traditionally civil rights issues have played bettre for Republicans than Democrats.

That's because populist voters are not social liberals. This is not only true of affirmative action but also of womens rights and homosexual rights. For that matter blacks are not tolerant of homosexuality. Blacks are not social liberals either, but rather tend to be more conservative in their social values and frequently evangelical Christians.

Only about 22% of the voting electorate considers itself "liberal" and most of them unsurprisingly are in famously leftie pockets , Vermont, Madison, Wisconsin, Berkely and San Francisco, etc.

For that reason when the conversation is about social issues Democrats lose. Lee Atwater , Reagan's strategic campaign hack recognized that when Reagan ran for his second term (after being a fiscal nightmare) and successfully changed the topic to one of family values, God, abortion and all that stuff.

Where Democrats DO do well is to focus on the economy. It's how the only twice elected Democrat since FDR got in. That should be the focus of the Democratic campaign, not Iraq, and I believe HRC is the only one who understood that.

Obama grandstanding on his Iraq judgement to appease to a small minority for which it was the only persons for whom it was a hot-button issue was not a good strategic move for him.

Now, the Republicans are going to slaughter him with it.

I did not just cite civil liberties, but also reproductive choice, government regulation, fair taxation and civil rights. If these are not core Democratic issues, then what do you see as the difference between the parties.

Since it's so important to you than perhaps you can incite the man so capable of CHANGE to turnaround his negative campaigning and take this on!

Also, please cite where Obama says all these things, including civil liberties, don't matter (I will need more than his saying we need to move beyond the 60s, which is terribly imprecise).

Spare me. I have no intention of even entertaining you if you are going to be this disingenuous

Were you referring to me when you posted to "Rabidfly?"

No, I was referring to the set of sign-ons that insists on calling me (and many others) a "racist", "Nazi", "blackshirt" (presuambly the ignoramus meant brownshirt), ad nauseum in each and every message they spew.

At least I hope it's not you signing on under another account.

anyway, my suggestion to the folks that want to make the thread a 5000 flame fest of obnoxious slurs, the self-appointed and oh-so-objective arbitrators, and the above-it-allers, should in fact instead take Mr. Conason's much needed advice about focusing on the skeletons in Obamateur's hx instead of throwing kitchen sinks at HRC that have long been put to rest.

My posts are flippant and juvenile, but at least I know how to use the language.

Actually not, Vile One. They are as ignorant as you are vulgar and that's saying a lot, none of it good.

However since you delude yourself you are good with language, I suggest you and your traveling vulgarians look up a few things for yourself like:

1. Ad hominen
2. Ad nauseum

   and

3. Argumentum ad Ignorantium

Cheers!

ER, not only as lbwalker pointed out, has Obama consistently tried to enlist Republicans, but he's actually STATED he would put Republicans on his cabinet: ALL of it in foreign policy positions - Lugar, Hagel, etc.

I should note that Lugar has never ever come out against Iraq, and in fact when he was called into question on it, he was clear about that.

So, how does that make Obama somehow any better than John McCain? If we're going to elect Republicans why not just do it?

sorry, my point was that Obama by saying he'll put Republicans on his cabinent in positions of defense and foreign policy has de facto admitted his own lack of experience, and de facto negated all his supposed anti-Iraq sentiments (which I admit I never bought into anyway).

Also: since it's been established that Democrats campaigning nationally to the left on social issues (anti-religion, pro-homosexuality, abortion rights, etc) is political suicide - Reagan 2, George Herbert Walker Bush 1 and the 1994 takeover of the Republican congress should have taught you that, why would you want EITHER candidate to do it. The intent is to win, not to grandstand to a small segment of the voting public. (I maintain that divisive social matters are best fought locally but that's another matter for another time).

Similarly, Republicans have always fared better than Dems in matters of defense and security, so it's very surprising that Obama chose to make that his campaign cornerstone.

As for the REpublicans, it's what they perceive as their strenght. They're going to make it an issue and there's no stopping it. Regardless of what you think the Dem candidate should be doing.

The best thing Obama could have done instead of getting into a lose-lose pissing contest with HRC, was to have engaged in matters of the economy.

Just when you think the Obamateur's have truly reached rock-botton, along comes "Tom Payne" with his shovel and proceeds to dig.

It's enough to make you laugh your tail off at Obamateur's inevitable landslide defeat, leaving him to ingest the gas he produly exhumes with his classy family and as Oprah and the Obamteur limousine off to Lakeshore Drive.