I wrote this in a comment over at Donklephant and I thought I'd let my readers here ponder it as well:
I simply dont get it. It strikes me that if one is truly interested in charting a moderate course and one is given a choice between two candidates, one with no track record of working with the opposition and who has been embraced by the most intolerant and ideological wings of his own party, and another candidate with a track record of working with the opposition so extensive that half his own party hates his guts because he’s not “one of them”…I just dont see how the former is preferred over the latter, no matter the “tone” of his rhetoric.
When it comes to words vs. deeds…I’ll take deeds as the better indicator of future behavior every time.
I simply do not see a moderate/independent case to be made for Obama.
What could it possibly be?