Well, that's all good to hear.

But the concern I still have about Obama -- and that I'll have until he becomes president and passes all sorts of wonderful progressive proposals, whereupon I'll regard him as the Messiah -- is that nobody in my lifetime has gotten anything huge through Congress by inspiring and persuading people. And frankly, I find it hard to see how our media environment allows for inspiration and persuasion to work on a national level, when you're trying to get 60 Senators to slap the health insurance lobby in the face.

The only gigantic new initiative I've seen get through Congress was the Iraq War. And so the theory of change that I embrace goes like this: whip up the American public into some kind of hysteria over an issue until Senators fear to stand in their way and yours. Then you can pass big legislation.

What I loved about Edwards' plan to take away health care from Congress if they didn't pass Universal Health Care was that it fit into a public hysteria-inducing media strategy. Just as Democrats feared looking like wusses over the war in 2002, Edwards was ready to make Republicans fear looking like leeches over health care in 2009. He had a good idea about how to generate the emotional climate in which fundamental health care reform could pass.

From all I've seen, that doesn't seem to be the path Obama wants to follow. And even if Obama's putting a little more punchy in his rhetoric, he's far from making his efforts punchy enough.

Again, if Obama can get things done through inspiration and persuasion, he's the Messiah. Lions laying down with lambs, etc. But I've only seen this thing done one way before, and I don't like to bet on miracles.

Neil, it's funny you should mention the Iraq War in your trolling because, and correct me if I'm wrong, it was to some degree an Edwards job that whipped the country into a frenzy over Iraq.

He co-sponsored the bill, spoke in public about the wonders of democracy in Iraq, etc.

You should be more careful in your trolling.

Question about the Congressional health care thing...I felt like I read that was Edwards was talking about was illegal. Is this true? If so, it seems odd to cite that as a way to whip up the masses.

An Neil, he's not just inspiring people...he's organizing them and getting them involved. I would think that you, who I assume would like to see the Democratic/Progressive movement expanded, would appreciate that kind of work. I know Obama is not your candidate (it's long been known you're an Edwards guy) and I totally appreciate your devotion to him, but I tend to think that Obama's goals are more in line with what progressives want more than some people want to think (though I admit his health care plan doesn't go as far as Edwards' or Clinton's).

What I find much more exciting is that Obama's advisors clearly are interested in privatizing Social Security and I think he has the passion and the presence to sell it to the American people. We could be on the brink of seeing real change in the political geography of the USA.

Meh, instead of speculating as to what Obama may want to do with SS, you should be pumping everyone up over John Edwards' demonstrated interest in starting wars.

I'm surprised I don't see more posts about that. It's awesome! John Edwards loves democracy promotion (that's the euphemism, right?).

You can do the Congressional health care thing in an entirely legal way if your bill is effective at the beginning of the next Congressional term. According to Cass Sunstein, it's unclear whether it's legal if you don't. Certainly, you can't do it without legislation of some kind, or without wielding a veto pen.

The idea, though, is to use the legislation basically as a way of framing the debate. It establishes that government health care is a good thing and that people who want to keep you away from it are self-serving leeches.

Organizing and involving people is definitely a nice thing to do, Mike. And after Iowa, I'm really impressed.

But lack of involvement from young people well-disposed to liberalism has never really been the downfall of progressive reform.

Neil right on. Progressive reform doesn't require young people.

But you know what does, foreign wars. So John Edwards asks everyone to keep on having babies because Iraq ain't going to occupy itself.

Bashing Edwards over the Iraq vote rings kind of hollow in light of the fact that

(a) he has vehemently repudiated his vote; and

(b) Obama, despite his initial opposition to the war, has repeatedly voted to continue it.

Sorry, but Obama has no credibility attacking Edwards over Iraq.

Vehemently repudiated! KA-BOOM! You really dropped the hammer there.

He has clearly made up for the fact that he has piss poor judgment by admitting that he has piss poor judgment four years after it became clear.

