He is dangerous to the Democratic brand.

No praise for Carter. No praise for Clinton. No praise for FDR, LBJ or JFK.

This is our moment in history, to make our positive case that we are the party of the people. Everyone hates Bush and Republicans.

America is partisan for a reason. The two parties are fundamentally different and their policies have different effects on the middle and working classes.  

Instead, Obama is blathering about how everyone hates government in general and how only he, post-partisan Magic Man, can save us from ourselves.

The headline of this teeny diary KOS felt he needed to create to present this drivel:

Clinton's license to do harm

b) he's hardly the arbiter of what a dem is.

But then these are the same people who defended Obama's SF comments as being right, which turns out to be, well, wrong:

Do small-town, working-class voters cast ballots on the basis of social issues? Yes, but less than other voters do. Among these voters, those who are anti-abortion were only 6 percentage points more likely than those who favor abortion rights to vote for President Bush in 2004. The corresponding difference for the rest of the electorate was 27 points, and for cosmopolitan voters it was a remarkable 58 points. Similarly, the votes cast by the cosmopolitan crowd in 2004 were much more likely to reflect voters' positions on gun control and gay marriage.

Small-town, working-class voters were also less likely to connect religion and politics. Support for President Bush was only 5 percentage points higher among the 39 percent of small-town voters who said they attended religious services every week or almost every week than among those who seldom or never attended religious services. The corresponding difference among cosmopolitan voters (34 percent of whom said they attended religious services regularly) was 29 percentage points.

It is true that American voters attach significantly more weight to social issues than they did 20 years ago. It is also true that church attendance has become a stronger predictor of voting behavior. But both of those changes are concentrated primarily among people who are affluent and well educated, not among the working class.

I don't know how anyone who heard Hillary's passionate declarations for the party and for party unity - regardless of who was the Democratic nominee - could believe that she is not a real Democrat.  I guess I am wavering between wondering if the Orange Crowd truly believes Obama has redefined what a Democrat is, and on that basis, Clinton does not fit the mold, or they so badly want Obama to be the nominee that it's the only way they can mentally cut Clinton out of the picture.  Either way, the news I have for Markos is that those Democrats who have been voting for Hillary know what a "real" Democrat is.

I did not hear anything from Obama last night - other than a gratutitous word or two forced from him by the moderators - that reflected his pride in being a Democrat; she had to include him in the declaration that the party would come together, because she knew he would not.  

I know the Orange Ones and the Marshall crowd were angry that their candidate was on the receiving end of unfair questions, but their lack of outrage at the unfair questioning and coverage that has been going on for months now leaves me feeling no sympathy at all.  I mean, they have been part and parcel of that, and I don't see them being capable of self-directed outrage, so now they are in a position of looking like spoiled and petulant children...I've seen that same attitude in Obama, so maybe there is an affinity there that we just don't understand.

There has never been a President in this country that was even close to being as far left as Markos and his gang.

All he is doing is destroying the Democratic party by dragging it out of the mainstream with his slash and burn tactics against all the moderate Dems.

America is a moderate country. It isn't far right and it isn't far left.

Some people in this thread have made similar remarks about Obama. I Reject and Renounce those too.

And I think that this president, in particular, has fed those divisions. That's something that we've tried to end in this campaign. And I think we're being successful.

That was one of the most laughable statements of BHO's whole performance last night, IMHO. I actually yelled "HA!" at my TV.

That's just crazy talk...

It is of course nonsense. Sane people should be able to support Obama without falling for such nonsense. That's why it is amazing to me that so many supposed "Democrats" have so easily embraced it.

After literally years of stomping, yelling, waving, fact-checking, emailing, phoning, faxing, wheedling, begging for long pants media and elected people to notice -- to little avail -- we've gone from ombudscarcass Deb "Lovey" Howell telling blog swarms to FOAD to "netroots" elected candidates, many of whom just dropped by to spin their yarn and collect jack only to turn out to be wrenches in the creaking Dems uber alles machinery, to a bona fide presidential candidate (Obama) who's making use of the connections, pulling the big lever and setting off a cascade lower down.

The disruption to this newfound sense of power is why (IMO) the Hillary Derangement Syndrome is so insane and so intense.

After many years of drilling for anticipated Fitzmases and other celebrations that squeaked out very little reward other than to prove, all too late, that the truth squadding was correct and no thanks to the blogs for documenting the Worst Admin Ever, they hit a gusher.

It's the Obama campaign meets prominent bloggers meets the gadgeteers, overly connected iPhone and palmbook owners logged on but with little direction, who now have something beyond flashmobs ("Okay so now what? I dunno, everyone go home I guess.") to disrupt the transmission of daily boring events ("meetcha at the burger place we always meet 4:00pm. We can text each other there. Ack disgusting dog turd on sidewalk. Here's a jpg of it.")

Except the "masses" lowest down are being used as pests to game, eg, caucuses, online polls, etc. (When the campaign targets little kids and adolescents too young to vote to do little more than hector their parents, it p!sses me off. I'd love it if the energy was directed at giving out age related, issue related information, but what TeamO is doing is no different than hawkers of toys or junk food programming kids with desperate phrases and behaviors to manipulate their parents to buy something.)

Obviously Obama has sincere supporters who genuinely hear a message and are engaging in the process and I totally applaud that.

But now that it looks like the fun of actually having a powerful role in a party -- like the right wing dork blogs have had a role -- that might actually have a substantial win is fizzling, everyone's getting testy.

Good. I'm not here to buy a brand, parrot a phrase, help in the process of overwrought filigreed framing and reframing and polishing the BS. I like Democracy Classic. I want a real party and a real Constitution back. I don't want a Dem version of the Rethuggernaut merrily steamrolling its way to power with Dem versions of the a$$holes we have squatting in the Republican Palace.

And I really don't like the balloon headed kingmaker wannabees like Kos strutting forth to be at the forefront of the crush to the trough.

I mean, they're falling all over themselves with the idiocy that HRC is 'like' McCain, but what I see in this crush to annoint Obama is a surefire win for McCain.

(It won't be as bad as the Bush era, and maybe the best case scenario if we strengthen Congress with enough people to restore rule of law and lost constitutional rights -- which Obama by every measure so far will DEFINITELY NOT do.)

If TeamO and their minions can't handle a debate that had less fawning than usual, they're not ready for prime time.

BUT

the point, which gets blurred here sometimes, is that Hillary has distinctly said that she is bringing up these silly questions/stories/trash because the republicans will.  is that the strategy now?  we hiding behind that veil?  i don't expect people here to agree w/ me given TL, but it is objectively one of the silliest justifications for her campaign strategy over the last several weeks.   "oh, i'm going to push wright, farakhan now (???), bitter, etc. because the republicans will push this crap too."  

What's their payoff?  What deals have been made?  Has Obama made it knoown that he wants a certain big organization to go after  Clinton?