Point taken on the Dixiecrats concerning the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. I am not so sure your argument applies to the rest of the Great Society.

Anyway…

…during Campaign 2006, I found the best resources for keeping up on trends in the Senate races included Roll Call and Pollster.com, who do not appear to have geared up for Campaign 2008 yet. National Journal and Rothenberg have started. They both agree that the most vulnerable seats are all Republican, apart from Louisiana. Between them, they recommend that the Republican incumbent states to watch, in descending order of vulnerability are:

Virginia
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Colorado
Minnesota
Maine
Oregon
Nebraska
Alaska
Kentucky
North Carolina

The proof is that most of the former Dixiecrats (or their children) are now in the GOP.

As for Obama’s bipartisan appeal, I understand his campaign strategy, I’m concerned with what happens if he is elected. I’m assuming that the balance in the senate won’t be much different than it is at present (+2 or 3 seats for Dem). If you have any evidence that this isn’t true, I’d like a citation.

Fifty four fractious Dems don’t make for a legislative battering ram. Thus my question about Plan B.

“The person who got the most accomplished in the face of strong opposition in the past 50 years was LBJ.”

Strong opposition? I do not think so. LBJ’s achievements came after his 1964 landslide victory over Barry Goldwater so they were in the face of weak opposition.

When Obama campaigns on the basis of cross-party cooperation, he is referring to his ability to attract Republican and independent support at the ballot box — not in the legislature. His plan, as I understand it, is that he, not Rodham Clinton, can offer the coattails required to elect an LBJ-sized supermajority.

His argument, it seems, is if Democrats want to replicate the hyperpartisan, demonizing Bush-Rove strategy of 50%-plus-one then Rodham Clinton is their woman. If they want to supersede the blue-red divide then he is best equipped to build a new larger coalition.

Who knows if his argument is correct? They hold elections to find out, I suppose.

But, that wasn’t my point, I’m not criticizing Obama for being optimistic, I just want to know what plan B is if plan A fails.

The person who got the most accomplished in the face of strong opposition in the past 50 years was LBJ. We still don’t know all the things he did to force congressmen to support civil rights and great society programs. Intimidation? Blackmail using files from the FBI? Bribes for local projects?

There are just some times in politics that compromise is not possible and those who think they can reason with the unyielding are being unrealistic. As I said above, 140 filibusters in the past years doesn’t support a hope that bipartisanship will be forthcoming spontaneously after the election.

So, what’s plan B?

If you don’t count her time as the wife of a politician, she doesn’t have a bit more experience than Obama.

You’re not stupid, just by the words you use, you’re a good ‘brazillion’ times brighter than Bush…. John? John McCain? Is that you? That IS you!! I knew it!

Just look at the past year, they have filibustered something like 140 bills. Why should they change tactics just because a Dem president asks them to?

I’d like to hear how this bipartisanship is supposed to work when only one side wants to negotiate. What’s the plan?

If you ask the Obama supporters what he’s running on, they say change and hope. Their answers tell the tale. There is nothing more to it, and they can’t say any more then that.

Delivery is another matter. Rodham Clinton’s speaking style was flat and unmodulated. She rushed through her speech and trampled on applause lines. She conveyed no understanding of the rhythm of the words she was reading or how to build a crescendo. It seemed she was exhausted and just wanted to get off the stage as swiftly as would seem decorous. If one conducted a word count, Obama must have spoken at half the cadence. He waited for his words to sink in, listened for what lines attracted applause, and responded to his audience’s enthusiasm.

BuzzMachine characterizes these two different rhetorical approaches as her managerial style versus his spiritual one. Fair enough. To this ear, she seems more task-oriented, getting the speech done and getting off the stage; he seems more interested in persuasion, testing how his words are sinking in with his audience. The difference could also be characterized as that between solipsism and outreach.

And on the evidence of last night, if BuzzMachine really believes that oratorical ineptitude is a desirable trait in a candidate, it should switch its endorsement forthwith to John McCain. His victory speech was insipid, trivial and mawkish.

It’s my opinion that most - nope, probably ALL of the front runners would never have gotten so far as a candidate in any previous election year, and that has nothing to do with race or gender. Is being an unproven “inspiring” newbie that much worse than being a cynically corrupt, philandering opportunist? A true believer that wants to bring the nation together under (his) god, albeit in a rather affable, non-threatening style? A presidential spouse angling for 8 more years of hegemony bordering on right-of-kings? — Tell me she’s still with him for love. They’re business partners and the business is politics.

So no, in any other election year, I’d be impressed by Obama - but give him my vote? More likely I’d stand with those who say go back, get a battle scar or two, show your mettle and try again. This year, I’ll at least consider giving him my vote just on the grounds that he is the “least odious”. You can add to that my fairly deep suspicion based on recollection of her past White House years, that a H. Clinton presidency will become just as ideologically isolated and deeply mired in defensive secrecy as the current administration is. Bonus point irony level: Some pundits are already theorizing that W has more or less accommodated himself to the notion of an HC presidency, and considers THAT the lesser evil (than Obama, say.)

In any case, a dem in the White House may be a boon long term for the GOP, considering the economic house of cards built on bubbles, that is going down right now. Can we say “Hoover”?) Maybe now they are just trying to orchestrate the least embarrassing loss possible - “hey, let’s give it to the loyalist war hero” is no stretch under that scenario.

I am not afraid (except of those who play up fear so much in order to gain power). Anyone who was dumb enough to vote for Bush should sit this one out btw.

I’m not so sure that Obama will want to bring Hillary along as VP, but I suppose that would be the smartest move. I don’t think any of the Republicans running would have much of a chance against a Obama/Clinton alliance.

Let the rotten vegetable tossing begin. [covering face with arm]

Doesn’t really matter, I suppose. Clinton/Obama will be the ticket vs. McCain/Lieberman. The rest is just window dressing.

transcript:

http://blog.printf.net/articles/2008/2

Personally, I think that Obama would handle threats better than Bush has over the last 7 years. Bush has used fear as a tactic throughout his campaign. It would be nice to have an intelligent and composed leader at the helm if, God forbid, something is actually DONE to harm us. Or would you be concerned that he wouldn’t be as interested as Bush was in policing the world?

After Hillary’s second teary incident yesterday, I might be a bit concerned if she was in command when actual threats transpired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuZhwV24PmM

Maybe she could bring Ken Lay on as VP.