Edwards, please.

He seems to recognize the great shift of wealth to a small minority as the most serious long term threat to our nation.

And I agree.

Obama is trying to sound different than Jesse Jackson did because Jesse Jackson was feared (unfairly) among some white voters (even Democrats).

The more Obama "sounds" like a "we" candidate(everybody, all races, etc.) the better and one way to sound like that is to not appear to be angry.

Sad to say, but the stereotype works this way:

Black candidate gets angry, white voter thinks that anger is directed towards him/her, feels defensive, votes for someone else.

Obama is damned smart, but even the best plans make it very hard to win the nomination AND the general.

Well summarized. I'll pick Obama, and hope that he can deliver on his promises to be as progressive as Edwards.

Obama is gonna change DC ? Nobody will buy that argument. Obama will unite democrats and rethugs? Nobody will buy that either. So what's left for Obama? The DC power structure has been in existence for 200+ years so nobody can change it. There is very little room to argue for change. and most importantly, no democrat today can beat Bill Clinton. People will be voting for Bill's third term if they pull the lever for his wife. Edwards is a loser in 2004 so he is not taken seriously by voters. We Americans don't like losers.

Edwards, please. (Although the top three dem candidates benefit from our low expectations -- any one of them would be a godsend after W.)

You think HC's health plan is "decent" even though it includes the private insurance companies?

Voters are as polarized as Congress - on this point I agree with Andrew. Inwardly, members of both parties may desire more bipartisanship, but outwardly they are still more interested in winning than in cooperating.

Obama, or whomever, needs to 'indirectly' represent himself as the bi-partisan change agent, but not push too hard to 'sell' himself as that agent.

If Hillary's previous healthcare effort showed anything, it's that Congress, not the White House, needs to do the heavy lifting on any national health-care proposal. As President she'd give moral support but I suspect knows better than to get her name branded on anything potentially divisive or that is not certain to pass (that is, anything that isn't pablum).

"I've seen very little evidence that the American public is yearning for a round of Kumbaya."

Well, I have. I was at a meeting with non-political type and they all said they were sick and tired of the partisanship (though not in those words) and when someone suggested we needed a 3rd party, that was greeted positively.

Then I mentioned I was going to hear Michelle Obama speak and they all wanted to know where, and how they could go too.

There's a very thorough, well written and funny blog about Obama's changes at thinline.blogster.com. Illuminating.

As for bipartisanship: I'd like to see the Dems anally rape the "Family Values" GOPs.

I believe this is one principle in which the "Family Values" GOPs and I have found a consensus (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, et al.)

You are on to a pet peeve of mine about bi-partisanship. I vote in my Democratic legislator and demand that he stand rock solid for liberal causes. The other guy votes in his Republican with the same mandate for conservatism. When nothing happens, we get together and beat up on them for being do-nothings.

Kevin Drum wrote “I suspect the American public wants less change. They'd like to see someone who can simply govern competently, someone who actually takes policy seriously, and someone who can restore an American consensus on foreign policy overseas. From this perspective, Hillary Clinton is the agent of change, not Obama.“

I would think that from this perspective, Richardson is the agent of change. Hillary Clinton may take policy seriously, but like her husband Bill, she seems to “triangulate“ an awful lot for someone committed to principles.

Kevin Drum continues “The strengths and weakness of the three major Democratic candidates bubble just slightly below the surface, I think. All three are electable . . . All three have similar healthcare plans . . . All three kinda sorta want to get us out of Iraq, but which one is most likely to do it? (My guess: Edwards.) Take your pick.”

If you are interested in getting out of Iraq not just kinda sorta, then look beyond three. Richardson and Dodd say they are committed to a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Given that getting the U.S. out of Iraq is the number one campaign issue for the 2008 election, if the purportedly top three Democratic candidates are all wimping out and finking out on this issue, we need to consider the views of the other candidates as well.

I've seen very little evidence that the American public is yearning for a round of Kumbaya.