As I said, KA-BOOM!

He has clearly made up for the fact that he has piss poor judgment by admitting that he has piss poor judgment four years after it became clear.

If you want to argue that the Iraq vote indicates that Edwards does not possess good judgment, fine. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's a legitimate argument.

You, on the other hand, were arguing that Edwards's Iraq vote indicates that he will continue to advocate for more Iraq-like wars. That's a completely different argument, and an extremely implausible one.

And you fail to address the fact that Obama has continued to enable the war this whole time.

Hmm you do realize many of those kids will probably be 18 by Nov. 7? Right?

Edwards in 2004
:
I would have voted for the resolution, knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein.

Does that pretty much settle the argument? Argument over, right? That's in 2004.

Does that pretty much settle the argument? Argument over, right? That's in 2004.

It settles an argument that you are having with someone who lives inside your head.

You must have the bar set really low for a president's judgment because that statement, in 2004, shows. . .well, a lack of it.

Neil,
Ok, that's interesting about the health care thing. Not sure if I agree, but it's certainly a novel idea.

And I know Obama's plan doesn't get us all the way to "health care for everyone" (TM), but it gets us closer and I don't know if we can be so certain that we CAN get universal care at this moment. There's a def. a swell for something, but for what exactly, I don't think it's clear. I am an Obama backer and I tend to this his plan is more politically viable than some of the others out there. I should also say I am broadly supportive of real and affordable access and care for all. I just wonder if progressives might be misreading the moment a bit. If we go for the whole thing again and miss...then what? We probably don't get another real shot it (maybe ever). I don't know...basically, I'm torn. I see merits to both arguments.

Hey .. guess what not all of us want universal health care for all.. even those of us that happen to lack it at the moment. His is the least nannylike of all the proposals so far, so I like it marginally better.

The health care denial idea from Edwards makes a good sound byte, but doesnt fly in reality. Congress could easily beat him to the punch and score political points at the same time.

Lets remember these guys in the congress make a fair sum of money, that they're happy to tell you about when claiming they still remember how it to be an average joe.

So they drop the special congressional program for health care, as an enlightened act of getting back to basics. (haha) Of course on the back side they just write a check to the nearest health insurer (who likely heavily discounts it on the side. *cough*). No sweat off their back, and they still dont have to take on the morass that is health care.

The argument that Edwards has bad judgement for voting for the war sticks pretty well with me. He not only voted for it, but promoted it. He believed.

There is no way for a relatively new senator (obama) to be one of what 2-3 senators making consistant no votes on the funding bill and expect to succeed at anything else.

Kucinich, an experienced rep has done it, and how well has that played? ..he didnt exactly burn up the caucuses. Attempts at cutting off funding by Obama wouldnt have worked, and would have labeled him forever more as not supporting the troops. That may not be likable, but its the truth at the moment.

The fastest way to end the war, is to elect a democratic president. ...well not really, the war is over. Amend that to say the way to end the occupation.

Bashing Edwards over the Iraq vote rings kind of hollow in light of the fact that (a) he has vehemently repudiated his vote

That means very little. What would mean something is if he actually took a political risk over Iraq, such as by leading demonstrations or calling for the funding to be immediately cut off.

His vote murdered 3,800 brave American servicemembers. Saying he was sorry doesn't even start to atone for that.

calling for the funding to be immediately cut off.

He was calling for Congress to cut off funding as per the Reid-Feingold bill.

Neil: He was calling for Congress to cut off funding as per the Reid-Feingold bill

Has he yet explained why he co-sponsored the bill that gave us the Iraq War?

Has he explained why he went to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 2002 to make a speech that essentially called for a war in Iraq?

You know, the Obama cultists make me wish for Paultards in their place.

But the aspirational appeal to the young -- the ones without mortgages and chronic health problems, for whom the grinding shit of life is still a way away -- is pretty interesting.

