home

The Return Of The Theory Of Change Debate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:12:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Is this is sign of some buyer's remorse regarding Obama? Via Ezra Klein, John Judis questions the Obama unity schtick:

Obama's commitment to radical centrism could also be severely tested. Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, who enjoyed the support of popular movements, gave priority to getting their substantive legislative agendas adopted; and they succeeded by uniting their supporters and dividing their opponents. If they had focused first on uniting Democrats and Republicans behind common objectives, they probably would not have gotten their way. And, if they had initially turned their attention, as Obama has proposed, to "the most sweeping ethics reform in history," it is unlikely they would have passed public works spending (Roosevelt) or tax cuts (Reagan). Jimmy Carter, too, provides a cautionary tale: The last Democrat to take office on a radical centrist agenda, Carter failed to tame Congress or K Street and was defeated for reelection. He had campaigned for the presidency on the presumption that reformers could overturn the status quo in Washington. In the end, he turned out to be wrong.

(Emphasis suppied.) Anyone else concerned about this Unity Theory of Change? Mark Schmitt, this is your cue.

< Jonathan Alter's Boorish Column | Q-Poll OH: Clinton Up 11; ARG Clinton Up By 10. >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Return Of The Theory Of Change Debate | 64 comments (64 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Yes. I'm concerned (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:28:48 PM EST
    Concerned because this is what I've been talking about from when this race started. Whatever magic wand Obama apparently has fails to impress me or appear when I see him speak. Yes, he gets wide support from Democrats right now. But if he thinks that Republicans will just bend to his Almighty Will...he's got a surprise coming.  

    vote early and evade bad press- (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by NecSorteNecFato on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:35:33 PM EST
    Honestly in some ways I think that Obama's "vote early" emphasis is designed to counter this kind of backlash. If he can get people to the polls and lock in their votes for him before much critical reporting is done, it doesn't matter what comes out of the MSM/blogosphere in terms of Buyer's Remose. And by critical I do not mean negative, I mean "Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment".

    meh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Nasarius on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:43:09 PM EST
    Even if that's part of their calculus, why not encourage early voting where it's possible? That's just plain good GOTV strategy.

    Parent
    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by NecSorteNecFato on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:52:10 PM EST
    I agree that early voting is a great GOTV strategy for any candidate and all should take advantage of it. I just think for Obama, at this time, it may have other advantages as well.

    Parent
    The first item (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:00:51 PM EST
    I would like to see him change is the division of the Dem Party. I'm not sure he can change the trajectory (that is now the hip word!) of our party.

    If he cannot UNITE the Dem party there is no hope for unifying Congress.

    I was very disappointed when I heard the Evening News ..... Sen Obama in speech saying.... When you attack me... you attack my supporters.

    I stopped what I was doing and stared at the TV.

    I have NOT been able to find the speech on line. So if anyone can find it ... I would like to read it.

    yes, it sounded like a Fox News spin... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Josey on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:07:16 PM EST
    >>>Sen Obama in speech saying.... When you attack me... you attack my supporters.

    Obama plays the Victim card and drags his followers with him.
    He's very deceptive and sneaky.

    Parent

    Got a link or information, PlayInPeoria? (none / 0) (#37)
    by lambert on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:05:12 PM EST
    That one needs a transcript. CNN? Where was the appearance?

    My jaw would have dropped, too.

    Parent

    I can't find it (none / 0) (#43)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:51:22 PM EST
    it was on the NBC Evening News Sunday evening.

    I have searched for it... it is buried somewhere.

    I can not find it their web site.

    Parent

    He also said (none / 0) (#50)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:17:42 PM EST
    that in the last debate.

    Parent
    He says this every day (none / 0) (#61)
    by catfish on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:39:23 AM EST
    "If you attack me, you attack my supporters."

    That's how he gets out of answering questions.

    So if you voted for him once, you're apparently his forever.

    Parent

    I've always been skeptical (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:08:55 PM EST
    Although I'm an idealist at heart, this unity movement seems destined to fail. It's hinges on a disavowal of the staunch opposition in Republican (and even Democratic) circles over specific issues.

