... qualitative difference between McCain and Obama.

but it's not necessarily enough to convince some of us to vote for Obama. And, on many big issues, there is no qualitative difference between the two of them. Both support continued aggression abroad (McCain likes Iraq, Obama likes Afghanistan/Pakistan), crappy healthcare, domestic surveillance, and a larger military. I'm not voting for any of that garbage.

In every democratic country the choice comes down to the lesser evil. All you can do is vote on that basis - it is in the very nature of the system.

What you are doing is worse than voting for Nader in 2000. In that case one could at least argue that the tally that Nader received was sending some kind of signal. You're non voting will simply not register.

My grandmother lived through Nazi Germany as an unpolitical stay-at-home Mum who never bothered to vote in the Weimar republic. After the war she never missed a vote telling me that it was her duty to vote for a democratic party to help make sure that democracy was there to stay.

Maybe once the US republic has fully succumbed and lost the last vestiges of any democratic legitimization you will likewise come to regret your decision.

In a country of 305+ million people, do you really feel anyone can ascend to the 3-dimensional game of The Presidency and YOU will be together on every page? Use common sense. You do not detail WHY Obama has "...lost my vote...", surely not simply because he is a "calculator"? I don't know of any people at any level of society that do NOT "calculate", from how to get a job promotion to get a better deal on their next computer. The question in any such weighing of factors is: is someone being ethical or moral while "calculating".
Look at the Supreme Court's composition. Want Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia to decide for you, your progeny, et.al. what is the meaning of "Life, Liberty, & the pursuit of Happiness"? Get real and be practical. I have a duffel bag full of questions about Obama, and that is after reading position statements on his website AND BOTH of his books. But, common sense suggests that a thinking person allows for individual differences and focuses on key issues. If you are in any way "progressive", consolidating your objections and looking at alternatives is essential before panning Obama. It is impossible to respond with more detail to your post since you do not give a clear picture of your reasoning behind not voting for the office of the Presidency, but I urge you to open your door a tad wider.

As someone who has voted in every election, at every level, in my eligible-to-vote lifetime and with a nearly 99-100% democrat voting record (I think I might have voted for a republican county supervisor at a time when the local democratic machine had become simply too corrupt and no longer represented the best interests of the party requiring an interregnum in which we could reconsider our position - but I might have voted democrat anyway because I couldn't bear to pull the lever - I don't really remember), I am, for the first time, likely not to vote this November.

Although I know that Obama is "better" than McCain - that bar is way too low to be meaningful. As I have said before - Obama has neither the political will nor the political capital to make the sort of changes I think are necessary to save our republic and yet he will be branded progressive and we will be saddled with his results.

For all of those of you who think that his plan for Iraq is going to change the militarization of America and its interaction with the Moslem world just listen to Obama on Afghanistan and really, really scary Pakistan. This guy, like Bush before him, is incredibly consistent. I personally don't believe that taking the "war" to those places is going to help bring peace to the world. See, Robert Scheer, Truthdig.com.

For now, I'd rather let McCain take the blame and let our benighted party try to find its soul rather than merely try to win.

I would truly love to be wrong here but every day in every way Obama simply raises my fears.

Nevertheless it is clearly established that Obama is not beholden to the neocons the way that McCain is.

CNN's "PUMA's"

I read this article after I read your comment. I don't think there was
DNC maneuvering this year to nominate an "electable" candidate in the same way that was done in 2004, except in the whole "superdelegate" brouhaha.

The critical questions for me in the Obama over Clinton issue are:
- were we (Democrats as a whole) deceived by Obama? (the FISA shift
to me was less a case of deception than policial maneuvering for base reasons- not attractive but not deception)

- was the Obama "crowning" plotted from the very beginning, or was it a case of Clinton changing her emphasis too late and being unable to swing superdelegates during and after her last winning primaries? What caused that inability?

Obama has not been nominated yet.

It takes a lot of work and a long time for a party to recreate itself- it appears that the Tories have managed that now in England - I don't see theirs as mainly an ideological shift, except in the case of backing off some of the more obvious of Thatcher's historically wrong points. The Labour Party's ideology is in shambles and people are sick of them. I think that is why they will lose the next election.

I would see gridlock happening even in the case of Hillary being the candidate.I also see Clinton as being to the right of the Democratic party base.

I don't know how the acute economic problems the US faces are going to be alleviated- gridlock is no solution.

