Does that mean 10% of those polled have never heard of Obama?  

Uh, gee whiz, do you think repeatedly and absurdly charging Clinton with racism just might damage her in the general election? Could the Obama strategy, including things like Orlando Patterson's disgraceful diatribe in the Times (which Obama has not yet rejected or denounced), be to make Clinton unacceptable to the Democratic party because she would be unacceptable to African-Americans? Given the historical relationship of Clinton to African-Americans, could anything be more unfair and cynical?

Could Obama's campaign, while he mouths the high road, be trying to destroy Clinton as a viable candidate?

What more is there to be said about the Clinton campaign?  (Barring, of course, that they find some new depth to plumb.)  How sad that they have taken the affection in which they were held by so many loyal Democrats, curdled it, and dared us to consider voting for anyone else.  How clearly they are banking on being the least unpalatable option, and how assiduously they prune the poppies that have dared to grow taller than them.

Regrettable.  Tiring.  Sad.

pccostello, how is the weather on the alternate plane in the universe on which you obviously reside?

pccostello ,

You are correct, Obama very successful strategy from the very beginning was to make HRC unelectable, too divisive, polarizing, not trustworthy and so on.  He was able to drive her favorable rating down. Now she is returning  favors.

Every day, Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates make it more difficult for me to be able to vote for her in a general election.  I say this as a lifelong Democrat who would've done anything to vote for Bill.  

I might just stay home on election day than vote for Hillary.  

PC- she's doing the racist stuff or conscioning it, all on her own. No one held a gun to White Rage Ferraro's head and made her put her foot in her mouth, swallow, then put the other foot in.

No one made Clinton call for Samantha Powers' firing for a far less offense then drag her feet about the aforementioned Angry White Woman.

No one made Clinton set the bar (vis-a-vis) Farrakhan at "reject and denounce" and then fail to meet that bar with Ferraro.

And your whole piece is premised on the bizarre notion that African Americans are mindless and will believe any and all claims that someone is racist. It can't possibly be that they themselves are looking at the conduct of the Clinton campaign and coming to that conclusion themselves. Black republicans, for years, have accused the Dems of racism. No one believed them. Black people didn't flock in droves to the GOP just because someone made the accusation. Rather, they, like most people, look at what happens, and draw their own conclusions.

And how in the hell is Obama to be responsible for what Orlando Patterson says? He's not on the Obama campaign. And contrary to what you may think, he doesn't have mind control powers over other, random Black people.

Obama is certainly not responsible for the musings of Orlando Patterson.  As for the rantings of the man who officiated at his wedding and whom he calls his "moral compass"--that's going to be a little trickier.

miceelf--

your argument is too weak and uninformed to merit a detailed response. The obama campaign called a conference call with the press to draw attention to the Ferraro statements, over which Clinton had no control. Axelrod called attention the statement as Missisippi voted. Obama mothed the high road. Doing one thing and saying another--it's the Obama way. And he started doing it with race-baiting about MLK_LBJ just after he lost in New Hampshire and was headed for Sout Carolina--when the polls still had Hillary drawing major support among blacks in South Carolina. Obama and Clyburn mangaed to change that fast.

Do you really think black politicians don't know how to play this issue when they want to?

The missing 10% would be people with no opinion either way or no opinion they want to state. One thing you can say for Clinton - everyone has an opinion of her, and they're not bashful about stating it.

As for the mindless rant, Clinton is fully capable of destroying herself. And based on the evidence of this primary campaign, the Clintons come to mind as easily able to be more unfair and cynical.

"that is, in situations when a high-profile Democrats is not reinforcing the GOP message every night."  So essentially, Obama's attacking Hillary on her general election weakness from day 1 (honesty, character, divisiveness), is cool.  Hillary attacking Obama on his general election weakness is not cool.  That's totally fair, right?

jcobtl said: "You are correct, Obama very successful strategy from the very beginning was to make HRC unelectable, too divisive, polarizing, not trustworthy and so on.  He was able to drive her favorable rating down. Now she is returning  favors."

It may be true that Obama has pursued such a strategy, but I think it's a stretch that is poorly supported by the evidence.  Hillary Clinton was roundly disliked by a majority of independents, and a large fraction of the Democratic party, before Obama ever appeared to be a viable candidate.  I lived through the Iowa blitz - months of advertising from all 6 or 7 candidates, and personal appearances by all of them as well.  Obama did not mention Clinton's electability, and sure as the devil did not run her down in any way.

Since Iowa, until at least after Ohio and Texas, I saw little change in his basic tactics.  Of course he presents himself as more electable than her - no candidate could possibly do otherwise and have any credibility ("The other guy is more likely to get elected than me, but vote for me anyway" - I don't think so), but drive her favorables down?  Looked at the record - she's had high unfavorables across the country for years.  And she's increasing them by HER actions all by herself.   I know many people who have gone from supporting someone other than Clinton, but considering a candidate they could get behind in the general election, to seriously considering sitting the election out, or voting for McCain, and it's because of Hillary and Bill Clinton's actions, not because of anything Obama or his minions have said about her.

On what planet is Obama the more electable candidate? He hasn't convinced more than 30-40% of white and Hispanic Democrats to vote for him. I realize TNR writers are in the tank for the guy, but don't they have any sense of reality?

If he can demonstrate an ability to win these populations--without any independents or Republicans crowding the vote on either side--then great. He's got a good chance in the general. But to pretend that the caucus vote totals in Nebraska and Kansas are somehow dispositive in the face of strong rejection among two of the three critical Democratic demographics is absurd.

Excellent point, Jon.  It really has become a fascinating primary.  

Most political campaigns are geared toward winning the votes of citizen voters, but at this point Hillary's goal is only remotely related to that purpose.  The press is covering the primary like a normal election ("a neck-and-neck race!"), but it's not.  Hilllary is playing only to the superdelegates.  Her only hope is to create a certain impression (better electability) in the minds of that small group; winning primaries and pledged delegates are only means to the end of demonstating her superior electability.  

Problem is, most voters already see Hillary as electable.  Therefore, she can get very little benefit from building herself up: "I'm so wonderfully electable."  The only effective (for her) strategy is to tear Obama down.  It's the most efficient means to her end (no pun intended).

As I've said here before, I am somewhat frustrated by the fact that this election is still a question mark - it should be a done deal.

But perhaps it still is. I think we're at the beginning of the worst economy since 1981-82. By June, it will be clear that we're in a full-blown recession.  Unemployment will likely hit 6% by November.  Inflation is at its highest level in 25 years.  If voters drive past gas stations with signs reading $3.50 or higher on their way to the polls on November 2, given all of this other economic news it's hard to see how any Democrat loses to McCain. And the economy is only one of several structural advantages that the Democratic candidate will enjoy this year.

