Thank you.

5) He's not a she.

The last time Social Security was going through the media cycles, I'm pretty sure it was democrats who were insisting on a crisis. The conservos were the ones claiming that everything was fine.

Well, give you props for a level-headed dissent. Wholly disagree, but still.

There's a reason you write about local transit issues and not national politics, and that reason is pretty fucking glaring in this post.

But I'm glad you're 'a wonk' now. And that you have no fucking clue about healthcare policy.

well written. good points.

i'm still an obama supporter, but these reasons make the shared caveat much easier to bear...

Thank you, Erica. Ditto.

Stop burdening all the coveted, doe-eyed young voters with policy analysis.

1] is it really that difficult to believe that not all republicans are divisive scumbags? that's an overly simplistic, fox news-esque mentality, and a huge part of obama's appeal is his willingness to move past it.

i personally find it extremely counter-productive to dismiss your political opponents on such trivial grounds. personally, i'm sick and fucking tired of the red state / blue state bullshit we've had to endure over the past 7 years and not looking forward to any more of it. ffs, le'ts bury the hatchet and move on.

and uh, clinton had more than a few republicans in his administration. this is nothing new.

2] "parroting right wing talking points" was a huge part bill clinton's winnning strategy.

Exactly. Obama is charismatic, but little else.

@9 - burying the hatchet is great if both parties do it. If not (and is there any sign the Rs would ever do such a thing?) you're opening yourself up for a scalping.

2) ... In 2005, he even wrote that Republicans were not, contrary to what Democrats believed, a “sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners” party... I find it alarming that Obama would dismiss as “labels” a description of the Republican Party that was and is undeniably true.

So... the implication is that Obama should be more... sharply partisan?  Take-no-prisoners?  Possibly more radically liberal?

Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of Stranger readers Erica. Especially in regards to points 1 and 2.

I won't even go into his education plan.

stunning analysis.

Good to year. Any whining from stranger writers will only boost the cause. Please continue to not support Obama.

great - another reason to back obama! erica c doesn't...

Levislade @11, that's the kind of thinking that's got us (and will keep us) where we are today.

Hard as it may be to believe, tooth-and-nail partisanship and unilateral disarmament are not the only choices.

hear, that is. or read... Observe, maybe.

...and these are all the reasons why he might attract republicans to cross over and vote for a democrat and break the stalemate we've seen for the last decade.

Sadly, in a two party system with a divided population there is no room for idealism. We need to put a candidate forward that elicits the broadest appeal, then once elected lobby them to get what we want.

Sad. -25 pts for ECB.

FDR, LBJ, and JFK could not have gotten their social reforms passed without reaching across the aisle. Clinton can't do that any more than Bush can. They both have too much baggage. Obama did best among independant voters, under-35 voters, and crossover Republicans. He represents a new page even if his policies are only marginally different from Hillary's and you need that "newness" to get any cooperation from the other side.

Spot on, Erica. Those ARE the points that put me off him, especially #5. I still support him on electability grounds, and for the fact that I think he's more likely to actually accomplish things with Congress than Edwards is. If Edwards wins, it will be all-out war in Congress, and unless the Ds have filibuster-proof majorities in both houses, he might not get a single item passed. But you're absolutely right on all five. Haters can go suck their bongs.

Also:

If you had the courage of your supposed convictions, you'd be supporting Dennis Kucinich, who actually authentically cares about all the issues you're so supposedly up-in-arms about.

Your anger is that people are not recipricating your crush on John "Say Anything" Edwards. If you're under the impression that the policy gap between Clinton, Edwards, or Obama will be that striking in implementation... well, that's why you're not in Iowa.

Obama will be a great president, and your arguments are totally fucking contrived.

You make some good points. I particularly agree that we need health care for all people. My hope if Obama does win the nomination and becomes president is that he will be the step our nation needs to continue the path towards a more progressive liberal government. I would very much like to see Edwards as a Vice Pres at least.

Social Security is in crisis - not a crisis in the strictly fiscal sense in which you and Krugman are taking that word, though. The crisis is the combination of Social Security's looming insolvency and the persistent lack of national (presidential) leadership to find a solution to stave off that insolvency. Obama has put forth specific proposals on how to remove the insolvency threat. Clinton has proposed another goddamn blue-ribbon commission.

He didn't allow McLurkin to "use his campaign for a platform" for anything. BTW, Hillary tried to hire that guy too, did you know that?
Despite what you may think, all Republicans are not idiots, and most democratic presidents have had them in their cabinets. Now that you are officially "paying attention", you might want to dig a little deeper.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

At least he isn't scarred of nuclear power. It truly is our only current clean alternative.

