home

A Skeptical Progressive Examines Obama's Record, Concludes " Count Me Out"

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:40:00 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008, Matt Gonzales (all tags)
Share This: StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Matt Gonzales is a progressive and the former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He's also a former public defender, former Democrat and green party candidate who ran a well-respected and close campaign against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. (Bill Clinton campaigned for Newsom, who won.)

He started thinking he didn't know too much about Barack Obama other than the change meme, so he did some pretty exhaustive research on his voting record. As a result, he says, "Count Me Out." Check out his issue by issue comparison and then his conclusion:

Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about “change” and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.

I think Gonzales' view is even more telling when you consider who supported him for Mayor in 2003. It wasn't the Democratic establishment, it was the change folks, including: [More...]

....a mix of college students, unemployed dot-commers, artists and activists old enough to remember the 1960s.

As to how he did, running as a Green candidate:

Still, with Democrats representing 54 percent of the registered voters and Greens 3 percent, Gonzalez said his 47 percent showing should send a message to the two major parties that voters will respond to candidates willing to take on the political establishment.

I've already said I don't buy Obama's change meme, and I'm heartened to see Gonzales isn't either. I hope some of Obama's more progressive, educated and youthful voters give it a second and third look.

Comments over 200, now closed. New thread on this here.

< David Gergen Confirms Clinton Didn't Back NAFTA | Thursday Funnies and Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Skeptical Progressive Examines Obama's Record, Concludes " Count Me Out" | 206 comments (206 topical)
    Gonzales ran a populist campaign in SF (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Prabhata on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:41:26 PM EST
    The Gozales campaign was supported by the left of San Francisco.  Gavin Newsom, the establishment candidate, was to the right of Gonzales.

    I have great respect for Gonzales because he is extremely principled.

    His issue by issue (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:42:41 PM EST
    comparison is pretty damning.  Doesn't reflect well on either of the remaining candidates to tell the truth.  But then again only one of them is running as a pure agent of change with a new kind of politics :-)

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:44:29 PM EST
    isn't a green party candidate, and that is a bad thing because... ? Someone thought he was to the left of establishment San Francisco democrats?

    Gonzalez = Nader (none / 0) (#160)
    by JJE on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:57:22 AM EST
    I lived in SF during Gonzalez' term as president of the supes.  He shares Nader's penchant for quixotic nonsense instead of real-world politics.

    [ Parent ]
    Did you read the article? (none / 0) (#188)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:12:56 AM EST
    Regardless of what you think of who wrote it he writes an analysis of his voting record. Point I took away is that Obama is not nearly as progressive as most of his followers that I know think he is.

    Bit of a clever mirage really.

    [ Parent ]

    he's as progressive as anyone else in the race (none / 0) (#198)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:30:32 AM EST
    except Nader. the difference of course is that he is inclusive and inspirational, runs a bottom-up organization, and appears to respect and viewpoints enough that we can actually have a conversation and instead of shouting match.

    That might be nice for a change.

    I originally supported Edwards, but now throw my support to Obama for various reasons, but me thinking he's a left winger is not one of them.

    [ Parent ]

    Fair point (none / 0) (#207)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    Only difference I have on this is that I don't for a second believe:

    a) he truly is like what he represents himself in his campaign (change, different, etc), but more importantly

    b) if he really thinks he can "change the tone," "work with the other side," then I think he is sadly mistaken, because the other side doesn't want to work with him.

    Which really is the main point why I back Sen Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Eh (none / 0) (#219)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:59:23 AM EST
    I doubt a man who was chosen his path is anything less than what he is representing to us.  He may not be successful but I have no reason to doubt that he believes what he says.  I have friends who work in public interest law who could've had lucrative careers at big firms and not one of them is doing it because they're some sort of undercover conservative prepping for a stealh political career.

    Well the other side might not want to work with him, though he has worked with right-wingers on some things, but they also don't want to with Senator Clinton and I think they'll obstruct her out of spite.

    Not her fault but I believe that's what would happen.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, that's the point (none / 0) (#209)
    by JJE on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    Obama isn't as progressive as Gonzales would like.  Neither is Hillary.  Anyone who doesn't think the workers should seize the means of production is insufficiently progressive for Matt Gonzales.

    [ Parent ]
    Americana is a big country (none / 0) (#228)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:17:16 AM EST
    is a real diversity of.  Successful politicians will never be able to go real left-wing on us.  It's much easier to go right wing because right wing is supported by the corporate leaders of the nation.

    For example, corporate media shill Russert will go out of his way to play 6° of separation with Obama & Farrakhan but it would be very unlikely that he would do the sameto McCain regarding his connection to Reverend Hagee, who is just as radical as Farrakhan.

    [ Parent ]

    Ah yes classy Matt Gonzalez (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:36:49 AM EST
    Well first off he's not much for unity...

    • He refused to meet with Mayor Willie Brown during his first two years on the Board of Supervisors.

    • When the Board put forth a resolution commending San Franciscan Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, for being elected House Minority Whip and being the first woman to hold that position, Gonzalez was the only board member who voted against it.

    And his supporters are just as tasteful calling his opponent a "racist liar".

    Oh and he also helped pen this New Year's message with Ralph Nader -

    "Do you really believe if we replace a bunch of corporate Republicans with a bunch of corporate Democrats that anything meaningful is going to change? This has to stop. It's that simple." That is our simple New Year's message for 2008. Millions of Americans will be watching Iowa and New Hampshire to determine whether the Democrats will propose meaningful change. Hillary Clinton is an unacceptable candidate to large numbers of independents, Democrats, and third party members. As of last June, more than 150 top corporate executives had raised money for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Who Business is Betting On, Fortune Magazine, June 26, 2007. Fortune also reported "safe to swim signs are sprouting up all over Clinton Inc.," and that she touted "what is probably the broadest CEO support among the candidates," even more than Rudy Giuliani. The Nation magazine reported Hillary Clinton's "advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists." Hillary Inc., June 4, 2007. If Hillary Clinton prevails, millions of Americans will look elsewhere for change, or stay home. It's that simple. Happy New Year. - Ralph Nader, Rocky Anderson and Matt Gonzalez
    You are now the 3rd commenter (none / 0) (#179)
    by JohnS on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:30:49 AM EST
    to go after the messenger, and not the message, GOP-style. Are there ANY Obama's defenders ready to address some of Mr G's individual points?

