Yep. The biggest question is does Obama believe the crap that he's selling? If so he's a fool. If not, he's a cynical liar.

Not sure which is worse.

One of my biggest qualms about Obama has been this exactly, the fear that he believes the repubs will play nice. And I really like Edwards best.

But I've been thinking about it. It's possible that Obama knows full well that the GOPers in DC are beyond reach; I hope he sees it, it's been obvious for like at least 15 years now.

But maybe he's appealing to regular, non-wingnut republican voters -- over the heads of the DC politicos. Maybe he's painting a picture that those repub voters actually find plausible and attractive. So this "hopeful" imagery then wouldn't be some unrealistic and naive wish that DC republicans just roll over. Rather, it's that the more centrist and apolitical GOP voters (believe me, I'm in upstate new york and there are plenty of them here) would be inspired by his words and images...

A famous boxer once said that everyone has a plan... until he gets hit in the face.

Mr. Obama has never really been hit in the face. That's when we'll see the real fighter.

Seriously, there's little to worry about (although then the legitimate concern that any politician will let us down). Why? Because you need to look at his history. This isn't Jay Rockefeller. This is someone who has worked very hard to get difficult things done.

Secondly, while any candidate can expect sleaze from the Republican machine, it doesn't have to be effective. And ultimately, it's not the sleaze that derails an agenda, it's having less than 60 votes in the Senate. No Republican will lose an election because he reflexively opposed everything Clinton wants. The same will not be true of Obama, in part because of the campaign he's run, in part because of who he is. In other words, some Republicans will worry that they'll pay a price for not working with him (and that's where you get the 60 votes).

And speaking of sleaze, look what's happened with the relatively mild Clinton attacks. They've worked against Clinton. That's not by accident. That's called smart campaigning.

Oops. That should be "other than the legitimate concern that any politician will let us down."

I'm pretty sure he experienced significant Republican push-back in the ethics reform fights.

In the end, his campaign is about bringing more people into the Democratic tent and getting larger majorities in the House and Senate. If he can do that, he can accomplish real change. And who knows, maybe he can't. But does anyone seriously believe Hillary can?

Ryan Scott:
Where did this 60 votes in the Senate come from? Obama doesn't need 60 votes. He needs a combination of sweet talk(like LBJ did to Dirksen to help get the Civil Rights Act passed), or straight out muscle(meaning that he'll campaign for the guy's opponent next election). The Republicans in Congress have to know there is a price to pay for obstructionism.

Maybe if Hillary Clinton hadn't leaped to her feet to applaud George Bush when he claimed "the surge" was working and "all the terrorists know it" and Obama hadn't remained seated, I might not be inclined to laugh out loud when I'm subjected to this naive Krugmanesque furrowing of the brow at Obama's cunning political rhetoric.

Joe K's c:

I don't necessarily mean 60 Democrats, although the closer we get to that figure the better. (And I think Obama helps in that regard as well.)

I'm assuming there will still be some recalcitrant Republicans, but that Obama could shake more loose than Clinton.

And while Clinton might actually be more like LBJ in the muscle category, I think times have changed, and the president's ability to arm twist members of the other party is greatly diminished.

Jean:
Obama didn't get serious push back at all. Hell, he worked with "Crazy" Coburn of Oklahoma. The nuttiest of wing-nuts.

Anyone remember McCain's 'know thy place' towards Obama from 2006?

I think Obama's smarter than the kumbaya rhetoric, though it would be nice not to have to do all the fracking exegesis.

There's an alternative scenario should Obama end up the nominee: I'm not sure how much the campaign's tenor will inoculate him against standard GOP sleaze, but I also get the feeling that there'd be some carry-over. I'd certainly expect to see a small but steady stream of state party functionaries n-bomb themselves out of the campaign.

I think he's using the rhetoric of 100% to build a majority of 55-60% instead of a majority of 50%+1 or 48% + 5 (2000). And that will lend him a political legitimacy that Clinton never had... political capital, if you will... Even Bush didn't have it except due to 9/11.