#1 and #4 are fair criticisms.

#2 - meh. A minority party senator (not anymore, granted) needs to pursue bipartisan compromise if he/she is to accomplish anything. Furthermore, I'd argue that, in an era in which politics isn't extremely polarized, progressive agendas will actually end up enjoying more success.

And #3 - also meh. So he used the word "crisis" once; that can be written off as a mistake. Is there any more substantial evidence that he's engaging in Social Security alarmism?

It's hard to imagine how our pathetic DC Demrats could be any more bipartisan than they are now--they give the goddamnrepublicans single, psycho thing that they want! Then they tell progressive and liberal people that actually vote for them to drop dead over and over again to the thunderous applause of the Beltway press corps.

No one is interested in "bipartisanship" until there's a real possibility that liberals and progressives might actually end up in charge, then it's up to us to kow-tow to the wrong-wingers' vile policies, no matter how destructive.

If the past year of the repulsive, failed Democratic Congress is an example of the kind of fucked over "compromise" we can look forward to, then no thanks.

I agree with you 200%. Number 4 especially is a big one for me.

Come on, people. None of this crap matters unless you end the war in Iraq. Unless you do that, you won’t accomplish any of the lovely 10 and 20-point programs on which Edwards is best, and Clinton at least as good as Obama.

If Obama is elected, he will have the moral authority to end the war. Does anybody else?

It’ll be total partisan warfare if it’s Edwards or Clinton in the Oval Office. Part of me relishes that—payback! But they’ll be pilloried for ending the war, or lose face with D’s if they don’t. Obama, by reaching across the aisle, might pull it off—and actually accomplish part of the 10 and 20-point programs.

@23 Read Erica's first sentence five times, and punch yourself in the head each time.

Anyone care to name a Republican you would be happy to see in the next administration?

Also, regarding his ethanol touting - I'm assuming this is just one of those Iowan hoops that many a politican jumps through without it amounting to much policy-wise in the end.

I haven't been impressed with Obama when he doesn't have a script. With a script, very impressive. Without a script, and particularly when he's cornered or made uncomfortable, he comes across as whiny and unprepared. Accordingly, I think HRC has wiped the floor with him in all of the debates.

I think he's due for a major gaffe or meltdown, and this worries me, particularly in the general election.

Policy-wise, all three of them are more or less the same. Nothing drastic is going to get through Congress no matter who gets elected, so don't hold your breath for universal healthcare from any of them.

Obama has the nation captivated and good for him in doing so.
He also has the youth vote in larger proportion to the other candidates.
I also don't fear the republicans after this because they all are comming off as loony tunes. They may have the old republican guard trying to use old tactics to come after him, but I bet most of their children are going to switch to Obama.
Being involved in some colleges I've seen some youth who have come from Republican families not into the same issues as their parents, especially in this day and age. And some are starting to realize the tomfoolery of the GOP party.
This is not the past and it is not 2004.
Obama is ready for the presidency and I think we all are too for a change.
Everyone can poke holes into all the candidates , and i have seen that through out this campaign, and I' am sure there are a thousand links to this or that that makes a candidate look like we need someone else.
From what I've read throughout the entire links presented and Edwards and clintons, I'm seeing more and more that Obama has got my vote.
Iowa and NH are just the beginning. Wait till the rest of the nation shows everyone how powerful the youth vote will be this year. In the media they are all gaga over what just occured to them about youth vs. religious voters. And they are right.

Agreed Erica, and his Foriegn Policy doesn't look that great compared to Clinton.

I hate Edwards, so on that we disagree.

Excellent post, ECB. Were you by any chance advising the Clinton Administration when they took office in 1992? They managed to lose Congress for the Democrats after two short years by attempting to ram through divisive issues and ignore the other party (health care, gays in the military). The result was "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and a health care fiasco. So if the new Democratic president takes your advice, I'm really looking forward to another two years of failure followed by 14 years in the Republican desert. WTF??

Erica, a correction please: Donnie McClurckin NEVER toured with Obama. McClurckin appeared at a single campaign event, which Obama himself was never scheduled to attend. This is not a tour.

People have been getting this wrong from the very beginning, and it's just NOT TRUE.

For the most part, what appeals to me about Obama are exactly the same things that ECB doesn't like about Obama. But there is a little more to say about #3 and #4.

