David Brooks is in the curious position of questioning a media narrative that he himself helped invent. He seems prepared, as he should be, for Obama to dash his dreams over the course of a real campaign.  

But I think Brooks' examples are weak relative to his point. I don't think McCain does care about the troops in any important sense-- i.e., as individuals whose lives are adversely affected. The same goes for most of the Republican power structure, especially those holding office in the current Administration.

"..the first rule in politics is you win before you can transform..."~Big Tent Democrat

Yes.  You do have to make it past the armed guards before you can redecorate the Oval Office.  Look for a radical change in how the media handles him (like they did Hillary) just after he is officially our nominee.

Things have reached a point that I truly don't understand what current Obama supporters might be thinking is the special message their idol embodies. Who can look at the wreckage left in the wake of the Democratic primary process and speak with a straight face about "unity", or the unifying powers of Obama? Perhaps there was a time this rhetoric might have been believed, if somewhat naively, because there was no countervailing evidence. But consider how delusional is such a belief in the teeth of what we now see before us.

It only reinforces the view that the Obama movement is nothing more than a personality cult, where the message is irrelevant, and only the messenger is of import.

All you have to do is read a little history to realize there never was any Golden Age of American politics.  Since day one, it has always been about who has a bastard child and who is a secret atheist.

But there is a legitimate battle of ideas too, even though in some cases (2004) the battle is lost simply because of a flawed banner-carrier.  But the Cooper Union speech was about something real.  FDR was about something real.  Even Reagan was based on something real, even though by saying so I am defying the liberal orthodoxy which holds that Reagan's election was all about race-baiting.

All the focus on gaffes can't possibly obscure the fact that there is an actual battle of worldviews taking place in this election.  Both Obama and McCain are guilty of blurring the boundaries sometimes with bipartisan rhetoric, but actual events have a way of overtaking rhetoric and forcing people to change sides.  This week's Supreme Court decision was an excellent example; Obama praises the decision, McCain calls it one of the worst in our nation's history.

From where I sit, when someone finds it unacceptable that after six years of keeping people in a hole, we are finally going to be required to sort out who's guilty and who's not, that's a person who wants to overturn what I consider the basic values of America.  On the other side, I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives who see this decision as a sign that liberal judges want to sell us all out to radical Islam.  So be it.  That's a disagreement over something real, not simply a gaffe-of-the-week entry.

The groundwork is being laid by the Obama campaign just as it would have been done by the Clinton campaign with lots of volunteers, lots of cash, and a huge get out the vote to end 8 years of disaster.

As far as I'm concerned, let the behind the scenes work continue in earnest and let McCain drift in his sea of GOP failure.

All this vague rhetoric about change has been nothing more than Republicanesque deception of a public who are discouraged from digging for the details.  It has been a classic example of saying one thing while doing another.  It's been about money -- huge amounts of money spent on campaigns while everyday people are going down the tubes.  How exactly is this any different from the Republican campaigns we've had for the last thirty years?  

As an example: So this change that we're going to see and should believe in begins with hijacking the DNC and moving them to Chicago?  Like the worst Republicans, the only radical differences I'm seeing from this campaign is in how they run elections.  Not that this is a bad thing entirely -- this party needed some serious help with messaging and campaigning.  What I worry about is how far they're willing to go in adopting the slash and burn, authoritarian nature of Republican campaigns.  And I also worry that, like Republicans, they'll spend too much of their resources on winning, and not enough on governing.

And if there isn't a whole lot of "there" there, what is he going to do to make sure he remains the hero of his own story?  What does that really mean for us, for the country?  Or are we even really part of that thought process, besides going to the polls to vote him in?

Or, has Obama managed to create a support/fan base which has fully taken its cue from him in the lengths it will go to to hang onto this self-created story, believes deeply in the fiction, and will not risk tearing down that construct no matter what?

I have to say that it scares me a little - and the sending out of Obama Fellows to 17 states, like Jonestown missionaries leaving the compound after their indoctrination, to convert the non-believers, just. creeps.  me.  out.

As yesterday's endless self-congratulatory revelry over Russert's death proved.  A display which was as hypocritical as it was maudlin.  

So the candidates aren't living up to the media's expectations?  After one week? Cry me a river!

Maybe when the media lives up to even the most minimal expectations of responsible journalism, I'll care what they think about others living up to expectations.  

Until then ...

He then got so angry at me, started raving about Hillary.   She was racist.  It was all her fault.  

I just walked away.  I hate being yelled at.  

When I walked by them again later, his buddy just sneered at me in a menacing fashion.