    My constant example is queer rights. No one, no matter how beautiful their rhetoric, will convince Republicans to just give up in their quest to deny full equal rights to queers. It's just not going to happen. Heck, it's difficult to get some Democrats on board! Pretty talking, isn't going to win that battle ,or any other battle that includes social and moral implications.

    Tax cuts, ethics reform, even troop withdrawal will likely appear to hold up the unity ideals: the former two issues aren't so invested with social implications; the latter has some bipartisan approval already.

    But this idea of unity hasn't been tested; and, when it comes time to enact the message, it's going to implode. There are just some issues that will not be addressed except by divisive fighting.

    Idealistic? (none / 0) (#26)
    by cal1942 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:40:50 PM EST
    I mean no offense here but I've heard this idea before that equates idealism with bi-partisanship ("unity").

    Bi-partisanship as a goal is by no means idealistic unless half-measures, passing favors to powerful players, damaging progressive legacy and insuring that very little progress occurs  are considered triumphant, idealistic outcomes.

    And I have to disagree that tax policy has no social implications.  Tax policy has huge social implications, possibly the mother of all influence on the makeup of society.

    I do agree that progress is only achieved by doing battle and probably, methaphorically,  shedding some blood.

    Parent

    I wasn't clear (none / 0) (#38)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:07:28 PM EST
    I don't think idealism is necessarily bi-partisan government; my ideal government isn't two party and is very much in the liberal. However, in the current state of affairs, I feel like a lot of people (and Obama) are casting an idealistic message of bipartisan unity. I think that's what Obama is aiming at in his rhetoric.

    I guess I should also clarify that when I said social implications, I was thinking of the moral values that conservatives harp on so often. Comparatively speaking, I think it would be easier to get agreement on tax cuts than issues like choice, gay marriage, etc.

    I apologize for the vagueness!

    Parent

    Now They Question It? (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:13:23 PM EST
    For folks who like to portray themselves as savvy political analysts, it seems to me they're idiots.  Because only an idiot would think that he could slobber all over Obama and his greatness for months and months and still think that Obama is going to give two craps about whether his rhetoric or planned governing style cause Judis any concern.

    The time when Judis and others could've influenced Obama was months ago when Obama needed them.  Now he doesn't.  He could still lose, but it won't be because anything Judis and the other Blog Boys say or don't say.  Their window of influence has closed.  I hope they forgive me if, in the future, any laments by the Blog Boys about candidate (or President) Obama not caring what they have to say is met by me with pointing and laughing.
     

    Fractured Elites (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:35:45 PM EST
    I have to agree and I'll also be pointing but I won't be laughing.  I'll still be outraged.

    I really like John Judis, his Paradox of American Democracy, even though written in 1991 applies to the present. The book could be said to be sort of a Civics 401 text.

    But just like so many of our elites, in maybe the last decade plus, they seem to jump on bandwagons before examining the details and too easily put aside what they already understand.

    Think maybe someday there will be more than a few doctoral dissertations written on the confusion of our era's intellectual elites.

    I haven't forgotten that Josh Marshall and Matthew Yglesias initially supported the Iraq War and now support Obama. Bandwagons.

    Parent

    I think I may have passed out (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:13:39 PM EST
    but it seemed like Jake Tapper on ABC tonight did a sort of not positive clip on Obama's voting record in the IL senate.  Yeah, there was the usual negative stuff about Clinton, but I'd say that the negative Obama stuff might have evened up the reporting a bit.  The end was kind of interesting because Obama's response just sounded...lame.  I even called my one friend who is an Obama supporter (don't get too excited; he's about to jump to Nader) and HE said it was a lame response.

    And Nightline will have more tonight...

    It was solid, straight reporting -- so (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:15:43 AM EST
    it was stunning to see, I agree. It shows how little of that there has been lately. But you are took kind about the Obama response at the end -- the written response after his refusal to be interviewed for the piece. The response was jaw-dropping, yes, arrogant and dismissive, calling any questioning of his record just "old politics." No, it was just the good old journalism of the sort that we need. He just hasn't faced it before.

