How about foreign policy experience? I mean, I know Obama supporters are programmed to say that he has good judgment so he doesn't need experience and that he's visited lots of countries so he's a born diplomat. Still, it might be nice to have him choose someone who'll help him get control over the State Department and to stand up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Posted at March 28, 2008 2:50 PM in response to Obama/Casey '08 ?

You don't have to be a genius to be **elected** president of the Harvard Law Review. You have to be a very, very good politician who can successfully suck up to the white boy elitists who usually populate the executive board.

You do have to be smart to get **onto** the Harvard Law Review. That's a different matter.

I thought Milla J was making another point -- I always cringe when people refer to African-Americans as "articulate" like it's unusual or something to find an articulate African-American. It sounds so condescending -- I mean, how often do you hear white men referred to as "articulate."

And really, don't conform to the stereotype of Obama supporters -- not every cut on the guy is racism.

Posted at March 28, 2008 2:42 PM in response to The Audacity of High Expectations

Politics is a "game" of compromise and tact? That's how we became a nation that steals from the poor and gives to the rich. That's how we became a nation of torturers. Through scared Democrats "compromising" with immoral Republicans.

I wholly reject your idea that politics is a "game" of compromise. The Republicans did not drag this country down into the filth through compromise. They did it by demonizing liberals and scaring people. Politics is about persuading people to accept the course you lay out for them.

Obama, with his unique oratorical skills, has the capacity to do this, to take the country to the left without demonizing Republicans and scaring people. He has demonstrated his ability to give stirring speeches about race. Now, let him say what Edwards said -- that it's the nation's moral obligation to help those in need. He hasn't said that yet. Let him explain why restoring civil liberties will keep us safer -- he hasn't gotten around to that yet in any specific way. I want him to say he's going to close Guantanamo in his first day in office and give those people trials. Has he said that?

Obama is all about Obama -- and making people feel good about themselves. He isn't an authentic progressive; he's just another guy -- a real sweet talker to be sure -- trying to get elected. And frankly, liberals like me who are tired of the past 40 years of being brutalized by Republican administrations find all this talk about compromise either insulting or really, really naive.

As for the progressive agenda you're waiting for, Pearl White -- don't hold your breath. And take a look at Bill Clinton's first term in office because that's what you're going to get.

And for the record, this Edwards supporter finds both Obama and Clinton repellent. But seriously, I was warming up to Obama after the race speech and after Clinton's crappy tactics. But this whole conversation reminds me of how little I like him and his watered down liberalism.

Posted at March 26, 2008 6:39 PM in response to Former Reagan and Bush WH Lawyer endorses Obama

Pearl White, The National Journal called Obama the most liberal senator. More responsible -- and competent -- political scientists place him squarely in the middle of the Democrats. He was tied for 10th in the 110th Senate and 21st in the 109th. Of course, in the 110th Senate, he missed so many votes -- 'cos he was raising money and running for President -- it skewed the results of the National Journal's findings. I'm surprised you didn't read about it at the time.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802120010

And I'm glad that you're so thoroughly enamored of his voting record in the Senate. As one of his constituents, I'm probably more familiar and assuredly less impressed. He voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act; he voted for the energy bill -- a massive handout to the energy industry; he watered down regulations of the nuclear power industry; he voted to restrict injured people's access to class actions. And his "universal health care plan" won't be universal -- he says so himself.

Oh, and could someone please, please explain to me why he voted to confirm Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State. Please.

(And a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood? The geniuses who decided to litigate abortion rights in a hostile judiciary? I couldn't care less.)

And let me ask you, Pearl White, what pet issue of yours are you willing to see him compromise on while he's engaged in this new politics?

You know what? I was actually pretty happy about Obama before I came here and started reading the stuff his supporters tell themselves. I'm better off listening to the MSM. At least there's no hero worship going on over there.

Posted at March 26, 2008 5:23 PM in response to Former Reagan and Bush WH Lawyer endorses Obama

I also remember these days, but those days "when one could be conservative and genuinely concerned about America and her future" are gone.

Can you name a prominent Republican who hasn't either endorsed torture or the unbridled expansion of executive power or sided with agents of intolerance in trying to restrict the civil rights of gays, blacks, women or voted to expand the power of the rich over the poor? There simply aren't any reasonable Republicans left to deal with anymore.

I don't want to reach consensus with the people like Kmiec who helped to make us a nation of torturers. I want them drummed out of American politics.

I know, I'm an angry liberal -- too angry for the American public. But Obama has shown -- on the topic of race -- that he can explain complicated emotional issues in ways that everyone can understand. So why doesn't he use those gifts to explain why people like Kmiec, who have defended an imperial presidency, are wrong? Because he's reaching across the aisle?

I've reconciled myself to this, but I don't think his supporters have. This Kmiec endorsement shows that conservatives think that he'll reach across the aisle on judicial appointments, and actually, I think that's probably true. He won't appoint right-wingers -- he'll just pick "moderates" who will do nothing to correct the conservative track we're on. So Obama supporters should ask themselves whether they're prepared to give over the judiciary irrevocably to forces hostile to civil rights, the 4th amendment, etc. And if they're not, then they ought to greet these kinds of endorsements with a little less celebration and a little more skepticism.

