Here is a fact few liberals would dispute: Ronald Reagan was not a centrist. And here is another: Reagan had a peculiar knack for appealing to people who had seemingly no business voting for him. The Great Communicator was, unquestionably, a conviction-driven partisan. Yet he spoke a language of renewal that, to the great frustration of Democrats, resonated across the political spectrum. The combination of Reagan's capacious personality and his sunny rhetoric gave Republicans the best of both worlds: he could neutralize, even occasionally seduce, people who were not ideological conservatives, even as he advanced an unapologetically conservative agenda.

Barack Obama may or may not turn out to be blessed with the same skill - there are those on the left who wonder how progressive the charismatic Illinois Senator actually is, and who cringe every time he talks about an America in which red-blue divisions can be transcended. Did we not learn anything from the Bush years, critics of Obama's post-partisan overtures wonder, or for that matter from the reign of Bill Clinton, when Republicans grasped at every possible straw, however flimsy or imagined (Troopergate, Whitewater, Monica), to drive their nemesis out of the White House? The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has repeatedly taken Obama to task for naively imagining that toning down partisanship will somehow bring about progressive change. "If you try to find common ground where none exists... you end up being played for a fool," Krugman has reminded his readers. Sidney Blumenthal, a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton, implied much the same thing when he told the journalist George Packer of The New Yorker recently, "It's not a question of transcending partisanship. It's a question of fulfilling it."

Well, maybe, except that, as Reagan showed, Presidents who can reach across the partisan divide aren't necessarily fated to be vacillating centrists. By the same token, those incapable of bridging the divide aren't necessarily more likely to resist the urge to compromise their principles, as was vividly demonstrated during Bill Clinton's presidency and as may well be the case with Hillary Clinton. Both the Clintons inspire fierce partisan passions. Both have also tacked to the center when in office, in an arguably vain attempt to convince voters they are not the left-wing extremists conservatives make them out to be. For progressives, the result is often the worst of both worlds: the values they cherish are compromised, even as pundits lament the "divisiveness" in Washington and much of the country imagines the Presidency has fallen into the hands of the radical left.

Do we really want to go down this road again, the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates asked on his blog recently, noting that "the Clinton years, for all of their centrism, were incredibly partisan times." Coates posted an excerpt from an article in which a left-wing Democrat from Missouri pleaded with the party's leaders not to make the mistake of putting Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket. Why? Because, she said, "I disagree with the way she's going to the right, but my biggest problem with it is that it's not working. People don't believe she's a moderate."

People in Missouri may eventually come to feel the same way about Obama, of course, particularly as conservatives begin to chip away at the post-partisan image he's crafted. Such efforts are already underway. Writing in City Journal, a quarterly put out by the neoconservative Manhattan Institute, Fred Siegel recently warned those charmed by Obama's appeals to his ideological opponents not to be fooled. "Obama is such a down-the-line partisan that, according to Congressional Quarterly, he voted more often with the Democrats than did the party's majority leader, Harry Reid," wrote Siegel.

It's not impossible to imagine the dispiriting scenario of a general election in which Obama, fearing being tarred by this brush, turns ever more timid and defensive, in a futile and ultimately self-destructive effort to avoid being pigeonholed by meeting the other party halfway. But it's also possible to imagine him utilizing his immense political talent to capitalize on the unique moment we are in, a moment when the conspicuous failures of the Bush Administration have led an unprecedented number of disgusted independents and disillusioned conservatives to yearn for something different. Just how sharp a departure from the status quo an Obama Presidency would be remains to be seen (the true test is not what he says on the campaign trail but what he will do). But while critics see his talk of unity as naïve, it's more accurate to see it as shrewd. What Obama recognizes is that advancing a progressive agenda is simply not possible without a popular mandate, not because the right won't do everything in its power to sabotage such an agenda from being implemented but rather because it will. The alternative is to rally behind a polarizing figure half the country deeply distrusts who has not exactly proven resistant to compromise over the course of her career. Hillary Clinton may indeed be the candidate more likely to fulfill partisanship. Just don't imagine this will necessarily be good news for the left.