I thus think electability arguments on both sides are pretty weak.  So long as the Democratic candidate doesn't run an awful campaign (which, given what we've seen from Clinton so far, remains a possibility), make some huge error or get caught up in a major scandal, I just don't see how he or she loses this year. I know that sounds overly confident, but I really don't think it's misplaced.

pc - laughable.  And what of the Clinton conference calls with regard to the "monster" comment?  And the immediate Obama response?

Because the Ferraro comments involved Obama's skin color, it makes it very easy to throw the racism line around.  Unfortunately, for that line to be thrown, there has to be a starting point.

What was that starting point again?  Oh yeah, Ferraro.  What did Obama specifically say about the comment?  Oh yeah, he said it wasn't racist, just ridiculous.

Keep running your 1992 campaign, and Obama will keep running a 2008 version.  The simple point remains that it is impossible for Obama to be responding to McCain and Clinton at the same time, while at the same time being patently ridiculous.  This "Democrat on Democrat" action is something we've come to expect from a GOP primary, and is embarrassing.

While the polls put both candidates at barely beating McCain, they also put Democrats vs Republicans at 50% vs 37%  (Other at 4%, Unsure at 9%).  

I think either candidate is going to have a hard time, mostly because of their negatives.  

Nobody's yet mention the VP.  How the the right/wrong VP change things?

Agreed Jon.  As I said the other day, if they keep saying it and saying in and saying it...it won't matter if it's true, voters, delegates will start believing there's something to it.

jmkerr chiming in on how much better Hillary Mondale is because we all know just how successful that candidate who claimed the Dem base was (and he was less divisive) Obama is Hart, only brighter, more charismatic, and no nookie issue. Hillary is Mondale, only far more grating, even less charismatic, and has a husband with a nookie issue. Hey, yeah, lets nominate her because she is even worse than Mondale. It is truly funny to watch. Hillary has managed the impossible, turning even large segments of the Democratic party against her. Can she beat Mondales vote total? Such suspense.

bhunziker, I heard the same arguments from Mondale, only then the unemployment rate was even higher. Hillary is useless in the general. And by the time Dems are done half of them will detest the other half. And it will be all due to Hillary, without a doubt.

Debating with Hillary supporters here is like reasoning with 3 year olds, it can be utterly amusing (for me anyway, since I don't live in the states) as to the young, and blacks, and people tired of the same old same old, screw you because the Clintons deserve another chance, this time with the wife, who next Chelsea?

I am what's called a SuperVoter. Having been born in Boston, I learned to "Vote Early and Vote Often."  That is, I vote in every primary, local election, etc. I have voted for no one but Democrats for at least thirty years--I believe that we are a wealthy enough nation to be compassionate. I have been involved in politics for much of that time, including stints as a lobbiest(non-profit) and high-level appointment of two governors, not having campaigned for or against either of them. I have been in the room plenty of times watching the sausage get made that is getting elected and then governing. Though I supported her for all of 07 and into Jaunary of 08, I have never witnessed a lower Democratic campaigner than Hillary Clinton. It's ugly and its not coming from both campaigns equally, but from hers primarily. Very ugly. Very unfortunate. And, I'm sorry, but let me say it again: Very ugly.

How about renaming The Plank to "Stupid Shit Mark Penn Says"?

dirk--

try and follow the conversation and not just post a message. the issue is whether obama has been playing the race card through his camoaign while mouthing sweet nothings in public. the fat that his camoaign went all out to call the presses attention it Ferraro, while he publicly said it was not important is just another instance of his "say one thing and do another" strategy.

this all has nothing to do with the monster comment--which had noithing to do with race.

The Democrats may be in real trouble now. If the superdelegates award Clinton with the nomination over and above the popular vote and delegates elected through the caucuses and primaries the Democrats will lose young and independent voters.

Plus, the mask is off of the facade of politics-of-identity feminists. They have demonstrated that they can race-bait as well as the Dixiecrats of the Old South. They look much different than they did a few months ago.

The Clinton campaign has very skillfully shifted the focus of this campaign from "change" to "race." This was their intention. It is the only hope they have in order to win. The problem is that by doing this the Clintons will further divide the Democratic Party and the nation.

Ferraro says she stepped down because she wanted to "get this off the news," but she was the one who put it there.

She spent 48 hours on nearly every news outlet making inflammatory statements. She put this issue on the news and kept it there for more than 48 painful hours.

Even now, she keeps the issue on the news. The Clinton campaign doesn't want to talk about issues like Iraq; they want to talk about race so they can sink Obama.

One of the 'grassroots' or 'netroots' groups like MoveOn should launch a campaign for people to declare that they will not vote for the Democratic nominee if that nominee is not the winner of a majority of pledged delegates. Since Hillary can only win by stealing this race using superdelegates, this pretty much means her.

If millions or even hundreds of thousands of Democrats essentially pledged not to vote for Hillary in November, that would destroy her chances. Since the MoveOn types are the ones who phonebank and do get-out-the-vote work, their not supporting the Dem nominee in November would have a doubly negative effect. The superdelegates would see that they have no choice but to vote for the actual winner, Obama. They may also step in early and tell Hillary to stop trying to destroy Obama and ruin his chances in November.

Asking the superdelegates not to interfere, as MoveOn did a few weeks ago, has no effect. The superdelegates have to see that there will be serious consequences if they rob Obama of the nomination.

One of the odder things Ferraro said to gathered reporters in an impromptu hallway exchange (in response to nothing any of the reporters had asked about) was, "No, I don't plan on resigning from [Clinton's] campaign but if Axelrod says I have to." "Axelrod" had at that time said nothing about her resigning, nor had anyone with the Obama campaign.

Gerry Ferraro was and remains today a feisty Italian American from Queens, known for popping off lines just like this. On occasion she embarrassed the Mondale campaign repeatedly with her zingers.

jmkerr asks, "On what planet is Obama the more electable candidate?"

Earth.

SurveyUSA has Obama beating McCain in November by 18 electoral votes and Hillary beating McCain by 14 electoral votes.  Head-to-head matchups consistently have Obama doing better than Hillary against McCain in the popular vote, even after Texas and Ohio, and even during a period when Hillary is going hard after Obama on precisely the things that McCain will go after him on -- experience, readiness, etc.  Meanwhile, the polling in Pennsylvania (and in other states) destroys the idea that primary preference translates into general election preference, which is the whole, and entirely false, premise of Hillary's electability argument.

