"But Obama always seemed to be an individual of the middle. "

"" appraises Obama's move to the very center of our politics."

Marty, so he was at the  the very center of our politics or he is moving  the very center of our politics.

"But what is different about him as a middle-of-the-roader or moderate is that he was able to generate enthusiasm. "

No any longer.

"Andrew also points out how desperate some of Obama's earliest supporters have become as they notice he will not follow their litmus test politics."

It seems that he was able to generate  enthusiasm by creating mis-impressions.

BTW, Marty, You are such a wise man. Can you interpret  Obama Iraqi policy?

Did  Obama support the surge according the latest Obama spin?

Was the surge the right decision according the latest Obama spin?

and yet, the man of the center is willing to turn politics into more of a three ring circus than it already is:

"Obama will hold acceptance speech at football stadium with more seats"

www.iht.com/.../NA-POL-US-Democratic-Convention.php

Let's see how you spin this one, Marty.

Speaking of "useful idots," sheesh....

Look, Marty has own priorities. Not supporting Obama in Cambridge means no more invitations to any social events.  This is a capital punishment. He is not willing to do this just for sake of being intellectually honest.

I am the last person to defend peretz. Have you two gentlemen considered that peretz, your erstwhile hero and North Star, just happens to think that Obama is the best candidate and is not motivated by social standing, and any possible hits to his reputation? I have followed the man's work and it seems to me that he does not care a whit about what other people think about him, his views and opinions. For better or worse, the man's style is straightforward - and lots of other things but that is for another day.

You two guys sound like disgruntled TA's...

and this latest attack of the week about Obama being a serial flip flopper won't fly. This is what FOXGOP is serving their faithful every night and perhaps it would have some traction if Obama did flip flop on Iraq, which he didn't, and if their own candidate hadn't flip flopped on taxes, torture, illegal immigration, and Pat Robertson...

Obama will win this election handily and with more than 300 electoral votes. And marty will once again, be connected to the White House...and if Obama selects HC as his running mate - which I would advise him to do - marty will have another 8 years of material for his Clinton hatred....

guys, lighten up, everything is turning up roses for marty. Be happy for him...

Marty didn’t endorse Obama to get invited to “social events,” nor did he endorse him because he is the “best candidate.”

He endorsed him because like Al Gore he was a former student of his and because he believes that a political Obama, the man in power, is the same as the student Obama.

Moreover, Marty was never my “north star,” and he does not now represent the nadir. We share some common views on certain issues and this has not changed.

Unlike the erstwhile Mr. Cookie, newly minted “Jaunty of the boulevard,” I don’t change my mind a hundred percent about people just because I disagree with them on one or two issues.

Nor am I disgruntled by Marty’s endorsement of Obama. I consider it a pity as I think that like too many thoughtful people going back to Plato he will come to rue his endorsement of the latest power seeker. Endorsing people who seek power is a risky business as the so called “Straussian neocons” found out with George W Bush.

Obama’s style is closer to that of the “social reformer” Huey Pierce Long than he is to say FDR than his academic supporters would like to admit.

In recent months many of Obamas decisions have made many of his more uber liberal supporters angry leading to a condemnatory editiorial in the NY Times. Their reasons for criticizing Obama are not my reasons, however,   his decision to accept his nomination at a Stadium so that the admiring demos could cheer him on is not a good sign.

jackson, what in the world is wrong with holding the nomination address in a larger venue so more supporters can see him make the speech?  Does it show anything negative about Obama's personality? The Republican and Democratic National Conventions have been pure party pagentry for a very long time. Let's not pretend that McCain wouldn't do the same thing if he had the kind of enthusiastic support Obama does.

I don't know if there was a candidate in the GOP field who impressed Sullivan so his support of Barack strikes me as a 'best of the lot'.  Not hat he's a fair weather friend of Democrats, but many on the right don't see him loyal to their side so he has little clout (to bad for them).

But Mr. Peretz surprised me when he was on board early even though he would be a most reliable supporter once the choice was made.

