Mr. Rosenberg,

I deeply respect the brave and ethical stances you have taken vis-a-vis the Iraq war, and the terrible lockdown AEI, and friends and other Likud aligned hardliners have imposed on American Foreign Policy. These policies have not been good for America and have most certainly not been good for Israel. All of us hope for a healthly and peaceful Israel. So much praise to you.

However I am going to strongly disagree with your criticism of Krugman here, as well as your blanket charateristic dismissal of Hillary's willingness to fight for what she believes in.

While I admire Obama for finally bringing up the question, if only by proxy in Cleveland, about whether we can be friends with Israel and not take the Likud line, (Of course we can. And we will.) I think there are profound differences on the domestic front that need to be addressed. And I think Obama's whole approach in declaring he will not re-fight the wars of the 90s is a giant disaster. We absolutely need universal health care coverage, we need stronger unions, we need higher taxes on the top 1%, and a sensible foreign policy that does not spend us into bankruptcy. It is precisely these differences that have prevented the Edward's from endorsing Obama. The disagreements between Elizabeth and Obama are profound, and she is too much of a gentle woman to bring this to the public attention.

That you would ascribe personal malice to Krugman is very disturbing. Here is a man, the only man in Main Stream Print who was loudly against Bush and his excesses at the time they were occurring. Here is a man who has nothing in his heart but the good of the country. Here is a man who has mapped out economically what is required for a restoration of the middle class. And a man that has been cast aside by the Obama movement only because his thesis points out the power of racial politics in keeping Republican control of the South and other parts of this nation.

And this is the key problem with the whole Obama platform, it presumes too much. We are not in a post racial America, we are not living in a functioning democracy, we are not living in the society in which men are disagreeing on principle. If we have learned nothing these last 8 years, we should clearly see that there is a large faction of people in this country, for whom principle is second to power. And they have run this country into the ground. And they will not make concessions even when forced. And if we are honest this is the same situation with a small faction of likud-types. And can you really blame them given the life or death consequences of some compromises they face?

So while I admire and support the alternative lobbying structure to outweigh AEI and friends whose bulwark you are helping to erect, and I admire the stance that Obama has taken to support this on the foreign policy side. It's not ready yet. And the other side is not simply going to disappear when they leave office. Much as the demographic story has told us, Obama's time is in the future, in 8 years when the under 35s are under 45 and some of the old guard are gone he wins everywhere hands down. And the same is true with this new lobbying organization- it takes time to build and function. But if we move too soon, without recognizing the complexity of reality, if we attempt to "will to power" our dreams, no matter how noble, without doing the hard long work necessary to engage and address minds opposed to our own, we risk our stuctures collapsing dramatically before their time.

I'm sure all of us still mourn the untimely death of Rabin, and the vast opprotunities that have been lost in the wake of his death. As much as his death was a tragedy, it probably would not have occurred if too much change had not been imposed too quickly. I think of his death both symbolically and as the true beginning of the modern Bush/Cheney era. Much of the misjudgemnet in this campaign, particularly the discarding of Krugman comes directly from an over anxiousness that is filling space that should be devoted to addressing and rectifying the fundamental issues that Krugman brings to the table in good faith. Is it that Elizabeth Edward's views should similarly be discarded because of her disagreements with Obama?

Posted at April 4, 2008 8:48 PM in response to Losing Paul Krugman

Obviously Bill and Al had nothing to do with the booming economy of the 90s, because that would some how diminish Obama. Especially not the part of using Venture Capitalists to drive tech innovation, or the creation of the internet core back bone as a neutral peer exchange, and therefore a level playing field. And don't forget to mention that Bill cribbed the "Swords to Plowshares" speech from Reagan...

Please begin talking about how the subprime mess created in 2003 is really all Bill's fault from 1998 laws, and that in fact we could have stopped 9/11 if only Bill had listened to the warnings in the late 90s, just like the really awesome Disney/ABC Path to 9/11 documentary told us.

Posted at March 21, 2008 1:09 PM in response to The economy of the 90: What (or who) was responsible?

I have to say nice job Hillary. Very Classy as usual.

It's ironic that the net proxy war started back up already on this thread.

I have much to say about the Obama speech- it will be on that thread.

I don't think that anyone can take Weaver's comments very serious, or representative of Democrats who are unhappy with Obama.

I think you might take his comments as the kind of things the programmed right will be saying about Obama with venom, once the machine has geared up.

While I am not an Obama supporter, I have to agree with what his Pastor has been saying. I think you can hear that same sermon in an evangelical Christian church of any race in America, if the pastor is serious about Christianity. There is however another brand of evangelical Christianity, call it Christian nationalism that puts country above Jesus, and often mixes that call with the inherent "righteousness of whiteness", it is those people who make up a lot of the right wing matrix, and who ultimately will take Weaver's position or one like it in the election.

