The sad fact is that while those of us who follow politics closely ground every detail about Obama into dust over the last six months or so the great mass of Americans only know that he is the black guy who is running for president.
The country needs to meet and become acquainted with the Senator Obama in this video.
I couldn't agree more with the need for a fighter. Not to fight the primaries over again, but I didn't see Senator Clinton as more of a fighter than Senator Obama. Neither one seems inclined toward a large battle.
Neither Bush is a fighter, but they both had plenty of people who were willing to do their fighting for them. How come no Democrat ever has the kind of help that Republicans get?
Since there is apparently no living Democrat who is willing to go to the mattresses for the party's nominee, Obama is left on his own. He's got to get it done, and in the next ten days, or this is just going to get worse as the summer goes on.
On the vice-president candidate:
The only reason to turn down a VP spot is because you have something in you or in your history that would make you an untenable candidate. If some one takes themselves out of the running, we have to respect that.
Obama better not be depending on his VP choice to make up for any perceived deficiencies in him as a president. He's the top of the ticket and no running mate is going to sell him.
I just better be a universally acknowledged good choice, rather than a safe choice.
I guess I am stupid, but can anyone explain to me why not one Democrat was able to do this during the years of Republican majority?
Is it only because all the Republicans will uphold his hold, so to speak?
The Republicans filibuster everything the want to and apparently suffer no political damage from doing so. Why, then, were Democrats so fearful of using the filibuster? Why don't the Democrats make the exact same threat, the so-called nuclear option, that Bill Frist made?
Like you, I have no idea how Ms. Vilsack's endorsement of John Kerry effected the outcome there in 2004. Her endorsement came after the widespread campaign to bring down Howard Dean was already in full swing.
But, I was in Iowa at the time and I do recall that while it was stated that her endorsement was not an endorsement by Gov. Vilsack, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, pretty much everyone in Iowa I talked with assumed that it was.
I have always held that the big story was not Dean but the Deaniacs. He didn't make us, we made him.
People who had never donated money, volunteered their time or even paid attention to campaigns before Labor Day got involved. People who hadn't done anything political other than voting, since college or ever, made changes in their lives to become more active and attentive citizens.
And it wasn't all about the Kiddie Korps that the corporate press/media focused on. At most Dean events I was part of, including Iowa, there were as many people older than I was, 49, than younger.
Dean was not the producer or the leader, but instead he was the product of a diverse movement of people into politics in reaction to the Republican and right-wing excesses that began in the 90s and, with the invasion of Iraq, lit some fires.
Currently the most visible product of this movement is the left blogosphere. We won't really know or understand the effects of this movement for a few years.
Many of the people who were activated in 2003-2004 have not continued their activism, but many have and they are part of all three of the major candidates' campaigns.
If the apparent level of excitation is less than it was in 2003-2004, it is because the people are already engaged.
On MSNBC tonight, Rudy's position was declared to be the same as John Kerry's during the 2004 campaign, and it was touted as evidence of Rudy's toughness and courage in taking on Bush's handling of the Iraq War.
The Democratic Party has a chance to win a Lieberman-proof majority. It is the second such opportunity. Last time they choked. I am not sure whether they are really ready this time, but it is in this respect that the grassroots, netroots and any progressive with a voice can and should push them into doing it.
In 2006, the Democrats won as a result of a disparate set of people and forces, and despite their refusal to attack Bush & the Republicans on Iraq in a straightforward manner. It is my hope that they will not hold back this time.
I wrote that test and apart from being bitter that it isn't called the James Powell Litmus Test (kidding, really), I feel sometimes it was and is misunderstood.
I wrote it out of frustration. It was a response to the corporate press/media's behavior, adopted even by "some Democrats" we know, which was to label any candidate supported by the left blogosphere or citizen activists as "far left." Along with this was a tendency to magnify policy differences that were real, but not a barrier to broad support for Democratic candidates who were willing to stand up for the Democratic base and their interests rather than criticizing them or hiding from them.
It's true, as at least one person wrote, that there is no policy on this list. There's a simple reason for that. Until we get rid of Bush/Cheney and until we start to re-democratize the corporate press/media structure and until we can the dismantle the right-wing propaganda machine, our policy must be doing those things. None of the policies we want to adopt and none of the policy areas that we deem important are going to get any attention until we make those changes.
This is the only time in my life that I said something that other people thought was interesting or important enough to quote and talk about. It is very flattering.