I have not heard it so much, but I don’t seem to have the superhuman reading and writing capability that you have,

(Seriously, I just don’t consume the volume of information that you do, so you probably have seen this where I have not.)

Meanwhile, I have no intention of doing anything other than opposing the GOP candidate, but if I really decided my vote based on which party leadership likely hated people like me more I would have even less difficulty opposing Obama. It’s clear to me that a lot of liberals (though by no means all) hate paleocons more than they hate neocons, when you get right down to it, and since they hate neocons a lot that’s pretty bad. But this shouldn’t be a question of which party leadership loathes people like me. The Democrats will always lose my support in that particular competition.

Instead, there ought to be a positive case why I should want to see unified Democratic government in the wake of one of the most disastrous periods of unified government in my lifetime. There is no case for this that I have seen in which the benefits outweigh the costs. I can let my hostility to the GOP drive me to make a decision against my interests, or I can back a candidate, probably Barr, who represents me and not fall into the trap of backing a candidate who agrees with me on almost nothing.

On the first comment: his Philadelphia speech is a good place to start. His meager nods towards welfare reform and possibly changing affirmative action have never been very strong, and I don’t know that I see class- or income-based preferences as being demonstrably to “the right” of race-based preferences. I am much less of an absolutist on the death penalty than I used to be, but has Obama not opposed the death penalty throughout his career? That may be a defensible view, but it’s definitely an “old-style” liberal one as these things are usually defined. His views on taxation, which he frames as a matter of “fairness,” seem almost as they could have come from the ’80s. I should have qualified my original claim–he also seems to embrace neoliberal views on trade, from which he occasionally departs for electoral purposes. So, from my perspective, the *two* things neoliberals have been most wrong about he has tended to support for the most part. He does talk about entitlement reform, but it’s not clear how he pays for that or for any of what he’s proposing, which suggests more fiscal irresponsibility. Estimates of his proposals’ costs show him increasing the size of the budget by more than $200 billion, which seems like a classic “throw more at the problem” response. Of course, his views on abortion and immigration are as far to the left as any major presidential candidate’s views have ever been, and I base that on his debate statements and his voting record.

Is it not possible for conservatives, independents, and libertarians of all demographics to fundamentally oppose and Obama presidency on philosophical grounds? The man is an orthodox progressive. How could Paulites or paleocons support his candidacy in a substantive manner?

The Bush-backlash argument is not acceptable in my view (though from an anti-war perspective it does hold more weight). Obviously Obama’s elogquence, age, and lofty rhetoric are refreshing after 2 decades of Clinton-Bush politics. At the very least, he would be a new name and face (literally and figuratively) for our executive office. However I think its foolhardy for individuals who proclaim the desire for civil, substantive debates on governing philosohpies to then throw those same ideals under the proverbial bus when professing their support for Obama. An Obama candidacy WILL NOT be about substantive debate as long as the Sullivans of the world reduce real political disagreements to nothing more then racial animosity.

The people currently in control of the Republican party hate paelocons much more than they hate liberals. I don’t see how you can see fit to to anything but oppose their hand selected candidate.

How, though, do you conclude on the basis of domestic policy that Obama is substantially to the left of Clinton? By my reckoning, he is clearly to her right on healthcare reform and slightly to her right on affirmative action, for example.

Remarks by his wife and his pastor don’t count here, in my book. That is to say, they are of interest but not very useful as evidence for an ideological classification of the candidate. I disagree with my fiance on all sorts of political issues. As for Obama’s SF remarks, well, I acknowledge that you and George Packer and whole host of others see the ghost of vulgar Marxism there, but I happen think that you and Packer have misunderstood the parallelism in his utterance. That makes me interested in other evidence. Although the SF remarks are probably enough from your perspective, I’m curious to know whether you have any other concrete domestic policy basis – apart from the SF remarks – for situating Obama as an “old-style” liberal.