The last thing we want is another McGovern or Jimmy Carter, or truly retrograde “newness and change” falling back to failures of the 1960s into the 1970s. We don't want a nation governed like Chicago or Detroit or Philadelphia.

The interesting thing about the Greenwald piece is that in one of his updates, he flat out says that he himself doesn't necessarily disagree with most of the positions he cites for Obama's alleged center shift (other than FISA on which he is adamant).

I must say, though, that Greenwald is a great friend of us all, because he's one of the few journalists who actually calls out governmental and media BS from wherever it comes, with documentation, follow-up reporting, and seeking of clarifications/responses from the focus of his items.

What else do they all have in common? They all tried to help Hillary win.

With your argument destroyed, what are you going to do now? Go on vacation?

Making the mistake of not seeing who promoted Obama and why could also cost the election.

Obama is inherantly flawed as a candidate for this particular election. It is why the GOP has been promoting him over Clinton for the nomination.

Did I mention the overseer of the August convention is for all intents and purposes a republican pro-lifer? Seems a little odd he'd be promoting Obama. Staying blind to “those kinds of mistakes” could be quite costly indeed..

Obama gave a great speech about patriotism. it was a speech all Democrats should celebratee.
However, wiithout one word of appreciation for anything in the speech, you zero in on a sentence about MoveOn.org. Is there a moment to spare for celebration between hammering criticisms, at all, ever?

So, what about the success of MoveOn. org? Did their ad about Petraeus succeed in opening up discussions, or did it backfire so badly that it only gave the GOP another opening to paint the Democrats as unpatriotic.? Don't ask your friends for the answer. Ask the nation, those people who have to help elect Obama, if he is to be elected.

It's another case, of mistakenly thinking that if you have the right goals, then any tactic at all will succeed in reaching the goals.
I was mad as h**l at MoveOn.org after that fiasco. For people claiming to be media savvy, they sure misread the country, the situation, and the timing. Making those kinds of msitakes can cost an election.

I'm glad Obama won't be depending on their judgement.

In a word, it's a web of words set to trap.gullible flies.
First clue: he defines the center as the Bush/Cheney principle. The absurdity of that should have been a dead give-away for where his advice is headed.

He advises Democrats to seize the moment, but he has no advice for how to make the moment last longer than just a moment.

Glen Greenwald is not the Democrats' friend.

Obama's shift to the center is a shift to where I live, along with most Democrats that I hang out with. Rather than be disturbed by Obama's shift, we welcome it,

We all have an image of what we would like our country to be. While I share many goals with those who are disappointed in Obama, I don't share their ideas about how to reach for those goals.

For instance, I don't lose sight of the fact that should Obama win, he will have govern all of America, not just those who elected him. To be a successful president, he will need support from a much broader swath of the populace than just one wing of one party. So, even if Obama could be elected with this corrective action agenda (which is maximally doubtful), he couldn't govern successfully with it. He,along with these corrective actions, would come down in flames.

Take a lesson from Bush's partisan presidency and the price the GOP are paying for it. The rise of the Libertarains and Independents is directly attributable to that, and so is the decline of the GOP.
I sincerely hope that Democrats don't make the same mistake. It looks to me like some of us are intent on doing just that.

Please read BooMan's post (a link is provided in Pete Abel's post today.) He speaks for me on this subject, and I endorse his warning about consequences.

Rather than the quick fix of corrective action (and the inevitable reaction to follow) i support the slow and steady path provided by sustainability of the Party and the candidates heading toward my goals.

Wisdom always seems to come slowly and painfully. Let's hope it comes before August.

Speaking of August, and the formal vote on our dear waffling Obama, it might help clear up which “democrats” are urging Obama towards the middle (and political suicide to his main way-left base turning their backs on his new conservative tack as well as middle-grounders seeing through his ruse…)

Take a look at Brokaw's interview of Governor Ritter of Colorado, who will preside over the Denver convention. The “democratic” governor is a catholic pro-lifer who donned democratic clothing from his true apparent GOP roots to head our convention this Summer.

He, a pro-lifer conservative, supports Barack Obama and always has…

GOP controls BigMedia (Google: PSYOPS and CNN) and BigMedia promoted Obama over Clinton…shamelessly, relentelessly and prematurely declared and still does declare Obama the “winner” in the race between the two. With Ritter presiding their trap should be a slam-dunk. Clinton formally out of the way in September will usher in the worst media treatment you'll ever witness against a candidate when they go for Obama's jugular…as planned…

Wisdom comes slowly and painfully. Let's hope it comes for all of us about this slick Chicago minority-crushing politician Obama and his unwitting participation in the Obama trap BEFORE Ritter slams down the gavel this August with a cheshire-cat smile..

How do we stop them?

Between you, with every democrat you know and me, with every republican I know, we must find a way to keep Barack true to his beliefs. He needs to lay out exactly how he feels and where he stands on the issues so that the country can decide.

Of course, you are convinced that if he campaigned on his principles he would win. I expect he would top the 49 state loss record set by the last liberal who actually said what he thought.

Either way, it would be a fun election.

Obama's positions were never definably liberal across the board… though some are. Nor were his positions definably moderate across the board… though again, some are.

You seem to be suggesting that moderates and independents (like me, for instance) are aligned with the policy positions of liberal progressives; more than that: that everyone who supports the Democratic nominee supports those positions. But that's not correct at all.

Many folks like me supported Obama because we knew all along that the “non-partisan” National Journal rating was off-target. He's not a centrist, nor is he a liberal. On many many issues — perhaps most — he's a moderate. And coming on the heels of radical political polarization, that is exactly the change we wanted.