    [ Parent ]
    Gotta go after the messenger (none / 0) (#215)
    by 1jane on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:52:18 AM EST
    The selection process of folks to quote on this site is a direct reflection of continued efforts to divide Democrats rather than unite them behind  the party that will need to find every vote to crush the Republicans in Novemeber.

    The reason some posters question the messenger is because he is widely regarded as a flake.

    [ Parent ]

    I reitereate, (none / 0) (#226)
    by JohnS on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:14:56 AM EST
    I have not yet seen a single vote or policy issue that  your "flake" questions addressed.

     

    [ Parent ]

    It is not just the comments (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by facta non verba on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:16:59 AM EST
    It is the surrogates. Attacks on Clinton have come from people like John Amato, Josh Marshall, Arianna Huffington, Lawrence O'Donnell, Jesse Jackson Jr.

    When Edwards was still in the race and I criticized Clinton, I got factual debate and points addressed. When I criticized Obama, I must have been committing a crime for I was vilified called everything from a bigot to a moron and worse.

    Recently Ambassador Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun that was republished on the Huff Post. It was pro-Clinton, not anti-Obama per se, more in favour of Clinton on foreign policy. There were over 2,000 comments and 90% (estimated) were personal attacks. There was one that told him to shut the f**k up, go home to his bitch wife and enjoy retirement.

    How does one get past that sort of comment? It turns you off. That is Obamaism, a mass social movement where their leader can't be criticized. Are we now in Pyongyang? This disturbs me. Recall Paul Krugman's piece that noted while attacks came from both camps, more emanated from the Obama camp and that those were more vicious.

    This blog is great because the discussion is civil. But out there it is a bloody mess.

    Not surrogates (2.00 / 1) (#114)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:23:47 AM EST
    John Amato, Josh Marshall, Arianna Huffington, and Lawrence O'Donnell are not surrogates for Barack Obama. You can not tie what they say about Clinton to the Obama campaign. Put it this way, would you be comfortable with saying Taylor Marsh is a Clinton surrogate and all her words reflect the Clinton campaign?

    [ Parent ]
    You know (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by facta non verba on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:40:21 AM EST
    I wasn't born in the United States. I've lived on both coasts and in both northern and southern California. I choose to live in San Francisco for many reasons. And comments like yours seem to criticize this fair city as being outside the mainstream. We call it leadership. We live our progressive values. Cities like Indianapolis, Chicago, Memphis bus us their homeless on Greyhound buses every week. Do we complain? No, we take them in and we try to help them.

    I proud to be an American, I am even more proud to be a San Franciscan. San Francisco Values are American Values. If the rest of the country were like SF, we wouldn't be in this mess. We preach and live tolerance.

    Obama is not a progressive. It is okay to like him but please don't belabour the point that he is somehow a liberal progressive because those of us who are are rejecting him as one of ours. He is a centrist.

    I love San Fran (none / 0) (#136)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:05:47 AM EST
    one of my favorite cities in the world and I have considered moving there on many occasions.

    But my point wasn't an attack on San Francisco in in any way.

    Matt Gonzales will never vote for a legitimate Democratic nominee for President.  He's a purist who is much too left to be palatable to mainstream America.

    San Fran can be as liberal as they like, God bless them.  However it is not reasonable to except national politicians to reflect San Francisco sensibilities.

    [ Parent ]

    Seem like reasonable questions to me (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:13:53 AM EST
    Matt Gonzalez may or may not be your particular cup of tea. I confess I had not heard of him. But that isn't the point. The point is that he raised some very legitimate questions.

    His article has nothing to do with whether he is or is not going to endorse Raplh Nader. His article is about what Obama has done and how he has voted and what he has said.

    Can we just once have a discussion about Senator Obama that is about Senator Obama? Not but, but, Clinton. We heard that nonsense nonstop from Bush supporters every time anyone criticized him.

    Why did Obama vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005? Why did Obama vote to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward? In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush. Why did he do that? And all the other questions raised in the article no matter who the dickens wrote it for crying out loud.

    These are all legitimate questions that voters have a right to get an honest answer to. And saying that Hillary did it too doesn't work. My mother didn't allow us to get away with that remark when we were 10 years old and no adult should even try to use such a childish response to serious questions.

    Can we have one article... (4.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Siguy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:47:43 PM EST
    Can we have one article on this site that isn't about how bad Obama is? I'm serious. I'm not asking for much. Just one single, solitary article that isn't about how bad Obama is, how Obama isn't building the party, isn't building a bridge directly to heaven, isn't going to beat McCain, is a race-baiter, isn't a real liberal, isn't a real democrat, and isn't tested? And no, I'm not counting articles that are just "this poll says X" (though even those seem to have been gamed against Obama; even when he's doing better than Hillary in them, the focus is always on which specific question he does worse than Hillary on).

    It's your site and you're totally welcome to run it how you wish and to convey your opinions, but talkleft has recently become the default site for instapundit and other conservative blogs when they want the "democrat" opinion. Why is this? Simple, they like linking to you guys because you hate Obama and they want people to think that all Democrats don't trust Obama (hate is a strong word, but I see no other appropriate word given your crusade against him).

