home

A Leap Of Faith

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:20:56 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Two good posts on how Obama is a leap of faith. Paul Rosenberg at Open Left and Todd Beeton at MYDD.

My take is more like Paul's, I do not question that Obama is a progressive and will WANT progressive policies. My leap of faith is based on believing Obama will adjust his political style and tactics and become much more of a contrast candidate and a Fighting Dem. I think his last debate performance was evidence of that change in style. Unfortunately, too many of his supporters, like Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano right now on CNN, still play the kumbaya game in stumping for him. They need to stop.

< Zogby: Romney Leads In California | No Excuses, No Spin Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Leap Of Faith | 144 comments (144 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I have to admit (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:04:20 PM EST
    that because of my personal situation with my health that Obama's position on health care is very very frightening to me....but my biggest fear is he wins the nomination and then the GOP hit machine goes to work on him...and we all know he isnt sterling in debates...I don't see anyway, he can win the GE, no way at all...

    what part of his (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    health care plan scares you?

    I'm baffled by this, if you have an existing health condition he force insurance companies to take you, as does she.

    The debate on mandates is about weather or not you force people who do not want to buy health insurance to buy it.

    The argument for it is that it will make health care significantly cheaper.  I don't by that since the high estimate is that 15 million people wont get it, that is lest then 5 percent of the us population.

    Parent

    Anyone who has studied the issue (5.00 / 7) (#112)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    of health care understands that mandates are absolutely necessary to keep costs down. This is the basic principle behind insurance. If the healthy people opt out, then the system will be faced paying for the care of the sickest without having the income from those who are not using the system much. There is nothing unfair about this because eventually everyone will need more care as they age and then the healthier people will help finance them.
    One of the biggest reasons that other countries' health care costs are so far below ours is that everyone except the poor pay in. They do this through taxes, not premiums, but the priciple is the same.

    Parent
    Another leap (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:43:27 PM EST
    GALESBURG, Ill. - Maytag workers whose jobs were shipped to Mexico serve as consistent characters in Barack Obama's stump speech. He employs their stories in railing against corporations that use trade pacts to replace well-paid union workers with low-cost foreign ones.
    But the union that represented most of those Galesburg workers isn't impressed with Obama's advocacy. It has endorsed his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. Its leaders say they wish he had done more about their members' plight.
    What rankles some is what Obama didn't do even as he expressed solidarity four years ago with workers mounting a desperate fight to save their jobs.
    Obama had a special connection to Maytag: Lester Crown, one of the company's directors and biggest investors whose family, records show, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama's campaigns since 2003. But Crown says Obama never raised the fate of the Galesburg plant with him, and the billionaire industrialist insists any jawboning would have been futile.

    Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, said late Thursday that the senator did not know Crown sat on Maytag's board until the Tribune noted it last September in a story about the closing of the Maytag headquarters in Newton, Iowa.


    Chicago

    progressive Obama (4.20 / 5) (#76)
    by tek on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:56:36 PM EST
    Maybe I'm an old fogey, but I've followed Obama very closely and I just don't see that he is progressive. The story on the nuclear leak makes me very uncomfortable about an Obama presidency. People can say whatever smears they want about the Clintons, but I remember the Clinton years, I was a young mother. The country was safe and secure, crime went down, jobs went up and for the most part the corporations were held in check. Obama does not strike me as being made of that same stuff.

    I guess if you lived through the Clinton campaign and heard his speeches, interviews, and debates, you listen to Obama, and yes, he isn't inarticulate like Bush, but he's no Bill--or Hillary--Clinton. The Clintons were not only inspiring but when the talked they had substance, they had the goods. I'd love to have that again, and with Hilary I have no doubt we would.

    I still believe (4.00 / 0) (#51)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:36:44 PM EST
    deeply that if Obama wins this nomination, we will be stuck with a McCain presidency and perhaps a Huckabee vice presidency...Sorry, but I cannot get enthused about that...

    eeew (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:42:53 PM EST
    I really dont think so.

    My fear is we get Obama as President and he wastes a lot of our time when we have none to spare.  None.

    Parent

    Either of these scenarios is possible. (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:45:10 PM EST
    But getting Huckabee is really scary.

    Parent
    not as scary (none / 0) (#132)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:30:56 PM EST
    as a Giuliani VP.

    Parent
    From what I have seen of Obama (3.66 / 3) (#2)
    by my opinion on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:39:49 AM EST
    he has only been a fighter against Democrats. When it it comes to Republicans he starts off with a moderate position and negotiates towards their side after that. That puts you in a terrible position to get anything done that is close to progressive. Health care is a great example of staring off in a more moderate position.

    Although changing subjects, I haven't seen any discussion about the one time that McCain and Obama got into a 'dust up' back in 2006 over campaign financing reform. In that case  McCain got nasty with Obama and Obama backed down. To me that is not the quality of a leader.

    I AGREE (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    He has already backed down on the idea of universal health care even before any negotiations start. Unless there is a huge Democratic majority in Congress if he gets elected it will be watered down even more. Obama seems very invested in being admired and does not respond well to opposition. The fact that he refused to sit with Hillary at the SOTU when he was asked by Democratic leaders to do so to show unity tells me that he puts his ego over the good of Democrats. Hopefully he will someday grow out of this, but right now I am not encouraged. (Bill Clinton got thrown out of office after his first term as governor which helped him lose the hubris as well deal with defeat. He came back to win four more succesful terms as governor.)
    Health care is the most serious domestic issue facing our country and the time has never been better to push for universal coverage. Without a mandate, too many healthy people will opt out - as Tucker Carlson once bragged about doing - and it will be impossible to bring down costs enough. If I were young and healthy (I'm healthy but far from young) I would game the system by putting the cost of premiums in a money making account and use it if I did get sick and was asked to make back payments. Obama says only some back payments would probably be required, so I would be ahead of the game, but the system would not.
    Several of my friends have twenty-something sons who could easily afford health care but  don't bother because they think they are indestructible. Ironically these are often the guys that are risk takers who wind up in emergency rooms. We all wind up paying big bucks for their care when this happens.
    As for Obama's charge that Hillary would force people who cannot afford it to have health care, that charge is bogus. She provides plenty of help for poor and working class people. Obama mandates poor parents to have health care so the same charge could be levelled against his plan.

