I'll point this out.  Obama's supporters keep telling us that he is the candidate of change, that he is different, that he is not the Establishment. Indeed, many here villify Hillary Clinton for being the Establishment candidate.

Yet, Obama is now also the good centrist moderate who can bring in the Independents.  I don't dismiss the independents as important to carrying Virginia.

But, as a progressive, could you tell me how being a centrist is different from being Establishment?  Can you be all things to all people?

Jim Webb is a solid centrist.  He's hardly establishment.  Establishment means being on the inside.  Establishment means buying votes and embracing lobbyists.  Establishment has nothing to do with ideology.

You can be an "establishment" or outsider liberal, centrist or conservative.  

Establishment pols service the interests of the political, business, and economic elites at the expense of the interests of the people, writ large.

Establishment foreign and military policy: continue the perpetuation of a policy that favors military actions over more humble, long-term-oriented policies of containment of threats, multi-lateralism, embracing collective security, non-proliferation, and negotiation. Continue and accelerate policies that privatize military, intelligence, and security functions.

Establishment economic policy: "free" trade agreements, weakening labor and environmental regulations (at home and abroad), regressive taxation policies, corporate and agricultural subsidies and bailouts, etc.

Establishment political policy: shrink the franchise so that the 'right people' get more of a say in elections, reduce accountability of politicians, make it easier for lobbyists to influence policy and finance elections (e.g., the K street project), enlarge the state secrets doctrine and/or make it harder for citizens to get information, reduce competition in the media by allowing media consolidation to occur, etc.

Barack Obama is a liberal and a progressive, if you go by his record in the Illinois State Senate and by his record in the Senate. I would say that he is a moderate in tone and character, but his political leanings are definitely liberal. It's unclear to me, actually, how anti-Establishment Obama really is, but we'll have to wait to see.

Because Bill Clinton invented DLC-style third-way centrism, I think Hillary, fairly or unfairly, gets that label as well. And the Clintons are as Establishment as it gets these days -- just look at how much Bill pals around with the elder President Bush. Perhaps this is an unfair indictment because of how ascendant the conservative movement in Congress was during his Presidency, but it's also how he campaigned.

I think Hillary is much more progressive than her husband, and I think she would be a fine President. However, she is an Establishment pol that surrounds herself with other Establishment pols that I intensely dislike (Mark Penn, Terry McAulliffe, etc.). More importantly for me, she is definitely a card-carrying member of the hawkish foreign policy Establishment that got us into this war and for which there has been no accountability.

I don't know about being all things to all people, but Obama's record on opposing this war before it started and his ability to inspire are enough for me. Will he fight the Establishment to achieve real change? None of us will know that unless/until he's President. It also depends, as with Bill Clinton, on what kind of Congress would serve with him. But in terms of the political and foreign policies I mentioned, he's head and shoulders above Hillary in my eyes.  

legislation.

Clinton triangulation is form of centrism.  Joe Lieberman's socially liberal, but corporate friendly policies are another variety of centrism.

More than anything a "centrist" as I understand the term, would be resistant to shaking up the status quo in one key area -- campaign finance and ethics reform.  The big changes at the federal level will come from changing the way that campaigns are funded.  If a candidate opposes changes here, they're a "centrist" in my view.  If the candidate favors changes, then they may be in favor of making some real fundamental changes in the way that the federal government operates.

In terms of institutional and financial support, Obama is much less reliant on major party power brokers than Clinton which is one reason I see him as a potential "game changer" -- his campaign's viability right now is not solely based on support from traditional Washington power brokers.

The treatment of Obama alone by the Washington Post editorial page is a good indicator of who the establishment players favor at this time.  

Remember the Washington Post was the paper that endorsed the quintessential establishment candidate, Joe Lieberman, in the 2006 Democratic primary in Connecticut.  The Washington Post doesn't like to rock the boat too much these days, which is probably one reason that they backed a self-financing corporate lobbyist in last year's Virginia Democratic primary against a candidate who was getting broad financial support from small donors behind a populist message (the change in the general election stance of the paper was more about jettisoning Allen, and giving Webb a chance -- because pretty much anyone, in the view of the Post, had the chance to be a more responsive Senator).    

Out of curiosity -- would you consider the overwhelming bipartisan support of the S-CHIP bill, or the strong bipartisan Webb/Hagel dwell time amendment to be examples of "centrism"?

In other words, would you consider bipartisan legislation in and of itself to be a form of "centrism"?  

Some really good points JTERP and Ron1.

I also think Ron1 gave good examples of what an "establishment" position would look like on several fronts.  As Ron1 also pointed out, you get a real sense of what a candidate is like policy-wise from their leading pollster/strategist (e.g., Mark Penn in Hillary's case).  

