How will Obama move us past the divisiveness of 2000 and 2004?

[last1standing]

I'm not happy with Obama's statement about Gore and Kerry but I have a question about it that I think is much more important than slamming a former candidate or two. What policies does Barack Obama support that he feels will attract republicans and how does he plan to implement them? From what I've seen of the republican platform there isn't too much there that I'd be willing to support so what does Obama think he can do to attract repubs without alienating Democrats?

Edited for grammar.

[DemKR]

1. he certainly won't do it while being republican lite n/t

[last1standing]

3. I'm actually trying to get a real answer, because I don't see how he can do it.

At least I don't see how he can do it without compromising some key Democratic ideals. Does anyone know his plan?

[IndianaJones]

2. he will teach us to love the sinner...but hate the sin. all sides are then happy. nt.

[DemKR]

5. LIFT ME UP!!!!! lol

[IndianaJones]

6. he seems to appeal to bigots when it comes to polls. nt.

[Yael]

4. First he cuts a deal with Kooch to shore up the far left

then he focuses all of his energy on pleasing the independents, then he courts the hard core (R) corporate donors to bring him in the home stretch.

All fluff, no substance, IMO.

[sandnsea]

7. The way he got usaspending.gov

The Lugar-Obama nonproliferation legislation. Racial profiling stopped in Illinois. Campaign finance reform in Illinois.

He just does it, that's all.

[last1standing]

9. I'm not questioning his ability to pass legislation and I'm not making a personal attack.

I'm asking a real question because I'm very concerned with his comment. How SPECIFICALLY does he plan to entice republicans? Answering "He just does it, that's all" isn't really answer, it's more like asking us to believe in magic and I'm not willing to suspend belief while someone does a disappearing act with our ideals.

[sandnsea]

38. He's doing it right before your eyes

He doesn't pander. He says the same thing to every audience. He respects everybody. He has no axe to grind. He stands on principles.

[last1standing]

40. So did Howard Dean but he's not in office today.

And I'd say the same about Gore and Kerry. Sorry, but I'm not convinced that his personality is so strong that it will sway republicans from their normal voting routine.

[sandnsea]

49. Howard Dean ran like Edwards

Howard Dean completely changed who he had been his entire life, and ran as the firebrand leftist from Vermont. He made outlandish lefty statements, and statements that were completely the opposite of what he had supported just months before.

Obama knows how to frame his positions in words that don't offend the middle. He doesn't move to the middle, he makes the middle move to him.

It isn't a matter of his personality, it's a matter of standing on his principles. When he says something, it isn't hyperbole or focus grouped so he doesn't have to come back and make one of those classic "the candidate misspoke" which Dean became famous for, and that Hillary was stepping into there for a while. He says what he means so he can stand by it. That's what most Americans are looking for in a leader.

[last1standing]

58. I hope you're right. I don't see it, but I do hope.

But then we have always dramatically disagreed about Dean. We just see things differently.

[niceypoo]

72. Give some examples of these "outlandish lefty statements"

your repeating the RW talking point

[journalist3072]

8. I don't think there's anything in his record that proves he can do that....The evidence is just not

there.

Now contrast that with Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton has a clear record of working with some of the same people who voted to remove her husband from office. Some of the same people who were clearly bitter about her winning the Senate seat in 2000, and saying "She'll only be one of 100" are now singing her praises as a workhorse.

Here's what Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said about her: "As a red-state conservative, I have found common ground with her on improving health-care benefits for members of the National Guard and Reserve. We also created a bipartisan Manufacturing Caucus to help promote and address the problems facing America's manufacturers."

Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187184,00.html

She's worked with Sen. Bill Frist on health care issues.

Read their joint op/ed here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30277-2004Aug24.html

So the talking point (spread by the far-left and the far-right) that she's too divisive to get anything done, holds no water.

[last1standing]

10. Believe me when I say that Clinton's record with republicans scares me as well.

I'm great with getting things done, when they're the right things, but I think she has given up too much in order to gain her working relationship and feel that would continue in the white house just as it did with her husband.

Not meaning to be offensive, just stating my opinions.

[peoli]

12. What are you asking?

Do you think there is a secret cookbook formula that he has that makes people want to work with him? He does it because of his personality, because of his ability to listen to the other side , to understand it, to communicate in a non offensive way, to realize that there are two sides to every issue, to include people with different opinions. People like him. I mean there is no way to answer your question with anything tangible. Some people are able to bring people together in a way that others cant because of multiple variables in their personality.