    I find it doubly ironic that the same day Obama is criticized on this site by BTD for "not building the party" (based solely on his personal opinion that Obama voters aren't real democrats, just a personality cult), we get this article praising the opinion of someone who left the Democratic party and ran against one of the most liberal wings of the Democratic party in the country.  And in fact, if you read the article closely, this green party candidate is mad at Obama for votes that almost all match up exactly with Hillary's position as well. In other words, he's mad at the Democratic party's positions and Hillary's positions, which makes this a particularly weak measuring stick if we're talking about this as evidence of why to support Hillary.

    I didn't write this long comment to be mean or to ridicule the staff here. You're totally entitled to your opinion and god bless you for putting in all the work you do trying to advocate your positions and moving the liberal message forward, but I really think things are getting out of hand over here, and personally I'm not sure I should continue to come to this site if it's going to become so disconnected into its own echo chamber. Just my personal opinion.

    Your comment is fine (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:55:05 PM EST
    and sincere and I appreciate you taking the time to express it -- and doing so civilly.

    I have praised Obama on a few things -- his record as an Ill. Senator reforms for the innocent and his vote against the new gang bill.

    I'm sorry that's all I can find in his actions to praise. I don't go by words.

    I've also said repeatedly neither of them are progressive enough on my issues -- but I'll go with the devil you know over the one I don't, I'm not buying a pig in a poke.

    My objections to Obama are that people are casting him as some sort of liberal when he isn't. He wants to do red states/blue states/we're all the same and I want a fighter not a conciliator and compromiser.

    That's my view and I will continue to express it. If he's nominated, I'll support and vote for him because any Democrat is light years better than a Republcan. But the nominating process is not over and until it is, I'm going to express my views.

    [ Parent ]

    A question for you, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#11)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:58:35 PM EST
    Actually 2 questions.

    Who was the last Democratic fighter win the White House?  FDR?

    What about Hillary makes you think she's a fighter?  So far her campaign suggests that she is anything but.    

    [ Parent ]

    That's because (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:00:40 AM EST
    Everytime they fight, somebody cries racism or they call her shrill.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's assume that's true (none / 0) (#18)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:02:25 AM EST
    how does that support the claim that she is a fighter?

    Implicit in being a fighter is the assumption that you actually win fights occasionally.

    [ Parent ]

    schip is one example. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kangeroo on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:05:26 AM EST
    the fact that she's even alive and still in this race right now is another.  i would have given up a long, long time ago.

    there are more but i'm tired.

    [ Parent ]

    Susan Wood of the FDA (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:10:46 AM EST
    would tell you, for another example -- it's out there on the internets; I'm tired, too -- that Clinton is singlehandedly responsible for fighting back against the Bushies' appalling encroachment on the agency's charge in the battle over emergency contraception (crucial in cases of rape, broken condoms, etc.). And Wood states that Clinton was the only member of Congress to get into the fight and save this for women. That would mean, I presume, that the other members of Congress who are candidates did not do so.

    [ Parent ]
    bingo! (none / 0) (#19)
    by kangeroo on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:02:48 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    or they try and change the subject (none / 0) (#36)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:14:22 AM EST
    away from obama and his lack of credentials. hillary can't fight! no, she's a girl. so she stays and takes grief that obama hasn't had to take.

    [ Parent ]
    Did you see or hear (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by facta non verba on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:48:44 AM EST
    her comments in Cincinnati? Where she said that she had no illusions about how difficult a fight it would be to enact Universal Health Care? And how she was prepared to fight it.

    I am an Edwards supporter but please listen. If you are deaf to what she is saying, how do we get that message across?

    Comments like yours frustrate me because it shows something is not getting across. She is a fighter. She will be more liberal than her husband and she is the only liberal left in the race unless you count Nader. And Gravel technically.

    [ Parent ]

    Trust me I listen (none / 0) (#138)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:09:35 AM EST
    and I have nothing against Hillary.  I have some trust issues with her but I would gladly vote for her in November if she turns out to be the nominee.

    But I think there is an image of Hillary being this incredible fighter for liberalism that I simply don't believe is accurate.

    Paul Wellstone was a fighter.  Russ Feingold.  

    Figthing for popular issues against the Republicans is not indicative of a fighter.  All politicians will do that.

    [ Parent ]

    Except maybe Obama he wants (none / 0) (#140)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:11:58 AM EST
    to compromise in the name of unity

    [ Parent ]
    I fully realize (none / 0) (#158)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:50:48 AM EST
    that to some people the word compromise is about 1 step away from the word treason.  

    But compromise ALWAYS  happens unless you get FDR type Congressional domination or Reagan type populist support.

    [ Parent ]

    Its not that she is a fighter... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    ...for liberalism at its most pure, rather that she is a FIGHTER. When facing republicans who have successfully paralyzed progressive democratic ideas by any means they can she is saying she is better qualified to beat them at their own game. Rather than "reaching across and they will just be nice" kind of idea of Sen Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe Not So Much (none / 0) (#208)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:46:27 AM EST
    Saying:
    Figthing for popular issues against the Republicans is not indicative of a fighter.  All politicians will do that.

    If fighting the Republicans for popular issues is not fighting, what is it? What kind of fighting is considered fighting?

     And saying all politicians will do that is unfortunately simply not true. Wish they all fought for us, but the only thing most of them fight for is enough money coming in to pay for their next election.

    [ Parent ]

    Here are some examples (none / 0) (#224)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:12:07 AM EST
    of issues that require little courage or fight by Democrats.

    1.  Minimum wage - This ALWAYS plays well.
    2.  Tax hikes for the wealthy
    3.  Programs that help children

    Here are examples of issues that Democrats need courage and fight for.

    1. Civil rights legislation that limits the government in law enforcement or national security issues.  Both candidates are pretty mute on this.