    I think those of us who support Hillary have more "audacity of hope" because we have not given up on the hope that our country can have universal health care coverage in the near future. Hillary shows more guts on this issue.


    Parent

    No one (4.80 / 5) (#113)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:16:10 PM EST
    takes into account the awful question: what happens if these people who are not paying into the system die or end up disabled for the rest of their lives?  Are we going to sue them?  Are we going to clean out their bank accounts?

    Whoever said it was right: EVERYONE needs medical care at some point in their lives.  We should all pay in.  I'm with Hillary on this: it is a moral imperative that the democratic party champion this issue.

    Obama has already started doing what he does on most of the legislation he has championed: back pedaling, making compromises and stiffing the people the law is supposed to help.  If that is Unity, I don't want it.

    I said this weeks ago: I don't want unity with the republican party.  Tell me how you are going to make them pro-choice, pro-science, religion-neutral and tax responsible and then you'll have my ear.

    Parent

    I think BTDs (none / 0) (#3)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:41:15 AM EST
    point is that is just the campaign - he will emerge as a fighter after he wins.
    That is how I read it anyway.

    Parent
    Yes, I did understand (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by my opinion on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:46:32 AM EST
    that, but I don't see anything in his history that is different. The nuclear leak legislation pointed out today on this site was an example of that. The fact that he can't stand up to a flip flopper like John McCain to me says a lot. I don't know why he would suddenly change.

    Parent
    I dont speak for BTD (none / 0) (#10)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:50:24 AM EST
    he is quite eloquent.

    I think we all take leaps of faith with people we dont know personally.  But for a position so important I would prefer jumping over a small puddle for HRC then attempting the Hudson River.  

    I am not up on the nuclear thing so Squeaky may be a better person to discuss this with.

    Parent

    Read it? (none / 0) (#49)
    by magisterludi on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    I'm sick of BHO talking out of both sides of his mouth and even his supporters can't clarify his stance. In all honesty, I do not see BHO changing ANYTHING except the color barrier.

    Parent
    His whole history (none / 0) (#120)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:17:32 PM EST
    is that of a compromiser, not a fighter. He has never had to do that and seems to think he should not be asked to. Why else the pettiness at the SOTU when he refused to sit with Hillary even though party leaders wanted it as a show of unity?

    Parent
    What Have You Seen? (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:45:52 AM EST
    You are in dreamland. If you are referring to his compromise regarding the Nuke bill, Clinton came on ha a co-sponsor after Obama compromised a bit and watered down his original bill.

    Does that mean that Clinton starts off with a less than moderate position and then negotiates to the Republican side?

    Must be something in the water. Are you from Ill?

    Parent

    I am discussing Obama not Clinton. (none / 0) (#9)
    by my opinion on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:49:21 AM EST
    I currently don't support either. So your arguement is that 2 wrongs make a right. Please don't insult me. I didn't insult you. Just saying my opinion.

    Parent
    Insult You? (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    How's that? You point to a bill that both Clinton and Obama sponsored and use it as an example to show that Obama is weak because and will appease Republicans.

    Not to mention that Clinton joined in after the bill was made more Republican.

    Sorry I do not get your logic, and I support Clinton. This kind of BS makes me start to think about wanting to supporting Obama.

    Parent

    So you will decide on a candidate (none / 0) (#17)
    by my opinion on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:11:33 PM EST
    due to one person's comment?

    My discussion left out Clinton because the original post did not mention Clinton. I never said that Clinton doesn't do the same. The Clintons are known for their triangulation, but that wasn't the topic. I also didn't discuss any Republican candidates, but again that wasn't the topic. I am merely stating my opinion.


    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    So you will decide on a candidate due to one person's comment?

    WIth all due respect to your influence here. I never said that. I said:

    This kind of BS makes me start to think about wanting to supporting Obama.

    If you are undecided why would you consider voting for Obama?

    Parent

    evidence? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:19:31 PM EST
    he has only been a fighter against Democrats.

    name one instance?


    When it it comes to Republicans he starts off with a moderate position and negotiates towards their side after that. That puts you in a terrible position to get anything done that is close to progressive. Health care is a great example of staring off in a more moderate position.

    Mandates are not a progressive position.  Name some moderate position?

    Parent

    He is fighting the Democratic (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by my opinion on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:52:43 PM EST
    cause on health care by reigniting the right wing talking points on health care with his imitation "harry and Louise" flyers. My opinion is that this may hamper the Democratic efforts in health care for many years.

    In regards to his health care plan, his plan is between the position of universal health care proposed by others such as Clinton and previously by Edwards and our current situation. I also consider those to be moderate.

    In regards to the argument that mandating something isn't progressive, according to many, one of the biggest and most successful ongoing progressive accomplishments of FDR was Social Security which is mandated.

    By the way, I am just stating my opinion.

    Parent

    He insults those of us (4.80 / 5) (#121)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:34:58 PM EST
    who fought against discrimination and a disastrous war in the 60's. He has repeatedly spoken in a very condescending way about those fights as if they are irrelevant today!(Although he does seem to subscribe to the simplistic "All We Need is Love" aspect of those days). This is a clear slap at older Dems, which he is perfectly happy to do in order to pander to independents and Republicans. It was also entirely unnecessary. He could have appealed to them in many other ways without these implicit attacks on other Democrats.
    In addition he frequently implies that Democrats bear equal blame for the extreme partisanship of our political culture. Anyone who has paid any attention realizes that the Clintons, Gore, or Kerry have never engaged in the vicious kind of attacks that come regularly from Ann Coulter, Rush, Fox pundits like Hannity or O'Reilly, or right wing publications. Democrats have nothing remotely comparable to generously funded right wing smear machines like the Swiftboaters. These people are so despicable that they were able to turn John Kerry's war heroism into a liability. To imply that Democrats have had any part in this kind of divisive politics is a nasty attack on them, so yes Obama does fight his own party.

