I agree that the Democrats refuse to run on big issues (though I'd pick a bone about Moynahan and Feinstein being ideal).

They should have any election locked up, but instead they accept the GOP's world view and then try to work within it.

Democrats:

"Yes, the private sector is always better than government -- but there are good things about the government..." When did government stop being "of, for and by the people" and corporate boardrooms become "the people?"

"Yes, more money for military is always good, but we can budget for our broken schools, broken health care and plan for a peaceful world while at the same time spending more on war than the rest of the world combined." Why not take on defense spending? Past Democratic capitulation has made this a tall political challenge, but it has to be mounted if we really want to reach a future we can enjoy.

"Yes, Bush's 'war on terror' is our number one priority, but..." Again, giving the GOP their election issue (and it's little more than an election issue given that this "war" has made us less safe and broke).

"Yes, democratic nations who don't play ball with our corporations are 'dictatorships' and dictatorships that do play ball are 'allies,' but we should engage in more diplomacy..." This is always so disheartening, but predictable. Again, Democratic weakness here has made turning around such bullshit a tall political order, but we need to get to work someday if we want to talk about the US being some kind of freedom beacon without lying.

What does this have to do with Obama and Clinton? For me, Obama does a better job at moving away from the GOP frame (for example, as someone else pointed out, he demagogued less about the South American dust up between Columbia and its democratically elected neighbors). Clinton, on the other hand, seems to be using the GOP frame as a weapon against her party's other candidate. Obama is not perfect here, by any means. But at least his compass is more in agreement with mine.

Could you please list all the Obama scandals besides Rezko? Go on, list them all. See how much material the GOP has to work with there, and then consider the Clinton list (which includes not just vastly more examples, but ones with a lot more legs than Rezko).

I am not trying to tear down Clinton here, but if we are talking about what might happen in the general, let's at least deal in the real world. Obama will be easier to take on when it comes to inside-the-beltway "experience," I admit. But to claim that Obama is on a par with Clinton when it comes to openings for ethics-based GOP attacks is a clear sign of a political naiveté (or blind loyalism).

I disagree with your assertion.

Reagan: Right-wing and 2x winner

Bush II: Right-wing and 2x winner

Bush I: Center-right and split

Nixon: Right-wing (for his era) and 2x winner.

Carter: Progressive and split

Mondale: Center-left loser

Dukakis: Center-left loser

Clinton: Ran as progressive in '92 (governed otherwise and then ran as progressive again in '96) 2x winner

Gore: Center-left loser

Kerry: Center-left loser

And McCain, by the way, is a raging winger. That he is all over the map on a couple of issues doesn't make him centrist (though I'll agree that's the perception, which is what matters in politics).

So don't you think it behooves reality-based activists to change perceptions so that they more closely match the world in which we live?

You may be right. But then I also think there's an argument that giving people a new frame can pay off in short time (even in an election).

Reagan and Bush I were very much surviving on foreign policy (and unlike Bush's offspring, Poppy had the fall of the Berlin Wall instead of Iraq to run on). And here comes this guy from Hope with no foreign policy experience whatsoever and says, "it's the economy stupid" and wins.

Spitzer is pushing a bill to keep abortion legal in NY even if the NY S-Court decides it isn't a constitutional right. The NY clergy is furious and the pope is coming to Yankee Stadium on April 21 to attack him. Nice timing for the sting.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/10/new_york_bill_to_declare_abortion

I'm not defending lawbreaking, especially by an elected official, but $5,000/hr prostitution is a victimless crime and Spitzer didn't get elected on the promise to wage a war on sex.

He was a good crusader for justice, at least in a professional capacity. It will be a loss for progressives.

I agree he broke the law, and should pay. I just think it's sad that we've lost someone who did fight pretty well against white-collar corruption.

As for the rest of the world, most of the world is actually much better about this stuff than us. It would be a blip in other places. It's big here only. The rest of the world thinks we're prudes.

And for my moral judgment on him, he's not my friend, he's not my family, and I'm not his priest. He's a public figure and I judge him on what he owes the public. I think it's surprising how many people think they have a right to judge people's private life just because those people are publicly known -- now THAT's American. (The exception I would make would be if their public persona was based on something personal -- like a chastity advocate having wild sex parties with virgin teens.)