to accuse others of what you yourself are doing--he did it all along to Clinton, and now is doing it against McCain.

He's totally Dubya 2.0.

this is a very interesting look behind the curtain too-- and might explain why he's so comfortable picking up GOP talking points and policies, and flip-flopping on everything -- Obama's Brain Trust -- "...As an adman, Axelrod believes that finely crafted policy proposals are meaningless unless voters can connect with a candidate on a personal level. ..."

Where next for "progressives" looking for evidence of Obama's perfidity? Why not tune in Limbaugh and just get it over with?

Honestly, this is just terrible. If you find yourself as a progressive being in agreement with the worst of the VRWC, on any topic, it is time for a serious re-examination of motive and logic. Whatever else is going on, Rupurt Murdoch and the WSJ editors are not on our side - well, they're not on my side.

Don't we discuss whatever people write to see what we think?

Don't we take truth where we find it?

Didn't this election cycle teach us we can't trust even what appeared to be the most liberal and truth telling blogs to be our only sources?

wasn't it senator abraham lincoln obama

(see his "springfield declaration" of may 2, 2007)

who likened the years of the bill clinton presidency (1992-2000)

to the years of the george bush presidency?

and sadly, the number of people who I respect and trust has decreased. Doesn't mean that anyone I distrusted before has suddenly become more trustworthy.

I have a hard time buying what the WSJ has to say in fact-based articles, because even there the pro-corporatist bias is so deeply embedded. Under Murdoch the WSJ as a whole is now IMNSHO even less reliable and the opinion pieces must be viewed as nothing more than mouthing for the strategic purposes of the VRWC/Plutocratic criminal conspiracy.

Every time I see the Right criticizing Obama, I am more persuaded that he'll be less like McCain than feared. This editorial is designed for one purpose only, and that is to undermine the Democratic Party and their presumed candidate. It is an attempt to demoralize the Left and reduce voter turnout, in hopes of a McCain victory. Why help them by giving them credence or circulation?

You're a bright person. I'm interested in reading what you think, what your analysis might be, even if I don't agree. I'm not at all interested in seeing the spew from the WSJ or any other VRWC/Plutocrat house organ being promoted.

Consider the source, and their agenda. Then decide if promoting them is beneficial. Also, consider what it might mean if they are saying the same things you're thinking. When it happens to me, my ass starts twitching. I get very nervous. I start to wonder if I've gotten something wrong.

In this case, it may just be happenstance; both of you want Obama to loose, you the nomination and them the election. Still, citing the VRWC should IMHO never be done as a source supportive of a progressive cause.

HA HA HA! from the great Arthur Silber:

"Without forgetting my much more serious concerns, I think there might be a lot of entertainment to be found in this campaign. Who's Obama going to screw next, and just how badly will he humiliate them? Maybe a new slogan, to replace the already exhausted hopey, changey thing: "Barack will fuck you over -- and he'll make you LOVE it!"
It definitely has possibilities."

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/200...

re. the source of the article in the OP: i completely agree that "just because your enemy says it doesn’t mean it’s wrong", but at the same time i think that bringiton made some valid points.

This WSJ opinion piece is just snark and gloat. They are simply pointing out that Obama is no more a Democrat than he is a Black Liberationist. His choice of party affiliation obviously had nothing to do with either ideals or ideology. Same as his choice of church, it was purely a practical matter...which way quickest to the top? Power for the sake of power. Same as Bush. The boyz and gurlz at the WSJ think this is cause for giggles.

Regardless of source or motive, the piece is clearly fact-filled. Read it and weep. Our presumptive nominee is a liberal Democrat - not.

Apparently drinking Kool-Aid results in the loss of critical reading skills.

Bringiton, the WSJ piece is noting Obama's recent rush to embrace Bush policies *in the context of* calling him a phony.

They're trying to keep their readers, many of whom are very conservative Republicans who don't like McCain, from voting for a Dem.

The alternative view, *not expressed by the WSJ*, is that Obama was never a liberal in the first place. Or at least not in his political life.

