Alan Stewart Carl C, You clipped my words out of context there. I was saying that's what Obama supporters believe -- I was not saying I believe it. So, yeah, I see the difference in sheparding a flock and preaching to the choir. That's why I'm a McCain supporter. Somehow I always end up defending Obama in these discussions. I guess that's because I find it ultimately useless to get all bent out of shape because people are rallying around a guy who's lacking  (or not communicating) a clear direction for the nation outside of "unity." So what? Most presidential candidates lack that kind of clarity. Obama is a liberal so we have to assume he's following a liberal vision. I don't see why we should expect him to suddenly become a visionary before agreeing that supporting him does not have to be some act of blind submission to empty rhetoric but can be a reasoned choice.

PatHMV No, Jason, not at all. I do agree that none of the candidates is offering much in the way of genuine leadership of the type I describe. And that's fine, it's to be expected in average, run-of-the-mill presidential campaign. What I object to is the characterization of Sen. Obama as some sort of great unifying visionary. You may have missed my reference to at least one Bill Clinton policy (mend it, don't end it -- ok, I cited it wrong the first time -- regarding welfare reform). "It's the economy, stupid," was not a line used by candidate Clinton in any of his speeches, just a reminder from campaign staffer Carville to keep everybody "on message." Candidate Bill Clinton did manage to provide a little more substance than that, though his speeches, too, had more "I feel your pain" than actual direction. But don't conflate what the candidate says and does with the "meme" of the election. Sure, the tank didn't help Dukakis, but that's not what the candidates talked about. George Bush in the 1988 election did announce at least one direction "no new taxes." Breaking that simple, direct promise was one of the reasons I voted against him in 1992. But during the campaign, that was something concrete, a real direction rather than a vague "good jobs at good wages" expression of hope and desire. Ironically, Dukakis was hit with the same basic charge being levelled at Sen. Obama. "Where's the beef?" was spawned by Dukakis' inability to articulate how he intended to get everybody "good jobs at good wages."

C Stanley

I guess that’s because I find it ultimately useless to get all bent out of shape because people are rallying around a guy who’s lacking  (or not communicating) a clear direction for the nation outside of "unity." So what? Most presidential candidates lack that kind of clarity. Obama is a liberal so we have to assume he’s following a liberal vision.

I don't want to get bent out of shape over it either, ASC, but the problem with not engaging in this kind of argument is that a lot of people who define themselves as centrists apparently don't see Obama as the liberal that you and I see him as. As you mentioned, it's quite amazing that people see the same person so differently. I'm not bent out of shape because ultimately I have confidence in our system of govt- if Obama's elected and proves to be a) more liberal than many people think he is and/or b) less uniting than people think he is, then I know that our Republic will still survive. In fact excesses in those two areas will lead to a greater GOP majority in Congress, so he'll be kept in check. I'd prefer that to be plan B though, and since we are just now getting to the general election, I will plan to use this time to persuade as many people as possible to see McCain as a more credible centrist than is Obama.

PatHMV Alan, I don't think either C or I are in the crowd suggesting that supporting Obama is an irrational choice which can only be made by being blind to reality. Rather, I think we've both tried to articulate why we think those that have chosen to support him are simply wrong (which is very different from being irrational). I agree that there are at least some aspects of Obama's rhetoric which can be read as promising a truly new approach, a reduction in vicious partisanship. I agree with Jason's point made mostly elsewhere that Obama's policy solutions outlined on his web page, and some of his legislative work, provide some support for the possibility that he really will be more moderately oriented. I simply believe that the other evidence refutes those conclusions. That's my opinion based on my own analysis of his record and rhetoric. Certainly your mileage may vary and it's entirely possible for two rational people to look at the same evidence and draw very different conclusions from it.