#3: SS is not in crisis because it is currently paying 15% of the federal budget, and in the future it expects get back 15% of the federal budget in return. While that's fine and dandy for SS, it sucks for those of us expected to fund an effective 30% increase in the federal budget. Paul Krugman himself admits that funding this will require a tax increase representing about an additional 5% of GDP, he just doesn't regard that as a problem. But there are a lot of taxpayers do, and who would rather slash the checks we send to the oldsters than endure a 5% tax hike. If those taxpayers win, you can be damn sure than the oldsters will regard that as a SS crisis.

#4: The Edwards and Clinton mandates are not "do this or we lock you up" mandates, they are "do this or we fine you" a couple $K mandates. Fiscally, that is absolutely equivalent to Obama's "if you do this we will give you a tax credit" of a couple $K proposals.

1) Fair enough. He could be better on energy.

2) Obama believes (or at the very least, acts like he believes) that its possible to work with people on the other side of the aisle to get stuff done, that Americans of all political stripes have quite a lot of common concerns, and that Republicans and conservatives are capable of making valuable contributions to the political process (perish the thought!). The fact that you view this as "appeasement" says a lot more about you than it does about him - ie, that you really relish the culture wars which many Obama supporters are so tired of.

3) OK, I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you didn't really think about this one before posting it. Clearly Obama's stance on Social Security legislation is more important than whether or not he uses a word which Paul Krugman and the Huffington Post have deemed verboten, right? Are you even aware of what his proposal for addressing the real but manageable shortfall in Social Security funding is? Think maybe you should have elaborated on that before slamming him?

I mean, christ, this reminds me of the "controversy" over Obama not wearing an American flag lapel pin, or over Obama not putting his hand over the correct body part during the national anthemn. At the time, I thought to myself: What educated, thinking person would give a flying fuck about anything as trivial as that when there are real issues to be dealt with?

Tell me you're not one of those people, Erica.

4) Again, fair enough. I don't think a healthcare mandate is going to fly anytime soon in this country, and I think Obama's plan is a reasonable compromise: it gets healthcare for people who really want and need it without blowing tons of political capital to force it on people who "just want the government off their backs." Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good, is what I'm trying to say. But again, I can see your point.

1. I'm shocked, SHOCKED that candidates would pander to corn growers in Iowa.
2. The only Dem candidates who didn't "throw gays under the bus" in their courting of evangelical Christians are running way back in the pack. So who really cares? And bipartisanship works in California.
3. So who's being left out of Obama's health care plan? Christian Scientists? I don't think the reason people lack health insurance is that no one has forced them to buy it.

#4: The Edwards and Clinton mandates are not "do this or we lock you up" mandates, they are "do this or we fine you" a couple $K mandates. Fiscally, that is absolutely equivalent to Obama's "if you do this we will give you a tax credit" of a couple $K proposals.

Well, yes and no. Irrational though it may be, there is, in most citizens' minds, a significant difference between being offered a $1000 tax credit for doing X and being fined $1000 for not doing X. Perhaps Obama's plan seeks to try to avoid the "feeling" of coercion.

who's going to give us money for light rail?

Um.

1) Won't matter. Seriously. Just to balance the budget, he'll have to kill the oil subsidies at some point.

2) You say this like it's a bad thing. It's not. Just ask your fave Bill Clinton, who was way too much of an appeaser.

3) No Dem candidate is seriously going to harm Social Security. Everyone knows this, and Obama knows it too. Besides, the only thing that matters is they get rid of the earnings cap - then it's funded until the end of the world.

4) This is your only real point, and the reality is he's said he's going to negotiate it. The important thing is he's going to do something, and knows he has to do something. He may end up with a nationalized single payer health care plan, quite frankly, for competitive reasons that have to do with international politics and business. This is not a fixed thing.

Stop worrying, ECB. It will all work out.

Way to break it down Erica. Obama's an idealist, a great speaker and he has nice hands. Really, is this all we need in a president? If so, then we've got some local activists who should jump into the primaries.
Policy is where it's at people and like him or hate him, one candidate stands out far above the rest: John Edwards.
And yes, there will be a battle and he will lead it - the time has come. We have to stop this path to utter destruction that we're on.
Please use your brain when you vote and please don't just vote for the most congenial candidate.

Somebody must be able to tell me the name of a Republican you want to see in the next administration. Not some hypothetical nice guy, a real one, like we see every day. Picture that person in the White House and think of all the Democrats who could have gone in that slot. Tell me you think the country will be better served with that Republican instead of the most qualified Democrat.

