Top Obama advisor: "Americans are tired of the politics of division and partisanship"

[Leopolds Ghost]

Top McCain advisor: "McCain would not have gotten us into Iraq...
is McCain much smarter than Bush on foreign policy? Yes."

Obama has inherited the Shrum wing of the party just as Edwards,
however sincerely, is motivated by the Trippi.

You will not once during the upcoming campaign hear him call
Bush flat-out dumb. Too divisive.

You will not hear him come out against corporate greed and
you will not hear him oppose free trade. Too anti-business.

He is a pro-business Harvard liberal like the mayor of my
(very liberal) town. A big-city Blue Dog like Mayor Daley
of Chicago. Does Obama support public housing? Does he
support welfare or universal health care? The answer in
all doubt is "we don't want him to look like too much of
a civil rights fire brand, the fact that he's black is
enough of a breakthrough in itself" and besides which his
whole message is we DON'T want Dems to be known for siding
with controversial, divisive (i.e. anti corporate media
sanctioned) solutions to issues.

I was a big fan of Obama until I realized that there is no chance
of Edwards being his Veep or of the Trippi wing playing any part
whatsoever in an Obama presidency, which relies on the same donors
Clinton did in 1992 (unfortunately.) They see him as an electable
version Vernon Jordan.

The DNC will NOT allow him to pick Edwards as veep nor will he
want to, and I suspect many of Obama's supporters don't support
Edwards populism and aren't opposed to free trade imperialism
that relies on global US corporate control of trade routes and
commodities, of the sort that the leading candidates support.

Is Edwards any better? I don't know. He's certainly pounding Trippi's
hand-written anti-corporate spiel as if he believes it -- but there's no
details, just "corporate greed" over and over as if it was a new concept
voters are unfamiliar with. It's like electing someone because he keeps
saying "terrible traffic" or "urban blight" or "struggling family farms"
over and over to remind voters that he is actually against those things.

he's a good defense attorney and Trippi, and all the idealistic Edwards populists,
DUers and folks like that, might be the real people who got Edwards to "see the light"
because "that is his niche" and what his supporters believed -- like the
people who pushed McCain to the left in 2000. Peer pressure by supporters.
Pragmatic conversion is as good as any reason to see the light. And I'm sure
Elizabeth Edwards is his progressive conscience, just like Eleanor Roosevelt.
But he has a method for so-called universal healthcare that is cruder than
anything Huey Long thought up -- yeah, let's force Americans to buy private
health insurance just like Hillary Clinton wants!

I will be pleasantly surprised if Obama ends up brokering a deal with
Edwards like Kerry did (to disappointing effect in the general, since
Edwards never went into attack mode like he is doing now -- maybe the
DNC-experienced Obama consultants would muzzle him, same advisers that
muzzled Kerry/Edwards).

Obama without Edwards will be to the right of Kerry and the message
in the history books will be the end of the Civil Rights era and the
triumph of the Harvard liberal, business class, urban center-right
(by historical standards) Rockefeller Democrats.

Obama with Edwards would be a formidable force, enough so
that they would both need a double security detail if you ask me.

Economically conservative yuppies and business class Republicans don't
really fear Obama precisely because they don't view him as a liberal
like Kerry. They explicitly distinguish him from Kerry, citing how
Kerry was a died in the wool northeastern liberal (for which he is
routinely trashed on DU) while Obama is reassuringly vague and
nonspecific, having never once gone to the mat like Edwards is doing now
(even if he wasn't doing before.) A rejection of Edwards for, say, Veep
(in favor of Richardson or someone like that) will be a permanent
rejection of the New Deal left by the current icon of the secular
post-liberal, post-civil rights, professional class Democrats, i.e. Obama.

Like I said, Obama's charisma plus Edwards' message would make a powerful force. The more I learn about the outcome of Iowa and what the pundits and campaign aides themselves are saying the more I'm beginning to suspect that Obama may end up cutting a deal with Hillary's folks to shut out Edwards (by promising to give the Clintonite Wing of the Permanent Government access to he highest levels, including the Veep spot).

I hope I am wrong and Obama is negotiating with Edwards to shut out Hillary and the Permanent Gov't as we speak. What will happen to Obama's donors and the bloviating talking heads in the media who until now supported him if he becomes a class traitor and a traitor to includsive, David Broder politics by siding with Edwards? Up till now Obama has been careful to distinquish himself from Edwards' populism, as in the quote above on Hardball.

[OHdem10]

1. The Media has not done their scrutiny on Obama.

Three serious pundits have noticed how arrogant Obama is becoming.
"He should not be talking about winning all the way to WH".

I picked this up 3 different times 3 different TV Channels.

They will be wise to work hard getting their vote out. Hilary
has planned in case of loss in NH and SC.

So far HRC is the only one Commander In Chief Credentials.

Edwards is my candidate--Best not to worry about HRC.