hey haven't seen you around in a while

You're doing everyone a service - keep up the great work.

Thanks for your hard work for the Obama campaign...I salute you!

But please, no more about PUMAs. I don't care about them or why they think the way they do. I'm tired of trying to put them on the therapist's couch and talk through their problems. Can we please just stop talking about them already??

and i mean GREAT diary hootie!

well done and highly rec'd.

If people truly voted for their interests, every time, then we'd elect Democrats until the GOP shifted dramatically.

But I agree that people don't vote their interests.  Some do, but many vote based on the marketing of politics.  And when your ideas are shit, it's all you've got, and the GOP has kicked our asses in marketing their ideas.

"Tax and spend liberals."  I can't think of any phrase, derogatory towards conservatism, that is as well known.  Think about what conservatism means.  Hands off economic policies (not that Democrats are really all too hands on).  Now, that benefits the rich, but they market it so that you know that, with a lot of hard work, you TOO can be one of those rich...nevermind the impact of your schools, the level of income your parents had, or just plain luck.  They market ideals like hard work and sacrifice and machismo and practicality, and do it well enough that many don't realize that under conservative government it's the middle class sacrificing to the benefit of the wealthy, the great mass of Americans working hard to get by while someone else stuffs his pockets, and so forth.  

We've lost more battles than we've won, because they have a better ad campaign, in the large sense.  They frame things very well, such that the choice between "shoot now, ask questions later" and "get attacked, then retaliate" seems obvious, and leaves out the obvious solution...prevent situations like that from happening in the first place by being engaged in the world, rather than aloof and arrogant.

They're the tough guys, and America likes a tough guy, even if their tough guys have Daddy get them out of Vietnam.  Democrats haven't had a tough guy since LBJ.  And because they're tough, the Democrats play weak, because they're afraid of the marketing advantage the GOP has built up.  THAT'S why we caved on Telecom immunity.  It's why we appear to be caving on drilling.  The GOP brand of compromise is to push through their agenda when they're the majority and, when in the minority, to filibuster until Democratic bills are watered down or include major concessions toward GOP interests.  When we stop negotiating away our ideals, America will know we're serious about them.  At some point, this party has to take a serious stand, look the GOP in the eye, and say "if you want blood, you got it!"  

you're always going to have some leakage.  Nader got 3% of the vote in 2000.

There were people then who thought they would Clinton and the Dems a lesson for some of Clinton's DLC policies by punishing Gore.  

I read a PUMA today who is a Democrat, but in reality, he's a big baby.  He was pushing "teach the Democrats" meme.  Silly.

I mean really, I supported Dean in '04 and he loss, but not for a single second did I want to "teach the party a lesson" and reinstall Shrub.

The funny part is McCain voted to impeach Clinton on all counts in 1999.  What a way to support Clinton.

I'm really hoping the Obama campaign has taken prodigious notes on how McCain's Spears and Paris ad got replayed and discussed a thousand more times after only a reported six-to-eight paid playings in some major markets.

No wonder McCain and his camp are "happy" with the ad - you can't buy that kind of publicity on the cheap.

McCain is a gaffe-prone, stuttering, flip-flopping, ugly-tempered, gold-digging, walk-the-corrupt-fence-line, well-past-normal-retirement-age, I-don't-have- to-fly-commercial-'cause-I-married-into- money, melanoma-only-health-issue-I-can't-obfus cate-but-don't-worry-as-president-I'll-g et-even-better-health-care-and-will-live -forever,
I've-been-driving-around-the-country-for -the-last-eight-years-in-my-$400,000-Str aight-Talk-Express-and-the-gas-prices-ar e-hurting-me-to,
but trust-me-my-friends phony who has a choice of nine different homes he and his wife own in which he can live so, of course, why not drill for oil over there or out there because he can just move away from it.

Surely, if McCain wants to go negative, the Obama campaign can prick this opponent's fragile balloon with the greatest of ease.

Hi, hootie4170.  Good job on your diary.

I believe the answer to the question you ask at the end is muddled by the presumption you make at the beginning.  Namely, you start out with the presumption that McCain's policies would be just like Bush's.  I realize that's the DNC's  message, but that doesn't make it honest.  It's an attempt to paint a caricature for the benefit of the DNC.  Most Americans don't see it that way.  Republicans and Independents certainly don't.

You eventually move on to say that you believe a majority of Americans are in a position at least similar to yours.  It makes sense that you would believe they share your perspectives.  With no insult to you intended, I believe your situation is more unique than you perceive it to be.

My perspective is that Obama and McCain are dead set on promising tons of money and benefits to the middle class.  Both have promised to issue mountains of treasury debt and apply it to the wallets and/or net worth of the "middle class".  I find this unfortunate.  I understand the political calculus of the mad rush to the center and the desire to play uncle money-bags.  But that's what it is, madness and play.

Given Obama's new positions on energy and Iraq, the only thing left is Roe v Wade.  And really, how many people put that high on their list?  Most folks just want that issue to go away.

Where I grew up, a lot of people think that nothing is going to change.  It doesn't matter who the president is.

well, you need to ask, and then listen to the answers. I'm sure there are many, some of which Barack can address and correct and some he can't. And then tell us what they say, how they explain.  

In the primaries indies polled that they had a hard time choosing between Barack and John McCain. Right there was the first sign of a problem for Barack.  Indies liked him because he was new, and showed respect for pug policies. And for some because he isn't Hillary Clinton, and they wanted him to win the nomination over her, but didn't know if they wanted him to win the GE over John.

Barack is the new kid on the block and he hasn't a long record of accomplishing much.  That's why I think he has to make his message clearer and get far more specific. I think he should run as the professional (not as the CEO, but the professorial one who values experts and professionals, and will have an administration top heavy on brains and accomplishments).

I think he should run on a promise of competence, that he'll fire hacks and re-professionalize the executive branch. That he'll bring accountability and not protect his own loyal staff if they don't perform or they do something wrong or too stupid.  Throwing under the bus is a good thing, to those who value performance and accomplishments over loyalty anyway.

I think a big difference between the two that may appeal to indies is competence, he's preparing to take over on day one, and he knows what needs to be done, first second and so forth, and tell us.

right now it's two personalities and not one wonk. There is room for wonk, and that's a place that John McCain can't go.  

I got a lot out of your diary; you've posed some incredibly important questions that haven't been considered enough.

There are a good many centrists in the Democratic Party, who believe that the core issue facing the country is this: how do we aggressively grow our economy, in a way that strengthens the private sector and provides jobs for hard-working people like yourself. ONLY if this happens will our government have the resources to re-build a shredded safety net, as well as complete the New Deal compact by adding National Health Insurance.

People like me find ourselves in the center because too often, Republicans seem more willing to do the former, and are more pro-growth....the only problem is, under GOP rule, the "spoils" of a growing economy usually end up in the hands of the few, via massive tax cuts for the rich...e.g., W's tax give-away in 2001. Bottom line, Democrats are definitely more fair, and belive that the workers who produce a growing economy should share it its benefits. On the other hand, growing protectionist sentiment--as well as unreasonable environmental standards--in the Democratic Party are worrisome. They seem to get a greater emphasis in current Democratic Party orthodoxy than do economic growth and jobs.

For centrists, the closest our country has ever come to striking this balance was under a Democrat, Bill Clinton. Contrary to popular opinion, our allegiance to him wasn't about personality....he was obviously likeable, but his personal foibles let us down too many times. However, POLICY-wise, we centrists feel like he put the country on very sound footing. Now that W has essentially destroyed the country's revenue base, a lot of that hard work is down the toilet.

Three policies that I feel will help us achieve that economic growth are,

1. free trade, and more new FTA's
   
2. new energy production--drill/drill/drill
   
3. ending this country's insane ethanol policy

When Nancy Pelosi won't allow a vote on the Colombia Free Trade Pact, she is harming our country's workers--and economy--simply to follow a narrow ideology. For companies like John Deere, Catepillar, etc., Colombia represents a huge untapped market. And this means jobs for American workers.

And when she won't allow a vote on drill/drill/drill (even Obama is now seeing the light on this issue!), she is again following ideology, not common sense.

When ideology trumps common sense, centrists and policy wonks like me head for the exits. My sense is that most moderates (definitely my case) are still making up our minds about this election. We want to see McCain shed W, and his right wing orthodoxy. And we want to see Barack Obama shed Nancy Pelosi, and her left-wing orthodoxy....which is getting more and more imperial, btw, with her refusal to allow votes on major issues (did I hear someone say Newt Gingrich???)

I hope I've provided one answer to your question. It sounds like you've had some rough knocks; I've also dealt with job displacement, as well as searching for some kind of health care plan (where they do more than just refuse claims..) over the last three years. With respect to the upcoming election, I'm glad you're still "in the game".

The Republicans have been very effective in selling the message that Democratic policies don't work, and they've undergirded this with appeals to nativism and peace through strength.  The Dems will always have to fight for these voters until they have some recent and tangible demonstration that their policies benefit people in the middle class (even while such voters sense that GOP policies are making their life less secure, Republicans play this interesting game of ramping up the nativism and national security issues every time this happens, and so make the claim that they are addressing voter anxiety).

What I find more difficult to understand is why self-described progressives would ever offer less than total support for a Democratic candidate.  The best answer I can come up with is that progressives, by their nature, tend to be purists, and many have short memories.