[last1standing]

15. But where's the proof of that?

So far, other than in very early polling, there's nothing to show he can do something like that just on the force of his personality. As far as I'm aware, so far in actual races he's only won in a solidly Democratic district in Illinois and one statewide race against a certifiable loon who only moved to the state a week before the residency deadline. I'm just not willing to buy onto the idea that he can charm repubs into voting against their political agenda. So that leaves my question still unanswered: What will he specifically do to woo them over?

[jenmito]

19. I've posted links to polls and articles showing Obama having the most cross-over appeal by FAR

for people who've asked this question.

[last1standing]

21. That's fine and I wouldn't be against you reposting them or directing me to where they are.

But I don't think polls from a year out and opinion columns are very resourceful in things like this. I've seen some very stretched logic in opinion columns.

[jenmito]

37. Here's an example:

"Aug. 24, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- It was sort of like finding a Christmas tree in a cornfield. In late July and early August, Iowa Republican voters were asked to name their choice for president in a University of Iowa poll. Mitt Romney, who leads most Iowa surveys, got 22 percent of the total. Rudy Giuliani came in second with 10 percent. But third place went to a Democrat, Barack Obama, who got nearly 7 percent -- more than Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Sam Brownback combined.

Not to worry: The Obama campaign isn't likely to join the Grand Old Party, and pollsters are convinced that Obama has exactly zero chance of winning the Republican caucus in Iowa. But something is going on. "I don't want to make too much of it," says David Redlawsk, the professor who commissioned the poll. "But I do think that the message Obama is putting out right now is the most likely to reach across party lines."

There are other signs of Obama's crossover appeal. Over the last several months, Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, has been holding focus groups for various media organizations like Fox News to find out what the public thinks of the presidential candidates. "I would ask Republicans, 'Which Democratic candidate would you accept? Who would you consider to vote for?'" Luntz says. "Obama would get more than everybody else combined. Hillary and Edwards have no crossover voters."


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/24/obama_gop/

[last1standing]

39. That's a good opinion column. I remember reading it when it came out.

However, it's still an opinion, without too much in the way of concrete information. Scherer is really just giving other political analysts a voice in the column. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong, but I also don't think it answered the question of how Obama is going to sway a large number of republicans to vote for him, not in any real sense at least. In fact, the very concept of trusting republican spinmeisters like frank luntz to provide honest opinions is not something I'm willing to do. He has a long and sordid history of lying and twisting data to create an image.

[jenmito]

41. It's not an opinion that he came in third in a REPUB. poll.

But it looks like nothing will satisfy you until you see the Repub. voters voting for him. :shrug:

[last1standing]

42. Seeing republicans voting for Obama won't satisfy me at all.

Seeing republicans voting for Obama (or any other Dem candidate) without offering up Democratic ideals will. My worry is that Obama might be willing to do just that based on his comments and actions. I'm not slamming him but I don't feel good about him at this moment and wanted to get some more concrete answers than what I've received.

I hope there are no hard feelings and even moreso that we can all come together to vote for a real Democrat who will uphold our values in November.

[jenmito]

47. What are you talking about?

Obama's the most liberal of the Dems., right after Kucinich (who told his supporters to go to Obama as their 2nd choice) and Repubs. STILL like him while consistently stating his positions because he's not seen as angry like Edwards nor does he have a history like the Clintons. It's clear you're not interested in really getting an answer. You obviously don't like him and nothing will change your mind. :hi:

[last1standing]

53. You're wrong there. I am extremely interested in getting an answer.

I'm just afraid that no one has been able to provide a better one than he has a nice personality. I'm not knocking him, really. I've made some very good comments about him on this board and elsewhere stating that I think he was a very effective state senator. However, I don't like what I've been seeing in the last few days when coupled with the McClurkin issue. You can think I'm just predisposed against the guy if you like but I really wanted some answers. Please don't insinuate otherwise just because I haven't been satisfied as yet.

Anyway, I don't want to change this to an argument, so I'll look for my answers elsewhere. Have a good new year. :)

[madrchsod]

20. that`s how he got anything done in illinois

the guy who he worked with was a moderate republican.that`s the way politics used to be before newt destroyed the system of give and take in the house and senate.

