I respect your analysis, but Obama is not what he says he is, this much is readily apparent to the public -- he's just like every other game player, and he got caught.

So, shouldn't his ads, and rhetoric, reflect this reality, as opposed to the old "try to adopt their tactics" (as you understand them) and "blame them first for your actions," really, the same old press PR tactics, here, nothing new.

You see the difference?

Your candidate (and mine, for that matter) must acknowledge the truth.

Unless you are blind, Obama is not playing the race card. Bill and Hillary are playing the race card by trying to peg Obama as the "Black candidate," something he is trying to avoid. But they won't let him. Jesse Jackson was a Black candidate; Obama is not.

Still, Bill knows and we as well that if Obama is hung with that label, he will lose. It is that simple. And this strategy is actually coming out of "America's first Black president!" Imagine the low roads one has to take to engage in such racism.

I agree with you, MassLib.

I also take note of this sentence from Todd:  "OK, well first of all, if Obama's post-partisan message really was the rage that so many insist it is, shouldn't we be coronating nominee Obama by now?"

My 25-year-old daughter* mentioned this to me a couple months ago:

"If he were really so charismatic, wouldn't he have this sewn up by now?"

100% on the mark.

__

*She's one of those women in their mid- to late-20s who have flocked to Hillary Clinton, evidenced by their voting in New Hampshire.

Well, she did have that radio add in SC. That was pretty negative.

Kinda of, but what I found most revolting was his deliberate use of the divisory tactic.

He went against his OWN party, stabbing democrats in the back to win the moderate, playing the race card(!), embracing Reagan (!) and utilizing, to me,  a soft core sexism porn, if you will.

Just revolting, those tactics, this is not, to me, "a good man" this is a hateful man, or an incredibly ignorant one.

We, as Democrats, are better, and smarter than Karl Rove.

Democrats just dont speak to their constituents anymore, the republicans did, at least for awhile.

Who do Democrats represent, shouldn't they be advocating for the people, against those wealthy and powerful who would otherwise abuse them, politically, and economically, like they have?

So the elections have far less to do with a tricky/simplistic, cumbersome strategy, and more to do with an actual government, for and by the people.

Pelsoi, again, betrayed the public by embracing the monetary policy of George Bush, the failed president (no troll, she, as a democrat, should not be encouraging Americans to be fiscally irresponsible, none of them should, Congress appears to be crusing on the good ship lollipop).

Can't they see how this affects the voters, how the voters see them, as democrats? Why would a leader of the opposition party follow and recommend the failed policies of the worst president, ever, enabling him? "Unity?" Fear? Weakness?

What would Bill Clinton have done? Capitulated?

Karl Rove understands this, he capitalizes on these errors, it's that simple, no magic there, at all, with Rove.

Democrats should be distinguishing themselves from, not following, the worst president, ever...

You know this comment has 0 content. Your just taking the Obama talking points and playing them back. It really does not credit to you or your candidate.

well, the point is that i don't want to get lied to in order to convince me to vote for someone.  if she's disingenuously parsing his words on the reagan thing, to take one example, where does it end?  and if she gets busted by mccain in the general election for something slimy, that hurts our chances of moving into the white house.

we as progressives need to be wary of the wolves-in-sheeps-clothing that's very much a part of the DLC "third way" nonsense hillary is claiming as part of her experience.

A refreshing breath of honesty.  And fair enough, too.  That's her mantra and we all know it.  Maybe she's got a point, if she can hang a gifted candidate's head on her trophy wall it will only help in the general election.  And we won't be hearing much more about 'change' then, will we?  Besides changing the decor in the West Wing.  Which is all that really matters, isn't it?  Win at all costs, let the ends justify the means.

"in San Francisco"??????

Make that "South Carolina."  And no, I have NO IDEA UNDER THE SUN how I mixed THOSE two places up. . . .

Who's been parsing, dissembling, deliberately misinterpreting, and daily promoting the skirmishes based on your comments?  It's not the Clintons.  It's the media, mostly the idiot cable talking heads who have to fill up 24 hours with something THEY decided viewers want.  They're the ones who will say anything.    

I think Carter is vastly underrated as a president and I support the stance he has taken on grounds of intellectual integrity.  But you're right, he's been trashed for it.

Your remarks on Carter are well taken.