Obama isn't yet comfortable with meeting the grinding shit of life face-on, and the people who order us to bow at his feet on comment boards seem to express a more, um, pathological form of it.

pseudonymous in nc: You know, the Obama cultists make me wish for Paultards in their place.

Yea, all those fuckers who opposed the war in Iraq. Bastards.

Of course Edwards wants all those soldiers coming back from Iraq with one leg to have health care, so we can forgive him for helping to send those same kids to Iraq.

63% of US casualties in Iraq have occurred since Obama was sworn into the Senate. But remember Obama was against the war before he was for continuing it.

Reality: 63% of US casualties in Iraq have occurred since Obama was sworn into the Senate. But remember Obama was against the war before he was for continuing it.

You mean like Kerry, but a play on words?!? LOLOLOLOL. For it before he was against it. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Fuckin priceless. I bet , I don't know, Rush Limbaugh used that to great effect a few years ago. Sweet.

But the aspirational appeal to the young -- the ones without mortgages and chronic health problems, for whom the grinding shit of life is still a way away -- is pretty interesting.

Obama isn't yet comfortable with meeting the grinding shit of life face-on,

This is either ignorant or dishonest. OBAMA WAS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WHILE PLANTS WERE CLOSING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO.

You don't much more knee-deep in shit than that.

Unless, of course, you're in one of these threads, listening to vacuous bullshit like your post.

If you're going to be a purist about Iraq, and dismiss Edwards forever because of his 2003 vote - well, it's hard to reconcile that with supporting Obama, who was voted repeatedly to continue funding the war.

Does Obama have a legitimate excuse/reason? Maybe. But if so, it's going to be a familiar appeal to political exigencies. I.e., the same kind of thing that led Edwards to cast his vote in 2003.

Sorry, maybe Kucinich can claim purity on the Iraq question, but Obama cannot.

This is either ignorant or dishonest.

And false dichotomies are either cynical rhetorical manipulation or unconscious stupidity, right?

(Nice selective quoting, btw.)

As someone campaigning for the presidency, which is what Obama is right now, he skirts over what it's like on a daily basis for people who are stuck in life's grind. I know plenty about his past work; I don't hear him communicate that on a personal level, which is odd, since he's a masterful writer about his own life.

It's a contrast in rhetoric. I think it's particularly appealing to people for whom the big defining elements of their lives -- long-term partner, long-term home, long-term job -- are not yet settled. It's the difference between 25 and 35. This isn't to disparage younger voters in the slightest, but a recognition that an aspirational and inspirational narrative melds with those still putting the pieces of their lives together.

Obama addresses life's shitty aspects with an uplifting 'this will pass'. Edwards is talking to people who don't expect life to be a bowl of cherries, but would like it not to be a bowl of rabbit-shit.

(Looking at the Iowa entrance poll, Obama did much better among unmarried voters than married ones; I'd love to see the crosstabs on under-30 / unmarried as we get further into the season.)

"But the concern I still have about Obama -- and that I'll have until he becomes president and passes all sorts of wonderful progressive proposals, whereupon I'll regard him as the Messiah -- is that nobody in my lifetime has gotten anything huge through Congress by inspiring and persuading people."

Maybe that's because the last two national-level Democrats who inspired people got shot. There is a good piece in the Washington Post today about how Obama was able to get his bill requiring the video-taping of police interrogations (Chicago police were known for beating black men into confessing to stuff, sometimes using techniques they used in Vietnam) from a point where it was going to die in the legislature, the police were all against it and the incoming governor said he was going to veto it to a point where it passed the state Senate 35-0. He did that by working with people, helping the police get other things done the wanted in exchange for support, etc. We're just so used to incompetents like Daschle and presidents who didn't know how to get Democratic Congresses to pass their legislation (Carter, Clinton before Gingrich became Speaker) and Reid that we forgot that sometimes you need leadership to get things done. The lack of effective leadership and an ability to inspire people has been one of the biggest weaknesses the Democrats have had since Bobby Kennedy was killed.