C Stanley What Pat said, plus.... I think that anyone who is liberal or left of center in their philosophy should have no problem embracing Obama for all the right reasons: he's obviously your guy. If you favor very liberal policies, there's probably a bit of that although it's likely he won't be a radical lefty president (but you've probably already conceded the fact that Dennis Kucinich won't ever be president, so you have to take what you can get ;-)  .) If you're a moderate lefty, there's good reason to think that Obama will push through some programs you favor and have the kind of foreign policy where the State Dept takes precedence over the DOD. But the people I have a complaint with are those who believe in policies that do not lie to the left of the political spectrum, but who believe that Obama will reliably accommodate those policies in addition to some that are more leftist oriented.  I'm just not seeing that at all, and I do believe that some people are deluding themselves to see something they wish to see. That's not to say that such people are irrational, but that the choice itself (IMO) is somewhat irrational. Of course one explanation I can see is that not all policies are on the left-right spectrum, and for some people the most important issues of the day are those that aren't so closely entwined with either a conservative or liberal viewpoint. From what I can tell, that seems to be the case for Jason, but I do wish that he and others like him would address their viewpoints on the big govt/spending issues. Even if those aren't the most important issues to a particular voter, I don't see how they can be brushed aside.

C Stanley I agree with that, of course, Michael, but I can't help but ask: do you think you are similarly honest about Hillary? Because although she's not as liberal as Rush Limbaugh's fans think she is, she's still no centrist.

C Stanley I should add: I'm not sure 'honest' is the best word choice though I think I get your meaning and I agree with the concept. It's just that I don't think that people who support him for the wrong reasons are being deliberately dishonest, and I think that's an important distinction to make.

Jason

He’s, quite clearly, not a centrist nor a moderate. That’s not a problem, but why not be honest bout it?

Because it is not dishonesty, it is disagreement, Michael.  I (and others) simply do not accept your dictates about how moderation and/or centrism should be defined and measured.  That doesn't mean we are dishonest any more than it means YOU are dishonest when you don't accept our premises or definitions. Pat seems willing to accept the possibility of a principled disagreement.  Want to sign on to that possibility, Michael?

C Stanley Jason: I'd really like to hear your response to my last paragraph of comment #55 if you have a chance. And I'll balance that by repeating the question I asked of Michael in #57: why is it possible to see Hillary as a centrist? In terms of spending and size of govt, I don't see how anyone who's remotely conservative could support either one of them. So the only possible explanations I can see are: 1) Some people look at the spending proposals and assume they'll never happen anyway 2) Some people think the spending is inevitable and don't see fighting back growth of govt as a big priority right now. Am I missing something?

Jason

What I object to is the characterization of Sen. Obama as some sort of great unifying visionary.

Let's see: That would be a characterization that has been made by....NONE of the Obama supporters around here. It's not like Alan or myself or Justin are like Voldemort's spammers singing the praises of our candidate as some kind of savior.

Jason

From what I can tell, that seems to be the case for Jason, but I do wish that he and others like him would address their viewpoints on the big govt/spending issues. Even if those aren’t the most important issues to a particular voter, I don’t see how they can be brushed aside.

I don't like the overreaching, but I don't weight it too heavily. I think the tendency of all political campaigns is to over-promise in terms of programs and under-analyze in terms of where the money will come from. Democrats tend to do it with spending (going all the way back to the New Deal), Republicans with tax cuts (going all the way back to Reagan). Neither party figures out how to balance the budget in the process. Some of the specific spending proposals from Obama I actually like, such as the increase in foreign aid (which more than pays for itself in the bigger picture of achieving American interests, it is just sometimes hard to see). As a professor of international relations, I will confidently assert that foreign policy is not something that can be usefully measured on a left/right scale anyway. Some others I don't care for, but find them to be superior to Clinton's which are even worse, such as with health care insurance mandates. Still others I think might be foolish boondoggles, such as throwing more federal money into the education bureaucracy where little of it has historically made it into classrooms anyway but where the teachers' unions skim off huge hunks in a manner reminiscent of a Third World kleptocracy. Truth be told, the process of looking at candidates is comparative, not ideal. And there is no candidate or party that has a decent record for fiscal responsibility right now, so my concerns about Obama's propensities are not really weighing in favor of me shifting my support away from him because there is no one better to go TO and because I think his other virtues outweigh. But I am not just "brushing them aside".

C Stanley OK, so although I know you don't want to debate Obama vs. McCain right now, I hope you'll be prepared at some point to explain why you don't think that McCain has a 'decent record for fiscal responsibility.' He's been a stalwart deficit hawk, so I don't get that at all.

