I will say for ALL commenters involved here – I truly appreciate the civility in our discussion. All to often bloggers and commenters in the blogosphere get way out-of-hand in their personal attacks at one and other. Just because I disagree with Neocon, for example, does not mean that I am judging them to be a bad person – I simply disagree with some of their views (incidentally, I'm sorry for the vague pronouns Neocon – I'm unsure of your gender).

That is the one thing that (regrettably) is still missing from political discourse in this country and ALL parties are guilty.

This is why I visit TMV so often and why I just composed a blog post about this very topic.. Kudos to all.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

I'd like to add another angle.
Obama is more about process than about outcome. While it is true that people in general are more interested in outcomes, , the burden for a leader is to raise the people to understanding the difference between a feel-good immediate reward and reaching for long term goals that will serve the resolution of a host of short term ones..

The proposal to lift the gas tax is a perfect example of this difference, and Obama passed the test. He practised what he preaches.

Neocon's argument appears to be one of defeatism. Well, that's the way people are, so we should continue pandering to the way things are. A dog-eat-dog fight gains support, so we should embrace that kind of fight.

I say no. to all that. “We the people' need guidance or we become a mob.
Playing to the lowest common denomiantor is exactly what has led to the degradation of the media and our lack of civil discourse/

This is a test for the nation, as well as for our politicians. Unlike Neocon, I fear the nation will fail the test much more than I fear any specific outcomes in legislation.

Had Bush had a filibuster-proof majority, we would now be governed by a theocracy with Bush as the supreme leader (with none of those pesky term-limitations) who is the one-and-only conduit to the Almighty.

We would also have a 'Gitmo' in every state – for those who would oppose the supreme leader.

Bleak.

As for health care – it's not that I disagree with you, I just think that our country is so entrenched in a system that 'breaking the habit' of market health care will be EXTREMELY difficult.

And Neocon, I still wholeheartedly disagree that Barack Obama (or ANY elected official for that matter) will 'rule to his (or her) base' because of the re-election ramifications. Like I said earlier, by design politicians have to play to the middle in order to gain re-election.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Do you actually believe that his progressive base will settle for “Civil Unions” when they can have “Gay Marriage?”

They can already have “gay marriage,” in the sense of a church service. Yes, I think a “marriage” in whatever church offers that and a civil union that includes the legal privileges of married people will be welcomed.

Secondly and even more importantly as for GWB and the majority in 3 houses thats exactly what he had…… A majority……..not a Filibuster proof majority which is what the democrats are seeking and what is the gist of my fear.

Had Bush had a filibuster-proof majority, we would now have a permanent aristocracy that never pays a dime of tax for their investment income, and passes on their fortunes tax free, penalizing anyone who actually works for a living.

I guess your point is that the only check and balance we have left is a filibuster (and oh yeah, the GOP tried to eliminate that too).

The fact that he was assassinated led to his lofty status. The completion of his agenda was carried out by LBJ who had the power, status and pull to get congress to act.

Obama believes in civil unions and yet with a veto proof and filibuster proof congress do you actually believe that his progressive base will settle for “Civil Unions” when they can have “Gay Marriage?”

I think not. This is the gist of my fear.

Secondly and even more importantly as for GWB and the majority in 3 houses thats exactly what he had…… A majority……..not a Filibuster proof majority which is what the democrats are seeking and what is the gist of my fear.

If Obama or Clinton win the presidency and congress goes to the democrats with a filibuster proof majority then:

Barak Obama will rule to his base which is the progressives. Hillary will rule to her base which is the democratic party inclusive of progressives but with the abandonment of her by the progressives for Barak Obama not monopolized by the progressives.

That leaves us with a president that will NOT be inclusive and will not be moderate unless he wants to alienate his base and constituency which is what GWB did these last 7 years and you see where that led him and the GOP.

This is the gist of my position. It is not intended to bash one or the other it simply is inteneded to point out the ramifications of what will happen given a filibuster proof majority in congress to go with either candidate.

Neocon, I guess I focused on the wrong aspect of your argument – but here is a short rebuttal for the subject which you have (re)mentioned.

While you are correct in the assessment of a veto/filibuster proof majority, one thing remains: the 'liberal' element in the Congress is nowhere close to the 'extreme liberal' element in our society.

EVEN IF the government becomes a bastion for progressive thought and policy, you will never see legalized marijuana, a disbanding of our military, or men marrying dogs. It just won't happen.

[side note: For the record, you will also never see truly universal health care. I know a lot of Democratic readers will likely lambaste me for saying that - but I believe it to be true. Our health care system is so hopelessly rooted in the 'free-market' that it would take a meltdown of our society, and a subsequent rebuild, to make that kind of radical change happen.]