@27 - I'm sorry, what were you saying?

Oh, yes, nukes are safe. Stop watching YouTube, you might get a clue and then I might not get so much sleep ...

for_fucks_sake @5:

There's a reason you write about local transit issues and not national politics, and that reason is pretty fucking glaring in this post.

FFS, I take exception to your criticism. As a local transit activist, I can assure you that Erica is no less clueless about national politics than she is about local transit issues. ;-)

To paraphrase you, there's a reason Ralph Nader didn't endorse Barack Obama.

I'm not an Obama fan for most of the reasons you list, ECB. But that, "Politically, he's an appeaser," thing is just ridiculous. There are several groups within the Republican party whose agenda lines up really well with a progressive liberal agenda -- particularly when it comes to issues around the separation of church and state and gay marriage. Barry Goldwater supported gay marriage on church/state grounds and, while the Republican party of today certainly isn't Goldwater's party, that strain of progressive libertarianism still exists among Republicans. Likewise, Republicans and Democrats can agree on domestic manufacturing, energy policy, and -- with a little voter education -- domestic infrastructure spending.

If you weren't such a bigot, you'd realize that. But nevermind. Continue on with your hate mongering, by all means.

Ah, nice to see the Stranger's version of Joni Balter weighing in. As for your claim of being a "policy wonk" give me a break, you're as much of a policy wonk as Michelle Malkin is. You have a preconceived set of beliefs, ideas and prejudices and the policies you support aren't actually designed to solve any of the problems you claim to be so concerned about so much as they are about reifying and reinforcing those beliefs, ideas and prejudices.

As far as quoting Paul Krugman goes what a joke, Krugman is nothing more than an unpaid Clinton apparatchik, he's the Clinton campaign's version of Hugh "Fuck me Mitt Romney. Fuck me now like Daddy used to and make it hurt because I love you" Hewitt. It's interesting that in including the Krugman link you didn't include this one

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112001651_pf.html

It's a fun little article on all of the times that Paul Krugman said that Social Security and Medicare faced a crisis back in the 1990s. Maybe Obama bought into the false idea that Social Security is in a "crisis" because he read a bunch of Krugman's columns. Who knows?

And when it comes down to supporting the right, well both John Edwards and Hilary Clinton go, voted for the Iraq war resolution and for the PATRIOT act. Both of them thought that the pro-war bandwagon was great place to be until it wasn't any more. To be fair Obama wasn't in the Senate then, but still, when they perceived it as within their interest to tack right, talk war and give George W. Bush everything he wanted, both Edwards and Clinton did so, principles be damned. And as for Edwards populism, what a fucking joke, the man made his "Two Americas" speech in the 2004 election and then after he was out of office spent the next two years working as a high paid consultant for a Wall Street hedge fund. Yeah, that's just what someone who is concerned about the little people does, goes to work for a hedge fund that ended up being up to its ass in the subprime debacle.

I'll vote for any of them in November (unless of course Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination) but let's face it, Hilary Clinton is an opportunistic fraud who rode her husband's coat tails to a New York senate seat (and who is still riding those coat tails, guess she never heard that "sisters are doing it for themselves") and John Edwards is nothing more than a southern pretty boy with nice hair who will say anything to become president, a Democratic version of Mitt Romney, minus the magic Mormon underwear.

Nice post, ECB. I, too, will be happy to support Obama if he gets the endorsement. But he's not the second fucking coming of Christ, and people should calm the fuck down around here.

"Inclusion" and "unity" means centrist policies that incorporate fiscal and social moderates. If that's what you like about your candidate, live with the policy consequences.

Oh, I'm sorry, we're not supposed to talk about policy when we talk about Obama. Hope hope hope. Ah, I feel all better.

Agreed on all fronts but I sure got excited watching Obama's acceptance speech last night. He's a rock star and will come around on the policy gaps. I prefer Edwards’ positions but think that supporting Obama will put me on the right side of history.

@46 -

Tell me you think the country will be better served with that Republican instead of the most qualified Democrat.

Obama is certainly not the most qualified Democrat. He may end up being the nominated Democrat, and he would be better than any Republican, but look at that big brain on Hillary (who I can't stand, by the way).

I just think he'll be a much better leader. Obama that is. He's not half as sleazy as the others.

Maybe you can get him to change his health care plan??