Comments (36)

1. bing bing bing bing!!!!!

   man...KVH is whipping you typing monkeys hard today! everytime i comne back there's a new blog entry. keep up the great work!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2008 @ 2:41pm

2. Well, Mr Press, that's the rub.

   IS Obama a "die hard progressive" who'll play "bipartisan" but win a progressive agenda via charm and some mystery quality (that METTEYYA seems to believe in) and create a popular mandate for liberalism that cannot be assailed and assures him 2012....

   or does he play it "smooth"...take half-a-loaf (or maybe just a few slices) from conservative Dems and Republicans, call it a "major victory", triangulate the Left into "Where ELSE are you going to go in 2012", and ride into a re-election in 2012 with little to fear from Romney or Huckabee or whoever? a la Bill Clinton?

   I tend to favor the second, more cynical approach. Call it a hunch, but the rap on Obama for "opposing the war, but always voting for funding it"...or "voting present ump-teen times"...etc. always seemed to weigh more heavily than his "Most Liberal Senator" rating in the US Senate.

   Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 2:43pm

3. Two sense of bipartisanship. One is where you appeal to voters of the other party and try to get their votes. The other is where you try to include the elected officials and power brokers from the other side in decisions making. The first does not lead to centrism, but I am not sure who thought it did. The second just does. You put republicans at the table to discuss a moderately left wing proposal and you will get at best a centrist proposal as an outcome, but probably a moderately right wing proposal. You put health care companies at the table to discuss health care reform and you get them watering down the proposal, while still funding attack ads after they get up from the table.

   Obama is certainly trying to appeal to Republicans. Fine and dandy. I have remarked several times that there is more than one way to do this. Obama does it in the same ways that Reagan did, appealing to universal or near universal values. He is not as good as Reagan was as tying those appeals to policy proposals. Obama certainly makes policy proposals, but I have never heard a attempted argument from the politics of hope to his health care plan, whereas Reagan did make arguments from the greatness of the American spirit to shrinking governments and taxes. But apart from how succesful Obama is at the Reagan strategy there is another strategy, which is economic populism. Most people don't like being condescended to or being tricked. Make cultural conservatives realize that they and their issues are being used in order to further a set of economic policies that hurts them and their children. Obama is not doing that. Edwards sort of did it. I think this second strategy is the better one for democrats.

   The problem is Obama also seems engaged in the second version of bipartisanship, where you play nice with the people who are responsible for putting out country in the mess it is in. In general when people say they reach across the aisle, I wonder 'Why would you do that when all you are going to find is someone ready to knife you in the back?'

   Plus there are the policy positions Obama has taken. For the most part they are good. But in a couple of spots they are inexplicably farther to the right than he was in general before running for president. Not having mandates in his health care plan, not having a foreclosure moratorium in his mortgage crisis plan, and not solidly committing to removing combat troops from Iraq. These all seem like rightward shifts for Obama. And they are rightward shifts on some pretty important issues. Now he is still not as centrist as Clinton was as a Senator, but these rightward shifts give reasonable suspicion that he is not going to be a feirce partisan once elected.

   Posted by dentedpat at 02/18/2008 @ 2:52pm

4. Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/18/2008 @ 2:52pm

   I think it depends on the issue.

   Obama can't push things that are un-popular or radical. Clinton's flop with "don't-ask-don't-tell" is a case in point (more so than "Hillary-care").

   Sure "things are different now"...but now isn't 1993. And just as much, 2009 won't be the years it might take to get some more "progressive" agenda item to reach widespread acceptance.

   Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 3:41pm

5. Mask,

   I am not sure what part of what I wrote you are responding to exactly. None of the three policy issues I mentioned are such that his moving to the left to occupy the position that Edwards had, for instance, would make him unpopular. Clinton is running with mostly stuff appropriated from Edwards and doing ok. I don't think Edwards lost because his policies. He didn't excite people enough to develop a large grassroots organization and couldn't raise money like Obama and Clinton did.

   Posted by dentedpat at 02/18/2008 @ 3:53pm

6. I've no doubt the conservatives are going to use Obama's liberal record to show that he is too progressive for America. Im not sure that is going to work because contrary to what some may think Obama doesnt hide the fact that he is a strong liberal. He says so in his stump speeches. Just as in his speeches he is not shy about sayng what a strong civil libertarian. So either Americans are more liberal than conservatives would have us believe or the fact that Obama doesnt hide it and is doing so well means that there are other things that makes him the better candidate or its both.