Posted at March 26, 2008 4:26 PM in response to Former Reagan and Bush WH Lawyer endorses Obama

So you're suggesting that pandering to conservative Republicans, like Kmiec and letting them think that you will deliver conservative judges like Roberts and Alito is better? That's better than a 51% strategy?

Maybe, but you're betting pretty heavily that Obama is just lying to all these conservatives and will tack sharply to the left. If he doesn't, then we're stuck with a very conservative judiciary.

I have hated Hillary Clinton's candidacy for a very long time now and didn't vote for her in my own primary. But Obama supporters are remarkably bad at providing any solid evidence that their candidate will not bend over backwards to cater to the Kmiec's in our polity -- indeed, he will owe them something. And if he starts doing that, we're screwed.

You may not like the 51% strategy; you may think that Obama is leading us all into a bright, liberal future where the scales fall from all those Republican eyes, and they march hand-in-hand with Democrats into a land of milk and honey. But color me skeptical.

Posted at March 26, 2008 4:04 PM in response to Former Reagan and Bush WH Lawyer endorses Obama

I was just starting to get used to Obama, and now this.

I really wonder at how any liberal or progressive could consider this endorsement a good thing. At best, it reveals that Obama is a completely blank slate onto which everyone -- liberal and conservative, young and old, Democrat and Republican -- projects their fondest wishes and their deepest hopes. So conservative nutjobs like Kmiec can think he supports judicial restraint and Obama's liberal supporters can think that he'll appoint judges who will protect the right to privacy, and everyone's deluded and happy.

That's the best possible case behind this endorsement.

The worst case is that Obama will actually appoint middle-of-the-road judges and not expend any political capital at all in correcting the literally disastrous trend of the Reagan-Bush I & II years. The way he'll reach across the aisle is by appointing judges -- like Clinton did -- who are moderate at best and who will be Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas-lite. And we'll be able to say goodbye to the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments -- to say nothing of the right to privacy and the equal protection clause -- for good.

Really, flaunting Obama's conservative endorsements is frightening to progressives (not Hillary supporters).

I shouldn't come here . . .

Posted at March 26, 2008 2:40 PM in response to Former Reagan and Bush WH Lawyer endorses Obama

So Boxer and Durbin give him a pass because, they argue, he had no choice but to play politics as usual. Okay, fine. Just don't peddle Obama as an agent of change. If he couldn't get past Inhofe on this issue, what makes anyone think he'll get past Inhofe on other issues.

This is what comes from thinking you can "reach across the aisle" and "put an end to partisan bickering." Because in this case, "reaching across the aisle" means caving in.

And frankly, this legislation wasn't just a weak bill. It accomplished absolutely nothing. It suggested to the nuclear power industry that they do the right thing. Which is as good as nothing.

None of this would bother me if Obama wasn't claiming that his conciliation would "change" politics. This is the perfect example of how his approach won't change a damn thing. I'm no Hillary supporter, but this is the kind of thing that makes me skeptical about Obama's power to do any of the things he's promising to do.

Posted at February 16, 2008 4:10 PM in response to Senator Boxer defends Obama on Exelon - Again, no one notices.

Rich in NJ,

That's nice. You won't be disappointed in his moderation. And moderation probably works out well for you. Some tax breaks for college education, no mandate for buying into the health insurance. That's all very nice.

Of course, this makes you different from a lot of your fellow Obama supporters. But it's good that you don't have any delusions about his "transformational leadership." All the Obama supporters should be as modest in their hopes and dreams as you are.

Posted at February 11, 2008 8:14 PM in response to Edwards Endorsement Meeting With Obama Canceled

Many of you, mostly Obama supporters, wonder what an endorsement from John Edwards means. It obviously helps Obama with working class people who seem to mistrust him. But it also helps Obama with the liberal wing of the party -- those of us who believe that the main problem with the Democratic Party is not that they engage in partisan bickering but that they don't do enough of it.

I've been an Edwards supporter since I saw him after Katrina look in a camera and tell a reporter that we had a moral obligation to relieve the suffering of poor people in New Orleans and all over the country. No one has made helping the poor a part of their platform since Bobby Kennedy, and Barack Obama sure as hell hasn't done it.

And for those of you who wonder what John Edwards does for the poor when he's not running for office, this is what he does:

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb05/edwards020405.html

I don't trust Barack Obama to be a truly liberal president. His supporters won't hold his feet to the fire. Many of them grew up under Ronald Reagan who helped to drag this country so far to the right that Richard Nixon would now be considered a moderate to liberal Democrat, comparable to Obama and Clinton. (Nixon aggressively enforced the Civil Rights Act, gave us the EPA, conducted a foreign policy of constructive engagement, etc.) So Obama supporters are happy with his moderation, which is really pretty bland. (Hell, many of his supporters think Obama doesn't take money from corporations, which is just sad.)

Edwards is the liberal conscience of the Democratic Party at the moment. His endorsement might make Obama more palatable to me, but only just so.

Oh, and Michael A -- before you launch one of your salvos about Edwards' voting record, remember that he's from NC, a much more conservative state than Illinois. Yet Obama voted for Condoleeza Rice, to reauthorize the Patriot Act; he voted to kick plaintiffs out of state courts when they've been injured by corporate malfeasance; and he single-handedly weakened legislation to protect the nuclear power industry, one of his biggest supporters. Glass houses, buddy . . .

Posted at February 11, 2008 7:01 PM in response to Edwards Endorsement Meeting With Obama Canceled