Either of the two Democratic candidates would stave off the examples you provide (Social Security privatization. Supply-side economics. Politicizing the top levels of agencies with anti-government ideologues. Undercutting public health, safety, and environmental protections. etc.)
Only problem is only one can be elected in November, and that candidate is Hillary Clinton. The article mentions FoxNews: both candidates have given interviews there recently and the difference is striking for all to see. Clinton pushed back against the tough questioning of O'Reilly, with poise, humour and mettle. Josh is proud not to have watched it, but he's wrong to take this political elitist tonality this late in the campaign. Meanwhile, Obama stammers through his softball interview. Forget about all Obama's baggage and the stuff still to come out in the GE. Just on his command of the issues: is is just not there yet. Give him time, otherwise he will be burned for 2012 or 2016. TPM and the progressive blogosphere need to pull back from the blind support of Obama.

Posted at May 3, 2008 9:08 AM in response to Time to Win the War of Ideas--Finally

This is a great post. Funny how it's the Republican pundits and Obamabots who are in agreement on the idea that Hillary should drop out. I'm in PA and I want to vote, please. Let's count em first, and see what other scandal is going to happen to the youngin next (CTV, Chicago Rezco trial, ..., ...)

Posted at March 4, 2008 8:19 AM in response to Obama should drop out after Tuesday

Promises, promises...
You wanna love the guy, but he's just getting unlucky. The CTV revelation, denial, then truth comes out a few days too soon for him. Rezko trial revving up as well. It's tough. But the media still has him as the darling. Perhaps to serve him up on a carving platter for McCain.

Posted at March 4, 2008 8:10 AM in response to Obama's Closing Ad: I Will Take Country In Fundamentally New Direction

bdiddy - excellent comment. Period. No, wait, I'll add this...
The rhetoric might be believable if he had judgement and a record on his side, like he often claims. But he has neither:
Joseph C. Wilson: Obama's Hollow "Judgement" and Empty Record
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

Posted at March 3, 2008 2:19 PM in response to Poll: Hillary Takes Lead In Texas

First his WORM (What Obama Really Meant) -ing out of the Farrakhan endorsement. We didn't have to wait long for his wimp side to show again, when it was confirmed that he was lying about the CTV-revealed NAFTA promise to Canada:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27136
I can just hear McCain highlighting the treasonous act: "Barack Obama's envoy told a foreign power he would do one thing, after telling the American people he would do quite another. If we elect him President, will he tell us he's going to bomb Iranian nuclear weapons facilities and their warheads pointed at America, and then send envoys to tell the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinajad not to worry, that it was just internal US politics?"

Posted at March 3, 2008 1:05 PM in response to Hillary Hits Obama Over Latest Obama NAFTA Story

Compare with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us4jbRlrAaA&eurl=http://bennettdan.blogspot.com/
It's a much clearer indictment than the Hillary case you cite.
I would say it is clear that while obama denounced " farrakhan's anti-semitic comments" (minute 3:22), Obama did not reject his support and endorsement. (minute 4:01).
Clinton rightly said (minute 7:40), although inarticulately, that Obama should not only denounce farrakhan's statements, but should reject Farrakhan support entirely, as in, tell Farrakhan his endorsement isn't wanted or accepted, and to not let Obama's name pass from Farrakhan's lips.
Obama changed the subject and seemingly purposefully, misinterpreted Clinton's challange. Obama went on to say that he "rejects and denounces", but used no noun. what He was ambiguous about what he was rejecting, but assuming Obama was referring to Obama's own quote, Obama was rejecting Farrakhan's statements. He purposefully did not mouth the words " I reject Lous Farrakhan". He did this because he was afraid of offending Farrakhan's racist supporters.
Hillary asked of him to reject farrakhan's endorsement, and he did not,. and the obamatons clapped and cheered. It was weasely behaviour that we saw from the likes of Ron Paul, who would not reject endorsements from white supremacists.
Lets be clear, Farrakhan is a racist, not just his ideology. Obama is a wimp for not just saying it, and has lost my support.
Its not just about what Farrakhan says about jews, he the worst kind of charlatan and hater and should be called on it. Obama is afraid to offend his followers. This is sad.

Posted at March 3, 2008 11:41 AM in response to Why I Was Ashamed Watching 60 Minutes

Even more interesting are the sideline poll numbers for the GE in New Jersey:
NJ-Pres
Mar 2 Rasmussen - McCain (R) 45%, Obama (D) 43%
NJ-Pres
Mar 2 Rasmussen - Clinton (D) 50%, McCain (R) 39%

Clinton holds on to the Big Blue States, Obama loses them to McCain. Of course the Repubs know this. Only an opponent running with the McGovern-proven Red State Strategy can ensure they take the GE this year of Republican caused war and recession. So it's no wonder they are cross-voting on mass to try to make Obama the nominee:
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

Clinton for 8 then Obama for 8, that's the only way to roll this time around. Sorry. If you don't "get it" you might need deprogramming (try taylormarsh.com, talkleft.com, theleftcoaster.com, and be creative).

Posted at March 3, 2008 11:06 AM in response to Rasmussen: Hillary Increases Her Lead In Ohio

Does anyone in their right mind expect the Canadian authorities to admit the frontrunner and potential next US President actually made them such a promise? If the guy at the pinnacle of Western Hemisphere power is willing to share such highly sensitive information on how favorably he would treat their country, hey, he gets protected at any cost.

Come on, it's obvious. Doesn't anyone read spy novels any more?

Posted at February 29, 2008 7:20 AM in response to Canadian Embassy: Report On Obama And NAFTA Is False

It amazes me to see how a respected blog like TPM gets taken over. First the race baiting Wilentz documented, then the déjà vu Repub-like talking points flyers trashing universal health care, then the CTV revelations...
but they're still bloggin for him and trashing her. Guess they think their Red State strategy à la McGovern is unbeatable

Posted at February 29, 2008 6:54 AM in response to Poll: Hillary Has Momentum In Texas

Total BULL that Wilentz is a friend of the Clinton's, Clinton's biographer, and the host of other roles he's said to have in order to tar him as unreliable. Fact is he's an academic historian and as such is held to a level of proof news anchors and blog commentators are not. Don't believe me just see the NBC video where he explains his connections and read his text again, linked here:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27107

If most of my co-partisans are willing let a candidate play race for public office and destroy the real progress made in racial harmony over the last few decades (thanks in part to the Clintons) I'll just have to register Independent and/or start investing in a viable third party alternative to this bullshit.

Posted at February 28, 2008 7:24 AM in response to Lanny Davis: It's Hard To Criticize Obama "Without Being Accused Of Playing Race Card"