from McCain. Now she can help to keep McCain's policy message away from the public now that Hillary is officially out of the race. With more attention on Palin and 'will they win over Hillary voters' the media will have less reason to actually compare Obama and McCain on any number of issues. On the plus side, perhaps it will draw more attention to women's rights, equal pay, etc.
Agreed. You articulated the central theme of the exchange here:
So what are the differences? Kos laid them out eloquently - it is a question of not being afraid to tout Democratic values. Kos argues for contrast with Republicans. The DLC has in the past argued for blurring distinctions.
If Howard Dean participated along with Kos and Ford it would have brought home the point even further ... and may have brought further clarity on the relationships between netroots, DLC and grassroots activists.
I do think having a strong netroots helps to keep the single issue groups from dominating the identity of the Democratic party -- to the benefit of the Democratic party.
Obama's inclusive message is resonating with members of my family I wouldn't expect to support any Dem candidate -- particularly this early in the process. My moderate Republican mother and my self-made millionaire brother-in-law are both very excited about Obama. My Mom likes his tone and that in the whole speech he didn't mention Bush once and my brother-in-law is excited that his message is positive with a call to action and that his background is 'worldly' -- particularly African and Asian -- at a time when we need to be better world citizens and have our leadership reflect this. I haven't heard either family member this excited about a political candidate. I don't have a particular dog in this fight yet, but this reaction raises my eyebrows.
I watched PBS after the speech and was struck how retired Generals and Jim Webb were so coherent, and opposed to Bush's position. The contrast with the mostly retread and largely tactical Bush speech was stunning.
One interesting thing Webb said when asked about the funding was how easily he separated supporting the troops from funding the reconstruction without a clear plan.
My rather unscientific benchmark for 2008 goes something like this:
Buchanan --> Lincoln
Hoover --> FDR
George W Bush --> ???
Both Lincoln and FDR had that transformational quality you talk about. Most importantly they each were able to articulate a positive vision for this country at a time change was desperately needed and the courage to stick with his convictions. Neither president had 100% of the people behind him, but had enough of a majority to get elected (in FDRs case over and over again).
Who do you see in that mold today? Certainly neither FDR or Lincoln were considered 'slam-dunk's before they were elected. I see some potential with Edwards, Obama and Gore. Not so much with Hillary (although I suspect much of that difficulty comes with Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton...)
PA-18 is ripe for the picking, IMHO. Definite dem advantage in registration -- suffered from some big-name opponents to Tim Murphy backing out before the primary (namely Barbara Hafer and Stan Savran). His opponent this year had almost no name recognition and no money (much like Ron Klink against Santorum in 2000).
Interesting discussion at Kos about the funding for this dog -- especially the connection with the ultra-fundie Christian organization Youth With A Mission (YWAM), through their auxiliary - The Film Institute (TFI). Loren Cunningham, the founder of YWAM, is the father of PT911 director David Cunningham.