I hear they both put their pants on one leg at a time too.

The only example cited is fine by me considering the way politics has worked during the last decade. I'm for a different kind of politics and precisely because I hate Joe Lieberman.

Also, Obama, like Lieberman, refers to himself as "I".  He needs to stop that.

sampling of Google Hits:
Lieberman "different kind of politics"

Joe Lieberman | Democrats.com
That's the model for Joe Lieberman's post-defeat strategy, as he told Matt Lauer:. I am committed to this campaign, to a different kind of politics, ...
www.democrats.com/taxonomy/term/316 - 42k - Jan 14, 2007

ABC News: The Note: Pal Joey
Talk Politics: Join the Debate. (Page 2 of 4). Democrats Sens. ... Party," seizing upon the Lieberman loss, who he called "a callback to a different kind of ...
abcnews.go.com/Politics/ TheNote/story?id=2291430&page=2

Hotline On Call: Hotline After Dark: Lieberman Speaks
Joe Lieberman (D-CT) made the morning show rounds this a.m. ... I am committed to this campaign -- to a different kind of politics, to bringing the ...
hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/ archives/2006/08/hotline_after_d_71.html - 27k -

Obama google hits

Random House | Authors | Barack Obama
BARACK OBAMA is the junior U.S. senator from Illinois and the author of the New ... truly serves these Americans-will require a different kind of politics. ...
www.randomhouse.com/author/results.pperl ?authorid=22627 - 37k -

The New Yorker : online : content
Earlier this week, David Remnick interviewed Senator Barack Obama at the ... you do get a sense that there's this hunger for a different kind of politics, ...
www.newyorker.com/online/content/061030o n_onlineonly04 - 86k -

I don't think you get these hits with all candidates on the front page of google hits...

my thesis which I'll gladly be proved wrong on is that there is a statistically significant concordance on word choice between Obama and Lieberman - NOT IDEAS or such.

Perhaps more than the particular phrases, they use the same rhetorical strategy of criticising their own party for, say, not being bipartisan enough or being adverse to faith.  These are pretty conventional moves--set up your party as a strawman to advance your own "independence" and "thoughtfulness."

Damn, the anti-Obama crowd is certainly shooting blanks.

OK.  Tar-Head.

You want to play.  How about Edwards.  He was for the war before he was against that.

Get used to it.  Because that is the Edwards handle.

Don't worry, Obama will buy some ads on your web site and you can't quit the hate fest.

It will be a joy to watch Obama clean your clock.

How interesting.  I had posted this comment on dkos earlier today:

   But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.

Look, I like Obama.  I could see myself voting for him.  But doesn't this just sound so Joe Lieberman?

It's hard for me to feel strongly about someone who wants to complain about rabid partisanship without pointing out that, in fact, someone is to blame for it.

Here is how you do it:

   Now, since most Americans aren't that far to the right, our friends have to portray us Democrats as simply unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America.

   But we don't.

   Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all just wanted to be one nation. Not a single American on September the 12, 2001, cared who won the next presidential election...

   The president had an amazing opportunity to bring the country together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in the struggle against terror.

   Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice. They chose to use that moment of unity to try to push the country too far to the right...

Now see, was that so hard?

I guess either you see the resemblance or you don't.  But I don't think the diarist is way off base here.

After reading through this I have a clearer sense of what concerns me.  It is the feeling that Obama uses  the kind of modern journalistic notion of non-partisan or above politics that is so above the frey it actually fails to deliver the point.

I get the same sensation listening to him on this specific topic (I do love a lot of his other stuff) that I am listening to a journalist who is more concerned about positioning relative to the center to point out that the facts are completely lopsided.

Obviously Obama does draw brightlines and certainly not positionless, but on this topic he may be trying to convey new politics and what I hear is something that makes me want to scream that the problem hasn;t been just some big failure to get along, or some take over by extreme positions.  The problem has been an abuse of power only by the one side who had power.

Maybe Obama should use a different tailor than Joe Lieberman.

Maybe Obama should eat at different restaurants than Joe Lieberman.

Maybe Obama should cut off any ties to anyone who has even met Joe Lieberman.  Sorry Bill Clinton.  Sorry Al Gore.  Sorry just about everybody else.

