The problem, it seems, is not judging the coattails of Obama for 2010 or any other year.
The problem is the woeful state of Georgia's particular Democratic Party. Obama's base voted in large numbers because they saw in his candidacy a the fulfillment of generations of struggle.
Going forward, Democrats in Georgia actually need to give his base a reason to come out and vote and create a strong field effort-similar to what existed during the General- to ensure it actually happens.
Looking at the state's local politics, it's Democrats are about as useful as a alarm after your home has been burglarized.
In short, make the coattails, don't just assume them.
It is my sincere belief, no matter what folks may say, that it is pure, unadulterated bigotry.
Bigots refuse to support Obama.
I just came back from a round of canvassing in my little piece of South Georgia.
We canvassed likely Democrats-all white.
To a tee, the ID's we returned to our Field Office of these people were all-save 2- "Not sure" and "undecided". But what they refused to verbalize was apparent visually and the viceral reaction to the mere mention of the Senator's name.
Democrats all, they just 'aren't sure' about voting for a black man.
When pressed about McCain and his grafting of Bush's policies to his own I heard: he's got the experience. Frustrated by a so brazenly foolish of a response, I(wrongly) shouted back "yeah. And it is that experience that got us into the shithole we find ourselves in."
Let's stop kidding ourselves folks. One cannot, intellectually speaking, claim 'inexperience' with Obama.
It is a fallacy, borne of willful ignorance, and a refusal to see the truth. That refusal has it's fulcrum in a pure and vile racism that infects pockets of my Party and most certainly Southern Georgia.
What do these bigots stand to gain? The false sense of superiority that, for so many middle class whites, is the only thing of value in their increasingly meaningless lives.
It is increasingly clear to me that noone on MyDD understand the core of Obama's message, organizing principles, and views about power.
You all keep rehasing the primary with these 'I told you so' comments which-for us ardent Obama supporters- does nothing but lay bare your profound ignorance about Obama and your inability to see past the spin of the MSM.
Folks, please do the Party a favor and get to know the life, times, history, and views of your presumptive Nominee.
Don't do it for me. Do it for yourselves, for arguing in circles without a clear understanding of Barack doesn't display wit but considerable folly.
Am I the only Obama supporter here that feels this about MyDD? Comments, please.
There is a difference between moderating and vacillilating...
Obama is doing none of the former and Clinton could not help but master the latter.
I said it upthread: our main complaint with Hillary was that she is too reflexively defensive toward any opposition and accepts the power of special interests. Both have given us the Washington we have today.
Experience is important. But so is trust, integrity and judgement at this juncture in the health of our Republic.
Our, or atleast, my rejection of Hillary was that vote she cast in 2003 and the remarkably negative campaign she ran against Obama.
Also, strategically speaking, Hillary inspires confidence amongst the base and revulsion amongst everyone else.
And please don't go there with me with "Obama attacked Hillary as well" for this is a fallacy.
Obama attacked the kind of campaign Hillary ran against him as being needlessly negative and defensive. Such campaigns engender distrust in our officials and divisions amongst the American people. Her approach is 'old politics' that doesn't lead to anything good and her failed Health Plan and candidacy is Exhibit A should you need proof.
It's really very odd coming across you, tigershark.
As a liberal, and someone very well versed on Barack's life, legislative record, accomplishments, having read both of his books, and ofcourse campaign endlessly for him, I always saw Barack as a truly remarkable candidate.
What concerns you about him? Where does this 'disconnect' as you put it arise from?
So you know, while I like Hillary personally, having lost two friends in Iraq, I simply could not bare to vote for her. I, and the base of the Party, needed to throw her and other Democrats who voted for the War under the bus.
<One of the reasons that I was concerned about Barack from the beginning is the "post-partisan" attitude that he brought--there are some issues that I prefer to have defended completley and totally, no compromise with the Republicans.>
At the core of what ails our Republic, is this inability to break bread with our ideological opponents.
When will you admit that a constant defensive posture with Republicans does nothing but lead to gridlock and division?
The tactical brilliance of this strategy is to reframe perceptions, which one can justifiably argue color and give sway to the vast bulk of our electorate.
Clark is putting a crack in McCain's armor and this self-perpetuated "myth" of the Old Man as the great "Patriot".
McCain is absolutely so, but he cannot and we will not allow his service to be a shield to his judgements on a variety of national security topics.
Obama is seeking to change perceptions of McCain as the straight talker and his experience WHILE he changes his own as the guy who sat in the pews silent to Wright's rants.
The media will sit and forment on Clark's comments and this will force a long overdue discussion about this supposed strength of McCain.
Swing voters will look at the Nato Supreme Commander saying that serving in the military, by it's self, does not make one qualified to run for President. They will probably then say, "well, comin' from him that's true, so what does?".
That internal conversation is priceless and will aid Obama measurably.
Please stop being so cynical about low information voters. They lack information, not the brain power and it is their perceptions we must change.