Obama recognizes the need to build a new coalition and I agree that it is crucial

The fact is that if we want big policy changes in 2009, we don't only need to get a Democrat in the White House we need a coalition.

The last time we had an effective coalition was under LBJ and it helped him to pass the Great Society. We had another such coalition temporarily during the 1970's largely due to Republican implosion from Watergate but it only lasted a very short time.

As was mentioned in tonight's debate, Bill Clinton didn't have the coalition to get the bigger parts of his agenda passed. By the time he came into office, the old coalition was being held together with duct tape and unfortunately his coattails were pretty slim. Our coalition falling apart was the reason that the GOP won so big in 1994, moreso than anything Clinton did or didn't do.

We haven't rebuilt an effective coalition since. 2006 was a good start and I think Howard Dean deserves a lot of credit for all of the work that he has done to make strides in this direction. But the 51/49 majority we have now isn't enough to govern and we are going to have to expand it greatly if we want to get things done.

Trying to restore our old coalition or pretending that we have an effective one now simply isn't going to work and Obama recognizes that. That is why, at least from my view, why he is placing so much emphasis on reaching out to independents and new voters.

He needs to use the word coalition then. If that is what he is saying, people need to understand the type of change he is proposing.

He has been criticized for not being concrete enough about what he means by change.

--and other groups in the traditional Dem base. That's the way to have a REAL coalition.

No one is advocating the exclusion of "groups in the traditional Dem base" -- merely making the obvious point that those groups alone won't be enough to effect real change unless they are joined by those who have not been part of that base.

I'm not talking about our political opponents, but the huge number of Americans who have become disillusioned with politics because they see it, in recent years, as merely a way for one side or the other to feather their own nest rather than striving to improve the common good.

Keep in mind that the "winner" of most elections is "none of the above" -- in other words, the no-shows among registered voters are almost always greater in number than those who voted for the eventual winning candidate, or even all candidates put together. If we can harness the power of even a small percentage of the "no-shows," by inspiring them to realize that we can really do good and make a significant change in the lives of average Americans, it will make us a force that's hard to beat.

... (put on your asbestos underwear because this will be heated :))

The Republicans have managed to practically dismantle America, I'll spare you the details I assume you know them.

Where was THEIR coalition? Did the Democrats actively join in to create this nightmare?

I'm tired, tired, tired of this message, it is UTTER BULLSHIT. We don't need the Republicans, we need enough of a majority in congress to OBVIATE THEM.

Because you are never going to get anything good done if they get their greedy, warmongering, faux-moralistic paws in it.

see IWR, Patriot Act, Scalito, etc. They all had significant Dem support.

People are disillusioned because politicians work for the powerful and not them. Obama is promising more of the same, only coated with happytalk rhetoric.

:thumbsdown:

--"special interests" are part of the problem. If you have contrary evidence, let's hear it.

But then again you're deliberately misreading his intention. My understanding of his argument is that what matters is what's best for the public interest. If you disagree with that proposition, you're part of the problem.

We can't have that, now, can we.

"Unity" is a dogwhistle word for "just let the Bushies get away with everything. Turning over all the rocks will just get people 'angry'."

doesn't sound like a coalition that would promote traditional Democratic values.

Reaching out, emphasizing unity, working with Republicans -- all of that is important both to the election and to getting things done as president. We do need a big poll-measured majority going into the general election.

But I would rather see that happen by selling people on liberal policy positions for their own value. I get a little nervous about compromise, religious rhetoric, and caution on social issues -- I don't want to give up or weaken anything on our positions for the sake of unity. On the other hand, I'm a little concerned about division within our party for the sake of appealing to voters as a whole -- the same religious rhetoric that's meant to appeal to some conservative voters makes some of us cringe; the emphasis on the post-boomer generation makes some boomers feel outcast; temperance on issues for the sake of appealing to moderates makes some liberals feel discounted.

So I hope all our candidates will be careful as they reach out, and be sure to keep both feet planted here on the left side of the debate as they do so.