    Parent
    Great post. I wish I could give this (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:42:53 PM EST
    two fives!

    Parent
    dkos lite (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:22:58 PM EST
    Two fives seems feverish to me.

    Can't wait till this is over and the regular trolls resurface.

    dkos lite.

    Parent

    social security is a mandate and (none / 0) (#146)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:39:47 AM EST
    is the crown jewel of Liberal or progressive success....

    Parent
    Think on this. . . (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:16:56 PM EST
    You don't like Obama and his "unity schtick".  Okay, but consider that right now his job is to win the Democratic primary while, if possible, not damaging his position for the general election.

    Can anyone argue that he's run anything but a near perfect campaign.  True, he's had luck on his side in terms of the treatment he's gotten from the media -- but I think that's luck he had a large part in making.  Whatever it is the media wants he's either it, or he understands what it is well enough to sell himself to them.

    His campaign has been near perfect, winning a substantial victory through a superior ground game in Iowa and then rolling out endorsements at exactly the right moment to have him literally exploding in the polls coming into Tuesday.

    And he's done this while not running to the extreme of his party, forcing him to tack back in his theoretical general election race.

    The guy is just a first class politician.  I have an increasing faith in his political judgment.

    Oh pleeease, Larry (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    "His campaign has been near perfect,"

    That is just silly. His campaign has played into every negative piece of cr*p there is.  If that is your idea of perfection I will just have to disagree.

    Parent

    By the results. . . (2.00 / 1) (#31)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:23:20 PM EST
    shall ye know him.

    I disagree with your idea that "he's played into every negative piece of crap" -- I think, on the whole, it's been a pretty easy going campaign (that's not to say that the Obamasphere hasn't been pretty cheap and nasty, but I don't confuse them with the man himself).

    And results wise, it's hard to argue with someone who's turned the polls around so entirely within a couple of months.  I don't know what will happen on Tuesday and it's possible that it will still be a Clinton blow-out, but I think that's not all that likely.  It's even possible that Obama will win more delegates on Tuesday.

    When you think about what he's accomplished campaign-wise it's pretty outstanding.

    Parent

    maybe (none / 0) (#47)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:35:01 PM EST
    "perfect" means something different to me.

    See ya - enjoy the day.

    Parent

    "near perfect" (none / 0) (#90)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:24:08 PM EST
    Yes, near perfect for a primary, but for a GE this perfection will haunt:  the pandering for closing the Latino vote gap, the pandering against the war, the marijuana stance, Ted Kennedy.  How will they wiggle to the middle road.  

    Also, it's not gonna look nice to beat up on a war hero grandfather by a young guy who did not go to war etc.  But, on the other hand, Hillary will prove she is more competent and able.  Hillary hate is mythical, when they see her they love her.  

    Parent

    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:23:48 PM EST
    He is in good position but he is behind.

    Clinton is still more likely to be the nominee.

    That is on the politics of the primary campaign.

    On the politics of the GE, the worst possible candidate has emerged for Obama, John McCain. It is going to take something much different than he has offered so far to beat McCain.

    He is BEST positioned to beat McCain, imo, but he will have to junk his campaign style completely.

    On the poicy achievement/governance issue, Obama is very badly positioned. He is not arguing for ANY issues. He is winning mandates on NOTHING.

    He must change to have a successful candidacy and a successful PResidency.

    Parent

    Still behind. . . (3.50 / 2) (#43)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:30:08 PM EST
    perhaps.  But much, much, much closer.  And he "behindedness" depends on what polls you look at -- as you know several are now showing him statistically tied in California.   I think, perhaps, he got the timing off by a week or five days, but that's it.  The man has erased 25 point deficits in seven or eight weeks.

    Right now the polls indicate a non-crushing Clinton win, but I believe an effective tie is just as likely, and a small win by Obama is entirely possible.

    Also, I believe Romney poses more of a danger to either of the Democratic candidates than McCain, and certainly to Obama.

    He is not arguing for ANY issues. He is winning mandates on NOTHING.

    I realize this upsets you greatly, but at some point you ought to accept the fact that most people don't care about issues when voting for President, but rather other more personality based issues, and Obama has them.

    Parent

    It should upset any Dem greatly (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:36:26 PM EST
    if you actually care about issues.

    Parent
    There are two distinct. . . (none / 0) (#74)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:54:41 PM EST
    implications of your statement that need to get answered.

    The first is the one about how American politics actually operates.  That is not affected by how much you or I care about issues.  If American voters are less issue driven than personality driven you won't remake the American polity by suggesting that Obama "needs to" focus more on issues.  You'd simply be advising him to do a worse job managing his political campaign.

    The second is, given the assumption that personality drives the American electorate more than issues, how any of us should feel about that.  As a wonky, technocrat leaning kind of guy, I generally do prefer to talk about issues.  It's long been my contention that in a perfect world candidates would compete anonymously, either (in the pre-internet world) from the inside of a refrigerator carton or now using internet avatars.

    But the role of President is somewhat different.  The President actually does serve as a national "leader", and his or her effectiveness in that role is reliant on personality issues.  The President doesn't actually make legislation, so his or her effect on it is also shaped largely by public following and personal persuasiveness.  Finally, it's hard in advance to know precisely what issues the President is going to wind up dealing with.

    Therefore, I actually believe there's a great deal of value in trying to figure out who the Presidential candidate are as people and voting, in part, on that basis.

    In that regard, I find Clinton and Obama to both have the characteristics I look for -- a generally liberal outlook, and understanding of the challenges liberal opinion faces in this country, a strong but internationalist foreign policy, social inclusiveness, a enabling belief in government as the expression of the public interest, and so on.

    Parent

    I think your comment misses it (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    It does not matter what discussion you prefer, what POLICIES get enacted are very much a function of what you campaign on.

    It is always ironic to me that people missed the REAL problem with Obama's references to Ronald Reagan - he simply seems to not understand that Ronald Reagan gained a MANDATE for Republican ideas because he expressly embraced and ran on them.