    2. Immigration rights.  The candidates have been mixed on this but not exactly moral leaders.


    [ Parent ]
    Site hurts all Democrats (none / 0) (#221)
    by 1jane on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:05:11 AM EST
    If you are pro-Clinton or pro-Obama isn't the point anymore. The issue is to use blogs, even this one, to unite the Democratic Party to defeat McCain. The diviseness advocated here is having the effect of hurting the Democratic Party. Keeping the cat fight going only proves the sterotype that Democrats are unable to work together. It is a charge that has been heard for many many election cycles.

    It is distressing to read conservative blogs linking to this site to prove their points about Clinton or Obama. Time to sit down and think about the costs to Democrats in the long term. Nothing new here for a long time.

    Candidate loses. Whine, defend, lash ot at press, each other, blame blame but don't hold candidate responsible. Another primary, same pattern. Convince your readers that continuing this pattern helps.

    [ Parent ]

    Hah (none / 0) (#227)
    by spit on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    of course it's time to unite, as long as we all unite the way you'd prefer.

    I'm not one of the people who actually thinks an extended primary is bad for the party. I do think some of the over-the-top vitriol on the blogs is bad for the party, but that's certainly not going to be calmed through the tactics you've employed in this comment.

    [ Parent ]

    I know I'll catch some hatin' for saying this (none / 0) (#43)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:20:37 AM EST
    but I really don't think Hillary is a very good politician.

    Yeah, she is a fighter. That to me speaks to one narrow slice of a full political personality. As in every other aspect of life, sometimes you need to fight, sometimes you need to just schmooze, sometimes you need to stroke or pander, sometimes you need to compromise, and the list is longer I am sure. The great politicians (like Bill, for example) felt this in their bones and were able to do it instinctivly.

    In his case, I felt he compromised a bit too much, but as the best president in 40+ years, I can't really complain too much.

    Hillary has some of these skills, but not to the fully developed sense that Bill did, and with too much emphasis on the fighting.

    I think that when confronted with virulent opposition, her instinct is to fight back. Bill's instinct was to do a whole lot else before fighting back, defusing, co-opting, going around the opposition, speaking over thier heads etc. Then if a fight is necessary, get your ducks in a row and do it.

    One can't know for sure, but I sense that Obama is an infinitly better politician than Hillary - perhaps as good, maybe even better than Bill. HE certainly has the smart instinct to make sure he has an army of enthusiastic supporters behind him before even entereing the ring against the Republicans. On that score alone he seems far wiser about politics than Hillary or her supporters are.

    And his emphasis is primarily on speaking to the people, over the heads of the opposition, and engaging them on our side. That is why so many of hillary's attacks have simply bounced off him.

    I should stop now, because the more I think about the Hillary approach, the more I worry about her as CiC, or on the foreign policy stage. Is she going to face the world with the ongoing need to prove to all what a fighter she is? Will she have that deft, nuanced sense of the moment and the full range of tools at her disposal when confronted by an international challange, the way Bill did?

    I do trust Obama more on this regard, and the way he has run his campaign reinforces that.

    [ Parent ]

    tano, nobody's hating you (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kangeroo on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:54:40 AM EST
    for this.  but we already know you're for obama.  hillary has been great at working with others in the senate.  top republican leaders, including those tried to demolish bill when he was in office, have praised her for being strong yet also knowing when to compromise.  and as for bill, why do people need to keep being reminded that there was a big conservative movement when he was in office?  sigh.

    [ Parent ]
    thanks kangaroo (none / 0) (#81)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:13:11 AM EST
    I willingly concede that hillary has a good reputation for working in the senate. Which is why I would support her for leadership over Harry Reid. I tried to allude to that in my comment, that she has quite a few skills. But working in the exclusive club, is quite another thing than working on the arena of 200+million voters or on the international stage.

    I spent the entire nineties defending the Clintons out in the real world. Bill was able to walk away with a 65% job approval, although much lower on personal approval. Hillary has never gone over very well with the public at large. Its unfair in many ways, but I can't help thinking that with more intuitve political skill she could have emerged much better. Well, that is the stage she would have to operate on as a president. And she would start off with this reputation, and with the simple fact that, for whatever reason, she rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Add to that less than sterling political skills and I really doubt that it would be a highly successful presidency. And fighting isnt the answer to a lot of that problem (although obviously some things will need to be fought for).

    I am willing to roll the dice with someone who is leaving lots of people awestruck - and I dont mean the awestruckness at his persona, but at his political deftness and skill.

    [ Parent ]

    you say that (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:36:19 AM EST
    "Hillary has never gone over very well with the public at large" and make the same old tired arguments about her not being very good politically, likeable, etc. Two problems with this, imho. First, she is very likeable to lots and lots of people and very politically savvy - especially those who haven't been brainwashed to hate her or have been able to overcome that brainwashing by looking at her objectively. Second, it's the same old blame-the-victim mentality - she has been systematically savaged since the early 90's for no good reason by the right (and now the left) by a concerted propaganda campaign that tells people to hate her, and now we are all just supposed to say "well, we can't help it - she's just not likeable enough". Ridiculous. Why not stand up against it and tell the truth? Everyone who actually knows her likes very very well and this campaign season has been nothing but the same old smear campaign.

    Believe me, Obama wouldn't be very likeable either if he had been subjected to the same decades-long smear campaign. No on can survive that.

    But I can anticipate the usual answers from you all: well, I guess she just deserves it.

    Disgusting.

    [ Parent ]

    don't forget....... (none / 0) (#100)
    by thereyougo on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:31:41 AM EST
    the US Congress is a den of curmudgeons, from Robert Byrd to that awful little man Ted Stevens. The president has to work with these egos. I recall once,when the Rs had the House and Hillary managed to say she worked with Tom Delay, yes the hammer about legislation affecting children's issue. It makes my stomach turn to think she has to find some common ground with that cretin, but she did.