JK'sC is right. Obama's plan is to make opposing him (and other progressives) on domestic issues as politically dangerous as opposing Bush on security issues right after 9/11.

He's inviting them to sit at the table..but here's the thing..their game for the last 20 years has been to try and lob bombs at that table. For them to sit at the table means that they admit it's validity.

And if they keep with the status quo they fall even further into a minority. It's a very shrewd game that Obama is playing.

And frankly, I think he might be able to pull it off.

But maybe he's appealing to regular, non-wingnut republican voters -- over the heads of the DC politicos. Maybe he's painting a picture that those repub voters actually find plausible and attractive. So this "hopeful" imagery then wouldn't be some unrealistic and naive wish that DC republicans just roll over.

Of course that's what he's doing: going after those voters that make up the difference between the percentage of people who support Democratic policies (anywhere from a small majority to 70%, depending on the issue) and those who have been voting for Democrats (never more than a bare majority). That's a lot of people, and the GOP knows it, even if Democrats don't.

This whole scared, cynical formulation is getting old, Ezra, and it's a huge strategic error. There's a potential realignment happening where large swaths of the Republican center are willing to be lopped off. If people with your instincts were running things you'd sit, scared in your trench for four years lobbing artillery.

The real situation is the enemy is battered, demoralized, supply lines are cut off, and we need a leader who recognizes this and leads the charge to exploit the opening. Not doing so is admitting you don't really have the right ideas, and the right tactics, and gives them chance to regroup and rebuild.

What do you bloggers have against Obama? You guys don't qualm about how both Clinton's have sold out the left to promote their own (and the DLC's) interests. You guys don't qualm when Edwards made the political move (caculation) to run to left though he never showed any inclination or any history of doing so in his run for the NC senate in '98 or in his presidential and VP bid in '04. He was a DLC darling but when it comes to Obama's rhetoric it's like he's committing the ultimate sin in your eyes. There is "concern and doubt". Well, get off it it. I'm starting to have concern and doubt about you! There is no doubt Obama is a liberal. His record in Illinois and in Senate proves it. He has not shrieked or dismissed progressive or liberal ideas nor has he ran from the label (remember Hillary's "moderate progressive" label in the debate). There is a reason why Ted endorsed Obama over the rest. He, like Obama, feels it's time to take the party back.

OK, what keeps McCain or Romney from making the exact same pitch? What the Repubs are going to want to do is blur the policy differences between them and Obama. Obama is playing right into that by focusing on bipartisanship. McCain can say he doesn't just talk about working with people on the other side of the aisle, he has actually done it. Where is Obama's equivalent of McCain-Feingold?

Lordy, lordy, lordy. Obama is a 46-year-old graduate of Harvard law school who's been in local (Chicago, at that), state and federal politics for years. He's not stupid and he's not naive. He will not be shocked when the average Republican doesn't love him.

Look, I'm all for "new paradigms" and drastic realignments... but that's not what's hapening this election. It's likely that many of the hardest conservatives will simply stay home, and that the Republican candidate will have a hard time knitting together a coalition... but that's not a whole sale realigment where Democratic ideas suddenly become everyone's preferred choice. You will always - always have some portion fof the room at the SOTU that's not on board, that won't applaid every proposal and won't agree with every assessment. Obama's asking, in his note, for us to believe something that isn't real... and use that as the criteria for choosing him. That's a recipe for a sincere letdown, once when people show they're not on board, and later, when an Obama has to make compromises to get some, but not all, of what he wants. Democrats are terrible at acepting these half loaves, which, indeed, explains much of the retroactive dismay with the nineties and Bill Clinton, where Democrats now deride the kind of compromise that got budgets balanced, improved our economy and kept us in a time of relative peace and prosperity. I don't need rosy scenarios of applause, I (still) need the man to talk about whta he wants to do, how he pland=s to go about doing it, and why it matters. Later, if it all works, it's possible more people will come round to our way of thinking. but first, we have to actually do things. That matters more than the applause in that room.

