That should be the kiss of death....

Perhaps I should have summarized a bit more of the article. Basically, the now Pepperdine Con Law Prof is taking a lot of slack from the right. Prof. Kmiec is pro-life, anti gay-marriage, and strongly believes in a “limited judicial role.” Nevertheless, despite his clear disagreement with Obama on ALL of these issues, he believes Obama is the best person for the job.

Here's a nice exchange:

Hi Professor. Thanks for chatting. Many have criticized your Obama endorsement, arguing that, based on your stated beliefs, Senator McCain would be a better candidate for you.

I have nothing against McCain. Indeed, he was my candidate in 2000, and I would still think him the better choice in 2000. But, perhaps like my time, his time has passed. John’s understanding of warfare is the understanding of, as Tom Brokaw put it, the greatest generation. Just as shock and awe did not prevail in Iraq, McCain’s under-estimation of the cost of deployments both in terms of money, life, and international standing, make him not well suited to protect our national security in a time of terrorist threat.

If a Reagan-ite is endorsing my Candidate....I'd be a little nervous

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 . . .

People like Louisville are why the Democrats consistently lose Presidential elections. Crafting a 51% electoral strategy and progressive politics don't easily mix because a 51% strategy relies on stoking fear and running up the opponent's negatives.

The Clinton campaign has adopted such a strategy for the nomination because, like Republicans, they have little positive appeal themselves; therefore the reliance on themes like "vetted," "experienced," and "CiC threshold" which inherently play off of people's fears and insecurities. But the Republicans have shown to be far better at this strategy than Democrats. It fits Republican ideology whereas it contradicts progressive ideology.

I can remember a time when you didn't have to put your fingers in your ears and say "lalalala" when someone with opposing political views was speaking.

I have always supported progressive politics, from the time FDR took us from the depths of depression to become the strongest nation in the world. The fact that GWB has done his level best to achieve the opposite, using every dishonest tactic ever known and inventing new ones besides, no doubt leaves many people disillusioned with genuine political dialog.

But there was a time when one could be conservative and genuinely concerned about America and her future. When one could honestly consider the views of those who honestly disagree.

The true strength of Obama is his documented ability to create consensus, or at least leaving opponents satisfied that their concerns will be heard.

The Rove tactic of treating voters like circus animals, to be trotted out to perform on cue, has become politics as usual, so now both sides of the political establishment follow that model. But this is not the big tent we are talking about. One half of any given group the "winners", the other half bereft.

I don't believe this is what attracts people to Obama. Young people especially are disillusioned with old politics, and though we older voters are wary of "change", it is obviously desired by Americans of every variety - why not allow them to participate as long as it is honest support. Can "Obama Republicans" be the new "Reagan Democrats"?

Can "Obama Republicans" be the new "Reagan Democrats"?

Yes. Precisely on point.

Anna, Obama neither sought out Prof. Kmiec, promised a judicial appointment like Roberts and Alito, nor has he ever pandered to Conservatives.

What appeals to Prof. Kmiec is the fact that Obama rejects the us-against-them politics of which we've all grown tired, and embraces opposing points of view. As his record makes clear, this doesn't mean he will turn his back on his fundamental principles. Indeed, he has been described as the most liberal senator, has a rating of 100% from Planned Parenthood, etc. Rather, it means he will respect and accommodate others where possible, which makes it all the more likely he will actually be able to get Universal Healthcare, and all the other policies he and Sen. Clinton are so close-on, passed.

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.

I am an Obama supporter, and I wish to say that we should reject the support of this professor. When the Justice Dept. Torture memos were first reported; Mr. Kmiec went on PBS News hour and staunchly defended the torture authorizations from the Justice Dept. We do not need that type of fascist mentality in order to win. If that is the only way that we can win, then I would rather lose.