"As someone campaigning for the presidency, which is what Obama is right now, he skirts over what it's like on a daily basis for people who are stuck in life's grind. I know plenty about his past work; I don't hear him communicate that on a personal level, which is odd, since he's a masterful writer about his own life.

It's a contrast in rhetoric. I think it's particularly appealing to people for whom the big defining elements of their lives -- long-term partner, long-term home, long-term job -- are not yet settled. It's the difference between 25 and 35. This isn't to disparage younger voters in the slightest, but a recognition that an aspirational and inspirational narrative melds with those still putting the pieces of their lives together.

Obama addresses life's shitty aspects with an uplifting 'this will pass'. Edwards is talking to people who don't expect life to be a bowl of cherries, but would like it not to be a bowl of rabbit-shit."

Guess what, Democrats don't win when they talked like that. Gore may have won the popular vote, but it was by a hair in a country with 300 million people and should have been able to blow a joker like Bush out of the water. Kerry talked the same talk and lost. This isn't the rhetoric that actually moves people in the American system. It doesn't win national elections. This is the same mistake we keep on making. No one wants to think of themselves as economically deprived even if they are. When working people who aren't heavily involved in Democratic politics hear such rhetoric, they hear it as talking down to them. They hear it as Democrats telling them they can't get by without the government. Of course this isn't what Democrats are saying, but this is how it is interpreted. It is also why Edwards has been more popular among white, educated male Democratic activists than with the working class and union members. They often find such anti-rich rhetoric to be bordering on a form of bigotry. When is our party going to learn from its past mistakes? Of course we all wish this rhetoric would work, but you have to use rhetoric to inspire people that actually inspires them, not just rhetoric you think should do that.

Reality, you're a foold. Every time Al Gore talked about the 'people vs the powerful' his support jumped 3-5%. In fact, people explicitly rejected Bradley because of Al gores populist rhetoric. Bill Clinton also won his initial presidential campaign with a populist campaign, even though he abandoned it the moment he was elected. FDR won as a populist. Truman won as a populist. LBJ won as a populist against the wicked pro-war, pro-corporate.

Democrats started LOSING when they abandoned class warfare. there. They started losing when they started looking after corporate interests.

If corporate Dem fucks like you are supporting Obama, then that says everything I need to know about what kind of President he would really be.

Soullite: corporate Dem fucks like you

Right on. Community organizers are the worst breed of corporate Dems. Burn them at the stake.

I didn't say Obama was a corporate Dem you idiotic hack, I said Reality man was.

It's hard to read his 'populists are evil' posts eveyr other day and not come to the conclusion that he's a pro-corporate moron who thinks NAFTA was god's gift to the ruling class and that the rubes should get used to eating dirt.

And no, the words 'community' and 'Organizer' are not magic responses to every question, attack, or inquiry.

A little while ago, Atrios pointed out that Reagan ran a populist campaign. His point could be broadened: almost every successful presidential campaign succeeds because of its populist appeal.

Sometimes this takes the form of right-wing populism, but it's populism nonetheless. Think about the successful campaigns: Nixon, the law-and-order man who would defend Middle America against the leftist intelligentsia. Carter, the hick farmer from Georgia. The aforementioned Reagan. Bush over the "card-carrying member of the ACLU" Dukakis. Hill-billy Clinton over the president who didn't know what a supermarket scanner was. Good ole boy GWB over egghead Al Gore, then over the windsurfing aristocrat.

I've seen a lot of Obama supporters saying that populism is a sure loser, and they couldn't be more wrong. I sure as hell hope Obama's advisers aren't thinking along the same lines, because if they are, they will be quite vulnerable against someone like Huckabee or even Fred Thompson.

Not only can populism win, it's the only thing that can. Appealing to upper-middle class intellectuals might get you the Democratic nomination; it won't get you the presidency.