However, I've been saying what thejauntyboulevardier  did in the paragraph about Fox and their twisted arguments should server as a warning that "What we say in the party doesn't stay in the party."  No, the GOP has little to run on so they've chosen to magnify the whining in the party.  Remember, when Hillary appeared with O'Really she was used as their tool. A good indication that something isn't smart for the left is when Fox takes it on as their issue.  

jackson,

I cannot see how you can say that Obama is like Huey Long. Long was crass and ruled autocratically. Long did inspire his constituents but his core of supporter were common southern folk.

Obama is hardly crass, he shows no signs of autocracy, and his core of support is with the more educated. They seem very different, at least to me.

I have hardly changed my mind about peretz. No matter how much he supports Obama, I still find him a difficult and unprofessional journalism. It just cracked me up that his support of Obama, which I of course approve, rankles his core of supporters so. More jacob1 than you, I must admit.

And I agree with bigfish: The stadium speech is a great idea. It shows the stark contrast between Obama and McCain and Obama excels with big crowds. It is brilliant. Think about the prospect of a McCain acceptance speech. Hell, I'm getting drowsy just thinking about it.

I suppose you can say there could be a touch of Nuremburg in any big stadium event, but that would be a thin reed of comparison.

thejauntyboulevardier said: "jackson I cannot see how you can say that Obama is like Huey Long. Long was crass and ruled autocratically. Long did inspire his constituents but his core of supporter were common southern folk."

And the cores of Obama supporters in the south are common southern folk.

As for the rest, don't confuse social achievement with sophistication.

"Obama is hardly crass, he shows no signs of autocracy, and his core of support is with the more educated. They seem very different, at least to me."

As for being crass, do you really know what he is like? How long has he been in power? Is there a public record out there you can point to?

What I do know is that he has already changed his stance on a number of core issues that many of his more leftist liberal supporters care deeply about. I know that he and his supporters have already demagogued the issue of race. I also know that he loves to play to the crowd he is addressing.

Great on salesmanship, not so great on principles!

Huey Long too started out as a reformer, don't forget that. And please drop the Nuremburg allusions; there is no need to go nuclear.

For the record, JFK gave his acceptance speech at the LA Coliseum and FDR's second acceptance speech (the "rendezvous with destiny" speech) was given at Franklin Field in Philadelphia.  Nothing new here.

isernoff,

hey, you're right. I remember seeing newsreels of that JFK speech, with LBJ sitting in the front row, looking like a man being forced to chew on a sh-t covered toothpick.

And the FDR 36 speech was in a stadium.

Good historical tidbits isernoff, I had forgotten those two precedents...

www.commentarymagazine.com/.../14901

A short but much better (than Pertz's) sampling of the issues and impilcations raised by Obama's move to the right. I don't agree with all that Whener says, but to the extent that his argument has force, it undermines the logic of Peretz's and TNR's stated rationale for supporting Obama. My own broad interpreation is that Obama is tacking to the middle in a very triangulating--not a bad thing by my lights necessarily--Cllintonesque way, and when he is president--two really good steak dinners and bottles of wine are riding on that--he will be incrementalist, prudent, as was--in the main--Clinton, with a constant eye to the poltics of everything--no big surprise. And he will break real Lberals's hearts--the cracks are already forming.

Why does Peretz support him? My take: because Obama is politically brilliant, talks a tremendous game, has his own magnetic and charisamtic cool, and makes ostensible Liiberals come in their pants.

Itz,

pretty trenchant analysis of the Obama appeal though I must say that for me, it would take a bit more high octane estrogen to trigger that last part of your equation...

and I agree: with research methodology, triangulation is a good thing. Since that fool Dick Morris coopted that concept for machiavellian policy making,  it carries a negative connation.  Too bad.

As to your 2nd paragraph, itzik, you are spot on.  As for your first, I truly hope you are right.  Because if he tries to govern from the Left, it will be a loooong 4 years (and only 4).

Isernoff, was the JFK speech given at the  LA Coliseum separate from the convention or was the convention held there too?

lsernoff, as for FDR he belongs to a time when parties nominated their candidates in smoke filled rooms.

It also strikes me, Sernoff, that great as he was FDR, who came perilously close to becoming President for life, is not someone whose governance style  any candidate these days should be emulating.

Obama, I assume doesn’t want to become our Chavez or worse, our Mugabe.

Jack- the 1960 convention was held at the LA Memorial Arena, which is indoors.  The speech was outside.