Ironically you can see this "righteous whiteness" vibe brutally lampooned in the last episode of the first season of Boondocks when Uncle Ruckus turns to preaching. Very funny. Problem is its often, in the real world, this "righteousness by whiteness" is much more subtlety emphasized than the Ruckus parody and become more to even address, as a result.

We live in a very complicated world.

Posted at March 18, 2008 4:58 PM in response to Hillary: I'm Glad Obama Gave That Speech

Actually what you mean to say is that the insider politics that the Bushes and Republicans represent has atrophied beyond repair over the years and failed to produce movement on many of the important issues the country faces. Voters know it, and are frustrated with the Republican log jam that is Washington and are dying to elect a dem, any dem to office.

I love how people assume that there is or has been any time in the last 7 years, a ruling Clinton organization, that has had enough power to be considered insider anything.

Does any one think this kind of nonsense talk is going to play in the general. Are the press and everyone suddenly going to try to scapegoat Hillary for the Bush Republican Era and give McCain a pass?

Posted at February 14, 2008 3:39 AM in response to Carville: If Hillary Loses Either Texas Or Ohio, "This Thing Is Done"

What Carville is saying here is that she is not going to lose TX or OH.

Posted at February 14, 2008 3:33 AM in response to Carville: If Hillary Loses Either Texas Or Ohio, "This Thing Is Done"

You have many valid issues here, but none of these calculations derive from feminism.

Your argument is essentially, feminism itself is not as important to me as these other issues.

If feminism is less important than these other issues you should not catagorize your decision as having a feminist basis.

The title should reflect the fact you are putting this banner down, rather than describing your arguement as if it is coming from a feminist movement orgins.

Posted at February 5, 2008 3:17 PM in response to Why would a feminist vote for Obama?

It's going to be Hillary.

The polls for Obama are as innacurrate as they were before NH and the media buzz is essentially the same minus the obvious hillary hate from that cycle.

Having been to the polling station and worked the phones today, it appears that the trends are exactly the same as they were all through the cycle. Over 40 goes Hillary with a large chunk of female. Latino split 70-30 Hillary. under 25 and black goes Obama. 25-40 are a slugfest.

Obama loses by the same margins everywhere in the same way he's been losing, and he wins everywhere that his core demographics can win it for him.

Hillary by 200+ delegates.

This time the mea culpa will include the blogsphere, not just traditional media.

Oh and the voting reform advocates will have a field day, however it will be noticable that they are particular focused on the areas in which Obama and Ron Paul did not do as well as forecasted.

Posted at February 5, 2008 12:53 PM in response to No Tuesday More Super

Man what's with all the NOW hater-aid?

Seems to me like TPM voices are out of touch with real world people.

If anything Obama has been trying to bogart away some of the NOW vote, effectively undermining the organization- That's evil.

When you don't get the endorsement you should respect the organization.

Posted at February 5, 2008 12:45 PM in response to Connecticut NOW Hits Obama On "Present" Votes

"Pal, your rating abuse of everyone you disagree with is really obnoxious."

Don't you think your projecting is obnoxious.

I don't slag on anybody. I am arguing entirely from the numbers. The reality is in NH Clinton won the Labor vote. That's what the exit polls show, and frankly I'll take this current set over any of the other polls that were released these last 5 days. I think based on these NH numbers you are wildly optimistic to think that 100% of Edwards will go to Obama.

Worse for Obama his key demographic, the under forties neither historically or currently have the numbers of actual voters to beat her key demographic of the over forties. NH has just demonstrated this.

I am guessing you are a big Obama advocate. That's great. But the reality is that minus the press delusion as demonstrated so clearly this last 5 days, even with a big enthusiastic youth turnout, he simply doesn't have the numbers to win.

The trends are good for him. 8 years from now when the older generation has died off more, and the younger ones have added to the ranks he will have more of a shot.

I'm very very pleased about the very positive future changes he and his young constituency are signaling for the longer term future of this country. But that future is not today.

smacfarl
http://reddit.com/user/smacfarl/

Posted at January 8, 2008 8:33 PM in response to Results Open Thread

I wouldn't take that for granted at this point.

Edwards is going all the way and knows exactly the value of his constituency, whichever ways he goes it will be to their advantage.

If you look at the CNN NH exit poll she won the union vote pretty convincingly.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM

smacfarl
http://reddit.com/user/smacfarl/

Posted at January 8, 2008 8:06 PM in response to Results Open Thread