    Obama is NOTHING like Ronald Reagan. He really does mostly resemble John McCain as a politician.

    John McCain will have no mandate either. Except for a hundred year war in Iraq.

    Parent

    So why support him? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MsAmericanPie on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    I totally agree with this.  Since Obama's not articulating any policies and is issuing Harry and Louise ads against Democratic policies, why are you supporting him, albeit tepidly? What made you come down in that camp?  I can't light either place.  

    Parent
    Because he will (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:24:51 PM EST
    Leap of faith.

    Parent
    well I think that (none / 0) (#102)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:46:14 PM EST
    that the older a person gets the less likely they are to take that "leap of faith"...So his chances in the GE are slim and none because of that...

    Parent
    I have to say that your (none / 0) (#127)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:09:30 PM EST
    reasoning is incomprehensible.

    Parent
    Some of us (none / 0) (#133)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:32:12 PM EST
    don't have many leaps left in us.  

    Parent
    That's A Liability (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:34:02 PM EST


    Parent
    I think there's significant. . . (none / 0) (#93)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    what POLICIES get enacted are very much a function of what you campaign on.

    evidence to demonstrate that this isn't true.  From FDR's campaigning on a platform of shrinking the size of the Federal Government to W's emphasis on smaller government and "bringing honor back to the White House" I think there's just as much evidence of people campaigning as one thing and governing as another as vice-versa.

    Indeed a reading the The Triumph of Politics by David Stockman should be enough to convince anyone that Reagan's economic campaign platforms were totally at odds with his governance.

    But leaving that aside, I think you can learn as much about a candidate's potential Administration from the general impression they give you as from specific policy statements.  For instance, we know that Obama will be an internationalist.  We know that he's unlikely to directly challenge entrenched interests such as the insurance lobby.  Circumstances, of course, may push him in a 180 degree different direction but that would be no less true if he made specific policy pronouncements on these issues.

    And, of course, none of this impacts his more immediate question -- how he can win the Democratic nomination and he general election.  And I still say you're too hung up on issues.

    Parent

    Or as Rumsfeld would say (none / 0) (#96)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    You go into an election with the voters you have. :-)

    That's the biggest negative about the blogosphere - most people posting don't seem to understand ..... voters.

    Parent

    It's the lack of concern for issues on the part of (none / 0) (#126)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:07:09 PM EST
    Obama's followers that scares me. Obama is using emotion to stir things up.  That is the sign of a demogogue. Now, i grant you he doesn't seem like a demagogue, but just a really nice pleasant guy who can seem to inspire people, but the hateful passion he arouses in his followers is scary. If people follow their emotions instead of their brains, disaster usually follows.  And, the fact is, he doesn't mind this and, instead, encourages it. And what is his aim?  Is he running to do great things for the Progressive movement?  If so, what are these things? Why won't he be more specific?  Why has he not demonstrated any desire to do these things when he has had a chance in his two elective offices to stand up for them?  It seems to me that he is running because he wants to win. He wants the adulation and he will stop at nothing, including putting party unity in danger by playing the victim of racism, putting universal health care at risk by copying an ad that was used by the Health Care corporations to shoot down Hillary's effort to get universal health care in the early 90s.  He also has some really unexplained connections with a Chicago mobster, who is currently being charged with fraud.

    There are some big questions here and if people just fall in love with his goo goo and gaa gaa words and his ability to stir them up, we are all in danger.  

    We've all lived through the last eight years of the horrible incompetent we have in office who's been trashing the constitution, starting an unnecessary war that still continues, killing millions  of innocent people, raping and pillaging the treasury and ignoring global warming.  And he was supposed to be such a nice guy and inspired the same sort of crap from his followers as Obama does  (mindless and not caring about any "stupid" issues! Hey lets all have a beer with him! ) And I'm supposed to just feel happy  and excited because some new guy comes along with some pretty words and inspires me with warm and fuzzy feelings while his followers turn into a frenzied lynch mob?  No thanks.

    Parent

    excuse me (2.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:29:36 PM EST
    He is not arguing for ANY issues.

    He talks about tons of issues, his victory speeches are not laundry lists of them, but he talks about them all the time.

    Parent

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    He does NOT talk about them all the time and they are purposefully deemphasized in his campaign.

    He is not gaining a mandate for ANYTHING.


    Parent

    Here is what I'd be interested in (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:34:09 PM EST
    hearing more about from you:

    He is BEST positioned to beat McCain, imo, but he will have to junk his campaign style completely.

    Media darling and Hillary hate.  Anything else?

    Parent

    You need more? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:35:25 PM EST


    Parent
    I'd like more. (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM EST
    I'm still thinking about Rezko trial coming up and HRC's apparent ability to overcome Hillary hate in her fight for the Dem. nomination.  Of course it is still really strong among some non-Dems.  But I think the GE debates will diminish some of that.  If I really thought she'd get beat in the GE, I would have looked harder for a reason to vote for Obama.  

    Parent
    I love James Wolcott (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:46:02 PM EST
    on Hillary.  People who say they hate her dont have a coherent reason to and I think they should be mocked, not catered to.  

    Parent
    i am totally ready (none / 0) (#60)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:44:14 PM EST
    to argue that hillary will trounce mccain.  

    but i don't want to clog your thread with all the potential talking points.  

    she will destroy mccain on the economy.  he's admitted he's stupid there.  she has the previous clinton administrations record to run on.  survey after survey shows the people trust the democrats to handle the economy.  the fact that the clinton years were better for everybody has not been forgotten.  in fact, that's probably why she's going to win anyway.  

    i have other points as well.  

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#65)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:49:03 PM EST
    with you.

    I enjoy the debates here, but it is fairly obvious that she is going to win.  

    Parent

    Win what? Predictions (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    don't count unless they are specific.  Primary or GE or both?

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    the more i listen to McCain, the weaker he sounds.  I have a concern about her appeal to men, and i have a concern about Obama's appeal to people over 65 against him.  That is their demographic weak spot against him.

