pfft canadian girl- this is not his class thesis paper. I think one can figure out where he is. It's not 1 paragraph dairy really :P

Anyways , here is my input my dairist friend. He aint all we thought he would be, nobody is. But I too am mighty pissed about basic basic democratic principles he is shifting on. But guess what? there is 50% of dems in congress who are doing the same crap...

so _ hold tight_ slap him as you can do i.e. your one voice , our voices at a time. Shoot atlest he knows his pocket will hurt if he does not listen and heed a wee bit. :)

I'll still vote for him...

I just don't think reasonable people would read his books, interviews, profiles, etc, and cynically conclude that it's all an act to gain power. There's too much depth, thought, nuance, etc. He's not been spouting platitudes all these years, he's been articulating an in-depth sensibility/vision.

As for what he demonstrated during the campaign, I guess that's more debatable, seeing as some people seem to think he behaved like he was the scum of the earth. From what I could tell his preference/instinct was always to try intelligent communication and encourage mutual revelation -- even if it was the less safe politically -- before succumbing to politics as usual. His race speech was a shining example, but I saw it regularly in small ways too. Like graciously  and unhesitatingly admitting regrets.

Not one of Obama's policies is worse than whatever McCain's actual policies are. Obama's are, in fact, better. Progressives need to understand that progressive can also mean a progressive enactment of ever more progressive policies.

I have been saying for the last two years that Democrats will go nowhere if they think the moral righteousness of their policies alone will win elections. First you win elections, then you govern. We need 60 Senate seats. Even with a Democratic Senate and House Republicans still spend our money and prestige like old, drunken sailors. That must end. We're electing a President of a very big tent coalition. We'll have a voice in an Obama administration. That will not be the case with McCain and the Republicans.

You raise two issues. Obama's "triangulation" can be discussed in political terms, which we've been much discussing of late.

But I disagree with your assessment that Obama never proposed a progressive agenda and new political culture. You seem to be basing this on the fact that you can find some issues where he doesn't fit the traditional mode, where he looks like a hawk or what have you. Indeed his willingness to veer from the party line occasionally is one more example of his "new politics" approach.

But, yes, I certainly think most fair-minded people would agree his general thrust has always been generally progressive. The real issue for me has been how viable a candidate's plan is. Take health care. A big issue for me. I supported Barack because I firmly believed we'd see more progressive movement at the end of four years with Barack than with Hillary. Why? Well, this comes back to leadership style and political sensibilities -- and that whole range of things that Jerome above called meaningless.

Yes, I think the challenge with someone like Kucinich is not simply his liberal stances and records, but his impatience with anything as mushy as "bridge-building." Much of the excitement about Obama has been about his inclinations to do business in a certain (new, "post-politics") way. So I came to believe he had the sensibilities that, in reality, could manifest a generally progressive agenda much more than someone who might have called themselves more progressive. I still believe that. If Kucinich were magically, suddenly, to be president, I can't imagine he'd get much done with his approach.

Until I read it in detail.

Read it all the way through, Pol. You might change your mind.

Just a name that means nothing but a substitute for anything you'd imagine, like 'change' and all the others.

This diary would be depressing were it not so illuminating into the denial that was perpetuated.

Not fair. I could write all day long about the differences between these two men.

And I never called Obama a victim. He's been doing fine. My critique was aimed at myself.

He'll make miscalculations, no doubt, but generally he's living up to his responsibility to the party and the country as the nominee. Just look at campaign finance for example. Just imagine the attacks that would have been hurled his way had he chosen to take public funds. It very well might have been fatal ("what a naive, Jimmy-Carter-like, weakling who shoots himself in the foot out of principle," etc).

Yes, this is the real world. And I'm thankful Barack is willing to do commerce here.

But, as I say, I find it hard to believe anyone who's investigated him much deeper than what you see on TV would conclude that his "new politics" is merely a slogan.

Yes, yes, yes. He (ideally) will help us find new ways to frame arguments and coalitions, but our tendency is to try to place everything in traditional categories.

Well you betray yourself. You can find references to the Reagan years in his 2nd book, and in previous interviews.

It's all too easy to spout off about things you haven't bothered to look into.

Similarly, the record clearly shows Clinton-approved TV ads twisting Barack's words about Reagan (not to mention similar references in speeches by both Clintons). But I'm not going to do the grunt work of providing links for someone so willing to smear him without bothering to check the facts. If you were sincerely interested you'd already know better.

So you can mock my "kool-aid" drinking all you want, but you've made it clear your assessments are not to be trusted. I defy you to find Barack saying "she'll do or say anything to get elected" in the summer of 07 -- as you suggest. Simply not true.

Sacrifice involves actual suffering for someone and some interest other than yourself.

Your bar is really low.