[last1standing]

22. As I said before, I agree he can work with the other side.

That isn't the same thing as pulling in republican voters.

[chascarrillo]

11. Independents Republicans (nt)

[last1standing]

13. But what policies is he promoting that would move them to vote for him?

So far I haven't gotten a straight answer on this. They're not going to vote for him just because he's a nice guy so why will they change sides?

[jenmito]

14. He disagrees without being disagreeable and Indys, Repubs. find him refreshingly honest

according to all polls/indicators. He has a non-confrontational attitude while sticking to his principles and has no baggage of being an enemy of Repubs.

[last1standing]

17. So he'll win because he's a nice guy?

Sorry, I just don't buy it. I'm not trying to be rude, but no one can tell me why republicans will vote for him other than some mystical cult of personality he seems to have.

[jenmito]

55. Yes. He has no history of being a polarizing figure unlike the Clintons

and he's not running as a divider like Edwards. And he will NOT compromise his Dem. principles to win Repub. votes. They already support him and he's the only consistent major candidate in this race. Sorry that you don't buy it, but it's been said by many Repubs. that they like his attitude, his honesty, and his ability to bring people together just by not being seen as angry. Take it or leave it.

[avaistheone1]

69. What are you smoking?

You have got to be kidding! You think that the Republicans have been sitting around waiting for a "nice person" Democrat to be elected and then the Republicans will start to do business fairly.

If Edwards is a divider it is because he is not mealy mouthed and he is clear about his positions. ON the other hand, Obama starts out of the gate already compromised and have already giving up his principles if he is not willing to declare his positions and support them. It is easy for Obama Not to be a divider because he doesn't really stand for anything.

[jenmito]

76. Nothing...

I'm talking about Repub. voters, not the RNC/GOP. The OP is asking about Repub. voters. It's been shown over and over that regular people who are Repubs. LIKE Obama...unlike Hillary and Edwards. The great thing is they KNOW he's a Dem. with Dem. positions but they are really unhappy with their own candidates and want the country to stop being so divided. They look at him to be the one to be able to bring the country together. That's a fact according to listening to reporters speaking to Repubs. at Obama's rallies not to mention polls showing the same thing.

[madrchsod]

16. moderate republicans have no where else to go

contrary to popular belief here at du, moderate republicans are just like.. real people! who have the same problems we do..yes they are just like us. i know that is a hard concept for many to grasp but obama has. maybe i`m just to old for the young`ns to understand that if you don`t offer people a refuge from the storm they tend to think you are an asshole. my opinion is that we offer them a place to sit at the table and maybe they accept what we have or they reject it but at least we can not say we did`t try.
as for the independents, hell you know that can`t be trusted...they reserve their judgment until they make up their minds on who will be the best for them and where they think this country should be headed.

we have to get the independent vote and the moderate republican voters who are being abandoned by their party over the years. everyone`s pissed off at obama for stating what every democratic candidate knows but won`t say in public. we need a lot more than 50% to win the next election.

[last1standing]

18. But we've been counting on that "moderate republican" vote for a long time now.

And while I don't doubt that some of them have and will move over to our side (2006 was a good example of this) I don't see how Obama makes this happen over any other candidate with the exception of Clinton.

[madrchsod]

23. i think all democrats understand that we well over 50%

if we can get a majority of the independents and even 5% of the moderate republicans then we will have the elections in spite of the machines. more important is that we have to get more senators and house members.

he brought it up but hillary and everyone else knows that they need these people to switch in the primary's and in a general election

[last1standing]

25. Ok, we agree on that, now back to the original question:

What will Obama specically offer republicans to get them to switch their vote that Edwards, Biden, Dodd or Richardson won't? All four of them have proved themselves able to work with the opposition over the years and all have proved themselves as statewide vote winners to a greater degree than Obama (sorry, but running against Keyes doesn't make for a good test). That leads me to believe that he must have some plan to move to the right, which is in no way the middle anymore, to woo them. I'd like to know what his plan is.

[Capn Sunshine]

24. His statement was not anti- Gore or Kerry

It was a call to rise above the gutter politics of fear and despair being used AGAINST Gore and Kerry...the whole "Red vs Blue thing as articulated by Karl Rover.