Maybe he's just advocating that we go in with the assumption that the other guys are obstructionist bastards who will never negotiate in good faith, much less work for the country's common interest.

Not that the latter isn't true, but it's also self-reinforcing.

Obama's plan is to make opposing him (and other progressives) on domestic issues as politically dangerous as opposing Bush on security issues right after 9/11.

I hope you're right, because that's exactly what a Democratic president ought to do. This is the only kind of 'bipartisanship' that's worth trying for - essentially, the flipside of G.W. Bush bipartisanship: join us or else.

But it's not clear to me whether there's any particular reason to believe that this is, indeed, Obama's "plan." I've been hearing this for a while now: don't worry, it's all part of a master plan, Obama has no intention of being bipartisan just for the sake of it. But how do you know that? What reason do we have to suppose that Obama doesn't actually believe the Kumbaya bullshit?

I'm really asking. I think it would erase a lot of doubts that a lot of people have about him. G.W. Bush said he was a "uniter, not a divider," and then proceeded to do whatever the hell he wanted, unity be damned, which if I were a wingnut I would have been thrilled about. Is Obama doing the same thing? If so, great. Because I have a hard time with a candidate who looks at the current political landscape, where progressive policies enjoy overwhelming popular support, and says, Now is the time for compromise.

Obama is a 46-year-old graduate of Harvard law school who's been in local (Chicago, at that), state and federal politics for years. He's not stupid and he's not naive. He will not be shocked when the average Republican doesn't love him.

Thank you, ostap, for articulating my sentiments before I had a chance to type them. Good grief, people, ever read a raft of law books? Ever taken a bar exam? Ever been editor-in-chief of a major Ivy League law school's law review?

It is a constant source of amazement to me that readers, commenters, and bloggers (yes, on both sides) keep perpetuating these "Obama is an innocent...Obama won't know what to do with the Republican attacks...Obama has this glowing vision of unity but he really doesn't understand how things work in DC" memes.

And it is a constant source of amusement to me that so many of you think you're so much smarter than he.

Please.

Okay, litbrit, but then what are we to do with what the man says, especially when it sounds as deliberately naive and overly optimistic as what Ezra cites? I'm with you on having no use for the "Obambi" dismissals of Obama... but it's frustratng when there's little else to use to evaluate his candidacy. It's not wanting to be smarter than him - I'm surely not - but I want to see the brilliance that I've been promised... which are not readily apparent in this "can't we all just get along" presentation.

No way should anyone be allowed to deflect any and all questions about Obama as a candidate or potential president by pointing to the fact that he's a smart guy, that he went to Harvard law, etc.

First of all, some perspective: no one thinks that Obama is some kind of genius. The EIC position is mostly a matter of politics, not brilliance. Obama graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude, which is obviously extremely impressive but nonetheless places him below the absolute upper echelon. He's not a law professor, he hasn't published any significant scholarship. I don't say these things to denigrate him, just to point out that he's no H.L.A. Hart.

But even if he were, I fail to see how this would serve to pacify our fears regarding his effectiveness as a politician. The idea that attending and doing well at Harvard Law would somehow mean that he doesn't suffer from any political blindspots is truly bizarre.

I've known plenty of people with academic credentials much more impressive than Obama's, and guess what: some of them are pretty goddamned stupid about a whole lot of things. Academic success requires a very narrow kind of skill set which shares little in common with the skill set necessary to succeed as a politician.

I'm not trying to call Obama stupid by any means. But the fact that he's a smart guy entails very little about him as a politician. Ask Al Gore.

Yep. The statement you quote above is fluff, but the fellow *thrived* in Chicago politics.

His Reagan analysis the other day was on-point: you need the votes. Don't get mad, get even, and more. That was also the substance of the NH quote a few weeks back:

"You can walk into a room with a sunny disposition, you can smile and say "Yes sir," "No sir," "Yes ma'am," and "No ma'am," and if they don't agree with you, you've got the votes, and you will beat them. And you can do it with a smile on your face...."

