Hiya Sunny;

On the three slight points of disagreement:

a) I quite agree that there was a swing against the GOP in 2006 – thus shown in the huge margins of victory that were racked up by candidates in Democratic states, and the swing in the house elections. Howev that doesn’t in and of itself explain why states that had notonly voted GOP but had also really made Democrats an endangered species for decades, were returning Democrats. I’m convinced that a different type of candidate (rather than generic DLC rent-a-suits) was a factor in that.

b) It’s not quite correct that the netroots all supported Paul Hackett against Brown. They split fairly evenly as I recall it. Also, they backed him because he actually became a figure of the left. Hackett hit the media (and the netroots) because of his bruising style, union-friendly language and strident opposition to the Iraq war, which he took into a congressional election in one of the most Republican districts in Ohio. He was expected to get a kicking and instead he nearly won. In many ways he was the prototype for the new populism that I’m speaking about – precisely the reason why I’m supporting Edwards.

c) How is Clinton more left wing than she claims? She simply doesn’t have the track record to justify that hope. Further, her campaign is symptomatic of the failed DLC-led strategies that left the Democrats sounding like GOP-lite from 2001 to 2006, with predictable electoral results.

On Obama, I may just do you another full post by way of a reply

Obama’s economic advisors include Austan Goolsbee, who has received plaudits as “our kind of Democrat economist” from such notaries as Andrew Sullivan, George F Will and Megan McArdle. I’m not sure what that amounts to, but it rather suggests that one of the reasons Sullivan is so happy to herald Obama as a “unifying candidate” is that he’s comfy with his economics. Question is, Sunny, are you?

So Sunny likes Obama because, among other things, he appears to trivialize the race issue.

Thanks

America was built on the race issue… and there are no bigger issues for America than that – from the war in Iraq to the criminality of the New Orleans Disaster.

Clearly, Sunny Hundal’s understanding of America’s history doesn’t go beyond the official high school history texts.

Dream on, the US electorate is not going to elect a muslim.

one of the reasons Sullivan is so happy to herald Obama as a “unifying candidate” is that he’s comfy with his economics. Question is, Sunny, are you?

Meh – American economics usually ranges from the very right wing to the right wing. I think there are reasons for this – principally that lefties have not been able to advance anything new since the New Deal settlement for the US welfare state, meaning that the economic libertarians have won the argument for the last 30 years or so.

To me, neither Obama nor the other Democrat candidates offer anything new. So I’m not sure what specifically you’re referring to.

Alan, in response to your points:

1) I think those Democrats returned because voters wanted to punish Republicans for their bad choices and mismanagement of the economy. They didn’t have a superior vision and they didn’t have anything substantial to say other than ‘we are not Bush’.

Of course, I prefer Democrats in control, I’m just saying that its not a long term victory if Democrats have nothing substantial to offer as an alternative.

2) YEah, but for reasons I outlined, I think Obama is Edwards and more.

3) How is Clinton more left wing than she claims? She simply doesn’t have the track record to justify that hope. Further, her campaign is symptomatic of the failed DLC-led strategies that left the Democrats sounding like GOP-lite from 2001 to 2006, with predictable electoral results.

Well, its difficult to compare since she has been a Sentaor longer than the others, and has been involved in politics a lot longer. But in the article I linked above, I think Sullivan hits the nail on the head when he says:

A generational divide also separates Clinton and Obama with respect to domestic politics. Clinton grew up saturated in the conflict that still defines American politics. As a liberal, she has spent years in a defensive crouch against triumphant post-Reagan conservatism. The mau-mauing that greeted her health-care plan and the endless nightmares of her husband’s scandals drove her deeper into her political bunker. Her liberalism is warped by what you might call a Political Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Reagan spooked people on the left, especially those, like Clinton, who were interested primarily in winning power. She has internalized what most Democrats of her generation have internalized: They suspect that the majority is not with them, and so some quotient of discretion, fear, or plain deception is required if they are to advance their objectives. And so the less-adept ones seem deceptive, and the more-practiced ones, like Clinton, exhibit the plastic-ness and inauthenticity that still plague her candidacy. She’s hiding her true feelings. We know it, she knows we know it, and there is no way out of it.

That is what I mean and I suspect Robert means too.

Steven – Obama isn’t a Muslim.

Sunny… I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about Clinton; however I also think you’ll quickly come to agree with me if she’s nominated

I’d certainly rather see Obama as nominee than her – he’s my second choice.

Folks, where is the Foreign Policy debate in this question? Edwards (like Clinton) was proud to be a democratic Hawk, going so far as to write an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post supporting the Iraq War. The Bush administration liked the piece so much that they posted it on their official website.

Or where is the question of our civil liberties? Edwards (like Clinton) voted away habeas corpus and and privacy protections in the form of the Patriot Act. If it weren’t for the Supreme Court ruling unconstitutional parts of the bill, U.S. Citizens would still be liable to be held without any formal charges.

