I have to say that I am grateful for Edwards' presence in the race. Time after time, he voices support for progressive issues that neither Hillary nor Obama actively support.

Moreover, as someone who dislikes Hillary's candidacy (though not strongly enough not to vote for her if she were to win), I appreciate that Edwards' presence will contribute strongly to the possibility of a contested convention wherein a true progressive, perhaps Gore, may emerge (with Obama as his VP).

Edwards has a strong role to play in this race by giving voice to those being ignored by Hillary and Obama.

Obama gives a heck of a speech, right up until you try to pull something other than Unity out of it....

Well, that sort of sums up how I feel about Obama, too, except I am not all that impressed by his speeches. I mean, geez louise, "yes we can"? Is that it? Is that what is supposed to impress me? Sorry, I want to like him, and...well, to turn around what he said to Senator Clinton: he's likable enough. But he still seems to me like an empty suit.

I feel as though I have two unsatisfactory options: Barack Obama the nice guy whom I supposed to take on faith, and Hillary Clinton, who I wished had been president instead of her spouse 15 years ago, now metamorphosed into the wonk without a heart, and surrounded by a coterie of Machiavellian advisers.

Sigh.

Having helped Jim Hill become both the first Democrat AND first black legislator from S.Salem, and having been part of the 10 year crusade to replace Denny Smith (Kopetski finally won in 1990--one of the few challengers to win that year), I find this very interesting (esp. since I just started the audio book of Audacity of Hope).

The question is whether it is more important to win or to have a candidate who is a fighter, sounds good, whatever. I am guessing there are Blue Oregonians who don't agree with every vote Sen. Webb has ever cast or everything he has ever said. But didn't we all rejoice when Allen decided not to contest the election and Webb became the 51st Democratic US Senator?

As I was telling a friend last night, I was at a neighborhood gathering of people who are distinctly not political but most of them have either lived overseas (work or Peace Corps) or visited a foreign country on some sort of tour or work with an NGO or something. We watched slides of the host's visit to Uganda to bring money and supplies to an agricultural NGO and to visit the country and mingle with the people. As I was watching the slides, I was trying to imagine Novick or Merkley in front of the group. It was a soft spoken group of people mostly over 60, and I think Merkley would probably have a better chance with a group like that.

I heard from a friend who is hosting a house party for Novick and inviting lots of people who are not political, with the idea of Steve meeting people he might not encounter otherwise. I think that is the best possible thing people can do for a candidate--give the candidate a chance to do Q & A in front of a group of folks and hope the guests later tell their friends what they thought of the candidate they met. The best candidates learn from those experiences and incorporate sentiments like "I recently learned from someone at a house party that...."

Folks, for all the modern conveniences (computer spread sheets, blogs, email, professional political consultants, etc.) I still think the most successful politics are based on issues, people, and relationships. Like the vote for the candidate one (or one's friend) watched grow up. Or the "he cared enough to come" voter--"X came to our community and I was very impressed with the speech" (or what the person said at the door while canvassing). Voting for someone who supports a certain idea--proposal, ballot measure, etc.

Really liked this from John C: " the last Oregon session shows that we win if we have the votes and we lose if we don't."

What if we were to re-think legislative and other elections and make them more relevant to the local voters? Peralta and Gilbertson proved that statistics like R to D ratio aren't the determiner when independent voters get interested or when people are fed up with the incumbent or it is an open race. That point of view is neither "liberal" nor "partisan"--more like pragmatic.

Many people who are Independent are disgusted with partisan bickering. Moderation and authenticity are resonating with voters, not wedge issues or angry attacks. Because of the partisan bickering, voters are looking for something higher, perhaps even spiritual. Democrats are forced to overcome a vague negative impression like Ashland Democrats do and Metro Portland Democrats often have to do. Gravitas and deeply held core befiefs will help lift the party by unifying and energizing fellow Dems. We have to convince Independents and moderate Republicans to vote FOR something, not AGAINST something. We have to earn every vote, not assume them. The Republicans have become the party of radical ideas, exclusion and ineffectiveness. Just look at the national debt, the fragile economy, the number of dead and wounded in two wars, corruption, the list is endless. Moderation is the key for a Democratic win this time around...in my humble opinion. The horrible mismangement at the national level can be said about Republicans on the state level. Young people 18-35 will be crucial to a Democratic win this year. We've got to involve them and make them want to vote Democratic. Moderation, my new favorite word.

I guess that the number of positions I hold in the DPO's organizational tree makes me, by definition, partisan. It does not make me relentlessly partisan in political view, but I am loyal to my principles, though pragmatic.

I do not share any point of view with the McConnells and Boehners of the Republican Party. I want to see them buried up to their eyeballs in defeat and frustation, not as a Democrat, as an American. They are bad for this country, demonstrably so, their ideas not only suck, they are dangerous for our form of government. I am completely disinterested in compromising with them, driving a stake through their vampire souls is all that interests me.

Am I interested in mangling the proceedures to silence them, no, that is their game and at least a part of my enmity toward them. Do I want to use the DOJ to pursue Republicans; no, corrupt war criminal Republicans, yes. And corrupt Democrats. I do want them exposed as the degraded tools of the plutocracy they are, and not politely, harshly and truthfully.

I despise what the Republican Party has become and smashing it is not partisan. A rebirth of a responsible opposition Party is to be desired, but it will not come from the apparatus in place. There were a handful of respectable Republicans in government, by 2009, who knows. You cooperate with or compromise with what? Boehner? No, you crush a Boehner, you find a meetin of minds with a Hagel. Do a count and tell me partisanship isn't the rule of the day?

Moderation: does that mean watering down progressive ideas so they are ineffective and uninspiring? Or perhaps caving into special interests like health insurance companies or big pharma so we have crappy expensive health care?

If that is what moderation means, no thanks.