Moreover, consider that Obama has *not* attacked Hillary as she will be attacked in the general, for two reasons:  (1) He's not a disloyal douchebag, and (2) those arguments aren't as available to him.  Indeed, you can expect that McCain will deploy the same arguments against Clinton that Clinton is using against Obama *plus* tap into that vast well of disfavorable opinion regarding her character.  She hasn't been tested, in other words, on what could take her down.  McCain will have plenty of help, even if he takes a higher road.  Professional conservative bloviators are savoring a possible Hillary victory -- going so far as to urge strategic voting in Democratic contests -- not only because they believe she can be more easily destroyed, but because they'll be the ones doing the destroying.  In short, we haven't seen what they'll do to Clinton yet, and it won't be pretty.

Besides, McCain is enjoying a honeymoon right now.  We can argue about whether that's a bad thing for Democrats, but the point is that his support is soft.  It's based on impressions that haven't been tested at all in a seriously contested campaign of any kind.  My hunch is that McCain's numbers will go down among swing voters.  He's the Republicans' best candidate by far but he isn't a very good one.  As of today, Obama picks up a lot of those swing voters.  Hillary picks up somewhat less from different sources.  Either way, we can expect a competitive election with either candidate, unless Hillary determines to destroy the Democratic drive to win with an increasingly fratricidal and selfish campaign.

Of course there are risks with either candidate.  The risk of losing is unavoidable with any candidate.  Democrats aren't facing a meager organization or a meritless opponent.  But the notion that Obama is "unelectable" is a joke.  It's not supported by any evidence.

I caught myself in a thoughtless moment. I meant to say "Gerry Ferraro was and remains today  the stereotypical feisty Italian American from Queens of my generation (and hers), known for popping off lines just like this.

Apologies to whomever.

Never mind all the bullshit, could this kind of analysis make him unlelectable?

RE-RETHINKING IRAQ:

Obama's War

Peter Wehner From issue: April 2008

Throughout his dramatic campaign to win his party’s nomination for the presidency, Senator Barack Obama has tended to ignore the specifics of policy in favor of the generalities of emotion, centering his appeal to voters on vague promises of “change” and “unity.” But on one issue, above all others, Obama has remained fixated from the campaign’s first moment, and that is the war in Iraq. By Obama’s own account, the consistency of his stand on this war demonstrates more than anything else that he, a one-term United States Senator who arrived in Washington in 2005 with no foreign-policy experience, after an uneventful eight-year stint in the Illinois state senate, possesses the wisdom, the clear-sightedness, and the judgment to assume the responsibilities of the nation’s commander-in-chief.

Obama calls Iraq “the most important foreign-policy decision in a generation.” By the word “decision,” presumably, he means to refer at once to President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, Congress’s decision to authorize that policy, and his own early decision to oppose any such action.

Indeed, Obama was not yet in the Senate, and the Senate had not yet voted to authorize the war, when, in a speech delivered in Chicago on October 2, 2002, he announced his view of the matter. Granting forthrightly that the Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein had “repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity,” and that he “butchers his own people,” Obama nevertheless held that, despite all these well-proven crimes, Saddam posed no “imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors.” What is more, he added, “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

Nine days later, the Senate passed its resolution granting George Bush the authority to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In the Senate that day were four of Obama’s rivals in this year’s Democratic contest for the presidency—Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, and Joseph Biden—and all four voted in favor.1 A fifth rival, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, also spoke out in support of the war.

Alone among this year’s major Democratic candidates, then, Obama can claim an unspotted record of opposition to American involvement in Iraq and even a kind of prescience as to the subsequent course of events there. In any account of his electoral success so far, this factor must weigh as heavily as his natural eloquence and his ingratiating personality.

But Obama’s thoughts on the war in Iraq did not begin and end with that one speech in October 2002. In fact, an examination of both his statements and his Senate votes over the intervening years demonstrates something very different from the consistency that he and his supporters have claimed for him. It demonstrates instead a record of problematically ad-hoc judgments at best, calculatingly cynical judgments at worst. Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to stipulate that Barack Obama was right in 2002, what does this subsequent record say about his fitness to serve?

_____________

Almost as soon as the war began in March 2003, Obama had second thoughts about his opposition to it. Watching the dramatic footage of the toppling of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, and then the President’s speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, “I began to suspect,” he would write later in his autobiographical The Audacity of Hope (2006), “that I might have been wrong.” And these second thoughts seem to have stayed with him throughout the entire first phase of the occupation following our initial combat victory. As he told the Chicago Tribune in July 2004, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

This is hardly to say that he had suddenly metamorphosed into a hawk, let alone a supporter of the President’s broader freedom agenda. Indeed, one would search long and hard for any words from this apostle of hope and change about the palpable benefits that democracy might bring to the Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East. Rather, he seems to have sensed a political weakness in his blanket opposition to a venture still enjoying broad support in the country, and one in which tens of thousands of American soldiers were risking their lives.

And so, in September 2004, in the heat of his campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama said (according to an AP report) that even though Bush had “bungled his handling of the war,” simply pulling out of Iraq “would make things worse.” Therefore, he himself

would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the President and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.

“If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that’s something I would support,” said Obama.

In November, having won election to the U.S. Senate, Obama once again confirmed his determination to stay the course in Iraq in an interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose. “Once we go in, then we’re committed,” he said, adding:

[O]nce the decision was made, then we’ve got to do everything we can to stabilize the country, to make it successful, because we’ll have too much at stake in the Middle East. And that’s the position that I continue to take.

Indeed it was—for about a year. During that time, Obama delivered only one major speech on Iraq, in November 2005. At that point the situation on the ground was still very rocky and showing few if any signs of material improvement, and there was much talk of “exit strategies” in the air. But most liberal critics of the war (outside the rabid Left) were still not quite ready to cut and run. Accordingly, while reiterating that he had strongly opposed the Iraq war before it began, Obama also re-stated his belief that, having gone in, we had an obligation to “manage our exit in a responsible way—with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.”

How were we to accomplish that? The answer was: slowly but surely. In the months to come, Obama said, “we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say ‘reduce,’ and not ‘fully withdraw.’” With a hint of greater specificity, he elaborated in January 2006 that “we have a role to play in stabilizing the country as Iraqis are getting their act together.”

Presumably what Obama was referring to here was the strategy of training indigenous Iraqi forces to “stand up” so that we could “stand down.”

This was the same view of the military situation held by other critics of the Bush administration—and by the administration itself, which was in the process of trying to implement just that strategy.2 But as conditions in Iraq worsened over the course of 2006 and polls registered lower and lower levels of support for the President and the war—and as he himself was nearing a decision to run for the presidency—Obama’s position shifted again, markedly so.