And while we're debunking asinine Obamabot talking points, I'll also point out that the WSJ's coverage of Obama was extremely favorable until the point where he looked like the presumptive nominee. This mirrored the rest of the VRWC. In fact, Kool-Aid drinking Obamabots often cited this fact of Obama's favorable media coverage among right-wing rags, and his endorsement by right wing figures like George Will and Peggy Noonan, as evidence of his appeal to unity and bipartisanship, and a major reason to choose him over Hillary.

Most of us who weren't idolizing Obama saw this fact as troubling. Some of the folks who were trashing Hillary clearly saw Obama as the weaker candidate (probably because of his inexperience and sadly, his skin color), while others clearly saw an amiable centrist in Obama. Either way, as you seem to point out, when the snakes of the Republican Party are trying to influence our primary, that's a real problem. If cognitive dissonance were an issue, you'd probably have some qualms about the fact that Obama's popular vote edge BOTH relied upon an overly technical and arbitrary exclusion of Florida and Michigan, two very clear Hillary states (see Iowa, Nevada, NH, for examples of states not punished for violating the rules) AND the rush of Republicans crossing over to vote for Obama. Dispel either of those facts (i.e., include Florida and Michigan, OR exclude Republican votes), and Hillary wins.

more buyers regret

Not in this thread, clearly. Except for Bringiton. And to some degree RedSox04.

There is nothing truthful about that WSJ editorial.

It seeks to defuse McCain's weakness, his own ties to Bush policies, and a resultant potent Democratic talking point, that McCain means a third term for Bush, by reconfiguring that charge as one to made against Obama, and matching it with dissatisfaction being voiced among some progressives about an Obama move to the center, and with the WSJ's own editorial point of view that Obama is congenial, attractive, and a good speaker, attributes he uses to disguise the fact that he is a left-wing liberal, and/or that he is a man of no particular principles at all. That those last two possibilities are contradictory is not an issue for the Journal editorial writers.

Amberglow, I do wish you would stop proclaiming that Obama is either Bush or Rove on the basis of such flimsy evidence. If anything is Rovian here, it is the editorial, and the way it seeks to accuse Obama of being what he is saying McCain is.

If you want to proclaim that an Obama presidency is more likely to be a third Bush term than a McCain presidency, then do a post and explain why, with documentation. Or do the same in a comment.

RedSox4, I'm not about to defend the way the DNC handled the issue of Michigan and Florida, but it was a mess that caught everyone unawares, including many of the candidates, like Clinton and Edwards, who, along with Obama and the others all went along with the penalizing for both states. That proved to be a problem when the primary went all the way to June without a clear winner. However, it is nonsense to proclaim that there was any way to view the popular vote results in either state as countable under the circumstances. Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan; yes, he removed it, and for strategic reasons of his own, but Clinton kept her name on the ballot for the same sort of reasons. None of the candidates were able to campaign in either state, a factor that clearly favored Senator Clinton, given her name recognition. I do realize that Obama stood in the way of finding a re-vote solution, but it is just silly to pretend that the problems created by penalizing those two states for their early primaries was solely the fault of the DNC or the Obama campaign.

You should also remember that it was never going to be solely the popular vote that decided who the Democratic candidate would be, hence the delegate system. It is true, irony of ironies, that the longest-lasting Democratic primary in recent history, with the greatest number of votes cast, was, in the end, settled in what one could call, metaphorically, a cigar-filled back room, but that was the only way that Hillary could have won, too; her final strategy was to win the late primaries in swing states and thereby convince Super Delegates that she was the stronger candidate.

What I take from all this is that after the General Election, Democrats have to have a serious internal discussion about the way they nominate their national candidates, a discussion that will, one hopes, include the grassroots.

Except for when you say that the candidates "went along" with the decision, because it implies that they had the authority to do something about it, when they didn't.

And one of the few candidates who didn't attempt to game the consequences of the penalties was Clinton, so I don't think her motives for staying on the ballot should be tarnished as impure, like Obama's and Edwards's were, when they removed them.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

vid or print?

I disagree. But how do you explain the 4 delegates taken away from one candidate and given to the other?

belongs the spoils."

Sen William Marcy, a Jacksonian Democrat

MAKE him the victor?