Hey Edwards lovers - do you realize that Sen. Edwards is just running to the left because he thinks that will get him elected. He doesn't actually believe what he is talking about. Remember in the build up to the war in Iraq, that he was the Senate Democratic Whip on building support for the war. Of course you don't, because you buy into his rhetoric now. He was the biggest Hawk in the Senate because he thought that would make him the strongest presidential candidate in 2004. Edwards will say anything to get elected.

If Obama get's elected our Astronauts had better learn how to say "can I hitch a ride" in russian for the next 10+yrs.

@48, I meant no more clueless. Oh heck, you get what I mean.

Part of what I think is so challenging about Obama to traditional leftists like Erica and Ralph Nader is what's so challenging about Gore. He actually thinks about the world and politics in new, and more productive, ways.

Notice Erica mentioned nothing of the Iraq War. Hillary and Edwards were all too happy to sell out on the Iraq War if only because of a failure of imagination. They couldn't see the world beyond the "You're either with us or you're a pacifist" dichotomy created by Bush/Cheney/Rove.

But Obama, like Gore, made precisely the right arguments against the war, precisely the arguments that would get borne out by history. He opposed the war not as a pacifist but on hawkish, national-security grounds. Here's Obama's speech from 2002 opposing the war:
Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq

As I'ved said before, Abraham Lincoln didn't run for president in 1860 as an abolitionist. Just the opposite. And yet, Lincoln was the president who freed the slaves by the harshest means possible. The difference between Edwards and Obama is that Edwards will talk on and on about kicking corporate ass and then not accomplish much; Obama will talk about unity and then actually draw some corporate blood, however diplomatically.

Oh, and BTW, Obama ain't takin' no $$$ from lobbyists, last I checked. Neither is Edwards, although the guy doesn't have a problem with 527 groups, apparently. Special interests are OK by Edwards as long as they're the special interests he agrees with.

@54 -

He's not half as sleazy as the others.

Give him another couple of years in DC, and he'll be just as dirty as the rest. He's not sleazy the same way Britney's kids aren't in therapy.

@50 & 51 - I agree with everything you said.

@Cressanova:

Very convenient to be against the war when you don't have to vote on it with 80% approval from ALL AMERICANS.

For better or worse we have a represenative democracy. That means, that Senators and Congressmen/women have to appeal to their constituents. That is what they are elected to do.

And 80% OF ALL FUCKING AMERICANS WANTED THIS STUPID FUCKING WAR. I didn't want it, but MOST OF EVERYONE ELSE DID. They wanted that act to pass in congress. So, people can be all like "Oh Obama, he is sooo great for not voting or wanting the war..."

But that is what the people wanted. You can't be pissed that congress passed a measure allowing the president to act if necessary, and everyone and their mother wanted it.

So stop bringing it up Obama supporters, like he is holier than thou because of it. Its total BS.

To all of you Edwards haters:
Get your facts straight - John Edwards was the director of the Poverty Center when he came out of office:
www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb05/edwards020405.html

And here's a key difference between the candidates: Obama & Clinton won't take lobbyists' money NOW.
John Edwards never did. It's a matter of integrity.

@53 Mahtli69

You misunderstood. Obama says he will appoint Republicans to serve in his administration. My question is, can you suggest any names of which Republicans you would like to see Obama appoint? Picture that Republican serving in the Obama administration and tell me how great that would be, as opposed to the Democrat Edwards or Clinton would have appointed for that post.

Thanks Erica. I disagree with you a lot, but on this subject we are sympatico.

And by the way, contrary to what some commenters seem to think, finding a way out of Iraq, while really important, pales in comparison to the environmental issue. We need an energy-savvy, no-bullshit, let's-get-this-done-no-matter-what-the-car makers-and-powers-that-be-say-about-the-"economic impact"-kind of guy (or gal) at the helm, or we all die. Period.

Also, isn't it funny how the beef against Hillary (and for Obama) has been "we want change," which I presumed to mean, change from both the Bush and Clinton clans. But now everybody is falling overthemselves to reach across the aisle, which is exactly what Hillary's husband did while he was in office? I thought progressives finally realized that we need to fight, not compromise...apparently, I'm wrong.

Vote Edwards. Or Hillary.

Great, Edwards was director of the Poverty Center, exactly how does that balance the fact that he was the biggest hawk in the Senate on the Iraq war?

The winning ticket:
Edwards Pres
Obama VP

What really bugs me about some of Obama's supporters (including those in the media) is the attitude that even Barry's farts don't stink, and everybody else is corrupt (see last @54 and end of @50). In contrast, Obama fans @4 and @6 seem like a breath of fresh air.