On October 22, 2006, Obama proclaimed the urgent necessity for “all the leadership in Washington to execute a serious change of course in Iraq.” That change was decidedly not in the direction of stepping up our war effort by sending additional troops—a shift advocated by some conservative critics of administration policy and at that point being seriously considered by the White House and the Pentagon. Quite the contrary: the change Obama had in mind was to initiate, as quickly as possible, a “phased withdrawal” from Iraq. There was to be no more talk from him about leaving a “stabilized” situation. Nor, for Obama, was the issue debatable. His latest predictive judgment was that “We cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve.”

On January 10, 2007, Bush announced the administration’s change in strategy in Iraq, popularly dubbed the “surge.” That very night, Obama declared he saw nothing in the plan that would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” A week later, he repeated the point emphatically: the surge strategy would “not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.” Later in the same month, he summed up in these words his impression of the hearings on the new strategy held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “What was striking to me, in listening to all the testimony that was provided, was the almost near-unanimity that the President’s strategy will not work.”

Whatever he was listening to, it could not have been “all the testimony.” But the main point is that, within a mere matter of weeks, Obama had moved to align himself with the most extreme critics of the war. This re-positioning coincided with the announcement of his presidential candidacy on February 10, 2007. “It’s time to start bringing our troops home,” Obama said forcefully as he launched his run. “That’s why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.”

In May 2007, Obama did something he had never done previously: he voted in the Senate against funding for combat operations, claiming as a reason the fact that the bill included no timeline for troop withdrawal. As the campaign season intensified, his position hardened still more. In September, a mere three months after the final elements of the 30,000-strong surge forces had landed in Iraq, he declared that the moment had arrived to remove all of our combat troops “immediately.” “Not in six months or one year—now.”

By then, though, a fairly substantial drop in violence was already discernible in Iraq. Without exactly denying this fact, Obama insisted that it had nothing to do with the surge, a point he repeated incessantly during the early months of 2008. In a presidential debate in January, for example, he claimed the reduction in violence was due not to increased American military action but to the attention paid by Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda terrorists to the results of America’s midterm elections in November 2006, when control of Congress passed to the Democrats:

Much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what?—the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shiites. We should start negotiating now.

This was an astonishing statement on several counts. For one thing, the “Anbar Awakening”—in which Sunni tribes formerly allied with al Qaeda in Iraq turned on the foreign terrorists who had been making their lives a repressive hell—preceded the midterm election by several months. It had no connection with American electoral cycles and every connection with the brutality of al Qaeda (as internal al-Qaeda communications frankly conceded).

For another thing, the prospect of a precipitous American retreat, far from helping along the chances of a negotiated political settlement between warring Iraqi factions, would almost certainly have created the opposite effect, reinvigorating the murderous hopes of the terrorist forces lately on the run and thereby undoing the Awakening altogether. Nor, incidentally, have those forces ever troubled themselves to discriminate between Sunni and Shiite in their frenzied determination to seize control. Finally, the sheikhs of Anbar have themselves testified to the crucially fortifying effect of the U.S. offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq, and there is no reason to doubt their word.

Obama’s corkscrew logic would take an even more bizarre twist in February of this year when Tim Russert of NBC News asked him if, as President, he would reserve the right to go back into Iraq with sizable forces if the American withdrawal he advocated should end by introducing even greater mayhem. Previously Obama had asserted categorically that, on his watch, no permanent American bases would be left in Iraq and that the few American troops remaining there would have only a very limited mission: to protect our embassy and our diplomatic corps and to engage in counterterrorism. But in his answer to Russert he now broadened his options:

As commander-in-chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.

To wonted illogic this added both ignorance and disingenuousness. By his statement Obama may have intended to project a certain tough-mindedness in dealing with new threats, but as Senator John McCain pointed out in a devastating riposte, al Qaeda is already in Iraq. That is why its forces there are called “al Qaeda in Iraq” (or, to use the terrorist organization’s own nomenclature, “al Qaeda in Meso-potamia”). What is more, if Obama had had his way in 2007, our troops would have been out of Iraq by March of this year, leaving it naked to its enemies. If we were to withdraw them in the early months of an Obama presidency, al Qaeda in Iraq could be counted on not only to form “a base” but to take over large swaths of the country. Having overseen such a withdrawal, and having thereby unraveled all the gains of the surge, Obama would face the prospect of ordering them to return under far more treacherous conditions of his own making.

To say that Senator Obama has not thought through the implications of his vertiginously shifting positions is to err on the side of charity; in fact they give every appearance of having been adopted without any systematic thought whatsoever. The same, unfortunately, can be said for the other main pillar of his position on Iraq. This is that the way to bring stability to that country is not by winning the war in the first place but rather by striking a “new compact in the region”—one that will include all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Syria and Iran. Such a compact, he says, will “secure Iraq’s borders, keep neighbors from meddling, isolate al Qaeda, and support Iraq’s unity.”

Never mind that Syria and Iran have spent the past years doing everything in their power to violate Iraq’s borders, meddle in its affairs, arm and support the factions that have been killing Iraqis and American troops alike, and fracture its unity. To Obama, all this murderous activity is but the understandable reaction of frustrated governments to the policies of George Bush (and, although he does not say so, every single one of his predecessors going back decades). By contrast, if he himself were elected President, both Iran and Syria would utterly reverse direction.

Obama’s unlimited faith in diplomacy as a means of resolving deep-seated differences among nation-states is not exclusive to the Middle East. When asked if, during the first year of his presidency, he would meet individually and without precondition with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, he replied: “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them . . . is ridiculous.” So enamored is he of this pledge that he has re-stated it regularly in the course of the campaign. Whenever he is asked how he would address a thorny foreign-policy issue, he invokes the need for diplomacy—first, last, and always.

The columnist Charles Krauthammer once characterized this disposition as the “broken-telephone theory of international conflict”—i.e., the belief that if nations fail to get along, the fault is to be found in some misunderstanding, some misperception, some problem of communication that can be cleared up by “talking.” In Obama’s case, the syndrome is compounded by unfeigned confidence in the power of his own personal charm to bridge whatever differences may separate us from those who hate us.

Thus, when it comes specifically to Iraq and its implacably hostile neighbors, he refuses even to entertain the possibility that diplomacy might fail, or to consider what steps would be necessary should that in fact happen. Nor has he deigned to credit or even to notice the strenuous diplomatic efforts undertaken over the last eight years by the allegedly trigger-happy Bush administration to negotiate with Iran, North Korea, and others. Nor, finally, has he absorbed any useful lesson from the disillusioning outcomes of these efforts—let alone other, even more emollient efforts by our European allies and the United Nations. Such willful innocence, in a President, can be lethal.