    GWB has a tough time in this Congress because he's not a compromiser after he said  he was, on the stump. He was not a DC insider, remember that? I do.

    They all say stuff they don't mean. Why should Obama's words be any different, but I give you that they do sound better. Although they don't move  me. They remind me of that good ol boy from Texas, all hat and no cattle.

    Obama is a nice guy, I don't begrudge his ground game. He was smart enough to hire smart people, but on words alone, I want to know show me  the money.

    I just started coming to this site for the civility and because it has a sane view of the contests with a Hillary slant that I can't find anywhere else.

    [ Parent ]

    compromise? (none / 0) (#163)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:01:21 AM EST
    hillary has been great at working with others in the senate.  top republican leaders, including those tried to demolish bill when he was in office, have praised her for being strong yet also knowing when to compromise
    Wait... I thought reaching across the aisle and compromising was a bad thing?

    [ Parent ]
    Only when you do it all the time (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM EST
    not just when it benefits the Majority of Americans.  Personally I don't know how far Obama is willing to go on his unity theme but I would remind him sometimes he reminds me of the way Lieberman speaks.  He is all about bi-partisanship also.

    [ Parent ]
    I think... (none / 0) (#173)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:14:53 AM EST
    ... that the Obama comparison to people are funny.

    Lets see... Obama has been compared to...

    Lieberman
    Nixon
    Reagan
    Bush II

    Yet people completely ignore the fact that Obama has a strong progressive (for a Democrat) voting record and none of the four above do.

    Obama is pragmatic.  He sees a need to compromise and work with various groups.  But his voting record does not look anything like Lieberman, Nixon, Reagan, or Bush.  

    The comparisons break down immediately.  

    [ Parent ]

    Compromise is what you do when (none / 0) (#192)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:19:52 AM EST
    you have no leverage.  It is not what you focus on when your political party is in power.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly.... (none / 0) (#204)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    ...that is why Bill Clinton compromised because he was dealing first with a do-nothing Democratic Congress and then when they were thrown out he was forced to find consensus with Repubs in order to get anything done. Believe me, I am all for compromising when it's necessary, but not just to make sure that everyone is happy because then you make no one happy.

    [ Parent ]
    Did You (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by facta non verba on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:58:04 AM EST
    read Matt Gonzalez' piece? It disassembles Obama's credentials as a progressive.

    Obama is cut from the same cloth as Richard Nixon. Their politics are different but their tactics are the same. Krugman alluded to this in his piece two weeks ago. I've written about it extensively on the blog that I contribute to onegoodmove.org

    Read my Crossing the Mara-Mara piece and my Seizing the Moment piece.

    How many warnings do you need? How can I get you to take a deeper look at Obama? You may like his politics but it is fair to say that he is NOT a progressive. Will you admit that?

    I do enjoy reading your pieces. But I don't buy that argument of speaking to the people and circumventing the opposition because he caves in again and again. He also panders everywhere he goes. The guns in Boise, his religion in South Carolina, Reagan in Reno, ethanol in Iowa, driver licenses for illegals in LA, no border fence in Texas, against NAFTA in Ohio. Recognize the pattern.

    [ Parent ]

    no, i don't buy it for a second (3.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:41:26 AM EST
    He is the most effective progressive politician we have seen in a long time.

    Drivers licenses, anti-border fence, anti-NAFTA are all progressive positions. Whats wrong with his postion on guns in Idaho? You criticize him for note explaining the need for gun control on the South Side of Chicago when reassuring the people in Idaho that he doesnt want to take their hunting rifles away? Is this a serious complaint? Whats wrong with reaching out to religious people? And him being the left's version of Reagan is exactly why I support him. He understands exactly how to do for us what Reagan did for the right.

    I scanned through you Mara Mara piece, and I dont think it captures things very well. The baiting mob, for instance which you see as applicable to lynch mobs, Tony Blair and Barack Obama. Well sorry, but all you are doing is giving a fancy name for group enthusism. You could have added Adolf Hitler and Boston Red Sox fans. And to the point here, any candidate's enthusiastic core beleivers could fit into such a category. Any category that large loses any effectiveness at making discriminating points. Maybe it comes down to you being uncomfortable with large numbers of people actually being excited about one of our candidates? As an aside, I certainly wouldn't mind a string or electoral success like Tony Blair had.

    The saints and devils comment (Obama has more of the latter) I dont take seriously either. I doubt you have done much of a quantitative anlysis and surely you understand that lots of people would call that the other way.

    It strikes me that you are seizing on a few very petty complaints, asserting that they are somehow different than what goes on in every campaign, probably in every democracy, and making out like they are telling markers of some deep psycho-social disorder. Is this the first campaign that you have ever watched?

    And the Barnum effect? "Couch things in general enough terms and they can apply to anyone"? Sure, there are parts of the message which are intended to appeal to everyone. Is this such a strange phenomenon from one who wishes to persuade as many as possible? Can this not be found in the speeches of every politician ever born? But his policies, including those that are mentioned in every stump speech are quite specific in terms of appealing to one group of people. Ending the war - some dont want to do that. Health care -some dont care. Shifting tax policy - some winners, some losers. A new energy policy based on green tech - not popular with the petro crowd. And the whole range of issues that are not at all popular with government minimalists. How can you claim that he doesnt lay out a particular governing philosophy?

    And the "Forer effect"? Oh, he makes people hopeful about the future. Dangerous. He invites them to be politically involved, to make demands on their government. This is bad?

    Sorry I dont have the time tonite to give you a full review of your thesis, and sorry to be rather blunt. You seem like a very educated person who is searching out all manner of fancy terms to expess some generalized dislike of the guy. I dont really come away knowing what your core problem with him is, since the various charges dont seem to cohere, and I dont think many of them have much validity anyway. High-brow namecalling, if I had to put it on a bumber sticker.