We can moderate our tone, so it's not be so shrill; we can moderate our words and not say nasty things; these are positive things I think Obama's campaign has brought to the table. But it is a huge mistake IMO to move rightward in order to seem 'moderate'.

The battle going on in this election is between "the establishment" and "the visionaries" (or pick another term if you wish). Billery is a centrist establishment candidate. Her biggest negative is her husband, which unfortunately comes with the package.

There is also another fight going on here, that between true liberals that want our beliefs upheld for once and those like Senator Clinton that believe that you have to sacrifice your left leanings to capture a majority of Americans. (A belief that has never seemed to affect Republicans or Conservatives). So, while the Democratic Party has moved further and further to the center, the Republicans have moved further to the right and there is no one left on the LEFT.

Does anyone even remember what the LEFT stands for? Certainly Bill Clinton doesn't. He gave up on those views when he governed as President. NAFTA, media consolidation, et al.

The battle during this season is about remaining the same or changing course. Hillary will simply be more of the same with different packaging and maybe a little more heart than Bush.

In my college prep high school English class, we were given a final exam question matching the Oracle at Delphi pronouncements with the classics we had read. One of the pronouncements was "Know Thyself" and the other was translated as either "Moderation in all things" or "Nothing to Excess".

I don't think that is what is going on in DC. There is a difference between "I'm a moderate and you should agree with me" (not a moderate point of view) and people who are not the extremes--between the goal posts and the 20 yard lines on each end of the field--but the folks in the Great Middle, which is that large space between the two 20 yard lines.

I pick that analogy because it has been estimated that there are roughly 20% on each side of the spectrum who say "By Golly! We should STAND for something!" even when the general public does not agree.

One reason the Republicans seem so disorganized is that the enemy-oriented Republicans have been bashing public employee unions in general and teachers unions in particular. Along comes Mike Huckabee winning the Iowa caucuses after saying the problem with failing schools is management, not front line union members; that as governor he saw more problems with teacher burnout than with incompetent teachers needing to be fired; that NCLB was too much measurement (was he the one who said a cow doesn't grow just because you measure it twice as often?) and was driving the arts and music out of the public schools. (Some wag said that to Huckabee, NCLB meant No Cello Left Behind.)

Now if your big issue is the Iraq War or FISA or single payer health care, are you able to have a conversation with an ordinary voter who likes the above story about Huckabee, works in/owns a small business, goes to a church which is split over the question of gay clergy and gay congregants but provides volunteers to a local soup kitchen and relief nursery on a regular basis?

Do you want the votes of those who vote split ticket? Can you understand there are Oregonians who voted Bush/Hooley in 2004 as 2 incumbents they thought deserved re-election or were at least better than the challengers?

If you can understand the above, you can understand moderates. It is possible to be firm in your own beliefs but let others be firm in THEIR beliefs.

I agree with what Paulie said, "Gravitas and deeply held core beliefs will help lift the party by unifying and energizing fellow Dems. We have to convince Independents and moderate Republicans to vote FOR something, not AGAINST something. We have to earn every vote, not assume them."

I happen to think Obama and Edwards fit that description but the Clintons seem more interested in power and less interested in bringing the public along on their policy ideas (where was the public debate on NAFTA, welfare reform details, Telecommunications Reform Bill?).

Sometimes the choice is between the person you always agree with and the person who can win. In my Cong. district, the first Democrat elected was neither a woman or a supporter of gun control--it was a man who grew up in Pendleton hunting with other teenagers. Some people thought that was great because it would widen the number of potential voters; others thought it was awful that any Democrat wasn't a strong supporter of gun control. It is the old argument--do you want to be ideologically pure, or do you want to win?

I prefer winning, esp. with people shown to be able to assemble coalitions to pass legislation.

Chris, there have been some "new ideas" which were not DLC stuff so much as going off in a totally different direction. Some people think original red Tabasco sauce is fairly far along the spectrum from mild to hot. But green Tabasco? It is almost on another spectrum.

Some of these views have a tough time getting discussed--I know, as the person who got Judicial Review for Veterans Claims ( a great idea which passed in 1988 and Dan Quayle voted against but many veterans and their friends voted for) in to the Oregon Democratic Platform in 1986. Unfortunately it didn't compensate for the underfunding and neglect the Bush folks gave the VA until the Walter Reed scandal, but people who started in the Judicial Review crusade sometime in the 1970s or 1980s have always known that "support the troops" meaning "agree with the policy, talk about our brave young people in uniform, but don't expend time and energy helping those veterans once they come home from combat" was both tragedy and farce.

But try to get a discussion going on serious issues like that!

There are people, folks, who would like to go beyond parties--as they do nothing but bicker. Anyone who frames the issue as Dem vs. GOP will lose those folks who would like a discussion of open primaries, nonpartisan legislature, clarifying the legal status of campaign finance pass throughs, and other campaign/election reform issues discussed thoroughly by the Oregon Law Comm. and the Public Comm. on the Legislature in recent years. There are people who advocate having those debates openly, and others who say "stupid idea, never work" as if that ends the discussion. Open discussion vs. closing down debate to protect the status quo don't really fit on the ideological spectrum as there are people of both persuasions across that spectrum.

It is the whole paradigm thing. My elementary school years were spent in the Detroit, Michigan area aware one of my relatives was once Henry Ford's lawyer but also aware there was a big AFL-CIO building we sometimes drove by. Anyone who kept their ears open knew that there were people like accountants who were neither, but in places like the auto industry (and other industries), management was management, labor was labor, and most families belonged to one or the other.

If any of you recall the Chrysler bailout a few decades ago, that was a real paradigm shift because Douglas Fraser, the head of the United Auto Workers, was put on the Chrysler board as part of the deal and allowed to see the company books. That wasn't ideology, that was problem solving.

There are those who say labels short circuit thought and ideology doesn't solve problems. Democrats have to decide if they want the votes of such people.