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

"...Obama has neither the political will nor the political capital to make the sort of changes I think are necessary to save our republic and yet he will be branded progressive and we will be saddled with his results."

The tsunami headed in our direction could be seen in 2004 and we're now seeing the rising tidal wave in the condition of the global energy and financial markets. Whoever gets elected this year will get blamed for not being able to fix the problems, which have been twenty years in the making and just baked in the cake with the last four years of the Bush administration.

I too sometimes wonder whether it would be best to hang a "Hoover Redux" mantle around McCain's (and by extension neocon Republicans') neck like the ancient mariner's albatross. Why should the progressive community want to take on the thankless task of cleaning up the mess the neocons have forced on the Republic? That's assuming it can be cleaned up too. My only reason for likely not voting for McCain is that the Republic of Gilead beckons from over the hill, which truly frightens me.

that the "Hope" and "Change" message wasn't just hype.

so I'm willing to vote for him, and see how it turns out once he's President.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

...I'd hate to have to call in the Medic when you turn purple ;-)~

I respect Obama for injecting Hope back into Democratic politics. Still, I'm not judging him *as President* until he *is President*. then I'll praise or criticise as appropriate at that point in time.

Over the past decade, I've been forced to become cynical: Words are pretty, but to me are meaningless now: Show me results, and I'll decide to believe or not. Now, for politicians, hot air is their stock in trade, so results are harder to discern, so I'll have to be patient (something I'm bad at) and wait and see...

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

My question for those of you who are willing to accept the "better" but not paradigm shifting Obama is: Do you think that it is possible to save the republic by moving the "war" from Iraq to Afghanistan/Pakistan or by shifting public largesse from "their" churches to our "churches" or by perpetuating the FISA nonsense or by publically dis'ing the more liberal Supreme Court justices?

I believe that these policies and this politic will perpetuate the slide even if, because he is "better" it might happen a tad slower. I also think that the slide will then be blamed on the "progressive" Obama leading to the probability that progressivism will be rejected.

In some ways it is more likely that the greater sinner (mcCain) is more likely to be converted than the lesser who, because he is the lesser is convinced of his own moral superiority.

unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is under NATO and has a UN stamp on it. That's worth considering right there.

... in foreign policy as been noted here as well as in other places.

His rhetoric on Afghanistan is disturbing but mostly in that in coops the GWOT catch phrases. The reality may very well look rather different.

The US is facing a recession and the major NATO allies will not send more troops Obama's charm withstanding. The German social democratic party already preemptively ruled this out before Obama even arrived in Berlin.

Obama will have to find a different formula in Afghanistan. Military might alone will not due it - there are simply not enough resources. Obama is anything if not smart I have high hopes that he will figure this out and quickly. He also has all the skills to become a first class mediator and diplomat.

I don't much care for Obama's watered down interior policy stances and priorities but I think there is a decent chance that on foreign policy he could shine.

IMHO Obama gives you a fairly good chance that you can keep your republic. McCain not so much.

BTW I write "your republic" because I am not American nor do I live there anymore.

Of course predictions are always a guessing game but for what it's worth here's my take in a nutshell:

With Obama the world may accept the US dominance for a little while longer thus making a rapid collapse of the US $ as world reserve currency a bit less likely.

Think of the US as a stock - if McCain gets in the world will soon try to figure out how to dump this abysmally lead and recklessly debt ridden entity as quickly and painlessly (for the non-US part of the world) as possible.

If you like the latter dooms day scenario because you then can pin all the blame on the Republicans I suggest you vote for McCain.

when I voted for Jimmy Carter.

And boy, was I disappointed.

"Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss"...Pete Townsend

I don't think I ever read anything saying he would attend. I think with the exception of the kos diary he wrote he has always kept his distance from the blogs. Plausible deniabilty? maybe :D

So what is your point other than you don't like the headline?

crying over someone else' spilled milk.

what is your point other than my comment seems pointless to you? That's ok.

I'm not a panting Obamaphile, I hate his vote on FISA, I don't like the "religious" tie-in with social programs, but as of now I will vote for him and not feel milked. Disappointed yes, surprised, a bit.

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

As edited I see your point and agree about "milking."

I disagree, however (and at the moment), about voting for Obama. See my entry above.

I just can't seem to catch things in preview or I think I've posted a change instead of just previewed it. Sorry.

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

as I feel they got the direct punch.