    Parent
    Obama vs McCain (none / 0) (#61)
    by Nasarius on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    There was an interview with Peggy Noonan on The Daily Show recently, in which Jon Stewart expressed his belief that both McCain and Obama were a different kind of politician, and either would make a good president. That scared me.

    And I think it confirms exactly what you're saying. Obama will have to change his campaign style drastically if he intends to distinguish himself from McCain.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:47:31 PM EST
    He needs to tear the mask off of McCain. Will he? If he wants to win he will.

    Parent
    yes. If John Stewart doesn't mind (none / 0) (#128)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:14:22 PM EST
    Mr. Endless war, anti-abortion champion, who is for giving more tax breaks to the rich, who is going to object to McCain?

    Another example of not worrying about those pesky issues.

    Parent

    I'll argue that he's running (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    a near Republican campaign.

    And that's really, really bad for Democrats in the long-run.

    Parent

    you are (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:31:34 PM EST
    stating it, arguing it implies that you have something like evidence to back it up

    Parent
    isn't he by definition (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    running against the clinton record?  aren't his people kind of forced to find fault with her and bill's successes?  i think that's the problem people are having.  there's no real issue he's campaigning on other than that he's not a clinton.  

    problem is, a lot of people are very excited about getting another clinton back in the white house because they know what they are doing when it comes to running the government.  

    his presence also distracts from the real problem of cleaning up junior's mess.  as was said, that hurts hillary and all of us over the long run. the real issue in this country is cleaning up this huge mess and he is clearly not as qualified as clinton.  yet by staying in he has to tear down her qualifications.  

    Parent

    Clintons (none / 0) (#107)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    Not so much the Clinton record but more the Clinton-caused partisan divide.

    That to me is his fatal weakness - pretending somehow that it wouldn't happen to anyone else.

    Funny thing about the baby-boomers. I believe a lot of the initial hostility toward Clinton was due to the fact that he was the first boomer. Lots of flack from those older.

    Now there's lots of flack online from those younger.  We just can't catch a break.

    Parent

    No point in presenting argument (none / 0) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:19:51 PM EST
    Those who know what I mean, agree.

    Those who don't are already so snowed by the man that it doesn't matter.

    I refuse to waste my breath.

    Parent

    there you guy (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    like i said an empty statement.

    Parent
    Axelrod is doing a Karl Rove (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:46:54 PM EST
    Find your opponents strength and destroy it - that's why Obama  played the race card so often

    Parent
    You must not watch TV (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    Obama's campaign looks flawless only because the  media has a huge crush on him so has given him glowing coverage and overlooked his weaknesses and mistakes. In contrast they have trashed both Clintons at every opportunity. Dana Milbank, Craig Crawford, and Howard Kurtz have all admitted that the media has been much harder on Hillary.
    Here is just one example. After the Philadelphia debate the media were all over Hillary's "big mistake" in giving an unclear answer to the question of licenses foe illegal aliens. This was discussed endlessly. (Up until then, they had not found anything in the debates to hit her with.) Two weeks later, Obama got the very same question, something for which he had had ample time to prepare, and he botched it as badly as Clinton had. There was some talk about it at the time, but it soon died out. After that time I still heard pundits criticise Hillary for this "big mistake" but there was no more criticism of Obama doing the exact same thing after he had had fair warning.
    This is exactly the kind of thing that happened in 2000, only then it was Gore who could do no right and Bush who could do no wrong. It cost him the election. Not only did a lot of independents and Republicans buy the distortions coming from the media, so did a lot of Democrats, many of whom then voted for Nader. (Case in point, Gore NEVER claimed to have invented the internet, and pundits knew it but repeated the lie because it amused them to do so.)
    If you think the right-wing Swiftboat types will allow Obama to get by in a general election you are seriously deluded. They already have revved up a propaganda operation to trash him. Obama has never had to withstand withering attacks, and has seemed pretty petulant by the tepid criticism he has received in this election. I am not hopeful.

     

    Parent

    Well said regarding the perfect campaign (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by Grandmother on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:59:38 AM EST
    run by Obama.  Obama has been given a pass from day one.  And Obama has played the race card without any scrutiny from the press. He can talk all he wants about being black and he can employ the use of a black accent in South Carolina and Jesse Jackson Jr. can trash Hillary Clinton for not caring about Katrina victims and there is no outcry; but one comment from HRC that it took Lyndon Johnson and MLK to get the civil rights act passed and the next thing we know she's a racist and Ted Kennedy gets his feelings hurt because his brother wasn't mentioned.  Give me a break.

    I'm still waiting for Obama to be a uniter in the US Senate.  I'm still waiting for Obama to bring the parties together to pass legislation that is vital to the well being of this country.  Obama has the power to do what he says he wants to accomplish now.  He is a member of the US senate.  He should be working with Harry Reid to work his magic.  He should be spreading the pixie dust to make everyone get together.  But he isn't and he won't, not now not ever.

    And BTW he may not like us baby boomers or what we represent but he sure as hell should be thankful to us for what we fought for during the '60s and '70s and he should be kissing the grave of Lyndon Johnson for signing the Civil Rights Act - without which the Democrats would have stayed in power and not lost the South and Obama would not be a US senator today. So much for being a uniter Barak

    Parent

    Well, just wait until Obama gets the nomination (none / 0) (#129)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:16:47 PM EST
    and watch the press turn on him. he won't know what hit him.

    Parent
    Not luck.... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by vdeputy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    I think his treatment by the media isn't luck but a very deliberate decision on their part but my problem is why and will they continue their supposed adoration when it is McCain versus Obama.  My feeling, based on past experience, is that they will turn on Obama (and all the stuff they've kept under wraps so far will finally come out) and support McCain.

    Parent
    perfect (3.66 / 3) (#82)
    by tek on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    A near perfect campaign? what planet are you on? Obama has run one of the dirtiest, most distorted campaigns of any Democrat in the last two centuries. You only think it's perfect because he's moved up and you don't like Clinton so you believe every lie the Obama camp circulates. If Clinton had done 1/4 of the rotten stuff to Obama that he has done to her she would have been assassinated by now.