Anyway, good luck to whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Gore and Kerry were not bad candidates either, and look who they were running against.

Also, that goes ditto for the Patriot Act.

Most Americans wanted it cause they were all scared after 9/11. Don't you fuckers remember? Everyone was too fucking scared, and sure the GOP were snakes and took advantage, but PEOPLE WANTED IT, including democrats. Which is why Democrats voted it in. Sure, its a fine line between doing what people want and what you think is right, sure.

But that being said, its a fine line and people honestly fucking wanted it.

So STFU already. Jesus.

OM, so now we want a president that follows popular opinion especially on crucial matters such as national security and civil liberties rather than actually someone who is a leader and can show some intestinal fortitude when facing adversity. No thanks, I'll pass.

PS- of course this is during the primaries - if Edwards makes it to the general I will gladly send him $$$ and vote for him.

@59 -

But that is what the people wanted. You can't be pissed that congress passed a measure allowing the president to act if necessary, and everyone and their mother wanted it.

Of course you can, Monique. There's a reason we don't do this sort of thing by ballot initiative. Right now, senators that voted against that bill look pretty damn prescient, and turned out to be exactly in line with what the US public would feel years later with more knowledge. Obviously, it's difficult for senators to go against the public will, but when they vote they take on responsibility for the consequences, and can't say "But you people made me!"

And one more thing, OM, not everyone wanted it. In the House of Representatives, the majority, yes MAJORITY of House Democrats opposed the Iraq War. Perhaps it could have been the same in the Senate had Edwards not been pressuring his fellow Senators to support the war.

My prediction: If Obama wins the nom, he'll get eviscerated by the Republican attack machine. He's so out of his league, nice hands or no.

a democrat having republicans in their cabinet [or vice-versa] is not some far-fetched, wacky new idea. until gwb, this was standard practice.

gwb had a democratic secretary of transportation. just sayin'

@67 & 68

If they didn't pass it, people would be more upset "what are we paying you for, why won't you protect us..wah wah wah"

Its a fine line, I am not arguing they have no responsibilty, but they have to do both at the same time, where as Obama didn't have constituents to face.
So you can't compare him to them. It's not the same. Now, Kucinich didn't vote for either, and he was actually IN CONGRESS.

Now that is a good comparison. We have no idea how Obama would have voted with pressure from people who "put him in office".

OM, what are you talking about? It wasn't just kooky Kucinich against the war in the Congress. Again, the majority of House Democrats opposed the war, because instead of taking their marching orders from polls and/or the administration they were actually looking at the intelligence reports. They knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They knew Iraq had no WMDs. Edwards on the other hand, instead of having our country's best interest on his mind, had the White House on his.

But I guess it is always better to shoot first and ask questions later. Its too bad we didn't have Edwards in the White House instead of JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Thank you. I don't understand why democrats always seem so obsessed with this goofy thing called "electability". Do the rebublicans do that too?

Well put!

I think it's great that Obama is so inspiring to people who would not otherwise vote and that he appeals to those who have voted Republican in the past. His effect on voters seems (for now) downright Reagan-like. People trust his judgment and project their own hopes upon him, regardless of their politics beliefs. This should help him get elected if he wins the nomination, which I suspect he will.

Having said this, I still don't get much sense of who he is or what sort of President he would be. I like the idea of him as our leader in the arena of world affairs, but I am not confident that his domestic policies will reverse the current downward trends.

Edwards: Lesson Learned

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20071105-a-new-strategy-for-iran/

Obama, Gore, Sens. Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Chaffee, Conrad, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Graham, Inouye, Jeffords, Kennedy, Leagy, Levin, Milulski, Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, Wellstone, Wyden, and 133 House Members: didn't need to "learn a lesson."

Why do we always give more credence (Edwards, Murtha, etc) to those who made a monumental mistake on Iraq and apologized over those who were right all along? I want someone with more sound judgment in the White House. Not only taking part but leading the charge on the worst foreign policy step in this country's long history isn't corrected with an "oops, I am sorry."

If Sen. Edwards makes it through the primaries and into the general election, I will gladly support him. But the primaries are there for us to select the best candidate, and I am not going to support someone who designs their foreign policy around polls.

@ 70 "My prediction: If Obama wins the nom, he'll get eviscerated by the Republican attack machine."

Obama is an awfully slippery target for the Republican attack machine. He's already a hit with independents and moderate republicans, so they really can't paint him as an unhinged liberal. And what else are they gonna do, imply that he's too naive and inexperienced to be president? Start a whispering campaign that he's a Muslim? The Clintonistas tried it, and it didn't work.

