I nominate Bill Bradley.

He spent his career trying and failing to reconceptualize liberal values so that they appeared centrist and appealed to centrists. He believed the Rhodes Scholar hype about how smart he was and thought himself deeper and wiser than other Democrat Pols.(Even though it was discovered in election 2000 that he had scored 300 points less than Bush on his SATs and 500 less than Gore)

Isn't it strange how the "liberal" Democrat in 2000 in reality was a fairly conventional centrist, and how the "centrist" Democrat in 2000 turned out to be more visionary and progressive than any other politician today.

As a Senator he supported the Reagan tax cuts, privatising social security and voted against and helped to destroy health care reform in 1994.

Instead of standing and fighting he GOP, he left the Senate fer 94 and came very close to running against us in 96 as an Independent candidate for President. In 2000, he did more than any other Democrat to divide our Party, slander and damage our candidate and help to elect a Republican to the White House.

And guess what?  He's back to do it all again!

First, let's look back.

THE DAILY HOWLER

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh031008.shtm l

Have attacks made during a Democratic primary ever been used in the general election? Duh! Let's return to Campaign 2000, when this happened to a well-known fellow--a fellow named Candidate Gore.

Readers, it's October 2000. Thanks to losers like the NYT's Bob Herbert, Gore is being trashed as a Big F*cking Liar again, this time in the wake of the first Bush-Gore debate. In the Washington Post, David Von Drehle writes (yet another) long piece reviewing Gore's troubling history. And because he was alive on this planet, Von Drehle mentioned Bill Bradley's attacks on Gore during that year's Dem primaries. He also mentioned what Bush had been saying, repeatedly, out on the trail:

   VON DREHLE (10/8/00): By the time former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley began thinking about challenging Gore for this year's Democratic nomination, he and his staff were convinced that the truth factor would be important in their race. "It was a big deal to us," a Bradley adviser says. The Bradley team perked up when Time magazine reported that Gore had bragged of his role in creating [sic] the earned income tax credit--a law passed long before Gore entered Congress.
    "Why should we believe that you will tell the truth as president if you don't tell the truth as a candidate?" Bradley demanded in a New Hampshire debate with Gore. This has become a favorite quotation in Bush's rhetoric.

This has become a favorite quotation in [Candidate] Bush's rhetoric. Again, this happened during Campaign 2000. Readers, do you remember that one? The one two elections ago?

At the final Gore-Bradley debate in New Hampshire, Bradley offered the following attack on Gore's troubling lack of honesty. Because it came from a high-minded Democrat, the press corps repeated it for the rest of the year--exactly as they will do with such attacks from Obama:

BRADLEY (1/27/00): If you don't trust the people to tell them the truth in a campaign, then how can the people trust that you're going to tell them the truth when you're president of the United States?

By this time, Bradley was desperate and angry--and willing to lie through his teeth. How absurd were his claims about Gore's "character?" By now, he and his campaign had spent two months pretending that Gore introduced Willie Horton to the American people--even though Bradley had gone out of his way to say the opposite in his best-selling 1996 book, Time Past, Time Present . But the press corps loved assailing Gore's character--and this was Bradley attacking Gore, not a Republican or conservative entity. The line was recited right through November. It helped put Bush where he is.

Now this faux liberal,  this present day "investment banker", is being sent out as a savage attack dog by team Obama spitting out his resentment filled venom.

LONDON TIMES

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo rld/us_and_americas/us_elections/article 3511833.ece

Former senator Bill Bradley, who is a leading supporter of Obama and ran for president in 2000, accused the Clintons of "lying" in pursuit of victory.

"The bigger the lie, the better the chance they think they've got. That's been their whole approach," he said. "She's going to lose a whole generation of people who got involved in politics believing it could be something different."

Bradley believes that Clinton will stop at nothing to tear down Obama even if it boosts John McCain, who was confirmed last week as the Republican nominee: "The Clintons do not do long-term planning. They're total tacticians and right now their focus is on Obama, not McCain."

Bradley believes that Obama should keep his hands clean but is willing to throw some heavy punches on his behalf.  "We need to know whether there were favours attached to $500,000 contributions, such as the granting of pardons, squelching an investigation, awarding a contract or deferring a regulation," Bradley said. "The Democratic party has got to be in dreamland if they think the Republicans are going to let these matters go."

Big Democrats can't attack our Democratic candidte's character. Bradley was lying in Campaign 2000 about Gore--and the mainstream press corps loved it. Bradley's 2008 role shows that Obama seems to be on the verge of going down that road again.

If so many Bradley supporters hadn't turned their back on Gore and the Democratic party, just think of how better off this country would be. Just think if we didn't have so many - if Bradley doesn't win I am voting for Nader people.

Bradley's line helped send Bush to the White House. And last week, there it was again! Is this the kind of "new politics" that we can now expect from Obama?