I haven't had great foresight in my own choices- I pretty much ignored Obama as "who's he?" until Bill and Hill did some "anything to get the nomination" crap -which made it impossible for me to keep pushing her- then Obama did some too-

(not to ignore McCain, who had compared his shifts to Rudy G's at one point, saying "I don't want the nomination that bad"), and then he did.)

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

Sums it up quite nicely. McCain is a known quantity and he is old. Don't see him changing his MO any time. Obama on the other hand is a gamble worth taking.

... are worth the spit in my mouth. Vote down ticket and start draining Presidential power, I say. Both of these guys are bad for America. It make no difference in the end. The answers lie elsewhere.

Obama will in all likelihood mean no war with Iran.

If this is not an important enough difference to you than you are beyond cynical.

But he will definitely mean more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

... history text books. If you took Obama at face value on FISA I recommend not making this mistake when he voices off on Afghanistan. From my point of view there is a very high probability that he simple tries to capture the GWOT flag from the republicans to broaden his appeal and counter the typical weak Democrats bitch slap. It is a good campaign strategy. Obama is a crafty politician if nothing else. Politicians lie. The US is heading into recession the allies won't pony up. Reality will intrude. The questions is only would McCain be quicker in recognizing the writing on the wall than Obama. Nothing that I read about McCain indicates this. He has no clue about economics, he is known to be stubborn and the latter does usually not improve with age. The US would have to fall and fall hard before McCain let's go of the big shiny military gun.

As I wrote earlier if you like that scenario because it'll convey even to the borderline retarded that truly the Republicans were the once breaking your country you should be consistent and vote for the geezer.

just as you're going to have more war in Iraq anyway, the troops can't realistically be pulled out in less than 18 months.

But I speculate that things like this are being floated as a "tough on terror" signal to jam the "Dems are weak on defense" narrative. That laughable "we're the ones that are serious on defense" narrative is the best card the GOP has - in fact, it's the *only* card the GOP has besides the Big Lie Machine - and Obama's jamming that meme extremely effectively during campaign season, which is precisely what I've advocated. And a genius, of course, is a person who agrees with oneself.

Think about how significant progress gets achieved in America - as a case study, contrast "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as policy in isolation and then in historical context. It was always absurd, a completely stupid policy viewed in isolation, but the predictable consequence of DADT was that it introduced the concept of gays serving in the military. Fast forward to today, and now we have dialogue - "come on, we've already said they can serve, this policy's just absurd, let 'em serve openly". That's a huge advance. There's still resistance but now the most ardent opponents of gays in the military are in a bind - it would take extraordinary effort to set the clock back to "gays can't serve" yet they're hard-pressed to enthusiastically support the status quo, precisely because everyone can see it's absurd.

And if that were where it ended it would be something - but next generation you'll have Congressional Medal of Honor winners and generals that are "out" and that will have a transformational impact on the perception of gays in society.

So as a transition to a more progressive stance, DADT served admirably - in fact, far from being a grotesque error, it was brilliant, an elegant progressive political masterpiece.

I think it serves as a stellar example of how realistic progress can be achieved in America, and my instincts are telling me that Obama understands the game of transitional policy and the art of the politically possible very well.

Bear in mind that the differences between an Obama and a McCain go far further than mere ideology and policy. There's a vast contrast both in levels of education and in real experience of cultures outside the US (as distinct from living on American bases abroad and dropping bombs on other cultures, a rather different proposition). Obama will not be anywhere near as vulnerable to the dehumanization of "the other" that leaks out of McCain's head every third time he opens his mouth, and that will have a profound effect on how policy is conducted - including war.

... 2000, and Obama isn't Gore. That argument is delusional. I'm not sure what beyond cynical means, or even if it is important. But, war with Iran has to do with much more than just merely who sits in the Oval office. Do you really think Bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq? Of course not. Bush couldn't organize a tea party. If the US wars with Iran it will be because we are dragged into it, regardless of who is Prez.

You're free to think as you please, of course.

... "dragged into the war" with Iraq?

Listening to you it almost sounds as if wars just happen as unavoidable as rain. I am indeed glad to have the freedom to think otherwise. And I stand corrected - rather than being cynical you seem to entertain a view of the world that is beyond depressive (BTW with beyond depressive I mean I'd rather shoot myself than believe that).

.. and you're ignoring the rest of reality for convenience. Gore's Presidency would have meant a much different dynamic on so many levels -not least of which would have been who he surrounded himself with- that for you to suggest I implied Gore would have been dragged into Iraq ... never mind ...