Meanwhile, they've already got their scripts written for the other two front runners: Edwards is a rich, effete, hypocritical class warrior who gets $400 haircuts. And Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton.

@Poll Watcher:

I don't like Edwards, I think he is a dick. I think he is a dick for supporting the war.

I think Hillary Clinton is a dick for supporting the war

Yes, Senate democrats get marching orders from their leadership, and many were against it...

but no matter what, each senator has to answer to their constituents. There was a senate election that November, and the vote was in October. Sure, those people not up for re-election could vote how they wanted, but those under the gun had to vote what the people wanted.

Obama didn't have the pressure, so it's an unfair comparison.

ECB, you're not FOR anything. And whatever you're not for doesn't matter, since our votes don't count here in Washington. Go blow your bike.

@78 So Obama's fully an unknown on this.
Complete wild card. Oh let's just go for it over tried and true politicos who have to put their history on the line. What the hell, right? It's just this country's future.

72 - well there you go! even the most divisive administration in our country's history crossed party lines.

anyone dissing obama for suggesting he would have republican cabinet members is rather ignorant of how a typical administration operates. and i say this as someone who considers himself *extremely* ignorant on such matters.

What it all comes down too, kibitzing aside, is that:

Obama is the 21st Century

Clinton is the 20th Century, and it shows.

Edwards wants to be the 21st Century but somehow it doesn't come thru clearly with him.

And the Republicants are the 18th Century - except for Huckabee, who's the 8th Century.

You do watch the tube, don't you? It's obvious just watching them.

Haters can go suck their bongs.

Another insightful pearl of wisdom from that supergenius Fnarf.

Yeah, sure, back in the past a Democrat could find a reasonable Republican to serve in his administration. And you can always find a wimpy Democrat. But what about today's real live Republicans? Nobody can name even one they want to see in a cabinet post. Not even one. Nobody can think of even one name.

It's funny: Obama's supporters are as weak on specifics as Obama himself.

OM- I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. I think Obama, if he was in the Senate would have voted against the resolution. I think you will notice that his seat mate, Sen. Durbin, voted against the resolution.

and @82, maybe some people support Obama because he is charismatic AND we agree with his policies. I mean we could go with the two Democratic frontrunners with less charisma because they have more experience in DC - but more experience doesn't mean more qualified.

President Bush has been served in the White House longer than Sen. Edwards was in the Senate - is Bush a better president than Edwards could be? Dick Cheney has been an elected official in DC longer than Sen. Clinton, does that make him a better candidate for president? No, so just because Sen. Edwards was in the Senate 2 years longer than Obama has been, and Sen. Clinton has been there 4 years longer, does not mean they are in a better position to lead this country.

@ 80: Sure, those people not up for re-election could vote how they wanted, but those under the gun had to vote what the people wanted.

Only if they were more concerned about their reelection than about the future of the world.

elenchos- Chris Shays, Bill Ruckelshaus, Clinton's Sec of Defense William Cohen, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, shall I go on?

@87 - What policies? Hope and being a decent guy with good intentions does not clarify any policies. Barack's super charismatic and I genuinely like his persona - in fact, much more so than Hillary's or John's. But I don't support him as President but will of course, if the other two don't make it.
Hope just doesn't cut it - not to mention that Hope was the Kerry/Edwards buzzword for the campaign three years ago. I mean really, with all the stuff Obama is stealing from Edwards, you'd think he'd be a little more creative. And you'd think the public would see right through it.
Americans never cease to amaze me.

Again, with health care, it's going to be all about incrementalism. We'll get all children covered, then increase the age to 25, then finally everyone will be covered. No way we're getting single payer health care right now. It actually sounds pragmatic to me.

oh so let's insure the youngest and presumably healthiest first and let's take our time getting around to poor people who have presumably been paying into the system for a long time and may have health issues.
Is that an Obama policy? If so, then I'll work hard against him because that's weak.

oh wait! Obama doesn't have policies!

I was originally OK with Clinton or Obama (but leaning toward Clinton). When I found out Obama's devoted volunteers are referred to as "Barack Stars" I was so sickened I would even put Rudy in front of Obama!

This is a good debate and all, but, unless I slipped past it, I am a little surprised nobody has drawn parallels between Obama and RFK. There are many obvious differences. Still, like RFK, Obama is youthful, vigorous, fresh (fired up!), charismatic, smart, speaks from the heart and eloquently so, conveys an inspirational vision of a unified country, inspires new people into politics, and projects (to me, anyway) a sense that he can kick ass if necessary.