Of course , my point is moot because this is just another bash the candidate thread by all the usual suspects. Now that Obama has victory in sight I expect lots more of this bullcrap. You'd think it would come from the right wing but there's more than enough hate right here on this board.

One thing for sure, it's almost comical if it weren't so sad how bitter and alienated many Democrats have become. They LOVE being at war with the rest of society , and relish more divisiveness and battles rather than solutions .

That's how we get candidates like Hillary Clinton.

[last1standing]

26. Your post is neither fair nor true.

I'm not just bashing Obama, I have a legitimate concern about this. If you look at my history, you'll see where I've said some great things about Obama and even recommended one of the threads regarding his work in the state senate. I am worried that he is making a veiled promise to give up certain Democratic principles and based on his comment I think that fear is justified.

So you can either explain what he's willing to do to gain republican votes or you can just slam me with a broad brush. Your choice, but I would expect better than that of you.

[Capn Sunshine]

28. tell me -quote andcite- where he"Bashed" Gore

The veiled promise fear is unfounded. Don't play into the thousands of memes being cranked out by the 44s and other PACs distraught because we are beating her.
There will be so much slime and shit in the next two weeks it will render this place unreadable.

We in the Obama campaign recognize this, we have planned for it, and even as they twist his words and cherry pick his speeches, the voters know what he means when they see him.

You just have to believe the red/blue war is over . Because it ends the day Obama takes office.

[last1standing]

34. Sorry Capn, I don't just "believe" in anything.

I'm not trying to start a fight here but I do think my concern is valid and I've read the articles and know that he was very clear in calling Gore and Kerry divisive figures. Of course they were divisive after the spin machines were done with them but so will Obama. That's just how things work when the media has a vested interest in keeping the republicans in power. So in order to attract these republicans he says he can get, I think he will have to give something up. That's only an opinion, but its not unfounded, and I'd just like other opinions on what that is likely to be or if there is some other way he can do this other than some personality cult that I'm hearing about. I haven't seen anything from him that makes me just want to "believe" and I doubt most republicans will, either. Sorry, I just don't.

[annie1]

27. because he has essentially no past, pubs don't already hate him the way...

they hated gore or kerrey.

[last1standing]

31. Sorry, Annie. I think that the repub spin machine will demonize him just like the others.

Obama won't be running in a vacuum, he'll be running against the entire repub spin machine as well as the greater part of the MSM and they will attempt to tear him apart just as surely as any other candidate. They'll also have a very long time to do it, much longer than the time it took to tear down Dukakis or Hart or Gore or Dean or Kerry. Therefore the idea that he's not already damaged goods is irrelevant as they'll damage him up just fine.

I think in order for Obama to state that he can move us past the divisiveness implies that he's willing to give up ground on republican wedge issues like guns, gay rights, or prayer in schools. That's just an opinion of mine, but it's what I see as most likely and that's why I posted this thread. I want to know if anyone has an idea of what he will be willing to compromise on.

[annie1]

33. but he's done so little, the drama can only go so far, no?

[last1standing]

36. I disagree with that. I think Obama was rather effective in the state senate.

I don't think there's been time for him to do much in the US senate, but he does have a record that will be exploited outrageously by the repubs in the general election if he's the nominee, just like any other candidate.

[Bluebear]

29. Look how well it's working here!

:silly:

[Sulawesi]

30. One way to do it is to focus on issues where there is broad support or

even to discuss more divisive issues without insisting that people on the other side of the issue are complete lunatics. People around here slammed Obama for saying some positive things about the governor of California, that was guilt by association...if you taken the good and leave the bad, from people of all different stripes, you will find people of all stripes on your side.

[ripple]

32. He's able to inspire the best in people,

rather than exploiting their worst traits. He recognizes that while there are a number of issues dems and republicans will never agree on, there are also plenty of ideals that bring us all together. Basically, he re-frames the conversation in a manner that promotes ideals that most people can get behind at least in theory (equality, fairness, social and economic justice, etc.) and chips away at the barriers to achieving those ideals- and he does it in a non-accusatory manner. It also doesn't hurt that he's a very powerful speaker who delivers his message well.