In fact, partisanism isn't philosophical, it's functional.

I'd suggest a dictionary rather than read this pedantic comment for an understanding of what is really going on in America, much less what "partisanism" means. While the surface reading of the cited is correct. The rest of the paragraph and the comment is overloading that surface reading with distorted semantics that have nothing to do with the correct English usage of "partisanism".

partisan: (n) an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

partisan: (adj) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.: partisan politics.

partisanism: (n) Partisan action or spirit.

Beyond that this statement is just plain

My entire lifetime has been one of pretty hairy partisan divides.

No, from your comment, your lifetime has been one of immaturity and apparently a complete unfamiliarity with the primary historical documents that define the creation of our representative democracy. From the colonial days, organized "partisanism" is precisely what the founders felt was the strength of our form of government, right down to believing the primary role of a free press was to be the vanguard of partisanism.

What they feared were child-like citizens who basically eschewed partisanism and doing the hard work of fighting for in favor of comfort and womblike harmony. They were explicit that people like Jeff were putty in the hands of those who promised peace and harmony so long as it looked like what those people felt peace and harmony should look like --- regardless of whether that matched others' conceptions of those ideas.

Now that John Edwards is effectively out of the race (though unfortunately, he's not officially out)

Frankly Jeff, Democrats/progressives/liberals like those who comment here have caused our Party to become slovenly, self-centered, and dissolute. The proof is in the electoral success we haven't had in the 90s and the first half of this decade, the ineffectiveness of our Party since taking the majority in Congress, and the really less than stellar corporate candidates we have now. (I supported Shirley Chisholm before McGovern in 1972, and Jesse Jackson in 1984 and in 1988 until he was out of the race by the time we got to vote in the primary where I lived at the time, so you all can keep any otherwise ignorant comments to yourself.) Fortunately, Edwards is staying in the race for now, and the only hope for our party is that the convention is brokered donnybrook.

We need to drive the whiners back into their non-role in the Party. Again the proof is in the answer to this question: Are YOU Jeff going to not vote for a Democrat if the fight continues right to the first Tuesday in the first November like I won't if those who become the standard bearers for the Party don't fight for the working people with backbone and some stones? Neither Obama or Clinton have made that their platforms if you actually read it.

As someone who remembers when many of the activist Democrats were (or had been at one time) the sort of people in the Edwards target audience (grew up in family of or were themselves farmers, carpenters, union members, retail workers, people having a hard time making ends meet, grass roots volunteers who didn't make a living at politics and couldn't afford events with high admission prices), I did not thing this comment was worthy of someone who wishes the Democratic Party well.

"Now that John Edwards is effectively out of the race (though unfortunately, he's not officially out)". It sounded more like those who think the Democratic Party should be the party of those tuned in to professional politics and/or doing well financially. Very "small tent" like the young staffer last year who said "retail workers don't matter because retail workers don't vote". If the Democratic Party does not represent ALL workers, no matter how humble, I want no part and might as well register NAV after the primary because Dem. will no longer be the party it once was.

If those who have humble jobs (or know what that is like) are not the base of the Democratic Party, then why should they care about politics at all?

Know nothing about Publius, except that those who were down to earth Democrats in previous decades but now have left active politics because the party ignores them (except for Edwards and to some extent Obama) would certainly cheer what Publius said: Frankly Jeff, Democrats/progressives/liberals like those who comment here have caused our Party to become slovenly, self-centered, and dissolute.

The state party office manager when I was a national convention delegate and on state central comm. was someone who had been a textile worker and then a union employee. There were people in party positions whose profession ranged from union activist to public employees and people in trades or retail or various professions. Edwards is making sure those people are not forgotten--is Jeff saying that only those who attend either Obama or Clinton rallies count in the 2008 Democratic party?

(BTW, "publius," if you're going to get personal and condescending, could you at least muster the courage to use your real name?)

Typical response one would expect here at Blue Oregon in response to a comment that focused purely on the content of the original comment, noting in effect it was condescending towards Edwards' supporters and those who aren't whiners.

And beyond that, (unintentionally?) ironic on the face of it.

This is a great post, Jeff. I appreciate your clarity. And it has really opened up some interesting bags. Apparently there are a lot of people who are furstrated because: a) the Democratic Party isn't sufficiently partisan, b) the Democratic Party isn't sifficiently liberal, c) the Democratic Party is too partisan, and d) the Democratic Party is too liberal.

If you ask me -- which no one ever has -- that's a pretty good sign. We get criticized from all sides. That makes sense since the party itself is very diverse.

HA. Primary documents like Federalist #10 or George Washington's Farewell Address? Or founders like John Adams who called political parties the "greatest political evil under our Constitution"? Or Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, or Alexander Hamilton who all bemoaned and feared the rise of factions?

1) Read #10 and Washington again what about political parties of their day they were actually talking - it is not the fact they were organized partisanism. 2) Read Jefferson to understand the difference (that you obviously don't) between organized partisanism and factions. 3) In view of 2), your comment because a descent into misguided ignorance since you talk about factions, something that organized partisanism (e.g. formal political parties) was the antidote too.

Smart aleck remarks whose point rests on playing semantic games are all to typical of the low-brow thinking that goes on here.

We need more American leaders who will work tirelessly to make life better for more Americans. period.

Scott

The republican party is already reinventing themselves w/out idealogues like Chuck pontificating about crushing the opposition. Just WHY do you think that McCain is attracting the votes that he is. Partisan democrats will not learn from the errors and mistakes of the partisan republicans. They may win this election, but they will not remain in power and will be soon discarded for the very opposing excesses that the republicans no longer have political majorities in congress.

The NAV's (disclaimer, I am proud to belong to neither party) will continue to shred through the political bickering and scorched earth politics of both sides.