Seriously, is Joe Lieberman THE litmus test for 2008 candidates?

For instance "a different kind of politics" is a short phrase used extensively by Lieberman in his re-election and is used in Obama's announcement release today.

Ok, that phrase (or it's siamese twin "a new politics") has been recycled by liberal presidential candidates in the US since at least 1968. Fmr. NJ Senator Bill Bradley was the last candidate to make it his signature rhetorical phrase, but as Jerome pointed out above, Edwards also used it in '03-'04.

...2004 is done. Welcome to the campaign for 2008.

Sen. Obama refused to support Lamont during the  campaign. A member of Lamont's staff said that, of all the Dems, Obama was the biggest disappointment.  The fact that he may now be channeling Lieberman is not all that surprising to me.    

To stop criticizing Obama

I think that anyone in their right mind would want to have a different kind of politics than what we have had in this country over the past decade or so. I loathe Lieberman and the fact that he uses that phrase to cover his spineless pandering to Bush and Co has nothing to do with what Obama is saying. No, they are nothing alike, and I really do think that we should not try to tear down Obama to prepare the way for Edwards. I think both are excellent people and that both would make wonderful presidents, and I think both have a good chance of winning. I am for both of them.

Personally I think that it is a testament to Obama that the attacks on Edwards (for the most part) havent been as nearly as specious and bad as this.

They swayed me for a while, but then I sat back and thought about it and decided I can't support such attacks and I wont be supporting edwards until the tone of his support changes.

I'm surprised that a diary bearing something as obtuse as "I don't want to compromise with people who think Adam and Eve rode a Dinosaur to Church..." would get bumped to the front page.

You must be really proud of that since you put it in bold text.

Though the vast majority of American adults self-identify as Christians, I'm unsure how many of those subscribe to the Flintstones' denomination.

First, I like Obama.  I've still got an open mind and I'd be really interested in Gore throwing his hat in the ring, but Obama is at or near the top of my list.

That said, I agree to an extent with TarHeel.  Lieberman and McCain, and Lieberman is particularly guilty of this, have so completely debased the idea of bipartisanship that they've reduced it to "line up behind Bush."  Lieberman denies the possibility that people can have honest disagreements with Bush on policy, so that disagreement can only result from an irrational hatred of Bush.  Obviously, this isn't productive.

I really don't think this is what Obama is going for, but the fact is that he's using Lieberman's branding to describe a problem, so he can't help but bump into the same ideas; his stance is good, but his rhetoric is not.

One of the formulations I really like I've seen thrown around on Daily Kos: "No more party before country."  This has a really powerful resonance and implies something very different than weak-kneed capitulation.  It's much more pointed than vague gestures towards bipartisanship and will, for lots of people, immediately conjure up images of DeLay and Cheney.

I read MyDD nearly every day, but I'm getting to the point where I don't particularly care to continue to read it, as it has become just a daily dish of hate on Obama. If the plan is for the blogosphere to crucify Obama, that's certainly everyone's right. But it doesn't do much to encourage greater readership among those of us who aren't ready to kick someone out of the party just because they use a little epideictic rhetoric.

The questions will be how he reacts when it happens.  

Pols that play the "above the fray" B.S. get annoying real fast and the media and the opponents end up knocking their block off.  

Obama has gotten by so far by playing it "above the fray" and giving nice safe answers to any question thrown at him.  As soon as he announced that will all end.

To win you have to be in the fray.  I will be surprised if a guy who has had an easy road so far (no competition for his one Senate race, and media darling status since) can transition and show that he is tough and savvy.

"I read MyDD nearly every day...it has become just a daily dish of hate on Obama."

Same on KOS.  An interesting phenemomenon since by every measure Obama is the most progressive candidate of the main Democratic contenders.

I think it has to with the corporate history of the left wing blogs. You see a lot of emotional investment in Edwards and Clark (why any Democrat would pick Bush Jr Republican Clark is totally baffling) from 2004. Two less progressive candidates but ones in which the blogosphere power structure feels it has an "investment", that it helped "create"...you know how Dr. Frankenstein felt ;).

"...kick someone out of the party just because they use a little epideictic rhetoric."