Some commenters with poor reading skills took this to be about winning by smiling. It's not.

--

And weboy, there is plenty out there on Obama's records. i used to give links, but I am increasingly doubtful that these questions are raised in good faith. Go to the wikipedia page on him, and follow the links.

Most of what I've read here is mostly the stupidest, most ignorant commentary I've ever seen on this website--really an insult to Ezra. Look at Obama's track record--his full track record.

The man started out as a community organizer in one of the worst, most ground-down neighborhoods in the U.S. He went on to the state legislature, where he won the support of the _police_ for legislation supporting the video taping of full interrogations of suspects.

And you ignorant fools think he's naive? You think he's a Kumbaya sell-out? If you value your intellectual integrity and honesty at all, stop masturbating, and use both hands to pull your heads out of your asses.

I normally try to avoid the ad-hominem, profane stuff, but most of these comments are dangerously ignorant. For instance, Jason C., Obama was indeed a law professor--adjunct faculty at the University of Chicago.

I feel like I'm dealing with a bunch of surly high-school students who are trying to bluff their way out of revealing that they didn't do their homework.

Obama just trounced the most popular Democratic ex-president in history by letting the ex-president do most of the damage to himself. This will be part of his strategy for coopting some Republicans. Think of it this way - a lot of liberals are worried that something like the Muslim thing will rear its head "Swift Boat" style and poor old Kumbaya Obama will go fetal. But, the Republican nominee won't have the same concern - McCain supporters aren't lying awake at night worrying that the Dems will claim he sired a black baby out of wedlock. In fact,if the GOP nominee is prone to dirty tricks, he might even allow a supporter to spread some slur about him and attribute it to the Ameica-hating, soldier-hating, LGBT-loving Dems in order to trigger a backlash. Why are libs fearful of slurs while Republicans will welcome them? Because liberals are the Other, and our candidates have been afraid to come right out and articulate a coherent vision of what they want to do for the country, preferring instead to put policies first and hope that people who like the policies will vote for a candidate they don't particularly like or even know that well. This is the way Kerry ran, and the way Hillary ran before she "found her voice."

Obama is doing it differently - putting principles first and trying to convince people that the policies he advocates are the natural outgrowth of those principles. As our politcs are currently configured, Obama's policies and principles are "liberal," but from 1932 to 1964, they were considered mainstream, and even Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon paid some fealty to them (the modern conservative movement began partly in response to Ike and Dick's alleged "liberalism").

Put another way -just as Obama is a black candidate who transcends "race," he's also the "liberal" candidate who trancends "liberalism", particularly as the quoted terms have been defined by the noise machine.

Make no mistake, some conservatives will pull out all the stops to take him down, and no sentient being would dispute that in doing so they will have no compunction about landing any blow, no matter how low. If Obama is successful, these attacks will hurt the attackers more than they hurt him. If he's not successful at this and the attacks resonate like they did in 2004, it seems he's still better positioned than Hillary to deal with them. He'd be the guy who offered a truce in the mindless, soul-killing, country-endangering culture wars, only to be rebuffed by people more invested in division than the good of the country. He can say, "you had your chance and you blew it. We'll enact our agenda without you."

"We'll enact our agenda without you" seems to be what Krugman (and sometimes Ezra) want. They may be right, but we're not going to lose this chance just because we give decent conservatives of good will a chance to be heard. We're much more likely to lose it if we perpetuate the divisions and hope that this time we're on the winning side of a 50/50 divide.

For instance, Jason C., Obama was indeed a law professor--adjunct faculty at the University of Chicago

Obama was not a law professor. Haven't we been over this before?

stop masturbating, and use both hands to pull your heads out of your asses.

That's not very unifying language. WWOD?

Clearly there is nothing in Obama's background that prepares him for irrational hatred. After his Impeachment he will have terrible approval ratings and his VP won't even win the popular vote in the next election.