The New Politics is an implicit rejection of Fear Politics. The New Politician is unafraid to espouse liberal values and sharply contrast himself with the right-wing. The New Politician is confident enough in his own strength that he assumes his positions are either already popular with a majority of Americans, and if not, can be made popular if the logic of the position is succinctly explained. The New Politician isn't afraid of the biases of others; He can go into evangelical churches and talk about respecting the gay lifestyle, talk about why he is pro-choice, talk about why we have a division between church and state. The New Politician is able to talk not merely about the responsibility of government but also the responsibility of citizens, about why taxes are neccessary, about why we need to invest in alternative fuels, and about why liberals values are American values.

Obama has not lived up to these ideals. He is flawed. His personal baggage makes the espousal of these values at times hypocritical. But I've supported him because unlike Hillary I think that he aspires to be that politician. He at least tries to live up to it. He shows flashes of brilliance at times, so there is potential, but he hasn't reached the essence of his message yet.

It beats me why anyone would expect something different in a democracy.  Only a Washington punditocracy primarily concerned with their own privileges could decry this as a Bad Thing.

There is a real difference in the positions taken by the two main political parties on a host of issues, and in nearly every case the position taken by Democrats -- Clinton and Obama alike -- is in the best interests of the largest number of people.  Obama's and Clinton's ratings from a host of progressive groups, e.g. the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, are nearly indistinguishable.  In nearly every case McCain is on the wrong side.

When it comes to more of the same politics of usual character attacks, I think Obama has backed off a bit.

Frankly, I don't know what people are trying to communicate here.  No specifics are given.

So, first, I'll say again the truth: Sen. Clinton did not lose because Sen. Obama was underhanded, dirty, race baiting or sexist and not even because he was a media darling;  Sen. Clinton lost because her campaign did not contest the Feb. 5 caucus states and the 10 following primaries/caucuses plus Wisconsin, where her campaign started with too little too late.  

Assuming all those things about Sen. Obama's campaign to be true, they were still not the cause of Sen. Clinton's loss in the primary.

About the "hope" and "change" and "empty promises without substance" tropes, that was never true in my judgment because my support for Sen. Obama was always based on his anti-war credentials, my preference for his health care proposals and his willingness to place such issues as cleaning up DOJ as a high priority.  Since I have a gay son and a gay sister, I much preferred Sen. Obama to the Clinton-esque DOMA.  You may disagree and find Sen. Clinton's stances superior, but please don't think that everyone who supported the Illinois senator did so because of some magical kool-aid because it's no more true than the idea that all of Sen. Clinton's votes came from angry ex-wives.  Can we just get past those calumnies?

As to the "town hall" match-ups, does it matter to anyone else that the first McCain effort was with a stacked deck?  That he trolled through lists to invite only the true believing dead enders?  Do you want a town hall debate that includes only questions about Larry Sinclair and non-existent "whitey" tapes?  

For me, "hope" and "change" were always about the general election.  

It seems to me that the Dem campaign as it is shaping up has entirely foreseeable contours.  Sen. Obama ran in the primaries and caucuses with fair consistency in some respects, one of which is creating ground up volunteer organizations in each and every state.  Look more closely at So. Car. and you will see that Sen. Clinton relied on the tried and true organizations that existed there for many years while Sen. Obama created a volunteer organization from scratch.  He's still doing the same thing and the 3,700 "Fellows" is nothing more than a continuation of how he has campaigned since last October.  Sen. Obama is forcing Sen. McCain to compete everywhere and take no state for granted and that this is a successful overall strategy for the Democrats in this election.

Moreover, the issues between Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama are also very clear.  Sen. McCain's stand on taxes tends to favor the top income brackets while Sen. Obama tends to favor the lower tax brackets. Pretty substantive difference.  Sen. McCain continues to favor changes in Social Security that can fairly be called "privatization," while Sen. Obama's stance opposes this dismantling of the social safety net.  Sen. Obama wants to talk softly and Sen. McCain wants to brandish the big stick, to summarize a lot of foreign policy differences.  Sen. Obama is pro-choice and Sen. McCain is pro-life.  Sen. Obama wants a national health care policy and Sen. McCain wants to help the health insurance industry.  I want my civil liberties returned, I want a return to the Great Writ, I want an unambiguous end to torture as American policy, I want an end to the unitary executive and the vice presidency as a anomolous new branch of government.  

While Sen. Clinton certainly showed an impressive grasp of policy issues during the campaign and while it may be interesting to speculate how she would have done on policy during the general, the actual choice we have in November remains to me very clear.  My ultimate hopes for change are not that America will become the Land of Oz but that we will reject the governance that has done much to destroy the government and repudiate the direction of foreign policy that has destroyed this nation's standing globally.  

Had Sen. Clinton been successful, I would have had the same hope for the same change.  

Some perspective, please.  These issues are more important than all this intra-party sniping about primary election events.  

Tim Russert?  The topic?  Oh, yeah.  Well, I stopped watching the talking heads along about the time it was all Monica all the time.  I care a lot more about who got blown up in Baghdad than who died of a heart attack in a television studio.

