It's a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.

Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama's seven-year tenure. Each session, Obama backed legislation that went nowhere; bill after bill died in committee. During those six years, Obama, too, would have had difficulty naming any legislative achievements.

Then, in 2002, dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans on the national and local levels led to a Democratic sweep of nearly every lever of Illinois state government. For the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor's office as well as both legislative chambers.

During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law -- including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.

There's too much similar in what Obama says for it not to be Joementum.

Ask former Senator Chaffee of Rhode Island.  He's recently written that, after he got over the hurt of being tossed from office, he's seen that the People were right to do so.

A friend from RI and I were talking the other night, and it still amazes him that a Republican with a 70% approval rating (Chaffee) still got tossed because he was a Republican.  People were and are that p*ssed.  Maybe even moreso now.

Second, how does the "man of judgement" reconcile his withering critique of the Iraq War and the events leading up to it with the tacit assumption that Republicans are best suited to head our defense and foreign policy establishment. I know that there were Republican luminaries who opposed the war, but these individuals had no impact on the outcome. Does Obama mean to suggest the most marginalized and ineffectual Republican is a better candidate than any Democrat to run our military and foreign policy establishments?

"That is the essence of High Broderism - unity means Dems capitulating to Republicans on the issues. The question then is how exactly will, if not through High Broderism, Obama unify the country in post partisan fashion?"

Sadly, I don't see how the progressives in this country avoid a death by a thousand compromises in an Obama WH.  Look at how hardball the Republicans have played, even after their debacle in the '06 elections.  Does anyone have any proof whatsoever that they will change their ways on 1/20/2009, even if Obama wins a landslide victory over McCain?  I wouldn't bet my lunch money on that, let alone my hopes and dreams for the country I love dearly.

The only scenario in which I see real, progressive movement on major issues is a Dem in the WH coupled with enough Dems in the House and the Senate to shut out the obstructionists.  Last time I looked, I think it was virtually impossible for the Dems to get a reliable 60 votes in the Senate post 2008, which means we could be in for filibusters or "compromises" as far as the eye can see.  

I don't want just movement for the sake of movement, I want movement in the direction this country needs.

Pulling off a republican of two? pulleeezzz nahgonnahapin! The republican party will not let it happen - they'll chase 'em out of the party first.  

Grow the party. Coopt the opposition. Win the votes of the non-ideological average Joe and Josephine who do not have firm committments to either party and who go back and forth in particular elections, based on what feels right to them at the time. And, as is an especially fertile field this year, win over the affections of some moderate Republicans who are seriously disaffected with their own party.

Why is this so hard to understand? Why the recourse to arcane philosphizing about theories of this or theories of that? Why not try to imbibe the lessons of all successful politicians in history?

Obama's primary objective in this approach is to appeal to independent and dissafected Republican VOTERS. We are not talking about the creeps in DC, or in the state parties. We are talking first about those average people out there who used to vote for us, and who often of late have voted for them. Average people, with similar concerns in their lives as the rest of us, but who have not, in recent times, trusted Democrats - even when Democrats have been touting policies that would be of help to them. Whats the matter with Kansas, and all that.

How do you do that? Sorry to mention the dreaded R word, but Reagan managed to do it. How does a president, or a party appeal to Jerry Falwell and to Taylor Marsh at the same time, as Reagan did? It obviously came about by putting forth a message that connected on some deeper level than just policy.

Reagan won a 60% reelect in 1984. Would any of you like that to be the case in 2012, for our side? You want to know why it is that we live in a GOP dominated era? Just that reason - Reaganism recieved an overwhelming mandate from the people in '84. That reset the intellectual landscape. Suddenly, any idea that could be tied to Reagan - any conservative idea, had the background legitimacy of being associated with a large popular mandate. That, more than anything defines the context in which conventional wisdom operates, and that CW infects the thinking of everyone in DC, the think tanks, the media. The only other decisive election result since then was the GOP landslide in Congress in '94 - an event that just galvanized that line of thinking. All other results were narrow victories for one side or the other. Bill never got 50% of the vote in either election.