"Why are libs fearful of slurs while Republicans will welcome them?"

because the ownership of the mainstream media are repubs

I keep coming back to the media's wanting Obama as the democratic candidate and NOT wondering why

Our most academically accomplished president? Woodrow Wilson.

Was he a great president? He did some very good things, but overall, certainly not.

Intelligence is good, but it's not as if Obama's two competitors are dummies. This is not a valid reason to support him.

"Yep. The biggest question is does Obama believe the crap that he's selling? If so he's a fool. If not, he's a cynical liar."

Exactly. Which is why the Obamabots piss me off as much as the Ron Paul idiots. They spam every thread and refuse to engage in real discussion, primarily attacking (in often vicious ad hominem terms that are certainly ironic) anyone who doubts the wonder that is Obama. Indeed, while I intellectually have no doubt that Obama would be far preferable to any Republican candidate, his supporters rile me so that I often emotionally view him almost as negatively as McCain, et al.

His bipartisanship really is nonsense. The current Republican party, by conviction and chosen operating principles, simply is never going to engage in meaningful compromise that will advance a progressive agenda (assuming the rightward pandering Obama proposes one). The Obama ccharm is not going to move a single Republican vote. I agree that if Obama's margin of victory, coupled with Dem gains in the Senate, is large enough, a few sane moderate Republicans may fear their re-election sufficiently to engage in good faith compromise. But the number of sane, moderate Republicans is incredibly small--after Collins and Smith (who hopefully will be gone next year), Snowe, and maybe Spector (who usually just talks sane), the Republican Senate caucus is primarily composed of right wing zealots. Obama ain't moving Coburn or DeMent, or Inhofe; the vast majority of the caucus are true believers. (An aside, the media refuses to report on the incredible rightward movement of the "center". This bunch makes the Senate Republicans of my childhood--late Eisenhower/JFK/LBJ years--look like SDS). Further, depending on the issue, don't necesarily count on the votes of Dinos like Nelson, Baucus, Lincoln, Pryor or, of course, old faithful Joementum.

I guess this is more a criticism of Obama supporters than Obama. Though I am not particularly happy with his method of campaigning (and I won't vote for him in my 2/5 primary), I have no reservations in strongly supporting him if he wins the nomination. However, I wish, just once, some of his supporters would acknowledge that there is at least a debate to be had that Obama's campaign is either naive and somewhat pandering to the right, or just as cold bloodedly calculated as anything they accuse Clinton of.

Am I the only one who thinks this bit from Obama was a slick but otherwise unremarkable piece of rhetoric about how bad Bush is?

Not "oh, how sad that the Democrats don't applaud the SOTU"... but, look, we have a crappy president who doesn't even try to represent the whole country, and only his own party can even pretend to like the bullshit that just came out of his mouth. So wouldn't it be nice if we had one who at least made sense and could be talked to. Yes, it's probably giving Republicans too much credit to assume that this would really improve relations in Congress, but why isn't it a good goal?

I personally don't doubt that Obama thinks he has a secret plan etc. I just don't think it's going to work.

The fact that it worked (sort of) for Bush is irrelevant. Republicans and Democrats do not operate under the same rules. Republicans don't want to actually accomplish anything with the federal government, outside of perhaps the military. Their goal is always to destroy or subvert government programs. When that's your goal, you can operate using pure subterfuge and obfuscation. The last thing you want is for the general public to actually be tuned into the details of the issues at stake or the identities of the competing interests.

Democrats are not in the same position. If you want to accomplish something with the federal government, you need the issues and the "sides" to be well-defined. It doesn't matter that a large majority of the electorate may support your goals. A large majority of the electorate supported health care in 1994 too. If Republicans can't muster up opposition to your proposal as it really is, they'll do it by simply flat-out lying about what your proposal says and then mustering opposition to that. Once these situations arise, the fact that the people are with you on the merits is meaningless. If you want to win, you have to do two things: First, prepare the public for exactly what you plan to do, so that you're immunized as much as possible against distortions. Second (and more important), once the distortions start flying, define ("demonize"?) the other side by publicly tying them to the unpopular organizations and interests that are really behind them. Obama hasn't been doing the former, and I seriously doubt that he has any intention of doing the latter.