    Parent
    I like Clinton fine. . . (none / 0) (#95)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:31:26 PM EST
    you only need to visit dKos where I'm one of the few reliable defenders Clinton has to see that.  And I'm an undecided voter.

    Your comment is absurd -- clearly the motives you falsely ascribe to me are the ones that are driving your own opinion.   The closing sentence of your comment is a little sick.

    This has been a skillfully played campaign, especially by Obama.  Anyone who can't see that has lost any sense of objectivity.

    Parent

    Absurd (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:40:35 PM EST
    You must be a shill, because no one can be that oblivious to history.

    Parent
    is this meant (none / 0) (#1)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:37:34 AM EST
    to help him?

    No (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    It is meant to bring two interesting posts to your attention with a littl ebit of my take on the subjects.

    I never write to help anybody.

    I write what I think.

    Parent

    you dont? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:46:27 AM EST
    I dont mean to argue with you on this - I am just suprised.  You support him but you wouldnt write something to help him by persuading others to your line of thought?

    Anyway, I agree that this post doesnt help him so we are in agreement.

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    I would not.

    I do not like him enough to do that.

    Pols are pols.

    If what I think hepls him, so be it.

    If what I think hurts him, so be it.

    I care about issues, not pols.

    Parent

    okay (none / 0) (#11)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    as you say.

    Thanks for replying.  

    Parent

    I think this is meant to give (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:24:03 PM EST
    people who aren't interested in football something meaty to read today.  I'm grateful for the introduction to Rosenberg last week.  Quite time consuming but probably better than doing crossword puzzles for the purpose of possibly staving off Alzeimers.  

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#137)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:17:03 PM EST
    This how Hillary ended her speech in LA today:

    "I'm not asking you to take a leap of faith, I'm asking you to hire me to do the hardest job in the world."

    Parent

    a response to your title (none / 0) (#12)
    by kid oakland on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:56:31 AM EST
    For myself, I'm doing GOTV here in California with thousands of rank and file Democrats who are getting out today to support a candidate of their choice. Regular people who don't much read the blogs.

    Whomever you choose to support this election, I would recommend doing just that. It's a breath of fresh air and inspiring.

    Phone banking, canvassing, talking to our neighbors about what we want for this country and what kind of world we want to build for our kids.

    That's what this process is about. We're are all better off as Democrats the more people who participate in this process, whichever candidate or cause they support.

    Take Action.

    Vote Hope    .

    Vote Action (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by xjt on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:58:59 PM EST
    I don't want to "vote hope." I am not 15 years old with a big poster of Obama over my bed that I kiss on the lips every night. I all grown up and I vote issues. I want universal health care, student loan reform, mortgage relief, and the other issues that Hillary Clinton has articulated so well. I do not want to take "a leap of faith." I leave the gambling to Bill Bennett.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#115)
    by kid oakland on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    we can both do some GOTV, and we'll see who carries the day, eh?

    I just interviewed two young families here in Oakland who participated in a "Family Walk" for Barack bringing their children along with them.

    They both had had positive experiences. Obama has some very creative approaches. The lit, the approach to organizing, the way the families felt about doing outreach directly to their neighbors, and got invested in their community.

    I've done door to door and I think a young busy family with a couple kids in tow is a pretty persuasive argument for people to take a serious look at a candidate and his or her policy positions. And, yes, Barack, from David Cutler to Lawrence Lessig to Samantha Power has policy depth and substance behind his campaign.

    Like I said, we'll see what the results are Tuesday!

    Parent

    A very depressing though (none / 0) (#13)
    by ghost2 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    What guarantees do you guys have that he just wouldn't enact right wing policies, and have bad (maybe even disastrous) international policies?

    He has never been tested, and his temper is more like Bush.  Petulance underneath is covered with a nice shine outside.  Remember everyone wanted to have a beer with Bush?

    I really, really hope I don't spend the next few years listening to and reading liberal bloggers making excuses for catasrophies, like conservatives did for Bush.  When you come to your senses, and get past the "at least, he is not a republican" stage, it may be way too late.

    Don't tell me I didn't warn you.


    we don't have the time, money, energy to (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    let obama prove or disprove his abillity. heck, he had a trial run in the senate and so far he has done absolutely nothing to impress me.

    Parent
    My point exactly. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Grandmother on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:13:05 AM EST
    I have been arguing for months that Obama can do what he says he wants RIGHT NOW.  There has not been one Obama supporter who has explained to me why he can't use his magic to get Congress to work together to pass meaningful legislation. Alternatively, why can't he just give Harry Reid the formula so that the Democrats don't take the heat for getting nothing done in the next election.  After all isn't there a lot of complaining going on about how ineffective Congress is right now. Is Obama willing to sell the Dems down the river for his own success. If he has the magic, then he should use it NOW

    If he can't do it in the exclusive club of the US senate he won't do it as President. As far as I can see he has done nothing as a US senator except run for President.

    Parent

    or alternatively (none / 0) (#151)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:12:15 AM EST
    how democrats were able to win in 2006 without his god like presence on the ballot.  

    Parent
    this is what I think will happen (none / 0) (#15)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:06:59 PM EST
    if he wins the nomination...It spells it out exactly as I fear it...

    I didnt think (none / 0) (#16)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:10:37 PM EST
    that was so bad.  If that is all the GOP does we can kick their *ss.

    Parent
    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#99)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:37:36 PM EST
    Isn't Pittsburgh pretty at night?

    Parent
    New Field Poll (none / 0) (#18)
    by MsAmericanPie on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:12:28 PM EST
    I posted this comment on an earlier post, but it seems relevant to this as well.

    What do you think about the new Field Poll general election match-up with Clinton 45-McCain 43 and Obama 47-McCain 40?  This is still what worries me about Clinton.  If McCain is this competitive in California of all places, maybe her high negatives really are a deal breaker.  I'd sure like to hear some thoughtful analysis of this.  Obama hasn't had his hit from the press yet, so his number isn't really impresssive, but if McCain's that competitive in California, then where would he not be?