   I dont think Obama will have his values coopted. He strikes me as someone who is confident in who he is and what his values are. Because they dont appear to reflect his supporters rather they reflect his personal values. Its people who are not confident in what their values are that easily coopted which is why I think Obama will have some success. After the Bush/Cheney administration there must be some conservatives questioning their beliefs which makes them vulnerable for cooptation.

   Obama is not a politician in the same sense as other politician. He is open and honest he is not afraid to say controversial things in his speeches. I think he is the one that is more of a straight shooter. This is a guy that says he is a bad CEO although looking at his campaign I'm startng to wonder if that wasnt somewhat of an exaggeration. Maybe honesty in govermnent is more important to the American people than we think.

   Carol

   Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/18/2008 @ 4:22pm

7. Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/18/2008 @ 3:53pm

   Well, I'm merely saying that he can't push something radical or un-popular. But he could push things that the polling show are popular and have a "progressive" bent to them...such as getting out of Iraq, more "green technology", etc.

   And perhaps agreeing with you that he's NOT going to be the "fierce partisan" as Mr Press thinks is possible.

   Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 4:25pm

8. The Reagan comparison with Obama is tempting because of the mass appeal, but one was an actor with a soothing and sunny rhetoric, the patriarch who would take care of us; the other is an impassioned man who is not soothing or sunny in his message or rhetoric. He's telling the masses that there is a terrible mess that is going to be anything but simple to put right, that he will make mistakes, that he's part of the solution, and addresses the people inclusively. He's not coming across the patriarch as Reagan did. He's daring us to do something together. Scary, yes, but real. P.S. I want a T-shirt that reads "Old person for Obama"

   Posted by moze at 02/18/2008 @ 6:10pm

9. It's happening again. The Repubs are lining up single file behind a right wing warmonger, McCain, and grabbing all those "independents," while the Dems are fighting over minutiae (superdelegates? who stole what speech fragment from whom?) that no "independent" will even remember in the face of the coming fear-and-smear campaign. We Dems really are becoming like that Radiohead song: "You do it to yourself, you do/And that's what really hurts...." Except... we do have to focus and remember that it's the right wingers who are responsible for the DeLay-Rove era (not Bill) and focus on making sure they leave town in January 2009.

   Posted by RLawrence at 02/18/2008 @ 6:12pm

10. RLAWRENCE where exactly did you see McCain grabbing the "independents"? Any statistical proof.

    Posted by dimik72 at 02/18/2008 @ 6:26pm

11. Hold on there!!! Are you saying that skills of political persuasion might actually be helpful when it comes to driving an agenda??? Wow, whod'a thunk it??? And here I thought that being in the solutions business you just had to alienate everyone who disagrees with you on any minor point, ruthlessly enforce discipline, blindly reward loyalty, and trade favors. There's an art to politics? Are you sure that's not some kind of cult talk?

    Posted by metaxy100 at 02/18/2008 @ 6:47pm

12. A republican strategist just said that if Obama is the nominee they plan on attacking him on his Foreign Policy. In other words they are going to scare up votes by playing the fear card. Will this be the election when the fear card finally lose its power. I certainly hope so. They say his approach to foreign policy is Naieve. These republicans are so clueless they really are the past. Their approach is so simplistic it belongs in simpler times and what's more it hasnt even worked for us. A foreign policy diasaster in Iraq terrorist resurgence in Afganistan and Pakistan. A provocative Iranian dictator and allies who have lost respect for America.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/18/2008 @ 7:03pm

13. and not solidly committing to removing combat troops from Iraq.

    Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/18/2008 @ 2:52pm

    i wish someone would define the difference between combat and non-combat troops.

    how will the remaining non-combat troops defend themselves?

    with bananas?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 7:59pm

14. Well, I'm merely saying that he can't push something radical or un-popular.

    Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 4:25pm

    with whom?

    k-street?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 8:00pm

15. Whoah, The Nation said something positive about Reagan? They must totally think he was the greatest President ever!!

    Also...the Republicans should attack Obama on his foreign policy, particularly with regard to Iraq, because it's just irresponsible. He's committed himself to a virtually immediate withdrawal regardless of what the situation is when he gets into office. That's the definition of an irresponsible foreign policy.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/18/2008 @ 8:14pm

16. That's the definition of an irresponsible foreign policy.

    Posted by THRAWN 02/18/2008 @ 8:14pm

    no, i think that was defined on March 18, 2003.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 8:37pm

17. But while critics see his talk of unity as naïve, it's more accurate to see it as shrewd. What Obama recognizes is that advancing a progressive agenda is simply not possible without a popular mandate, not because the right won't do everything in its power to sabotage such an agenda from being implemented but rather because it will. The alternative is to rally behind a polarizing figure half the country deeply distrusts who has not exactly proven resistant to compromise over the course of her career. Hillary Clinton may indeed be the candidate more likely to fulfill partisanship. Just don't imagine this will necessarily be good news for the left.

    This is a VERY insightful article!

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/18/2008 @ 8:45pm

18. Thats a good idea we'll stay in Iraq heck for 50 years and try to stabalize it like the British tried to do for 30 years. Meanwhile China continue to grow ecomonically, Al Queada continue to grown in Afganistan and Pakistan. They are the people who attacked us on 911. And the world will pass Us and our failed policies by while we continue to stabelize Iraq. That sounds like a brilliant foreign policy strategy. In the last 25 years or so we've had two gulf wars in the middle east and the war in Iraq and what has that solved nothing. Bush got into Iraq with no way of getting out and basically were stuck unless we have a president that says we are getting out its in our best interest and national security to get out and do exaclty that. John McCain compare an occupation in Germany to an occupation in Iraq. Do you know how ridiculous that is? And they say democrats are naieve when it comes to Foreign Policy. Germany and Iraq are nothing alike. If democrats are naive then republicans are backwards and ill informed.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/18/2008 @ 8:52pm

19. Thank you Eyal Press for reminding me why I subscribe and give The Nation as a gift!

    Posted by Truffledog at 02/18/2008 @ 8:54pm

20. with whom?

    k-street?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/18/2008 @ 8:00pm

    Or Main Street, which isn't as progressive as the progressives think or (I will add) as conservative as the conservatives think!

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 9:24pm

21. That's the definition of an irresponsible foreign policy.

    Posted by THRAWN 02/18/2008 @ 8:14pm

    no, i think that was defined on March 18, 2003.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/18/2008 @ 8:37pm

    Also true; these aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they have one important thing in common: pursuing an aim regardless of what the situation on the ground happens to be. Going into Iraq the way we did was dumb, and pulling out irrespective of conditions on the ground is also dumb.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/18/2008 @ 9:37pm

22. Or Main Street, which isn't as progressive as the progressives think or (I will add) as conservative as the conservatives think!

    Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 9:24pm

    main street is listened to only on one day every four years.

    then it's down to the REAL BUSINESS.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 9:38pm

23. Frosty

    I think what is generally meant is troops who carry out combat missions. So a marine contingent assigned to the (huge) embassy would not count as combat troops. I think the troops Obama wants to leave in to protect humanitarian workers wouldn't count as combat troops. The troops he wants to leave in to mount offensive operations against AQ would be. And on this score I see no reason to base them in Iraq. There are several countries (Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain) in the region which could let us base a small number of troops for that purpose (though bases anywhere in the Mid-east is a worry, the mess Bush created has left us with no choice about that as far as I am concerned). So that is what I mean when he won't come out solidly for no combat troops. As of now after all the troop withdrawals he plans to do, Obama would leave troops in Iraq for counter-terrorism purposes. Given the tendency of many to conflate tribal militias and insurgent forces with AQ, a force dedicated to stopping terrorism could get rather large. This seems to me to be a significant move to the right for Obama who, going in to the election had bonafides on the issue only slightly short of Kucinich.

    Posted by dentedpat at 02/18/2008 @ 10:03pm

24. Thrawn,

    So more than a year counts as immediate? Interesting. Now what reasons are there to have a slower withdrawal? And what facts on the ground need to change for you to endorse a withdrawal? To save you some time the following answers to this question are hopeless:

    1. The Iraqis will immediately begin to slaughter one another (racist and not supported by the facts)

    2. We have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made (true, but not clear how our troops being there, fomenting more unrest and delegitimizing the government helps clean up the mess.)

