comment #1

Nate West says ...

From the Andy Borowitz Report:

//The liberal blogosphere was aflame today with new accusations that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) is trying to win the 2008 presidential election.

Suspicions about Sen. Obama's true motives have been building over the past few weeks, but not until today have the bloggers called him out for betraying the Democratic Party's losing tradition.

"Barack Obama seems to be making a very calculated attempt to win over 270 electoral votes," wrote liberal blogger Carol Foyler at LibDemWatch.com, a blog read by a half-dozen other liberal bloggers. "He must be stopped."

But those comments were not nearly as strident as those of Tracy Klugian, whose blog LoseOn.org has backed unsuccessful Democratic candidates since 2000.

"Increasingly, Barack Obama's message is becoming more accessible, appealing, and yes, potentially successful," he wrote. "Any Democrat who voted for Dukakis, Mondale or Kerry should regard this as a betrayal."

Liberal bloggers said that they would be watching Sen. Obama's vice-presidential selection process "very closely" for signs that he is plotting to win the election.//

comment #2

Geoff says ...

I agree that he better not overdo it. I'm not freaking out like some people on the left are.

In fact, I've been sick of the right wing citing that National Journal liberal ranking thing with him at #1 for what seems like a year now.

comment #3

deadre says ...

thanks for posting, that's hilarioius! Love the idea of someone not believing they know absolutely everything all the time, it's just refreshing, this kinda open minded thing. I think he might be able to pull it off but those Fox pundits are going to go ballistic!

comment #4

Chicago48 says ...

I'm a supporter but I think he's veering too much off the cliff....explaining everything....back and forth, clarifying, and explaining this & that....I wish he would stop explaining....As for the complaint that he's not experienced enough....I don't think anyone was experienced when they became President...the last two Presidents weren't experienced being presidents, only governors....they still had to ramp up with training wheels.

comment #5

NDH says ...

Does the liberal blogosphere not want him to win? He's not gonna get elected unless he moves more to the center. He already has the lefty vote in the bag (they're not gonna vote for McCain, or stay home and possibly allow McCain to take it), so he's doing what he needs to secure the numbers. Yes, it's politics, but it's smart politics.

comment #6

SaveFarris says ...

Saying whatever it takes to get elected: now that's Change We Can Believe In!!!

comment #7

EOTW says ...

He's basically a liberal-minded centrist.

Wells: Thanks for the laugh. This along with your "melting over Obama" is some of the best crackerjack lib suck off material I've heard in a while. Let me know ehen you get to suck him off proper.

comment #8

Richardson says ...

"Does the liberal blogosphere not want him to win? He's not gonna get elected unless he moves more to the center. He already has the lefty vote in the bag. Yes, it's politics, but it's smart politics."

It's been a funny Democratic tradition... in the beginning of the election cycle, when the press calls them "the most liberal person in the senate/vice president ever/whatnot", Democrats are invariably far ahead in all the polls. Over the next few months, they bow to the center and attempt to win that way. And then, along the way, it suddenly becomes a horse race. And they invariably lose horse races.

Interesting to watch Obama continue down the path that worked so well for so many others.

comment #9

SpinDozer says ...

'That said, he'd better not overdo this move-to-the-center thing or he'll piss off the lefties and then the press will start beating him up.'

That's coz the liberal press beat up on Gore and Kerry when they "moved to center", right?

comment #10

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

I can tell you from very, very personal experience:

EOTW can suck the skid-marks off a condom.

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

Farris: "Saying whatever it takes to get elected: now that's Change We Can Believe In!!!"

Doesn't that apply to McCain?

comment #12

vansmith says ...

i think he's talking too much, always responding to quotes and comments. fall back, wave to the crowd and keep it moving otherwise they'll be tired of him before he takes office.

comment #13

MovieBob says ...

This will actually be fascinating to watch unfold, because Obama is the first presidential candidate in maybe the entire modern era for whom this actually COULD be a problem.

See, only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the country actually votes, and an even smaller number than that is politically in-tune enough that they also vote in primaries, volunteer, etc. This means that candidates have primarily gotten where they did with the help of realistic, politically-saavy grownups who have the default pragmatism that comes from accepting "machinery politics" as a fact of life - i.e. they "get" that you have to fake-center in the general to win, and let it slide.

But OBAMA has reached this point not on the votes of pragmatic, victory-focused adults (who were with Hillary until that stopped being an even remote option) but on a surge of support from young idealists who by nature see him as a mythic fantasy figure embodying ideological "purity" for them... and thus probably WOULD rather he "keep it REAL" and lose than engage in actual politics and win.

comment #14

PoisonSkin says ...

ah! the second comng is letting me down

comment #15

Rob says ...