For those who wish to delude themselves into thinking Hilliary is failing in the polls because she is too moderate - dream on. Hilliary is failing because she is too much the establishment party wonk. She is too political and carries too much baggage (Bill).

For those who wish to delude themselves into thinking Hilliary is failing in the polls because she is too moderate - dream on.

Apropos the reliability of polls, <a href=

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120148052255320955.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news>this article in the Wall Street Journal seems pertinent. I quote:

"Statewide polls are often unreliable. And because it's expensive to poll, they often fail to come out frequently enough to reflect changing voter sentiment on the ground. A poll in Massachusetts conducted Wednesday gave Mrs. Clinton 59% of the vote -- a nearly 3-to-1 edge over Mr. Obama. But the Kennedy endorsement could carry substantial clout with Massachusetts voters. And Mr. Obama has the backing of the state's other senator, John Kerry, as well as Gov. Deval Patrick.

"This has proved a tough season for statewide pollsters even by historical standards. Mrs. Clinton eked out a win in New Hampshire even though most pollsters expected her to be buried by Mr. Obama. A recent analysis of polls in that state by Survey USA found that pollsters were off by an average of 10 percentage points in the days leading up to the election. Meanwhile, in South Carolina, where Mr. Obama routed Mrs. Clinton on Saturday, Survey USA found that prognosticators did even worse, chalking up average error rates of 17 percentage points."

Sorry, I botched the HTML, let's try again:

WSJ article

WSJ confuses the utility of polling, like so many in the media and elsewhere--polls are not predictors of the future. If public sentiment on an issue is slow in devloping or relatively stable to begin with, you might think they can predict outcomes. But let's be realistic here--this is a high interest race with a compressed timeline and unprecedented voter access to campaign information (substantive or otherwise).

The main thing I'm getting ou of this month is not that polls suck, but they are utterly helpless to keep up with shifting voter sentiment.

I have a somewhat different view of the "partisanship" issue. I view the partisanship that Obama decries as opposistion for the sake of opposition: kill the other guy just for sport to keep them down, not because there is a substantive objection on policy, do it just because of who they are.

Not being partisan (in that sense) doesn't mean you can't be resolute and even bare-knuckled in your support of your principles and policies.

The last Oregon legislature was an example of that: Democrats took over, but give Republicans more voice and participation -- reduced partisanship -- yet fought for and won many important battles (not all, but hey, it is just one 6-month session so far!).

Rebublicans often rejected that, for example in opposing Measure 49 lock-step in the party, even though their Republican constitutents as well as many of them wanted to support Measure 49, because they thought as a party they could thenbeat up the Democrats over it. In spite of that, it was a less rancorous, more productive session even though Democrats had but a one-vote majority in the House.

In contrast, Harry Reid is reducing his party's partisanship simply by capitulating, but that is letting the partisan Republicans drive the agenda -- witness the incredible amount of legislation blocked by pocket vetos by Republicans while making Democrat Chris Dodd have to do an actual filibuster on the floor -- making him look like a partisan when he's standing on principle, not on the basis of party. Reid has it all backwards and it is self-defeating.

Jeff, thanks.

This is why some of us refuse to take polls as Gospel (as in "why did the election results not confirm to the polls--must be something wrong with the election results!").

From the pollster.com article:

"one hapless example of the consequences of poor question wording, the Clemson University poll, understated Obama support by nearly 30 points."

Polls are created by humans, and polling is done by humans. One of the best campaign managers I ever knew (later helped get a great congresswoman elected for the first time in another state) especially distrusted "likely voter polls" and refused to believe them without being able to read the wording of the first 3 questions.

PEOPLE vote! And whether pollsters have a failed sample (not enough young people--perhaps because they only have cell phones, not geographically or demographically accurate, not enough variation in income level, etc.) or ask the wrong questions, or quit polling too soon, "we the people" have the right to vote other than the way pollsters say we will vote!

Many of us have read and studied the relevant texts and arrived at understandings much closer to Nick's than to Publius'.

Apparently with quite limited understanding.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

In the very speech Nick cites, Washington was speaking about factions in exactly this way because before 1790 or so and the nascent political parties that had sprung up by then had yet to be come more than factions. Funny thing is, the elitists who supported a strong central government, and the republicans who supported representative government, together saw the both monarchism and the passions of unruly democracy, such as our initiative system, as the real threat. And particularly the latter because the majority, like a lot of people here united in their fundamental ignorance and convinced of their rightness and intelligence, would become at least as an oppressive force as a monarchy. Their solution was and remains organized partisanism.

Jefferson (and perhaps Madison?) founded what has become the ancestor of the Democratic Party to advance very partisan positions against the elitist Federalists (a political party) social, economic and foreign policy positions in an effective way. Here are two quotes from Jefferson (Tory and Whig are both actual parties and his archetype for those who support a strong executive branch and those who favor a strong representative branch)

The common division of Whig and Tory... is the most salutary of all divisions and ought, therefore, to be fostered instead of being amalgamated; for take away this, and some more dangerous principle of division will take its place.

I am no believer in the amalgamation of parties, nor do I consider it as either desirable or useful for the public; but only that, like religious differences, a difference in politics should never be permitted to enter into social intercourse or to disturb its friendships, its charities or justice. In that form, they are censors of the conduct of each other and useful watchmen for the public.

[Those] States in which local discontents might engender a commencement of fermentation would be paralyzed and self-checked by that very division into parties into which we have fallen, into which all States must fall wherein men are at liberty to think, speak and act freely according to the diversities of their individual conformations, and which are, perhaps, essential to preserve the purity of the government by the censorship which these parties habitually exercise over each other."

I am wondering about polls. Since most are conducted via telephone, do they account for the fact that most under 30's ONLY have cell phones? If they don't, the fallibility of said poll would rise exponentially.

Shades of Dewey defeats Truman.

Edwards has added a lot to this campaign and will continue to do so.