    Parent
    Now I'll have to watch Nightline :-) (none / 0) (#34)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:45:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama's platform... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:20:36 PM EST
    Depends on how the meaning of "change" changes... I do not think Obama needs such a partisan coalition to bring about the kind of change he is talking about it (which is just minor reform).

    Obama's platform does not really have a governing philosophy, in my opinion, that needs a party. The campaign has built a platform around what you might call "oppositionalism:" opposition to legislation and executive (regulatory) decisions  made in the previous 20 years, particularly those that Americans easily fault. Look at his economic plan:

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/EconomicPolicyFullPlan.pdf

    Anti-mortgage fraud, anti-tax, anti-predatory credit lending (which he helped to enable with the bankruptcy bill), anti-CAFTA (now NAFTA), etc. Is there a discernible economic philosophy behind his hodge-podge of issues? Does this even amount to an economic plan? Where are the difficult leadership choices reflected in this policy reformism?

    Josh Marshall calls Bush the "postmodern" presidency, I suspect that Obama will (if elected) be able to call Obama the "post-structural" presidency. His platform from anti-Clintonism to anti-Bushism reflect a self-oriented world in which the past twenty years of
    American political life determine his political outlook more than his own party's traditional governing philosophy.

    So, absent a grand narrative to define his governing philosophy (an unnamed movement guided by a message of hope in the power of one personality), his platform does not amount to much more than a collage of policy positions that tap into poll-tested anti-establishment, anti-modern, or anti-politics sentiments in the larger population. So, he may be able to pass legislative reforms as "change," but what will they amount to?

    I love it when you ask Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:29:31 PM EST
    for a policy position and they tell you to go to his website :-)  What I've managed to plow through is mostly cut and paste boiler plate that's been around for years, with a bit of inspirational editing.

    I could swear that health care plan is essentially a rehash of Kerry '04.

    Basically, you are right in that it's poll tested gobbledygook.


    Parent

    "Go to the web site " = Obama training (none / 0) (#39)
    by lambert on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:09:57 PM EST
    Check this Sacramento Bee story. The Obama campaing specifically trains the volunteers to focus on "personal conversion narratives," and deflect policy questions with "go to the website."


    Parent
    whats wrong with that? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:36:54 PM EST
    you think your average volunteer, for any campaign, has the complete platform memorized? What is wrong with pointing people to the place where they can get all the details exactly as the campaign wishes to present them?

    And get hit up for money too... :)

    Parent

    Plenty Is Wrong With That (none / 0) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:50:52 AM EST
    When I worked on a phone bank on the Kerry campaign, we were given policy information.  There was no 'go to the website' anywhere in the material.

    But what I believe is really wrong with that tactic is that the overwhelming majority will NOT go to the website and they KNOW it.

    It's something like footnotes or endnotes in an Ann Coulter "book."  If you actually obtain the citation you will find that the information is contrary to the implication of the reference, but, the reason for the inclusion of the footnote was only to give the impression of legitimacy.  The author knows that very few people will ever actually bother to examine the information.  

    That's one of so many scams in Obama's campaign that scares the hell out of me. Another DLC triumph.

    Parent

    "Personal conversion narratives"? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:18:36 AM EST
    The last time I heard that was from Moonies at my door. (Seriously, they bought a house up the block.) I'll never forget the earnest neighbor Moonie saying he wanted to tell me his "personal conversion narrative." Oh, this is awfully sad.

    Parent
    Correction.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:24:26 PM EST
    I suspect that Marshall will (if elected) be able to call Obama...

    Parent
    Question on Reign of Gov Patrick (none / 0) (#5)
    by Saul on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:47:01 PM EST
    I been trying to find out how the people of Massachusetts feel so far about Deval  Patrick.  Are they happy with how his campaign rhetoric has matched his accomplishments so far. I called the two major Boston papers but no one returns my calls.  Any body know?

    Massachusetts (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Foxx on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:09:10 PM EST
    has heard it all before, and that is why they are not impressed and voted for Hillary. That's what another blogger said, and it makes sense to me.