Reading up on Mark Penn's lobbying history gives a chilling sense of how poorly ordinary Americans might fare under Hillary.  And I question her judgment for having Penn at such a position in her campaign.  (It's even more troublesome than Bill palling around with GHWB.) It is fair to say Penn is the antithesis of those fairness issues James Webb ran on. Webb proved how important such issues are to voters.

We could argue over whether we should judge a candidate by her closes advisers and not the other way around.  But the selection and continued reliance on Mark Penn is one of the very most troubling aspects of Hillary's campaign.

We could argue till the cows come home (Bburg joke) about whether Terry McCaulliffe has been good for Dems.  Surely he has broadened the donor base, for good and ill.  Still, as I said above, you can tell much by the top people a candidate surrounds him or herself with.  

What do you think it says that Wesley Clark and Madeleine Albright are both prominent Clinton supporters and advisors?

Bill helped Clark and Albright advance their careers in government (likely with some consultation with Hillary) -- so now they're returning the favor.  That's part of this.

I am sure that Clark and Albright's endorsements go beyond JUST reciprocity -- e.g. if they thought Hillary was dangerously incompetent, or corrupt they would probably not support her.  But you cannot separate the promotions that they've received in the past from their support of another Clinton in the present.

Even though I would hope the Clinton case isn't quite as extreme, you may recall in 2000 how George W. Bush was receiving quite a bit of favorable backing from a number of his Dad's experienced former colleagues.  If you remove reciprocity from the equation, the dynamic changes.  

I think the support from colleagues is probably one of the best measure right now -- all of them are taking on some risks to back their favored candidates.  Fellow home state Senators -- and those in bordering states may get a free pass -- but those outside the state risk some political capital by backing one colleague over another during a party primary.    

Obama brings in independents becuse he is exciting, a good communicator, and doesn't ostracize people or ridicule their positions just because he holds a different one.

That said, Obama has EASILY the most progressive record in the race. Edwards was my Senator when I used to live in NC and he was NOT progressive. He even cast a vote to allow more mountaintop removal, and the dumping of more mountaintop removal waste into our streams.

No one would claim he is now.  He has learned and evolved for the better.  I believe Edwards just keeps getting better and better.

Uh, I'm just curious because odds are that person will do quite well.  Ciao.

Obama will do very well in Northern Virginia.  In a party primary though I think this one could be really close.

My entirely speculative read based on conversations with friends is that I think Clinton may beat Obama in Northern Virginia

1. A lot of people in NoVA have jobs connected to lobbying and secondary industries that benefit from the federal bureaucracy -- I think this factor plays into Clinton's corner.  

2. I also think there are many who have fond memories of the previous Clinton administration and will vote for Hillary Clinton, because they believe her administration will be very similar to the first Clinton administration.  The Washington Post too has been running what is in effect a sustained negative ad campaign against Obama in its op-ed section the past month (it seems that there are about 3 negative columns for every qualified positive one).  I think this will have some impact when the primary election hits.

3. Clinton will do well with women in Northern Virginia as well -- and may even get some cross-over support from moderate women voters.

4. From what I understand Obama has a head-start in terms of organization in the state, but I think Clinton will be able to ramp up her organization quickly here if she needs too.  I think the level of enthusiasm amongst Obama supporters is higher right now in Northern Virgina, so the big question is whether Clinton leaners feel strongly enough about her candidacy to vote in the primary.  This is one big open question that I can't answer yet.

If Obama wins the primary though, I think it have a lot more to do with his picking up substantial margins from high turnout in the populations in the south of the state (Richmond city center and Newport News/Norfolk), and because he keeps his margins close in Northern Virginia.  The backing of Kaine and Wilder doesn't hurt either.

Based on what I'm hearing I think Edwards probably bests Obama and Clinton in parts of suburban Richmond and along large stretches of the Blue Ridge into the southwest corner.  I don't think though that Edwards will have the same amount of impact in state's population centers (major urban, suburban, and smaller urban areas), so my guess is that his support will be somewhere in the 20 to 25% range.  Clinton and Obama I see tracking close to their national numbers in the high 30s to low 40s.

A lot of this, of couse, depends on how the primary season plays out over the next few weeks.  The situation right now is a little bit like predicting the weather.  Things can change dramatically in the span of a week for all of the leading Democratic candidates.

If the voting is correct, the Demographics of Massachusetts, where their are tons of "young urban professionals" which identify generational with the Sixties and see the Clintons as avatars or archetypes of their generation, shifted the vote at the last minutes to Senator Clinton in NH. You will have that same force in northern Virginia. Technically, what we hear from David Brooks and Mark Shields is that Hillary represents voters who make 50k or less and did not go to college while those who went to college and make over 50k tend toward Obama. I think that is probably correct in a generic national model, but in regions where there are large numbers of Yuppies, and that certainly includes northern Virginia today, it could shift the ballast to Hillary.

get their notion from polling data (forget which poll(s)).  But, you may be conflating age with the stereotype ("sixties types").