    3. Terrorists will take over the country (right now the only thing saving AQ in Iraq from complete obliteration is our presence. The two most powerful Shi'ite organizations in Iraq are the Sadrists and the Badrists. Badr is just an Iran front and Sadr is his own man. Both would pretty ruthlessly take out the several hundred AQ operatives in Iraq, because after all, it is important to remember that the overwhelming majority of insurgents have nothing to do with AQ and almost any Shi'ite you talk to is a safe bet to hate AQ. The former Baathists have shown no real willingness to go to bat for AQ in Iraq, and having to face Sadr and Badr would make it really stupid to do so. We give the Shi'ite militias a bigger and better target than AQ, and at the same time restrict their ability to go after AQ by attacking their infrastructure, even when Sadr has unilaterally declared and enforced a cease fire.)

    Posted by dentedpat at 02/18/2008 @ 10:11pm

25. Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/18/2008 @ 10:03pm

    well,

    it's not just bush's fault:

    The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union--the Cold War adversary of the United States--from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil,"

    Carter proclaimed:

    Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

    and it's not just carter's fault....................

    good thing you didn't put saudi arabia on the list of potential "host" (that's the term they use for parasites, too) countries!

    actually, all the countries you listed ALREADY HAVE u.s. troops.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 10:18pm

26. Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/18/2008 @ 10:11pm

    So more than a year counts as immediate? Interesting. Now what reasons are there to have a slower withdrawal? And what facts on the ground need to change for you to endorse a withdrawal?

    My problem with Obama's position is that it's been phrased unconditionally. In other words, regardless of the situation he finds on the ground, he will move to withdraw troops as swiftly as he feels possible. That's problematic because I feel like strategy must be adapted to the circumstances that exist.

    Additionally, though, I don't think withdrawal is currently a good idea either, though your responses suggest you disagree.

    1. The Iraqis will immediately begin to slaughter one another (racist and not supported by the facts)

    Your first criticism is silly; why is this claim racist? If you believe that there is substantial violence in the country due to ethnic or religious tensions, why in the world would that not get substantially less stable once a significant power vacuum is created?

    2. We have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made (true, but not clear how our troops being there, fomenting more unrest and delegitimizing the government helps clean up the mess.)

    I think you'll need to warrant these claims a little better, especially since the burden lies on you to show why the presumption of an obligation is so clearly outweighed. Unless you can show that our presence is making no positive difference (which doesn't at all seem to be the case), I think you have a difficult argument to sell here.

    3. Terrorists will take over the country (right now the only thing saving AQ in Iraq from complete obliteration is our presence. The two most powerful Shi'ite organizations in Iraq are the Sadrists and the Badrists. Badr is just an Iran front and Sadr is his own man. Both would pretty ruthlessly take out the several hundred AQ operatives in Iraq, because after all, it is important to remember that the overwhelming majority of insurgents have nothing to do with AQ and almost any Shi'ite you talk to is a safe bet to hate AQ. The former Baathists have shown no real willingness to go to bat for AQ in Iraq, and having to face Sadr and Badr would make it really stupid to do so. We give the Shi'ite militias a bigger and better target than AQ, and at the same time restrict their ability to go after AQ by attacking their infrastructure, even when Sadr has unilaterally declared and enforced a cease fire.)

    This is a pretty solid response, I think, though it seems slightly problematic since I doubt the militias have good counterterrorism resources. I don't know a huge amount of detail about the situation, so I have to concede that you have a solid point. At the same time, however, those same militias seem as though they'd contribute to further destabilization even if they take down al-Qaeda.

    Also, one other problem. One of the two powerful militias you've mentioned is basically controlled by Iran. That's a real problem, because if we pull out that means Iran has significant influence within the country. It can either incite instability and prevent the government from maintaining any form of authority, or it can rule by proxy. Neither of these seems good, and would only be reasonable if there's no other real hope for improvement in Iraq.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/19/2008 @ 12:10am

27. Posted by THRAWN 02/19/2008 @ 12:10am

    if the corporagovernmentalmilitaryengine that started the chaos decides to pull out their squads of undereducatedbrownpeople from iraq today or tomorrow

    or in 100 years,

    the result will be the same.

    the proxy government will fall and someone else will take their place "at the helm",

    in a process that will most probably be quite "undemocratic",

    putting in place a "leader"

    which most probably the iraq people neither want,

    nor would wish for in a hundred years...........

    what, you gotta stay and make sure all the oil's used up? the result is invariable.

    no u.s. proxy government can survive without "the big stick" there

    backing up its feeble carrots. never.

    it is an insult to the pride of an occupied people.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2008 @ 12:58am

28. If the US and the world are going to pull through the hard times ahead, they are going to have to transcend bipartisanship.

