Let's HOPE that Obama does not bridge too much to the Clinton presidency, especially the parts where NAFTA passed, Baghdad was bombed, and welfare was "reformed".

I hope that Obama is elected. But I also hope that progressives work our butts off to hold him accountable, as Naomi Klein suggests in this

Not sure what happened there, let's try again:

Naomi klein interview here here

and if that doesn't work, here: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/#96462

Slightly OT. Today, 45 years ago, MLK Jr. gave his "I have a dream speech".

Watch it on You tube.

"No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream."

Bill was awesome last night. Click my name for my full summary of yesterday.

Actually, if I can speculate wildly, I think that what historians will eventually record is that America was making a transition from a conservative era to a progressive era.

Kari, we understand you don't really have much understanding of what it means to be progressive or traditional Democratic values (which is quite apart from being a Democratic political operative), and just so desperate to be part of a small-minded, selfish, corrupt Democratic power clique that is every bit as venal as the Republican clique that has destroyed the country. But you are not going to get away spreading a flat-out lie that these candidates are even close to being progressives:

Joe Biden's nickname is "The Senator from Dupont" because, despite his skilled rhetoric, his career has been about representing corporate America, not working people. Like his work to re-write our bankruptcy laws to abuse working people facing financial ruin, frequently due to medical crises, that even Wyden supported the first time around until he released real Democrats (unlike you) were on to him.

Obama also owes his career not to his few short years of community organizing, but instead to many more years working with corporate-backed Democratic power brokers he felt could help him. He personally credited Liebermann as his mentor in building in his national political career and at least since early in the 1990s Liebermann refused to be identified with progressivism or progressive or liberal branches of the Democratic Party. Both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton (a former Republican actually) have always characterized themselves as a pro-corporate DLC Democrat, and in that sense they themselves from time-to-time have placed themselves as much at odds with progressive Democrats as with many Republicans. We also saw how easily Obama soullessly turned Judas against his own church, which in fact is the very embodiment of a progressive social ministry (led by a former Marine with a PhD).

The shame of this convention and the Democratic Party is the naked lust for power at the cost of progressive or liberal principles. Even as progressive rhetoric is mouthed solely for political propaganda effect with little intent of actually carrying through, some leaders who have repeatedly betrayed progressive and even liberal positions for their own selfish advantage over their political careers. You have been complicit Kari in not making "progressive" Blue Oregon the place where we learn about what is going on off the podium and how progressive and liberal thought has in fact been under attack at this convention:ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors. And: Protesters denied access to attorneys, forced to march in leg shackles, ACLU charges.

Sorry Kari, there is something so essentially childish and selfish in what has been here and elsewhere in much of the so-called "progressive" media about this stage-managed convention that it isn't even close to progressive, or representative of the good values Democrats are really about.

As I have mentioned before, what this site needs is a thread that gives people a chance to define what is a progressive. I think we will find that "frauds" is out of touch with the vast majority of people who define themselves as progressive. So who gets to choose what that label means.

Frauds: Excellent analysis. And I'm glad you were able to get some links published. Typepad once again refused a list of links that I submitted yesterday regarding the convention outside of the convention. I recommend that anyone who claims to be a progressive at least looks at the coverage provided by Amy Goodman and Jeremy Scahill this week (http://democracynow.org/). Free Speech TV has also done some great work (http://www.freespeech.org/). It's not 1968, but there are some courageous souls in Denver who won't let the duopoly off the hook.

And Kevin: purity beats amorality every time in my book.

Kevin,

Did Barack Obama himself arrest that photographer? Did he keep the protesters from access to attorneys? Give it a rest. You can only blame a man for what he has control over. Obama isn't a Denver police officer.

Sure, Barack is not a progressive's wet dream. One is never going to get elected in this climate. Why? Well, partially because the liberals became a bunch of pussies and allowed the word "liberal" to become a pejorative. The other end of the fault also lies in our pocket for failing to get Dems elected - throwing out the baby with the dirty bathwater. Our concerns with purity have gotten us substantially more dirty than how dirty we would have been with Democrat alternatives over the past several decades when Republicans won the Presidency. Kerry was no fantastic pick, but do you think we'd still have Gitmo open (just for one example)?

