Prediction: The Obama critics, now that he's won, will shift to the theme of his ruthlessness. If you're looking for talking points, check out David Duke...he's been busy the last few days. And don't neglect Pat Buchanan, he's also been typing up a storm.

"The reader adds: 'Maybe Obama is disproving once and for all Hillary's comparison of herself to LBJ.'"

Didn't find this entry.

I made a comparison to LBJ in that blog talkback and the above sequence (never saw it but heard of it).  I didn't find anyone else bring up the subject. I sure didn't say anything about disproving Hillary's contention of being like LBJ (never even heard her imply that).  Was this all a private e-mail exchange?

It's always good to have Backlash Pat around.  The right oversold and poisoned the well by shining the light on Bill (whew!).  Now they'll fail to label Barack as a hothead but will cause the McCain squad to give him some space and remove the wimp factor as question mark.

Never underestimate the power of those who live in the past to use techniques that will not only fail in '08, they will highlight why people desire Obama and his vision. If Bush did anything positive it was to prove that dumb is a bad thing....

Same with this plan to have McCain face Barack as often as possible. Either they are desperate beyond reason or fools.  Big room, small room or no room at all...when John speaks he is begging for a reply from Barack the answer makes the war hero appear out of touch if not feeble or well, mean.

Face it, Barack may need to work at the fine details and perfect the Fall product but neither the Republican Spring catalog of choices or the Democrat's better line-up had a 2008 person to take Barack on, at least not on his own terms.

An aggressive Barack!? Fine, and let John deal with a tough guy as well as the rock star.  Keep it up Pat, Mr. Buchanan's reasons for opposing Mr. Obama will be better than a goof-ball standing up for John.

No problem Mr. Crowley.  When I first read the HuffPost article yesterday about Obama cornering ol' Joementum the first thing that came to mind was LBJ.  I didn't think Obama had it in him to play a bit rough.  This must be the Chicago pol coming out in him.

As for great minds, when it comes to analog chip design, I do okay.  When it comes to politics, well, not so much.  :-)

Nice comparison!

Except that LBJ actually, y'know, got congressional legislation _passed_. What are Obama's congressional achievements, again? I don't recall any. Can you?

Oops - so sorry, I forgot. In the netroots/blogger universe, what matters is attitude. Standing up to the man! "Getting our swagger back."

Legislation? That's for losers.

See? DAT's what I'm talkin' bout. Dog be all up in his face n' shit.

Tep: he's our nominee. We get it, you wanted somebody else (so did I). Really, we get it.

But it's done. We have a candidate, and notwithstanding your reservations about his CV he has nevertheless run, on balance, a measured, hopeful, balanced, graceful--and successful--race.

And yet you still seem to have a lot more venom for our candidate that the opposition. Where does that get us?

You know, we saw a lot of division on the GOPher side, and a lot of resentment and dire warnings from the Hucksters. And yet Repugs are coming together as a party, despite their misgivings about their candidate. We can't do that?

I confess, I'm a little boggled, especially when I get this from you.

It isn't really about attitude, tep- what heartens me is that the new standard-bearer for our party is doing something to get the party in order- and if that means having to stand up to a man who is bashing him publicly to advance his own slimy little goals, that is great.  I love it.   Pelosi, Ried, Dean et al haven't been able to get our party in order.  And don't get me wrong- the loathing of the lockstep, so different from the Republicans, is one of the things I admire about the Dems.  But chaos can be frustrating.  Maybe Obama, with a mixture of toughness and cool, can make is a coherent party.  

Tep, how dare you?  I'm really sick of your willful wallowing in ignorance.  I have taken the time, in response to inane posts such as yours, to explain the numerous pieces of legislation Obama has sponsored and championed in the Senate as well as in Illinois.  Let's make a deal:  I won't do that anymore, go to fucking Wikipedia for two seconds, and don't ever put up another "Can you name Obama's legislation?" post.  Christ.

"Tep, how dare you?"

It's early, but that might be the best rhetorical question of the month.

I love that photo sequence, thanks much for digging it up. I've never seen it before, but I read an account of their chat years ago. As a native Texan who lived in Providence for a couple of years, I occasionally described it to my Little Rhody friends as "the way things are." I did it while serving up a steaming bowl of homemade chili, so they didn't care all that much.

"What are Obama's congressional achievements, again? I don't recall any. Can you?"

Sure. He added three amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. The Obama-Coburn Transparency Act was signed into law. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act was signed into law. The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act woud be law now if an anonymous Senator wasn't putting a hold on it.

I've met your challenge, I think.

Teplukhin2you: I believe that just a day or so ago you said you voted for Obama. Is that not correct? And that still is not good enough for the mad hatters.

Tep- What are his legislative accomplishments?  This is about attitude.

Myself- Not about attitude, about party discipline, for once

jhildner- (a little angry)- look up his legislative accomplishments

roz- Listing his accomplishments

So: tep threw down a challenge.  I answered him respectfully, jhildner got a little punchy, but, based on past back-and-forths, within bounds, and roz straightforwardly answered the question.

