Obama won’t court them and they know it, hence the pouting.

Domestic Bush Hits Hard at Gay Marriage John Kerry: “you Know, Education, If You Make The Most Of It, If……

I have to be honest and admit I haven’t read either of his recent books nor do I live in Illinois, so I maybe totally mistaken about his ideology. I have read and seen a number of his interviews (Newsweek, Charlie Rose, Meet The Press… and yes, Oprah). My impression is that he’s methodical, intelligent and candid. I think the fairest criticism of him to date is that, so far, he has been noncommittal about the ‘big issues’ to a fault. He declares himself to be a believer in free markets, even favoring private sector solutions, he’s secularist who can communicate with the faithful without sounding condescending and he is honest enough, and confident enough to not run away from some of the elements of his misspent youth.

For me the bottom line is he’s intelligent and appears to be committed to finding middle ground instead of imposing his beliefs on the opposition. I don’t care whether he has 4 years or 40 years of political experience. I trust that on any issue he will do due diligence and arrive at sensible, equitable solution.

Maybe it’s just Bush fatigue, but I think Obama would be the best possible successor to the era of King George.

/libertarian

Sure there are all sorts of discussions one can have about netroots, personalities, betrayal, etc, but isn’t the simplest solution most likely to be true?

Let them scream like toddlers…while Rove gives his Mona Lisa smile.

What was really shocking* about Stoller’s post and the kommentariat’s response:
1. not appearing to know the difference between a primary and the general election. A primary only advances a candidate for a party. (Did they skip government class in high school that day?)
2. swear-word utter contempt for CT voters. This reflects the left’s protestations that the voters were wrong because it wasn’t the result they wanted, therefore it was a dirty election and/or the voters are stooopid.

Infantile is right.

• I say shocking, because I haven’t read Stoller before; I was sent over along with the Instalanche.

Because he has zero zilch nada bupkis for National Security.

North Korea and Iran make 10 nuclear nations, these last with zero consequence for proliferation. In the next few years expect about 20 nuclear powers. Half of whom would easily nuke the US through a terrorist proxy.

WHAT does Obama have to say about that? The toothless, inept, corrupt UN? “Deals” that do nothing ala Albright and Lil Kim?

What does Obama have to say about the ongoing Muslim jihad against the West (Bush is right about that, if it’s not Israel it’s the Crusades, if not the Crusades it’s Danish Cartoons, if not that then Kashmir or East Timor or some stupid greivance). NOTHING.

With a near certainty of a US city being nuked in the near future Dems have absolutely nothing to say about national security, instead as the post quoted the nutroots passionately decry even the baseline consideration that Americans “deserve” security.

Don’t think Reps in the race won’t raise the question “Well Mr. Obama we saved American lives by waterboarding KSM, the 9/11 architect. How many American lives will you trade to make him nice and comfy?”

If anything the parallel between the gutless Euro response to Jihad in their own countries (Francafada, Londinistan) while average people get really pissed off and start turning to very scary right wing organizations or ad-hoc militias is strong with Dems. In both cases the “religious belief” in holding hands singing kumbayah or some such idiocy in the face of clear and present dangers is indicative of the ideological stranglehold that New Age nonsense has on these groups.

GWB and Reps are extraordinarily vulnerable to attack from National Security but that requires acknowledging: A. we face ongoing threats that cannot be bargained away; B. Action and force must be PART of the mix; C. The threat will not go away by wishful thinking; D. The threat is growing with nuclear proliferation and ballistic missile tech by formerly marginal nations.

To this most important question Dems particularly Obama have nothing. Don’t discount the effect of National Security (former) Dems like myself who agree with most of Lieberman’s positions, are liberal on social policy, but believe America deserves to be defended.

Interesting question, Justwinbaby. Not one I considered in this post, but worth considering. As others in this thread have noted, I tend to think they would have a very hard time stopping Obama, were he to run and catch on with other constituencies within the party.

The netroots bloggers never seem to realize that they are a constituency, not a cross-section. As long as they fail to recognize this fact, that will complicate their efforts to win over different factions of the party all the more.