    Parent
    I'm in MA so I'll take a stab at this. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by dk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:39:09 PM EST
    I'd say that, at this point, Deval Patrick has essentially been made irrelevant.  In general, I'd say that if you asked the person on the street, they would say he's a decent enough guy.  It's rather that he hasn't presented any bold ideas, and the legislature has marginalized him and is running the show on its own.  Now, that's not such a bad thing in Massachusetts, since the legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic.  Obviously, though, it would be a much bigger problem on the federal level, since Republicans and conservative Democrats will have either a majority or a powerful minority voice.

    In my opinion, the only truly brave and progressive thing Deval has done is come out very strongly and forcefully for gay marriage.  That was an issue last year when the legislature was voting whether to put a right wing citizen initiative on the ballot to change the MA constitution to ban gay marriage.  Only 1/4 of the legislature was required to vote for it (a very low threshhold), but Deval publicly denounced the initiative, and worked behind the scenes to make sure the initiative didn't pass through the legislature.  Of course, since Barack opposes gay marriage, and thinks it's ok to legitimize homophobia if means getting votes in the south by having anti-gay activists campaign for him there, we know Barack won't display that kind of leadership.

    Parent

    I've read some post primary articles (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:14:43 PM EST
    that seemed to say the reason Obama lost Mass even with Camelot and Patrick Deval were endorsing and using their political machines was because voters there had buyer's remorse.

    Parent
    Deval Patrick's (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:23:21 PM EST
    approval rating has dropped significantly since being elected.  And his administration has been beset by a number of scandals.  

    Most people feel this is why Clinton crushed Obama in Mass, and while McCain is within the margin of error against McCain in recent match-ups, though Hillary holds a comfortable lead.

    Parent

    You can search Boston.com (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:34:12 PM EST
    He's had some scandals, mostly that he's spending more money than people think he should.  Bought $11,000 curtains, leased a Cadillac, etc .on government money.

    If you search through the list of polls at the following link, you'll find several for Patrick.  His approval rating is going progressively downward:

    SurveyUSA

    Parent

    read your link, please (none / 0) (#46)
    by tsackton on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:51:53 PM EST
    Deval Patrick's approval rating from SUSA has not particularly been trending down over the course of 2007.

    Jan - 53/29
    Feb - 63/25
    Mar - 43/47
    Apr - 47/44
    May - 49/42
    Jun - 47/46
    Jul - 53/40
    Aug - 53/38
    Sep - 47/47
    Oct - 56/37
    Nov - 50/42
    Dec - 48/42

    His lowest month in March, at -4. Yes, if you just look at Oct/Nov/Dec, it looks like he is trending down, but that is blatant cherry picking.

    Parent

    Are you serious? (none / 0) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:14:01 PM EST
    53 in July to 48 in Demcember isn't trending downward?  What?

    Parent
    Also, two things (none / 0) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:18:00 PM EST
    First, I can spell December ;-) now, even if I couldn't in my other reply..

    Second, if looking at the 3 most recent polls is cherrypicking, then you'll agree that Hillary is still about 20 points ahead of Obama, right? and the last 3 months' polling is just cherrypicking, right? And she's definitely going to win in Texas, right?

    Parent

    If you google "Deval Patrick" (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:40:34 PM EST
    and "Obama" news, you will find articles discussing how Patrick hasn't lived up to his promises.  

    Parent
    I'm on the left coast (none / 0) (#8)
    by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:05:47 PM EST
    so I've got know personal knowledge. The same question occurred to me, though. Wikipedia has a limited amount about the transition and some controversies, for what its worth.

    Parent
    Radical Centrist is the dumbest term ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:24:20 PM EST
    since Military Intelligence.

    Radical Centrism = High Broderism? (none / 0) (#20)
    by litigatormom on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:32:01 PM EST
    That's what I thought Radical Centrism was -- the single-minded, stubborn belief that whatever the actual merits of two opposing points of view, the "reasonable" solution is the one right smack in the middle.

