to reinvigorate the country's sense of mission for a new time."

However, per another commenter on this WNYC discussion, Michelle Obama is cultivating a 1960's Jackie fashion look, so the symbolism is there to work on one age group, but other than that, Obama has his own agenda. Speaks very little about poverty, period. Symbolism, but not substance. And Obama not doing well with those RFK connected with and wanted to work for.

Brian Lehrer brought up danger of discussing Kennedys in connection with Obama: bcz of attack on Hillary, speaking of the Kennedys, particularly the dead Kennedys, might trigger assassination attempts on Obama. (No one mentions that that the only substantive threat was against Hillary, but, hey.) Author said he actually thought about this in writing his article.

Running a partisan campaign plays to Republican strength.  They're the masters of partisan.  It's also a recipe for deadlock, especially in the Senate.  

Obama has had plenty to say about the issues, particularly health care and Iraq.  His strategy seems to be to campaign on these issues rather than on party lines.  Huge majorities are with him on the issues.  A smaller majority identifies as Democratic.  Getting people to focus on issues rather than party could be a good strategy.

[H]e appealed to the desire for radical change, without offering radical substance, thus not trigger Versailles' enmity. Quite the opposite, he endeared himself to Versailles by echoing their longstanding bipartisan CW--under his own "post-partisan" brand.

As one of the Unity Ambassadors noted above, I think he will revert to trying to "transcend partisan politics."

I have found this sort of talk troubling, even when I supported Obama, although I have to concede that it does play well to the Broderite Versailles Villagers. I remain utterly convinced that we will revert to the lawless and reckless behavior of the past seven years if we don't hold the Republicans accountable for what they've done in their contemptuous treatment of the Constitution, their wrecking of the economy, and their catastrophic foreign policy so detrimental to our national security.

I think the savagery the Clintons are still enduring in the media today is the signal that they are going to be kicked to the curb, as BTD so aptly says, along with a lot of folks here.

When Bill Clinton is made the unacceptable face of the Democratic Party by the Party Leadership itself, it's not because he's George Wallace or Richard J. Daley -- it's because he's a divisive leftist. It works in old-fashioned conventional DC power struggle terms as well, and so much the better for it.

It will be interesting -- neither Carter in 1976, nor Clinton in 1992, ran quite so audaciously an "anti-Washington Establishment" campaign as I think Obama is planning. With Patty Murray on the Veep list, the Obama team may continue to lump the "polarized" Nineties (that terrible time of peace, prosperity and balanced budgets) with the awful Aughts -- with a promise to bring the country back to, say, "late morning in America".

I liked Obama in the beginning, before I knew anything about him.  I was impressed by his speech a few years ago.

But, the more I learned about him the more I disliked him.  I don't like all his ties to radicals - the racist preachers, Farrakhan, the Chicago crooks, Rezko, the Iraqi criminals, and Ayers, the terrorist bomber of US sites.

But, what really turned me against him was his efforts to block the FL & MI votes, his collusion with the DNC, his goons stealing caucuses, his surrogates trying to throw Hillary out, trying to make the Clintons look like racists, his refusal to debate after the really bad one, his two-faced lies on just about everything including Hillary and her agenda, and the way he, his surrogates, the DNC, and the media continually savaged Hillary.

And, he and the DNC taking half of Hillary's FL & MI delegates, but leaving him with his South Carolina delegates intact even though SC broke the same rule.

Obama having the nerve to ask for and get any MI delegates when he wasn't even on the ballot.  And, claiming ALL the uncommitted which meant he hijacked the votes of people who voted for Mike Gravel or any of the other candidates who were not on the ballot.  

It was his strategic decision to take his name off to gain favor in Iowa.  It worked, he won Iowa. He should have accepted the MI loss along with the IA gain.

And, of course, the cherry on top was taking the 4 MI delegates directly from Hillary.

I call it corrupt politics which makes him no better than any other politician.

I congratulate Hillary for running a clean and honest campaign. And, for winning the People's Votes, the only honest numbers.

Barack's message, one that BTD by his very name should be interested in, is more appropriate during a time when the Bush administration has left the US cynical, and seeking a change from the excesses of the past 25 years.

I've supported individual candidates' campaigns (and issues, like human rights and peace movements, from within NGOs), and after 2000 and throughout the Bush admin, more activist in media watch groups and govt watchdogs.

2006 put me more on the sidelines and I had about a year of "bloggo silence" in the comments sections because I wanted to be conscientious about not using other people's space, particularly affirmatively Democratic sites, to hang out and carp about the party.

I was vocal here to find out about candidates and after Sen Clinton won my vote, to be vocal about her. Very vocal. :-)

Now I'll follow the Obama/McCain race until the convention after which, I hope, the official Dem nominee is one who can win the White House and govern best there.

But that will be interesting all by itself. Certainly Hillary wants to be relevant, and will likely not actually release her delegates (just in case), but really she will be out. So we'll see what coverage she gets. And we'll see how they accept any campaign help she offers.

"what will  you call triangulation when Obama does it?
oh and if you think its not coming check out what his campaign says:
 "But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans . . "

what will you call that?  bipartisanship?"

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama is keeping Howard Dean as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, while bringing in one of his top strategists to oversee the party's operations.

 Obama made changes at the party headquarters his first order of business as the presumed presidential nominee. Campaign adviser Paul Tewes was dispatched to help lead the changes Thursday, with Dean still as the chairman.