"candidate that will make half of the country suddenly forget what they have believed as core ideals for years and embrace liberalism"

in 2008.  Obama aside (whatever else you say about him, he was promoting liberal values on the campaign trail back then), in 2008 Democrats had an overwhelming majority in the House (pretty close to a liberal majority even after you factor out blue dogs - Pelosi could pass liberal policy), and 59 seats in the senate, which isn't enough to be filibuster proof but is a pretty solid majority, again, even factoring out more conservative Dems.  I agree that a candidate shouldn't demonize the other side necessarily, but that doesn't mean they can't be a champion, or for that matter, that that's not what Obama does on the campaign trail.  The problem is he doesn't do it enough when actually governing.  That doesn't mean people won't/aren't voting for that.

(1)    Some day, when you stop assuming things, and start reading the links people take the time and trouble to provide, the quality of your arguments could actually improve, but when you do the equivalent of this: FDL = must be Jane Hamsher = must be liberal garbage, you lose before you even get started.  

(2)    I didn't realize we were only talking about Joe the Plumber voting against his interests, but thanks for changing the terms of the argument - again.  I know that Democrats voted against their interests because they believed - or desperately wanted to believe - the Obama sales pitch, and recognized that the GOP was worse.  Little did they know - or little did they care to believe beforehand - how far to the right Obama would go on issue after issue, making him indistinguishable on too many issues from those wonderful folks named Bush and Cheney.   Obama's once again engaging in liberal-speak, but many of us have learned that it isn't what he says, it's what he does, and are not under any illusions that he actually means what he says.

(3)    Speaking of illusions, I am well aware that there is no dream candidate - not now, and at the rate and direction things are going, probably not even in my lifetime.   Nice strawman, though - you should try to be less obvious about it, though.   Oh, and playing to the middle in the belief that there is any imagination to be found there is just laughable.  

(4)    Not really interested in where you comment.  

(5)    I couldn't be you?  Oh, the horror.  

ABG even admitted in his response to me that he hadn't read the link Edger provided and just "assumed" the writer was female.

When you have almost half the population paying no FIT, yet being allowed to vote, any vision of a representative republic s fades.

The thing is that the Repubs revolted a few years back and established FIT levels that won't support the spending required. Obama has increased the debt by some $5 trillion and was hopeful that the Repubs would "do the right thing" and increase taxes on the "rich." Of course that would just lead to defining rich as $70K and across the board increases.

That didn't work.

So spare me the "we're all in this together" BS. I've heard it before. We have an established non-contributing class that the Demos want to give more.

I still cannot fathom how you can be for single payer, yet be so completely in agreement with Republican talking points on the economy in general.

A single payer system based on the Medicare model paid for by a national sales tax would be fair and it would spur company/job creation. I know from personal experience that when you are a start up and try to hire people the question becomes, "Tell me about your health insurance...." It's a huge road block.

So it strokes my social liberalism for "fairness" and business side at the same time. Also when businesses get to stop buying insurance for the employees a good deal of that money will flow into salary increases, R&D and other business expanding activities.

As for "in general"..... Well, I watched the Demos try and micro manage the economy and it didn't work. That was the essence of the failure and why the Repubs gained the upper hand in the 80's.

You should also remember the air controllers striking and Reagan taking them down. The Demos and the unions all were thunderstruck when the public supported Reagan.

The public did so because they saw government employees making good money with great security and benefits... Never complain with your mouth full.

The teachers and other government unions should pray that a Repub doesn't become Prez..... But I think they understand that.

All I see out of ABG and his happy band of Obama minions is wanting to return to that. And "that" really was just an early form of crony capitalism.

I said in one of the posts above that, unlike others who only care about polls when they make their point, "To me they always matter to some degree."

... that "others only care about polls when they make their point" - although apparently that's the accusation you were struggling with when you asked your "question".  But then, of course, you dismissed the poll in question and used a January 2012 Clinton poll (as opposed to an analogous December 2011 poll).  Gee, - I wonder why you chose that poll?  Maybe because it was a one-month dip in Clinton's approval numbers, which (unlike Obama's) were over 50% and trending upwards.

Soooooo transparent ....

BTW - Reagan, Bush 2 and Clinton's approval numbers were over 50% - heck, Obama's below even Carter's numbers at this point.

Obama's November Approval Weak From Historical Perspective

defending his record is the easiest thing Obama has to do.

By far.  Although they are dismissed around here, they are massive and substantial.  It is clearly one of his biggest strengths.

... that the guys who constantly feel the need to tell everyone how "massive" and "substantial" they are, ...