My "problem" with Obama, Krugman sums it up today.

[Hamlette]

I read Audacity of Hope...or as much of it as I could stomach. Yes, we all hate the bitter partisanship but talking about it isn't going to make it better and (I fear) may lead to giving in to get along and if there is anything the last 6 years should have taught us is that giving in to this group of GOP thugs is a disaster (think IWR). (Disclaimer, I'm as big a fan of Obama as the next "guy" but I'd like to hear a little more substance and a little less "can't we all just get along" pablum.)

Today Krugman nailed it for me, unfortunately its still behind the wall but here's some of it:

American politics is ugly these days, and many people wish things were different. For example, Barack Obama recently lamented the fact that “politics has become so bitter and partisan” — which it certainly has.

But he then went on to say that partisanship is why “we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that’s what we have to change first.” Um, no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. If all goes well, we’ll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship — but that will be the end of the story, not the beginning.

...

Then came the New Deal. I urge Mr. Obama — and everyone else who thinks that good will alone is enough to change the tone of our politics — to read the speeches of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the quintessential example of a president who tackled big problems that demanded solutions.

“We had to struggle,” he declared in 1936, “with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. ... Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.” It was only after F.D.R. had created a more equal society, and the old class warriors of the G.O.P. were replaced by “modern Republicans” who accepted the New Deal, that bipartisanship began to prevail.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?hp

[redqueen]

1. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[porphyrian]

2. Me too. We can kiss and make up when we stop their party from destroying the world. - n/t

[jackstraw45]

3. Like Bush?

"what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition."

Sounds like what Bush did with the neocon agenda in Iraq....

Just saying.

[Straight Shooter]

8. The neocons weren't tackling big problems. They were creating big problems.

Different scenario, different agenda.

Just saying. :)

[Hoping4Change]

46. The neocons are outright in-your-face thugs and there is no

changing that ugly reality. The problem is that democrats decided to play nice rather than call a spade a spade and get right back in their face, the stellar example of Democrats playing nice was Kerry's handling of the Swiftboat issue.

[Benhurst]

4. Yes, thanks, Hamlette. I would like to see Obama respond to

this. Krugman's points underline my reservations about junior Senator from Illinois. Recommended #3

[blm]

5. That is my problem with Obama, too. Moving on AWAY from investigations and

the truths behind the agenda of BushInc is NO WAY for a threatened democracy to balance itself.

I hope Obama retreats from this type of thinking. It was the WORST thing that Clinton ever did and now the entire world is suffering for his extraordinary kindness and congeniality towards George H W Bush.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm

[redqueen]

25. Kindness & congeniality or complicity?

I will never forget his failure to make the Fairness Doctrine law, or his signing the Telecom Act. NAFTA, WTO decisions... I could go on.

[blm]

26. Heh...well, I did say EXTRAORDINARY kindness.

.

[Telly Savalas]

6. Is there an alternative source for Krugman's complete column

for those of us who don't want to subsidize David Brooks's inanities by suscribing to "TimesSelect"?

[Hamlette]

11. I think its available in a couple of days

try to google it. My problem is I have Times Select and when I try to find links I can't tell if I'm being let in because of my "status" or if anyone can.

[Telly Savalas]

19. Thanks.

I vaguely remember Krugman having a page with his editorials, but I'm not sure if it included the newer ones. I'll check the NYT in a few days to see if they've unlocked the door, so to speak.

And to go off on a tangent, one benefit of a Democratic White House in 2009 would be improved Krugman columns. For the last six years he's mostly been a high ranking member of the "BUSH SUCKS!!!11" army. Not to knock him on this, because the GOP has mostly been in charge of all that is newsworthy, and Krugman is one of the sharpist critics out there. It's just that once a Democrat takes the White House, Krugman will no longer have to be in full-time opposition mode, which will give him to liberty to explore more nuanced positions and offer more unique insights. If you read the stuff he wrote during the Clinton years, you'll know what I'm talking about.

[wryter2000]

7. I think I just got you on the greatest page

I'm not anti-Obama. In fact, I'd like very much to have him as our candidate. But, playing nice with the forces of darkness is one of the major factors that has gotten us into the mess we're in right now.

If he wants to make nice on the surface and fight like the devil underneath, that's the best of both worlds, imho. I only fear the fight like the devil part is lacking.

They've not only impoverished our middle and lower classes, abandoned one of our major cities, and started a war that's killed hundreds of thousands of people, they've subverted our Constitution. And they show no sign of getting better in the near future. The gloves must come off!