What MovieBob said. It burns me up to see Dems (and I am one, and will vote for Obama) give the man a pass for his Republican pandering when he ran as the candidate who was going to rise above all that. This was supposed to be the trade off we were supposed to get for putting up with his complete lack of experience and voting record.

comment #16

dangovich says ...

The only center Obama is moving to is the one defined by the right wing.

It's positively dismaying to hear him describe FISA as a "compromise." Sadly, he's fallen right into that tired, discredited GOP framing of national security.

The man is receiving bad advice. Here's hoping he changes course before he starts waffling in his commitment to getting our troops out of Iraq.

It's like Hillary passed her soul into him during that rally in New Hampshire.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

Bob: "See, only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the country actually votes, and an even smaller number than that is politically in-tune enough that they also vote in primaries, volunteer, etc. This means that candidates have primarily gotten where they did with the help of realistic, politically-saavy grownups who have the default pragmatism that comes from accepting "machinery politics" as a fact of life -"

You're kidding, right? This the same public which voted for Bush on the basis of Clinton's extra-marital affair, and court rulings favoring gay marriage.

"But OBAMA has reached this point not on the votes of pragmatic, victory-focused adults (who were with Hillary until that stopped being an even remote option) but on a surge of support from young idealists who by nature see him as a mythic fantasy figure embodying ideological "purity" for them... and thus probably WOULD rather he "keep it REAL" and lose than engage in actual politics and win."

So the people who like Obama are children, but the people who don't believe in evolution and global warming are adults?

Rob: "It burns me up to see Dems (and I am one, and will vote for Obama) give the man a pass for his Republican pandering when he ran as the candidate who was going to rise above all that. This was supposed to be the trade off we were supposed to get for putting up with his complete lack of experience and voting record."

I'm not exactly sure why you're surprised. Obama's always had a religious side and a (if not ideological, traditional) conservative upbringing, and he's using it to win over voters who normally go for Republicans. You knew that from the get-go when you picked him, because you knew he was our trump card against red-state fanaticism.

dangovich: "It's positively dismaying to hear him describe FISA as a "compromise." Sadly, he's fallen right into that tired, discredited GOP framing of national security."

He's not in the position of doing more against FISA, because he's not the most influential member of the Senate. That's why he said he'd monitor it, if he became President, since that's the only way he can do anything significant.

"Here's hoping he changes course before he starts waffling in his commitment to getting our troops out of Iraq."

Won't happen there. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080703/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_iraq1_dc

comment #18

Terry McCarty says ...

dangovich wrote:
The only center Obama is moving to is the one defined by the right wing.

It's positively dismaying to hear him describe FISA as a "compromise." Sadly, he's fallen right into that tired, discredited GOP framing of national security.

The man is receiving bad advice. Here's hoping he changes course before he starts waffling in his commitment to getting our troops out of Iraq.

It's like Hillary passed her soul into him during that rally in New Hampshire.

Right on to the above comments. Basically, Obama's pandering to voters who, in large part, won't mark their ballots for him in November.

Glenn Greenwald's recent columns in SALON.com articulate this in more detail.

And one more thing: John McCain isn't going to be the third term of GWB; the third term of Ronald Reagan is more accurate. Except McCain doesn't have Reagan's gift for bonhomie--witness McCain's forced line-reading of "My Friends."

comment #19

bb says ...

All I know is Obama just keeps getting closer to being a candidate I could vote for and he evidently is dragging all the lefties with him. And they are gladly dropping their so called principles along the way. Who knew it would be so easy?

Bill Clinton managed to pass some of the most conservative legislation when he was in office and Obama is already embracing his central side. Yay for general campaign positions!

comment #20

MovieBob says ...

D.Z.
"So the people who like Obama are children, but the people who don't believe in evolution and global warming are adults?"

In a word? YES.

I'm not talking about their beliefs and/or issues, man. Creationists and global-warming deniers hold MORONIC beliefs, we agree on this. Meanwhile, Obama's fans are, on balance, probably a lot smarter in those regards. On that we likely also agree. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

The Republicans have a much "dumber" (in terms of what they support) base, but the manner in which that base goes about supporting their dumb positions is typically more pragmatic, effective and GROWNUP than the way in which the Democrat base often goes about supporting their SMART positions.

The Republican base AND it's power-brokers play a cynical, long-term game to win, and it works. The Democrat power-brokers would LIKE to do the same, and in the 90s they did via the Clintons who were and remain long-game-cynicism-in-pursuit-of-victory INCARNATE. But this time, like so many other times, this aim was thwarted by a base of young, anti-cynical, un-pragmatic (NOT inherently negative characteristics, btw) idealists who prefered the weaker guy who made them feel good about themselves. Compare this to the Republicans, who gritted their teeth and ignored the hardliners they really WANTED (Romney, Tancredo) in favor of the guy they don't like but can WIN.

comment #21

Mgmax says ...