The problem, or as I prefer to view it - the lie, of the Obama perspective is that much of the quotes you've cited imply is that the nation as a whole wants the political bickering to end and some mid ground taken. But that's a lie. The reality is that the forcefully directed Republican policy of setting up a trickle down economy and heavily funding an unaccountable military budget has finally - FINALLY - been recognized by the majority of the public as a massive failure. I should correct myself here in that I don't believe that the Republican policy of favoring the rich at the expense of every other person in society has been a failure. In fact it has succeeded wildly. The rich are now massively, stupendously, gnormously richer than they've ever been, short of the robber baron era. Failure is in the eye of the beholder and the Republicans still keep telling us that the economy is fabulous! We're all just a bunch of whiners.

Somewhere in this mess of a few billionaire barons ("regents" was what the Republicans called them before changing the name to "pioneers") and the tens of millions of a declining middle class is the mid-point post-partisan view that Obama is and has been pushing. It's a Republican view. A Reagan, trickle down Republican view. It's, to use a Stirling Newberry term, the extraction of all that is of value in America. Obama, through his love 'em Republicans post partisan rhetoric, has been pretending that we as a nation need to continue on that path, with only minor adjustments, and not rock the boat too much and upset people. Which fkng people? It's a lie. It always has been a lie.

When Bush ran against Kerry I saw some poll that listed about ten liberal policies. The poll asked people who was for those policies more. The results indicated that most people thought Bush represented them. That's one of the fundamental problems with America. The public is clueless on what's going on and who's doing what. So what should a politician do under those circumstances? Fudge some more? That's what Obama has given us. Change we can't figure out. The audacity of hope in compassionate conservatism guided by God.

You seem to admire some Obama quotes.

..................................................
Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won't have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.

... It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter...
..................................................

Where has he proposed serious policies? Health care. John Edwards proposed a compromise health care policy that tried to keep the thieving pharmaceutical and health insurance companies in the mix, to temper some of the onslaught that they will provide against a worthwhile health care system. It was only then that Clinton proposed a similar policy. Obama moved more towards the corporate thieves point of view and even with that I don't have the slightest sense that he'll fight, really fight, for national health care. And that's in the face of the very real problem economically that corporations face with providing health care on their own. And plainly, with the FISA reversal, who can have any "faith" in Obama's commitment to anything? And as for the "American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues" what's with the hope dreams we keep getting from the guy.

Your quotes are actually the typical Obama double talk where he implies concern about the problems real people face and implies that those problems need to be dealt with, but they have to be fudged somehow. We have to have a new New Deal, but it has to be done in a way Ronald Reagan would have done it. Right?

Down to basics, while the public has finally noticed that they're getting reamed up the kazoo by Republicans, Obama tells us that Democrats have to lean towards those very same Republicans to get the public to support them. It's a lie and it was a lie from the beginning, but enough suckers saw the dark skin, heard the preacher speechifying and thought, he's got to be looking out for us little people. He wouldn't turn on his own and we're all share croppers now. Sure. He would never shop on Fifth Avenue while abandoned bodies float in an abandoned flooded American city.

Somehow I don't see anything admirable in Obama talking back to DKos. It's a sign of arrogance much more than bravery. And Kos isn't exactly a liberal. His prior push for "Fightin' Dems" has given us many of the new Bush Dogs. And DKos was probably Obama's biggest netroots supporting forum. And that doesn't explain the direct and specific about face on FISA. He lied. He has no principle. He'll do what looks good to him at some particular moment. Nothing idealistic. Nothing Godly. Everything self-serving. The audacity of a bullshit.

The problem with the Obama deception is that when he pulls his switches as president he'll be turning off all the new youth that's supposed to be Democrats for life. Instead they'll become jaded about politics for life. Not that I think a politician like Obama would mind that. The less interested and involved the public is the easier it is to sell snake oil. Like the Clinton's, it's Obama first, everything else, party, country, somewhere further down the list of concerns. Don't be fooled by the move towards a nonexistent political midpoint. He's building a political coalition for his own power, not the people's power.

But at least Obama does think. That's far more than can be said about McCain, if he still can think. Sad. Sad for America.

although i think the next president, whichever post-partisan corporate champion it will be, will be buffeted by so many crises that their ideology and even their propensity to sell out further will be largely irrelevant. here's to our empire's existential crisis (drinks sip of cheap beer)!