[last1standing]

35. So are you and Sulawesi implying that Obama will abandon or not prioritize certain Dem ideals?

Do you believe he will not push for gay rights or maintaining legalized abortion? Do you think he will leave the Patriot Act in place or let the idea of removing the tax cuts for the wealthy slide away? These are all wedge issues for republicans and in order to gain a large amount of their votes he would have to find some way to neutralize those issues. Are you saying that an Obama administration would just not bother, because this is my concern at the moment.

[ripple]

43. He's doing it now

He just presents the issues in a manner that appeals to the better instincts of people. Equality, the right to privacy, fairness, justice, etc. If you look at his record, he has been very consistent about those standards- likely, due to his constitutional law experience and formative background. He knows, though, that having the same arguments (complete with the same rhetoric) won't produce different results. Instead, it's important to make people WANT to do the right thing. Even people with long ingrained prejudices usually won't admit they have them. Instead of pointing his finger them and calling them bigots, he instead focuses on the ideals that even those of prejudice claim to value.

And I'm a lesbian with a personal interest in how this all shakes out. Given the damage done in so many states over the past seven years(mine included), I'd love to see someone re-frame the discussion in a manner that involves logical discourse. I don't blame Kerry or Gore for what has happened, but I DO believe that by taking a narrow approach to matters of equality (on an issue by issue basis), one opens the door to pockets of bigotry that are tolerated largely out of ignorance and a lack of a common societal standard.

[last1standing]

45. Ok, that's the first answer I can accept, somewhat.

I don't think he'll be able to do it as you state once the spin machines and the MSM come after him and change his message, but I can believe that you, and he, think he can.

Can I ask another question of concern to me that has caused a lot of infighting here without creating another argument? What is your take on the McClurkin issue? I think Obama should have removed him from his tour regardless of the consequences because we need to show that there are some beliefs we will not back down from. I was rather disappointed with him for that. It's also what led me to post this thread as I'm beginning to feel like maybe it wasn't the mistake it was said to be at the time. I hope you can see where I would get that impression after his comments on divisiveness.

Thanks for the answer.

[ripple]

56. Sure

I, too, was deeply disappointed in the McClurkin debacle. I believe it was a colossal campaign error and that Obama's campaign didn't discover McClurkin's radical views until the event had been heavily promoted. I disagree that they should have canceled McClurkin, though. Sure, it would have been the proper thing to do based on principle alone, but pragmatism is essential in a presidential bid. Because it had been so widely publicized, it would have created far more negative attention if Obama had canceled the appearance. Again, that's the pragmatic approach and I certainly don't blame those who find it unforgivable that Obama didn't cancel McClurkin completely once he learned of his beliefs. Overall, I think the entire thing was an unintentional campaign error that had no good solution.

[last1standing]

62. I don't find it unforgivable, I find it concerning.

I also think the pragmatic solution would have been to stand on principle there as the biggest complaint out there is that Dems have no principles to stand on. By removing him, he would have been able to show that he stands for what he says and is willing to prove it. Unfortunately, he instead sent a message that he is willing to tolerate gay bashing (of course, just my opinion). I know he's not a homophobe, but I'd like to know that he's willing to stand up for equal rights even when it's not convenient. I think even repubs would have liked to see that he would stand up even when not popular.

Still, thanks for your time, Ripple. I appreciated the conversation. :)

[Sulawesi]

54. This is what I meant by first agreeing on basic principles, say rights

..and the specifics flow from that. Good post, btw

[Sulawesi]

44. OK, so I cannot be sure about this...

but lets focus on gay marriage for example, which I feel strongly about. I think it is best to focus on principles we can agree on. For example, I think it would not be difficult to reach consensus that homosexuals deserve all the constitutional rights that anyone else has. From there, I think we can move forward. I think the emphasis on gay marriage is a wedge issue when placed up front, but is a naturally important one to talk about once we agree that gay people have rights, and that it is just not right to be mean. Just my thoughts...

[last1standing]

48. But Gore and Kerry said the same things Obama is saying about gay rights.

And they were still demonized by repubs and the MSM for supporting "immoral lifestyles" even though they both tried their damnedest to not let it be an issue? Do you feel that Obama will be better at dodging the issue or do you think he will give up on it?