I've seen very little evidence that the American public has the first clue what it wants. This is why Frank Luntz is a millionaire. Most people don't feel that strongly about much of anything related to governing, which is why they're so easy to push around with superficial appeals. The historically and strongly low ratings for George Bush are anamolous, as are a number of other recent events, which form a Perfect Storm of the appearance of the public caring a lot. But take hating Bush and hating the war out of it and what's left? Mild concern about global warming, mild concern about health care, mild concern about immigration, mild concern about alternative fuels, etc. Will people respond to Obama's olive branch approach? Sure. They would also respond to a full-throated promotion of liberalism. But the war's the thing that's going to animate people, which is why I wish Chris Dodd would get louder and shriller.

Edwards voted for the Iraq use-of-force resolution because Bob Shrum told him he didn't have enough experience and political credibility yet to defend his choice later. Hillary introduced legislation to regulate violent video games. So as far as I'm concerned, neither of these clowns understands what the job of US Senator should be, and this doesn't make me very enthusiastic about either as president. I also think Edwards is a grandstanding poser and Hillary's past statements have suggested that she favors a strong presidency. I'd prefer Obama, especially since I don't think he's been in Congress enough to be thoroughly corrupted (morally, not just ethically). But hell, at least they're not Bush, right? (Or, perhaps more importantly, none of them appears likely to pick a liberal version of Dick Cheney as running mate.)

Personally, I'd like to see a debate for each party that focuses on a single question: "What do you believe are the proper powers and limitations of the executive branch, and how would you reform this as president?"

The '06 elections brought out the fact that people are most concerned about corruption and ethics. One of the reasons Hillary obviously won't make the best candidate. Obama - he's really a nothingburger with no real achievements - especially in fighting corruption and an ethical history is a little lacking. Additionally, instead of helping downticket he's probably the worst.

Can we please move on from the Kumbaya cliche? Obviously no one wants to sing that song. But people might want to see a genuine uniter in the White House and yes, I think Obama might be that guy.

Even though it looks like a Democratic year (and I hope we get a filibuster-proof Senate, at least as important), there are limits. It's not as if America has shown much fondness for white liberals, let alone women or African-American liberals. After the rank incompetence of the past seven years, you can bet competence will be a featured player. That favors Hillary, fairly or unfairly. Obama has terrific natural-born leadership qualities, but there are legitimate concerns about his depth of experience. In the debates (and didn't you just love how Hillary nailed smug little Timmy the Cheney ass-wipe?), he does not come off as competent as I'd wish.(And no, comparing his resume to Bush's doesn't cut it, either.) I still feel Edwards is the only one of the top 3 who can win by a landslide.

We need much more bitter polarization.

Washington elites do not have a need to inject bipartisanship into the veins in their arms. Washington elites have a need to cover their craven efforts to enrich themselves through enriching defense and petro industrialists with the cover of bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is what allowed the Iraq invasion, crack users from serving more prison time than muderers, trillions for defense contractors, Blackwater contracts, bridges to nowhere, tax breaks for the richest, Jack Abramoff, etc. Bitter polarization exposes political criminals and leads to their expulsion from political discourse.

Wow, Little Brojo! Another breathless dramatic post! YOu tell those corporate scum! You're my favorite radical poet. Yup. Dramatic little Brojo. Our Revolutionary Arizonan Poet! Che Brojo.

Pat: Eat pie.

On another note: I heartily recommend my aforeposted homophobic/homophilic, offensive/clever remark.

dramatic little pat, adding substance to these discussions

I don't know, they just have nothing interesting to talk about when it comes to the presidential race-- on that topic A.S. is just another newspaper writer.

MMmmmm, pie! What kind? I love pie. But lots of people do. Why, I know of someone who was eating absolutely all the pie in their church congregation. No homecooked pie, though.

I can't tell if Pat's comment is Disemvoweled or not.

Ruling from one's gut, might not be so bad, except when one has perpetual stomach flu such as poor George has had.

Well, he'll be someone not named Bush or Clinton. That argument doesn't do a whole lot for me, personally, but it's an obvious "change". But that is to say that HRC will most likely bring on a lot of the same type of (not to mention exact same) people who were on for Bill's terms. If you like that, then no change is really needed. If you're tired and want to see someone other than retreads, Obama starts to look more attractive.