"Obama is asking Republicans to help determine the Democratic nominee for President. Screw that! Vote for a REAL Democrat!"

You have to keep in mind that Bill CLinton tried to move the Democratic party to the right and succeeded, by touting Republican positions, and took away a lot of the Republican conservative agenda. People refer to it as Clintonism and Republican Lite. The era of Big Government (liberal-socialism ala New Deal) is over, he said. I will "change welfare as we know it" clearly pandered to reactionary racist elements in society including the antiBlack/antiPoor Reagan Democrats. And many other proposals that were right wing in essence.

The main interparty issue is populist: rich versus poor. The Democrats have failed to exploit it, tax breaks for the rich, corporate welfare, offshore tax havens, budget deficits, the burgeoning National Debt, yearly interest on the debt which straps the economy, and so on.

John Grisham last night on Bill Moyer: people in the south live poor and vote rich. Why? Because Democrats are not getting the message out. And with Kucinich and Gravell out of the way, we are not hearing about it in the debates.

I do think the Clinton's have exaggerated Obama's comments about Reagan and the Republicans. However, I also think Obama did mean to compliment Republicans when he called them 'the party of ideas'.

I support Clinton on the Iraq issue. I did my own homework. After Obama entered the US senate he never spoke against the war and when he campaigned with Kerry he said he did not know how he would vote. So although I accept he may have been against the war there is nothing in his record during his US Senate tenure, that makes his position different from Clintons (which is Hillary Clinton's point).

Moreover, during the last debate Obama lied about his healthcare stance, and he massively  misrepresented his relationship with Rezko.

I think you really should take a look at the facts more, and not just be a partisan.

The link you provide is laughable.  I only wish the Republicans were stupid enough to trot out that stuff.

Bill Clinton has an approval rating of 80% among Democrats and is more popular with the populace at large then George Bush by a 2 to 1 margin.

When the most of us think of Bill Clinton we do think of Monica but we also think about the peace, the prosperity, our high standing with other nations, low gasoline costs, the budget surplus, etc, etc.

If the election becomes a referendum on Bill Clinton's presidency Hillary Clinton will be elected with the biggest majority since Ronald Reagan.

But you can bet the Republicans are not going to talk about Bill Clinton (Obama has shown that's a path to failure).

The Republicans are going to say the Democrats are soft on immigrants, and soft on defense, pro life, anti gun, pro gay, as well as all their other pet issues.

Makes a fellow proud to be a Democrat, doesn't it?  So what's your take on revenging ourselves on the Republicans when we win?  Any pet projects of retribution and humiliation you care to share with us?

You're in the right place, we can use all the help we can get...

In fairness to the MSM, when a candidate who happens to be African American wins a state with the backing of  80% of African Americans while winning just 10% of all other racial groups then the election was about race.

Good for you.  Looking forward to blood in the streets?  Any particular targets for your generalised physical violence or will any Republican do?  Your neighbours, perhaps?  Or are strangers and public personalities more to your taste?

I agree, when she said "I'm in to win" that was a promise to her supporters.  I've reading some articles Obama internet supporters are telling him to get even TOUGHER with her- to directly confront- one even said to bring up Monica Lewinski to her!  But what's wrong with the premise is what was wrong with the one before that he actually did in the debate-  Hillary is not going to just STAND THERE and do nothing while he rattles on about her. No matter what he says, she is going to come back with something twice as vicious so it will be hard to "even" the playing field.  The days of her letting others take shots at her during the debate is GONE.

Fear not, he's been pretty effectively demolished.  On to the convention.  Just what horrors do you propose visiting on the Republicans once we win?

Gleefully massacre?  Terrific.  Personally I think Guiliani is the real dark player here but it looks like we won't have the opportunity to eviscerate him at the rate he is going.

lol

I would imagine that the growth of MyDD suggests could things for Hillary Clintons candidacy.

Although it sounds good to not to have 50% of congress hating you on day one what makes you think that no matter which Democrat wins the election the entire Republican machinery won't act like they are a threat to life itself? It is a bit naive to think if Obama wins the opposition will love him and help him. Part of my problem with Obama is exactly that: he is feeding his supporters something he knows is not true. It doesn't matter how much he wants to unite and reach across when the other side has zero interest.

And on another note: I am pleasantly shocked to see a thought out and polite discussion on an internet board. What happened? :)