MovieBob is a denier of the proven fact that voting Republican correlates with a higher level of education than voting Democrat.

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

bb: "Bill Clinton managed to pass some of the most conservative legislation when he was in office and Obama is already embracing his central side."

The thing about Clinton was that he was a moderate pretending to be a lefty, while Obama is a left-of-center progressive who leans toward the moderate side.

"The Republican base AND it's power-brokers play a cynical, long-term game to win, and it works. "

It worked for a while, but now it's back-firing.

"The Democrat power-brokers would LIKE to do the same, and in the 90s they did via the Clintons who were and remain long-game-cynicism-in-pursuit-of-victory INCARNATE."

The problem is that the Dems won the battle, but not the war. They were forced to kow-tow to the Republican majority under Newt, while Bill's own shenanigans and anti-worker policies kept Gore from continuing the Democratic victory.

"But this time, like so many other times, this aim was thwarted by a base of young, anti-cynical, un-pragmatic (NOT inherently negative characteristics, btw) idealists who prefered the weaker guy who made them feel good about themselves. Compare this to the Republicans, who gritted their teeth and ignored the hardliners they really WANTED (Romney, Tancredo) in favor of the guy they don't like but can WIN."

Actually, Romney and Huckabee would have represented a larger base of voters than McCain-who's just being bailed out by Independents and Republicans who hope we'll forget about Dubya's mess.

comment #23

MovieBob says ...

Mgmax
"MovieBob is a denier of the proven fact that voting Republican correlates with a higher level of education than voting Democrat."

Excepting the fact that I'm NOT a Republican, of course ;)

D.Z.
"The problem is that the Dems won the battle, but not the war. They were forced to kow-tow to the Republican majority under Newt, while Bill's own shenanigans and anti-worker policies kept Gore from continuing the Democratic victory."

Oh lord, this again? Really?

Bill Clinton left office with massive approval ratings AFTER being impeached, publically-humiliated and incessantly mocked at all corners for 80% of his time in office. Gore, as the heir-apparent to one of the most prosperous and nationally-secure presidency of the 20th Century, should've WALKED ALL OVER the make-believe-hayseed son of a one-term has-been the Republicans sent against him - forget just winning 51%. Gore lost because Gore is just not that good a politician. Great spokesman for his causes, not a good candidate. It happens sometimes.

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

"Bill Clinton left office with massive approval ratings AFTER being impeached, publically-humiliated and incessantly mocked at all corners for 80% of his time in office."

Well, yes, but it was from a cult of personality point of view, not based on any actual substance. No one actually liked his anti-manufacturing economic policies or his wagging of the dog in Somalia and Yugoslavia. The Lewinsky thing might have back-fired on the Republican side, but it and the Cole bombing gave them just enough ammunition to make the Dems look weak on national security. I think the fact that the primary actually ended up being an indictment of their "legacy", rather than a continuation of it, says it all.

"Gore, as the heir-apparent to one of the most prosperous and nationally-secure presidency of the 20th Century, should've WALKED ALL OVER the make-believe-hayseed son of a one-term has-been the Republicans sent against him - forget just winning 51%. Gore lost because Gore is just not that good a politician. Great spokesman for his causes, not a good candidate. It happens sometimes."

True, but he basically played the Clinton moderation game, without the nice packaging, and people started realizing that they were ripped off, plain and simple. It wasn't just about Gore, but about the fact that he didn't try to differentiate himself from Bush. And that's why it took six years for the party to make a rebound.

comment #25

Terry McCarty says ...

D.Z. wrote:
True, but he basically played the Clinton moderation game, without the nice packaging, and people started realizing that they were ripped off, plain and simple. It wasn't just about Gore, but about the fact that he didn't try to differentiate himself from Bush. And that's why it took six years for the party to make a rebound.

And now we're being asked to choose between Obama and McCain on the basis of who can better manage the war on terror and be more lenient regarding the multinational corporations doing as they please. No "change" whatsoever.

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Terry: "And now we're being asked to choose between Obama and McCain on the basis of who can better manage the war on terror and be more lenient regarding the multinational corporations doing as they please. No "change" whatsoever."

Actually, Obama wants to get out of Iraq and make those corporations who ripped us off give back to us. It's better than nothing.

comment #27

Dave Polands Gut says ...

Obama is running far away from the liberal views all his followers fell for.

How does that make you feel? That he is an utter phony who will say/do anything to get elected.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

Dave: So ending the war is no longer a liberal thing? And if he'll say or do anything to get elected, then why is he more consistent than McCain?