    Which means that if one side is very extreme, the "middle" may be in the center without being moderate. Nonetheless, practitioners of High Broderism never waiver from their radical rigidity on the glory of the middle.

    I don't think Obama is a High Broderist, even if I worry that he may not be as tough as he would need to be to deal with the obstructionist Republicans who will still be in Congress after 2008.  

    Parent

    As far as I know... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:44:03 PM EST
    ... Teddy Roosevelt is the only American President who could be called a radical centrist. And he wasn't really both at the same time. First he was a centrist, then he got re-elected, and then he was a radical.

    Parent
    Unity (none / 0) (#18)
    by litigatormom on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:26:23 PM EST
    In my experience, unity and bipartisanship have been euphemisms for "Democratic capitulation to what Republicans want." Without Democratic capitulation -- which has continued under the leadership of Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi -- we get Republican obstructionism. The Reign of the Boy King George III has only exacerbated this problem.

    Obama's belief that he can unify the country -- is it based on his confidence in his power to inspire? So far he's inspired a lot of Democrats, but despite the talk that he will also capture the votes of independents and the few remaining moderate Republicans (they are on the Endangered Species List), I'm thinking that he's not going to decimate the Republican party.  Too much of it is still controlled by the hard core right. And they are not going to go down without a fight, even if their numbers in Congress are seriously diminished after 2008.

    And Goopers may still have enough people in the Senate to filibuster. (We need ten more Senators, and that assumes all the caucus members aside from Liebertoad start being more disciplined.) And filibuster they will, unless Reid grows a pair and makes them do it for real.  So Obama is going to have to do less compromising and more knuckle rapping if he becomes president.

    And basicaly the Unity Schtick (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:37:08 PM EST
    feels like admitting that everything that's gone wrong in this country is the Democrats' fault...if only we'd tried to unify with the Repubicans!

    I reject that wholeheartedly.  

    Parent

    Amen (none / 0) (#24)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:39:39 PM EST
    but they always say Americans want Bi-partisanship they=MSM

    Parent
    I SO Agree (none / 0) (#63)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:43:58 AM EST
    In my experience, unity and bipartisanship have been euphemisms for "Democratic capitulation to what Republicans want."  

    That is exactly how I would word it too. Bipartisanship is what Republicans want when they want something and Obstruction is what they do when they don't.

    Anyone that thinks you can play nice with thugs is delusional.

    And since the Liebertoad seems to be spending all his time out endorsing Republicans it's doubtful the Democratic Party that tolerates him can expect any help from ol St. Joe the Sanctimonious.

    Parent

    Has Obama (none / 0) (#27)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    ever publicly distanced himself from Reid's apparent view of unity via capitulation? How would Obama's approach be different? Bush gets what he wants because the republicans stick together like cement and iron. The democrats are unlikely too. So, how will Obama get unity with Republicans except by mostly giving them what they want? Guess he could always have the excuse "we don't have the votes" to explain the watered down positions. But why would that go over better than Reid's lack of real accomplishments?

    Carter's NSA (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:03:55 PM EST
    did endorse Obama.

    I don't know who those authors are, I think I'm supposed to hate them or something.

    Is Ezra related to Joe and Naomi?

    Anyway, it's like they're reading my mind.

    Breaking: ezra is the love child (none / 0) (#56)
    by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:41:18 PM EST
    that Naomi had at  age 14 after a torrid affair with Joe!
    ;-)

    Actually, I don't think that any of the three are related at all.

    Parent

    Radical centrist (none / 0) (#29)
    by koshembos on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:06:03 PM EST
    Not only is the term radical centrist a combination of two terms that contradict each other, but both terms don't apply to the "popular" understanding of Obama. Many of his supporters, e.g. Ezra Klein, represent the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Remember, progressive is an American term for what Europeans call the left of Avangard. Now we learn that left is center. I guess we are watching the Twilight Zone.

    How do we decide that Obama is a radical? Obviously, epiphany and "he is the man" are not radical; at most they are fundamentalists. There is simply no single Obama plan or proposal that we haven't heard many time before. I guess bad old wine is an innovation and a radical idea.