    Maybe you could give me a more pointed, brief argument to motivate me to study it closer.

    [ Parent ]

    I would be (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by facta non verba on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:05:52 AM EST
    happy to take this conversation at another point in time. It's two am in SF and my BF is calling me to bed.

    Briefly here is the beef on the guns in Boise. He goes to Boise and draws 17,000 people. He tells them that "there are a lot hunters in southern Illinois and that he is not going to take their guns away." Fine. Fair enough. But I don't know where you live but I live in San Francisco and guns are a problem in our fair city. Guns are a problem in many cities of any size across America. A 15 year old gay boy was killed last week by a 14 year old with two gunshots to the head inside the school's computer lad in Oxnard, California. Go to Philadelphia or Baltimore or Detroit and listen to their problems. Obama had the perfect opportunity to tell the good folks up in Boise that while guns in rural America are fine in urban America we need a solution to take them off our streets. He wasted an opportunity to lead and instruct on an issue. People are listening to him so why just tell them what they want to hear, tell them what they need to hear.

    The problem with your three examples is that he has flip-flopped on those issues even as the campaign evolves. And they are not progressive positions. He was against licenses in Iowa where immigration is a negative issue. He voted for a fence in the Senate. And his comments on NAFTA run the gamut.

    That Crossing the Mara-Mara piece has been updated and will be submitted to a journal on history. I am a historian. I do think that the cultist behaivour has died some and that's a good thing. He is not a demi-god. He has flaws.

    There are two questions I asked of Obama supporters: Name one of his accomplishments and name one thing that makes you uneasy or uncomfortable. Most can't do either. Isn't that a problem?

    [ Parent ]

    well, to an intellectual, maybe (2.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:29:06 AM EST
    why do you think people voted for Bush? Because they felt more comfortable having a beer with him. Or Reagan - they wanted Carter out, Reagan seemed acceptable, a friendly guy, and they voted for him. Why did Bill win? There was a recession, Bush seemed out of touch, and Bill was Mr. Empathy. He listened, he seemed to care.

    We do not elect political leaders based on the score they recieve on some test. This is a lesson I learned over many painful years. They dont even vote for the person they agree with sometimes. In 1984, I saw issue polls that showed that Americans agreed with Mondale on every issue in that campaign, and he lost in historic landslide.

    This is human nature at work. You needn't reach down to make insulting comparisons with dictators or unsavory pols in the past. All successful politicians, no matter how benificent, only achieve office by connecting with people on levels that are hard for intellectuals or policy wonks to understand.

    To be frank, people dont really have a clue as to what the best policy would be on any issue. Most of them know it. Some think that they do, but how many are really well trained in political economy or governmental administration, or the details of foreign policy?
    Almost no one. And of those that are, there is as full a range of opinions on candidates as in the general population.

    People look to leaders for trust, and some level of connection to something inside of themselves. If they see something of themselves in the candidate, they will tend to vote for them. No sensible politician will give a lecture on the need for gun control in Chicago when addressing hunters in Idaho. They dont care what you are going to do in Chicago. They want to know what you will do for them, whether they can trust you not to change their lifestyle. As long as you are not lying to them, there is no problem with telling them simply what you will do for them.

    Yeah, its late. I'll check it out some more if I have time...

    [ Parent ]

    People voted for Bush (none / 0) (#149)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:24:47 AM EST
    because the media trashed Gore and gave Bush a pass. Once the public got to know the real Bush they hated him. Anyone who knew much about him was not surprised. He has always been a dishonest loser.
    Anyone see the CTV report about Obama's campaign secretly reassuring the Canadian government that he was not going to do anything about NAFTA,that his tough stance was just to win the nomination?


    [ Parent ]
    wait for it.... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:28:25 AM EST
    that will just be hillary's fault. he's actually a great guy, a real uniter.

    [ Parent ]
    Is Obama Progressive? (none / 0) (#113)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:18:53 AM EST
    ******************
    To Facta Non Verba,

    Re. Obama's "pandering", nice list. Let's add: Nuclear Power in Illinois. It's used a lot there and, best I can tell, Obama's all for it.

    Let's not forget Love Canal and Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl.

    Sorry for the yelling, but aside from the accidents and potential terror targets, nuclear waste is here forever and it can't be safely stored into perpetuity.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Very well said. (none / 0) (#90)
    by halstoon on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:29:00 AM EST
    I think Obama has that same instinct Bill did, and that is why I think he'll actually get more progressive reform through. Yes, he may address things using an uncomfortable vocabulary for the Left, and he may not be as liberal as a Green, but in the end he will be a good president, someone we look back on and are glad we were here to see it happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, Tano! (none / 0) (#200)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:34:52 AM EST
    (fyi, Jeralyn has advised that when you see Halstoon talking to Tano, you're seeing the same poster agreeing with himself. . . .)

    [ Parent ]
    hahaha...great minds think alike, i suppose (none / 0) (#213)
    by halstoon on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:50:16 AM EST
    but, fyi, i don't know who he is in real life.

    why be jealous? you and jeralyn have plenty of your own echoes here to drown us out.

    [ Parent ]

    you both post from the same IP address (none / 0) (#216)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:53:23 AM EST
    and are the only two posters using that address. If you are the same person, you must stop posting as both. If you aren't, then deny it.

    [ Parent ]
    I promise you I am not Tano. I don't know how (none / 0) (#229)
    by halstoon on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:19:27 AM EST
    he could have the same IP address. He is not me, though. If you wish, I'll email you my real name etc. and he can do the same, though I don't suppose that would prove anything.

