Interesting article on Obama's positioning recently

http://www.laweekly.com/news/dissonance/di...e-ground/19203/

Very interesting article that really reflects my POV on Obama, of the candidates for the Dems he has the best chance to not only win, but make the country a better place and a more respected place worldwide.

But he has to get elected first.

Zealotry helped him during the primaries, but practicality is in order now. Remember he said we are all Americans, and everyone counts. That's why he is running with an election center in 48 states, thats why he considers many more states battleground states than McCain. But doing so comes with some realities, and you cannot be walking Ellen Degeneres up the aisle to give her away before November, you cannot be polarizing nor too extreme, and at the least, even if you disagree with someone, you have to make sure they understand that you get where they are coming from.

One America.

Get used to it.

There is a lot of selective listening and sloppy reporting going on. Obama never changed with respect to the second amendment and he definitely never changed with respect to Iraq, or campaign finance reform. The to believe he Obama changed on is civil immunity and it relates to FISA. Rachel Maddow in for Keith Olbermann, played the video tape of him addressing this issue in the past. He has not changed on this at all.

Very delighted to see Rachel filling in for Keith tonight.

Very pragmatic post torey.

Dess, all of this bs on the news is about to drive moi batty. Clicker in hand and finger on mute at all times to keep from getting sick.

I also know that Hardball was full of shit tonight talking about Atlanta fundraiser, trying to fillet Obama for playing with the big buck boys. Did not mention it was to pay off Hillary debt? Oh, omissions are just as egregious as lies. Oh, Chris, you cheap piece of shit.

On the FISA thing, Randi once again drove home today some of the gray areas in respect to the FISA shit storm that cannot be captured in cheap newsspeak soundbites. Civil or criminal? Which one can still go forward, regardless, eh?

Just not enough hours in the day for the 24 hour news networks.

I agree, but even Dame Rachel has gotten into the Obama spin. Last week she and her so-called political "guru" David Bender, sliced and diced up Obama for FISA not with facts, but personalizations. This was of course on her Scare America radio show.

I learned a lot in 2000 with Gore and how the left treated him. If you are old enough to remember, NPR and the Pacifica network sliced up Gore exactly the way Obama is being dissected. Gore back then wasn't progressive enough. He'd moved to the center on issues. He wasn't pure enough. And Amy Goodman's wonderful advice was to go vote for Nadar.

Nope. I won't fall for it again. Everyone is still getting their sources from the same big media organizations. And there's more punditry then ever before. Now is not the time to be lazy, but hard working in our fact checking and reading the ENTIRE story. Not just the soundbits we hear, read or watch.

Another thing I always think about is funding.... It's amazing that the candidates only get 80 million dollars to run in 50 states, thats just 1.6 million dollars per state. Over a 4 month period thats just 400,000 dollars a month per state. The candidates are literally forced to wholey ignore some states so they can focus on "battleground states" due to the terrible electoral college system.

Obama has it right, run in every state possible, have a campaign center in every state possible, and do not discount any state nor their voters. He will have McCain at a huge disadvantage because McCain will not have the funds to counter Obamas inroads in what were considered safe red states.

Mark my words, we are looking at a very savvy politician in Obama, and this could get really ugly fast for the repugs.

Yeah, I heard about the slicing and dicing on Scare America. We should learn from 2000.

I just turned on CNN, MSNBC, I mean, I had my cable company plug in that tier. I had stayed away from that tier for 3 years. I am shocked sometimes as to what they say and don't say. Sometimes I even see them reacting to the internet when they get their feelings hurt. And these are just observations from the last 2 weeks. Anyway, I get to watch the span on the big screen now, that's all that matters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I forgot to mention one other slight Chris Matthews spit out last night: On his "sideshow" segment? he made up some BS completely out of whole cloth. He showed tape of Obama reacting to the turbulence in his plane (during his plane incident yesterday) and then showed tape of Obama speaking calmly to reporters about the incident. Not a big deal. Matthews has the audacity to ask: GRACE UNDER FIRE??? OR COCKY???

Chris Matthews, as usual, still smelling the English Leather cologne of Freddy Thompson. Wishing, always wishing, and projecting and stirring for his corporate masters.

Rachel Maddow, and you can go listen to the replay of her show if you so choose to waste money on a Scare America subscription, actually said that she wouldn't say if she would vote for Obama or not.

When I heard that, I said forget it. She's moving towards that Larry Johnson zone if she is willing to make oblique statements like this. If I want that kind of selective outrage, I can go watch Mornin' Joe or Tweetie.

This post isn't meant to be a Rachel bash. By no means. I'd like to see her have her own show on the TV machine. But, this is an example of when both sides can lose their objectivity in the election, because as people, they hold the candidates to these concocted loyalty and purity tests that have nothing to do with the candidates larger objectives of their platforms.

Essentlally, I'm using the RR homework as my guide, and, seeking out full versions of speeches and statements for both candidates to determine what was said and in what context. As far as Arianna is concerned, she needs to decide if she wants to be Perez Hilton or a journalist.

As part of his response to the backlash on his FISA vote, in the www.barackobama.com blogs, as well as elsewhere, Obama wrote an explanation for his vote. It was reasoned, and explained his thinking, whether one agreed with it or not. I'm sure there was some measure of "spin", as always.

IMO, this democracy would be a LOT better if all our legislators were obliged to document the rationale for their votes, routinely, not just in defense of unpopular positions. One can often tell in such writings whether someone is blowing smoke, or simply has a different position, which is inevitable in democracy. If a mandatory "defense" of vote were a normal part of our functioning, and the grass roots were engaged, we would have the beginnings of a closed loop representative democracy.

So, I might not be wild about about his FISA position, but I love the fact that he defended it publicly.

Did not know she went that far.

I know Dan, I raved about knee-jerk reactions pertaining to FISA all last week, and I now bear the bruises.

After watching some speeches on the Senate floor today, I am crossing my fingers that this new HOYER compromise will just be shelved, until a new president is elected - the one with the brain.

Oh, here's link to what Curry was referring to:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/p...rospars/gGxsZF/

A non-corporate media and the way it functions would close the loop.

You could almost see Maddow throwing up her arms in that Scarborough clip. She's probably feeling the effects while trying to thrive within it.

Hopefully we're seeing the "last throes" of the corporate, old boy network media.

I see it the same way pretty much without following the media left/right positioning which will be a neat trick for us let alone Obama in a flawed campaign process.

And without reacting to "zealotry" which is one of my push buttons; the primary probably required the passion to cut through the "conventional dumbness".

This is a revolution in a sense that it calls for different tactics and different approaches not the romantic version of cigars and running naked in the jungle.

Well, it's just refreshing that he holds this conversation. And I get great delight out of deciphering his thinking.

Yeah, I rad that after he posted it and my big regret after having done so was that if I were not involved in coming here and educating myself I never would have seen it. I'm sure that there are others out there who have as well, but the candor with which he is able to address not only the concerns about FISA, but his respect for the dissenters is something I respect the hell out of. Here is, to me, the difference between progressive and liberal. He is willing to move forward if only a bite at a time and take the wins he can get rather than shoot the chance for improvement down because it is 'not enough'. Don't pass on a chance to improve things when he can and give respect to those who will continue to push for more, because sitting on the small victories won't be enough. The drive has to be there to continue to improve and that drive is embodied in those who hold strong to their belief that we deserve more, even when they have to call out the ones making progress and challenge them to do it.