You're right about the appearance of representing change, but I'm still not convinced that Obama really can implement change. Lead and unite people behind him, yes, but make those changes happen, I'm not so sure.

Still, if I am perfectly honest, I have to admit that if I were in my 20s, or even my early 30s, I'd probably be supporting Obama over any of the other candidates, just because of the generational difference.

At this point, though, I can actually see some of the more experienced candidates as being more able to make some real changes, Dodd or Edwards, in particular. In Dodd's case, the most important change needed is to restore the Constitution, and he is sincere in his intention do whatever he can in that effort. Edwards, otoh, really would fight back against corporatism, another welcome change, and looooong overdue. I can't really say that I believe Obama would seriously tackle either of those sets of issues as effectively. But, let's hope I'm wrong, since he has a long career ahead of him. And, perhaps he'll develop some of that internal fight in the meantime.

Dodd and Biden and Richardson may seem more like part of the Establishment, but since Democrats have been out of power for so long, returning power to those who would know what to do with it seems eminently sensible. In the meantime, even while out of power, Dodd was able to implement some fairly progressive measure, e.g., the FMLA, no mean feat.

I don't remember exactly how you put your remark about Huckabee, but it's pretty interesting that the only well-known "pundit" to recognize his potential was Clinton.

Some of what you picked up last night sounds similar to some of the analysis I heard on PBS. I had the Lehrer NewsHour on early in the evening. Later on they returned for the post-caucus chat. Did you see any of that? Either way, they probably have their transcripts up by now.

Thanks for filling in those blanks. You're just a couple of years younger than my daughter, whose favorite candidate is Edwards. (I was so pleased!) She likes Obama well enough-- perhaps his wife even more-- and said she was also impressed by Dodd. Lieberman? I don't remember exactly what she said should be done to him, but it wasn't pretty.

Not so long ago, I wasn't sure we could even discuss politics anymore (she was taking a break from it for awhile), but now that she's keeping herself informed again, I'm not at all unhappy with the results.

Oh... and she really does not want to vote for Hillary... something about dynasties.

She's very savvy, my daughter, and you seem to be, too, and at such a youngish age. You make the rest of us (or at least most of us) around here very proud.

LWM... my daughter also says that Edwards (as well as Paul and Huckabee) are the only ones saying anything different from the usual suspects. She's flabbergasted that her fiance doesn't seem to get that Edwards should be his ideal candidate (pro-labor, etc.). He'll probably come around.

I didn't know that statistic about Edwards and ActBlue, but I'm not surprised. Did ActBlue get involved in Dodd's campaign at all? I haven't seen any signs of it. It might have helped.

About Obama and his appeal to Republicans, etc. I think there is something that we may not have completely decoded yet, similar to that "dog-whistle." Maybe it's his call for Unity? Republicans interpret that as "...let's move on, and let bygones be bygones?" That would be such a huge mistake.

I remember a comment from Mona re: an article that Glenn had published (yikes! in American Prospect?) She noted that it also revealed the name of his new book.

We can find it if we just look back through his posts; one of them had a link to the article, and it was in the last few weeks I think...

The term I've seen for it is Huckenfreude.

I usually read Sirota at HuffPo, but I somehow missed this one. This paragraph in particular seems to answer my question about decoding Obama's rhetoric:

Obama's deference to these boundaries was hammered home to me when our discussion touched on the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Obama said the progressive champion was "magnificent." He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a "gadfly," in a tone laced with contempt for the senator who, for instance, almost single-handedly prevented passage of the bankruptcy bill for years over the objections of both parties. This clarified Obama's support for the Hamilton Project, an organization formed by Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to fight back against growing populist outrage within the party. And I understood why Beltway publications and think tanks have heaped praise on Obama and want him to run for President. It's because he has shown a rare ability to mix charisma and deference to the establishment.

And, when Sirota wrote this, Obama wasn't even a declared candidate yet. How prescient of Sirota to make this interview a part of the public record then.

It was the worst possible combination:

Her predictions would be accurate, but no one would believe her, so she was powerless to prevent the tragedies she foresaw.

Kristol, otoh, is exactly the opposite. Nothing he predicts comes to pass, only its opposite. Yet, the beltway insiders hang on his every word.