Obama (I decided to support him after seeing him speak in Oregon) will be as Liberal as the country will allow him to be. If liberal Oregon Dems were falling over ourselves to love him he'd probably be doing something wrong.

Look they all can stand up there and give a bunch of commitments they won't be able to follow through on without the help of a whole lot of other politicos plus the efforts of all of us. It is Obama who is inspiring young people. He projects integrity. He can bring a lot more people of all camps into political work. Are Democrats afraid of this? The issue is which direction will we head. War or Peace Reduce energy wastage and move to green jobs or carry on our climate suicide mission. Obama says he would take us in the right direction and I believe that. If you are worried about what he stands for Look at what he has done before, who he has worked for, what his causes have been. I believe this -- if Obama can get elected president in this country then he certainly can stand up to the corporations. And I am certain he is more likely to beat any of the Republicans than any of the others. I don't hate Hillary -- I just think the Clinton era is/ oughta be over. It simply wasn't that great to begin with. Remember Lani Guinier, Remember Joycelyn Elders. Remember welfare reform, weak environmental efforts etc. HC doesn't have anything new to offer us. Obama I believe would bring some clean energy into the White House -- Let's not forget who we're up against With McCain we'll have War and more War. With Romney it'd be slash and burn capitalism Screw the Poor Huckabee; I think we don't heart him either and Giuliani? A bully with a big ego

If Democrats want to win the next election 51-49, keep narrow control of Congress, and rule ruthlessly for two or four years until the equally ruthless Republicans come back to power via a new 51-49 majority and undo all the work accomplished (or not accomplished) by the ruthless Democrats, then by all means listen to Chuck Butcher and make sure Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for President (perhaps with John Edwards as her running mate). But watch out for John McCain - he might just end the Democratic party ascendancy a few years early.

If Democrats want something longer lasting - perhaps a realignment like the country saw in 1828 or 1860 or 1896 or 1932, then Obama's your man. I won't guarantee it, but it's possible with him.

Good discussion, Jeff. As a supporter of Novick and Obama, I had to ask myself why that is given the parallelism you draw between Merkley and Obama. I think you're right about Merkley being less "partisan" than Novick, and I think my support for Novick stems from my belief that Congress needs more progressive partisans -- by that I mean members unwilling to bargain away core progressive ideals.

But at the same time, I think the White House needs a uniting presence. We tend to lump all politicians together, but I think there should be a difference between how a President and a Senator act. What I want in a president is someone who can solve problems and make progress, and that requires flexibility and a "post-partisanship" attitude.

I worry about Obama -- a lot -- for all the reasons Chris Lowe mentions. But I'm willing to look beyond my fears for the chance to move the country beyond the bitter partisanship that has gripped us since the Reagan years. We must get to a point where we can trust that our Republican friends and neighbors have the country's best interest at heart, even if we vigorously disagree with them on how to get there.

So maybe a I take a less popular approach to picking candidates. Usually my first concern is degree of corporate and military toadyism. This takes some divining, because some candidates hide their allegiances better than others. I do not see much in Clinton or Obama to make me feel hopeful. Edwards sounds much better, but his senate voting record does not suggest a strong populism. The candidates with the most progressive, least corporate-bound positions [Kucinich and Gravel] were never taken seriously by journalists. There seems to be an inverse relation between supporting the people over the corporations and being taken seriously by news media. Should I be surprised by that, given ownership of the US news media? So, I wonder if I should take presidential politics seriously at all, given that the attribute I believe is most important in a candidate constitutes grounds for automatic disqualification.

Most likely, whatever Democrat prevails will be less heinous than whatever Republican prevails - Republicans don't even try to hide their corporate and military toadyism. So, I might as well sit out the primaries and use the time making home repairs or watching basketball.

Today: "Democrats standing up to Bush on warrantless wiretap bill". I love that headline. Finally! Ideology matters and defines our values. Political parties represent those values. The battle goes on, but this is a good commentary on partisanship, and I'll give it some thought. Meanwhile, we have neocons, lobbyists, warmongers, and corporatists to contend with. They are not into compromise on the issues that matter the most. They are there for their profit and power, not for the good of the country or to protect the Constitution. There are also issues that liberals should appropriately be unwilling to compromise on, such as constitutional liberties. I think if we have a larger majority it will be less of a fight-to-the death struggle. But those right-wingers are not going away and are not going to magically start working with us just because of the aura of Obama shining from the west wing. "Partisan bickering", by the way is a phrase that right-wingers use to attack Democrats who try to have a debate on issues. It never applies to the right-wingers themselves. Obama, convince me...please. (Not every believer is a "True Believer")

UPO lumping me with HRC is either stupid ignorance or willful insult, take your pick of which assininity he's engaged in this time.

HRC is the ultimate status quo DLC insider deal making operation I know of presently. Gee, I like Obama's rhetoric and bringing youth into the process, I wonder about his strength of commitment, that is something way short of saying HRC.

Chris Lowes first comment's first half has a lot to recomend it.

Some of the rest of you, you can either read the words I write down, or you can decide what I mean despite the words. One is a stupid thing to do.

Pat Ryan comes the closest in short words. If I wrote a 20 page essay in comments I might start to cover some of the ground I've covered over time here and at my site. Not very long ago I told people here that you do not make enemies, you will have them anyhow. Most of the Republican Party in power at this time and in the short term future are enemies. You don't have to make them, they are. The ones you can have a meeting of mind with, or a bargaining point with, you do so, and you give them respect. You have dedicated enemies, whose only agenda is their power and your downfall, you break them on a wheel of justice and truth. You stay true to your principles and bury them without demonizing their fellows who are not them. Boehner is your enemy. He cares more about his party power than he does the well being of the nation, and you will do what with him? If you like, you can do a search of my site and find his letter to his fellow (R) Reps on how to screw the Democrats. I not only take him at his word, he has proven himself a man of his word since 06.