First you win the people, or at least some number of them that is significantly larger than 50.01%. Then you have power, a mandate. Then you have 3000 like minded political appointees supervising every government department. If you also have the Congress, then you have relatively clear sailing - and I am not referring to passing legislation, I am referring to setting agendas, defining issues, generating memes that shape the way people think about issues.

This is NOTHING whatsoever like Liebermanism. Joe is an idiosyncratic politician who has some good Democratic instincts and some very bad Republican ones and who wanders around in search of a home, based on what is most important at the time. In a world defined by war and terrorism, his Republican instincts on those issues have landed him on the other side. There is no "theory" of bipartisanship there, he is just a man with a unique mix of beliefs, who sometimes wishes he could find consistent soul mates. A lonely figure.

Obama understands on a gut level that most people in this, or any other country, are not ideological. They live their lives as best they can, and look to politicians to not make things harder for them, and ideally to solve some problems. They vote for one party or the other because they have some sense of trust, usually quite weak, that that party somehow respects them and will generally do things that will help them somehow. When that party fails them, they are open to being convinced by the other.

Obama is trying to convince these people, at just the time when circumstances, and the Bush administration, has made them up for grabs. The force of his argument is pretty powerful for it addresses their core concern about Democrats - do these smarty pants, know it all intellectual types really respect me and want me to join them? Obama says to them - yes. We may be putting out polcy ideas that are different from the ones you voted for recently, but we do not see you as the enemy. We understand you may have fears, but we are confident, and you can share in that confidence. We understand that you may feel disrespected by voices in my party, but I do respect you.

Appointing members of the other party to an administration is something that most politicians do, it is almost a habit by now. Its a way of saying to the VOTERS, more than anyone else, that your concerns are not going to be totally shut out even if we win, and your party loses. It is about lowering the psychological barriers to voting differently than you have in the past.

what stands out in his brief Senate career is his liberal voting record, not a history of fighting across party lines to get legislation passed. He wasn't part of the 2005 Gang of 14 bipartisan coalition that sought to break the logjam on judicial nominations

You mean his record of bipartisanship is instead on strongly Dem-framed issues like nuclear proliferation, energy, veterans affairs, ethics, etc that have left him with "no obvious political scars for fighting bipartisan battles that were unpopular with his party's base"? Gee, I wonder why that would be?

And Sen Clinton's record is actually much more redolent of bipartisanship? Horrors!

and Naive - I think covers it perfectly.

Look back at the last 8 years in Bush' congress - how has co-operation with the GOP worked for the Democrats??

and we now want more of this??

With Obama views on Afghanistan and Pakistan, his support of Bush war in Iraq since Obama was elected to the Senate, the claim that Obama is not Lieberman may even imply that Obama is less liberal.

Of course the "Republicans" are difficult to work with, to say the least. And they cannot be changed in "no time". But they must be changed, or the United States is doomed. And the person who takes on this task must have patience and a keen understanding of human beings.

When I argue with someone, they sometimes think I haven't "convinced" them of my view, but my goal is not to "convince", but to make subtle changes in the nervous structure. Someone who bursts into many words may find herself become more succinct and more able to control her affect, avoiding excessive rage, melancholy, etc. All such changes require days, months, years to develop. We must use such an approach.

I think Obama may have some capacity to do this. Hopefully we will come to see whether this is so.

If you think about it, other than the Clinton's being Democrats and being successful, there was never a rational reason for the cult of republicanism to go ballistic after them as they did. The Clintons are more or less one of them, only Democrats. Obama on the other hand, has the whole race thing that will send the republican cultist into blinding rage that will make the republican cultists Clinton smearing and obstruction look like playing patticake.  

Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." That time, people cheered loudly.