HE TOLD YOU SO (AND SO DID I)

Today on Morning Joe, Scarborough asked columnist Gail Collins if she was surprised that Obama had moved so sharply and quickly to the center. Collins expressed surprise at the question. I'll try to paraphrase from memory.

Haven't you been listening to him all along? she replied. How exactly did you think he was going to get all this "unity" without compromising with the Republicans?

The unity shtick has never worked for me, not from the beginning. It's smacked of more and better capitulation to the forces of darkness, and we've had enough of that from Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer and the like. What we Democrats needed at this point in time was a FIGHTER, not an appeaser. What did you THINK post-partisan meant, anyway? You can't have an after-partisanship candidate until there's no partisanship! The Rethuglicans certainly have no intentions of making nice with the Dems, so the only logical conclusion is that Obama has been advocating unilateral Democratic disarmament.

But BO's "transcendence," his oratory, his manly maleness, and most of all the fact that he isn't a Clinton, bamboozled the media, the DNC, and the Blogger Boyz to the extent that they ignored (or maybe they were just crossing their fingers) all the signs that he is a typical politician and opportunist extraordinaire who can show no evidence of actually doing any good for anyone in his entire life and career.

I am quite sure now that once the Democratic National Convention takes place, I will be checking out of the blogging world. The only reason I'm still around at this point is that I harbor an infinitesimal hope that something will shake out that will, after all, bring Hillary the nomination. Lacking that, I have no intention of or interest in being an active spectator of the mess that will follow.

The DNC and all too many Democratic/liberal leaders have betrayed the party and precisely half of its voting base. I never thought I'd live to see the day when Democrats would adopt Republican/right-wing tactics and talking points, and I have no intention of rewarding that bad behavior with my vote.

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE? A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE

Turkana at The Left Coaster asks what it will take for Clinton supporters to vote for Obama should he become the Democratic nominee. I posted the following comment:

Well, it would certainly help if he'd say one dadgum word publicly to shame his supporters for saying things like this (yes, I'm looking at you, Donna Brazile): "...the Hillary forces are uncivil, repugnant and vile."

Beyond the wounds his campaign has inflicted on faithful, long-time Democrats who simply prefer a different candidate, Obama has never demonstrated any particular loyalty to the Democratic Party. Despite Hillary's repeated promises to do everything she can to support him if he wins the nomination, Mr. and Mrs. Obama have not returned the favor. That's a little hard to swallow, considering all the unity ponies they keep offering.

Obama would have to change his pro-Republican "unity" rhetoric and back up all that "hope" and "change" with some solid progressive positions on universal healthcare, Social Security, and SCOTUS appointments, among other issues, before I'd even consider voting for someone who has so diligently worked to destroy the legacy and reputation of the Clintons.

But there's something I'd like to add, something the Obamamaniacs and the swooning media just don't get.

We don't know this man well enough to turn the most important seat of power in the world over to him. We have but the sketchiest legislative record to assess. He has shown almost no real leadership on any particular issue that helps us to understand his priorities and passions. He and his wife talk unity out of one side of the mouth and trash-talk their party and its most successful representatives, the Clintons, out of the other side. He has demonstrated no command of or particularly insightful understanding of the domestic economy, of foreign relations, or other issues that matter to liberals (notice I don't say progressives) and ordinary Americans. He has offered no new solutions to any of our more pressing problems, indeed has cribbed most of his policy positions from others, but watered them down in the process and making them less workable and less appealing. At the very least, he and Michelle have abetted (or endorsed by failure to refute) the accusations of racism against the Clintons. He has consistently and egregiously conflated the Clinton-Bush years. There's plenty more, but the point is, what we do know about him, we don't like or trust.

So when I hear pleas for "party unity" and for Hillary supporters to rally 'round the Obama campaign lest that evil old John McCain win the presidency, I gag. Of COURSE "any Democrat" would be an improvement over McSame in the normal course of events. But what others don't get is that we're not sure Obama qualifies since we know so little about him and have so little insight into how he will govern. I'm sure there are loonies who call themselves Democrats that I would NOT trust with the functions of government over John McCain. And many of us worry that Obama's inexperience, coupled with our other concerns and reservations, put him in the same category. And with him making noises about "fixing" Social Security, admiring SCOTUS justices such as John Roberts, voting for the Cheney energy policy, and running away from universal healthcare, he sounds more like McCain than like the other Democratic candidates.

It's not a spite thing. It's a considered response to an absurd campaign in which hope triumphs reason.

WHO'S DIVIDING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

John Aravosis of AmericaBlog has thrown down the gauntlet. If Hillary wins the nomination (and he makes clear that can only happen if she steals it), 50% of Obama voters won't vote for her.

No Unity Pony for him.

THE UNITY MYTH

Obama, his aides and supporters can claim all they want that the Clinton campaign has been negative while they've transcended politics-as-usual and been restrained in their criticisms of Hillary, but the record shows that is an outright lie. BO got where he is through the graces of the Chicago machine and by absorbing and implementing its tactics in his campaigns from the beginning of his political career. This race is no different. His melodious voice and his cool, elegant affect have been able covers for the fact that he is, at bottom, just another talented politician.

The weeks of WWTSBQ quit rhetoric from the BO kool-aid drinkers have culminated now in a frenetic, all-out war to destroy Hillary Clinton, and with her, the Clinton legacy that gives her so much credibility and good will from those who experienced, and are old enough to compare it to that of Republicans in the White House, the peace, progress and prosperity during the years of Clinton leadership. Since Barack's unflappability became flappable in the Wednesday debate, since that beautiful voice stuttered and stammered trying to answer questions that, at this late date, he should have been fully prepared to address, the Obamabots are terrified and in high shrill. Those were Obama's only real assets -- lacking any kind of substantive record or the ability to offer any solutions not cribbed from Hillary or Edwards, his demeanor and charm were his only campaign drawing cards.

So now it continues, only in a louder voice: WAAAAAAAAHHHH. She made him look bad! ABC made him look bad! We're not going to take it anymore! It was okay when it was Hillary who was being attacked, but THIS IS THE PRECIOUS.

So who's been speaking in Republican talking points, who's promoting unity? Obama conflates the Clinton and Bush administrations, and denies the progress made under Bill. He wants to "fix" Social Security. Hillary will "say or do anything to win." "Mandates don't work," so he won't include one in his healthcare plan, a sure flounder in the idea of universality. Hillary voters will vote for him if he's the nominee, he says, but he's not sure his voters will go to her. Michelle Obama will "have to think about it" as to whether or not she will support Clinton if she's the nominee. Hillary says, "yes yes yes," Barack can beat John McCain, and more, she will do everything in her power to elect him if he is the nominee. Hillary is "in her element" when the dirt flies. His "judgment" is so good it attaches him to people like Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, and William Ayers. Hillary, as I was just told in a comment on AmericaBlog, is a "succubus," and her supporters are "mindless goose-steppers." Lord Kos agrees that she is "not really a Dem."

Here's more evidence that the Obama campaign's unity shtick and "transcendant politics" meme are b***s***. (Thank you, Donna Darko.)

One last thought: When Obama said in his now-famous speech in North Carolina (video below), "I don't blame Washington for this -- because that's just how Washington is" (referring to the nasty questioning he endured in the debate), I wondered, who DO you blame? Hillary? For putting in the knife and twisting it a bit, as you so elegantly suggested? Yeah, that was the implication. So it was Hillary he was wiping off his shoulders and his shoes, right? But this ungracious gesture is part and parcel with his "You're likable enough, Hillary," his going out of his way to avoid shaking her hand at the SOTU, his sexist references and sly suggestions of racism. But this is the Teflon Man -- nothing sticks to him.

Yes, Obama supporters have exhibited some ugly mama-slapping behaviors and said some vile things during this primary campaign, against Hillary, against Bill, and against her supporters. But the unity candidate encourages them, gives fuel to them, laughs at them. That's some way to build Democratic Party unity, man.

WHAT KIND OF UNITY ARE WE LOOKING FOR?

9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser puts her finger on exactly what bothers me most about Obama: the rhetoric about "working with Republicans."

But back in '02, for those of us who dared to speak out against President Bush and his war in Iraq, we stood virtually alone. There was no resounding chorus of people calling "bullshit" on Bush's folly. No, back in 2002 you were called unpatriotic if you dared to question the president; labeled as helping the terrorists if you raised doubt about his divine call to action.

Now forgive me, but I do not recall the help (or the voice) of any Barack Obama from Illinois. Indeed, I cannot recall hearing or feeling the impact of any one speech from the Illinois Senator. Did he attend the rally on the mall in Washington? The marches and protests in NYC? Did he conduct national press interviews? Did he write any editorials? Organize any protest rallies? Mobilize the people? Did he write any petitions? If he did, I never saw any of them.

Yet according to Barack Obama, because he spoke out in 2002 against the war in Iraq, he is better qualified to be president.

And according to Barack Obama, since Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the president to go to war in Iraq, she is unfit to be President.

As Democrats we need to remember exactly who took us to war in Iraq. We need to remind ourselves exactly who is to blame for the huge price tag our soldiers and their families have paid. We need to never forget that it was George Bush who created this debacle. Costing us billions in dollars and worldwide respect.

Maybe that's what bothers me most about Barack Obama. He keeps talking about working with the Republicans. Reaching across the aisle. Compromise. Well, I've been to Washington. I have fought battles in Washington -- most of them against the Republicans -- to get 9/11 legislation passed into meaningful law.

And if there is one thing I know for sure right now, I do not feel like reaching across the aisle and finding compromise with Republicans particularly on any of the following issues: Roe v. Wade; torture; FISA surveillance and illegal wiretapping; unfounded wars with Iran, Syria, or any place else; stem cell research; the erosion of our constitution; alternative energy and global warming; and/or healthcare reforms.

So why does Barack Obama want to compromise on such issues? Doesn't he get it?

To me, those issues are non-negotiable. To me, after 8 long destructive years of Republican rule, there is no wiggle-room left for Republican taint and ruin. I remember all too well that it is the Republicans who are to blame for our nation's current precarious state.

That's why the Democrats must win the WH back in '08. We cannot afford another term of Republican ruin. That's why the only place I am willing to compromise is when it comes to figuring out the best way--the surest way--to get the Democrats in the WH.

So would somebody please tell Barack Obama to stop talking about shaking hands with Republicans and start talking about shaking hands with Hillary Clinton and her half of the Democratic party so we can all start working together to beat the Republicans.

Unity Ticket '08.