Or perhaps its progressives who are tired of losing campaigns that we should win by miles and are incredibly tired of making the same mistakes over and over again.

The sky is not always blue and sometimes to make a campaign change and be more effective it has to be pushed to do so by telling it where it is failing. Don't you think that the Obama campaign has at least one person looking at stuff like this te get a sense of where people are and why we're frustrated? Don't you think they deserve honesty and well thought out advice?

Or should we take your advice and assume that anyone who dares criticize Obama is a troll?

And why do you think you have noticed an uptick in the prevalence of these trolls you have defined? It's because people are legitimately unhappy with how Obama is performing.

The fact of the matter is that a Democratic presidential candidate should be cleaning McCain's clock -- any democratic challenger. But instead we have Obama who doesn't seem to know what he's doing when it comes to running his campaign. He has been a far weaker candidate than either Kerry or Gore. The only difference is that he has gotten far luckier than either of them because for a while the media was just reporting what a wonderful guy he is.

The final realization of the Reagan inspired dream and vision--a sociaty compeletely beholden to corporate interests as a means to prevent further progress toward a vision of ensuring the success of the middle class, of the average person, which formerly was the dream of Democracy.

is great. He needs to do more of this, but he also needs to say clearly how his plan is different. Otherwise McCain will lie about it and muddle the message.

And the incendiary campaign events (all that is missing is a burning cross) the McCain campaign is sinking into amoral hate mongering faster than the stock market is tanking.

I hope that all of this represents the failure and end of the last of the 20th Century's primary ideologies, though American conservatism unfortunately managed to squeek into the 21st Century.

I live in NH and they ran a similar ad up here, except that they splashed the phrase "Hate We Can Believe In" all over the TV screen.

Worst advertisement I have ever seen.

broke the mommy-first-lady mold in 1992 (Laura Bush subsequently embraced it full throttle) and played a real role in her husband's administration, but look what it got her.

It was the beginning of the "she's a power driven automaton." And then during her historic run for the White House liberal supporters of Obama and conservatives attacked her when she tried to lay claim to some of the success of her husband politically and on public policy saying she was only Bill's wife. They not only attacked and ignored Bill Clinton's success and Hillary's role in it, but they did so by saying she was only his wife! Liberals AND conservatives.

So now Michelle Obama (I hate Bamalot by the way) has to define herself. What should she pick? The quiet, but influential first lady and then get attacked by everyone for trying to influence policy on one hand and then not being feminist enough on the other. Or she plays the role that Hillary did and gets attacked by both anyway.

She should ignore people like Traister and their foolish whining and low brow intellectualism and be herself and act oin ways that can benefit people.

While I am very happy to be able to say "President Elect Barack Obama" I also voted for him with my feet firmly planted on the earth. There has been nothing in his proposed policies and voting record to indicate that he represents the kind of change that his soaring rhetoric promised. There is a very real disconnect between his words and his actions.

This is not necessarily a bad thing in all issues, but it does portend that there will be some diminishment of the Obama brand as he moves forward with his presidency.

The issues where this is particularly true are in terms of civil liberties (FISA vote for example), health coverage (lack of strong movement toward universal and portable coverage), Israel, and a few other areas.

By contrast, the areas where Obama does seem capable of real change from the past eight years--I am taking pains to not include the B. Clinton years--is in foreign policy in general, which will be more multilateral and in the economy, which will be less neocon/libertarian and more in the vein of realistic and pragmatic regulation.

I except the B. Clinton years because despite running a primary campaign that claimed Clinton to be among the failed legacy of the Washington elite and establishment--Obama's policies in the areas of foreign affairs and the economy, campaign strategy, and actions are almost exactly the same as those of Clinton circa 1992. Yet another example of where his rhetoric does not match his actions.

You are absolutely correct. I am always amazed at how easy it was for Democrats to turn on Clinton and call his presidency a failure and now attack HC as the ultimate insider.

What is the difference between these people and Joe Lieberman? If Lieberman should be cast out so should all the Dems who supported Obama's contention that BC's presidency was a failure and that HC is a snide, power hungry B**ch.

It seems that Democrats turning on other Democrats leads to pretty big rewards.

My answer, though, respect BC and HC's many accomplishments and the fact that they have consistently taken the right wing on (ergo the constant vitriol against them) and send JL out for not playing with his own team.