Just recently we have seen the beginnings of how he plans to enact the change he proposes. As soon as he was the presumptive nominee, he began to reorganize the DNC and called for an end to donations from registered lobbyists and PACs. This immediately returns power to the people. My dollars mean more, now that they are not competing with institutionalized donation machines.

I question whether the American populous will be willing to donate their hard earned money over the long term, especially in non-presidential election cycles, but this strikes me as a huge step in the right direction and a display of the power his new coalition gives him.

It was also announced today that the Obama campaign promises offices in all 50 states. I personally hail from Texas (a red state through and through with urban pockets of blue). Our last blue executive was Anne Richards (forever and a day ago). However, his campaign offices here have built huge ground teams, and I have personally seen renewed vigor and interest in supporting the Texas Democratic Party. Boyd Ritchie has done an excellent job of capitalizing on youth involvement and the aura of Hope.

By effecting organizational change at the bottom via empowering John Everyman, Obama has increased the potential for new Dem victories in local and state elections. This, while he uses his newfound power to push for change from the top. This political squeeze play will force the status quo in the middle (Congress) to shape up or ship out, and we see the beginnings of this in recent special elections in Red states.

Just my .02

Posted at June 10, 2008 12:04 PM in response to Obama's master plan?

I think the best part of the entire speech was hearing the boos fade away as it went on. In the beginning I could hearing booing amid the applause when she began to praise Obama, but by the end of the speech all I could hear was begrudging but hearty support for Obama. Well done Ms. Clinton.

Posted at June 7, 2008 3:33 PM in response to Obama Called Hillary After Speech -- Honors Her For "Valiant And Historic Campaign"

Pandering to Puerto Ricans living in the mainland United States, just as the Republicans have pandered to Cuban refugees in FL for years now. Isn't politics beautiful?

Posted at June 1, 2008 5:32 PM in response to Hillary Wins Puerto Rico

I think you've hit the nail on the head. This isn't so much about gender OR race, though these issues have been used as straw men; it's about an enormous changing of the guard that began with Howard Dean and the 50-state movement. The Democratic Party had lost its way and was floundering after the Carter presidency. Carter was a bit too visionary for mainstream Americans, and they weren't willing/couldn't recognize the need for drastic change and sacrifice. In walked Reagan with his feel good vision for America, and everyone bit, hook , line, and sinker. Our Party couldn't get it together, but then the DLC was born. They shifted us to the right and brought Democrats back into the national game. What we are now witnessing is the death moan of the DLC. The issues Carter foresaw have become much more apparent to "middle America", and a visionary like Obama, who calls us to sacrifice, volunteer, and take personal responsibility looks all the more attractive than the old guard, who we've seen tow the big business line one too many times.

Posted at June 1, 2008 2:17 PM in response to An honest question for Clinton supporters

I'm an avid Obama supporter, but I appreciated Moyers interview with Wright. That could possibly be because I agree with him, too, though. Reopening Bill's history of philandering would be counterproductive at this point to Obama's message, but that's just my two cents. Lest we forget, a large percentage of Americans still believe in the adage "Stand By Your Man", and I fear reopening those wounds would bolster her support in the exact demographic Obama is looking to make inroads toward.

Posted at April 28, 2008 12:25 PM in response to Moyers: Why Don't You Interview Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, and Kathleen Wiley?

I think the issue Obama supporters have had with Hillary's negative ads is its negativity toward a fellow Democrat. To stereotype Obama supporters as anti-negative or peaceniks is specious. You'd be hard pressed to find members of either the Hillary or Obama camp who feel we needn't attack McCain in order to win the general election come November.

Also: along the lines of CT Voter, I am not familiar with most of the campaign ad laws. Does the RNC have grounds for their accusation that collusion on the part of Obama and Hillary is illegal, and if so, what sort of legalese can the party put together to counter the RNC's argument?

Posted at April 27, 2008 3:07 PM in response to DNC Launches New Ad Against McCain On Iraq -- RNC Says It's Illegal

Yes! How could I have been so naive. The leader by every conceivable metric must bow out gracefully. You sound like this Brilliant political commentator Here In the future please explain to me how following the previously agreed upon rules can be interpreted as cheating.

Posted at April 25, 2008 4:02 PM in response to The tides have "turned"

Yes! How could I have been so naive. The leader by every conceivable metric must bow out gracefully. You sound like this Brilliant political commentator Here In the future please explain to me how following the previously agreed upon rules can be interpreted as cheating.

Posted at April 25, 2008 3:53 PM in response to The tides have "turned"

Twice in one post. REF!?!?

Posted at April 10, 2008 11:33 AM in response to Poll: Clinton Ahead By Six Points In Pennsylvania

I think Colin Powell did an excellent job of addressing this charge against Obama in the recently posted interview on TPM's main page.

Posted at April 10, 2008 11:31 AM in response to Poll: Clinton Ahead By Six Points In Pennsylvania