No, he has not.  Edwards is still considered the same way (because of him taking public financing and crippling himself when it comes to competing in the primary and through the summer,) and Obama did indeed mess up big time here.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1 0/29/155750/64

Steady, steady
by kos
Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:22:16 PM PDT

A few thoughts about the presidential campaign:
....
2.) Any campaign seeking to overcome her institutional advantages and personal talents had to be based on more than "keeping up with the fundraising".

Instead, Obama fundraised like crazy, making his campaign NOT about personal empowerment, but about sending in the cash, and Edwards took public financing, endangering an Edwards nomination by limiting how much he could spend through the summer if he won.

The annals of political history are replete with examples of Davids slaying better-funded Golliathes. Had they focused on undermining Hillary's message, rather than engaging in a fundraising race, perhaps we wouldn't see Hillary pulling away from the pack.

3.) The polls don't lie -- the more people see of Hillary, the more they like her. I once wrote a post titled something like "if Obama runs, he wins". The fat lady hasn't sung yet, so I might still prove prescient. But I'd be shocked if I was. I expected Hillary's numbers to drop as people became better acquainted with Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and some of the others. But in fact, the opposite has happened.

What I'm seeing is lots of people take a look at HIllary, then say, "Why was it that I hated her again?" The right-wing press told everyone for so long that they hated Clinton, that people simply assumed they did. When they see her, they're no longer so sure.

On that same vein, I recently talked to a federal candidate in a tough, red-leaning state. I asked the candidate if Hillary would make for a more difficult race. A year ago, the universal answer was "yes". But this time, this candidate said, "You'd think so, but I'm no longer so sure. I'm hearing a lot from my constituents, 'I used to hate Hillary, but...'"

On the merits, I would put Hillary fourth on my list. But I don't think she's an electoral disaster in the making. In fact, seeing the sheer effectiveness of her campaign machine -- it truly is a well-oiled machine -- I feel pretty confident that she'd win the White House and win it BIG.

LIke I said, forget about what Kos is saying.  I am looking at the general reaction by the people who responded.  6 mos ago Obama supporters would have blitzed the site in defense of Obama.

Well, that's not quite right. Webb also co-sponsored the previous bill, but he opposed Kyl-Lieberman. He has no politically convenient reason to change his mind, not that I can see. That would suggest other legitimate reasons for the shift in support for that designation.

The reasons given by Obama, Dodd, Webb, etc. for favoring the prior bill while opposing the current amendment, as generally expressed, relate to the surrounding language/context. Dodd on MTP yesterday noted that the prior bill expressly withheld authorization for military action against Iran (I'm speaking from memory and haven't examined the language of the prior bill) and was designed more carefully with diplomacy in mind. The more recent K-L amendment did not contain similar language, according to Dodd. Dodd mentioned other details about context yesterday as well (His explanation was persuasive to my poorly informed mind). Likewise, Obama continues to say he does not criticize the designation of IRG as a terrorist organization, per se, but that he believes the amendment's overall language (including certain omissions of language) makes that designation dangerous given the president's past abuse of trust and discretion.

Do, I think this is distinguishable from allowing right-wing frames to chill the dems willingness to discuss honestly problems relating to SS.

I wouldn't characterize the current SS structure as "left"-ish really. Here are just a few things that left-liberals might object to about the current system:

* The SS tax is regressive.
* The overall benefit structure accomplishes, on net, either no downward income redistribution, or a small amount of upward redistribution. (that is, despite claims to the contrary by some, SS is not designed to address the risk of insufficient resources in old, since you would expect redistribution in the direction of the poor)
*The system is structured to disadvantage current workers over current retirees, and is thus invalid as a "compact" between generations, if we take the contract metaphor seriously.
* The SS tax affects least wealthy workers hardest, and as a result, SS prevents many from accumulating wealth, and reinforces the divide between investing an non-investing classes.

In addition to that, I would say that there is not a uniform view that constitutes the left's position. There is plenty of debate among left-liberals about legitimate ends and most efficacious means. Someone's failure to adhere perfectly to some orthodoxy does not necessarily reflect on his left-liberal credentials. Obama is more willing to acknowledge the shortcomings of gov't programs of the past, but he generally agrees with the ends they are meant to serve. He just thinks the programs need a fresh look to improve results.

Finally, the McClurkin thing should only reflect on Obama's campaign (I concede it was handled poorly) not on the perception of his platform. He is as liberal as Clinton, certainly, on LGBT issues.

I prefer Obama for his position on social security

I prefer his judgement on Iraq,

I prefer his enviornmental positions.

I prefer his honesty.

Finally, I like his honesty and telling groups things they don't like to hear such as the teacher's union on merit pay and the automobile industry about raising cafe STANDARDS.

pOLITICIANS LIKE cLINTON WILL NEVER SAY UN-POPULAR BUT TRUTHFUL THINGS TO GROUPS SHE THINKS WILL BE OFFENDED.

