LOL I just noticed thats the comparisons. Dems are teachers and old people, GOP are defense contractors and energy companies. GOP brought us war, secret energy commisions and $100/barrel oil, whats next when a Democrat runs things? Overpaid teachers, benefits for the elderly and way more trial lawyers because people sue more when democrats are around. I'll take kowtowing to Dem special interests if I have to, I just realized how much cheaper it will be for all of us.

Basically as far as I can tell the author of the article thinks that because Obama's not a schill for DC lobbyists he'll be unable to get anything done, and I don't see how he makes that leap.

What's she gonna say? “He's just as bad as me… look!”

It seems that Obama should get out in front of this campaign finance issue by explaining why he seems to be equivocating.

Also, the quotes about bipartisanship show the worst of the current mindset both about compromise and who Obama is. To me there are two kinds of compromise. One works where all sides state what they want, and then cut deals to get some aspects of what they want while allowing the other sides to have things that they find distasteful, i.e. “you rub my back, I'll rub yours.” The other is where the groups come in thinking they know exactly what they want, but realize that they to work together, and they come up with a new system that is agreeable but self contained. It is not just a collection of random pieces, but a different outlook on the problem that has consistency.

The first type of “compromise” makes up almost all the political landscape and really it should just be called favor trading. It's one of the reasons why there is so much pork and bloat and why every one can sit around and point fingers.

The latter is what Obama professes he goes for and what many people that have worked with him (both in academic and political settings) says he inspires. He convinces them that his vision is mostly correct, but takes key pieces of their concerns and makes the actual policy better than he could have made. Liberals are concerned that Obama will just trade favors, but that's not what he means.

The immigration deal was widely despised by nearly all major groups from all political spectrums because it did little to assuage anyone's concerns. The FISA “compromise” was about giving up oversight when there was nothing wrong with the current system. And as for the Gang of 14…well in my opinion Alito has extreme opinions about the role of the Executive and I can't believe that he wasn't vetted more. At the very least they could have gotten him to fully explain how much the Unitary Executive theory he helped craft played into his judicial views — but alas, it just turned into another abortion litmus test. He makes Scalia and Thomas look downright Liberal when it comes to certain issues.

Still, I think it is definitely fair to get Obama to state his Plan B. What will he do if Congress/Lobbyists etc. don't budge? And also the PAC questions are good and I think I'll look into it.

And as somebody who remembers the Swift-Boaters, I wonder about the usefulness of public financing. People who have money will still have influence. And they aren't necessarily going to be fastidious about how they exercise it.

<a href=”http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=would_you_make_a_pledge_with_t”>http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archi…