Libref: MAD-HATTERS!

Dude, get a new trope, please.  That had no place in that discussion.  At all.  It is boring.

Darn, I thought Crowly was referring to my post "Barack Obama is the new Lyndon Johnson." when he cited the astute reader.  That photo is certainly what I had in mind.

I've missed my fifteen minutes of fame for lack of a link to a ancient photo.  The irony hurts.

"I believe that just a day or so ago you said you voted for Obama. Is that not correct? And that still is not good enough for the mad hatters."

libref, how many times do we have to tell you "usually, we don't care about for whom you voted as much as discussing and debating particular issues" until you decide to believe us instead of your supercilious ego?

OK, hildner, let's look at the record-- what actually mADE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE, was voted upon, and ENACTED.

Per GovTrack, Obama ranks second-to-last among both parties' presidential candidates for both absolute # of bills enacted and % of bills sponsored that made it out of committee. Only Ron Paul did worse. Obama was roughly tied with Kucinich and Edwards at only 10% of bills sponsored successfully making it out of committee and to the floor, with only 2-- yes, two, dos, dva, zwei-- sponsored bills  actually being enacted.

Here are the stats from GovTrack www.govtrack.us/.../presidential.xpd

BIDEN 44% out of committee, 12 enacted.

Biden, a Democrat, has been a Senator from Delaware since 1973.

Biden has a senior role on the following committees: Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (Chairman), United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control (Cochairman)

Biden sponsored 271 bills since Jan 21, 1993, of which 153 (56%) haven't made it out of committee and 12 were successfully enacted.

BROWNBACK   24% out of committee, 5 enacted

Brownback, a Republican, has been a Senator from Kansas since 1996.

Brownback sponsored 277 bills since Jan 4, 1995, of which 210 (76%) haven't made it out of committee and 5 were successfully enacted.

CLINTON  14% out of committee, 10 enacted

Clinton, a Democrat, has been a Senator from New York since 2001.

Clinton sponsored 374 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 321 (86%) haven't made it out of committee and 10 were successfully enacted.

DODD  23% out of committee, 15 enacted

Dodd, a Democrat, has been a Senator from Connecticut since 1981.

Dodd has a senior role on the following committees: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (Chairman)

Dodd sponsored 385 bills since Jan 21, 1993, of which 295 (77%) haven't made it out of committee and 15 were successfully enacted.

EDWARDS  9% out of committee, 2 enacted

Edwards, a Democrat, was a Senator from North Carolina from 1999 to 2004.

Edwards sponsored 81 bills since Jan 19, 1999, of which 74 (91%) haven't made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted.

HAGEL  26% out of committee, 5 enacted

Hagel, a Republican, has been a Senator from Nebraska since 1997.

Hagel sponsored 130 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 96 (74%) haven't made it out of committee and 5 were successfully enacted.

HUNTER  25% out of committee, 10 enacted

Hunter, a Republican, has been a Representative from California since 1981.

Hunter has a senior role on the following committees: House Committee on Armed Services (Ranking Member)

Hunter sponsored 133 bills since Jan 5, 1993, of which 100 (75%) haven't made it out of committee and 10 were successfully enacted.

KUCINICH  11% out of committee, 2 enacted

Kucinich, a Democrat, has been a Representative from Ohio since 1997.

Kucinich sponsored 106 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 94 (89%) haven't made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted.

MCCAIN  37% out of committee, 31 enacted

McCain, a Republican, has been a Senator from Arizona since 1987.

McCain has a senior role on the following committees: Senate Committee on Armed Services (Ranking Member)

McCain sponsored 537 bills since Jan 21, 1993, of which 340 (63%) haven't made it out of committee and 31 were successfully enacted.

OBAMA  10% out of committee, 2 enacted

Obama, a Democrat, has been a Senator from Illinois since 2005.

Obama sponsored 130 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 117 (90%) haven't made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted.

PAUL  2% out of committee, 0 enacted

Paul, a Republican, has been a Representative from Texas since 1997.

Paul sponsored 352 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 346 (98%) haven't made it out of committee and 0 were successfully enacted.

RICHARDSON  24% out of committee, 14 enacted

Richardson, a Democrat, was a Representative from New Mexico from 1983 to 1997.

Richardson sponsored 91 bills since Jan 5, 1993, of which 69 (76%) haven't made it out of committee and 14 were successfully enacted.

Now could you please cease with the character assassination stuff. Obama is a NICE MAN. He gives a good speech, means well, is comfortable in his skin. All well and good.

But could we please stop pretending that he represents some kind of apotheosis of liberal leadership, or policymaking. He's run a good campaign, sure. But he is far below his peer group when it comes to legislative achievement, political battle scars, experience in foreign policy.

Stop making this man into something he's not, and we'll all be happy warriors in his camp.