Sure, Obama's feet should be held to the fire - AFTER HE IS ELECTED.

I think that what historians will eventually record is that America was making a transition from a conservative era to a progressive era. Barack Obama will be much more progressive than Bill Clinton, but that Clinton's presidency was a necessary precondition to making that transition (and Bush's presidency a failed counter-reaction and last gasp of a dying ideology.)

If this becomes the prevailing theory among Democrats, it will mask our party's real weaknesses and allow us to avoid the hard work of building a more lasting movement.

In 1992, Clinton got 43% of the vote to Bush's 37%. Perot got 19%(!) which is incredible given how bizarre that guy is. It's impossible to predict where Perot's voters would have gone in his absence, but it's certainly plausible that Clinton would have lost the election in 1992 without Perot. Also keep in mind that Clinton won in a year where hardcore Republicans were abandoning their incumbent after he signed off on a tax increase.

Fast forward to 2000, where we lost to "regular guy" George Bush. Lots of factors went into that, including Nader, Gore himself, the campaign, and the disrepute Clinton brought to the office. But even with all that, it was pretty clear that Bush II was in no way qualified to be president. Then in 2004, we lost again to Bush, which was much worse than 2000 because every American who was awake knew that Bush was a complete imbecile who was leading the country towards ruin, yet they couldn't pull the level for Kerry.

Until 2006, Congress wasn't much better for the Dems. We made small gains after Bush was elected, but nothing major. So does 2006 represent a true "populist wave", or is it simply the result of 6 years of completely ineffectual leadership by the GOP? I would argue the latter.

I think Obama is going to win this year, as much because of his own political skills as McCain's lack of them. But it's going to be way closer than it should, and that's because in reality the country doesn't agree with the progressive agenda. Democrats are unable to explain to "regular" people how we will improve the country because so much of our agenda is reactionary against Republicans. Where is the Democratic plan to dramatically improve public education and catch up with the rest of the world? What does a "progressive" foreign policy entail? How are we going to save Social Security and Medicare over the next 30 years? What is our plan to achieve full employment without inflation?

Republicans will always have the easier job with "Lower taxes, less government." That resonates with Americans on an emotional and a policy level. If we make the mistake of interpreting our current success as the result of our own actions rather than simply a reaction to Republican failure, we're going to once again find ourselves in the minority.

Anyone care to comment on the Naomi Klein interview?

The video about MLK and the I Have A Dream speech included MLK speaking the line "it takes a strong man to be nonviolent".

I thought Gov. Richardson's speech which was hard hitting but witty ("the only change we see from McCain is when he changes his mind", "McCain pays for his own shoes but we pay for his flip flops"). That sort of approach appeals to the folks who are tired of the nastiness on all sides--the same folks who elected Wyden in Jan. 1996 after he went 100% positive.

I don't think most people are ideologues. Go to places ordinary people congregate (concerts, parking lots of big box stores or shopping malls, holiday picnics ) and ask people at random if they have an ideology, whether they agree with the progressive agenda, etc. You aren't likely to get a lot of responsive answers. Many people are concerned about work and family, neighborhood concerns, that sort of thing.

We heard the concern of a now famous single parent last night-- Joe Biden contemplating not taking his newly won Senate seat after his wife and daughter died because he was concerned about caring for and raising his sons.

Some very talented political professionals talk about being convinced that the most important poll question is how a candidate rates on "cares about people like me, understands my concerns, will make my life better". If the local official can get a 4 way stop sign at the bad intersection which has had serious accidents, if someone can come up with a way to help people find jobs, get health care, pay for food and medicine, if someone can find a way to either lower the price of gas or provide alternative transportation, that is problem solving.

It has been my experience that more folks are willing to vote for problem solvers than for ideologues of any stripe.