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:17:12 PM EST
    GE polls this far out in the midst of intraparty disputes are utterly meaningless.

    Parent
    I utterly hope so (none / 0) (#32)
    by MsAmericanPie on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:23:27 PM EST
    So, it is your belief that the fact of there being a primary race in California is giving McCain higher numbers than he would have if people were really faced with the choice between Clinton and McCain?  

    Parent
    it is McCain (none / 0) (#36)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:25:03 PM EST
    ve Romney being judged in California.  How can you carry that over?

    Parent
    I am talking about (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:26:03 PM EST
    the question of the vigorous contest between Clinton and Obama.

    BOTH of their numbers are lower than they will be in a GE.

    IT is silly to pay attention to them.

    California will NOT be a contested state in the GE.  

    Parent

    remember that Clinton is coming (none / 0) (#69)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    into this latest poll after devestating criticism from the MSM and Obama has had little if any criticism in the MSM...However, all of that will change in the GE...and it will change big time...the question is can Obama withstand all the criticism as well as Clinton can...Somehow I doubt it...the GOP will hit him with everything in their Karl Rove playbook...and it won't be pretty....Hillary has been hit for years and still is a contender...that speaks volumnes to me...

    Parent
    I think we are all (none / 0) (#77)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:56:46 PM EST
    simply repeating ourselves.  :-) Me included.

    Parent
    and then they say (none / 0) (#78)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    hillary has no experience!  i am sorry but it boggles my mind they could be so blind to this crucial factor.  the right wing media has inarguably spent more time, money, and effort trying to undermine the political ascendancy of hillary clinton than any other politician in this country.  

    her family has been smeared, lied about, and humiliated in public for years.  she's even been accused of murder!  

    and still she stands on the brink of carrying a possible landslide election with seventy million votes and a new democratic congress to clean up juniors mess.

    obama?

    Parent

    Amazing (none / 0) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:28:20 PM EST
    It is amazing to me that people are willing to cast their vote based on polls for something that is 10 months from now.  Your vote should be cast for who you believe will be the best president.  Our job is not handicapping, it's choosing a president who will do what we believe in.  Am I being naive?  No, I vote for what I believe in.  

    Parent
    Save me from myself (none / 0) (#54)
    by MsAmericanPie on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:38:19 PM EST
    I didn't say I was casting a vote for Obama for this reason.  I said the poll gives me concern about Clinton.  I'd like to have that concern alleviated, which is why I asked the question. Shrum just said the same thing on MTP that BTD did about general election polls at this point in the game.  I guess I'd just like a little more analysis about why McCain might be doing so well in a California match-up right now. I've long been leaning Clinton, but this and her Iran vote keep holding me back.

    Parent
    the aumf may have been a mistake (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:49:45 PM EST
    but it now cuts both ways.  it is also proof that hillary will fight if she has to and that she can be trusted not to appear weak or compromise on national security.  she has a huge advantage with mccain on that.  they can't call her weak.

    with obama, they will say he was against the war before he was for it.  mark my words.  

    Parent

    Iran, not Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MsAmericanPie on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    I don't hold her Iraq vote against. It's her Iran vote after she saw how Bush used the  Iraq war authorization that I can't rationalize away.  She says she trusted Bush the first time, but then she did it again?  What kind of judgment does that demonstrate?

    Parent
    we are also (none / 0) (#87)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:09:32 PM EST
    forgetting another crucial factor which is the overwhelming polling data showing the public trusts democrats on national security. mccain will outflank obama on this issue, going for the middle voters who want someone with experience in the hot seat.

    on the other hand, bush has spent the past eight years justifying his ridiculous national security failures on the first clinton administration.  

    polling and other data shows most people reject those arguments and understand that the clinton's approach to fighting terror and national security was a much better policy.  

    hillary has stronger credentials on fighting terror than mccain or obama.  she is obviously the most qulaified person we have to restore the more sane approach to fighting terrorism which was government policy before 9/11.  that should be our goal and hillary clinton is the best person to achieve it.  

    Parent

    you were right to ask here (none / 0) (#56)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:40:21 PM EST
    if your heart is in the right place you will always get an answer here...though maybe not the one you want. :-)

    Parent
    TL has no candidate (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    I tepidly support Obama and Jeralyn has no candidate.

    TL posts what it thinks and is against no except Republicans and bias.

    Please do not lump TL into this.

    the only comment (none / 0) (#24)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    I can make is that I wouldnt back someone I thought would lose - that is for Naderites.  I back HRC because I think she is better qualified and that she will win the GE.

    I have never heard that term you posted around here so you have first introduced it.  For all I know you made it up. ;-)

    Huh (none / 0) (#30)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:21:45 PM EST
    and I have donated there and never noticed.


    Parent
    Leap of Faith (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:25:28 PM EST
    The Clinton's have promised us this before, and in 8 years didn't produce universal Health care.  The idea that she thinks health care is a moral right, begs the question: After she failed in 94, there were 6 more years of Clinton, why not try again.

    The leap of faith is trusting someone that has promised something before, and not delivered, to deliver this time.

    Interestingly (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    Obama is promising nothing substantively so you are right, he will not be breaking any promises if he does nothing.

    That's the problem.

    Parent

    really (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:38:14 PM EST
    so he never talks about how he wants to restructure the tax code, or about how he wants universal health care.  ending the war in Iraq.  Changing our foreign policy, to have a stronger emphasis on diplomacy?  DLs? about making college more affordable?  I saw him giving his closing argument on MTV he spoke about college and service, Hillary spent the entire time trying to make excuses for her war vote.

    Parent
    He alwasy says (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:29:32 PM EST
    he's not making promises, change will take years ...it's one of the reasons I don't trust him. He's got nothing on the line. When he doesn't bring change, he can say "I told you it wouldn't be easy. I said it would take years."

    He's all aspiration. Very little action.

    Parent

    No accountability (none / 0) (#134)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:33:26 PM EST
    No record, no accountability.  