If you want to know who Hillary's Wolfson is, read his stuff, going back a half dozen years. If that is the Democratic Party you want, I find it odd you're reading BO.

My roles in DPO make me by definition a Partisan. If you don't like that, which part of trying to help fix defects of the Party is it you don't want done? Kevin can scoff at party politics, but he'll vote for a Party nominee. I will have had some effect in that process, I will have made my desires known long before Kevin gets to vote. And, I will have had a role in the Party's agenda and thinking rather than just having to take what is put before me.

I defy you to put up concrete examples of Democratic partisanship screwing the process in the last 12 years. I defy you to show fanatic crushing of the Republicans. Why bother to bring up Minnis to me? Did you not notice the (R)? You somehow think there was not a concerted effort to remove her hands from the levers of power, to bury her?

I don't care who the Democratic President is, 60% of the current Republicans will declare war and everything will be fair. You propose that I'm being mean? If you think I'm attacking your pony by noting these realities, you're mistaken. Ignoring them is a recipe for disaster.

The DLC will be happy to show you how to have bills that sound nice but concentrate more power in the hands of the wealthy and corporate and shift ever more wealth to a handful of Americans while screwing 75% of income groups. The Republicans will certainly be bipartisan in that endeavor.

If you want to use my name to make your point in comments you sure had better try for some accuracy. I don't mind Jeff's quote, it reflects the comment as a whole in its context of Obama and he also gives you an opportunity to see that it isn't the whole case, you haven't availed yourselves.

BTW, I've been around politics long enough to be a careful observer and maintain doubts even about the people I support.

I believe that Obama is a new generation the same way JFK represented a new generation. Was everything he did wonderful? No, but I can still remember the excitement about the JFK family when I was in high school and he and Jackie were roughly the same age as my parents as opposed to IKE who had been so much older.

I believe that this year could be a paradigm shift like 1968 because the "choose sides, support your side, don't ask any questions" attitude (if you are not a conservative, you are a liberal, for instance) is getting really old and worn out. One person elected to office doesn't change everything but can change the tone (compare the last GOP St. Senate to the 15-15 Senate after the Bus Project and others ended GOP domination of the St. Senate, for instance). Will everything be great overnight even if there is a new Democratic President (whoever it is) and a 2nd Democrat serving in the US Senate? No, there will be no magic wand. But Bill Clinton may have handed the Ted Kennedy endorsement to Obama with what Jeff rightly described as, It's the "Jesse Jackson won SC" crap that makes me balk.

I really liked the Democratic response to the State of the Union tonite. Here is the link to the transcript and video, along with a bit of it which I particularly liked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/28/AR2008012803037.html?hpid=topnews

There's a chance Mr. President, in the next 357 days, to get real results, and give the American people renewed optimism that their challenges are the top priority.

SEBELIUS: Working together, working hard, committing to results, we can get the job done.

In fact, over the last year, the Democratic majority in Congress has begun to move us in the right direction -- with bipartisan action to strengthen our national security, raise the minimum wage, and reduce the costs of college loans.

These are encouraging first steps. But there's still more to be done.

So we ask you, Mr. President: Will you join us? Let's get to work.

.................... SEBELIUS: In these difficult times, the American people aren't afraid to face difficult choices.

But, we have no more patience with divisive politics.

LT,

This is not 1961. The romantic politics of Camelot on the Potomac would not stand up in the US of the internet age. Obama would inspire a new generation if he governed in an inspirational manner. A stirring inaugural address or state of the union would not carry much weight without appropriate action. Is Barack up to it? I'd like to be pleasantly surprised.

I know it is 2008. I also know that young people can get interested in politics and that old cynical battlescarred political veterans like me find ourselves surprisingly inspired by Howard Dean or the founding of the Bus Project, or Ben Westlund, or Barack Obama or John Edwards.

Time will tell whether Obama or for that matter Macpherson or Kroger, Merkley or Novick, the 4 Sec. of State candidates, etc. have what it takes. That is what primaries are for!

Given the last couple weeks, I don't think Hillary Clinton is wearing well. That is why we have primaries and general elections---to find out these things.

Being inspired by a campaigning candidate is one thing. A presidency like Kennedy's is quite different and would be much harder to pull off with millions following blogs and non-mainstream news and commentary. Today JFK would take heat for Chicago voting irregularities, campaigning on the phony "missile gap", and stumbling into Vietnam. And the Monroe affair would make Monica look insignificant.

I share your view of Ms. Clinton.

A Democratic President is going to have a tough job, between BushCo's mess left behind and the dead-end kids Republicans as starters. The world is going to take a bunch of persuasion and the nation is about used up in the patience dept. Then, try and keep the Democrats from being stupid...

You gotta be a little crazy to try for the job. Then you're supposed to act well balanced - sheeesh

Anyhow, unlike the hapless Publius, I get what you're saying and I totally agree. The problem that some of the detractors on this thread seem to face is an inability to differentiate between the idea of reaching out on broad areas of agreement (as I imagine Obama to be doing) and pandering and obsfuactaion, which is what the DLC was specifically designed to accomplish.

Of course, Pat couldn't be more clueless. Several critics here fully understand what Jeff's sophmoric, navel-gazing civics-class essay. What they also understand it simply repeats with less precision and insight laments that have been with us for now several hundred years. Frankly, Pat you seem to suffer from the same problem as Jeff: i.e. "We need less partisanism" (misuse of the term notwithstanding) really means that "Everyone should be reaching out in areas of agreement with me".