    In these election times it is hard to remember that the Reps & Dems are the right & left wings of a single party - the party of Big Business. It is this party which got the US and the world into all the trouble - climate change, expensive wars (which make money for the arms industry) etc etc. It seems unlikely that this machine will be able to escape the stranglehold that business interests have on it. Climate Change, for instance, needs scientific solutions but business won't permit that. War needs to stop, but those making trillions from it won't like the idea.

    So the solutions to the problems lie outside of the Party of Big Business. Or (and none of the business interests will like this) the party system can be transformed from within so that it comes to represent the interests of the people, individually and in detail, rather than those of businesses.

    Perhaps Obama is the man to do it? It seems rather unlikely - but one can only hope.

    (PS I am getting a bit tired of The Nation's obsession with the primaries - the matter of who controls the One Party may seem important, but the world rolls on, full of interesting events.)

    Posted by mikecope at 02/19/2008 @ 01:34am

29. Partisanship is a posture. Ultimately neither party wants real change; they're both owned by the same entrenched concentrations of capital. Their main objective is to stay in power. They do the little partisan dance and pretend it is democracy in action. The game is rigged, and "partisanship" is the folly used to make us forget. We get caught up in the farce and lose sight of what is really happening. This is not to say that occasionally individuals, such as Obama, such as McCain in 2000, such as Perot in 1992, such as RFK, get a taste of what is possible when a single human being becomes aligned with a higher purpose. They aim to transcend partisanship, and the force of their inner conviction is contagious and can inspire the deluded masses to let go of their habituated ego identification with a particular ideology. When this happens, a real threat is created to the entrenched interests, and they use whatever means necessary to preserve their position. Sometimes this entails political dirty tricks, as in the case of McCain in South Carolina in 2000 and Perot in 1992. Sometimes it involves assassination, as in the case of RFK. Perhaps this "cult of personality" narrative is an early taste of the narrative that the entrenched interests will use in their effort to destroy Obama. I don't think this narrative will work against Obama. So what will they try next? This is what worries me.

    I wouldn't worry about whether Obama is a real "progressive" or not. Obama is a channel of a deeper truth that we can all see as self evident. We all came from ancestors who first evolved into Homo Sapiens in Africa. Like all of us, he is not white, but he is not not white. He is not black, but he is not not black. Like Jesus, he says, "it is not about me, it is about you." In other words, if you elect me (Obama) to the office of president, it does not mean that game is won. It will take a sustained effort. This is a true spiritual perspective, and it is only a cult of personality if his followers lose sight of his message. Like the "Christians" have done with Jesus' message.

    Posted by diceymatter at 02/19/2008 @ 01:56am

30. I don't trust either one of the major candidates! They both have economic advisors from Wall Street! Clinton has promised Silicon Valley more Guest Workers from India to take computer jobs away from Americans. She is co-chair of the Indian Lobby in Congress. Who represents American voter in Congress ? No one! They represent the Multinational corporations, foreign governments, and not Americans or America's national interest. These people will say anything to get elected!

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/19/2008 @ 12:42pm

31. Posted by P. J. CASEY 02/19/2008 @ 12:42pm

    Fine, what are you going to do about? Complain every four years after voting for Dennis Kucinich (along with 1-4% of everybody in your state)?

    Posted by Mask at 02/19/2008 @ 12:53pm

32. Fine, what are you going to do about? Complain every four years after voting for Dennis Kucinich (along with 1-4% of everybody in your state)?

    Posted by MASK 02/19/2008 @ 12:53pm

    No, but calling bullshit bullshit when you see it should be done. Casey is correct. Clinton and Obama will slide to the right on issues to broker deals, and McCain will stay right in the middle of the right where he is.

