Just remember, we can't run in favor of "Change" in the fall if we "hug the center" again

[Ken Burch]

Barack Obama will be a formidable candidate on any program. But he'll be strongest if he runs as a true progressive. At a minimum, this mean he can't gain votes by moving to the right of his current positions on anything after the convention. They'll take us apart if he does.

I want Barack Obama to win. To do that, he needs to stay true to himself. This truth lies in NOT blurring the differences between him and McCain.

a 1960 "JFK-style" foreign policy would cost us the election. So would hedging on NAFTA.

It's simple. The "middle of the road" is the enemy of change and the location of defeat.

On to victory. Victory comes through conviction and clearly being different. You can't be different AND a "moderate".

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Obama IS being true to himself

there's never been any reason to believe he's a flaming leftist. He's a moderate, just-to-the-left-of-center Democrat.

[Ken Burch]

2. Don't bait.

I'd be saying the same thing(and HAVING to say even more of it)if the OTHER candidate had been nominated.

Just stop the drive-bys already, wouldya?

[MonkeyFunk]

4. How is that a drive-by?

I made a point, you responded, and I'm responding within 3 minutes. That's not a drive-by.

Geez, you guys are twitchy.

[cbc5g]

6. I agree, hes a moderate progressive but not a leftist

A far leftist can't win in the primaries or the general election. I wish it were true, but it's not.

[Ken Burch]

8. You're still trying to delegitamize the guy.

I'm "twitchy" because you are still sniping and chipping away. It would be worse on this score if your candidate had stolen it. No progressive would think the fall was worth caring about then. I'm just trying to keep the guy from following the traditional party path for the fall, a path there's no reason to follow anymore since 2000 and 2004 prove that it will never work again.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. No, you're wrong

you're looking at my name and reading everything I write in the worst possible light.

It's not a slam or an insult in any way to say Obama is a moderate democrat. It's just the truth- a truth I've argued for many months now, and it's now becoming evident to his most ardent supporters. I never said he was a moderate dem as an attack - I said it because he was portrayed as a flaming liberal, and he most certainly isn't. That's not an attack on him. I supported Clinton partly because I believed she most electable because she wasn't seen as a flaming liberal. It's not a slur to call a democrat a moderate.

Now, to get to your point: I think many people make the mistake of saying that so-and-so lost because they weren't extreme enough. I think that's an error. If the electorate really wanted a hardcore flaming liberal, Kucinich would be our candidate. Freepers complained that Bush and Dole lost because they weren't conservative enough. It's a common mistake among the "base" to think that if only the candidate were more extreme, they'd win. I think there's no evidence to back that up. It's just wishful thinking. For every 1% of the left you gain, you lose 5% of the middle.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. I may not agree with you 99% of the time, but you are right.

Obama has never been a leftist. He is a Centrist, plain and simple. As much as I hate it, and as much as we progressives/liberals want our Democratic party to embrace their traditional progressive principles, he cannot do that and get elected in this country.

We have to change the ways in which "liberal" and "progressive" have been characterized. That means, we'll have to run progressives at the grassroots level and hope that they'll change people's minds from there.

As long as we have the average American identifying himself/herself as a moderate to conservative, the progressives will never win.

We have to do a better job defining who we are because I believe (and have always believed) that Americans are much more liberal based on the issues, than they themsevles believe.

We have to stop allowing The Wingnuts and many Democrats define who we are. And we have allowed the Democratic Leadership Council to have way more influence in the Democratic party than it needs to and that hasn't helped the Dems win elections, either.

[JoFerret]

19. He works at being the quintessential blank slate

it seems.
Bound to excite and disappoint many, if not most.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. Actually, if we sat down and counted it all out

we'd probably agree on 90% of things. This board makes things seem a little a skewed.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. You're probably right. n/t

[butterfly77]

13. You seem to being true to yourself also...

That hate will eat you up,CON...didn't you get the message from Skinner.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. LOL!!!!!

Saying that Obama is a just-left-of-center moderate is hatred? How absurd.

I didn't say it as an attack - how could I? I supported Clinton who is a just-left-of-center moderate.

You're nuts.

