This diary would be all true, if only it weren't completely wrong.
Obama isn't pushing the DLC mushy middle.
If you pay attention to him, his objective is to make progressive issues American issues, and pull the country to the left.
Not browbeat the other side and get a 50+1 victory like the Republicans.
He wants to get that 60%+ support for his policies.
Not push for the mushy middle.
Not compromise on our values.
It's confusing after so many years of assholes like Lieberman and From, but Obama is a different animal.
It's like Lakoff said, he is dropping the "left vs. right" frame, which is a huge loser, and picking up the "American values" frame, and moving the so-called center to the left.
It's about getting a truly popular mandate, not the bush-ian 50%+1. He doesn't employ language of division, because that will prevent him from getting the mandate he wants by alienating a lot of people.
We spent 6 years being told we're not patriotic, that if we don't like it, we should just leave.
Obama's coming in to bring everyone aboard, and push the entire country back to the left.
Is what he believes more important than what he does? He's a Catholic, but he clearly doesn't let his faith stand in the way of proper public policy. Can he not personally believe that being gay is a choice, while pushing the ball toward full equal rights under the law (I.E. marriage equality?)
I rather like Richardson, though he wouldn't be my top choice. I see him as a great choice for Secretary of State though.
Richardson explained his amendment further in breakout, but I think he should drop it all together. Pledge to balance the budget, the amendment, as he explained it, is unworkable.
Basically, he anticipated that we would be uphappy about it, and he said that his amendment would contain exceptions for recession and war. Which, IMO, makes it unworkable. Who determines if we are in wartime or recession time? Congress hasn't officially declared war since WWII, I think.
He should make a balanced budget pledge, but this amendment is a bad idea.
My impressions, using the order in which the candidates sat:
Gravel - incoherant. Please go away.
Richardson - very impressive. Built his narrative that he has accomplished the kinds of things we want our President to accomplish. His breakout speech was superb. He was still answering questions in breakout when the Edwards people were filing out. He answered the questions well and respected us.
Dodd was very impressive. He really broke down my overall negative impression of him. He has some fire in his belly. He answered the questions well, and that was appreciated.
Edwards - avoided answering many of the questions that didn't fit cleanly into his narrative. I thought it was insulting. He kept twisting the questions and going into his stump speech. Dodd was able to excite people while answering the questions, Edwards excited people by using his stump speech. I lost respect for Edwards.
Clinton - Took the booing well, answered the questions well, even when she knew that we would boo her. Though she's still near the bottom of my list (she probably fell further due to Dodd's performance), I felt that she treated us with the respect we should be accorded.
Obama - Took the time to answer the questions thoughtfully. Didn't seem like he stumped at all. It was a good performance.
Kucinich - stumped non-stop with the same stuff he always talks about. Very insulting.
So, the big winners in my book are Richardson and Dodd.
Explain it then. With decades of poor foreign policy leading to the rise of islamic fundamentalist-inspired terrorism, what is the importance of maintaining a failed foreign policy structure?
What horrible, bad thing would come of it should Obama meet with, say, Ahmedenijad in his first year in office?
Would the United States and Iran suddenly go to war? Would Ahmedenijad kill Obama? What terrible thing would happen? Explain it. Because the current state of affairs in foreign policy, not to mention the state of affairs in the entire post-World War II era, has been a dismal failure, by and large.
well lets see here...JFK got us into Vietnam. Reagan armed Hussein, Iran, fought a proxy war in Central America and, oh, got 230 Marines killed as a result.
Nixon gave us Pinochet, and took Israel's side in the Yom Kippur war.
Serious foreign policy, huh? The best Washinton's experts can give us?
looks more like a narrow world view, arrogance, and hubris. All of which helped plant the seeds for the biggest problems of the world today.
Illinois 3 is interesting to me, especially since its my district.
With Luis Gutierrez likely retiring, it looks to be a pretty rough primary for the open seat.
Alderman Manny Flores, the youngest alderman on the City Council, and a fairly independent one (not a Daley guy, not a member of the infamous HDO), raised nearly $500,000 this quarter. More than any other first time candidate. Third most of any candidate in the State, I believe (after Melissa Bean and Mark Kirk).
He's running against Ricardo Munoz (another Alderman) and Roberto Maldonado (Cook County Board Member). Munoz and Maldonado obviously trail in the money.
Things could get interesting if Gutierrez changes his mind on running, since all 3 only entered because they thought Gutierrez was retiring.
This is a safe Dem district, so the seat will be decided on February 5th, but it should still be an interesting race.
I'm also interested in Illinois 10, with carpetbagger Lieberdem Jay Footlik trying to knock Dan Seals out in the Primary for the race against the always vulnerable Mark Kirk.
Illinois 14 should also be interesting. Hastert seems to be unsure on retiring, and only has $75k on hand. There are about half a dozen Republicans vying for the seat (including ultra-racist hypocritical millionaire Jim Oberweiss (he ran an infamous anti-latino ad when he ran for Senate in 2004, while he was employing illegals in his dairies), and theres another millionaire in the race - a Democrat who has promised to self fund his campaign to the tune of $2 million, $1 mil each for the primary and general elections - several other Dems are also in the race.)