I tried to watch each night, and each night I was really dismayed and switched away. Can we find a candidate who will just straight up tell the American people (the lower 99% of the wealth distribution) the truth? We're $10 trillion in debt. Our free press and free elections have been hijacked. Our kids overall are graduating from school today dumber than they were 20 years. George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, etc, are here tonight sitting very good and pretty thanks to George Bush and we're glad to have them here. When you turn off your televisions tonight, go to bed feeling good about America, though your real earnings are 3% less than they were a year ago. Support your troops, because they'll be getting blown up in an illegal war for another 16 months under the democratic plan to ease the transition for Big Oil.

Vote fascism lite, because it's better than the nitro that McCain has on tap for you all.

C'mon, this is America. We love reality TV.

As I have mentioned before, what this site needs is a thread that gives people a chance to define what is a progressive. I think we will find that "frauds" is out of touch with the vast majority of people who define themselves as progressive. So who gets to choose what that label means.

Actually fool, "progressive" does have a definition. And it's because words have commonly agreed upon definitions that we can communicate at all. Many ignorant people here are desperate to hijack that word because the accepted definition has positive connotations they want to steal to cover up their own shameful, selfish goals. That's what Republicans do, go play with people who you obviously are much more in intellectually and morally in tune with.

Harry, purity and amorality are flip sides of the same coin.

Kevin, when you spout utter absurdities like this, and you can't distinguish between when someone cites facts why these politicians are not upholders of the best Democratic traditions, the reflection on you and the community of people you identify with is far more negative than you can possibly from imagine.

Did Barack Obama himself arrest that photographer? Did he keep the protesters from access to attorneys? Give it a rest.

Uh, "blah ... blah", you dishonest little weasel. If the Democratic leadership wanted there to be no arrests and for those people to have access to lawyers because they felt it was against what those supposed Democratic leaders stood for and would looked bad (rather than good as I think they did), the City leadership would have done that. This is what the Obama campaign did on Wednesday when the police were moving to arrest a group of vets, since that would have looked VERY bad on TV:

Standoff with Police as Iraq Vets Demand to Meet with Obama Campaign

Instead, both the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post are reporting that a meeting has been planned between IVAW and Obama's liaison for veterans' affairs.

LT you really are a sad case at times. We may have been far better of if "The Senator from DuPont" had not taken his seat and had not bumbled the Thomas confirmation or taken the lead with relish to push bankruptcy reform to hurt working people.

Harry, thanks for bringing up Amy Goodman and Jeremy Scahill. I've been listening to Democracy Now! all week too. Unfortunately I don't think most people here care about what genuine progressive thought and media. What I've actually found myself wondering is what kind of housecleaning will happen in the Democratic Party if Obama loses. It looks like McCain/Rove may be getting ready to pull off a shrewd move by choosing Pawlenty as VP. There is a very good chance this would move Minnesota from the "blue" to "red" column since Pawlenty has a good enough reputation in Minnesota governor to swing a majority of the votes and, despite Chris Lowe's academically interesting comment, as the electoral map shows Obama cannot win if Minnesota goes red.

Sure, Obama's feet should be held to the fire - AFTER HE IS ELECTED.

The reason we know you're a dishonest little weasel "blah ... blah" is because anyone who is honest will also admit that the time you hold a politician's feet to the fire is when they need your vote. Not after they no longer need it.

Ted: I have to say that in between the bouts of emotional response to the swelling grandeur of really good speechwriting backed by first rate delivery... my reality DOES come and sit on my head to remind me that there is no substance being spoken, nor will there be. I realize these people cannot speak in more than generalities, as conditions will change as they get into office, etc... however, the appalling level of generality stultifies me. I'm not looking for PROMISES, assholes, but I AM looking for... ummm.... "Thought Product"..... I am lacking terribly in understanding of political process' workings, so I don't have those theoretics to beuile my focus away from the manifest truth. If I rise to this, give my heart to it, my passion, the betrayal is going to be that intense. I'm sick to death of feeling this hope I'm feeling. Because I know I'm going to be betrayed.