[Richardo]

24. You're exactly right, MF...

...and left-of-center is about as progressive a candidate as America can stand right now. It IS change. Fundamental change.

Anyone who thinks he ought to run on a Kucinich-style agenda would do well to remember that Kucinich can't even break out of single digits amoung DEMOCRATS, let alone the general electorate.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Sure, his FISA Iran & Cuba postions are progressive far left postions.

No blurring the differences there! :eyes:

[Cleita]

7. Yes, but watch the party pull him in that direction just like they did

before and we all know how well that all worked. If Al Gore had run like the environmentalist that he has become, Ralph Nader would never have been able to steal votes from him. I know that Obama was a lot more to the left of issues in his earlier career than he is stating now. I really wish he would get some really left wing advisors on board who can go head to head with the centrists that seem to be influencing him, especially his economic advisors.

[Liberal Gramma]

9. Here are our two choices:

Left of center moderate. Right of center not-so-moderate. No matter how we may wish for a far left candidate, that man didn't win the primary. We have to support our candidate, even if he's more centrist than we'd prefer, or the other candidate will win. It's as simple as that.

[Ken Burch]

10. I wish you wouldn't say "far-left candidate".

I'm not saying we should've nominated Pol Pot, for God's sake. I'm just talking about solid progressive principles, most of which have majority support.

Whatever position you're taking, don't use the kind of language the Right uses when it talks about us. OK?

[Liberal Gramma]

11. Apparently you see "far-left" as a slur. I consider it a compliment

The Democrats couldn't find a candidate too far to the left to suit me. I certainly didn't mean it to be an insult.

[Ken Burch]

17. I understand that. Still, it is generally heard in public discourse as a slur.

For example, if Fox News had existed in 1860, they would have described Lincoln as the "far-left candidate" for president, since his antislavery stance was "Change" and was also a threat to property rights.
(They'd have called Mary Todd Lincoln "Abraham's Babraham Mama", of course.)

They're slogan would've been "We Report, Y'all Decide!"

[FrenchieCat]

12. I don't know if Obama fits all of these labels that he is being forced into.....

If he is offering something new and different maybe it is hard to fit that into something old and known.

He appears to be and idealist and a realist at the same time. He is a pragmatist but only to a point. I think that he is an issue orientated politician but not an ideologue.

I think that it is best if he doesn't quite fit into any boxes, and it would be best if we didn't try to force him into one.

[crankychatter]

14. Pragmatism as a progressive is not the same as Centrism as a function of corruption

no matter what, Obama will be dealing and IS DEALING, with a PAC subverted Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle

When dems take the same money republicans do, they vote accordingly

it's the water we're swimming in

he's about finding common ground and forging agreements

that's not DLC bullshit... it's just common sense

I don't know what polls ya'all are looking at, but Obama wins when he rejects "tyranny by the majority."

period

[wyldwolf]

15. So, since Obama isn't a "true progressive" as defined by the netroots...

... why can't he be true to himself and the positions and tone he's set in the primary campaign and his book "The Audacity of Hope?"

Obama is very much a centrist. Once again, a "true progressive" couldn't garner enough support to win the nomination.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. Exactly right

and now somehow, saying he's not a flaming liberal is an attack on him. :shrug:

[stray cat]

16. Change equals ethics including openness, honesty and competence.

Those are changes I can believe in - I care less about whether he is viewed as a moderate or a dem or a green candidate.

[MasonJar]

18. Ever since Obama arrived in D.C. he has been moderate. Hillary

has always been left of Obama.

[johnaries]

25. Even a Centrist would be a huge change, and great progress.

Consider what we have had the past seven years.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. Is "change" and being a centrist mutually exclusive?

I think not. We have been ruled (not governed) by the Right Wing Nuts for nearly 20 years, and longer, if you count the Reagan and Nixon eras.

The very fact that Obama is running is in itself CHANGE. And the fact that he has to run in the center in order to be elected is staying true to what Americans prefer and for himself.

Please stop listening to the right wing media. Obama was never a liberal; hence, the reason why he wasn't my first choice. He's always been a corporatist and a centrist. But he does represent change for obvious reasons, simply because he represents a break from Bush-Clintonesque policies that have dominated for over 20 years.