Jason I have to wait to see where he finally comes down on his wishy-washy, unclear position regarding tax cuts and how to pay for them. Also, like Obama, I believe McCain proposes certain increases in an already massive military budget, does he not? Are these to be paid for by cutting other military programs, or are they simply new spending with no new source of revenue? Neither Obama nor McCain has yet answered that question. Anyway, everyone seems to keep assuming that because I support Obama vs. Hillary that I must also be committed to supporting Obama over McCain. I've never said that to be the case and I don't right now know that it will be the case. I'm undecided on that matter, though I am looking forward to having two candidates (Obama and McCain) that I can actually consider voting FOR and not feel compelled to vote AGAINST either one.

Stop Look Listen & Think Barack has held elected office for twelve years. During the first eight years, sponsored over 820 bills, including 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, fifteen gun control bills, six bills regarding veterans’ affairs, and many others. In his first year in the U.S. Senate, Barack authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These bills included: 1. The Government Transparency Act (became law) 2. The Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (became law) 3. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (passed the Senate) 4. The Government Ethics Bill (became law) 5. The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill (now in committee), and many more. http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/barack-obama-101/

C Stanley Well, Jason, perhaps it would be more obvious that you were uncommitted in the general if you wouldn't always post in defense of Obama while your comments about McCain are along the lines of:

I have to wait to see where he finally comes down on his wishy-washy, unclear position regarding tax cuts and how to pay for them.

Jason Well, Christine, maybe so many of my posts are in defense of Obama because Obama is the one that is perpetually under attack around here. It isn't like there are a whole host of critical posts about McCain that I am ignoring. When someone criticized McCain's military record, I about took their head off for it, though. I even posted a post critical of Obama myself. That gesture was ignored by anti-Obama critics, who continued their one-sided pattern unrelenting. For whatever reason, Michael has made it his personal quest lately to slam Obama as many times per day as possible. I mean, for example, look at what Michael did with the "plagiarism" talking point. It was a point initiated specifically BY the Clinton campaign and which distorted the truth in multiple ways. Michael wrote more than one post on it and persistently refused to even acknowledge responses and rebuttals, even when specifically asked to do so by me. That seems unfair to me. So I've started posting defensive pro-Obama posts because it is the only way I can think of to provide what I perceive as necessary balance to the debate. I have tried to do so with civility and even, at times, a good humor that is unusual for me and I think I have largely succeeded in that. I even warned Justin when he kept crossing over into personal attacks against Michael. I also deleted pro-Obama spam just like I deleted pro-Voldemort spam. I'm not the tool of his campaign, I'm a supporter. And I have submitted myself for cross-examination for a full hour on the radio show this week. I "honestly" think I am doing my part here. But it is awfully easy for a pro-Obama person around here to feel under siege, especially when we keep getting snide comments about our "prejudices" and "emotions" and whatnot.

Justin Gardner I said it in the comments section of a different post recently and I'll say it here...Michael has a very clear anti-Obama agenda and it's interfering with his credibility as a moderate blogger. True, we all have opinions and certain preferences, but Michael is venturing into increasingly intellectually dishonest territory and it's unfortunate.

C Stanley Jason, I understand that and I agree about the need for balance (though I seem to remember posts by other bloggers here that have been pro Obama, so other than Michael I don't know where the 'attacks' on Obama are coming from. And for the record, I agree that Michael's postings have been biased but it appears to me more that he feels the need to voice a strong negative opinion about this particular candidate because he thinks people have the wrong perception of him. And no, Justin, that isn't necessarily intellectually dishonest (in fact Michael obviously thinks that people on the other side of this debate are themselves being intellectually dishonest in not acknowledging the evidence that shows Obama being more liberal rather than moderate.) Anyway, FWIW I think the site would be a lot better if Michael would focus more on issue based arguments and if those who feel he isn't doing so would just post their rebuttal to the more frivolous arguments and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.

Jason Well, Christine, you may be right about that.  Because Michael posts repeatedly about the same anti-Obama stories and because his posts generate responses while the pro-Obama posts get ignored, it is possible that my perception has become skewed. At any rate, I am trying to rectify the situation both by doing the radio show on the issue and by posting myself about those issues that I think are being ignored.  For example, I just posted about McCain's criticism of Obama.

PatHMV Exactly, Christine. It's more effective, in my opinion, to respond to bias or flaws or "intellectual dishonesty" by a blogger by demonstrating the flaws in their arguments than by denouncing that blogger's perceived immoderation, bias, or refusal to answer questions. Rather than attacking Michael for anti-Obama bias, just post a comment refuting (for example) his characterization of the "plagiarism" charges as "stealing." If a post really is absurd, that's generally easy and simple to do, and then the general public doesn't read a bunch of bickering over who is or isn't intellectually honest. Instead, they'll quickly see which side is winning the argument.