Of course, I'd imagine a fairly small number of people really care on that level. What I think Obama's about, and at least he's making some noises about (don't know if he can actually do this or if the system would beat him down in the end even if he became president) is that everyone has gotten in their head some inevitable way about how government works, and how Democrats work and how Republicans work. It is often not the best way, but it's what we're used to, to the point where we have trouble imagining any other ways. Obama often seems to be getting at a "third way"--while still being a Democrat.

Kevin Drum: All three kinda sorta want to get us out of Iraq, but which one is most likely to do it? (My guess: Edwards.)

MaxGowan: I still feel Edwards is the only one of the top 3 who can win by a landslide.

IMHO, Edwards has one chance to win Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, the nomination, and the presidency. Brand HRC and Obama as candidates who, if elected, guarantee at least six more years in Iraq -- at the cost of 2,000 to 3,000 more American lives and an additional one trillion dollars -- and an unnecessary war with Iran. These horrible possiblities -- more and more inevitabilities -- could literally preclude all worthwhile social and educational initiatives.

HRC and Obama should not be able to duck these issues by refusing to answer "hypotheticals." Staying in Iraq and widening the war to Iran are not hypotheticals. They are THE PLAN.

This is the kind of confrontation we need now starting in Iowa. The nomination should be decided on these, the most important issues of the election. It should not be decided on haircuts or picking pepper out of fly shit by choosing which of three awful health care proposals is the least bad.

A confrontation like this would do the nation a service, forcing HRC and Obama to clarify exactly where they stand on the most important issues of the election.

Short of this, he (and we) have no chance.

A change from the the bitter polarization of recent years. This is obviously what Obama is hoping for, but how deep is the evidence for this? There's no question that Washington elites have a jones for bipartisanship — . . .

Bi-partisanship? Why would we want this until half the Republican members of congress are replaced? Lott, Brownback and McConnel want bi-partisan co-operation? Monkey's, my butt, fly out of.

The government is badly broken right now, and that is due almost entirely to Republicans controlling all three branches of government for five+ years. We need to purge the government of all Republican influence - move things way to the left.

Obama has already been co-opted by AIPAC. Those bastards buy them off early and often.

http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/

They'd like to see someone who can simply govern competently, someone who actually takes policy seriously, and someone who can restore an American consensus on foreign policy overseas. From this perspective, Hillary Clinton is the agent of change, not Obama.

So, assuming you're above the idea of leadership-by-osmosis, what's on Clinton's resume that makes you think that she can govern any more competently than Obama -- or any of the other candidates? And are you seriously suggesting that Obama doesn't (or, again, any of the others don't) take policy as seriously -- or that he/they wouldn't be able to restore foreign-policy consensus? If she's your candidate, that's cool, but you might explain what it is that sets her apart from Obama & the others on these issues you rattle off, rather than simply coronating her without the benefit of an explanation as to why you think the nation needs another 4-8 years of someone named Clinton.

A change from being on the wrong track: illegal migration & chamberpot immigration & massive deficit spending & energy/CO2 & self-destructive economic dogma & political correctness & neoconservatism (Zionism) & indifference to domestic problems because warmongering makes one a historical figure.

This beltway thirst for 'bi-partisanship' is fairly new, and is confined mostly to the common political assent to engage the Soviet Union in the Cold War. That's it.

We had no bi-partisanship during the Great Depression, 'Republican' was a dirty word.

There was also the magnificent bi-partisanship during the Civil War...well, maybe not so much. Democrats was just another word for 'traitor' for 40 years after the Civil War.

Politics: The extension of warfare by other means.

*

New tougher questions to be asked immigrants for testing for citizenship - Funny how, the average citizen was asked today on the street by a CNN reporter, a few questions - Blew every one.

But, among the tougher questions, is perhaps, when was our first Emporer selected? And our Co-Counsels? So, perhaps, we could quickly amend the Constitution and have a troika of Obama, Clinton and Edwards.

Interesting to see how completely Kevin Drum has swallowed the Clinton campaign's spin about its candidate. His insides must be churning (because that's what happens when you swallow spin).

