Obama commits to reviewing all Bush ExOs

I've been wondering when a candidate would commit to this:

Barack Obama told a cheering crowd at a town hall meeting in Casper today that he would restore respect for law in the White House by reviewing every executive order issued by President George W. Bush and discarding any deemed unconstitutional.

Good! I'd also like to see a commitment to shutting down Guantanomo.

McBush!

(Photo courtesy Hobson's Choice)

Not Crap

And a lot more helpful.

Still Crap

Still not helping.

(And the answer is still yes)

Political Warfare

Obama has played rough politics. But he has done it better than Clinton. Which is another reason to support him.

Some people want their politics to be pure. They are naive, at best. Politics is never pure. Politics is War by other means. You don't win without getting bloody.

The secret to a successful political system is not purity but being able to put the political guns aside when the political race is over and it is time to govern. What has distinguished the Republicans from the Democrats in recent years is that the Republicans keep the political guns cocked even after the race is over while the Democrats unilaterally disarm even during the political race.

We need to return to a separation of politics from governing. But we won't achieve that by either purity or endless political warfare.

I think both Obama and Clinton would agree with that assessment. I just also think that Obama is demonstrating more finesse in handling the political side. How he handles the governing side remains to be seen.

Hope isn't enough to close the deal

The primary reason I am choosing Obama over Clinton is that I think Obama has a better chance to build the Democratic Party and the Democratic Brand and that doing both is essential to the long-term health of the progressive movement and that that movement is essential to the long-term health of this country.

But, you see, I'm a middle-class white guy who makes $100,000 a year, lives in a nice suburban home, has good health insurance, a healthy family and really very few worries (other than the fucked up leadership in this country). So I can afford to be thinking long-term about the party and how that helps out the country.

A lot of other people can't afford that luxury. A lot of other people can't afford to think about how Obama will make the party better or will help the country in the long run. They need help now.

Hope is a powerful motivator, but Hope does not put food on the table.

People who have to live from day-to-day can't afford to make their political decisions based on just Hope. They need something more and for many of them, Hillary Clinton offers them that something more.

Obama supporters do themselves and their candidate no favor when they disparage the motives of Clinton supporters. They do themselves and their candidate no favor when they dismiss nearly half of the Democratic electorate as tired vestiges of the old live-in-fear crowd. They do themselves and their candidate no favor when they imply that Clinton supporters are dupes or, even worse, racists, for not buying into the Great Obama Hope.

I love the message of Obama, but let's not be arrogant about it.

Crap...

...like this doesn't help.

(If you are wondering whether I am saying Clinton's campaign is crap for darkening a picture of Obama or Obama supporters are crap for presuming that this must be deliberate, the answer is yes.)

Best advice to both Dem campaigns: go after McCain

So, what now?

Clinton and Obama could both go negative on each other in an attempt to prove that one or the other simply doesn't have what it takes to be President. But, at this point, such a strategy will only increase both their negatives and make the job for the GOP that much easier in the Fall.

But neither Clinton or Obama can close the deal by arguing that they are the better Democrat. Many Dems like Clinton. Many Dems like Obama. If that dynamic hasn't broken by now then I don't think it will ever break. This thing is a true deadlock.

So what is left for the candidates to differentiate themselves on?

Answer: John McCain. Specifically, who would do the best job of defeating McCain and the GOP. And the best way for them to do this is to run their campaigns focused on defeating McCain rather than defeating each other.

This would have two bonuses. It would bloody McCain and it would unite Dems.

(1) Bloody McCain for the Fall. The media is going to pay a lot more attention to Obama/Clinton than they are to McCain because the story is just more interesting. Dems should take advantage of that by making the focus of the rest of the campaign how Dems would be better than McCain, regardless of who we nominate.

Of course, this would require both Clinton and Obama to avoid at all costs any suggestion that McCain would be better than either Dem on any issue. Clinton's statement about her experience vs. Obama's one speech is fine. It was when she talked favorably about McCain's experience that she went over the line.

Obama also has to play it carefully when he says that Clinton and McCain's experience led them to making the wrong choice on Iraq. Even if true, it still feeds into the idea that McCain might be an acceptable alternative to Clinton.

(2) Unite the Dems. Nothing rallies the forces like attacking the Republicans. A closing Dem campaign that focuses all of its heat on McCain would do just that. Furthermore, the more they attack McCain the less they will be attacking each other and the less they will be sewing the seeds of ill will among Democratic activists.

A Dem campaign where both candidates focus their attention on McCain would be a dress rehearsal for the Fall. It would be the last test Dem voters would need to decide which candidate would be their best representative.

And frankly, it would just be a lot more fun to watch.

Please, Obama supporters, stop being such asses

Oliver Willis:

My gut tells me Ohio is the last throes of the "Oh My God We're Afraid Of Anything Different" politics in the Democratic party that favors an establishment candidate like Sen. Clinton.

You know, I've tried to bite my tongue about this. I've tried to tell myself that one should not judge a candidate by his/her supporters. But frankly, things like this just piss me off.

Can we at least have a little respect for other people's choices and not immediately dismiss them as being purely the result of fear or (as others have suggested) prejudice? I support Obama, but posts like this tell me exactly why he is having such a difficult time closing the deal. People who haven't been won over will not be won over if they are repeatedly insulted.

Obama supporters need to acknowledge that a significant number of Clinton supporters support her because they really do think she will be a better candidate and a better President. Put simply: a lot of people like her.

Obama himself talks a lot about respecting the opinions of those who differ with you. I'd like it if his supporters would take that message to heart.

(Note: I'm using Oliver Willis' post as an example. I'm not trying to single him out in particular. He's written a lot of great stuff. As have a lot of other Obama supporters who have been idiots on this point. I would prefer not to be so blunt in this posting. But frankly, I think being diplomatic about it would be ignored. I want Obama to win but I am afraid his supporters will destroy his candidacy by being so disrespectful of those who prefer Clinton.)

Learning from the past

What Digby says:

One of the main political lessons liberals continuously fail to absorb is that none of this is new, the world wasn't created yesterday --- and human nature is pretty predictable. Conservative argument keeps coming back, again and again and they succeed because liberals always want to "turn the page" and "let bygones be bygones" so we can "get things done." It doesn't work. They repeat these things like a mantra and they take on the patina of "truth" because well, everybody keeps saying it, it sounds familiar, it's always "out there." If liberals would resist the urge to forget everything they've learned about the right every few years they might be able to sustain the counterargument and have that take on the patina of truth. I'm pretty sure the last time that happened was Herbert Hoover.

Here's my simplified assessment of what's going on.

Some people are optimists. Some people are pessimists. Optimists look to the past and say, "We can make things better". Pessimists look to the past and say, "Things have been and always will be bad so we might as well take advantage of it." Optimists want to forget the past because it isn't how they want the world to be. They figure that dwelling on the past will just make it harder to change things. Pessimists become students of the past because all the awful things that have happened confirm their beliefs. It also appeases their consciences.

In this present time, Democrats are optimists. Republicans are pessimists.

Why Open Primaries Suck

When I say that I oppose open primaries it's because of things like this.

The Democratic nominee should be decided by Democrats. The Republican nominee should be decided by Republicans. The process should be free from manipulation by people who aren't committed members of either party.

I agree that it sucks to be a non-affiliated voter in those situations. But the solution to that problem (and the more general problem of the two-party monopoly) is instant-runoff voting.

Open primaries just make being a party member meaningless.