It's not that Obama is using "old talk" what you see is more the parsing of the Obama droppings by those invested in other candidates.  When you actually look at Obama's language use vs. the "quotes" here, it is very articulate and clear.

isn't Lieberman language.

It's something many, many politicians have used, including John Edwards.

Criticize Barack Obama all you want, but come up with something more substantive.

The first thing I thought after reading his statement was "a new politics of unity and purpose." Needless to say, it didn't make me too excited.

"I think it has to with the corporate history of the left wing blogs."

LOL...can I have some of your mushroom tea?

I'm sorry, but that is an amazing statement, just amazing...if you were serious that is...a good laugh, either way.

"A different kind of politics" is NOT Lieberman's term.

That's like trying to 'own' any cliche -- a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link; many hands make light work;  hope against hope; hope springs eternal; shooting for the moon.

Truth is: Obama (if his approach works) IS proposing a different, more truly collaborative form of politics. Working with progressives and sleaze-bags like Lieberman to move forward on issues that we all care about.

Our job is not to trash Joe Lieberman (or Barak Obama) -- instead, we should be trying to find out who will be effective in helping us move forward (and out of Iraq).

...that his middle name is "Hussein" and that his surname rhymes with "Osama".

except in the sense, they clearly don't know much about Obama's 10 year record in government, so they parse sound bites from the main stream media (which they decry).

If you look at it from the perspective of they feel the new guy (Obama) is a threat to the their old boys (Edwards, Clark), it's just political sniping. Kind of low quality but what the hey.

"Our job is not to trash Joe Lieberman (or Barak Obama) -- instead, we should be trying to find out who will be effective in helping us move forward (and out of Iraq)."

I think you have it right. The truly progressive focus on the issues facing the country (oil, health care, deficit/debt, environment, education, good government) vs. the personalities.

Which candidate can best move the nation forward to solve those problems.

Using that standard, I think it explains Obama's popularity.  He's very focused on getting from point A to point B.  He's very articulate in telling people why it is important to get to Point B and that leads them to believe he can get us there.

I think the language wouldn't matter if we knew we could trust him. That's not bashing, that's reality. Some people despite allt he protestation above don't seem to get that most everyone is approaching this with a history of being disappointed in the past. So we are a lot less likely to give the benefit of the doubt. It's not up to those who are cynical to prove that we should be cynical given our history- it's up to the politicans to prove that we shouldn't be cynical about them. that's the core conversation it seems to me. Until people start to treat the trust them issue as the core concern rather than falling back on "you are bashing me" you will continue to see these question marks linger in people's minds.

...between Lieberman and Obama is that I think Obama really believes it. He wants to try to tone down the rhetoric, to remove the toxicity created by the Republicans. He really feels that the answer to thier poison is not our own poison.

On the other hand, Lieberman just says those things as cover for his neoconservative practices. He doesn't actually believe those things, or at least his actions don't/won't reflect those beliefs.

Whether or not Obama can actually accomplish what he believes is another matter.

"Both sites have vehement Obama supporters"

Well had anyway...some of the "trusted users" on the site to be named later were on an anti-Obama jihad...claiming supporters were paid shills and bouncing them if they wouldn't "confess"...virtual Guantanamo ;).

It is fair to say that the tone of the management of the major left wing blogs is anti-Obama.

Putting this rather lame diary on the front page being an example.  I think if you review the main page diaries, they are consistently anti-Obama. "American Won't Wait Forever Obama" and Sirota's silly "He didn't kiss my ring" piece a while ago are some examples in addition to this one.

Alternet is carrying Obama's announcement now
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/4678 3/

Look at Obama for yourself! Obama's announcement does NOT include the "offensive" language that you are complaining about.

It DOES present an interesting and intelligent man, suggesting that we work together to solve the difficult problems our country faces.

Sure: We don't want to be co-opted by Republican 'talking points' and phony bipartisanship. We don't want to be lured by falsity like Lieberman's.

But what if Obama is telling the truth about his intentions! What if we really could work together, like grownups, to solve some of the serious problems our nation faces. Polls show that most of us in the U.S. want to deal with healthcare, education, global warming. If the will were there, we could make a real impact on these and other issues.