It is perfectly legitimate to argue, as Senator Obama does, that the war to liberate Iraq was ill-conceived and has cost us much more than it has been worth. It is also perfectly legitimate to argue, as Senator McCain does, that the war was eminently worth waging but that the Bush administration massively mishandled the phase following the ousting of the Baathist regime.

It is another matter entirely to argue that because the decision to go to war was wrong, we should now simply withdraw and wash our hands of Iraq in hopes of starting over. There is no starting over in world affairs. We are where we are, and the next President will have to play, one can only hope wisely, the hand he will have been dealt. But by the same token, there is also no way of establishing that, had the decision in 2002 gone the other way—that is, Obama’s way—today’s security situation would be better for us than it has actually turned out to be, mistakes and all. Especially now, when our prospects in Iraq have greatly improved, indulging in such exercises of revisionist history is wholly fatuous.

In this connection, though, it is also no wonder that Obama describes the war in Iraq as “the most important foreign-policy decision in a generation.” His formulation neatly focuses on the moment before American and allied troops went into battle in March 2003—a moment when Obama can claim to have seen, with perfect clarity, the entire subsequent unfolding of history. But quite aside from the fact that that moment came and went five years ago, the real question has to do with his vision in the meantime concerning the most important foreign-policy issue in our generation.

Unlike his presidential rival John McCain, an early and vocal and truly consistent critic of the Bush administration’s counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq,

Obama, as we have seen, was opposed to doing anything about Iraq even when, like everyone else, he believed Saddam Hussein was a menace who was likely armed with weapons of mass destruction; became a supporter of the war after the fact and remained one even as things were going poorly; and morphed into an aggressive opponent again just as the prospects of an American victory began to brighten. If there is a consistency here, it would appear to be the consistency of one consistently divorced from the facts on the ground and, lately, almost hermetically sealed off from even the possibility of good news. In a politician admired for his supposed open-mindedness and his ready willingness to consider new evidence, this is, to say the least, striking.

But perhaps a different kind of consistency is to be discerned in this maze. When Obama opposed the war in 2002, it was clearly in his political interest to do so; according to Dan Shomon, his campaign manager at the time, the key to Obama’s chances in the Democratic race for the Senate nomination lay in his ability to rally the Left to his side.4 Then, in 2004, when the war was still supported by most Americans, he associated himself with the Bush occupation strategy. In 2005, as Iraq was becoming increasingly unpopular, he temporized by joining those saying we had to reduce but not withdraw our troop presence. By 2006, with the war’s unpopularity deepening, he embraced a policy of full-scale withdrawal.

Having hitched his fortunes to this last position—i.e., that the war is lost and it is time for us to leave—he is in something of a predicament, having either to deny the clear evidence of progress in Iraq or to rewrite and revise his personal history. On the latter front, indeed, he has recently gone so far as to claim that when the surge was announced, he had “no doubt” that “if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.” In fact, as we have seen, he volubly argued just the opposite.

Like the rest of the story rehearsed here, what all this suggests is that Barack Obama does not represent an authentic new “brand” in American politics; rather, he has shown himself to be an exceptionally adept political animal who can adjust to the prevailing political winds with seamless ease. As the election season progresses, it remains to be seen what tortuously defended new positions will be embraced by this consistently political politician, and what price they will exact in his reputation as a principled and courageous new voice.

Clinton will never reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro because she is too busy trying to put other people on the spot to do those things.

Hillary does not live in a world of principle and consistency; in her world (Hillary's world) everything is politics.

I can tell you for sure (because this is where I live) the Clinton-Ferraro remarks are having the desired effect in Pennsylvania, a state which James Carville himself described as being Philadelphia on one end, Pittsburgh on the other and Alabama in between.

Hillary is going after the votes of working class over 40 year olds with limited exposure and limited education. This describes much of Pennsylvania perfectly

It also describes much of Ohio, which opposed NAFTA for destroying their jobs – 80% saying it was their greatest concern – but voted for the wife of the man who moved the treaty from concept to reality in 1993 because the could not bring themselves to vote for an African American.

There is a lot of resentment among this group this group, that I know all too well, toward upwardly mobile blacks and anyone who seems like a "foreigner."

Our governor, Ed Rendell, said “regrettably many Pennsylvanians simply will not vote for a black candidate,” so he’s a Hillary supporter. How’s that for moral leadership?

So, you get a sense of the Clinton strategy for Pennsylvania and Indiana, and it aint pretty.

Blackton,

The economy was not in a recession in 1984, unemployment was sinking rapidly (still  7.2%, but the trend was downward) and inflation and gas prices falling, Reagan was a fairly popular incumbent (58% approval in November 1984), there was no major war, and things were looking up overall.  There really is no comparison between 1984 and 2008.

I don't know why everyone thinks Clinton is a sure loser against McCain.  I support Obama, but could easily pull the lever for Clinton.  Anyone who would vote for Obama but not Clinton in my opinion doesn't care about actual policy.

baseman,

I think the point, really, is that articles like this SHOULD make Obama unelectable. Wehner's article is the only full account of Obama's "vertiginously shifting" positions on Iraq that I have seen. It also gives the details on why many of us find Obama to be repeatedly disingenuous and to hold positions that are brand new and that do not have the depth and suppleness that comes from actual experience in politics and government.

You crack me up pc, you really do.  "Depth and suppleness?"  You talking about Bush, McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Not one of them does much more than pander about anything and everything.  Non-stop.

I will give McCain this much, at one point he seemed to have some depth, but it was over-come by his supple ability to suck-up to whatever right-wing constituency was deserting him at the moment.

The fact is that Hillary is unelectable against almost any Republican, including McCain.  If you had the depth and suppleness pc that comes from actually running, winning, and losing political campaigns, you would know that her high negatives are political death.  No one gets past those high negatives, even someone with very strong positives which she does not have.

basman,

No analysis of that kind is going to affect anything in a political campaign, but the piece you so admire absolutely reeks of apologia for Bush's war in Iraq.  Progress?  Because the violence is only down to irreducible background level?  And has any of these clowns come up with a clue of an idea how to exit. or is Wehner's idea just to stay there forever policing, dying, and spending 100s of billions.  What a load or ridiculous horseshit.  Has any of these bozos figured how to prevent Iraq from slipping neatly into the orbit of Iran as soon as we, somehow, manage to depart?  

I'll say one thing for the right-wing.  They have a never-ending ability to create the worst imaginable nightmares and then to insist with a straight face that they have been right all along.  Delusional nutcases one and all.  Progress my ass.

Vertiginous pc?  Imagine, a human being in a position of responsibility who is actually capable of thinking to himself that he might have been wrong.  