She has memorized her talking points; she is always on-message. Therefore, she is competent. She ran her husband's health care initiative, ran it right off the road and into a tree. Therefore, she is the one to get health care right this time (for those not paying close attention, this is because it wasn't her fault the first time, plus she had a great "learning experience." Try using that line with State Farm). She observed her husband's intermittently engaged approach to foreign policy while doing VIP tours of schools and art galleries as First Lady, and sat on the Armed Services Committee observing mutely (but uncontroversially!) as the Bush administration lurched from crisis to disaster over and over again and corruption popped up all over the military procurement system. Therefore, she is not a foreign policy novice, and is indeed the one candidate who can "...restore an American consensus on foreign policy overseas [sic]"

What Sen. Clinton has actually demonstrated (then-Gov. Bush, incidentally, demonstrated this as well eight years ago) is that she is a competent candidate. She has mastered the mechanics of the permanent campaign; she can take commentators who dabble in policy but really care about campaigns and elections, and lead them right around by the nose.

What this has to do with being a successful President, is precisely nothing. Looked at dispassionately, the subject hardly admits of any other conclusion. We know the records of past successful Presidents, and we know what the permanent campaign today requires of successful candidates. The two have virtually nothing in common with one another. No one, not even commentators who repeat as analysis what Sen. Clinton says about herself, questions her passionate commitment to positioning, to fundraising, to message discipline, to taking care of her friends and taking the names of her critics -- to all the things most useful in the permanent campaign. But the truth is that we'd be more likely to get a successful President if we elected someone less devoted to the permanent campaign.

We can predict with 100% assurance what the unconditional, overriding priority of a Clinton administration elected in 2008 would be, right from Day 1. It wouldn't be health care, or Iraq, or social programs of any kind. It would be the 2012 campaign. The remarkable thing is not that there are people who want this outcome, or even that there are people who would accept it. The really remarkable thing is that vast numbers of Americans, especially in Washington but not only there, cannot imagine American politics producing anything better.

Media ownership consolidation was a bipartisan achievement. So was wefare 'reform.'

Kevin: "All three are electable, for example, but which one is most likely to help with downballot races? (My guess: Obama.)"

Oh, really? Three words that say otherwise:

"Harold - call me!" - Republican National Committee (2006 Tenn. Senate Race)

Let's for once not get carried away by our own idealism, and act with emotional sobriety by not leading with our hearts and chins.

It both pains and disgusts me to have to say this, but if Barack Obama is the nominee, the Democrats run a better than even chance of decisively losing every state below the Mason-Dixon line and east of the Colorado River.

Now, please convince me that I'm wrong, because I would desperately like to be. But if Tennessee is still perfectly willing to elect a cracker like Bob Corker to the Senate on the word of some blonde bimbo, what does that really say about the issue of racism in America in the early 21st century?

Thanks for confirming what most of us already suspected, mhr -- scratch the surface of a loudmouth conservative and -- surprise! -- you'll find a bigot.

Bipartisanship is Washington-speak for both sides working together to achieve the goal set forth for them by the coporate elite who really control the show.

People do not want that sort of bipartisanship. They want a change from that sort of corruption. A change away from the corruption and moral and ethical scandals that have plaqued DC. Think Delay, Abramoff, Halliburton, Blackwater, Vitter, Foley, Duke Cunningham, Larry Craig.

The only candidate with a track record of fighting for average people against corruption and greed is John Edwards. When Edwards says the system is rigged people get it. No wonder creepy Obama stole this line in NYC.

I agree with you - he is very scared to get angry.

I was referring to Edwards in the general election. The big, sad x factor is Elizabeth, of course.

Well the one thing we can do without is leftover Nader lies - let's call them what they are - about there being no differnces between the two parties. That was about the biggest lie in the 2000 election. (And who did Ralph support in the Florida recount? Thank again, Ralph.) Anyone who supported Nader in 2000 has automatically forfeited the right to whine. Just STFU and send a check to your favorite Dem and live with the nominee.

I really don't worry about the Dems and Iraq and getting out. I'm fine with giving them some breathing room. Whoever gets elected will get us out. ("let's see . . . a Christian army occupying Arab Muslim land . . . worked for centuries!") Now is not the time for ideological purity tests, thank you. Didn't work the last time, either. We don't need that level of self-destructiveness.

Kevin, I just dropped in after a three-month self-imposed embargo and read this:

"A change from George Bush. Yes, definitely. But all three of the major Democratic candidates offer this."

I think you've gone full-bore barking mad. Bye-bye until next year!

Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Murtha, McCain, Abramoff, DeLay, Craig and W. Bush all agree, US taxpayers need to spend trillions on defense care.

He is very, very careful not to get too angry as a black candidate.

Does Andrew realize that the "angry black man" stereotype has historically been used to dismiss concerns about some social issues in the U.S.? In any case, he's used some very poor phrasing. If Obama were to get angry, he'd be falling into the stereotype; if he's not angry, it must be because he's avoiding the stereotype. Obama can't win.

"A change from the the bitter polarization of recent years."

If the public is sick and tired of this, they really mean they're sick and tired of Democrats fighting back, even a little. Correct me, but the Republicans aren't the party of sincere comity. They've been at full blast since 1993.

Now is the time for any good Democrat to think, "Bipartisanship? Sure! You first!" Start from there and talk accordingly.

Shorter Andrew Sullivan: You can't spell "bareback" without "barack."

We can predict with 100% assurance what the unconditional, overriding priority of a Clinton administration elected in 2008 would be, right from Day 1. It wouldn't be health care, or Iraq, or social programs of any kind. It would be the 2012 campaign.

Yeah? Well, when Hillary starts a disastrous fuckup of a war with one eye on domestic political gain like your boy George did in Iraq, Zathras, get back to us. Until then, you're just showing why no one listens to you.

All three have similar healthcare plans, but which one is most likely to get something decent passed into law? (My guess: Hillary.)

I'd love to know why you think this is. I suspect the answer is: she's the one most willing to trade away meaningful change in order to claim she got something done. Which is another reason why I don't want her to be the nominee.

Happy birthday, Jimmy Carter, the last honest president, who found his policies first and contracted later to carry them out. How unlike our present resident. Carter's in Darfur to celebrate his birthday and maybe help end some of the killing there.

Wait. You think the black guy will help downballot races? Granted I hardly ever think of it that way but a chunk of the electorate even the Dem electorate, do as well.

Are you for real?

Wow.

I take issue with three points.

First, the foreign policy elites are the ones who backed the invasion of Iraq. Only Obama had the intelligence and training (BA in international relations) and common sense to reject their advice and argue against the war. A President must know when to reject the advice of elites and make his own decision when the advice is bad (Kennedy in the Cuban Missle Crisis). Only Obama has demonstrated this type of judgement in foreign policy by rejecting the Iraq war from the beginning. Go back and read his 2002 speech on the internet. He predicted all the bad outcomes that have since occurred in Iraq

Second, Getting a major initiative like health care passed will mean partnering with moderate Republicans to pass a compromise. Obama has demonstrated the ability to work with the other party on controversial issues (Death Penalty and Political Reform in Illinois Legislature) (International Nucleur Weapons Safety in Senate with Lugar from Indiana) Obama is less polarizing that Clinton due to his personal warmth and polite manners and because he has not been so heavily involved in all the big polical fights of the last 20 Years

Third, Obama is not taking money from the the major lobbyists who will be involved in health car reform. These people are giving money to Clinton for a reason and they will expect a big return on their investment later. Obama does not owe these people favors like Clinton does.

If we want real change on controversial issues then Obama is the only candidate who can deliver

Drum - [W]hich one is most likely to get something decent passed into law? (My guess: Hillary.)

"Guess?" You do mean "wish" don't you?

Because any cursory examination of Clinton's behavior suggests Clinton is anything but a leader who coalesces for America's good. Instead, Clinton has proved the quintessential FOLLOWER pandering to a) AIPAC b) the Israel-First unspoken creed of America's "liberal" media, including this blog c) the lowest common denominators of America's Bush-forged post-9/11 "character", especially and including jingoism, sloth, cowardice, bullying, torture, schadenfreude, greed, piety, unaccountability, lawlessness, gross indifference (Katrina), racism, xenophobia ...

Clinton the follower.

Following the herd stampeding for War.

Following the Bush blueprint to stay the course in Iraq.

Following neocon cowards rationalizing Torture and Rendition.

Following AIPAC orders to Defend Israel first.

Following the mob du jour demonizing for widespread applause.

Following those who actually LED the fight for SCHIP and other worthwhile programs.

Drum is a phony.