And by the way, clueless Pat, the DLC Democrats (which Kari and to a degree Jeff are closest in their positions and arguments), are precisely the FACTION of the Democratic Party who put out the "partisanship is bad" meme as their argument why everyone should reach out in agreement with their pro-corporate policies. The DLC crowd around HRC has always dishonestly thrown this in the face of anyone who would criticize her and her hubby as having helped destroy the modern Democratic coalition FDR's New Deal built and LBJ's Great Society tried to preserve. The thing Obama has been most successful at is hiding from a lot of young, inexperienced supporters and some of those here who just never outgrew that, that at least up to this campaign he has been quite friendly to DLC interests. It is a big question mark right now what he actually would be in office (the JFK analogy is apt because his actions in his short adminstration were not totally predictable from his previous history as a back-bencher in Congress.) HRC is much less of a riddle because the venality of her campaign has been quite in line with her public record (don't forget she was a "Goldwater Girl" before she was a Democrat, and she was a staff attorney in the House before she became a WalMart corporate attorney, and so on. But she always ran with the money and power interests in this country.)

As far as our almost historian Nick --- At the bottom line, the genuinely insightful philosopher-politicians who laid out the ideological foundations for our country all agreed that if anything could actually preserve the rights of individuals in a society of diverse interests, it would be aggressive tension between organized partisan interests. As you pick out from one quote, Jefferson was not alone in pointing out even then that religion and politics are frequently best left out of family functions, but we're talking about politics in the political arena on a political blog amongst people who are wannabees and hangers-on around power. In that context, the good of our state and country demands that examples of half-baked thinking on display here deserve every bit of well-founded criticism that can be leveled at them. If you don't like that, that you probably don't really like representative democracy.

The key examples are the great progressive reforms from the 1960s and 70s--land-use planning, the bottle bill, the beach access bill--all of which had bipartisan champions.

My best memory of this period is the significant improvement in public employee collective bargaining rights, under Republican Governor Vic Atiyeh. We've actually lost significant ground since. The worst being the gutting of a world class retirement system by the current governor - rather than seek ways to expand it's principles to more workers.

So what's really needed is an end to idiot rule, which may be on its way because the Bush regime took it to the max. Finally enough of our fellow citizens may be able to grasp what the father of our public education system, Horass Mann, was writing about - "It may be an easy thing to make a Republic; but it is a very laborious thing to make Republicans; and woe to the republic that rests upon no better foundations than ignorance, selfishness, and passion."

Right now our public education system sucks at turning out good citizens - because it's so focused on the lessor task of turning out good workers - you know, obedient and good at what they're told to do.

pertinent article here

I suggest governance will definitely work best with the folks who wrote this YoMama bin Barack item. Definitely. How can you not want to work with these guys?

I agree with Jeff. The DLC argument is "agree with us 100% or we will call you names". Just by letting their posts and comments be challenged here (not to mention being no fans of Lieberman), Jeff and Kari are not DLC.

In one instance Clinton appeared to gauge Obama’s response before showing her own.

This wonderful aspect of Senator Clinton's personality is explored at depth in this New Yorker article

Back to Jeff's original post, apparently the reason for this exercise, there is nothing sophomoric about it. There is certainly an element of wishfulness to it, and I would be the first to appauld such an outcome. What is missing is the personalities involved, Vic was not the guy you face today, he started out in a completely different spot.

The quote of mine Jeff uses is a little off the mark for his point, Mitch McConnell is specified both as a person and an exemplar, and the horror show Republican Party of today. What happened in OR with the bottle bill, etc, is quite irrelevant regarding the DC of 2008 and how to deal with it. Bush/Rove were not the architects of Republican Congressional behavior, it is - in this iteration - Clintonian in time. I will stand by my assertion that the way to deal with the McConnells & Boehners is to bury them. They will not compromise or deal, they are self-declared enemies. If you propose to regard them as other, you are going to take a hard fall.

Look, I think Ron Paul is a loon, but I can also see openings to talk to him on certain subjects, why make an enemy of him? McConnell/Boehner have made themselves clear and the good of the nation is not part of the equation, enemies of Democrats is their starting point.

Whether Obama is the guy to handle them is an open question, Clinton is certainly the person to give them what they want in proper DLC form. My willingness to question that is an irritation, so? I also don't like Edwards' Senate record. I am not a cynic, but I do maintain a certain skepticism.

I do admit I keep waiting to see one of you passionate people assure me your candidate will respect the BOR, the entire thing. Do I really have to count on the BushCo Supremes to keep that toy out of their hands? Not going to rise to the bait?

Since rational discussion is beyond Publius,

Frankly, Jeff your argument that started this thread is superficial and silly, and no amount of handwaving can change that.

LT, of course it is commendable that Jeff and Kari run an open forum. Althought it must also be said that contrary viewpoints and disputes lend value to the property in the form of extra page views (A quick search about registration also turned up that Kari has recently announced plans to implicitly undermine the openness by raising the status in the community of those to register and become "one of us, one of us"). The main point I made, however, was about the content of their comments and the substance of their views which has nothing to do with running a soon to be less open forum. You are not being fair to the comment if you don't admit that. So, just for the record, here are some interest facts that reflect on views that turned up in quick Google searches:

The first actually was the indirect result of a search confined to Blue Oregon for likely DLC suspects. Turns out Kari is a fan of Evan Bayh, former-chair of the DLC and apparently worked for Bayh:

Evan Bayh's All-American Superstars: trained, deployed, and ready to win http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2006/08/evan_bayhs_alla.html http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/07/suzanne_swift_u.html

Of course, in the best spirit of the corporate-friendly DLC, it may just be about the money.