Ferraro remains not a feisty Italian American from Queens, but a feisty asshole from Queens.  Nothing against Queens, of course.  I was born there.

If she were a man, she would have completely disappeared from the public mind a generation ago.  Quick, who was Truman's VP in 1948?  See what I mean.

No question that Clinton, that narcissistic piece of crap, is trying her best to make Obama unelectable so that she can argue that only she is electable.  She has absolutely no other possible route for stealing the nomination.  But it is not going to work because the voters say it isn't so.  They will continue to give him victories right up until the end.  He will arrive at the convention with more delegates and more popular votes than she.  The polls will continue to show him doing better against McCain than she and that, unlike Hillary, his positives are much bigger than his negatives.  The super-delegates, professional pols almost all, want to win in November.  It will be perfectly obvious to one and all that you don't win by choosing a proven loser like Hillary Clinton over a stunning winner like Obama.

Just that simple.  Hillary's moment is done.  But she will drag it out so that she can go to sleep at night telling herself that there is still a chance, that it still might happen, that is, so that she can live in her delusion of importance for a little while longer.  In 15 more years, the only way Hillary Clinton will get 48 hours of TV time is to do a Gerry Ferraro -- make some racist remarks that, for a few moments, make her the object of weird fascination and horror.

pcostello, HRC has made herself unelectable to many of us.  I don't need to list her faults here because they've already been discussed, and everyone knows them except her Orwellian followers.  By the way, is there a large two-way television in your room that tells you that black is white and 2+2=3.  Or maybe Clinton followers are just proving string theory.  We are living in different universes and they intersect at TNR talkback.

I believe that either a Hillary or an Obama presidency will be a disaster.

But, it's pretty clear to me that it is Hillary who is unelectable in a general election and that Obama could well win the general.

My main support for this is not my own personal animus towards Hillary (considerable and longstanding) but the fact that so many of HER OWN PARTY despise this woman.

I don't believe any major candidate from either party has, at least in modern American history, been as divisive in their own party.  Even Nixon, much reviled, was not was not as controversial as she, even on the other side.  (JFK and Nixon got along well personally.)

And, it's certainly clear that no candidate, widely despised by their own party has ever won in the general.  

Hubert Humphrey, previously always engendering affection, came to be held in contempt by many Democrats because of his association with Johnson.  And we saw what happened to him.

The best argument the Pro-Hillaryites have for her in the general is her gender.  And the argument that Boomer women from both parties and from independent ranks will rally around a middle-aged white woman in solidarity with their sex.  

That may have been true in some states among female Democrats during the primary.  I don't think it will hold up that way in the general election.

roi--

clinton is a "narcissistic piece of crap"? nice argument.

BTW, it is Obama who is trying to make Clinton unelectable.

basman,

The Washington Post picked up the article by Wehner, providing a concise summary in the voice of Michael Gerson.

www.realclearpolitics.com/.../obama_and_iraq.html

bhunziker, you write, "Anyone who would vote for Obama but not Clinton in my opinion doesn't care about actual policy."

You're absolutely right.  And guess what.  Most people don't vote for "actual policy".  They vote for an "actual person".

Voters choose the candidate who their intellect and their gut (gut being more important) tell them in combination is the most worthy and trustworthy.

And, that instinct is not wrong.  Policies change.  But, people of presidential age, do not.  Or rarely do.  Certainly their fundamental characters do not.

Alben Barkley.

HRC can't beat Johnny Mac, Obama can.  It's really as simple as that, but y'all need to flail around for 5 more months to figure it out.  Man, it's great theater.

Which superior Clinton policy preferences, bhunziker?

The policy of giving Bush free rein in Iran?  The policy of not bothering to read the N.I.E. for Iraq? Flag burning?  The "bankrupcy" bill?  

Basic Bush Bootlick 101 is not scintillating policy stuff that's too deep to be grasped.  You're free to buy Hillary's marketing shtick for herself, that she's a policy Einstein to top all those before her, I certainly don't.  

Even if I did buy her self-characterization, I don't care about her memorization ability (I'd hope she knows a thing or two after her supposed 35 years rattling around on the edges of her husband's career), as much as I care about her character, which is so manifestly awful I cannot overlook it. 50% of us out agree.

If Hillary wants to hide this loathing for her behind her gender (millions of us are all woman haters, huh?), she is free to do so and people are free to buy it.  It's a bunch of hooey, but if it makes her and you feel better - have at it.  

Butchie, this is when I wish I could be a Republican - if this is not the quintessential Democractic Party mess, I do not know what is: stuck in a quicksand of tedious rules, squabbling lawyers, unintelligable election arcana, war zone identity politics - check, it's all there.  

Basman:  Your article confuses views regarding the invasion and views regarding what to do about it.  He has consistently said that it was wrong to go in but that we have to be careful about getting out.  I think that's the only sensible position.  It's cute that his frank acknowledgement of second thoughts -- a sharp contrast with Hillary -- is used against him, as if a politician is never permitted to question his stances or positions.  Bottom line, though, is that he *has* been consistent, and is the only candidate who opposed the invasion from the beginning.  To accuse Obama of cynicism against a backdrop of Republicans and Democrats clamoring to support Bush's war for political reasons shows how twisted this analysis is.  Is Obama's record a perfect profile in courage?  No.  He's not perfect; he's never claimed to be perfect.  But he made a choice -- a considered choice -- to consistently and vocally oppose an invasion he did not think had been sufficiently justified to the public, despite its general popularity, and he was right to do so.  Neither of the other candidates can make that claim.

If you want to talk about flip-flopping, Obama is, by far, the least guilty of the three candidates running.  Hillary was for the war before she was against it, and her cynical vote to authorize (when, she says now, *she* would never have invaded Iraq as commander in chief) is not explained away by her patently disingenuous explanations that she was voting for aggressive diplomacy.  With another administration not clearly hellbent on the course taken, maybe.  Not this one.  Meanwhile, McCain has transformed himself repeatedly.  He was against the Bush tax cuts -- in kind of a bitchy "how dare you" way -- before he was for them.  He was against "agents of intolerance" on the right before he needed them.

roidu, I love you like a cyber brother, and you can cry right wing venom all you want. But the pasted peice defintively roasts Obama as the ordinary calculating opportunistic triangulating politician he is--another mug in the mugs' game--despite all the new agey, high blown rhetoric. Sorry--not really-- to have helped blow his cover.

Wandreycer1, the reason this is a "quintessential Democractic Party mess" is because the Democratic Party for a full forty years now has been a dysfunctional coalition.