On that note, I think Obama's positive experience in the Illinois state legislature is, if anything, a bad thing. State government is just really different from the federal government.

In state legislatures, ideology and long-term political strategizing nearly always take a back seat to incumbent protection, constituent service, and pork. You can always negotiate with people like that, no matter how "conservative" they might be. There isn't enough at stake in terms of dollars or TV time for pure ideology to jump into the drivers' seat.

The federal government is a different ballgame. Republican legislators don't just want what they want, they are foot soldiers in a larger movement with a long-term political strategy. They take orders. If you try to win them over by appealing to their rational self-interest as representatives of their districts, you are completely missing the boat. That might work on a few small-bore issues, but on the big issues that a president will get involved in, Republican legislators are in this to serve the interests of the conservative movement writ large and there is no compromising with that. Remember Bill Kristol's memo on health care in 1994.

Uh huh. He's not black enough, he's way too black. He's not Christian enough, he's too Christian and the wrong kind. He's too liberal, hold the phone he's the new Reagan. He's too naive, he's too calculating and interested in compromise.

.

Marlowe, I got no idea who you've been talking to or where you've been hanging out. Every adult I've talked to understands that Obama is a cautious centrist, understands that his effort to run a campaign appealing to centrists has its dangers, understands that if elected he will inevitably disappoint us in some ways. Obama if you pay attention understands these things too. And of course you don't get your way with people just by being nice to them. See my previous post.

The strategy if pretty simple. Rather than trying to do the Rove thing and get into office with a narrow majority, try for the kind of realignment that Reagan achieved. Try to bring a ton of new voters out who will vote in other races. Try to be competitive in a lot of states. Will it work? Beats me, but it's coherent.

Obama has also crafted a language that addresses a bunch of traumas for nation (and party) going back decades. I won't deny that many of us who remember those traumas are touched by this at a fundamental level. I've wept. I won't pretend this is entirely rational but I'm not gonna apologize for it either. And I'm happy to affirm that reasonable people can support other candidates. There. You happy?

barack obama knows very well how to work with people and get things done.
he is staving off the two pronged, vituperative attacks of the clintons, while garnering the support of one of the most influential members of the senate, being embraced by the intelligent and wise daughter of one of our most beloved presidents and mobilizing and inspiring hundreds of thousands of new voters!!!!
....he surely knows how to deal with people and complex situations!!!
he is walking the walk and delivering to the american people already!!

imagine the excitement and good will there will be for him in europe and around the world!!!!
it is thrilling to consider!!
ye of little faith!

www.barackobama.com]
be the change you wish to see!

"He's too liberal."

If only; I've not heard that one.

"Negotiation ... assumes parties more anxious to agree than to disagree."

-Dean Acheson

I'm sure Obama is very good at "working with people" and "getting things done" when said people are reasonable individuals who are operating in good faith.

He won't find any of those in the GOP.

Some of you seem to have a certain picture in mind wherein Congress and the political establishment is composed of people who are all basically trying to look out for the general welfare of the American people but who have differing ideas about how to do that.

This could not be further from the truth.

Most GOPers, and a substantial number of Democrats, are there precisely to sabotage any attempts at progressive reform. This isn't a conspiracy theory; they'll tell you as much on their goddamn websites. Even the Great Obama cannot reason with these people, because you can't reason with someone who has different ends - not only different, but mutually exclusive as well.

These people have no interest in "working together" or "getting things done," at least not the kind of things we want to have done. (I'm sure they would be perfectly willing to work with Obama on a nice upper-class tax cut.) Their very raison d'etre is to stand in the way of progress. You don't negotiate with the Tsar; you depose him! (We can spare Mitch McConnell's family, though.)

