With all of Obama's talk of partisanship I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he's trying to run as a Reagan Democrat. Jimmy Carter set the stage for Ronald Reagan to become president. Clearly, the Obama campaign is betting the disastrous Bush Administration will pave the way for him as well.
After all, Ronald Reagan could do no wrong. He gave America hope. He was All American, the Gipper. He won the Cold War. He told Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that wall.
First, Ronald Reagan won two straight national elections in landslides that featured huge crossover numbers of Democrats. I really doubt that Republicans will crossover in enough numbers to vote for Obama.
Second, Reagan (probably by dint of his acting background) could sell his vision. Obama hasn't been able to show that he really stands by what he says.
Whomever is giving Obama the advice that Reagan is a good reference point needs to rethink that advice.
But no matter how you read Obama's timing, it's telling that his speech doesn't contain the word "Democrat" once.
This has always been my #1 problem with a Barack Obama candidacy. Whomever the Democratic nominee is should be able to clearly articulate why the next president should be a Democrat. It's not like the Republicans haven't given the Democrats much to work with, either.
Not once have I ever gotten the feeling that Barack Obama wants to be president to represent and lead according to the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Or that the Democratic Party has the ideas to move this country forward after the most catastrophic presidency in modern times.
Yet I have heard nothing from him about why Democrats are the better choice. Enough with the bipartisan kumbayah happyness. Give voters a reason to choose a Democrat over a Republican. Because the Republican nominee, whoever that will be, will sure as shit remind voters why they shouldn't vote for a Democrat.
In comparison Howard Dean--the candidate Obama is most frequently compared to--proudly said he was "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."
One evening in February 2005, in a four-hour meeting stoked by pepperoni pizza and grand ambition, Sen. Barack Obama and his senior advisers crafted a strategy to fit the Obama "brand."
The charismatic celebrity-politician had rocketed from the Illinois state legislature to the U.S. Senate, stirring national interest. The challenge was to maintain altitude despite the limited tools available to a freshman senator whose party was in the minority.
Yet even in those early days, Obama and his advisers were thinking ahead. Some called it the "2010-2012-2016" plan: a potential bid for governor or re-election to the Senate in 2010, followed by a bid for the White House as soon as 2012 or, if not, 2016. The way to get there, they decided, was by carefully building a record that matched the brand identity: Obama as unifier and consensus-builder, an almost postpolitical leader.
The Obama campaign was driven from the top. Stoller called it in December.
Whoa. A lot to digest here but there are assumptions that should be questioned immediately:
We are pro-choice, but we also believe that progressives must acknowledge the moral complexity of abortion;
Who said they didn't? And I'm looking for examples of specific progressives who have not acknowledged the moral complexity.
We are strong advocates of sensible gun safety laws and policies, but we also believe that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms
The Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst written sentences. Ever. But your interpretation of the Second Amendment overlooks that important conditional clause--being necessary to the security of a free State--and concludes that it prohibits gun control.
progressives must respond to middle class anxiety by offering not just an expanded safety net, but a ladder of opportunity for success
The opportunity for success starts with a good education and a good job. It's the private sector that creates jobs and helps the economy to grow. The government creates the environment that allows economic growth. Manufacturing has lost millions jobs and we're in a serious trade deficit to the tune of $63.9 billion in March. Where does the ladder of opportunity for success begin?
...combat global warming, but we also believe that nuclear energy must be an important part of that mix
After 30 years of production, the nation still has no place to put nuclear waste, many people fear nuclear energy, and the industry is unlikely to grow without more taxpayer aid. How much taxpayer money should be appropriated? What do we do with the spent fuel? The Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, under the most optimistic scenarios, will not open until 2017 to 2020.
I'm unconvinced of the merits of the Third Way. Still sounds like triangulation to me.
This story is so bogus I'm surprised it merits any attention here.
First, the only reason it seems they focused on the DNC is that the DNC broke out how much money they spend on consultants. Politico didn't even look--or bother to ask?--the RNC about the black consultants they used. And what is the racial make-up of the talent pool for political consultants? This story is meaningless because there's no description of the universe.
Second, look at the picture of Donna Brazile. It's unattractive. What kind of message do you think is being sent there? I bet BAGNews Notes would have a field day with that photo.
This is a hit job. John Harris and Mark Halperin wrote:
Matt Drudge rules our world . . . With the exception of the Associated Press, there is no outlet other than the Drudge Report whose dispatches instantly can command the attention and energies of the most established newspapers and television newscasts.
John Harris is Politico's Editor in Chief. With his lips firmly planted on Drudge's ass, do you still think this story is worth serious time and effort to discuss? No story is too petty for Politico to publish.
Glenn Greenwald has done an excellent job eviscerating Politico. I highly recommend it.
Ethanol from corn is dead. The science is more firmly focused on ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks like corn stover and wood chips. There's about 1 billion tons of biomass potentially available every year from agricultural sources such as crop wastes, animal manure, grains and other crops. The remaining biomass could come from sources including fuel wood from forests, wastes left over from wood processing mills and paper mills, and construction and demolition debris. Ethanol from corn pulls us into a 'food or fuel' debate when it should be 'food and fuel.'
The interesting omission is Obama's cosponsorship of the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007," which was probably a favor for the IL coal industry.
The problem is the process of converting coal into liquid and using it for transportation releases nearly twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2)--a greenhouse gas-- as burning diesel made from crude oil does. So if you convert coal into liquid fuel and don't capture the CO2, you're just increasing emissions. The way to deal with the CO2 is to sequester it underground--a process for which a workable solution hasn't been found.
only Edwards is close to articulating a real policy on Iraq
Well it looks pretty complete and real to me:
Edwards' plan for Iraq calls for Congress to:
* Cap Funds: Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.
* Support the Troops: Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war.
* Require Authorization: Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.
* End the War: Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in 12 to 18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.