What is being exposed here is that there isn't truly much in common among all the Dem pieces and splinters:  the blue collar, the poor, Latinos, blacks, elite intellectuals of media and academia, Wall streeters who are simply cultural Democrats, and finally, Feminists or older Boomer ladies who are inculcated with leftover Feminist agitprop from the 60s & 70s.

This is not a coalition of interests.  This is a grab-bag of people who just don't see themselves as Republicans so they're Democrats.  An undigested salad of people who carry in their heads the imprint of the old glorious righteous Democratic party of FDR through JFK.

But, that party died in Chicago in 1968.  It has never come back.  You are all holding onto a chimera.  I understand why.  I can see why culturally you couldn't be under the GOP tent (It's not all to my taste either.)  

But, the sad, sad truth is, most Democrats today are people without a country.  Refugees in a diaspora left after the fall of the late, great true Democratic Party.

Major reinvention and a new alignment of the coalition is in order.  

The center of the Democratic Party will not hold.  And hasn't for a long, long time, guys.

jhildner: jh: hildie

As you like it:

As you know, the fight for truth, justice and costs eternally persists, but when a moment of respite falls my way I will plead back to your Claim.

chanrobt--

I fear that what you say is true.

Clinton can't beat McCain, she can only make it harder for Obama to do so. Rush Limbaugh supposedly wants a Clinton win this year so the "real" GOP can sweep back in and rescue us from her in 2012. Is Clinton following a similar (but reversed) strategy?

pc, no one, least of all Obama, has to "make Clinton unelectable."  She has taken care of that quite nicely.  Before this campaign got going in earnest, I disliked her (having at one time been happy to vote for her), but had no doubt that I would vote for her over any Republican, even if I had to grit my teeth to do it.  Now I despise her.  I said somewhere that she would be on my list right behind Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld.  That's the case.  I'm a local Democratic party leader and I would never again pull a lever for Hillary.  Whether I could go over to the dark side and actually vote against her is something I ponder.

The ways in which Hillary Clinton offends me are literally too numerous to mention here.  But "narcissistic piece of crap" is not an argument.  It is a conclusion, my conclusion, about someone who, to my eye, has been willing to sell out pretty much every principle upon which I voted for her in order to advance her own personal ambition.  She is a senator from New York.  Based on her voting record, she might as well be a senator from Idaho.  It is downhill from there.

Chan,

You remind me of Karl Marx, not much of an economic prophet, but a trenchant critic of capitalism.  Your analysis of the woes of the Democratic party has a great deal of truth to it.  I am, however, not so pessimistic about the prospects because there really is no alternative to the Democratic party when it comes to governing the country.  When Bush was elected, a friend of mine was in despair.  I said to her that she should not worry.  In short order, the Republicans, through greed and incompetence, would overreach and mismanage and it would quickly be obvious, again, that they only useful function they can serve is as critics of governing Democrats.  The only question, said I, was how much damage the could do before they were thrown out of office again for a generation.  I never imagined in my wildest nightmares that the scope of the damage, to our economy, to our foreign policy, to our strength and standing in the world, could approach even a fraction of what has occurred.

Once the Republicans have been dispatched, I hope that the many serious Democrats who are not stuck in a time-warp circa 1968 (and I know there are still lots of those too, and its not as though I am not old enough to remember 1968 well) will get to work on the nation's business.  I have hope.

Channy - I'm afraid it's you that is holding on to the past.  1968?  Don't you realize how ridiculous you sound to anyone under 40?

There are millions of people in this country who do not care a whit about 1968 and are actively, desperately trying to claw us away form this airless, dippy boomer dialouge and the people so addicted to it. Our poltical culture, our planet, our economy have all been almost destroyed by this mentality and frankly, the people perpetuating it.  

Sometimes I think the only time this generation will think about somoene besides themselves and their silly, ancient gripes against each other is when they die off - good riddance I'm sorry to say.

wandreycer,

I think you and chan are actually in agreement here, that too much of the Democratic party is still in the grip of 1968 and its aftermath and ancient political battles and nostalgia therefor.  While that is certainly not the case for the "rank and file," for demographic reasons alone, I believe, from direct experience, that amongst those who are active in party affairs and politics this remains so to a very unhealthy extent.  I have had to wrestle with a Democratic committee of aging ex-whatevers (my own lower end of the boomer generation or a bit older) to bring them into the reality of the 21st century,  It isn't easy, and try as we might it is damned hard to find younger people willing to participate.  The boomers got political religion.  Many of those who followed in the Democratic party don't have it. Or at least not until now.  If Obama can bring a new generation into active participation in the Democratic party, I think we have a good future.

roid, thanks for the (far) left handed compliment.  I probably don't disagree with it.

Did not Marx say something like "Capitalism will fall of its own contradictions?"

That's the problem with the Democratic Party.  Republicans have their share of doctrine and dogma.  But not anywhere near the amount the Democrats (post-Leftist takeover) now have.

The problem is, so much of Dem dogma is at odds with true human nature.  Not as bad as, but much in the same vein as, Communism.

At some point (I always say 1968), Democrats crossed the line of well meaning decency and defensible reason into the land of the logical extreme.

It doesn't help anybody to take your ideals so far from the land of "what if" that you end up in the land of "NFW".  

Democrats went from being a coalition of people who wanted to make attainable things happen by harnessing the power of the central government, to a coalition of people (gays, Feminists, displaced workers, well educated idealists, putative reformers and progressives) who have nothing in common except that they have grievances.

I agree with you that a lot of people are Democrats because they don't see themselves as having anyplace else to go.  But, that does not a party make.  Not for the long term.

I agree with you that people with no place else to go can elect a president.  But, then on what basis does that president govern?

Meanwhile, as to the supposed total disaster you say Bush is, everyone seems to ignore that he had an unprecedented kind of war thrust upon him.

If Gore had been sitting in the same chair on 11 September, I think he would have acted less decisively.  And he would have been a less inspiring and convincing leader.  But, he would have been forced to act.

And, Gore, too would have had to go to war.  And if he had eschewed going into Iraq, while going into Afghanistan solely, Saddam would have continued as a provocation.  He would have continued to posture as if he had WMDs (to scare other Arabs).  

Under the circumstances, it would have proved politically untenable for Gore to ignore a provocative Saddam, apparently or maybe having WMDs in a world where we fear suicide bombers with nukes.

Gore, to would have been immersed in an expensive war with no clear end.  And we, one way or the other, would be dealing now with some of the consequences of such a war.

I don't know where Obama, or any of the other millions of ahistorical Democrats who want to stop the world and get off, think they get to get off to.

