An old pict, hope it carries you through. ;););)

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/01/obama_the_swimsuit_issue

No, no, no...you're reducing the VP office to a parking lot for a vapid celebrity. Can't accept that, although I do enjoy Clooney an awful lot. I'd like to think that the Veep has a shot at the Pres seat at some point, although it does seem to be a dead end more often than not, doesn't it?

I love the fact that they've given the keynote spot to Warner this year. Seems promising for his future in the Party...

Sure, we run the risk that said vapid celebrity might inadvertently ascend to the highest office in the land, but that is a small risk.

Sometimes, vapid celebrity doesn't need to fall into power. Consider the govenor/govenator of CA, Ahhnold. He actually campaigned and won.

Two brief replies:

1) I think that you might be missing the point here, dear Bruce. Look at Dijamo's post again and take note of the vocabulary ("blow... long, hard... spent... reached the mountaintop solo... climactic.. etc). I suspect that you are replying in earnest to a post made in jest. Then again, I tend to have a tin ear for very subtle humor on the internet, so maybe I am seeing something where there is nothing.

2) I am hardly a spokesman for all Obama supporters everywhere, but for my own part I can tell you that my candidate had darn well better be bullish about support for organized labor. I have given money, I have knocked on doors, I have phone banked, I have stood in front of the commuter rail stations in the driving snow handing out literature for this guy. I would not do this for a candidate that I did not expect to be a big friend of organized labor, and neither would the SEIU and Teamsters who were doing all of this along side of me these past 8 months (and UAW and IBEW more recently). I can tell you, however, that all of this time spent with other Obama supporters, I have not heard anyone looking forward to the idea that Obama might give labor the back of his hand. In other words, I think that your fears are ill-founded. In any event, I would be every bit as disappointed as yourself if they were realized.

But the liberal/progressive coalition (I'm with the liberal portion) is frayed, and it will not hold.

Ah, Bruce, you could get a fabulous discussion going if you started a blog on this subject. Is there even a Progressive coalition? Who are the Progressives? Is there a unified, consistent platform there? Those who identify themselves, proudly, as Liberals have a long history of association with very specific issues. Progressives - well, to me it seems harder to pin down just exactly what is a Progressive agenda in a way that would be agreeable to those who identify themselves as progressive. Seems to me that what's driving much of the support for Obama is "change," as in, not McCain/Cheney/Bush. If that's how we're now defining what is Progressive, that's pretty broad, huh?

Bruce, I agree with your diagnosis but suggest that the problem is bigger than Obama. Since at least '92, if not before, Dems have been moving away from the traditional core platform of labor rights and large social programs, but we haven't found core issues with which to replace them. We still have a collection of issues--health care, civil liberties, environment, multilateralism, etc. but not an overriding ideology. Obama is essentially running on the promise of good government, as did Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. The same thing has also happened in countries with similar political divisions, such as England and Canada. Until progressive idealists generate new core principles for the 21st century and reassert themselves within the Democratic Party, I think that our candidates will continue to exhibit the pragmatic styles of Obama and Clinton and that the coalition will continue to represent an assortment of interests.

I agree with Genghis.

I know we have a clear mental model now of what an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter is supposed to be. But thinking back to December, I really had no idea that Obama was going to be the "progressive" candidate, or that the primary was going to play out as a generational divide. I think a lot of that was produced by the media, which needs a vivid human narrative, and therefore inflates mild demographic contrasts of 10-20% into absolute definitions of the "typical" Obama or Clinton supporter.

In any case, I can tell you that there are lots of Obama supporters who aren't actually looking for any dramatic break with Party tradition. I expect less of a break now, in fact, than there was in '92. If Obama turns out to be a version of Bill Clinton, with the good luck to be governing at a moment when it's possible to make a few changes that Bill and Hillary weren't quite able to get through the Congress, I'll be thoroughly satisfied.

In short, to return to dijamo's original point, I don't see anything that would really prevent Obama and Clinton supporters from coming together. We just have to take it slow, and get our timing right. Moreover, if we don't come together at the convention, it's not that big a deal. There are other ways of making sure both sides get what they need.

Bruce - I wish there was a ditto button on TPM so I could stop posting so %!$@ much and just co-sign on yours. The goals of HRC and Obama folks are very similar: respect for everyone, return to rule of law, economic fairness, labor rights (yes even HR folks respect unions). Where we differed was which candidate had the better method to achieve these goals - Hillary was the traditional fighter and advocate with clearer liberal policies; Obama was something new - a unifier, compromiser and post-partisan emphasizing less liberal, more achievable policies.

Obama's most extreme supporters may have viewed his winning the primary as a wholesale rejection of all things Clinton or of 49% of the democratic party, but that view is not shared by the Obama campaign or most Obama folks. Obama's already made some changes to his healthcare policy to bring in some of Hillary's recommendations. Look at the high profile for both Hillary and Bill at the convention. Most importantly look at the responses from Obama folks on this thread. The coalition is still needed and important. We do not need to destroy the past to move forward to the future.

I agree that Obama's post-partisan compromise stance makes it harder to determine where he stands on our progressive liberal policies. What kind of leader he will be is unknown because he's charting a new path. What I know for certain is that Obama will be infinitely better than McCain. I trust that his core values will guide him in the presidency. I hope to elect a larger and more progressive Democratic Congress so that they can lead the way for real progress on our liberal goals and we won't have to do as much compromising at all.

My mother was office manager for a county-level Democratic party office, and met Bill C. in 92.

Her report: "He looked at you like you didn't have any clothes on."

She said it very disapprovingly. But since she also seems to like to repeat the story . . . I'm going to go out on a limb and say that her impression was "yes, sexy."

Oh, I think Hillary is sexy enough.

So is Elizabeth Edwards.