Of course, if it fits your worldview to revise history, I suppose I certainly can't stop you.

He killed Hillaycary, you know, when he said "there is no health care crisis in this country."

We just love our heroes, don't we, even when they were just as usual as everyone else.

Frankly the primary race between Obama and Clinton is the one that will go down in history. Even CNN, the pro-Obama media is crying out for her return, the bloggerss and Op Ed writers who've had a steady diet of pointing in her direction are now twiddling their thumbs waiting for something, anything interesting, exciting..

But let's be honest about this. Barack Obama's chief challenge if he is elected will be getting his agenda through a very polarized and devious Congress. He's an inexperienced politician and he will be surrounded by people who know the Washington game much better than he does.
If he is to have a prayer of being an effective president, he will need insiders to help him, people who actually know how to craft complicated legislation and arrange coalitions. The people who possess these skills tend to be lobbyists, or married to lobbyists.
If Obama sticks with his no-lobbyist pledge, then he really will be Jimmy Carter, a high-minded president reduced to impotence by his own ineffectiveness.

But Obama was the one the media wanted. Mr. Russet himself gave Obama a full 1-hr MTP the Sunday right before the IN and NC primaries. Taylor Marsh reminds us of Russert's clear disdain for women's issues and aversion to women, specifically Democratic women; and most specifically Hillary Clinton.

BTD insistently reminded us that Obama would win because he was the media's darling (the Democratic flavor, anyway). The theory being that if the media likes him better, then he's the better candidate. It's the media who decides when we go to war and who will (appear to) govern us. And it's those who run the media who run us. We have little to say in the matter.

It's apparent from what you've written that you haven't done your homework. Yet, you have the crust to take up more space than anyone ever does to do this snake medicine sales pitch.

Budged me not.

Personal Character, or Lack Thereof:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will not return the $300,000 raised by a Texas Republican who joked in 1990 that women should submit to rape and "enjoy it."

Insulting Chelsea Clinton:

McCain: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
McCain: "Because her father is Janet Reno."

http://tinyurl.com/azmqp

Temperament Issues:

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS) said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

http://tinyurl.com/3dwga9

Promising Future Wars:

"It's a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars." Offering more of his increasingly bleak "straight talk," he repeated the claim: "I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

http://tinyurl.com/23qxlv

Falsely Linking Al Qaeda to Iran:
"But Al Qaeda is there, they are functioning, they are supported in many times, in many ways by the Iranians." John McCain Feb. 28, 2008

http://tinyurl.com/27dczr

Admitted Lack of Knowledge of Economics

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book." --Boston Globe, Dec. 12, 2007.
"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." --Stephen Moore, "Reform, Reform, Reform," OpinionJournal.com, 11/26/05

http://tinyurl.com/5c3amx

McCain's True Environmental Record:

``To his credit, McCain has made global warming a priority,'' said Gene Karpinski, president of the Washington- based League of Conservation Voters. Still, ``throughout his time in Congress, McCain's voted pro-environment only one out of four times.'' Karpinski and other environmentalists criticize McCain's positions on renewable energy, livestock-grazing practices, timber sales and funding to conserve public lands, wildlife and oceans.

In his quarter-century in Congress, McCain has demonstrated a ``pattern of voting with polluters and special interests instead of consumers and the planet,'' said Carl Pope, executive director of the San Francisco-based Sierra Club. McCain antagonized environmentalists by voting in 2006 to open 8 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil drilling.

There have been other charismatic candidates  in the past, who got lots of young folks involved, many of them didn't know what they were involved with, but joined up for fun, and passion.  I recall wearing Lowenstein buttons in my braids in high school, all I knew was he was antiwar.  (Vietnam to show my age.)  It does not mean the candidates are evil, it does give them power.  I also have lived in Canada, where Trudeau was in power for years.  He came on the scene and was smart, clever, good looking and had a massive "Trudeaumania"  following.  He ended up being a flawed but overall successful liberal politician.  The Kennedy's also attracted a following of young supporters. Bill Clinton also had a following of enamored youth.

What seems unfair is that anger at childish Obama supporters seems to be spilling out to all supporters.  There were some differences, some folks did not like the optics of another Clinton (i.e., the bushes and clintons rule America);  some felt that Obama's charisma was worth the risk (i.e., more democrats in the house and senate and a better chance to win); some did not like that Hillary voted for the war resolution, some were worried by the anti Hillary republicans and the scandals of the Clinton years.

We may all disagree on the best ways of achieving that relating to the major issues of the day, but one thing I hope we can all agree on. John McCain and the Republican Party have very little interest in doing anything more than shifting the burdens of this country's problems onto the middle and lower class while the wealthy get to bask in their vast sums of money and being asked to sacrifice very little if anything at all.