    [ Parent ]
    my apologies but (none / 0) (#243)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    halstoon is obamamania. Obamamania has now been banned. Halstoon is not Tano.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you are right (none / 0) (#178)
    by fladem on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:30:34 AM EST
    and it has been the big surprise of the primary season.

    As a tactical politician, there is little evidence over the last year that Hillary is very good.  The simple truth is her campaign has been slow to respond, timid, and resistent to change when the circumstances demanded it.

    When the season began I thought one of Clinton's strengths would be that she and her team had been there before and would do well when the shooting started.  In fact, they have consistent misjudged the electorate, their finances and lost most of the tactical changes with Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    all you can find? (none / 0) (#45)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:22:32 AM EST
    • Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act
    • Obama-Lugar non-proliferation
    • Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton teamed up to introduce legislation aimed at helping hospitals to develop programs for disclosure of medical errors
    • Various bills on relief for Hurricane Katrina, including aid for kids and a ban on no-bid contracts by FEMA
    • Improve mine safety (S 2803)
    • Increased breast cancer funding (S 597)

    Etc etc.  I'm sure we all kind find more if we care to use google to do it.  Here is one such compliation, with bill numbers so someone could find the actual text of the bill, etc.

    Is he a liberal?  I dunno.  The ProgressivePunch site you pointed us to had him with an 89 lifetime rating, and HRC with a 91 lifetime rating.  I think that's pretty much a wash.

    Now -- if you want to argue

    He wants to do red states/blue states/we're all the same and I want a fighter not a conciliator and compromiser.

    I think that's a decent argument to make, and a good discussion can be had.

    But, alas, I don't think the tone of much of what on here is a reasoned discussion of that.

    [ Parent ]

    Interestingly, the article linked here (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:30:55 AM EST
    by Jeralyn addresses some of those very bills, yet doesn't find the results as favorable. All a matter of perspective, or the devil in the details, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    hmm... (none / 0) (#156)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:45:50 AM EST
    My objections to Obama are that people are casting him as some sort of liberal when he isn't.
    Jeralyn... I am really curious how you ignore the fact that almost every progressive organization that does rankings of Senators has Obama as more progressive than Clinton. I know... you have the one organization that shows the opposite, but that is the outlier when looking at all of the rankings.

    Obama is a progressive Democrat.  I don't think that means that he is a true progressive (Dennis Kucinich may be the only true progressive in the Dem party).  

    But to pretend, or at least imply, that he is not as progressive as Clinton is pretty silly.

    [ Parent ]

    "Pig in a poke" (none / 0) (#220)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:04:50 AM EST
    I love that phrase.

    [ Parent ]
    siguy, (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by kangeroo on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:01:12 AM EST
    there are many, many sites and blogs that conduct no critical analysis of obama.  you should go to those if you don't want to hear the truth just because it makes you feel uncomfortable.  TL balances out much of the egregious pro-obama/anti-clinton msm and blogosphere bias.  it isn't TL's job to make everybody happy.  and you know, they're actually doing you a favor.  it's better that obama supporters--who, judging from your comment, have grown dangerously accustomed to the obama rules--get used to facing some fair competition, sooner rather than later.

    [ Parent ]
    Lots of blogs (1.00 / 2) (#22)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:04:46 AM EST
    provide that sort of negative analysis of Obama.  Places like RedState, Instapundit, Powerline, TownHall, and Malkin are more than willing to provide Obama's shortcomings in great detail.

    Sometimes it seems to me that you guys think that everything goes because other blogs are worse.  The actions of others do not condone your actions.

    [ Parent ]

    There is a difference... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by kredwyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:10:21 AM EST
    between critical analysis and negative a**hattery a la Michelle and Red State.
    "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." Dorothy Parker
    [ Parent ]
    need i remind you that we are in (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kangeroo on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:12:24 AM EST
    a democratic primary?  the democratic candidates should be addressing democrats' concerns in a democratic primary.  i don't see how conservative blogs' criticism help us achieve those ends; in fact, they only serve as noisy distractions.

    [ Parent ]
    You weren't talking about that (none / 0) (#40)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:17:56 AM EST
    You were making the argument that it is GOOD for Obama that he gets attacked by Jeralyn because, well, I have no idea why you think that is good.

    I realize that many of you think that Obama supporters are all naive people and that Obama is just getting lucky with his favorable press coverage.  But it may be possible that neither of those points are accurate.

    [ Parent ]

    it is good because (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kangeroo on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:01:58 AM EST
    that way, they affirm their commitment to democratic principles.  that is what you do in a democratic primary.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's good (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by badger on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:15:23 AM EST
    because I believe that whoever the candidate is, people need to stand up for progressive principles and make sure that Democratic candidates know that our allegiance is based on those principles and their implementation, not on charisma, charm, hope, or vague promises of change.

    There are entirely too many blogs at the moment where, if the choice is between principle or Obama, the choice is always for Obama and the principle is abandoned. That isn't the kind of political system I want to participate in or be governed by.

    [ Parent ]

    btw, (none / 0) (#77)
    by kangeroo on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:03:57 AM EST
    neither of those points are accurate imo, at least the way that you phrased them.  you have a way of jabbing people rhetorically.

    [ Parent ]
    But you are free to "attack" ...... (none / 0) (#211)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:47:55 AM EST
    ....Hillary here. Especially since you seem to define "attack" the way I would define "criticize." Why is it a problem if Jeralyn is critical. It seems you are playing by Obama rules, unless you are also willing to castigate TPM and DKos and HuffPo for attacking Hillary, by whatever definition is acceptable to you.