Biipartisanship is not a bad thing. Obama was famous in Illinois for bringing fierce opponents together to solve real problems in the State Legislature. I trust that's what he aims to do in the U.S. Congress (or Presidency), as well.

Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama for me!!

I'm sick of people saying that they feel a politician is genuine.  I assume none of them are.  I assume that all of them have a great amount of ambition, and all of them will make compromises on key principles.
"The difference between Lieberman and Obama is that I think Obama really believes it."
More than Mark Warner, or John Edwards?  Or do they mean something different?  Edwards also says this ridiculous thing about how "we all know what has to be done" to fix the country.  Oh, many of us have our ideas, but we aren't of one mind.  Our problem isn't that we dislike eachother, its that we disagree with eachother.  That is where this argument that Lieberman, Obama, Warner, Edwards, and many others on both sides now are making, is wrong.
The appeal to goo goos and people who harken back to the good old days of bipartisanship in the midcentury, ignores that government cannot be non-idealogical, and we have never had a ceasefire in politics.  I remember a lot of conflict in the midcentury over race and I remember that certain people were casting aspersions about my family cause they were union organizers.  What we argue about may change, but we always argue, we always have conflict.

Some of you may like the idea of a candidate without an idealogical appeal.  I need a commitment.  I don't need details.  I just need to know where they stand.  Obama has a good record, but he is acting like he must run from it.  He won't say where he stands.  I know for a fact, from her record, that Hillary is DLC.  So is Gore.  My choice, Edwards, is partly because I am an old fashioned populist, and partly because he can talk like an Democrat, people understand that he is a lefty, and they still like him.  He helps the cause, because he communicates it.  Obama does not.  He acts like we can all just get along.  We can't.  We have real policy differences that can't be reconciled.  There is no different kind of politics.  We can compromise sometimes, others we can't, and so we fight it out in elections, and so elections have real consequences.  That is the only kind of politics.

old fashion populism is what the democratic party should be - that certainly will win elections...

If Obama said "I know I'll have to tussle with pharmaceuticals and Insurance companies but we need universal health care now"  -- I'd grow to love him..

however, he'll probably just say the govenrment is inefficient and we need to increase government efficiency to deliver health care better.

I'm not really sure whether downright populism will really win the Democrats the election. Surely, the Dems should be focused on getting elected first and winning a mandate, especially after such a disastrous term with a very insecure and rather incompetent-looking Commander-in-Chief. And surely, we should try not to be cynical when a new politician with new ideas and an optimistic outlook comes along and tries to unite the country. And Barack Obama can...

For a different take on the Obama issue, have a look at the following too...

http://www.politics-now.info/wordpress/? p=22

Best regards,

seatoshiningsea

No, populism won't win any elecitons by itself.  Economic populists are a recently ignored but traditionally important faction within the Democratic coalition.  Democrats need us to win nationally, but they also need every other faction of the party, even those who tend to classical liberalism, like the DLC.

Lets see if I can clarify what I said above.  I think I like Obama.  He's my #2 choice.  Edwards is #1.
What I like about Obama is that he is a real Democrat.  He doesn't talk like one, but he is one, whether those committed to other candidates like it or not.  More than that, he is an African American, yet he doesn't play the identity-politics game, which I think is important.  I think this is why those who aren't African American find him more appealing than past black candidates, and why some like Al Sharpton are suspicious of him.  Barack doesn't say that he is part of an oppressed minority, he implies that he is one of us, which of course, he is.  I think that, too, is part of his "different kind of politics".
What I don't like about him is that he, clearly, doesn't make an attempt to appeal to us populists.  He appeals to liberals because of his focus on the idea that we can reason our way to a solution, and that his solutions are reasonable ones, and not ideological ones.  This is ridiculous.
You only compromise in order to solve problems.  In order to sense that there are problems, and develop an agenda to solve them, you must have a sense of good or bad, right or wrong, and what constitutes progress.  In order to know that, you must have an ideology.  Therefore, you cannot have a non-ideological agenda, you cannot have a non-ideological solution, you cannot have a non-ideological compromise.

Jerome, if you want to take a Super User account dump on somebody's diary, do it in the comments instead of editing the post in order to undercut the message.  Poor form. Bully.