We have unprecedented enemies.  They have not been totally vanquished.  They are like cancer or herpes.  Very difficult to eradicate, even with all our science.

wandrey, I'm with you.  I've never much loved my fellow Boomers as a group.  And it will be good for the country when many of their attitudes, assumptions, presumptions, and vanities disappear.  With them if must be.

And, you're right, someone under 40, who because he either hasn't studied it or did not witness it, cannot follow the pattern and the clear straight line from 1968 to today.

But, everything that is stupid and dysfunctional about the Democratic Party, it's siloed collection of aggrieved groups, its seeking of solutions to every possible or imagined grievance through central government fiat-- all this stuff is leftover from the stupidities of the 60s and 70s.

I agree with you wandrey, it ought to have gone away by now.  But the issues of this campaign did not spring up in the 80's or 90's.  Nor are the Democrats offering new solutions that have emerged in the 00s.

Senator Obama has invented new and better rhetoric.  He has purged 60s-speak from the way he speaks.  But I do not see yet where he has invented fresh solutions.

Obama, in fact, reminds me very much of that Robert Redford movie from the 60s, THE CANDIDATE.  

Once that handsome, fresh, charismatic guy won his senate seat, do you remember what he says to his campaign staff?  

"Now what do we do?"

Should Obama win the White House, he'll be asking the same.  But with a lot more question marks at the end of the sentence.

Sorry, chan, I don't buy it.

The war IS unprecedented (because of technology, not for any other reason) and has to be fought, but invading Iraq was a case of fighting terrorism with stupidity. There were enough people around who understood this at the time, including Obama, that I highly doubt whether Gore would have been moved, let alone compelled, to do what Bush did.  Nor can I imagine that either the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq would have been fought as thoroughly incompetently if someone other than the faith-based Bush had been president.

Here on earth, rather than in the movies, those decisions made "with your gut" accompanied by a lot of bellicose bluster don't actually work out.  It takes real thought and planning of the George Marshall variety to fight modern wars, not the sort of taking it out of your pants and smacking it on the table that ChimpyBush and his merry band of fools engage in.  Just one more case in which Republicans prove themselves totally incompetent.  Except, now we are not so overwhelmingly powerful and wealthy that we can afford such incompetence.  That's really what has changed.

It is true that the Democrats have difficulty governing because they have never enjoyed the party discipline that the Republicans do (stands to reason because the Republicans are all paying one another off -- that helps discipline a lot).  But the answer to a party that has difficulty governing is not a party, the Republicans, that have no interest in governing -- only in stealing -- and absolutely no ability to govern if they did.  Indeed, it is hard to decide what is a greater threat to the nation, incompetent Republicans or competent Republicans.

What the Democrats need is another generation that does not carry the grievances of their parents and can take a fresh look, and what the nation needs is for Republicanism, with its race-baiting and fantasism, to recede sufficiently so that the Democrats can govern without constantly having to defend themselves against the political equivalent of terrorist attacks.

"Now what do we do?"

Maybe.  I doubt it, but even so, a helluva lot better than Bush arriving, turning to his staff and asking, "Uh, where are we?"

Oddly enough chan, while I agree with you about the historical roots of the Democratic party's problems, I disagree about the nature of the disease.  Governing effectively is principally a matter of politics, not policy.  They boomer generation has been so enamored of policy, technocracy, educational credentials, that it has lost touch with the sort of cigar-chomping, Democratic club politics that actually made things work.  The Republicans are at the other extreme, all politics, no interest in workable policy.  Like a sociopath, they believe that if you can convince people of something on a given day -- that the earth is flat let's say -- that it is effectively the truth.  No, it isn't.

As between the Republicans discovering an interest in reality or the Democrats rediscovering an interest in politics, primarily as the working out of human conflict, not as the design of effective policy, I think the latter is more likely.  The Democrats want to succeed.  The people who run the Republican party are only interested in trashing the Democrats sufficiently to get another stint in power to steal and loot.

pccostello:  I completely agree with most of your posts.  I think its hypocritical and stupid to accuse Hillary of trying to damage her own party by "reinforcing the GOP message"  - while stubbornly ignoring the way Obama's been doing the same thing for months.  Both sides are trying to win and there's no way you can logically argue that one side is only trying to make the case that they're a better candidate, while the other side is viciously trying to make thier opponent "unelectable."

But don't be like the Obamaphiles.  Argue that Hillary would make a better president, is more electable, or whatever it is you think, but don't try to impugn Obama's character based on shifting opinions about the war.  Most intelligent people have had shifting opinions on the war.   If you want to argue that his evolving positions have been bad ones, that's fine, but I just don't think Democrats should be in the habit of implying that to change one's mind, or have complex positions, is to show bad character.   I think Democrats should be in the habit of smacking that ridiculous idea down.

No, the Democrats' penchant for circular firing squads manned by identity politicians is making both Clinton and Obama unelectable.

The only pleasure I have gotten out of this election cycle is watching the you Democrats self-destruct and hearing Clinton and Obama surrogates raise ALL the arguments against the Motor-Voter "reforms" normally raised by serious Republicans and denounced by you left-wing bigots as "voter suppression" deployed against Democratic candidates. Have at it, children! You're making McCain's chances better and better.

newdex,

Thank you, and I take your points. I must confess my frustration and anger, though, at the degree to which Obama has ridden the horse of his 2002 speech--made at an anti-war rally as a state legislator in an extremely liberal district--as a warrant of his superior judgment compared to Hillary. When one actually looks at the details of Obama's position, it become clear that Bill Clinton's description of this warrant as a fairy tale is accurate. I do not begrudge him a shifting position on the war. It is more that he claims prescience and that his opinions have never wavered and that this presecience and steadiness distinguish him from Clinton.

On the issue of the charge that Clinton is bashing Obama, I also find the media's and Obama's supporters' "stubbornly ignoring the way Obama's been doing the same thing for months" hard to take.

But thank you for your points.

roid, your critique of policy Democrats as opposed to old fashioned practical Democrats meshes with my dislike of modern journalists, academics, MBAs, etc.

I believe we've had two generations of people who are long on "education" but very short on wisdom.  Or much understanding or interest in life and people as they actually are.

The value of a college education, at least as actually manifested for a long time as a ticket stamping operation, is highly overrated.  (Yes I know it has proveable value in earnings, but I wonder about effectiveness.)

We have two generations of hot house people in this country and probably throughout the West.  Maybe that's why it feels like in many spheres, less is getting done than was achieved by previous generations.

And I suspect the notion of an "information economy".  Is a nation of lawyers and programmers and entertainers really viable without a balancing quotient of plumbers, car builders, and steel makers?

I guess as long as the world is more or less getting along, which we are more or less doing now, despite the M.E. problems, it all works.  

But, what happens if China has all the factories, and we have all the law firms?