    As for buyers remorse, I hope they are stuck with a huge ARM mortgage; they didn't read the small print. It's not only that the cart is before the horses (Unity before agenda), there is no agenda and the unity is just a nice slogan.

    what a different world we would live in (none / 0) (#31)
    by Turkana on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:23:03 PM EST
    had jerry brown not run in california, in 1976, and had frank church won it.

    ZBig Wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:54:55 PM EST
    Have been in a Church administration.  At least I don't think so.

    Would our foreign policy have taken a sharp turn?

    Maybe so.

    I can't forget that ZBIG got us involved in  Afghanistan and to my knowledge hasn't rethought his actions. Kept the Cold War flaming.

    What a different world this may have been.

    Parent

    On Good all Zigbig I agree is in the (none / 0) (#36)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:59:22 PM EST
    Jerry Brown part that I don't understand.  Having been a resident of  California in 76 I don't think Church would had won anyway.  And I liked Jerry Brown he walked the talk and was no fake so I always kind of wished he had been a presidential candidate so I could vote for him like I did vote for him to be Governor.

    Parent
    Why?? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:26:36 PM EST


    Parent
    brown had no chance (none / 0) (#40)
    by Turkana on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:29:02 PM EST
    he ran so he could be a player. it was pure hubris. always been his problem. having won oregon, there was a buzz around church, and had brown not been on the ballot, he'd have had a very good chance in california. a lot of buyers' remorse was setting in,  but brown prevented there being a single, strong alternative.

    i love jimmy carter, but i still think frank church would have been a truly great president.

    Parent

    He probably would have but I don't think (none / 0) (#52)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:23:43 PM EST
    he would have won Ca my opinion as resident of Ca at the time.  Brown was a very socially conscious and intelligent man who was part of the conscience of the Democratic party.

    Parent
    Buyers' remorse or CYA? (none / 0) (#42)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:49:46 PM EST
    I say CYA...still rooting for Obama but, ummm, just in case...'don't say I didn't warn you!'

    And what the Hell is this:

    "The American instinct to continuously remake ourselves in the image of Adam--to achieve a decisive and final break with history--has periodically proven seductive to voters."

    Adam?  Well, maybe THAT'S the problem!  Trying to reclaim innocence after the fact...or as Arthur Miller said, After The Fall.  It's a bit like those Christian teenagers with sexual experience now claiming they are 'reborn virgins.'

    Maybe we should be remaking ourselves in the image of Eve.  Could be we'd have a little more success in the real world as well as in the imaginary one.

    Of course (none / 0) (#44)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:51:34 PM EST
    The only real theory of change that Obama has been pushing is how he is teh awesome. On the flip, his criticism of Clinton has always been, she is teh awful.

    It has been an endless series of personal attacks, capped by progressives who wonder if Hillary has not become 'Hysterical' or 'desperate' (note the sexism).

    Here we have MyDD, with a gender bend, to make the same point about Hillary's character:

    http://mydd.com/story/2008/2/25/21299/8955

    Shorter Glenn Smith: Hillary is acting irrationally because she is the more rational candidate...

    Sadly 3/4 of the blogosphere are proud of themselves for using the Rovian and Republican playbook to defeat Democrats in the primaries. This Axelrod - Obama crew has done to the Democratic party what Republicans have done to Democratic candidates for 20 years. Ah, the new politics.

    No Problem at all!! (none / 0) (#45)
    by worriedmind on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:51:46 PM EST
    What's to worry about? Surely the Republicans are simply going to breath the same bus fumes as Obama's supporters, Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman and Caroline Kennedy have. They will absolutely not trouble him with any of those completely deadly though patently false smear campaigns they have used against every viable opponent they've faced in the last 8 years. Surely having devoured the blood and guts of John Kerry, Max Cleland and many others has sated their cannibalistic lust and they will allow Senator Obama, a 47 year old, 3 year untested US senator, simply to ascend to his rightful and righteous position as leader of the (once) free world. There's simply no way the Obama supporter from Texas who could not name a single legislative accomplishment of Mr. Obama would ever make it onto a McCain campaign commercial.  That would never happen. And heck! Oprah's for him!!!