[katsy]

9. I disagree with them both.

"(...snip) what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition."

What we NEED are Americans that rise up and take politicians to task. What we NEED are Americans who love their country enough to take back their government from corporate America.

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[Benhurst]

10. Link to complete article:

http://wealthyfrenchman.blogspot.com/2007/01/on-being-partisan.html

[crispini]

14. Thank you. WOW. Great article!

[emmadoggy]

12. Yep, this is the part that niggles at me too.

Making nice and being conciliatory is NOT the way to go with this awful group of thugs and constitution-shredders. I want to hear tough talk (with action to back it up). I want to hear passion and anger over what they have done to our country. I want to hear determination and resolve to set things right again.

I DON'T want to hear, "we all need to get along and be nice." Blech! When we have a band of thieves raping and pillaging our democracy, we most certainly don't need to be nice to them! Come on, Obama. I have a lot of respect for you but I don't think that attitude will make the millions of people who are so angry with what * and the Repubs have done to our country very happy. At least, it doesn't make me happy. :shrug:

[femrap]

63. I wonder if Obama has the chops to stand up

to these rich, belligerent thugs. I think they might just eat him up and spit him out.

Seriously, these warmongers mean business. Obama needs to find some of that old Jesus 'righteous anger.' Being nice ain't going to cut it. Period.

[Nothing Without Hope]

13. Obama has been a disappointment. For some time now I've believed that

his carefully calculated DLC-friendly positions are part of a process by which he is being groomed as Hillary's VP candidate. Looks more like it every day now that the races are starting to heat up. Hillary is divisive and has alienated many (including me) but Obama has rock-star charisma. I'd imagine they also calculated that he would bring out the minority voters. I think this has been in the works for some time now.

I don't trust Obama.

[Cobalt Violet]

15. That Obama-Hatch Tithing Bill ...

That benifits the Mega churches has alienated me. Pandering to Fundies isn't what I what in a candidate.

[rockymountaindem]

21. What bill is that? n/t

[Cobalt Violet]

22. The Mega Church Wet Dream Act

only kidding.

Congress Passes Obama-Hatch Tithing Bill
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Printable FormatFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Hatch Contact: Peter Carr, [phone]
Obama Contact: Tommy Vietor, [phone]
Date: December 6, 2006

Congress Passes Obama-Hatch Tithing Bill
Clarifies Treatment of Charitable Contributions in Bankruptcy Law

WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives today gave final approval to a bill sponsored by Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) to protect an individual's right to continue reasonable charitable contributions, including religious tithing, during the course of consumer bankruptcy. The measure passed the United States Senate in late September and will now be presented to the President for his signature.

"Congress has a long history of protecting our religious freedom to tithe," Hatch said. "That was our intent when we enacted bankruptcy reform last year, and this bill clarifies the law so that those who tithe can continue to live their faith while in bankruptcy."





http://obama.senate.gov/press/061206-congress_passes_obama-hatch_tithing_bill/index.html

[rockymountaindem]

30. Wait...

Optional tithing: yes. Medical bills: no? :wtf:

[Cobalt Violet]

33. Exactly.

I can't believe how this just slipped past DU for the most part. There was something posted in the Atheist and Agnostics group and that's the only way I found out.

[rockymountaindem]

34. You should make an OP about this

It's interesting, in a disappointing way, that Obama had time and resolve to sponsor a bill about tithing but not one about having exemptions for medical care in the bankruptcy bill. It's also a sop to the religious right, who I guess are the people Obama thinks we should make compromises with. The only people who won in this particular game are churches, creditors and insurance companies. If this is what we can expect from Obama, that ain't much.

[fujiyama]

61. To his credit, he voted against the bankruptcy bill

but I agree this bill was just pure pandering. Is tithing the only charitable exemption given for bankruptcies?

To be fair, I'd be more interested whether or not he tried to get medical exemptions in the bankruptcy bill. There has been quite a bit of misinformation regarding his record. Hell, many think he did vote for the bill, when in fact he didn't. He's not Joe Biden, or even Hillary of Edwards, both of whom voted for a similar bankruptcy bill in '01.

Obama did vote for some form of tort reform early on in the term. I'm not too aware of the details, but so far Obama has voted alright for the most part, but has taken few real political risks or shown an political courage.

Krugman has called it correctly on a lot of what has gone on the past few years. He's a sharp guy. A real intellectual economist, and has slipped into political commentary due to the outrage he felt over this administration's actions.

What a lot of people don't get, is that NO legislation is better than bad legislation. I'd rather have congress accomplish nothing over the next few years than some shit Bush would compromise on. We know where his values lie. We know what he will and will not sign. The son of a bitch vetoed stem cell research for God's sakes. Having seen how things like the prescription drug bill has worked, as well as NCLB, I think I'd rather just have them just push through whatever they can. If Bush cares about his legacy, he'll sign something good. But otherwise, trying to get some watered down bill just to appear bipartisan is a waste of time.

Krugman knows this and understands the consequences of passing something simply to act as though it means something, when in fact it's harmful. Obama's talk of bipartisanship sounds good in theory, but the republicans in power have only one goal - to protect the rich, the powerful, and the religiously insane, fucking over everything else in its expense.

[KoKo]

39. Good Grief! How many of us didn't know about this Tithing exemption!

Hope you will post about this.

[Cobalt Violet]

49. My flame retardant suit is in shreds at the moment.

It's only been in the Atheists and Agnostics group so far and few other replies in other threads so far.

I got to go to work now.

[Hoping4Change]

47. I agree with rockymountaindem you should make an OP

with this information.:wow:

[femrap]

65. I totally missed the tithing thing as well....

and I thought I read everything. Seems like folks wanted to keep that quiet, huh?

DUers should know about this. Just like they should know about the 'house' John Edwards built.

[The Count]

44. God will heal ya. If you tithe well, that is!

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

17. He's an exciting speaker and telegenic.

However, I don't see a good president.

Same with Senator Clinton, she's got tons of name recognition and tons of money, but I don't see a good president there either.

Neither strikes me as having the backbone that will be required of a Democratic president elected in 2008. If a Democrat wins that election, he/she/it will be facing a boatload of tough problems. The energy situation is only going to get worse as will global warming.

We will still be extricating ourselves from Bush's stoooopid war in Iraq.

God help us if another Republicon gets elected in that situation. I fear that the neo-con movement and the oil money behind them would run the next Republicon administration as well, with no realistic energy policy, no attention whatever to global warming and the willingness to lose a war with Iran in order to make oil and defense corporations richer.

[roseBudd]

62. I agree we need a can do person like General Wesley Clark, do is what generals do

[femrap]

66. I'm with you Rosebud! When is he

going to announce. He has been working so hard for Dems and this country.

The thing about Obama and Hillary...they seem to want the position for themselves while Clark wants the position so he can fix the problems facing the nation. I actually think he cares. I think Obama and Hillary care about themselves.

How's Cincy? Sorry about Vic and John...I really thought Vic would beat Mean Jean.

[roseBudd]

70. I am convinced the new voter ID rules and provisional ballots made the

difference. Seeing her squeak by against a weak candidate like Vic has to make the GOP nervous. Hackett would have been a blowout.

[Hamlette]

18. not to disagree...per se, but more blacks support Hillary than Obama n/t

[blm]

24. They shouldn't. Not a big fan of either till they fight for investigations, BUT,

Obama wasn't in the WH when CIA drugrunning story broke in 1996, and there was evidence that IranContra figures were dumping cheap cocaine into black communities which spawned the crack epidemic in many cities all over the country.

Obama didn't choose covering up for Poppy Bush over telling the truth to the black communities. Obama didn't set up a backlash against the Pulitzer Prize winning reporter.

BET's documentary American Gangster is a great start for those unfamiliar with that story.

Or read Dark Alliance by Gary Webb, the reporter, for the FULLER picture.

http://www.bet.com/BETShows/americangangster.htm

[redqueen]

27. I wish we could recommend posts. n/t

[blm]

29. Thanks - it's only the truth. And truth needs to start having some victories

for a change.

[redqueen]

31. It also needs a lot more attention...

hence my wish. :hi:

[bigdarryl]

68. Don't believe that BS the black establishment like the Sharptons and Jacksons support Hillary but

the younger African American voters support Obama. thats not what that poll told you.

[blm]

75. I say most are completely unaware of Clinton's role in CIA drugrunning story and that

he chose covering up for Poppy Bush (yet again) over telling American citizens and especially the black community the truth about what was done to them.

I urge everyone, black, brown, white, watch the BET documentary that has been out since December - American Gangster - if you are interested in the truth.

[femrap]

64. Nothing but Hope....

that's it....I don't trust him either. He's being so nice, yet I know he's too sharp for that. I couldn't put my finger on what bugged me about him...but it's that I just don't trust him.

thx.

[crispini]

16. Another snip

The history of the last few decades has basically been the story of the New Deal in reverse. Income inequality has returned to levels not seen since the pre-New Deal era, and so have political divisions in Congress as the Republicans have moved right, once again becoming the party of the economic elite. The signature domestic policy initiatives of the Bush administration have been attempts to undo F.D.R.’s legacy, from slashing taxes on the rich to privatizing Social Security. And a bitter partisan gap has opened up between the G.O.P. and Democrats, who have tried to defend that legacy.

Oooo. Wow. Yeah, this is making me have a second look at the whole idea of bipartisanship, and by extension, Obama.

It's popular, but is it RIGHT?

[depakid]

20. I think Krugman's politely saying that Obama is naive

and inexperienced.

You can see that in some of his public statements over the past two years, where he criticized the Alito filibuster (when he ought to have been rallying the troops) or when he went after Howard Dean for a true statement he made about Republicans- or when he pandered to religious fundamentalists (as if they'd ever vote for him anyway).

I predict that we'll see more such statements in the months ahead.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Um, So Your Problem With Obama Is That He Wants To Ease The Current Insanity Of The Partisan Divide?

Yeah, how fuckin dare he. I mean, who in their right mind thinks that the current atmosphere of extreme partisanship is detrimental? How DARE he believe such things. :sarcasm:

God that article was just plain stupid.

[rockymountaindem]

35. Not really, OMC

I think what the article was saying is that attacking "partisanship" isn't going to work without addressing the roots of partisanship, which Krugman believes is the growing income divide between rich and poor in this country. He's also saying that overcoming partisanship through conciliatory measures is unlikely to move America forward, but will get us stuck in a game of trade-offs between sides that get us nowhere. I thought his contrasting Obama's attitude with that of Roosevelt (who fought his opponents head-on) was a good example. Good old FDR pushed on with his policies with a steady drumbeat which put the American people in a better position and overcame partisanship not by conciliatory means but by resolving the impasse in favor of the workers. The result was a more moderate Republican party who no longer felt tied to the interests of the wealthiest few Americans. It's an object lesson with considering.

[Hoping4Change]

48. A well articulated retort.

:applause:

[Hamlette]

36. but what has Obama done except to say "the sky is blue"?

yeah, it sucks but we already KNOW that. What is he gonna do about it? He shows me some way we can stop the bickering, short of giving in to those thugs, and I'll listen.

If he doesn't start saying something else soon, he's gonna lose me.

[blm]

41. How to stop the bickering? The ONLY way. Open the books on BushInc and make them

all FACE THE TRUTH and the consequences of those truths.

Bill Clinton tried moving on for unity, and closed the books for BushInc, which resulted in Bush2, 9-11, and Iraq war.

Want to guess whether or not that worked out well?

[Hamlette]

54. and going after Nixon full speed resulted in the bickering in the first place!

they were so pissed about the Nixon resignation they figured they had to impeach Clinton to get even. That's when it REALLY got bitter. Not under Bush I or II.

How does continuing the bickering STOP the bickering?

(I'm not advocating NOT investigating Bush but the way Obama talks I wonder if he does.)

Anyway, Krugman suggests the bickering gets really nasty when the difference between rich and poor is too great. Which is what we were discussing here. I thought, or at least intended.

But since you've changed the subject I'd just like to add that I don't think full scale war against the GOP because of Bush will stop the bickering. Krugman suggests leveling the playing field will and the only way to level the playing field is for someone to be a real leader.

I'm sick of politics all being about reacting. I want someone to act.

[blm]

55. Baloney - the country was UNITED that Nixon had to go - certainly the majority was.

Give the people of this country the facts and the DOCUMENTS and the MAJORITY will be more united with the same information than with the MYTHS that are allowed to continue BECAUSE many of the documents were never made public.

No way am I going to play PRETEND that investigations of CRIMES of office and against our constitution need to be swept under the rug.

Heck - Clinton SHOULD have been impeached - not for bullshit like dropping his pants, but for covering up for Bush1 in the FIRST PLACE. Fockin' Bush COOPTED the Dem president I fought for just to get those books opened up.

Did YOU fight for him in 92 just so Bush1 could have a 'peaceful retirement' with no worries for his entire empire of thugs who regrouped and came back stronger than ever with Bush2 in office?

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm

[Hamlette]

56. like I tell supporters of this war, why aren't you serving?

you know exactly how to run this country, run for office. You're so correct you'll have no trouble convincing enough people to vote for you. You can fix the whole mess.

[blm]

57. Why aren't you answering? Did you work as hard as I did for Clinton in 92 for him to

close the books on all the crimes of office committed by George Bush that outraged many of us in the first place?

Do you really think there would have BEEN a turnover of Congress in 94, impeachment in 98, Bush2 in 2000, 9-11,in 2001, and this Iraq war, if Clinton had not chosen to ignore all the outstanding matters in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and then again actively cover up for CIA drugrunning?

Clinton hurt himself, yes, but not nearly as much as he ended up hurting our party, this country, the world - and undergod help him when more 9-11 families come to that realization.

[blm]

73. Re-read your OP - you contradict your OP in your later arguments. It was OK for Bill to

Clinton to shove aside and downplay important investigatory matters that would have prevented a return of BushInc to the White House and prevent 9-11, according, to achieve his greater goal of showing 'biartisanship' - but, it's not OK for Obama to show the same lack of interest in holding the GOPs accountable for their crimes of office.

Your OP was correct - we NEED to confront BushInc and the GOP every step of the way and many of us believe it is because they ARE criminals who governed criminally.

Your later posts that bottomline backs away from your original point excuses Clinton for closing the books on the outstanding matters of Poppy Bush's criminal actions in office. You say that type of serious confrontation makes the bickering WORSE.

I think both Clinton's way and Obama's way are wrong. Clinton was wrong and IS wrong to have covered up for Poppy Bush throughout his terms and helping Poppy rehabilitate his reputation and legacy now in very public ways, as Bill has been doing for the last 6 years.

Obama is wrong to believe that exposing the RW crime, lie, and cover up machine is not the effective way to get past the real divisions by showing the country the TRUTHS they are so prepared, more than ever, to hear.

Hillary we KNOW won't open the books on BushInc and Obama talks like he has no interest in doing so, either.

On this issue about 'bickering' parties where is there a real difference?

[SquireJons]

59. It wasn't stupid to me at all

I have felt for some time now that "bi-partisanship" with these republicans is a one way street. Bill Clinton tried it, and it did contribute to the overall success of his administration. But the evil that was not confronted then, came back to haunt us and the world. Now we're stuck with a problem that we don't know how to fix and a whole host of others that have been ignored for years. And if congress hadn't let up after the Iran/Contra affair, then many of these neocon ass-wipes would never have had the freedom to start "think tanks" and come up with world dominating manifesto's.

There is serious business afoot, and the other side wants it all. What many democrats don't get is that we are in the fight of our lives, or at least the fight for the way of life that we as americans have come to take for granted. Trying to make nice with the Frists and Delays, Cheney and Rice et al only serves to increase and lengthen suffering of millions.

This time the rallying call needs to be "We want the truth."

[femrap]

67. You're right...Clinton should have

gone after the Truth. We are stuck with those same damn evil people from Iran/Contra. Clinton was a Pleaser...and in particular he liked to please the Corporations.

These neocons are truly going to end our way of life...and if people like Obama don't get that...then they need to step aside and let some true FIGHTERS for Democracy in there who are up to the task....Clark, maybe?


edited: left out a word.

[SquireJons]

72. You want a fighter?

Go with Webb. He already said he wanted to punch the boy king in the face, so I know he and I agree on that much. And he sure looked good after the SOTU speech.

In truth, Big Dog never had the political capitol to take on the republicans, even right after each of the elections. He never won with even 50% of the popular vote. He had to focus on running the country well, which he did. I'm more upset with the Senate when Daschel was Majority leader in 2002. They had the chance to use their oversite of the Executive Branch, and failed to do so. One can expect that a congress run by republicans would be compliant to the bush misadministration, but when a Democratically lead Senate does the same thing, it's time go get some new Democrats, which has indeed happened.

Now, all that needs to occur for the Democrats to solidify their lead is for the old guard to step aside and let the new fighters clear the field. Unfortunately, since they all want the glory, they will be easy to divide and conquer. Unless... a champion emerges for the Dems.

[blm]

76. Clinton ACTIVELY covered up for Poppy Bush on CIA drugrunning story that broke in 1996.

He chose to be loyal to Poppy and cover up his crimes of office over any loyalty to the American people or the black community who had their neighborhoods targeted for the dumping of tons of cheap cocaine that were part of the IranContra covert dealings.

Watch BET documentary American Gangster. BTW - they also performed a takedown of the Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who broke the story. Just like Poppy did to reporters in the 80s. Clinton should be seen as a fraud in the black community. I guess keeping the story downplayed kept the fingers from pointing at him for the coverup.

[bleedingheart]

28. The naivete in the statement "politics has become so bitter and partisan" is immense

Politics has always been bitter and partisan and at times deadly in history.

To think that there was ever an era of "nice politics" is really naive.

Even in the more stable time periods there has always been partisanship but to perhaps a lesser degree and there has always been bitterness.

The modern republican party that emerged with Ronald Reagan was the result of the simmering bitterness and hatred for the left and that simmer started with FDR winning over so many folks with his progressive ideas...

[JackRiddler]

51. Yeah

Except it's strictly for pretend. No one is that stupid, but plenty of people are this duplicitous.

[AzDar]

32. My hope: Barack and Hillary gnaw on each other enough to allow John Edwards to

sliiiiide right in.

[PATRICK]

37. New candidates

who follow the models of caution behind all losing Dem cnadiates and a couple who got through despite them will always begin sounding bland and disappointing. Rookies cannot escape being rookies except by great performance. What on earth does anyone need more reassurance and blending for? A good way to erase the perception of leadership. Mindboggling, but most rookies fall for it. Now with more big money and top advisers Obama is perversely under more pressure to supprees and empty himself, to spread himself over the center like margarine over toast. Killed by kindness.

Have a little heart though. Almost everyone falls for that "wise" advice when giddy at the steps of possibility. Then you get preoccupied with doing that stuff and it's over before you know it. Then Obama will have learned his initiation the hard way and that freshness will mature over four more years or he will grow into the presidency. I think it is being personally too hard on Obama, no matter how disappointing the new behavior is. Perhaps in their search for a charismatic overwhelming of the scary electorate they have overshot the need for a new FDR to handle our crisis and changing times. And it is easy to settle for less in political approach since our people are all wonderful compared to polar opposite harm spewing from the GOP.

I would say Gore has most matured into the right candidate and right president- the hard way. The naturals all seem bent on the lower slopes. A new Kennedy is NOT here either and his greenness collided with the Cold War almost disastrously. His family was his own machine, far superior to many we have now.
The peaceful days of Carter/Ford were a blip of unnappreciated sanity. And more people had better listen to Kucinich this time for better policy breaking away from the horrors of the past.

[chaska]

38. Anybody got a link to the article that will actually allow me to read it?

[KoKo]

40. See Post #10 on this thread....n/t

[chaska]

42. Thanks!

[flpoljunkie]

43. This Krugman article ought to be required reading for Obama and other like minded Dems.

[Hoping4Change]

45. BINGO. 'bipartisanship will be the end of the story, not the beginning. '

I agree that Obama's 'let's all get along' sentiments are pablum, a bit too Andy of Mayberry.

[blm]

58. He hasn't experienced the battering of the entire Republican party personally yet.

Chicago was SO blue he had no worries.

[Ignacio Upton]

50. Well...

As long as he:

1. Works to end the war

2. Is for universal healthcare

3. Supports defending Social Security

4. Is pro-choice

5. Supports fiscal responsibility

6. Opposes the abuse of copyright laws in this country and wants to weaken or repeal the DMCA

...Then he's my guy. :)

[AX10]

52. I agree 100%! We need a warrior to lead us through the battle field.

Like it or not, we are at war with the right wing in this country. Until we neutralize the right wing, we cannot have any real progress. Just as with Roosevelt, we will have to struggle with the right wing to undue the damage that they have done. Obama and Bayh can sing Koombayah in the back benches of congress. We need the fighters for America on the front lines.
(I am not saying that Obama and Bayh don't care for this country, they care deeply, but their tactics are profoundly flawed).

Clark/Webb - Gore/Webb 08!

[Morgana LaFey]

53. Obama has done one important thing, I think

He's made John Edwards the experienced one.

[burythehatchet]

60. Krugman copped my argument

Bipartisanship is dead concept, Newt killed it the day he entered politics.

[Kurovski]

69. K&R.(nt)

[malaise]

71. Brilliant

The robber barns must be stopped.

[Faryn Balyncd]

74. If we want tough, principled, and winning ticket, the answer is GORE/CLARK

That's a ticket that will:

......not cave on the central issue of ending the war,

......will not (unlike some candidates) make the same mistakes regarding Iran as were made regarding the IWR,

......have the balls to face up to the GOP smear machine without backing down or adopting self-defeating "bi-partisan" policies in the vain hope of being accepted by the Fox News crowd, and, most of all,

......will clean the GOP's clock.