Jason

Rather than attacking Michael for anti-Obama bias, just post a comment refuting (for example) his characterization of the "plagiarism" charges as "stealing."

This is very frustrating. Pat, I have done exactly what you suggest multiple times, in both comments and posts regarding the "plagiarism" kerfuffle. All of my comments and posts on the subject have been ignored by Michael and, apparently, unnoticed by the regular commenters here. So what happens after people undertake the alternative that you yourself specifically suggest and still get stiffed? Might you not see where I, at least, am getting really frustrated with the anti-Obama drumbeat? The fact that I reject Justin's methods does not mean that I do not share part of his frustration. I suppose I could count myself lucky, however, that Michael has not yet embraced the Mullen technique of sending emails to critical commenters or dissenting contributors ordering them to "get the f-ck out of my thread". :)

Alan Stewart Carl Man, I go pick up the kid and there's 20+ more comments. Whether or not Michael is being too hard on Obama, you gotta appreciate anyone who facilitates this degree of debate and doesn't erase the comments of those who harshly criticize him. Now, as for the point at hand -- when I was looking at the possibility of a McCain/Obama contest awhile back, I concluded it would divide centrists/independents in half and make us all wonder what we had in common to begin with. I made this prediction based on my experiences with defining "centrist." A lot of people calling themselves centrists are just independents in search of a new approach -- they'll happily take it whether it comes from a mainstream liberal like Obama or an out-there libertarian like Ron Paul. We can argue whether Obama will really use a new approach but we won't be able to conclude anything unless/until he takes office. But for those centrists/independents who do see him as something new on the political landscape, they're not going to change their opinion without concrete proof that Obama's a fraud. For those who see Obama as just a standard liberal, we're left concerned that others are missing the obvious. But without proof that he really doesn't care about the views of those to his right, all we can do is try to read between the lines. I don't see this debate ending anytime soon. In fact, I see it continuing right through the general election. Of course, if we have two candidate who can each capture a large portion of centrists/independents, I guess we're not doing so bad.

C Stanley

I have done exactly what you suggest multiple times, in both comments and posts regarding the "plagiarism" kerfuffle. All of my comments and posts on the subject have been ignored by Michael and, apparently, unnoticed by the regular commenters here.

No, Jason, you're missing the point. You see, the regular commenters (assuming your primarily referring to Pat and myself in this case) did notice your rebuttal but we're saying that the argument would be more effective if you'd left it at that instead of showing your frustration at Michael for his lack of response. Let his lack of response speak for itself and it makes it apparent who responds and who doesn't, and smart readers can judge what that means without having to read what comes across as bickering.

Jason Sorry, Christine, but that has not been my experience. My experience has been that when a rebuttal gets ignored in the blogosphere, it is quickly buried and forgotten and the target of that rebuttal tends to, as Michael did, persist with the original argument without restraint or loss of credibility. This is especially true when the poster can just create a new post with the exact same theme, thus avoiding readers' seeing the ignored rebuttal unless it too is reposted (only to be ignored again and a new post made -- round and round we go). And frankly, if my points are just going to be ignored and my underlying viewpoints represented as being nothing but "prejudices", why should I bother posting them? Try to see how it looks from my side.

PatHMV Jason, that last comment of mine that you quote was aimed at Justin, not you. I'm not trying to insert myself into an intra-blog bickering match. That's between you and Michael.

C Stanley Michael- I get that you're busy and may not have time to respond to this, but I can't help but note that you do often repeat that this is your opinion of Clinton but I don't remember anything that substantiates the idea that she 'works with Republicans'. I mean, she hasn't been as demonizing and divisive with her rhetoric as some of the other prominent Dem senators have been, but I really don't recall any substantial bipartisan legislation that she's worked on (that's not to say there isn't any- but to prove your point you'd have to show that there is.) I guess my impression is that you judge her quite a bit by her husband's record, but even with Bill it was mostly a matter of moving toward the middle out of necessity when there was a strong mandate for that in the midterm election-and strong leadership in the Congress that resulted from that election. I wouldn't say that Hillary has been a radical leftie, but she's firmly in the mainstream of the Dem party (perhaps around the center point of that party, not the center of the country- which I realize isn't what you're arguing anyway.) But when you add to that the whole 'politics of personal destruction' meme, a phrase which she coined which seems like a bad case of projection when you learn about the memos on how she and her team worked for healthcare reform by going after their opponents personally, then I don't see how you can make much of a case for her representing a candidate who'll work well with Republicans.