    This is one of the things I find most scary about some (note I didn't say all) Obama supporters. It seems like they won't be satisfied if I simply vote for Obama. I have to love him too, and I just don't.  Not at the moment. Simple as that.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't give a hoot (none / 0) (#94)
    by tree on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:41:34 AM EST
    about conservative sites problems with Obama, and but I DO want to hear progressives and liberals criticisms of both Obama and Clinton. So to say that I can go to wingnut sites to hear rational arguments on the candidates is just ludicrous. I've been to a lot of pro-Obama sites and most of them just go for group-think, and my what a great orator he is, and don't I want change, but there is little or no real analysis of his record. Thanks Jeralyn for linking to MG on this. I wish that in depth analysis like this would have been available months ago. Why can't the mainstream press do analysis like this, on either candidate?

    The result so far for me is that the differences between the two candidates are minor on issues, and for the most part I lean towards Clinton's take on things more than Obama's. But even if it were a toss-up, I've got no assurance from looking at Obama's record that he would follow through on any of the issues if he sees any kind of obstacle. That's what makes me prefer a Clinton candidacy.  

    [ Parent ]

    A stellar article and a stellar site.... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jerry on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:05:42 AM EST
    That Instapundit links to it bothers me not at all.  Every post of Jeralyn's is thoughtful and principled, and I am happy for Instapundit readers to be exposed to it.

    There are plenty of Obama sites out there -- I am very happy with the posts on TL especially when they dig up gems like this!

    Standing in the middle of the road just gets you run over.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:09:23 AM EST
    That's much appreciated.

    And for the record, Instapundit and other non-Democratic sites have always linked to TalkLeft, saying it is rational and civil,  even though they disagree with my views.

    [ Parent ]

    Just so you know (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:15:25 AM EST
    Jeralyn, I respect your sincerity and I don't believe you are trying to impugn Obama.  

    It does disappoint me somewhat that you are pretty one-sided on the issue eventhough you readily admit there isn't that much difference between the two.  

    [ Parent ]

    Flyerhawk's Comment to Jeralyn (none / 0) (#55)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:41:12 AM EST
    ******************
    Flyerhawk, I respect your sincerity but, on the whole, I find the tone of your upstream comment to Jeralyn a tad patronizing.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:49:00 AM EST
    I think he meant it.

    [ Parent ]
    Btw, remember when (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:16:50 AM EST
    "skeptical progressive" was a redundancy?

    [ Parent ]
    Thank You (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by facta non verba on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:03:09 AM EST
    This is a great site. The discussion is lively and oh so civil. I like many others am a refugee from the Huffington Post, TPM and DailyKos (not so much in my case, I never really cared for it). I contribute on onegoodmove.org but the emphasis there is different than the straight up politics here. You do wonderful work. Thank you.

    Charles Lemos
    San Francisco, CA

    [ Parent ]

    I Second That Emotion (re. Jeralyn) (none / 0) (#92)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:35:10 AM EST
    *****************
    Jerry,

    I couldn't agree more, especially with your high regard for Jeralyn's journalistic ethics, eloquence, and infinite patience with keeping the dialogue within bounds.

    She consistently does it better than anybody out there.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I don't "hate" Obama ... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by cymro on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:32:39 AM EST
    ... I want the Democratic party to pick the candidate best qualified to (a) beat McCain and (b) be a president who fights for the Democratic principles we believe in.

    That's the purpose of the primary race, isn't it. And that race is still going on, despite a lot of spin from the media and Obama supporters to the contrary.

    And I have serious doubts that Obama is that candidate, on both counts. But there are very few blogs or sites where this point of view is not shouted down by yahoos. So I'm grateful for TalkLeft as a haven of sane and rational discussion of the issue that I care about. Facts are our friends, lets get the truth out there.

    So deal with it, because it's just a drop in the bucket. If Hillary's supporters were over-reacting to every ridiculous, biased, negative comment about Hillary with the degree of sensitivity shown by a lot Obama supporters, the Obama-cheerleading blogs would have been shut down by the sheer volume of posts responding to negative articles and statements about Hillary.

    TalkLeft does a small amount to balance that flood of anti-Clinton rhetoric. That's wonderful. I want to do everything I can to encourage Hillary NOT to drop out of the race unless and until someone has not a majority but a plurality of the delegates. And I would not be surprised if that does not happen until we get to the convention.

    In which case, saner and wiser heads can broker (i.e negotiate) the best ticket for the Party. That will be a very good thing, not a problem, as some people claim. Because we don't need another Republican President, or a Democratic president who is not really qualified to do the job, and ends up setting Democratic causes back by another 8 or 12 or 16 years until we can get our act together again.

    And at this stage in the race, any GE ticket that is not the result of that kind of negotiated arrangement will do a lot more to divide the party than will a few Clinton supporters posting their points of view on TalkLeft.

    So please don't come here telling us to go away and hide. We are entitled to our opinions, and we have no intention of biting our tongues just because it bothers you. It's our Democratic preogative, you know.

    [ Parent ]

    well said (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:39:49 AM EST
    and as to this:

    So please don't come here telling us to go away and hide. We are entitled to our opinions, and we have no intention of biting our tongues just because it bothers you. It's our Democratic perogative, you know.

    You won't be shushed here, don't even think about it. I can't read all the comments posted on this site, but everyone is free to email me to tell me about a comment that deprecates, denigrates or attacks them or their views -- it will be deleted.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn, how does one email you? (none / 0) (#57)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:43:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    the address is on the menu (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:49:38 AM EST
    at the top right of the site.

    [ Parent ]
    yes, how should we go about (none / 0) (#63)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:52:10 AM EST
    emailing you about a comment?  (Do we use "tl at gmail" ?)

    You guys do an awesome job.  And it is indeed unrealistic to expect you to find each offensive comment and delete it.  But those of us (I am one) who wish there were fewer offensive comments would love to put our effort where are mouths are, and help alert you to them.

    [ Parent ]

    either gmail or aol (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:56:23 AM EST
    and its talkleft at both

    [ Parent ]
    BO Video - There Will Be Bamboozling (