But no less a phony than not-so-strange-after-all bedfellows like the New York Times, Fred Hiatt/WaPo, Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein, Steven Spielberg, Rob "Meathead" Reiner, insert favorite kosher media figure here ____ and/or all the other faux-progressive Chosen People Choosing Israel and its Chosen Puppet before all else.

Principle schminciple.

Sadly, ask any middle age Black man or woman the probabilities of Obama being elected (note that more support Hillary at this point, btw). Many will mention their fear that he'll get killed before getting near the Oval Office. They know a thing or two more than younger white guys about the way America really is, not endless wishful thinking.

Listen RodneyC, how about Obama's judgment when it came to offending the Pakistani's? Not so good. Only presidential candidate in history to start a conflagration abroad with careless remarks. How about Obama's judgment when it came to his support of the Republicans in the Terri Schiavo matter? Guess what? Isn't he the only Democratic candidate to vote with the Republicans on this. Judgment matters. So does experience. Obama lacks both.

How about Obama's judgment when it came to his support of the Republicans in the Terri Schiavo matter?

Typical Clintonista.

Stop lying.

Obama has already apologized for not doing more to " making sure families make [such] decisions, and not bureaucrats and politicians."

Not doing more in this case meant Obama was vacationing with the majority of his Senate colleagues during the Easter recess when those remaining Senators voted to approve the House measure supporting Terri Schiavo's parents.

OTOH -

Has Clinton ever apologized for her vote on the War?

Ever apologized for implicitly condoning Torture?

Ever apologized for questionable fundraising practices that have included federal indictments of Clinton campaign officers for various offenses? Criminal indictments of big Clinton donors who are either felons, fugitives or both?

I'm not exactly comfortable with Hillary's religious tilt. She does a good job keeping it undercover but it makes me nervous, one of the many things that make me nervous about Hillary.
For a pretty thorough review of her religious history see this Mother Jone's piece from today:

"News: For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulating—or living her faith?"

Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics

According to a December '91 article in Time (Doctor's office, naturally. Is this a record?),
the Clintons did not join a church until after they lost Bill's first gubernatorial re-election bid in Arkansas.

Time also had an interesting article about the wrap up of the BCCI case, a bank notorious in the '80s for laundering money for terrorists, illegal arms deals, and drug runners. It had ties to the Bush administration and had corrupted many American politicians like Zell Miller.

Federal Prosecutors had dragged their feet and it was state prosecutors out of Manhattan and from European countries that lead the takedown of the bank.

Hillary covers all the bases. If W. Bush weren't president, that Fellowship membership would be a deal breaker.

Obama is attempting to bridge differences between Democrats and Republicans across the United States. Hilary is willing to discuss issues with indviduals on both sides of the Congressional aisles. Obama's goal is best avoided. Having the Democratic Party become more Republican is to be avoided. On the other hand being willing to negotiate with sane Republican congressmen and sane Republican congresswomen is excellent politics.

I do not want to bridge differences with Repubicans. I am not even sure what that means. Does it mean we nuke some country that pissed off Bechtel or cut more taxes for the rich or build ovens for the immigrants?

Litte Brojo! How dramatic and provocative! You are such an OUTRAGEOUS poster. It's like Modonna. Continually shocking the establishment. Revolutionary! Drama! How'd you like that LaMonde op-ed you outrageous rebel you?

Thanks for the link. Although I am happy to read he does not want the US to make a sneak Pearl Harbor-style attack Iran, I hope Prince Reza Pahlavi never returns to Iran and would prefer he be kept out fo the US, too.

So you agree that your comments yesterday were 100 percent the OPPOSITE of fact? As usual? Maybe because you are consistently more concerned with writing some dramatic nonsense in strained prose you imagine people will find edgy even if it has no factual basis? Kinda like with your vote for Ralph Nader? The onw which helped bring on all these problems you are always here sniffing about?

It's oversimplified, but ...

Obama: Osama, Black, drug user, nuke Pakistan?, Osama

Clinton: C...L...I...N...T...O...N, woman, illegal foreign campaign contributions, Whitewater, C...L...I...N...T...O...N

Edwards: nice hair

Hmmm. If they all have positives, then Edwards certainly has more chances of winning with low negatives.

John Edwards for President -- Leadership for America