[Sulawesi]

51. 2 things

1) I think Obama is a better candidate than Gore or Kerry, and so has the potential to make the case.
2) They were never president, and so never had a real chance to effect change while in office. Clinton had his shot, but blew it with the "don't ask don't tell", IMO...he dodged it

[last1standing]

57. Fair enough, and I agree with what you say....

However, I'm afraid he's losing me with some of his recent comments and actions and it's making me worry that he'll give up too much to be president. I'm also afraid that even after giving up what we believe in he'll still lose because people will say he can't even stand up for what he believes in. That's why I wanted to see if anyone had an opinion on what his plan for the general election would be. We've seen too many candidates (Gore and Kerry among them) tack too hard to the right for votes only to be seen as spineless. I don't want that to happen again. If nothing else, 2006 proved that it was the candidates who stood up for what they believe who win.

[Sulawesi]

60. What you say is legitimate, but I find myself agreeing with the man and am comfortable

[last1standing]

64. And that's something I can fully support.

Have a great night, Sulawesi. :)

[ProSense]

73. That's such hogwash!

HRC Endorses Senator John Kerry for President

6/16/2004

‘From voting against the Defense of Marriage Act to actively opposing "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," John Kerry is a true leader for our community,’ said HRC President Cheryl Jacques.

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign today endorsed Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., for President of the United States. The decision was made by HRC’s board of directors based on the candidate’s support for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality, demonstrated leadership and his viability to win in November.

"From voting against the Defense of Marriage Act to actively opposing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ John Kerry is a true leader for our community," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques. "Just six months into his first Senate term in 1985, he introduced a gay civil rights bill. His aggressive support for our community continued unabated for the years that followed, demonstrated time and again by perfect HRC ratings on GLBT issues in Congress."

In 1996, Sen. Kerry was one of only 14 senators, and the only up for re-election, to cast a vote against the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. He also testified in front of a Senate committee in 1993 against the policy that prohibits military service by openly gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans known as "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell."

more

[LordJFT]

46. well to start with he has a high favorability rating among republicans and independents

and he also has an ability to work well with the opposition including one of the worst repukes in the senate

[last1standing]

50. I don't think polls from a year out are very reliable for the general election.

After the repub spin machines and the MSM get done with Obama, I think he will have the same ratings with republicans as any other Dem other than possibly Clinton. I think that belief has been borne out by successive years of the same thing happening. As for working with the other side, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Clinton and Richardson all have long histories of doing that as well so Obama is not special there. I'm not saying he isn't a good senator, just that I don't think he's any better than some others at working with the opposition.

All of this leads me to believe that perhaps he has an idea that dropping certain Democratic issues could help him in the general election and that worries me.

[Sulawesi]

52. So is the alternative to place to the left, and fire them up?

When in recent memory has that won a presidential election? I think you have to play to the center in the GE and Obama has the best shot.

[last1standing]

61. Gore and Kerry both played to the center.

Kerry with his pro-war stance and Gore by bringing in one of the most conservative Dems in the senate as his running mate. Neither is president now. I can, however, say that in 2006 it was the Dems who stood up for Democratic principles who did best, not the poll driven centrists.

So you do believe Obama will tack hard to the right and avoid or give up key Dem ideals?

[Sulawesi]

63. No, he does not need to tack because he is a natural leader that already has appeal to independents

again, just my opinion...

[ProSense]

75. More nonsense!

Kerry did not have a pro-war stance.

[last1standing]

77. Not nonsense, a matter of shades of gray.

Whether you like it or not, Kerry voted for IWR and did not support leaving during his run for the presidency. That's not to say he was a gung-ho "let's kill more" proponent, but he was not what one could consider a peacenik, either.

[karynnj]

59. The division is extremely deep

It will be tough for either side to bridge it. Part of the problem is that each side has become more homogeneous in its views and there is a pretty large gap between them. In the 1950s, 1960s and even the 1970s, there were liberals and conservatives in each party. I suspect that people were far more likely to have voted for people from both parties. To make it worse, many people mostly listen to, watch or read primarily only the things "on their side". This allows for far more stereotyping than there was in those earlier times.