    I've complained about this from the get go. Our finalists were chosen for us waaaay before we voted on them. And, this country will continue down it's right wing conservative agenda which will continue to move manufacturing, engineering and programming jobs overseas while trying to force the U.S. economy into a service oriented piece of crap economy.

    The British are the only ones to successfully do this, but we have to model ourselves after the Brits evidently. Yes, the Brits who can't make a car, their own navy ships or subs, or anything else, but pretty much own the planet, and use the U.S. military to protect their overseas investments. What in the hell does the U.S. get out of this besides a huge debt we have to pay off? We are selling this country lock stock and barrel so a few business weenie heads can reap the profits.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/19/2008 @ 1:07pm

33. Fine, what are you going to do about? Complain every four years after voting for Dennis Kucinich (along with 1-4% of everybody in your state)?

    Posted by MASK 02/19/2008 @ 12:53pm

    baaa baaaaaaaaaaaaa!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2008 @ 2:06pm

34. WOLFGANG....the US still beats the British in foreign investment--

    1. United States 1,818,000,000,000

    2. United Kingdom 1,135,000,000,000

    Posted by Mask at 02/19/2008 @ 2:20pm

35. For me, the up/down choice is easy. I'd much rather have a unifying figure who galvanizes more Americans to action than a polarizing figure who has plans forever but can't get the legislation from Congress. Americans are generally much more populist than political. Obama has the edge. Hillary not talking about realigning Congress to enable her programs should worry supporters who believe that somewthing wonderful will happen on Clinton's "day one." It can't without a movement.

    Posted by hrayovac at 02/19/2008 @ 3:43pm

36. Thrawn,

    Everytime Obama talks about Iraq he says 'based on advice I have gotten from military commanders' and then he describes pulling out one to two brigades a month as the way to withdrawal safely. That gives more than a year for the Iraqi government to reconcile itself to the new situation. Our withdrawal incentivizes political reconciliation because as long as we are there the Shi'ites political leadership has a free hand, and the Sunni political leadership has no reason to trust the Shi'ites. If we leave we insure that the current government realizes it has to reconcile with the opposing Sunni parties and Shi'ite militias.

    1. There is a tendency to think that those brown people can't get along and so we must step in to make sure they don't go at each other. That is certainly racist. That is usually, in my experience, what is behind the idea that the Iraqis will start slaughtering each other. The only way around it being a racist claim, that I can see, is if you claim that Iraq is in roughly the same position as Rwanda, where you had ethnic groups that were pretty internally unified politically and economically, were significantly segregated from each other, and where one of th two had a clear advantage if fighting started. Add in the years and years of racism inspired by the British to keep the population from unifying and overthrowing them and you have a powder keg. That just isn't the case in Iraq. The Shi'ites are completely fractured. The Kurds are relatively unified, but have no interest in a civil war. The Sunnis are also not unified enough for this to turn into a Shi'ite-Sunni war. The Iraqis were only under the British for about 20-30 years and the British never had a chance to engage in the kind of race-baiting they engaged in in India and Sub-saharan Africa. There will be fighting, there is no question about that, but none of the elites in Iraq stand to gain from civil war. The odds of winning are too low and the payoff of peace is too great.

    2. My point doesn't rely on us doing no good there. It relies on us doing more harm than good. If you doubt that then I don't know what war you have been watching. Do we delegitimize the government? Every poll done by respectable sources (like Zogby) says that and overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us out. When the government of Iraq can't or won't evict us that shows either that it does not represent the people or that it is powerless. Either way it strips away legitimacy. As for whether we foment unrest, who do you think the insurgents are fighting?

    3. If the goal is to make sure Iran doesn't dominate Iraq after we leave, then we are going to have to stay for decades. Iran has built in advantages over Iraq (larger population, more natural resources, a more educated population, a larger army, and a stable government). Unless we are involved in the project of making Iraq a first world country there is no way to avoid Iran taking over when we leave. This was obvious going in. Saddam's strength meant brutality against his own people and a bulwark against Iran. On the whole I prefer Iran to Saddam anyway, since Iran is partially democratic and is clearly pursuing stability in the region (because they have good odds of becoming a regional hegemon if the Mideast is stable and peaceful).

    Posted by dentedpat at 02/19/2008 @ 6:52pm