With all due respect, Obama's career has not been nor does it need to be about long-term legislative accomplishment. While I fully support tep's motive of identifying a weakness as a means of better compensating for it in the general election, the point here is executive leadership skills, not Congressional log-rolling.

"Congressional log-rolling."

Given my view of the Congressional track record since the mid '90s, I'd suggest changing that to log-dropping...

Teplujhin2you: Roid is always going on about how Hillary is incompetent and hasn't achieved anything while simultaneously talking up the hype known as Obama. Thank you for setting the record straight.

Tep,

First, let me apologize for being testy before.

Now that that's out of the way, let me explain why your numbers don't mean much:

1.  Bush.

2.  Republican majority.

3.  Republican filibuster.

[Given 1 through 3, I'm not sure you would *want* to boast successful legislation!]

4.  Name Hillary's successful landmark legislation.  (Biden can boast the Violence Against Women Act.  What other Johnsonesque legislative achievements would you like to point out among this group, preferably in non-statistic form?)

5.  Active co-sponsorships.  I'm thinking of the Coburn-Obama transparency act.  I'm thinking of Feingold and Obama's ethics act.  I'm thinking of the Lugar-Obama conventional weapons act.  They were all signed into law, and must not be reflected in your numbers as three is greater than two.  (I am aware of the Congo relief act as a bill introduced by Obama and passed.  I don't know what the other one is.)

6.  Vetoes or death in the House.  I'm thinking of Obama's SCHIP amendment regarding veterans' families.  (McCain voted against SCHIP and praised the veto -- something we'll hear about.)  I'm thinking of Obama's contribution to the Senate's immigration reform bill.

7.  He still works well with others.  I'm thinking of the Obama-Hagel nuclear proliferation bill.  I'm thinking of the Obama-Bond bill on the abuse of personality disorder-based military discharges.  I'm thinking of the Katrina profiteering bill sponsored with a conservative Republican -- forget who.

8.  Illinois.  Discount that experience if you like, but Springfield is a corrupt swamp where Obama was initially seen as Mr. Goo-Goo Fancy Pants (while in the minority party for most of the time besides).  He overcame that and was largely responsible for major ethics reform, Illinois's first EITC, health care reform, criminal investigation and death penalty reform (including the nation's first bill requiring videotaping of homicide interrogations), welfare reform, and a racial profiling bill.  The last item is interesting to me because he got constituencies on board with it you would expect to be hostile to it -- namely, cops' unions.  (Regarding the criminal investigation stuff, keep in mind that Illinois had just exonerated the same number of death row inmates it had executed since the death penalty was reinstated in the '70s -- a significant number.)  Some measures were small, others large, but he developed a reputation as a guy who will work with the opposition and get things done.

9.  Obama's tenure.  Nobody is arguing that Obama has been in the Senate very long.  (Your comparison to Kucinich is disingenuous.  He's been in Congress much longer.)

I'm not trying to make Obama out to be more than he is.  Nobody's saying he's a seasoned veteran of Washington politics.  You're arguing against Mr. Nobody again when he argue that he isn't.  I don't think he's magical.  I do think that he is an uncommonly smart and uncommonly honest and uncommonly charismatic politician who's got serious chops in his chosen field.  I think we're lucky to have someone of his quality in national politics.  My judgment about him, as you know, is based on my contact with him in law school and my having followed his career prior to his celebrity turn and afterward.  I understand that most people haven't followed him as closely as I have and haven't been exposed to him as much, and I certainly understand reasonable skepticism.

But there's skepticism of a different sort which I find unacceptable, in that it's (a) snotty and (b) more importantly, plainly wrong.  That is skepticism which dismisses Obama as a lightweight, as someone with his head in the clouds, as someone who's all talk.  "Empty suit" skepticism gets under my skin not because it's something negative about my boyfriend -- my skin is thicker than that, certainly -- but because it bears no relation to any fair assessment of reality.  It's easy and dumb and gets this guy way wrong.

Now, I know that you probably want Obama to show you certain things you haven't seen yet.  I know that you're uncomfortable with his stance on Iraq and skeptical of his diplomacy talk.  I know he's not your ideal candidate.  One thing to know about Obama, which everyone who has ever come into contact with him or worked with him has affirmed (except, perhaps, McCain!) is that he's got an open mind, he seeks out opposing viewpoints, and he wants to test his positions.  He's not a guy whose gut does his thinking for him, which is a good thing and, it seems, pretty unique.  I trust him in office in a way I don't trust any other politician I've seen in large part because of those qualities.  As for winning, you mention his campaign.  It's true, it's just a campaign, but it's been rough, and he's shown himself to be unflappable and tactically smart and an outstanding communicator.  I like our chances with him.

In any event, I'm happy to talk about what you think Obama should do to win and what you want to see him do.  I'm happy to debate his positions, even if your contention is that some are naive.  What pisses me off are the snide dismissals of a serious and compelling person who is far more than his U.S. Senate record -- which itself is more than your stats.  Fair enough?