This was not something that Gore or Kerry created. It is true that each was able to get only around 50% of the people behind them. In fact, both fought races where they were encumbered by enormous burdens. Gore was running after 8 years of Clinton, where the media had tired of the emotional roller coaster that was Bill Clinton. They let a man, who by age 40 had gone to the best schools only to get drunk in them (apologies to Dylan) and who had a series of failed business run on theme of "bringing honor and decency back to the White House". Bush, was known as a mean drunk and a rather nasty person by the press when his father was President. They knew in the 1960s that he branded kids at Yale. Yet, they were cheerleaders speaking of how he, unlike Al Gore, would be fun to have a beer with. (then in 2004, Kerry was no fun either) Kerry ran against Bush, when he was a President in a time of war. Especially for many the WWII generation questioning how the war was conducted (poorly) was considered wrong. Bush terrorized the country by raising terror levels for political reasons. The bias of the press can be summed up by the fact that purple heart bandaids were mentioned as convention novelties, not an attack on soldiers who were wounded.

In both years, Gore and Kerry did win over some Republicans. Either one on a fairer playing field - where their histories and their visions were examined fairly likely would have won over more than 50% of the population. I do think that either of them would have worked hard to heal the divide that exists. Both as leaders would have been eventually seen for the men they are.

Back to Obama. The question is whether he can do what Kerry and Gore couldn't. First off, he is running in a better year. many realize that the vision of the Republicans has led to disaster. The Republicans also have a pretty weak group of candidates (though in fairness - that's what we thought of Bush in 2000.) I seriously do not see ANY candidate on either side getting more than maybe 55% of the vote. The country is too polarized and at least 40% are likely "fixed in place" for each party.

Where there can be healing is when he is elected. Even then, I don't think it can come quickly. It could only come over a long time when people begin to realize that they agree with the decisions. Now, looking at the top three, I think Obama has the best chance of succeeding here. I seriously don't see enough people on the right rethinking whether they like HRC. Consider on our side, even if Bush (visted by Dickens three ghosts) turned over a new leave, how much time it would take to believe him. With Edwards, so much of his message is confrontation and there will be pressure on him to keep true to those words - I'm not sure his GOAL will be reconciliation.

[last1standing]

65. I agree with your analysis, just not your conclusion.

I think, and history backs me up, that the republican spin machine will work in conjunction with the MSM to destroy Obama or any other candidate both during and after the election. There is too much vested interest in maintaining the current power structure so anyone who would work to change it will be crushed if at all possible. My own opinion is that Edwards understands this and is running the way he is because he understands what will happen (while I support Edwards, I in no way think he's had some sort of miraculous conversion to progressivism). Remember Bill Clinton governed as a relatively conservative Democrat and worked very well with the republican congress but they still impeached him and used every dirty trick available to destroy him - even after the 2000 election was over (trashed white house and pardongate stories). This leaves me to believe that Obama is either being very manipulative or very naive in his campaign. Either way, I don't think I can support him in the primary. It also makes me think that he believes if he can give up on a few things he can bring in republicans. I just don't think it will work and wouldn't want it to.

Personally, I think that the only way to win in 2008 is the way we won in 2006, by standing up for our principles and making sure the people in this country know exactly where we stand. I'm afraid Obama is failing in that (once again, just my opinion).

But thanks again for a great response.

[karynnj]

66. We are actually pretty much in agreement

Although I think 2008 will be easier than 2000 or 2004, as 2006 was, I agree that it will take what you said about 2006. I certainly do not doubt the nastiness of the Republicans. My comment on Obama, should have used an IF in the last paragraph, rather than a when - I do think that he has more chance IF elected President of healing some of the division - I really don't see how either HRC or JRE could. (As to winning the election, it depends what day it is as to who of the top three I thing could win - I have often been unimpressed with any of them. I have a very hard time really knowing where Obama is at times. )

[last1standing]

70. The problem with healing this divide is that the repubs don't want it healed.

They created this divide because they know it allows their base to think in easy terms left/right, right/wrong, good/evil.... They will only work with Dems when it suits them and they will still demonize (literally) anyone with the gall to run against them come election time. This is their basic campaign strategy and they are very unlikely to give it up for the sake for bipartisanship.

Myself, once in office, I don't want the Dem to work too closely with republicans if that means giving up Democratic ideals. Over the last 30 years we've lost the Equal Rights Amendment, the social safety net, regulation of corporations, a majority of unionized workers, and a slew of other basic Democratic programs and legislation. I think we need someone who will work as hard as possible to get these things back and compromising with conservatives is unlikely to achieve that.

I want so much more than just to get a Democrat in the white house. I want to get Democratic ideals back in as well. I hope that whomever each of us is voting for is the person we feel best able to do that.