It's right and just to scrutinize Obama's policy positions and criticize him when he falls short. But I think the excitement and optimism he stirs up have been stressed too little, not too much. Who was the most recent viable candidate managing to do this? Dean? Bradley? Jesse Jackson? Jerry Brown? Not! Who, other than Bobby Kennedy himself? Of course, there is one parallel we must hope does not come to pass--that Obama suffer the same fate as his precursor. Call me morbid, but I can't quite help worrying about that.

@89

Wait, the last guy on you list is a former Republican who quit the party, which makes me think you were out of gas with Olympia Snowe and couldn't have kept going without some serious overstretching.

But that's OK. I only wanted one and you came up with at least 4 Republicans (in name only, of course).

Do you think the ones still holding seats would give them up for a cabinet post? After all, these are people who could easily switch parties but for some reason they want to resist a larger D majority. They'd be handing the seats to the Democrats, and if they are that anti-Republican, why didn't they just switch parties already?

But OK, at least you named some. I don't know why you think these people are the best ones to serve now, but if the point is only to not make everyone barf, I'll grant you that.

@95 -- I'll toss in another one. Former NM gov Gary Johnson as drug tsar...a pro-legalization republican.

Weird, ECB states why she doesn't like Obama's policies and all these people say he doesn't have policies. Are they agreeing with her or disagreeing?

At any rate, I'm disappointed in the race baiting that ECB employed in her first point by using "lip service" twice. Can't we grow beyond these ignorant stereotypes?

It sounds like so many Dems like the author of this post just want to do to the repubs what they have been doing to the dems for the last eight years. This is a recipe for disaster and does not move our country forward in the slightest. Pull your head out of your ass.

I was kind of excited about the great turnout for Obama last night (even though I'm a diehard Clinton fan.) But after listening to all the tonedeaf dickheads on this thread insulting ECB for having the temerity to talk about this issues, I'm no longer quite so celebrationatory.

The point that Obama would appoint republicans is shit. The greatest president we have ever had (Lincoln) appointed several of his political rivals and members of the opposition to important posts. Sure the temptation is there to give Bush and Co. the finger, but it would be more effective, and more mature to include republicans. We bitch about how Bush politicized many appointments, now it is our turn, and I suggest Obama is right to take the high road.

Arguing over the finer points of the three leading candidates policy positions and to whom they've pandered is great, but it misses the larger point. Which of these three candidates, who have very similar positions on the issues, can govern most effectively?

I don't see how the answer can't be Obama. His background (yes, including his race) and presence give him advantages and credibility on both international and domestic issues that Clinton and Edwards can't touch. And he lacks Clinton's polarizing political baggage, which is an asset in and of itself.

Let's hope. Let's all just hope.

Hey is this wonky enough for you? It's Hilzoy from Obsidian Wings and I think she can wonk anyone into a coma:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

Problem with policy in this country is that we're not a parliamentary democracy like the UK, or even a blended system like Australia. In the UK in particular, your GOVERNMENT is elected on the basis of the policies put forward. In this country policy should = idea because once it's gone through the legislative process it rarely is the same thing promised by a president.

I'm actually one to probably come around to Obama, though I haven't made my mind up completely yet. I think he takes a chicken shit approach to gay marriage (which of course I'm interested in). That being said, it's a political reality and he's in essence for everything else important to the gay community.

One thing I haven't seen from any of the candidates is an emphasis on infrastructure- ie more transit, repair bridges, improve ports and roads... given that this country's transport is in a sickly shape there's nothing coming from anyone in the process that I've seen. This should be an important issue particularly to us here in Puget Sound.

I guess most importantly is that it's been a long time since this country has had a charismatic leader in Obama's mold. No other candidate offers that. Bill Clinton, while a political machine, always made me feel like I was buying a shitty car from a sleazy salesman. His wife gives me the same feeling. And Edwards makes me think that he's the rich boss behind the screen door of the sleazy salesman.

The rest of them don't matter... and my personal early favorite, Bill Richardson, has severely disappointed me.

Obama wants to buy the world a Coke" He thinks he can sit down and talk to terrorists and our enemies. He has not learned from history and is probably the worst candidate to protect this country.

Obama wants to buy the world a Coke" He thinks he can sit down and talk to terrorists and our enemies. He has not learned from history and is probably the worst candidate to protect this country.