But I digress…

Even the most liberal senators and congressmen/women have a constituency to answer to back home. They will always worry about re-election above all else. I will concede that you may see SOME progressive-leaning things get done (i.e. a national recognition of civil unions), but I don't believe that the entire country will don a collective mumu and break into a national rendition of 'Aquarius/Let The Sunshine In'.

Or I could be wrong.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Who could have predicted that Americans would support preemptive war, torture, domestic spying and abandoning the sacred writ of habeas corpus? The belief that we needed to move away from our traditional values for security reasons was driven by the president and by administration spokespersons, plus the pundits and “experts” on the news and news talk shows. Regardless of what bias we believe the media may have, there is no question that the president can always get an interview and access the public airwaves. The same is true of top government officials. On any story, reporting must include the proclamations of the president, vice president, Cabinet members and official federal government spokespersons. Under an Obama administration, or Clinton administration, there will be a complete change in the “official” talking heads on TV. Winning the White House guarantees enhanced access to the media and hence the viewing public.

One of my main “audacious hopes” is that President Obama's inspiring and lofty oratory can, like that of John F. Kennedy, enlist the support of the American people to his cause to such a great extent that public opinion will be with him. Public opinion drives the polls, and the polls drive the decisions of legislators, at least as much as top campaign contributors, since legislators need to be elected to continue to feed at the trough.

As for the comments by Neocon, I think she misreads the public mood. The public is sick of this war, and all but a tiny percentage of Americans will support a resolution of that conflict. And with the change of administration rhetoric, I believe Americans can be made to support more diplomatic efforts, more reconstruction efforts and more of the kind of work that really needs to be done to help the Iraqis start to put that country back together. In fact, even the consistently repeated assertion that we need both our money and our military back at home, if coming from the administration, could easily persuade Americans to walk away from that conflict, saying “we've done all we can.”

Obama supports “civil unions”, which defuses the “gay marriage” issue for many Americans, who can make a distinction between “holy matrimony” and a secular union of consenting adults. On the issue of a woman's right to choose, the next administration need do nothing except to keep the supreme court from tipping further right. The current administration has done nothing but pay lip service, and the McCain administration would also do nothing with the exception of nominations to the judicial system.

Of course during the campaign I expect lots of YouTube attacks of both candidates like THIS, and what a pity, because we have serious issues and substantive differences on which this election should be based. If you think McCain will get a pass, be sure to watch the video.

What you really failed to address was the gist of my post.

A veto proof and filibuster proof majority in congress in which the progressive and more radical element of the left will literally be able to pass legislation at will.

While I DO agree that Hillary and McCain are more 'in-your-face' personalities and Obama has a more laid-back personality, it's not about getting people to agree with you because you are a 'nice guy'.

Barack Obama will likely NOT be able to get people to agree with him on a great host of issues (gay rights, abortion and Iraq just to name a few). However, I believe that there is much common ground to be had between Democrats and Republicans, between progressives and conservatives, on many of those hotly contested issues. I think that Obama will be able to have civilized discourse between the Right and the Left on many of these issues – whereas some of the more aggressive personalities (I'm looking at you McCain and Hillary) would take more of an 'I am right and you're wrong' stance making it much harder to s trike a balance between the arguments.

Having that civilized discourse makes it much more likely that BOTH SIDES can make some concession and come to that proverbial 'middle-ground' to get things done in Washington, D.C. And that is what this country needs right now – some restored faith in our leaders.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Hillary and McCain are the most likely to be ruthless and in your face if you disagree.

Barak Obama will try to strike a concillatory tone to get things done.

But the question becomes what things?

Gay Marriage…….really? Are conservatives going to abandon their values to embrace gay marriage because BO is a nice guy?

Abortion……….really? Are conservatives going to abandon their values to embrace abortion because BO is a nice guy.

Fleeing Iraq………really? Are conservatives going to abandon their values…blah…blah…blah.

The point is that while Barak Obama claims to be a uniter as did George W. Bush are we really going to unite over divisive issues? I propose no.

The DNC realizes this too. That is why there is such hope and optimism that the senate can break the back of the GOP and come away with a veto proof majority so that they can then force their agenda upon the American People. Those same American People of which about 45 to 50 percent of them will be as aghast at Barak Obama or Hillary Clintons agenda as they have been over Bush's agenda.

America is headed for heartbreak. Not if we put Hillary or Barak in the White House but if the backlash against the GOP puts not only one of them in the White House but also insures a veto proof and filibuster proof congress.

The face of America will be changed over night. 225 years of slow evolutionary change will be replaced with ramrodded legislation that perhaps more then 50 percent of the country does not want.

That is the danger we are facing this election cycle. Not who ascends to the White House.