The reality of Obama is that he's either

a) Someone who doesn't know much about economics and selected some centre-right advisors (Goolsbee, Liebman) who will push for more market-ideology, lower taxes and Social Security privatization because he trusts them personally.

or

b) He knows plenty about economics and he picked these guys because they best sync up with his views.

Either way sort of explains why he attacks other Dems from the right, I guess.

I can't believe liberal bloggers are jumping over a comment about the 50% electorate not being disinclined to vote democrat. Obama does not blame Gore but because of good old Bill, Democrats (yes I know Republicans played his indescitions to the utmost) were automatically behind the 8 bill.
The other Clinton because of this legacy, right or wrong, has by far the most unfavorable. Time to start thinking about what brings in the most votes in not only in general elections but getting more senators elected. For all these talking points, Obama has had as liberal record as anybody else (which was barely mentioned in Krugman's labor union 527 attack that failed to mention that Edwards former campaign manager runs those 527's and he railed against them in the past). Obama and his message is the best way to get this done in terms of votes across the board and make more states blue. A wolf in sheep's clothing so to speak

Ezra, don't you get it? By being the very embodiment of Republican-light, and regurgitating all the Republicans' talking points, he's just a wolf in sheep's clothing! Don't trust your ears, trust the cult of personality!

Voting Record doesn't count I suppose. In addition, the fact that to get a liberal agenda passed is going to by far determined by how many Senators Democrats pick up in November versus any choice btw 3 candidates whose records and proposals are all liberal doesn't matter either. Who do you think most Democrats pols in swing states want running next to them to get in both money and broader support?

For all these talking points, Obama has had as liberal record as anybody else...

Most of that "record" was in the Illinois legislature. What is his "record" dealing with the various powers the federal government possesses to foster economic equality? Because that record is so limited (it started in January of 2005) it certainly seems like a reasonable course of action to pay attention to what Obama is saying now, on the campaign trail. My guess is Obama's GOP talking points are the corollary to Hillary's hawkishness: she does so because of her sex, he does so because of his race. But I could be wrong. Maybe Obama really isn't a liberal on economic affairs. And even if I am right, the prospect of electing a president who uses right-wing economic rhetoric to get elected is unsettling, because it sets up expectations as to what he'll do once he takes the oath of office, and will almost certainly make it harder for him to push a progressive agenda (because of the dreaded charge of "flip-floppery").

One of the emerging storylines of Campaign '08 is so-called hyperpartisanship, the bitter and increasingly divisive conflict between Democrats and Republicans that is said to be fueling cynicism - and apathy - among voters. In Iowa, Barack Obama proclaims that he will transcend partisan cleavages, while John Edwards vows to fight. Meanwhile, thw Washington Post reports that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will meet next week with prominent figures from both parties to encourage the 2008 candidates to form a "government of national unity." But lost in the cries of hyperpartisanship is the undeniable fact the Republican Party is almost exclusively responsible for it, aided and abetted by an "infotainment" media that has transformed politics into theater.

For more details, see:
"That's Entertainment: Hyperpartisanship and Politics as Theater."

It is hard for me to follow why people are getting offended by someone speaking the truth.

Obama did not "go after trial lawyers." He accurately describes how he went into community organizing, when, as the Editor of the Harvard Law Review he could have had any legal job in the country. The idea that pointing out this personal history consitutes "attacking liberals from the right" is incoherent to me.

Nowhere does he say that nominating Al Gore was a mistake or say that John Kerry was divisive. Rather he appeals to the possibility that his candidacy could attract substantial majorities to the Democratic Party.

It's really annoying to be constantly told that I only support Obama because of his "cult of personality." He's my first choice because I think he'd be the best leader on foreign affairs and domestic civil liberties, both because of his past record, and the team of advisors he has around him.

Is he the best of the lot domestically? No, but even so, he's not terrible in that regard Still, we're electing a president, not a prime minister.

We don’t need more heat," he says. "We need more light.

Apparently what we need are more cliches.

Harvard Law leads directly to corporate practice -- not trial practice. Students there routinely waltz into jobs with the biggest corporate firms. HFLS is not known for producing good trial lawyers--probably the opposite.

If he wasn't taking a swipe at Edwards, he'd say 'corporate lawyer', not 'trial lawyer'. When Bush called Kerry a 'Massachusetts Liberal', was he just pointing out the 'truth' that Kerry was in fact a liberal and was in fact from Mass?