Yes, Ted, I wish they would really talk about THIS part. The broken hearts of the masses. The dangerous dreams evoked by such well-wrought, energetically sparkling rhetoric.

when you spout utter absurdities like this, and you can't distinguish between when someone cites facts why these politicians are not upholders of the best Democratic traditions, the reflection on you and the community of people you identify with is far more negative than you can possibly from imagine.

Mr. Fraud (appropos name, but I digress...), having spent many years as an Independent I have some idea of how the larger community views these things.

Kevin, rather than continue to prove you are just an arrogant fool, quote accurately and take responsibility for what you previously said. What you previously said, and the quote you take out of context was in response to was this:

Harry, purity and amorality are flip sides of the same coin.

Kevin, when you spout utter absurdities like this, and you can't distinguish between when someone cites facts why these politicians are not upholders of the best Democratic traditions, ...

I think what we are seeing is that Kevin has outed himself as a true "troll" as that term is actually defined in the political blogosphere.

Throwing around terms like "the Far Left" for boogeyman shock effect when you don't cite any evidence of that, or have any idea just how wrong you are, is the big tip-off. Kevin, I have no doubt you hang out with mean-spirited people just like you who react emotionally and without much critical thinking. But to claim that just because you and those people consider yourselves to be "independents" you somehow have more perspective on what the true "larger community" believes --- rather than the just those you chum with --- is childish at best, possibly pathological at worst. (It's also known as the logical fallacy of "Resort to Authority".)

Just from your response where you can't even pay attention to what other people who disagree with you actually say, accurately quote it in context, and then respond to that, rather than to your own dishonestly twisted misrepresentation complete with throwing around right-wing red meat like "Far Left", we have a pretty good reason to believe you don't have much of a clue what the true "larger community" actually believes.

The hilarious irony Kevin, is that you actually have found a good and appropriate home in Blue Oregon. That clique of "independents" like you who don't have a coherent, principled set of political values and just mainly believe everyone should give them their own self-centered way, and that clique of Democrats we see well represented here who actually don't hold any coherent, principled set of political values and just believe everyone should give them their own self-centered way ARE a much truer example of flip sides of the same coin than what you claim.

Regressive Democrats should attend to what Rebecca Whetstine has to say more than to what I say, because Rebecca represents those who sit on the DP cusp of betrayal. The Obama hope and change "movement" has ground to a halt, and it will be all downhill from here unless you come to your senses.

I have spent a great deal of time and energy demonstrating that the US political "center" is what your own David Sirota says it is (In search of the American 'center').

People like Kevin are far, far to the right of the true center, even if his "independent" friends might agree with him.

I don't doubt for a moment that Kevin and his friends fear people like me more than neocons or theocons. That is part of their paranoid delusion. Unfortunately, there is no medication that will cure them of that, only reading and thinking.

Please Kevin, quit embarrassing yourself by continuing to demonstrate you are quite ignorant.

You said:

Mr. Fraud (appropos name, but I digress...), having spent many years as an Independent I have some idea of how the larger community views these things.

The response:

But to claim that just because you and those people (like you) consider yourselves to be "independents" you somehow have more perspective on what the true "larger community" believes ---

although slightly misworded as shown in parentheses, clearly is a contextually appropriate response to your claim (and to that of people like you who would claim the same) that does not misrepresent your claim. Here's a little secret for you: Although you clearly don't get it, you are not being quoted in the first case and the second case only references a quote. The terms in quotes are ironic comments, signaled by standard English usage of quotation marks, with the second being ased on a quotation (as signaled by italics). So your comment is as irrelevant as it is nonsensical.

And by the way, you also obviously don't know what a "strawman" argument is since there is no strawman argument here.

What's truly amusing is how well you fit in with a lot of Blue Oregonians.

Dear Harry:

I am sick to death of all of the speechification even as I shall vote for Obama, and know that any icon is very likely to break my heart if I step up to the call as I am actually able. Along with a heart, I also have a mind. But an idealistic, assessing mind. NOT a commodifying sensibility in sight here to save my interested ass.

Best Wishes, The Unweaponizable Cusper