Or how about the question of flip-flopping? Edwards talks about protecting workers, but he voted for giving China special status as a trade partner.

Or what about the No Child Left Behind Act, which stripped funding away from poor schools for underperforming (and which he and Clinton voted for)? What part of that is pro-worker?

Or what about the No Child Left Behind Act… ~ O

We should also remember that NCLB ensured that in return for funding, schools had to turn over the names and personal details of their students to military recruiters, and allow them to press-gang kids on school property.

The devil’s in the detail. Few politicians read the legislation they vote on (at least not personally). Just give an illiberal and unconstitutional law an un-contestable title, such as The Patriot Act, and watch those suckers sign up.

Long live Ron Paul…

Long live Ron Paul

That is a joke, isn’t it?

That is a joke, isn’t it?

What? You want Ron Paul dead? You bast….

Actually I do think his barmy online supporters are very funny – seemingly one of them just cut’n'pastes a link to the Infowars conspiracy site and the (capitalised) text “VOTE RON PAUL!” on to random blog threads. Perhaps it works but I have my doubts…

There are a lot of issues in America that Ron Paul doesn’t have the answers to, but he does have some good points. He wants to end the expensive foreign bases that the US maintains. He wants to bring home the troops – all of them. And when you think that half of US taxes are spent on the military, his tax cutting plans make some sense…

I lean towards Obama. I think he has a basket of qualities that suit the current needs of America. I’d be more than happy with Edwards. I enjoy his K-Street bating rhetoric. Practice is more difficult than theory, though.

I agree Obama is a fantastic candidate for the Democrats. However what will taunt him if he faces either Guiliani or McCain is INEXPERIENCE. Especially on foreign policy.
What he will have is a clean record on Iraq, a new approach that will break with the “old politics” of the Clintons and the Bushs and a good bi-partisan and partisan records(which we British tend to forget matters in the US) to please voters.

The race issue is one he has dealt with very well by seeking reconciliation rather than the “old politics” method of marching and campaign only to scare away moderate voters.

Still what may matter more is the fact that Hilary is way out in front of him and while he is popular among democrats what is really crucial to America is that the Democrats don’t lose this election. If the Democrats learnt anything since 2004 it is that they can’t afford another Rebublican president. Sunny is right that the mid-terms were not an acceptance of Democrats as much as a rejection of Republicans. However if their is to be a greater acceptance of Democratic values then Obama is the man to persuade America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCSMyFWTjRc

Barack Obama and John Edwards both perform better in all general election match-ups than Hillary does. She’s the worst candidate the Democrats could nominate from that perspective.

@ centre-left:

I think the point is that Hilary is not ‘way out in front’ anymore.

Sunny is right to support my point about Hilary’s secret leftwingness with another quote from Andrew Sullivan. I do find him persuasive on the point of Obama’s positive traits, despite not sharing his politics. Indeed, that Obama can appeal to a right-winger like Sullivan is a strong point in itself… although as we’ve said above, considering “electability” above all else is a soul-sapping past-time.

What really gets my goat is the “America is not ready for a Black president” cliche. It is a mantra that everyone likes to repeat, yet I can find no-one, on the blogs, in the media, or even interviewed in the blogs or media, who will stand up and say “I’m not ready for a black president. So we’re left with idle speculation that, if the polls are anything to go by, has no real substance.

Steven’s comment, while obviously a joke, alludes to a slightly more worrying and potentially damaging aspect of Obama’s candidacy, although personally I’m confident that meme can be killed off before November.

Robert;

I imagine the receipt of vast quantities of pharmaceutical companies’ cash helps Hillary to hide her rebellious soul almost as much as “post traumatic stress” lol

The following makes quite a convincing case for Ron Paul

” Letter to a Liberal Friend
The Left and Ron Paul

By JEFF TAYLOR

http://www.counterpunch.org/taylor01022008.html ”

If I had a vote and I couldn’t vote for Kucinich, I’d consider Ron Paul.

There is no measurable difference between Republicans and Democrats, any more than there is between Nulab and the Tories. They are all in hoc to the same interest groups.

I dont see any great difference between, say, Clinton and Giuliani. In fact Clinton scares me more than most of the candidates. She’d be far more likely to hit Iran than Ron Paul. Anyone who promises non-intervention gets my vote.

I see the reason Obama that is being touted as the unifying candidate is generally as Sunny hints at but doesn’t say explicitly.

A quick recce at the Obama policy crib sheet sees him as the most centrist of the Democratic candidates, willing to take good ideas from wherever they spring from and more realistic in his application of them: the non-universality of BA’s health proposals are the clearest distinction of his non-dogmatic approach and the difference between him and Clinton.

My personal view is that Obama will win because he is the most identifiable candidate with the least divisive track-record. Though whether an election where change is the biggest issue would mark a point in history where American politics is likely to change for the better remains open to question. So, not having a vote in the US, I reserve my judgement.