Errata? Then there was the Democrats of the Bush era.

"were"?

I imagine there will be some interesting discussion about this post.

When Clinton was busy throwing liberals under the bus, it was being tried for the first time. This time Obama has the benefit of Clinton's experience which makes his current moves worse. On the other hand, during the Clinton years, the Internet itself was still a geeks playground and hadn't acheived the critical mass that now allows us to speak with a surprisingly coherent voice. This makes Obamas current moves seem even more tone-deaf and boneheaded!

"They hate me, and I WELCOME their hatred."

It's too bad the Democratic party seems to have lost that spirit.

Big people are talking. It's pretty damn funny how eager you were to get a peck on the cheek.

Warren's selection is not just an insult to gays - it is a major slap in the face to all those who are not dogmatic bigoted "Christians" - which is a much larger minority, if not a majority.

I am not an authority on evangelists, but I don't recall that Billy Graham was a political activist like Robertson or Warren.

between the theorized Obama's approach and the Clintonian triangulation. I'm not an Obama apologist, but I think that what they would argue is that what is new is the substance of the policy to emerge at the end of the day. It's symbolic triangulation designed to smooth passage of marginally more progressive legislation, whereas Clinton's approach was to win conservative support through the support and passage of marginally more conservative legislation. So for Clinton, symbolic nods were followed by conservative compromise legislation and with Obama it is supposed to be symbolic nods to conservatives followed by liberal legislation. It's basically the Obama as magician theory. Or as Rush Limbaugh would say, "Barack the Magic Negro." It's all fine and good, I just don't see why it's necessary. It seems to me that he's got enough political will behind him to accomplish his policy goals without doing all of this. Perhaps he thinks otherwise. Maybe he does need 70% approval rating in order to get health care passed, but I doubt it. What he really needs is a united Democratic Congress and a couple of moderate Republicans. I don't see how slapping down the left and splitting the caucus helps him in that regard, unless he plans on ending up with a watered down, decidedly un-Progressive final legislation.

I'm not an Obama apologist, but I think that what they would argue is that what is new is the substance of the policy to emerge at the end of the day. It's symbolic triangulation designed to smooth passage of marginally more progressive legislation, whereas Clinton's approach was to win conservative support through the support and passage of marginally more conservative legislation. So for Clinton, symbolic nods were followed by conservative compromise legislation and with Obama it is supposed to be symbolic nods to conservatives followed by liberal legislation.

As you recognize, this theory - as you describe it - is pure magic. It basically posits that Obama will give the Right much less than they got under Clinton -- he will give them only symbolic compromise, where Clinton gave symbolic and substantive compromise -- and, by giving the Right less, they'll like him more.

As the song goes (I think), anything is possible when you believe. But again, the approach, even if it works, isn't novel or innovative -- especially for Democrats.

From the John Cole link, where he quotes Joke Line:

The thing is, Obama is trying to change the nature of public discourse from the raw blast it has been for the past 20 years to something more civil and tolerable.

How do we change that "raw blast" by giving such a platform to one of the main blasters (even if he sometimes delivers his blasts with a warm smile)?

Of course, Glenn answers the question:

What did all of those post-partisan, cultural outreach efforts generate? Hatred so undiluted that it led to endless investigations, accusations whose ugliness was boundless, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and ultimate impeachment over a sex scandal. Bill Clinton was anything but a cultural or partisan warrior. He was the opposite. And that was what he had to show for it.

Obama met more than once with Warren in the time leading up to the election. Had Warren responded by modulating his hate and sitting on the sidelines in the Prop 8 battle rather than recording and promoting his video filled with hate against gays and urging votes for Prop 8 (almost certainly filmed after the meetings with Obama), then he would have been deserving of his platform at the Inauguration.

Giving the platform in return for the blasting of gays only insures more behavior as Glenn described above. Only when Democrats insist on and deliver real consequences for bad behavior can they ever expect to change the behavior of the right.

When you think about it, all of the threads for the past few days can be viewed through this lens. Obama can lead our country into a new and better politics, but can't do it by giving away positions before the right changes. He must insist that those who have created and implemented illegal and immoral acts are punished. He needs to reward those who have fought the good battles. He can welcome those who differ with him only when they are willing to move toward him at least as much as he moves toward them. After all, that is the true spirit of compromise. With only a precious few exceptions (a few of his cabinet appointees may have a progressive molecule or two in them), his movement so far has only been toward those on the right with absolutely no leftward movement from them.

You are right about this, as you've been right in the past about how public discourse has been decimated, leading to this result--that people overlook the obvious. With regard to the Warren mess, we shouldn't overlook two additional obvious facts. First, as you know, it's not only gays and leftists who are appalled by Warren's selection. Second, it is not only Warren's views on gays which are offensive. He subscribes to a wide range of offensive, primitive views, including anti-evolutionist creationism.