"Impressive" in what sense?

Facebook, what is the percent of underage voters?

is met with a vicious caricature of the stated position?

It makes it virtually impossible to have a reasoned debate.

And the longer his supporters short-circuit the possibility of a reasoned debate, the more they confirm the suspicions of his critics--or even those who simply have honest doubts.

who helped get him elected. I really don't think he emerges out of the primay pack without the overwhelming support of the grassroots that he enjoyed in that election.

That, once elected, he decided he could get ahead faster by listening to and cozying up with the "we don't want nobody nobody sent" crowd is the sad/ironic thing. And it shows in the way he talks now. In 2004 he was almost as forthright as Howard Dean. Today, half the time he sounds like John Kerry.

My opinion is Blair Hull would have lost in the primaries to Obama... He was not likable and even without the divorce files, he would have lost in a close one to Obama as the weeks closed.  

It did have to do with it as Obama admits.

However, at the time Obama was closing in on Hull.

True story:
In early Feb. I was talking to a friend who was near the top of Hull's staff (forget his exact position). They saw Obama closing in after the third person (forget his name) had blown up in scandal. The Hull team was desparately trying to find anything at all that they could use as a negative against Obama but were coming up empty. My friend told me, "This guy is an African-American law professor with a great family life and history of helping people. He is almost too good to be true. But he is."

I think when you get down to nuts and bolts, either he or Edwards will be the most progressive candidate, policy-wise, in the field -- especially on economic issues.  Obama's going to present it in an inclusionary way; Edwards in a more partisan way.  I'd be happy with either as the nominee.

As I note below, I know Obama pretty well, so that personal loyalty is part of the reason (and part of why you need not trust my judgment).

I think, also, that the fact of his early popularity should be seen as a good thing -- why be afraid of the one people already like?  It's the difference between marketing Coca-Cola and trying to sell RC.

Interesting metaphor.  Not sure I agree with its validity in this situation, but something to think about.  

Yea, I was there for it, swept up in it, and, at age 10 saw the Beatles live in Comisky Park. Saw, not heard, since the screaming girls literally drowned out the sound of the music.

The Beatles and the Stones were authentic. Is Obama? That's the question. It cannot be answered today. I have read his book, speeches, etc., and he seems authentic.

We'll see.

The fact is, as you say, at this moment in time Obama is feeding that hunger, not creating it. I have read your various posts and comments and you pose good questions.

Many, however, have a reflexive suspicious rejection.

He has at least as much experience as Edwards.

You have to compare Obama against potential candidates. Hillary has tons of experience. The wrong experience.

OK. So excise the part about my mother (not grandmother) if you like.

Organic means not based on anecdotes about how people respond?

As for experience, I agree. That does not make the movement favoring him any less organic, however.

My mother, not grandmother, responds to the experience question by citing his intellect (she is a huge snob when it comes to intellect and education). She heard in his speech the kind of thoughtfulness she yearns for in a leader.

But why do you ask about my mother's answer to the experience question when you are so derisive about my citing her reaction?

Me too. That's why I read BlueNC!

I think you're right - Dean himself responded to teh forces that were shaping his campaign - it was a synergy. He never really was prepared for the success - he was running as a message candidate at teh beginning and then just goit as swept up as we did. The anecdote at the start of Trippi's book was pretty telling.

The thing is that in many ways Dean's defeat did position things better overall. From now on, we can point out the ridiculousness of John Kerry to anyone who tries to argue that an establishment candidate is "electable"  and a grassroots candidate is not. And Dean, whatever his failures as a candidate, did get indoctrinated into the concept of the principle underlying "People Power", which as a governor he wasnt really aware of. As such, post-candidate Howard Dean could be the DNC Chair and fight for the transformational 50 state strategy in a way that pre-candidate Dean couldn't.

And, Kerry losing was the best thing to happen for America, it seems. Because while we wouldnt have a Democratic congress next year, yet the Dems would partially "own" Iraq. In other words, we would be in the worst of all possible worlds with respect to good and successful policy.

I don't think he/she implied that Kerry should swift boat the republicans. Just don't ignore them and expect there to be no political consequences (or as you imply, political benefits).

I would FDR hyper-partisan. But he didn't have to be dirty about it. He drew clear contrasts. He went for the jugular on "economic royalists". He won every state but Vermont and Maine and made the Democratic party the dominant party for 50 years.

THAT is the model to go by. Being non-partisan does have its merits at times and can lead to victories. Eisenhower comes to mind (omni-bus candidates are great candidates). But you notice there were no long-term gains (at that point) for his party and he governed basically from the Democrats side of the playing field.

The only reason EPA and such were passed under Nixon was because there were HUGE majorities for Democrats in both houses at that time (once again, the omnibus candidate can win the presidency, but oft-times cannot make gains for the movment).

So what is our long-term goal? The presidency or furthering of the progressive movment? And more importantly, what is Obama's goal?

I also dislike Henry Ford's