[example1]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk Bill

Or, sometimes, in the Constitution.

I'm pretty sure he knows about that document.

I had thought that those budgets were passed by the Republican Congress...was I misled by the Constitution?

He was the first to do it in 30 years, and had the ability to stop it as well as significant input on its contents and priorities. It was by no means solely a conservative venture. Furthermore, given the cuts necesary to balance the budget it was a pretty courageous political move.

Such as claiming credit for the Democratic President for the work of the Republican Congress?

What part of this do you find petty? He was talking about the job that he's applying for and giving credit to the man who was in that position when the budget was, in fact, balanced. Would you have a problem acknowledging any particular senators taking credit for their role in that too, just because they didn't sign the document? I wouldn't. It is all part of the same process and certainly worthy of praise.

Example1, I think that Obama is one solid candidate of several in the race. With Bill Richardson gone, he's the only tolerable Democratic candidate IMVHO, and I expect to cast my primary ballot for him given the current state of the races.

I like Richardson too, and have for awhile.

That said, don't kid yourself that he's putting aside all of the "petty stuff." If elected, he'll run a government to the left of any since LBJ, or perhaps even FDR, unless blocked by a Republican Congress.

In some ways yes, he will undoubtedly be progressive. He will try to get a better health care plan--because we're the only industrialized nation without one and that's a travesty. He will not discriminate against gays or nominate people who will restrict science or abortion. He will address the environment and may have to do so radically.

He's not hiding any of this. He's saying "We have enormous challenges, bigger than at any time in history, and we have to confront them immediately and forcefully."

To combat global warming there will have to be a radical intervention from the Federal government, demanding milage in cars, alternative energy, incentives to green companies, some form of carbon control, etc., People will need to change lightbulbs and recycle more. That movement will be progressive, certainly. We will need a scientific revolution on par with our greatest mobilization movements in history. So in that sense, you're right--people will need to swallow the progressive pill because our society needs to change, badly.

But while he is progressive in that sense, he is not a pacifist hippie. I feel confident that he will redeploy the military as needed, continuing to address the global war on terror.

Obama has made no effort to lead Democrats to follow the lead of President Bush. While I understand his reluctance to do so, he's established a track record that he regards conflict with the Executive as acceptable if he does it--he's got no moral high ground, if elected, criticizing Republicans who block his legislation.

If Republicans are able to articulate themselves well enough to have enough Senators to block legislation, then they are entitled to stand up as much as they want. That's part of the process.

However, if Democrats have enough support to gain a supermajority--which could happen with Clinton or Obama--then Republicans better hope that he's willing to build bridges and extend an arm. I believe he will, the proof will be in the pudding.

Despite your cynicism, I don't hear you saying that you expect Clinton to reach out either. I know it is never a guarantee and that many politicians claim they will do it, but you can't think they are all equally unlikely to try, do you?