I'm not being snarky. I really don't know what his position is. I hunted around his web site and all I could find were plans to "renegotiate" the deal. Renegotiate what, specifically?

It really does mystify me why this community, and most of the liberal blogosphere, has been so enthusiastic about Barack Obama as a candidate.  Yes, he is a compelling and inspiring speaker, and yes, he had the courage and foresight to oppose the Iraq war even at the height of the militaristic frenzy of 2002.

But there are negatives about him too; negatives that bother me as much as similar complaints about John Kerry in 2004.  Once again, I feel I am getting a candidate I have to hold my nose for; rather that someone I'd truly get excited about - such as, say, John Edwards.

This is not to say Hillary Clinton is any better; I have just as many doubts about her, for some of the same reasons.  However, her negatives hardly need elucidation on this site; she is already deeply unpopular here, and with her chances of winning looking increasingly slim, there is no point in criticizing a candidate who may soon be on the way out.  

My doubts about Obama go all the way back to late 2005, when he posted a diary here at Daily Kos.  In it, he was sharply critical of not just the netroots' policy positions, but the entire way we view the world.

There is an American, still alive today, who saved lives.

Not one life, not two, not even ten.  Not even thousands.  Not even millions.  This man has saved hundreds of millions of lives.  This is a man who changed the world, who gave life and hope to uncounted multitudes.

You won't hear about him on Fox News. Or on CBS News.  In fact (until now, of course) not even on Daily Kos.

Who is he?  Below the fold.

I have been in America for seven years.

In that time, I have come to feel, live, and think like an American.  I spent Election Days 2004 and 2006 stumping for John Kerry and Tammy Duckworth.  Despite all the harm Republicans have done to it, I see America's entrepreneurial zeal, Americans' thirst for excellence, their never-ceasing ambition to achieve all that they can.  I enjoy a technology industry that is the envy of the world, and I mean that literally.

Why can't I stay here?

...because I don't live in her district.  Nor that of Melissa Bean.

Why then am I seeing ads for both of these candidates, on WGN-TV?

It has been drowned out a bit by the focus on the Alito hearings, but Canada has a federal election scheduled for Jan. 23.  And the Conservative Party is headed for a majority government.  

Stephen Harper's Conservative Party is at 38 percent in the polls, nine points ahead of the incumbent Liberal party.  The social-democratic NDP has 16 percent, the Green Party 5, and the Quebec-separatist Bloc Quebecois 12.

Wesley Clark has come out against the Murtha plan.

The key sentence in his op-ed:

It has been pointed out that most of Clark's op-ed is every bit as unrealistic as the Bush policy.  Clark claims to support eventual withdrawal, but he then gives a long list of tasks for American troops to do - patrol the borders, disarm Shi'ite militias - that would expand the scope of the already impossible task list they face.  He even wants the US to tell Iraq to modify its constitution again, which would turn Shi'ites and Kurds against us too, and not help much with Sunnis.

It may seem out of place that a diary here is devoted to discussing an article from the Weekly Standard.  This article outlines a path to victory its authors think Republicans should use.  In fact, it is nearly perfect for Democrats.  If we have the courage to push for it - and Republicans the self-absorption to reject it - it outlines a path to regaining Congress and the presidency.

It kills without hesitation, without pause, without mercy.  Its victims are the young and the old, from parents to children, with no thought of race or creed.  It strangles out life slowly, brutally, watching coldly as people waste away, their limbs decaying, their minds disintegrating.  It leaves families shorn of strength, dignity, and hope.  Its mere existence is a blot on all of us - the fact that it can thrive in our so-called enlightened age makes a mockery of us all.

One thousand people are dying every hour.  Twenty-four thousand a day, more than eight million a year - it matters little how you count, only that it is too many.

A president with approvals down to the upper thirties.  Moderates gone in disgust, only the unhappy conservative base left.  A Supreme Court nominee withdrawn in humiliation.  A scandal involving White House officials.

George Bush in 2005?  No, Ronald Reagan in 1987.

Yet, somehow, Reagan managed enough of a turnaround for Bush senior to win in 1988, the first triple-term for a party since 1940.  And if we aren't careful, we may be watching President McCain or Allen in 2009.

From Ken Duberstein (Reagan's chief of staff in 1987-88):

The terrible irony of the attacks on Kaine is that he is actually the very kind of Fighting Democrat the blogosphere has longed for.  To describe him as a weasel, and regard him in the same light as a Lieberman, is simply wrong.

Religion is usually the Republicans' ace in the hole, but Kaine has reversed this dynamic, infusing his faith into his campaign and using it to hit back at the Republicans, something that is going down well.  

Yes, I admit it...I've been watching ABC's Commander in Chief.  Despite the blatant political unreality of the series, I've found it strangely compelling.  

Until this week's episode.  This show was about terror, and torture.  It presented both sides of the issue.  And it presented them wrong.

Basic summary: a terrorist is caught crossing over from Canada, planning to blow up a Missouri elementary school.  Intelligence reports that this terrorist group customarily does multiple simultaneous attacks and doesn't enter the US until 24 hours before.  Ergo, there must be others somewhere, but only the captured terrorist knows who, or where, and he won't talk.  We have 24 hours to get the information out of him.  Do we use torture?

The cruelty and selfishness of the Republican Party knows no bounds.  Not content with having almost literally fiddled while New Orleans drowned, the president now plans to make poor people across America pay for the cost of rebuilding.

The administration's proposals would have the $200 billion in reconstruction costs financed by cuts to food stamps and Medicaid:

The Economist has finally discovered the Daily Kos.  Its comments could have been thoughtful, but are not.

"Teenage scribblers".  That's what the article says.  No joke:

Last week, the Chicago Transit Authority announced sweeping service cuts and fare increases unless the state could chip in $55 million in additional funding.

There was little response from the governor or legislature, except for sniping from Republicans that the CTA was making the whole thing up to put pressure on.

Text below, or see the original here.

New EKOS poll.

Conservative: 36
Liberal 25
NDP: 21
Bloc Quebecois: 13
Green: 5

This would likely translate into a Conservative minority or even a narrow majority government.  It is one of the lowest levels the Liberals have fallen to in the history of polling.

As signs increase that the Bush Social Security plan is dying, we have to turn to defend his next target: Medicaid.

First the facts.  Medicaid costs $320 billion a year.  The federal share of that varies by state, but averages 57 percent; that is $182 billion, or about 8 percent of the federal budget.  It covers 50 million people; at an average cost of $6,400 per recipient.  Bush proposes $6 billion dollars of cuts a year, or 3 percent of the current total (at a time when costs are rising by 8 percent a year).

As you all surely know by now, I did not become the new DNC Chair. But man oh man, I wish I could assume the reins for just one day. I would commission one commercial and then retire. I think the commercial I have in mind could single-handedly deliver a Pennsylvania Senate seat to the Dems.