"Still, we're electing a president, not a prime minister."

And we're not electing a Queen. Obama is better for the role Princess Diana played -- a very important role, but not Chief Executive.

whoframrudy is right. Both Obama's attack on Trial Lawyers and his attack on Kerry and Gore were premeditated uses of pre-existing rightwing frames. And that is what makes Obama's attacks so disconcerting, his willingness to pick up any right wing rock lying around and throw it if it suits his own advancement.

I think we should vote for the guy who decided to pander to the blogger constituency. Yea us!

Ok, I actually read what Obama said and I can't believe the overreaction by the blogosphere.

Clearly Obama's overall strategy is to make it easier for Republicans currently upset with their party to vote for him. We all know this. He then states this explicitly to Democratic voters as a point on electability. Fine.

Oh, but he's "attacking" Gore and Kerry. Except, of course, he isn't.

Clearly Obama's overall strategy is to make it easier for Republicans currently upset with their party to vote for him.

That's a dumb strategy.

B.O.:

"Although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are."

Republican voters outside of Washington are just as close-minded as Republican operatives in Washington.

If Obama's strategy is to persuade right-wingers not to be right-wingers any more, say hello to President Romney.

Obama pretends to be capable of unifying disparate views by sheer force of his intelligence and post-partison glastnost.

If that's so, why doesn't he start by unifying the Democratic Party and proving he cares more for long-term alliances than a short-term power grab? Clinton is very close to him politically (he is slightly to her right) and whomever wins it makes sense for them to be working together. Edwards is very close to him rhetorically; if he's serious about ethics reform etc. he should be building a relationship with him as well. Character-assassinating your fellow democrats at every opportunity is not a new kind of politics.

Sorry, I do not believe he is a unifier, if he was he would start by building Democratic consensus, not acting as the one-man wrecking ball who swings right or left as it pleases him when he sees someone in his way.

whoframedrudy, Obama is contrasting himself with John Edwards. Both Obama and Edwards are great candidates and would make great candidates.

One reason a person would choose Barack Obama over John Edwards is that Barack Obama has been consistent in his values through his entire adult life. As the editor of the Harvard Law Review he could have had any legal job in the country. He could have clerked in the Supreme Court. He could have made a million dollars a year in a fancy law firm. It points to his values and his character that he chose instead to take a low paying job organizing in poor communities in Chicago.

There is nothing wrong with being a trial lawyer. John Edwards was a good trial lawyer, he made a lot of money and he helped his clients. But even in John Edwards own presentation of his story it required a mid-life crisis triggered by the death of his son for John Edwards to pursue more meaningful work of public service. John Edwards changed from private career to a public one.

When John Edwards tells the story of his own transformation to more meaningful work is he being critical of trial lawyers? Because Edwards' statements about his own career and Obama's statements about his own career seem now to express the same values.

Jason,

It is fine for you to disagree with Obama's strategy, but don't turn around and say he is "attacking" anyone who didn't use that strategy. Ezra and others need to limit their complaints to what they disagree with, not make up stuff. The whole blogosphere seems to think Kerry and Gore were attacked. They were not.

Amen, copithorne. Obama is trying to appeal to independents (not right-wingers--they're hopeless), whereas Edwards seems to be writing them off philosophically, hoping his accent will serve as a substitute. Either tactic might work. I can see advantages and disadvantages with both.

As for Obama's desire to start off a general election campaign without 47% negatives, that's less a slam at Gore and Kerry than at HRC.
And a justifiable one, in my opinion.

Harvard Law leads directly to corporate practice -- not trial practice.

I hope nobody tells that to Morris Dees.

As for Obama's desire to start off a general election campaign without 47% negatives, that's less a slam at Gore and Kerry than at HRC.

bingo.

Politics ain't bean bag.

(Remember Dean and Gephardt?)
Iowa is going to get dirty for the next 48 hours. If you don't like this part of politics, I suggest you avert yer view.

I like both Obama and Edwards. And I think they are both progressive candidates that Dems are lucky to have. The reason things are so contentious on sites like Kos, is precisely because they are both progressive.

In Iowa 4 years ago the Dean and Kucinich people HATED each other because both of their candidates were against the war. In fact, I know a Iowan Deaniac who at a recent get together declared that Edwards was on her list of most hated people after Hitler and Bush because of the deal made between Kucinich-Edwards in the last caucus.)