    Why is it Mrs. Clinton cannot just soberly stand on the stage and remind the party of Obama's vulnerabilities as a candidate ; that and only that.  He would make an absolutely fine leader. However, he will be completely skewered before very long.  tsk, tsk.  We Democrats still cannot connect with the desire to win a national campaign.

    I just watched Hillary Clinton's (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:06:38 PM EST
    foreign policy speech and it was really good.  Full of substance, issues, and ways to solve the problems.  She also talked about Obama's inexperience and lack of seriousness in foreign affairs.

    Then they went to an Obama rally and it was 100% different.  Saying "wow, wow look at the crowd". Followed by such policy gems as "you've got to be a better you.  you've got to be a better neighbor".  At this point, I thought I was going to hurl and turned it off.

    After 2004, I didn't think Democratic primary voters could possibly make that dumb mistake again.  Darned if they haven't gotten dumber in the last 4 years.  I've never been so proud to be an Independent and not a Democrat.


    Parent

    The bright side (none / 0) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:15:56 PM EST
    is that my utter apathy at Obama the GE candidate will allow me to chuckle all the way into November.

    Parent
    Obama's Bipartisanship is a Fools Mirage (none / 0) (#53)
    by pluege on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:24:27 PM EST
    Obama's bipartisanship is the sound of one hand clapping. There isn't a single republican anywhere running on a ticket of compromise with democrats - there hasn't been and won't be with the current putrid flavor of republican infesting the nation.

    So Obamaniacs answer me how bipartisanship works when its only democrats compromising... becuase that, sure as day doesn't go by without bush lying his a*s off is all you'd ever get with today's republicans.
    .

    Republicans Bring Nothing to The Table (none / 0) (#54)
    by pluege on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:29:05 PM EST
    And to top it off, even if by some freak accident republicans wanted sincerely to compromise on something with democrats, who the hell would want to? There isn't a single decent thing republicans promote; there is not a single thing beneficial to the average American that republicans promote. republicans know only of greed, self-absorption, oppression, manipulation, and violence. They bring nothing decent to the table.
    .

    I have a feeling ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by chemoelectric on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:57:30 AM EST
    ... these days that it isn't actually a Unity Schtick but something better that seems superficially a Unity Schtick. It comes out as a Unity Schtick mainly because of Obama's regretable practice of speaking in "too abstract" terms, and because of the subtlety of what Obama has in mind.

    I leave it as an exercise to the reader to grok this hypothesis of mine. Frankly I think it is grokable only by people of a fine intuition about human beings and who have a great love of humanity. (Bill Clinton is way overrated in this regard.)

    Note that I used to be a vociferous Obama Unity Schtick denouncer. I took a closer look.

    Haven't seen that since my sci fi phase (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:28:42 AM EST
    Omigod, I haven't seen the verb "grok" in decades -- and now it has transmuted into "grokable," too? You are the Obama supporters, so you are the one to explain to others of us "the subtlety of what Obama has in mind." I've tried, I've looked at the website, I've listened to the speeches, and I just can't, well, grok it.

    Parent
    To Grok Again Like We Did Last Summer? (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:50:52 AM EST
    I had forgotten that word too. However some of the current Obamatrons remind me more of the Borg. "Resistance is Futile". However if you are a fan of Star Trek Voyager, as I obviously am, both the hero(ine) and the evil leader of the Borg are women.

    Wasn't it Heinlein Cream that wrote that women have more range than men. The good are better and the bad are worse?

    Also sure that many here will not understand any of the references that took place in back in the Dark Ages. i.e. Pre-PC

    Parent

    Obama and ethics (none / 0) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:42:31 AM EST
    One of the biggest pieces of legislation Obama keeps taking credit for in the Illinois legislature, was an ethics bill.  Well, as far as I can tell, Illinois politicians are not doing such a good job abiding by the law.  I wonder how effective his masterpiece was.  

    The Return Of The Theory Of Change Debate | 64 comments (64 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment