You hold a coalition together by giving the members of the coalition the confidence that you are going to deliver the goods. When Obama gets all mushy on issues that coalition members feel passionate about be it women's rights or FISA or war or whatever he causes you to wonder if any goods are going to be delivered. You talk about larger issues. What larger issues? If you are a woman who has devoted her life to women's issues there are no larger issues. If you are an anti-war Democrat there are no larger issues. If you are passionate about civil liberties there are no larger issues.

Democrats are no longer able to tell large issues from small issues and they have bought into the Republican frame on "identity" politics. It's not about identity, it's about representation. Representation is one of those larger, fundamental issues. If the candidate isn't representing you, what's the point?

I find the posting condescending and counterproductive. If it "made no difference at all to the outcome", why did Obama vote for FISA and immunity? And why no explanation of the broken promise?

I feel the same way about my Senator, the wonderful Mary Landrieu. After supporting her twice against Gothic nightmare Republicans, the one request I made was for a vote against Alito. She wrote back that she strongly appreciated and agreed with my opinion, and had voted against him. But on the vote that counted, cloture, she voted *for* him. She lied, but more insultingly, assumed I'm too dumb to know she was lying.

If the Democrats can't produce candidates who're up to minimal standards of integrity, why bother?

It was Will Rogers I believe who said "I belong to no organized political party, I am a democrat". This was in 1936. Today's problem is nothing new. We just have to work harder to sustain unity -- the republicans attain unity more easily given their authoritarian personalities.

I don't think this is fair. Obama did write a response to people concerned about FISA, explaining his decision on the final bill.

As to a point made earlier, I appreciate that this particular issue is highly important to many, but it seems obvious that Obama as President, working with a Democratic Congress, will be able to make changes in legislation or implementation that speak to the underlying concerns.

I really do have a problem with people who see politics as an expression of any single issue passion. In a democracy, with many points of view, politics cannot be that, especially not in a single-past-the-post-system such as ours. This kind of perspective siphoned votes to Nader in 2000 and brought a nightmare upon us.

Also, I am not being condescending in saying that the losers in single issue left politics are the majority of ordinary people whose concerns are more bread and butter (encompassing a range of rather mundane but crucial social programs and economic and tax outcomes). I never see any passion about those issues on the left blogs, and that leads me to believe that there is something fundamental missing.

My immediate previous post was directed to Roger Bigod, not Thrasymachus, with whom I agree. Sorry for the confusion.

Theda
Relax, we are Progressives. It is not in our DNA to follow anyone lockstep like the Republicans are wont to do.

Your Feminist friend was absolutely RIGHT in her diagnosis but wrong in her remedy. There is no question that Hillary bashing was going on everywhere including right here at TPM. Obama was the early anointed one. The fix was definitely in asnd you have had to be blind not to witness it as it unfolded.
Since we are people of principle we do not forget injustices. To forget injustices committed is a sin.

The quickest way towards tyranny is to keep forgetting injustices. The mantra "get over it" is poison to the righteous person.

The issue is what to do about it.

I will vote for Obama despite the fact that he ran a dirty campaign against Hillary. Politics is a dirty business.

But I will NOT lay off when it comes to substantive issues (i.e. non political matters).

We are NOT going to lose the election in November. Trust me. You are panicking. a forteriori he is not going to lose in November because we are holding him accountable now.

As I've been repeating ad nauseum, our job as voters is to make sure that our candidate will do what we want him to do when elected.

This is not a popularity contest. Frankly, Obama personally is way too slippery for me as a person but that's what makes him such an effective politician. A JFK he is not.

But I'm not into the cult of personalities so it does not matter.

I'm sorry to hear that you had such a bad experience with your feminist friend, but this election cycle has NOT been marred by undue identity politics at all. At least not yet.

I'm a man and I'm astounded to hear you say that the charge of Hillary Bashing by the media is overblown. But let's leave it at that.

You are suffering from the Progressive Jitters. What will Middle America say about our self examination (navel gazing as you call it)? They should look at it with gratitude that here we have a movement that is NOT all process and no content. So we are not robotic lockstep zombies like the Republicans. Thank God we are not!!!

To demand that we squelch our voices of disapproval when our candidate derails his own agenda --the agenda that attracted us to him to begin with—is demanding too much from us. He has nobody but himself to blame. It is HE that is confused not US.

WE demand to be an integral part of the Ruling Process. It is in the Constitution, look it up.

It will be HIM that will have to bend.

That is our form of government: Rule by the people through representation.

Obama has to represent US, not just factions of the powerful elite.

Again I leave open the possibility that perhaps Obama needed to vote that way for some undisclosed but valid reason. I doubt it, but it is possible.
That's why we the electorate need to be as well informed as possible. That's why we need to penetrate that inside-the-beltway information barrier as much as possible. That's why we rely on relatively free media such as TPM to keep us informed.

Jonathan Turley should get special thanks for keeping us abreast over at MSNBC as to what is happening to our constitutional rights. You should take that seriously.

Holding Obama accountable for his sharp shift to the right--not just in rhetoric but in actual official votes--is our duty as freedom loving progressives.

Kinsley points out that Republicans are setting aside their gripes about McCain and uniting to do battle....

Nah, I disagree. I don't know what right wing radio Kinsley is listening to, but what I have listened to, I don't hear much "rallying the troops" for McCain. Sure, they attack Obama, they attack all "liberals" and even include McCain as one sometimes. I hear them drawing a picture of McCain as a "lesser evil." The conservative talk radio I've sampled recently (Limbaugh, Savage) sounds demoralized to me, trying to talk the troops into trying to push McCain rightward to protect "conservative principles" while this horror of two liberals running is going on. (Hannity not so much, he usually goes the Fox/Murdoch line of supporting the party.)

Here's Michael Savage's plan for America, things he carps on in every show:
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/?pageId=404
Need I say that this is mostly not only stuff in McCain's platform but is not in the GOP platform either?

McCain still gives Anne Coulter conniptions. Right now she's busy praising Jesse Helms' legacy. On July 8 she posted on her blog
"What Election Night Looks Like When We Run a Right-Winger - You Tube: Nov 6 1984 The 84 Vote Part 1" and on July 3 she posted this:

July 3, 2008, 3:33 AM Zevon fans are so smart! -

Post from freerepublic.com:

If you look around seriously regarding John McCain, you’ll realize you can’t trust the guy at all on any subject.

You're preaching to the choir. He is the worst GOP candidate of my lifetime, and I am getting long in the tooth. I was raised by political activists and I know my way around GOP Headquarters. I know how things work. I was absolutely horrified when McCain pulled that Florida victory off....

On July 1 she posted this:

The Speech Moderate GOP-ers Schwarzenegger and McCain Skipped - Mark Joseph keynotes CA Gov's Prayer Breakfast, June 2008

Want more? Every single night on CNN, Lou Dobbs blasts both parties on immigration, security and the economy and gets plenty of audience dittohead interaction.

Over at freerepublic.com, there are quite a few that are upset that McCain threw Phil Gramm under the bus or, alternately, would like to throw McCain under the bus for not attacking "Barry" enough instead of "his own people":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043584/posts

Ask most tried and true classic conservative GOP what they think of "No Child Left Behind," the Federal government getting involved in public education.

There's an art to pandering or not to the left wing and right wing special interests. Karl Rove perfected the art of getting the conservative fundamentalist Christians to shut up by promising them stuff, getting them out to vote on that stuff in important districts, and then Bush selling them out on those promises later, even dissing them in private phone calls later leaked. So much so that some of them are tired of it and looking at Obama this time.

But many other tried and true conservatives simply hate Obama much more than they hate McCain, they do hate both though.

That the GOP has a magical unity pony is a myth, they have had to juggle many very vocal special interests to get the squeaker presidential wins since Reagan and get just enough of those swings and independents in the right places to do the job.

Big tent is the reality in a two-party system, not unity pony--get as many special interests to tolerate you as possible. Remember, both George Bush's were sold as being kinder and gentler Republicans, and in 2000 Bush was the anti-nation building isolationist who only wanted to make deals with Mexico.

BTW, your friend appears to be a part of a small minority;

Greg Sargent quoting the new Newsweek poll:

Concerns that he would be unable to unite the Democratic Party after the bruising fight against Clinton appear to be unfounded. Only 17 percent of former Clinton supporters say they will vote for McCain in the general election, and 19 percent of undecided voters are former supporters of the New York senator. But 61 percent of registered voters who support Obama say they support him strongly, compared to just 39 percent who say they strongly support McCain.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/poll_race_tightens_majority_sa.php

And, judging from what you say about her, I can't see how her someone like her publicly supporting Obama would help him get the votes he needs that are reflected in that poll. If she's voting in a solid blue state, she's safe voting protest in the privacy of the voting booth. And heck, her bad mouthing Obama in public might even win him some swing votes, who knows. Do you think those swinging between the two candidates and the other undecideds really give a hoot what liberal bloggers and pundits on MSNBC are saying? What good would her vocal support be, electoral-college-wise? It's no longer a primary, former red states are the goal.

Really, the more I think on it, the more I think that party solidarity does not win presidential elections. Where party solidarity factors in more heavily is in mid-terms, where the voters are more likely to be party loyalists. Moderates and swings make presidents because that's where you have big turnout and see roughly 1/3 of the country overall liberal and 1/3 overall conservative and the rest vote according to "to hell with party affiliation, I like this guy" or "time for a swticheroo, the other side has had power too long."

Leftists fall in love, conservatives fall in line and liberals think for ourselves.

Back to the thread topic about uniting progressives -- I've never really understood what a progressive is. I know what a liberal is. A liberal is Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, Paul Wellstone, etc. I could unite with any of those guys. But ever since these "progressives" showed up I'm never sure where I'm at. I know I cannot unite with the DLC because I figure the DLC has pretty much been out to do as much damage to liberals as it has to conservatives. To DLC types, "liberal" has become a 4 letter word.

Seems to me "progressive" is a catch all word that's supposed to cover Kennedy through Lieberman and it just doesn't do it for me. I don't trust the word. I don't know what I'm buying. That is certainly one reason I've so quickly become sceptical of Obama. I don't know what I'm getting.

"Obama did write a response to people concerned about FISA, explaining his decision on the final bill."

As in 'shut up, he explained'. He noted that the FISA bill he voted for was better than the last one, but that's irrelevant. That bill had a time limit and the result of voting this one down would have been the previous arrangement with the FISA court. He outright lied in claiming the court still has control of wiretapping. The present one allows warrentless wiretapping.

He has a very skimpy record of accomplishment. Support for him is necessarily based on trust and hope. He's made the calculation to screw over people who care about Constitution because he'll get donations and support from other sources. If this state looks close, I'll vote for him. But I doubt there's going to be any difference in the composition of the SC, the Iraq timetable or incomes distribution because of his election.

My last comment was in response to Bluebell's earlier comment. Man, this software is terrible!

Just so the facts are clear: I started out as an Edwards supporter, and switched to Obama only after Edwards, to my disappointment, failed to make progress. Had Obama faded, I would have been happy to support HRC or any other winning Democrat.

If Obama had been in Clinton's position after February,he would have faced a chorus of calls for withdrawal -- and the Superdelegates would have moved fast. In my view, in that scenario, he should not have insisted on continuing, just as she should not, after May 6. At that point, the outcome was totally clear and unity the order of the day.

If Obama in HRC's position had lost after hanging in beyond May 6, no one that I can imagine would be calling on Clinton to pay his bills! If everyone thinks about this calmly, they will realize how bizarre it is that some fat cats seem to think that Mark Penn should be paid off with funds from Democrats needed for the general election.

I orginally posted this on another blog(about grassroots and Nancy Pelosi "caves"- but it fits better here.

What is becoming painfully clear is what superior politicians the conservatives are producing. Many of the faithful believe liberals are in the minority. True. But when it comes to ideas- issues and party membership- we are clearly right there. And if you include some "centrist" (populist) arguments we are unquestionably ahead. But we loose time and time, law after law, outcome after outcome. We have to deal with our loosing ability. The potential for a truly liberal government, as defined by one that believes it is a function of the people, acting to benefit them for what they cannot do on their own, is laudable. You can learn from the conservatives- as a political party you have to base your craft, your platform from the top down. As they right has shown us, its not the quality of that top individual, its the structure itself. Functioning from the bottom up which sounds like it would be great and democratic- is the recipe for a disaster witnessed by the Obama and Hillary debacle. It may get more people involved- but there are better ways of doing that. What good do more voters of a party do if they are dividing their sentiments and voting power in two different directions? Its still going on- Hillary probably thinks if Obama blows it enough somewhere (like Iraq visit) she can make a comeback. I guarantee her constituents feel this way. Talk about the primary thing we need to do is win! Barrack or HIllary- both pretty much the worst choices the dems had to start with (as far as electable candidates)- it doesn't matter. The problem is this bottom up no leadership mentality. The conservatives give us leaders. Even though GB is the worst possible type of leader- he is the leader and they follow. Guess what- its working and you know it. Not because of him, because of the structure.
If every liberal was willing to sacrifice most of their waking moments to issues and getting involved from the ground up, fine - you could run the machine. But the idea is unrealistic. You need to have leadership top down structure - its how complex organizations are keep in control. We have an opportunity to do this right now in our lifetime. Because a whole bunch of people are about to find out what conservative values really add up to. Waiting for the next election, for the wind to blow in our direction is just not going to cut it. Standing in the ambiguous center as McCain and recently Obama are want to do- is a missed opportunity to get the full effect of the swing, the tide, the whole revolution. We will be caught in the back swill of another retreat from forward movement by trying to "define" ourselves. There is no reason to even be thinking about the conservatives and their pettiness. They can do us no harm. Unless we allow them to re-define their platform. Which they certainly are. Rush L. is full throttle doing that as we speak. For them it is about the power. Let it be about the new world of compassion and peace for us. Let us put that power in its rightful place. Conservatives know the damage they have done- they are willing to take the credit for it (power pays heed to cycles for its own good- it is power 101). What they think is the contemptible liberals will blow it in short order- and the power will come back to them - they are morphing into whatever that shape needs to be. Hello.
The short answer is - fax- yes fax by all means- fax Howard Dean. Then Nancy- not as your rep unless you are from SF- as House Leader- and don't forget Obama. He is the man- let him know it. And don't even bother with your local rep- he can read the cards. Unless you have a blue dog- then send him a flame. Because he is the one that will live on when (if?) the dems loose again- he's the Helms of the party- God forbid.
Thats how you do it. And like the doc said in emergency- apply the pressure until the bleeding stops. If you look at the wound- it starts to bleed again.

You write as if you've never seen an election. In the General, candidates move to the middle. I'm not sure which is more appalling to me, that people don't know the rhythm of elections, or that people are such shoe-gazers that they're willing to let the country experience another four to eight years of absolute disaster just because they can't get their personal pony from the candidate.

Yay, more concern trolling from Theda Skocpol.

Last time it was, "Look at all the mistakes Barack Obama is making! Gosh I don't think he can ever win!"

Now, it begins with a link to Michael Kinsley, the boy-editor who never left the 80s, when he gave us all the best neoconservative thought we needed in "even the liberal New Republic." Kinsley was a hero to me in my nerdy youth, but then I grew up and started to think about politics (and Kinsley started to look stupid, where he remains).

The other source is "my famous feminist friend." Um, yeah.

Democrats are doing just fine uniting around our candidate; we consistently express strong approval ratings for Obama and his positions. Republicans who are planning to vote for McCain generally support him only weakly and aren't terribly happy with him. Both candidates regularly get over 90% of their own party's supporters in polls, which means Republicans are doing what they always do (vote for someone just to piss off the other side), while Democrats are remarkably united by historical standards.

So please, stop the complaining just for a bit and maybe use your platform here to write something positive, or at least hopeful?

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Ms. Skocpol. The public tantrums are getting WAY out of hand. It's OK to be angry. It's OK to be disappointed. But it's NOT OK to whine endlessly or threaten to withhold your support or to claim that you'll vote, but not happily or enthusiastically. These are the strategies of spoiled little brats--not adults. If someone doesn't feel like voting for Obama, I can understand it and I respect their right to choose. But to say you'll vote for him while reserving your right to whine about your choice is downright infantile.

I agree with the basic premise of the post. We have chosen a nominee using the agreed upon process. Time to move on.

However, I also feel that this division is somewhat overblown. Even in our so-called divided state, polls show a pretty decisive win for Obama (especially crunching the electoral numbers).

The real question is whether we want to win, or whether we want to make a statement. I'd prefer the latter, but would accept the former if that means pissing on the toes of the pouters.

We had the biggest canvass Dems have ever had in IL-13 today organized by Scott Harper's campaign. We canvassed in all 13 townships in the IL-13 thus the name "13 for the 13th".

About 10 of us had a stuffing party last night, putting lit in bags for today's efforts and bagging and boxing them them into their respective districts. Then we watched "Why We Fight", a documentary about the Iraq War that just makes you want to smack Rumsfeld among others into next week. At campaign HQ I understand they had about 20 interns and the staff up til the wee hours doing the same. In the Will and Cook County areas of the 13th they all did their part.

Today at noon I arrived at the local coffee shop where one of our !3 meetups was to kick off at one. I was supposed to get there at 12:30 but seeing as I had all the lit in my car I figured I'd get there early. Waiting were about 19 young Obama interns and 5 middleage DFA members from the city ready to go.

By 12:30 Harper's field manager Rich Capparell, a 25 year old kid from PA who lives out of 7 rubbermaid totes and sleeps on a cot in a supporter's spare bedroom, showed up with the walk packets. Rich likes to call himself a "political carny". He's worked all over the midwest the last few years, moving from campaign to campaign in his beat up old Ford pickup truck. Sometimes, like yesterday he works twenty hour days, but mostly I guess it's a steady 12 hour day. On a pittance of a salary, he makes a lot less money than your average carny.

Anyway after a 20 minute primer on canvassing, the specific questions to ask, etc. everybody was on their way.

We knocked on doors spreading the word about our candidates, handing out lit and most importantly figuring out who our voters are, who the gettable voters are and who to ignore.

The point? We can all wring our hands over the purity trolls, the few Hillary supporters who have gone off the deepend and the idiotic media or we can help our candidates run effective winning campaigns. I talked to dozens of voters today. The fourth person I talked to, a 67 year old woman wants to be a precinct committeewoman doing what I did today.

I didn't meet one person and have yet to talk to one in thousands of phonebanking calls or on dozens of other days I've spent canvassing this year who said they won't vote for Obama because of their hurt feelings over Hillary. I HAVE talked to hundreds of people who told me "I used to be a Republican...", and "if he's the Democrat he has my vote". No one ever mentions PUMA, FISA isn't on their radar and more often than not they say McCain just seems old and weird.

We're doing what needs to be done out here in the Chicago burbs in the 13th district and elsewhere where no one has ever even tried before. We stay up late, give up our weekends to walk miles on sore feet knocking on doors. The cavalry came when we called for help for Bill Foster in March, 700 of them from all over the country. They came again today, 19 kids and 5 middleaged men and women from the city in my township alone all looking for a race where they can make a difference.

And they are making a difference. All over this country. We dirty hippies had a saying back in the day: if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. If you're sitting here fretting about PUMAs, single issue FISA trolls or the AP you're part of the problem. Get off your ass and get in the game.

The defining question: Do we, or do we not want to win?

While it's true that merely questioning Obama's decision won't ruin things, the fact of the matter is, too many are doing worse than that. They're threatening to take their ball and go home. They're saying this is the cause to break off and not support him. That IS a cause for concern.

Who exactly are we waiting for? What saintly, perfect candidate is going to suddenly jump up and fulfill all of our fantasies of the perfect candidate? None.

Our situation, right now, is that the Republican party has grown so corrupt, so power hungry that it's contaminating the government's ability to function, to operate within constitutional limits on its authority.

So let me tell you how I play this: Between a guy who's weak on the constitution and actively working to destroy it, I chose the guy who's weak. I make the better of whichever choice I got. I don't count on the political market to deliver me perfect candidates absent my vote, nor do I rely on my candidates to mirror my preferences across the board.

In the real world, progress begins with approximations of what we want, which we refine towards better solutions. Sometimes the change is slow, sometimes it's fast, but I allow myself the patience necessary to weather those times when not everything I want falls in my lap immediately.

Let's not blow the chance for progress on the wish for instant gratification.

With all due respect, single issue my butthole.

THE CONSTITUTION is not a single issue, it's the most fundamental issue. Without it, we are not a nation of laws. Without it, we are just a bunch of thugs with the only framework to guide us being Darwinian Law (aka a bunch of fists).

And how can you believe him on anything else? We need real and substantial investment in alternative energies (In case you haven't noticed, gas has doubled in a couple of years and it's only going to keep rising. How will you feed your children when it's $10+ a gallon?). We need real and substantial investment in education and technologies for safe-guarding the planet so people can actually live here in a couple of hundred years (At the rate we're going, you're descendants will be lucky to live in a Wall-E type future).

How can I believe he's going to LEAD on these important issues if he won't even try to LEAD on following through on his oath to protect the constitution?

I know, I know, you're going to say, "But McCain won't either." And that's what makes Obama's betrayal that much more depressing. I mean, you want to talk about depressing! IT'S OVER. WE'RE DONE. Checkmate. The Powers That Be got what they wanted: two more candidates to do their bidding.

Theda, I'm not a "one voice, drumbeat" kind of guy. Republicans are the ones who read like soldiers from the same script. Democrats are the party of diversity, which is why we will win this year. The other approach has been tried and people are sick of it. I'll vote for Obama in November, as I did in my state's primary, but that doesn't mean I have to be his cheerleader on every issue, regardless of whether or not I agree. Obama is a flawed candidate, he says so himself, but he is choice of the majority to lead a coalition of diverse interests. I will vote for him, but remain a critic when so moved. I call that a grown-up attitude.

I've been reading TPM for months but I never signed up to comment until now. Actually, this isn't a comment, but a question: how many of us have actually read the FISA bill? There is a whole lot of outrage, disappointment, interpretation (Obama's pivoting toward the center, etc.), but I have not yet read anything--on TPM or anywhere else--that clearly and compellingly lays out what, exactly, this bill does, and what the alternatives were. I really want to know; it would help me think substantively about this important election. Without that substance, what are we all arguing about? Or is it all just venting?

I won't be voting for Obama because of FISA.

I view this entire situation like this: The country is an alcoholic behaving badly. I thought we had a sober guy. We don't. Obama now appears to be the same old, same old, willing to toss away the Constitution for a few votes. It's obvious the country and specifically the democrats need to bottom out before we right the ship. So, if it's four years of McCain, then so be it.

Obama's not the answer I'm looking for.

This reminds me of a classic moment of liberal navel-gazing but in reverse.

Substitute Obama for McGovern, McCain for Nixon and Prof. Skocpol for Pauline Kael. Now rewind to the election of 1972 when Nixon's massive victory shocked the eminent film critic into a realization of the tremendous gulf separating popular from elite opinion on the presidential election.

This is to say that people who care about civil liberties and feminism will vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers, and we have every right to criticize him for his massive blunder handling the FISA issue.

Even if Republicans are "setting aside their gripes about McCain and uniting to battle," as Prof. Skocpol contends, it won't translate into the votes that latino, evangelical and female delivered to Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Taken with what should be a record turnout from black voters, Obama's ability to chip away at the evangelical vote and dominate among latinos will carry the day, leaving all this twittering about party unity - a byproduct of a party agenda shaped more by fear of 1968 than the realities of 2008 - a benign afterthought.

Jesse Jackson sniping about the common-sense notion that black people might have to be good parents as well as expect help from government.

Holy shit. I can't believe another freakin' pro-Obama racist comment! Last time I heard this kind of comment, it came from an openly racist white male Republican. I guess you're saying upthread you do a great imitation of them.

Do black people "expect" help from the government? Didn't know that. Are black people bad parents? Didn't know that, either. You didn't even say "some" black people. You just said "black people." Is this what Jackson was sniping about? I seriously doubt it.

black people might have to be good parents as well as expect help from government

Wow, Obama didn't say this at all. On Father's Day he said that government should do its part to support all responsible fathers, whether black or white, thus:

And by the way – it’s a responsibility that also extends to Washington. Because if fathers are doing their part; if they’re taking our responsibilities seriously to be there for their children, and set high expectations for them, and instill in them a sense of excellence and empathy, then our government should meet them halfway.

We should be making it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid them. We should get rid of the financial penalties we impose on married couples right now, and start making sure that every dime of child support goes directly to helping children instead of some bureaucrat. We should reward fathers who pay that child support with job training and job opportunities and a larger Earned Income Tax Credit that can help them pay the bills. We should expand programs where registered nurses visit expectant and new mothers and help them learn how to care for themselves before the baby is born and what to do after – programs that have helped increase father involvement, women’s employment, and children’s readiness for school. We should help these new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income.

We should take all of these steps to build a strong foundation for our children. But we should also know that even if we do; even if we meet our obligations as fathers and parents; even if Washington does its part too, we will still face difficult challenges in our lives.

That you believe Obama was referencing black-only parents when he specifically included "white" parents is more revealing about you than anyone else.

At least when I beat other Democrats over the head with a stick, I don't do it while saying "why. can't. we. all. just. get. along."

Theda, what you wrote is total garbage to me.

I've read hundreds of other posts about how we shouldn't mention FISA, etc.

BULLSHIT!

The corporate media will stick to their frames no matter what you or I write on some stinkin blog.

Conversely, political activism, like the FISA group on myObama didn't change Obama's actions, but he at least pretended to care. To me this shows that activism can possibly change politicians (our representatives) but activism will not change corporate media (representing corporate interests). That is kind of the way a representative government works I heard (from my really famous feminist friend, who is really famous and respected).

Thed, spend your time railing against ignorant people like your feminist friend, not people for being politically active, and caring enough to make efforts to change the country for the better.

Now: I contribute thusly

McCain hates MLK Jr.
McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade
McCain sings bomb bomb bomb Iran
McCain says there will be more wars, and deaths
McCain wants to torture people
McCain doesn't know the difference between Viagra and the pill
McCain doesn't support the troops
McCain doesn't support his own immigration bill
McCain broke his own campaign finance reform law
McCain was part of the Keating 5, taking bribes
McCain said "I have been tainted" by lobbying money
McCain was eating his birthday cake with Bush while people were dying in Katrina

now, none of that will really be covered by the corporate media. That is why blogs are popular.

Theda stop buying into corporate bullshit and stop blaming bloggers for the media's behavior, and narratives!

Blame the corrupt media, and attack McCain! Don't attack liberals - we already have a multitude of corporate whores who do that for a living, we don't need any more of that shit

Finally Theda, if you don't get why the FISA episode was important, or you don't really care, then I don't respect your opinions. If you want to downplay the magnitude of the betrayal, you are not on my side anyways. If you want to live in a country where there is a separate legal system for average working people like myself, and the President's friends, and powerful corporations you can. China, Russia, and Mexico are some of your options. America will be that way too, if people like you - who either hate the concept of "the law is king" or are too ignorant to grasp this simple concept - have their way. If you don't understand that, you have no logic or intelligence, and therefore no authority to preach to anybody. All these people who say shhhh, don't make a fuss about our fundamental legal tenants reminds me of the story about first they came for the gypsies, and I didn't care b/c I wasn't a gypsy. You have to make a stand at some point, and FISA was it for those of us who took our duty to be informed voters seriously.

Theda= enemy of free speech, enemy of the constitution, enemy of the ACLU? I wouldn't say that, but you sure seem gullible at the very least

hrebendorf: you have no place telling people what is OK to do, and not to do. sick of reading your comments always tut-tutting like some sort of moral beacon. censorship is un-American, and if we have a country that is not in line with our fundamental principles why does it matter who the president is of our Facist Dictatorship?

I understand what you're saying, but here's the thing:

Our candidate was nominated having run on a theme of change, promising to deliver on a new kind of politics. "Not this time, not this year," remeber? Now you are suggesting that we embrace, or at least tolerate, the same old same old, a classic move to the middle (read "triangulation") that has doomed past Democratic nominees. That is the same old politics we're disgusted with.

It is not reasonable to expect those of us who were enthusiastic over change to remain enthusiastic over the same old tired approaches.

I hope this is an over-reaction, but right now it doesn't feel like it.

I can just hear the charges of acting "childish" if Hillary had won and a significant portion of African Americans were expressing reluctance to vote for her.

There's more than even identity politics here, a kind of perceived pecking order that one aggrieved group should have gotten to go first. We've seen this attitude before, though. We've seen it from poor Southern whites, and from each wave of immigrants as they've reached our shore: the belief that if they come in second to black people, they're the lowest of the low.

Theda, thanks for the post. I agree with it - only difference: your feminist friend would, if she had been my friend, no longer be my friend. I have zero tolerance for people who, in the name of a single issue, or ideological purity, want to screw the country over yet again. I couldn't believe it but from the day W took office I listened to the news and heard some atrocity every single day. That was BEFORE September 11. There was governmental secrecy, environmental horrors, nomination of horrific judicial candidates... That was before he started playing cowboy with the military.

With Obama I expect to be disappointed from time to time. But even bad news once a week would beat the daily barrage of depressing stuff I've heard on the news for the last eight years. It would be nice to have a President who occasionally disappointed me rather than one that I expect to do the wrong thing every single time.

I have limited patience for people who claim to be progressive but won't work in unified solidarity to rid this country of this horrible Republican scourge.

It is never surprising do to me when folks on our side forget we are running against someone on the other side who is worse.

Thanks, Theda. It's good to be reminded from time to time that elections are held for one reason only:

To choose the best person for office.

They aren't held for voters to demonstrate their personal nobility, punish anyone, to allow individuals to make grand statements on FISA or sexism in the media or any other issue. These things may all play into how one determines which candidate is superior, but at the end of the day, they are meaningless.

No candidate will ever be all things to all people, or even to all Democrats or progressives. Obama is not a Platonic ideal.
Fortunately, the only question on the table in November is whether Obama will be a better president than McCain--however one chooses to define "better".

thank you, theda, for you post. as an independent, my answer to the last question in your original post is... it doesn't look like it right now!

but thankfully, i don't believe this election will be won with progressives and old democrats. this election will be won with independents, disgruntled disgusted newly converted republicans, and people who are engaging in politics for the first time.

so in many ways, it's a blessing that we don't have to count on democrats to grow up. because as was already pointed out by someone else in the will rogers quote somewhere above - they probably never will. same as it ever was... same as it EVER was.

apparently Skocpol and Kinsley operate on the premise if we just shut up and line up everything will . . .

ignoring our narrative crazed media's habits

if we all did shut up and line up, the story would then be about the Obama Campaign's 'unreasonable intolerance on message', the 'squishy progressive front coalesces around Obama' blah, blah, blah

O Theda, thanks for trying.

I'm starting to feel so defeated. Every time, we do this every time - and I can't take it.

We have the opportunity to redraw the electoral map and instead it's the same old shit. Texas could go blue if we would could quit fighting and get motivated to elect Obama. I'm just heartsick.

And I'm sick of losing and I can't stand the idea of losing this election.

Dammit.

You know...I resent the implication that standing for the 4th amendment to the constitution is somehow selfish and improper. The way Obama has handled this matter tells us something about his character. He said he would oppose the FISA Amendments Act & then reversed his position. That he did so puts his political well-being ahead of a principal I care about. Progressives did not create Obama's problem, Obam created Obama's problem. I'm mad as hell and I, for one, am not going to forget.

imagine a mccain victory. it would be truly a historic moment in the great american story.

the fisa bill is a travesty. obama must apologise. but i will still vote for mccain. he shoots straight. he is no flip flopper frenchie gook loving surrender hate america type. america must rise to the challenge and defeat obama. but he still must apologise. and when he loses he should apologise for that too!

obama must apologise to mccain for his gook half sister!

@ billy glad

Don't hear much about obscene oil company profits? Do you live in a dark closet somewhere? Meanwhile I'll research DF and Clearthinker.

"Though, I wonder if the author was even referring to you in the 1st place."

You might be right and I think your other points are well made. Nevertheless, after re-reading Theda's article, I think her forcefulness with the "single issue voter" thing was a very heavy handed and practically begging for a fight. Under no circumstance do I agree that anger over FISA falls into the category of the "same old internal sniping." The President's job is to protect The Constitution - as the old saying goes, "practice like you play." This did not bode well for Obama's respect for The Constitution and he needs to hear that loud and clear from the base.

OK - so shaking off the bad feelings as much as I can, I do appreciate Theda's in your face, get your crap together people, look at the terrible alternative, mind set. The Democratic Party definitely needs tough people to make the rallying cry. However, she should keep in mind that there are ways to be tough minded and tough talking without unnecessarily angering people or turning them off to the larger point. Instead of purposely poking a finger in the eye of people with very righteous anger about FISA, she could just say - OK, people are angry and they are probably correct in that anger, but the alternative is WAY worse and we need to focus our energy on beating the other guy. Fair enough. Same message, but now I am not totally pissed off in the first paragraph - hell, I was already in the process of letting it go before she started wagging her finger in my face!