Jeff on the other hand is actually just a genuinely more sad case. The rest of these things came up in Google searches related to things I remembered about Obama and show how Jeff's dazzled vision of Obama is very much at odds with the pro-corporate, DLC-friendly history of Obama and his wife Michelle. The question is whether Jeff is genuinely taken in by superficialities, or if his comments in this thread really are propagandistic attempts to paint a false picture of Obama to people who are naive. We can start with Obama's support for Lieberman in the CT primary:

Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

although Obama quietly supported Lieberman in the general election:

Lamont gets lift from Obama, Lieberman campaigns with Landrieu http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/10/26/lamont_gets_lift_from_obama_lieberman_campaigns_with_landrieu/

Not to worry though, Obama made up with Lieberman after the election, who himself is still on good terms with the DLC crowd. He just made sure the make-up wasn't so blatant or public and then had the unmitigated gall to try and make political points of it with the gullible:

Obama Hits Clinton On Kyl-Lieberman, Ahead In Iowa Poll http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/02/obama-hits-clinton-on-kyl-lieberman-ahead-in-iowa-poll/

CNN: Senators Had Ample Notice on K/L Vote (w/ Video) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/2/222754/291

Obama really always has been four-square with the DLC and DSCC on foreign policy (and I personally don't believe his comments about he'd do in Iraq if elected actually reflects any kind a substantive split with what DLC and DSCC members actually support.). Does anyone really believe Obama would have voted any differently than Clinton if he had actually been in the Senate with his eye on '08? Or that Clinton would have been any less against the war than Obama if she had not been in the U.S. Senate with her eye on '08 where she owed it to us all to go on record one way or the other?

Another interesting example about Obama and foreign policy and muzzling contrary viewpoints, comes from the outrageous current events file. Michelle is on the board of the Chicago Council of Global Relations and during this rather infamous incident last year neither she in her official capacity or Barack in his capacity as a Senator from Illinois spoke out:

A Curious Incident at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000874

Walt and Mearsheimer censored: Chicago Council on Global Affairs cancels talk http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=222

I'll just let you read these two items for yourself, The first is a blog post that I cite because in one place it conveniently cites a lot of other comments and material you can read and judge for yourself. Although the second is a couple of years old, it is still relevant commentary by lifelong liberal/progressive Alexander Cockburn in The Nation:

LIEB 101 at The University of Iowa: The Obama Strategy to Build the Progressive Movement http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011631.php

Obama: As He Rises, He Falls http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20060508&s=cockburn

A major theme in most of the material about Obama, butressed by quotes and cites of facts, is that many naive people, and possibly Jeff, are easily misled by Obama's charisma into believing he stands for things he doesn't.

Jeff is correct though that Obama and Merkley have much in common. Merkley is the pick of the DSCC because he is far more politically in step with them than the Progressive Caucus. Furthermore, The current tiff between Obama and Clinton really is no more than an intrafaction dispute between the pro-corporate faction of the Democratic Party represented by the DLC/DSCC/DCCC. If one were use as a measure the ideological distance between the DLC/DSCC/DCCC and the Progressive Caucus, the DLC/DSCC/DCCC would be indistinguishable as a single antipode to the PC.

Antoin ("Big Tony") Rezko agreed to buy the lot next door to Obama's current residence (but the contract was in his wife's name, Rita), and both transactions closed escrow on the same day? Poor Rita paid the full asking price $625,000 for a lot that would soon be rendered worthless, but the Obamas were able to negotiate a $300,000 discount to the asking price, and only paid $1.65 million.

Why would a pizza chain owner, slum lord, and alleged extortionist, arrange to help Obama buy a house? According to his realtor, Obama couldn't afford to purchase both the house and the lot (which the seller insisted on selling together), so he called Antoin for assistance. Then Rita Rezko promptly turned around and 10 foot wide strip of the lot back to Obama, thereby rendering the Rezko lot too small to develop.

If Obama was stupid enough to put this deal together less than 3 years ago, don't you think the Hillary Slime Machine is going to find more dirt?

Since rational discussion is beyond Publius,

Frankly, Jeff your argument that started this thread is superficial and silly, and no amount of handwaving can change that.

LT, of course it is commendable that Jeff and Kari run an open forum. Althought it must also be said that contrary viewpoints and disputes lend value to the property in the form of extra page views. The main point I made, however, was about the content of their comments and the substance of their views which has nothing to do with running a soon to be less open forum.

A google search for like DLC suspects will show you Kari has expressed support for Evan Bayh, former DLC-director (and his company has worked for him). And Jeff is apparently blissfully ignorant of Obama's actual policy history --- not surprising because his entire theme here is fundamentally about empty image over substance. I had tried to post a longer item with more URLs to info about Obama's actual history (and amusingly, his close ties with Lieberman, his political mentor) but the spam filter wouldn't let it through. So here are just two articles: One for those who seem to thing the blogosphere/netroots are reality, the other (a bit older but still relevant) is for those who read old-fashioned progressive dead-tree literature:

LIEB 101 at The University of Iowa: The Obama Strategy to Build the Progressive Movement http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011631.php

Obama: As He Rises, He Falls http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20060508&s=cockburn

Jeff is correct though that Obama and Merkley have much in common. Merkley is the pick of the DSCC because he is far more politically in step with them than the Progressive Caucus. Furthermore, The current tiff between Obama and Clinton really is no more than an intrafaction dispute between the pro-corporate faction of the Democratic Party represented by the DLC/DSCC/DCCC. If one were use as a measure the ideological distance between the DLC/DSCC/DCCC and the Progressive Caucus, the DLC/DSCC/DCCC would be indistinguishable as a single antipode to the PC. Those are facts starry-eyed, "rational discussion" Jeff (I think he is re-defining words here in his muddled way of thinking again) can't run away from.

A version of the Cockburn piece in The Nation is available on his own website:

Obama's Game http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04242006.html

Three things I've gained from the above exchanges: One: there's a lot of very serious thought represented, and it's very good progressives are engaged in same; Two: The willingness and ability of most of the commentators to speak to each other's opinions rather than at each other greatly encourages me; Three "Publius" (whoever he is), in addition to lacking the courage of his convictions sufficient to reveal his identity, has WAY too much time on his hands. (I assume a him, since Publius was a Roman name for a male.)