[karynnj]

71. There are 2 different issues - running for President and being President

I agree with you that in running for President, they will not deviate from the Willie Horten through SBVT methods that they see as successes. They also will again have the much better echo chamber. One thing we've already seen in the primaries is that the Clintons do not really have a better method of dealing with attacks - a claim they've made since 2004. I think what any Democrat needs is the ability, if attacked to have a friendly, comfortable forum (or forums) to go to that reaches enough people and explain why the attack is false. To stop a smear or rumor, you need enough people, who know the truth or who trust you personally, to prevent the rapid spread. (Think of the rumor as a bacteria and knowledge as the vaccine.) Obama might have this with Oprah. (Needless to say, this works far better if the smear is provably a lie - otherwise all you can do is put it in context and in the best light.)

Also, whether we like it or not every Democratic candidate, including Obama, faces a starting point where as much as 40% of the voters will be extremely unlikely to be for him in the general election. A shift will occur only if the Democrat runs a very good campaign AND the Republican has obvious flaws. The Republicans face a parallel situation. How many of us are remotely winnable by any Republican, running or not running?

There are issues where we can win more of the people in the middle and some converts who were solid Republicans. Consider that Al Gore over the last several years has convinced many prior skeptics that global warming is real. Couple that with the positive approach that Kerry took in 2004 that argued that supporting innovation to produce alternatives and to improve efficiency lead to new good jobs, less dependence on the middle east, cleaner air and water leading to better health. This has a very all American can do feel, which did move people who heard it - though unfortunately the media ignored it. Now, thanks to Gore, the issue should get more coverage. Many of the small business initiatives that were pushed in 2004 also appealed to Republicans - even as they were extremely good liberal policies.

It is important to signal that the candidate will be the President of everybody. If you have made proposals they can live with, but you have used rhetoric that they perceive as attacking them, you will likely lose their vote.
I agree whole heartedly that we can not give up Democratic ideals, but I do think that a goal of the President has to be to reach out to those Republicans who are reachable. We do need to rebuild the security net. The Clinton welfare act, which never was able to add promised protections, and many Bush actions have broken the net in bad times, when it is most needed. More diversity and less consolidation in media than there is now is badly needed. With that and a President who works hard to create a more civil tone might be able to lead people to reject the hate mongers. (I'm not saying this will be easy, but there is no solution if you don't move in that direction.)

We never had the equal rights amendment. Even in the more liberal time when it was first proposed, it never passed in enough states. However, on some level, we have had enormous change. In the late 1960s, in a high school career guidance class, we had to research 2 careers we were interested in. The teacher refused my choice of mathematician and economist, even though I was a top student in both, saying that as a girl, I could only be a math or econ teacher. By 1972, being a woman with a double major in math and economics was a pretty good situation. Now, I doubt ANY guidance teacher would think of saying such a stupid thing. The loss of unionized jobs has been as much a function of the loss of manufacturing jobs as it was public policy.

[thoughtcrime1984]

74. That is a very good post

As a whole, I believe that Democrats are not only more sensitive to individuals' rights, but are considerably smarter than the avg. Republican. We see the shades of gray, understand the art of compromise, but most Repubs tend to paint in black and white, and deal in absolutes. Obama is correct in saying that more compromise is needed, but it needs to come from the right, the left is already fully compromised. I'm hoping that he wins the nom and the GE based on this notion that he will work with the right (by garnering some indy votes and weak repubs), but when he takes office I hope he stays true to his Democratic ideals and shows at least half the nation that our left-leaning ideals are better not only for this nation, but the world. He has to find a way into the office before he can attempt to achieve some changes. Saying point-blank that he wants to slam this country violently to the left (although most of us here on DU would like it) probably will not allow him to win the GE.

[robinlynne]

67. Edwards will attract working republicans. he already is. By standing up to

corporations. That is why he is the best poised Dem to win the general. Everyone can relate to the rich getting so much richer, and everyone else getting screwed.

[Czolgosz]

68. recommended

[Carrieyazel]

78. He can't. He's incapable of it. And he's less electable than even Kerry was.

The jab at Gore was uncalled for, even though he wasn't the best candidate in 2000.

Obama's never done it. I'm sorry, I respect Obama a great deal, but he is totally unqualified to be President.