You don't negotiate with the Tsar; you depose him!

Are you suggesting armed rebellion?

"you dont negotiate with the Tsar; you depose him!

sadam hussein.
that strategy sure worked out well for us!

The strategy if pretty simple. Rather than trying to do the Rove thing and get into office with a narrow majority, try for the kind of realignment that Reagan achieved. Try to bring a ton of new voters out who will vote in other races. Try to be competitive in a lot of states. Will it work? Beats me, but it's coherent.

Yes, but Reagan campaigned hard on policy issues. He was blunt in his harsh criticism of the traditional positions of the Democratic party. And Reagan was an extremely partisan figure. He wasn't selling some nebulous fantasy about everybody getting along. He was running a highly ideological campaign that made explicit promises to roll back the other side's policies. Reagan, in short, was able to take the White House and the Senate because he convinced millions of voters that the other side was wrong.

I think few people wouldn't welcome more comity and cordiality in our politics. It certainly wouldn't hurt the country to have in place leaders would could get together for a drink after a long day of spiritedly trying to get their own policy preferences enacted. So, I'm all for kinder, gentler partisanship. But give me partisanship all the same.

Uh, did anybody note Obama leaping to applaud Bush when threatened Iran? That's the real story of last night and another reason not to trust this man.

Oh, and Kos is clearly a mole for Republicans, what with his latest insult to his readership if they dared question the veracity of the NH election. And his is the guy who claims he's a progressive crashing the gate? He's a libertarian bully and he's typicaly wrong. Trust him at your peril. The sooner this Chevron-whore is out of politics, the better.

Are you suggesting armed rebellion?

No no no. I was just drawing an analogy.

sadam hussein. that strategy sure worked out well for us!

This only makes sense if you actually think the invasion of Iraq was about WMD, UN resolutions, no-fly zones, or any of that other bullshit.

But vis-a-vis Saddam, it worked out rather well in the sense that the Americans, and not Saddam, ended up in control of the country.

The problem was that it was a booby trap.

jj - conservatives have been testing the "he's too liberal" line out, I'd guess as a straw to hold onto (David Frum, over at National Review, made this explicit); I'd agree it tends to belie the fact that from a policy standpoint, Clinton and Obama are actually not that far apart, nor are either of them by any stretch the most liberal of viewpoints out there *a small, stifled sob for Dennis Kucinich, who I wanted to voted for*. I agree Obama's gotten tagged from all sides on a number of fronts... but I still think a lot of this could be solved if - rather than constantly saying "it's on his website" - Obama would simply deal in specifics of the change he wants and not the vague notion that change is good and we should all come together. Because I don't have a problem with any of that... it's just not enough.

Thanks, weboy; I must have missed that one in the din.

Let me point out the obvious. The argument seems to be that Obama is not used to being disliked and so wouldn't know what to do when he encounters this dislike. Well, the Clintons obviously don't like him and he doesn't seem to have fallen over in a faint.

Also, if he makes it through the general election he'll definitely have encountered plenty of Republican hate along the way. So I find all this 'worry' about Obama's delicate nature to be rather laughable.

And even if he truly is like you think I see no reason why he wouldn't simply adapt to the new reality when things don't go his way. He doesn't seem like the insecure type. Nobody becomes president without a healthy dose of arrogance.

Reagan campaigned as the conservative candidate emphasizing a dramatic increase in the military budget and supply-side tax cuts. For all his good humor, Reagan was an extremely partisan figure. Reagan's mandate was policy based, Obama's mandate would be process based.

Hope, change and unity can mean anything and can easily be co-opted by right. Obama may help Dem Senate candidates by increasing turnout but a Republican candidate for an open seat can obviously campaign on many of Obama's themes.

There is a chance Obama could begin aggressively laying out his progressive policy proposals once he wins the nomination. Running to the right in the primary and moving left in the general would be unprecedented however.