Finally it gets down to leadership and IMHO Barack is a better leader and much more charasmatic and offers real change.

LOL.

put on your tin-foil hat...

There is no KGB or CIA secret meeting. 'We' means 'we Clinton fans'...

Actually, leaving it alone could very well be sufficient.  The projections of a shortfall in Social Security 40 or 50 years from now are based upon the most pessimistic set of assumptions available concerning the future growth rate of our economy.  If, instead, the economy continues to grow at historical rates, then Social Security is fully funded for as long as projections can reasonably be made.

I think the Democrats have taken the only responsible position available considering how important Social Security is.  When someone is fearmongering about a "crisis," the best response is to truthfully deny that there is a crisis, and wait for the hysteria to die down before you get involved in tinkering around the edges.  If, instead, you respond by saying "okay, there's a problem, but it's not as big as you say," then you're enabling the other side's argument, allowing them to do far greater harm to Social Security than anything inaction could cause.

The facts are as stated by Krugman.  I mean, they just are.

I get why some people like the gap idea for SS taxes, but really it would be much better to remove the current cap and make the tax progressive just like federal income taxes. That would result in most people receiving a tax cut.

I'm talking specifically about this clip of Obama, which the diarist characterized as containing "right-wing rhetoric."  I assume you'll agree with me that no such rhetoric is to be found.

As to the larger issue, I agree with you that Obama has taken this issue to a bad place (the other day, I suggested he was doing "the Devil's work" on this issue, which I stand by).

When I say Hillary has taken the "everything is on the table" position I'm mostly thinking of her answer at the New Hampshire debate, which of course she's elaborated on since then.  Still, I think she's trying hard to say as little as she can about what she would do with SS (which is fine with me), but every time people get hyped up about some possible alternative, she has to reassure them that of course she wouldn't do THAT.

Edwards and Obama lately seem to be grasping onto whatever the latest anti-Hillary blog narrative happens to be, whether it's "Hillary wasn't clear enough on Social Security" or "Hillary is leading us into war with Iran" or what have you, and one reason it's not helping them is that it frankly doesn't seem like they believe in what they're saying.  I mean, I accept that a lot of people on the blogs think that Bush will be bombing Iran within the next few months and it will be all Hillary's fault, but I don't think John Edwards actually believes that.

His current position (from the Iowa speech and the ad) expressly states that benefits will not be cut and that the retirement age will not be raised. Also, I haven't seen him say precisely how he would structure a tax above the current cap. He just said that taxing above the cap is the direction he is interested in taking.

You may be under the impression that your remarks gain credibility if you scream in all caps.  I hate to tell you, but the reality is just the reverse.

It is possible, although by no means guaranteed, that Social Security will start to pay out more than it takes in within the next decade or so.  The idea that this creates an urgent problem ignores the fact that we have a huge, interest-generating trust fund to make up the shortfall.

The best way to fix Social Security is by restoring the healthy economy we had under Clinton, which will most likely eliminate the prospect of a shortfall all by itself.

In the event the long-term prospects for Social Security don't improve, the issue can easily be resolved by a bipartisan tweak in Congress, just as it has been many times over the years.  There is no need to spend any political capital or to pretend that it is a top priority.

Making a campaign issue out of Social Security simply enables the Republican campaign of fearmongering that says Social Security is in trouble and maybe we should try something else instead.  More people are scared by loose talk about Social Security than are reassured by the fact that someone is talking about it.

Did you have the chance to read the transcripts of Edwards' super-charged rhetoric in today's speech.

It's just breathtaking. I definitely suggest you and your wife read it...

I took his last part to be a mix of hyperbole and sarcasm.  In a way similar to your earlier statement "he is doing the devil's work."   The "devil" in this case being the Republicans, of course.  :-)

I certainly think the SS issue merits robust discussion. The McClurkin episode was way overblown. My only issue with this diary is the way the discussion is set up (accusing Obama of right-wing framing and other gratuitous nastiness).

I agree.  This site it is the least topic of conversation.  And it has been over saturated at this point.  Just from the net point of view.  Then Obama has never been the "net" candidate as Edwards was and is, in outreach.  And Clinton has not been net friendly either.  Which make me wonder, maybe Clinton and Obama has something, in the fact that though Clinton's outreach may be better than Obama's; she and Obama have run a traditional media campaign.  Which is the reason this McClurkin crap is not getting the full blown MSM as an Anna Nicole?  Just rambling, but when you look at it this is net based.  Now if somebody was sleeping with someone else, this story would be 24/7.  But I think, unfortunately, due to it having issues in the LGBT community, it is just another MSM toss away story.