I understand the scorn for "unity porn" because the campaign hasn't been connecting the dots from unity to getting-things-done the way it really should. It should be trumpeting his death penalty reform in Illinois - very much needed and evidently required a unifier, and anyone who can unify the people on either side of the death penalty debate - and get cops to endorse a law that requires them to videotape interrogations - is someone who deserves our respect, to say the least.

And, as a former trial lawyer, one pertinent thing about them I can tell you - they are not unifiers. They are competitive zero-sum players, because that is their job.

death penalty details:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/obama.death.penalty.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Obama pretends to be capable of unifying disparate views by sheer force of his intelligence and post-partison glastnost.

Actually I think he intends to accomplish this by not being an obnoxious, overbearing prick. This is a stunning development for liberal bloggers, who rightly see this as a direct attack on them and all they represent, and who consequently hate him.

But carry on...

"and the team of advisors he has around him.'

And who would that be? His economic team is center right and his foreign policy team seems headed up by Tony Lake. Who are the progressives?

I would be happy to know of some advisors on Team Obama with solid progressive records and principles, please somebody anybody help me out here. Because everywhere I look all I find is cautious Clintonian triangulators. (Well there is Jesse Jackson Jr., but that may have more from both men coming from the same Chicago circles.)

As to this rather bizarre attempt at outreach to Republicans. Hmm, that election is not only 11 months away, but with the bunched up primary season will allow plenty of time to nail down the center. Right now the race is for candidate of the Democratic Party, which makes at least extending a hand to the traditional base makes sense. There are tens of millions of voting Americans in that 50 to 80 demographic that know this whole 'Big Government is the Problem, Trust the Markets' thing is basically crap, The Man is not going to just hand out free lunch, in order to retake this country from the literal thieves and liars who hijacked it might get a little messy, and not just rhetorically. Does Obama have enough street righter to fight back against the looming Rovian attack? Because for a lot of Republican operatives the answer to "Can't we all get along?" Is "Not only no, but hell no, and btw we intend to destroy you."

As a pure matter of strategy it made sense for Obama to compete Hillary from the Left and staff up with some less cautious advisors, and then spend more time telling us what he would do and less time impressing us with who he is. Because near as I can see the only change he is actually pushing is generational, he seems at one level to be running as the anti-Boomer, even as the anti-FDR, that I think is a bad mistake, the biggest demographic cohort in US history are all in prime voting age, Boomers range from 43 to 61, like it or not we are going to be pulling voting levers for a few decades to come. Yet we don't seem to be entering Obama's calculations.

So pleased to see numerous rational people calling bullshit on this post. The fact that Obama is willing to say what he has does not cut against his "heart-quickening progressivism," it means only that he is not afraid to be perceived as slaying sacred "liberal" cows. John Kerry lost, and Al Gore was ruled a loser by the SCOTUS because he did not have a substantial majority. These are facts, as is the obvious difference between becoming a trial lawyer and becoming a community activist.

The argument made in this post is analogous to the he's-not-black-enough meme coming from the civil rights establishment. In both cases he's trying to make a new language and a new approach, and it sends the establishment into hysterics.

@Dan, BS to your attempt to link the he's-not-black-enough to he's-attacking-his-opponents-from-the-right meme.

Take off your Obama-is-my-God glasses.

"Actually I think he intends to accomplish this by not being an obnoxious, overbearing prick. This is a stunning development for liberal bloggers, who rightly see this as a direct attack on them and all they represent, and who consequently hate him.

But carry on...

Posted by: J.B. | January 2, 2008 12:38 AM "

A clear example of not being obnoxious?

Why is it to show independence he always chooses things that just happen to coincide with the symbolism of the right? Why not attack Edwards for some other perceived short coming- why the right leaning one?

So Clinton and Edwards supporters attack Obama for months and he doesn't fight back and they call him a weak idiot. Then he fights back and they call him a rightwinger. Have we progressives become so clique-ish that hearing the words "trial lawyers" somehow makes us go into conniptions? Has defending lawyers in lawsuits become some great mark of progressivism? Has defending the former DLC hearthrob with a moderate voting record who voted for the war now become the mark of a true liberal?

Except Obama never suggested that nominating Al Gore was a mistake or that Kerry was a divisive figure when he was nominated.

I would say to Ezra:

Some of those statements are simply not true.