See, I think the speech in the big areans is more than theater.  It is partly that, of course- look at how many people turn out to see Obama.   Raise the "bump", etc.  But, from his days as a comunity organizer, Obama has always been about getting people involved, and his whole campaign has been an extension of that.   This is a way to make it real- it isn't only party-types at the speech, but tens of thousands of other people.   I suppose one could argue that it is demagougery (sp), or you could argue it is part of his coherent ideology.   Up to you, I guess.

(jacob: Obama ideology is not true)

...And he will break real Lberals's hearts--the cracks are already forming...

And mindless liberals too!

p.s. to my last post:

www.nytimes.com/.../08herbert.html

Eloquently put Bone.

I fear people might be weary and wary of Obamamania by then. Already the TV is calling it his "rock moment" and the economy could be in a real state by then. People might not have the stomach for mass adulation.

I just hope he doesn't do a Kinnock on it. Although he does have Murdoch behind him and in fairness the two don't compare, charisma wise.

I don't know Iggy.  In a couple of months I think Obamamania will have died down, as we slog through a hot summer and an small-bore campaign.  Then the speech will remind everyone of what they like about him, which will lead into him taking on McCain in the debates, which should help him even more.   At least, that's how I see it playing out.    But I also thought Mondale could win, and told my father in no uncertain terms that he would.  

Sounds like you got the making of a good hedge fund manager Bone. Mondale should have won, if there was any democratic justice; 8 years of Reagan is hard to get your head around, the moral equivalent of space-tme really.

I hope you're right. I think you are, and if we were to be honest, we both know this thing is already over. Only an Israeli strike can save McCain now, and they've agreed to wait until the election is over.

"Only an Israeli strike can save McCain now, and they've agreed to wait until the election is over. "

Don't be ridiculous. The election is still wide open no matter what the poll of the day says.

As for Mondale not winning, the real tragedy was that the Democratic new left turned against Hubert Humphrey and helped elect Nixon. It's been down hill for the Democrats ever since.

The left has a way of screwing things up. It was Nader, let's nor forget who helped elect Bush on 00.

Those Democratic candidates who lost, Humphrey, Mondale, Gore had a substantial record and should have won. Obama, on the other hand, has no record.

In any case, given Obama's turn right or to the "center" I wouldn't be surprised if the left goes after him too.

We can't Jack, we've nowhere else to go.

There's talk of supporting Nader, as much as possible, to try and give him a wake up call, but it's more a tantrum than anything else. No, we're left hoping, against all hope that the Unity of...comes good. I'm not holding my breath. He's a gifted politician who wants to win, but he's throwing away some unprecedented advantages. He could be more Liberal, and has the leeway but I fear he's in the pocket of the usual suspects. Which makes your criticism of him really ridiculous.

To be fair, Iggy, regarding the Mondale thing, I was only five.  

Well, I was 32 Bone, and remember it vividly. (Stupid American)

...To be fair, Iggy, regarding the Mondale thing, I was only five....

I don't want to tell you how old I was then, but it was a year or three more than five I am sorry to say.

jacksondyer:  The 1960 Democratic Convention was held indoors; only the speech was held outdoors.  I remember it well; but I don't remember where the indoor events were held.  I'll take boneill's word for it.  There may be other acceptance speeches that were held outdoors.  In the pre-A/C days those indoor venues were tough.  Truman should have had his acceptance speech in 1948 outdoors at nearby Franklin Field, but the delegates at that convention were only slightly more enthusiastic about Harry than the public at large.  Clearly, things changed by election day!  I don't understand your other comments about FDR.

I sure wish the parties were as they were in the JFK days.  Both were centrist. The extremists who now form the bases were fringe elements. Now, they dominate the nominating processes. Progress!

The Ignorant Populist said: "We can't Jack, we've nowhere else to go."

Who is we, Ignorant Irishman?

Why do write as if you were one of us?  

"I sure wish the parties were as they were in the JFK days.  Both were centrist. The extremists who now form the bases were fringe elements. Now, they dominate the nominating processes. Progress!"  lsernoff

I agree with this part of your comment.

My point about FDR is that while a geat President he did stay in power way too long. He got to like it too much.