Justin Gardner <blockquote>Whether or not Michael is being too hard on Obama, you gotta appreciate anyone who facilitates this degree of debate and doesn’t erase the comments of those who harshly criticize him.</blockquote> How is this commendable? Numerous bloggers, on both sides of the aisles, don't erase comments that merely disagree with their points. I don't see why you or others here have set the bar so dangerously low. And let me just say, if this is where we're at now in the moderate blogosphere, we're in BIG trouble. Also, Michael admits that he has an anti-Obama bias so I think it's now clear that anything he writes about the subject is pretty much worthless. That doesn't mean we shouldn't provide counterpoints, but the time for debating him is over. Again, this  type of bias is completely out of character with the moderate blogosphere, and it calls into question the credibility of anything he says now, but there it is nonetheless.

C Stanley Justin, there's a little saying about removing the plank from your own eye that you might want to keep in mind, as I see that several commenters at your site are repeatedly questioning your pro-Obama bias. Maybe you could explain what it is you feel you do to counteract your bias in that regard? Do you in fact believe that you're holding yourself to this higher standard that you're advocating? Do you really feel that your coverage of Hillary and Obama are completely impartial? Really?

Jason Justin, I consider the "bias" issue over. I don't think that one incident of overly touchy behavior or the losing of one argument detracts from anyone's overall credibility in the "moderate blogosphere". If it did, neither you nor I would have any credibility left, now would we? ;) Anyway, while I an quite confident that Michael has lost the substantive argument here (in the debate world that I come from, an argument which is not responded to is considered to be conceded once the "dropped argument" is pointed out), I am not going to go the route of a radical lefty and start losing friends over political disagreements. Instead, upon reflection, I have the following advice for you, Michael, as well as myself: Let's apply #1-3 from Colin Powell's rules here, ok? P.S. One reason I support Obama is because, like Reagan, he personifies #13. :)

Jason Well lets see if you were a soldier wouldn't you like to know that your commanding officer had some expierence. You see accomplishments mean expierence they go hand in hand you can have a bad expierence and get accomplisment out of if nothing but to say I learned from it. But if you look at the two canidates and measure them by this you will see that there are more in one category than the other. I do feel that we as a society have let the media tell us what to do here and we have not researched it ourselves. These are the things that should stand out. If you look at it the people who gained from fannie mae and freddy mac are the same people that think that we should pull out of Iraq and let that country rott. I look at the war this way if you were standing on your block or you appt complex and some one was beating and rapeing a lady and her kids. I hope you as a human would help. Well regardless if Sadam had wepons of mass destruction persay he did have chemical ones and used them on is own people. He was a tyrant and needed to be stopped. Now I don't always agree with the president but I respect the office enough that no matter who is there I will respect there judgement. Ronald Regan respected it so much that while he was president he never took off his coat in the oval office for nothing, said he wanted to look his best for the office he held, We as Americans have lost all respect for anything much less the president.  When we look at the whole picture Barak Obama don't respect the position at all. His experience and the people he has associated with show us that. I am not saying I agree with John Mcain all the way but I will say this would you want to go to war with someone who has never been to war or someone who has.

Jason We as a society have took so many hand outs that we have let the government get incontrol. We should not fear the Gov. the Gov. should fear us.

Jason If you were to go to a job interview and have that question asked and you gave the same answer as Sen Watson you probably would not get the job.

lola * If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience. * If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive. OK, just trying to get this clear. I understand how this all makes sense, now.

edouard If we listen to people who say Obama did nothing while as Commumity Organizer or Senator then it means that them people will surely deny the requirements of the vision of the forefathers that anyone can strive to be President of USA. The janitor, the plomero (joe the plumber), tito the alleged citizen (that is to show they use the playbook) and builder can become President of USA. If they claim Obama is not a true American then the illegal can surely aspire to the Presidency ad no one will ask for ID. Sound familiar! god bless USA