    Parent
    Oh! (none / 0) (#138)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:19:35 PM EST
    So, Obama is like the Secret: if it doesn't work, or something bad happens, that's because you weren't thinking positively enough to make it so.

    Hmm...Oprah pushed the Secret...Oprah pushed Obama...both of them go by names that start with an O...

    J'ACCUSE!

    Parent

    No he does not emphasize anything at all (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    Do you REALLY think it is some accident that Obama is most famous for Kumbaya, not an issue?

    What is his signature issue in your estimation?

    Look, you simply are deluding yourself now.

    Parent

    he also (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    doesnt say he wants universal health care.

    what a hoot.

    Parent

    his signature issue (2.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    is Iraq and our foreign policy positioning

    hers is health care.

    Parent

    No it is not (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:51:57 PM EST
    Your OTHER comment identifies his signature issues.

    Parent
    He is as (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    inspirational, and unites

    she is competent and experienced.

    Those are the personality narratives they have created for themselves, of course those are not going to be issues.  Voting for competent and experienced is also not an issue.  In fact it is premise is that even if you disagree on issues you will still be ok because she is competent.

    Parent

    I find her (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    inspirational, not him. He hasnt done anything but talk.  She accomplishes real things for real people and she has been taking major waves of viciousness and bile for years and she comes back stronger.

    Parent
    Judith (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    i'm not saying she isn't inspirational.  I'm saying that he narrative is competence his is inspiration.

    I think they are both competent and inspirational figures.

    Parent

    Exactly right (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    NEITHER of them have been issues focused.

    I am not in love with either of them.

    Parent

    I have heard (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    quite a few issues addressed by HRC - and in detail - so I dont know how you missed it.

    Oh wait, you were busy taking a leap.

    ha!  

    on that note, I gotta go.  Enjoy the game.

    Parent

    health care (none / 0) (#85)
    by tek on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:04:44 PM EST
    This shows that you know nothing about the Clinton years, except possibly some hearsay from the Obama camp.

    Parent
    hearsay? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:27:10 PM EST
    are you disputing that her health care plan failed? Are you disputing that she never tried for universal health care again?

    Parent
    she has the scars to prove it (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:42:09 PM EST
    and you want to send in the new guy?  the one who hasn't been smeared by those opposed to universal healthcare yet.  honestly i don't see how you couldn't understand that sending her back to get this done really wouldn't settle the score once and for all.  they drew blood on her over this issue, and you want to send in the new guy.  why not send in our most seasoned fighter?  the one with perhaps a little taste for revenge on this issue?

    that's just how i see it.  

    Parent

    i don't (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:53:26 PM EST
    reward losers just because they tried.  She has yet to spell out what she did wrong and what she will do to fix it.  Just the same ole right wing machine, blame the media excuse.

    Like i said Clintons were in office 8 years.  why didn't she try more than once.  Only time she promises universal health care is when she has to run in a primary.

    Parent

    you are a strange bird (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    apparently you do not know much about how this country works.  big wealthy corporate interests control things.  one of those is the insurance industry.  to achieve affordable health care in this country the insurance industry has to be put down.  they will not go down without a fight. hillary will fight them.  that is what she promises.

    obama has saved them a seat at the table.  

    Parent

    Clinton is (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:23:17 PM EST
    a corporate democrat.  Most of her campaign money is from large wealthy donors, she ain't gonna fight the hand that feeds her.

    Parent
    but barack (none / 0) (#142)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:10:27 AM EST
    will fight for the people.

    by uniting with republicans.  

    got it.

    Parent

    yep just like he fought for those poor union (none / 0) (#143)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:20:04 AM EST
    people at the Maytag plant to help them not lose their jobs and altho he was buddies with one of their corporate executives who donated to his campaign, he never even tried to get the guy to reconsider....which is why that union has now endorsed Hillary...In his own state no less...

    Parent
    Did not know! (none / 0) (#144)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:24:24 AM EST
    Obama did not know he was on the Maytag Board.
    Obama did not know Rezko's properties were in foreclosure.  

    Ooops...he did not know.....

    Parent

    He was on the board of maytag??? (none / 0) (#145)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:36:23 AM EST


    Parent
    His donor (none / 0) (#147)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:56:37 AM EST
    was a Maytag Board member, so Obama did not stand up for the workers. It was in the Chicago Tribune today
    looking for link

    Parent
    Chicago Tribune (none / 0) (#148)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:59:01 AM EST
    Link

    Parent
    I do believe (none / 0) (#98)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:36:06 PM EST
    you're missing the point.

    Parent
    Re: Universal Health Care (none / 0) (#125)
    by wasabi on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:58:30 PM EST
    The country is not in the same place as it was in 1993.  There are many more uninsured Americans now than there were back then.  The business community is effected much more by the rising cost of healthcare than what it was back then.  Totally different time.

    Parent
    Obama's campaign (none / 0) (#45)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:33:35 PM EST
    has been aided and abetted by the MSM...How on earth would he have done with a fair media reporting....I submit those numbers would be quite different if that were the case...So don't discount propaganda and its helping Obama's campaign....

    numbers (none / 0) (#111)
    by tek on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:04:54 PM EST
    At this point, I'm not paying any attention to polls. I've read too many articles showing that the media is pumping Obama up falsely to ramp up interest in the race. That's probably why the polls were so off in NH.

    Parent
    Obama surge (none / 0) (#110)
    by tek on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:03:08 PM EST
    I think the Obama people are going to have to get out and rig the polls, aren't they? They've been so mean to Hillary Clinton that if she gets elected they'll all be on the black list.
    Love to see that!

    the only thing (none / 0) (#117)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:59:22 PM EST
    I have to look forward to if Obama wins the nomination is being able to laugh at all these "true believers" when the poop hits the fan for him as the nominee...and trust me it will happen....to ignore that fact, is truly drinking the Kool-aide...

    I'd say Frank Rich is tepidly (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:18:21 PM EST
    supporting Obama.

    oh yuck (none / 0) (#141)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:23:47 PM EST
    I can't stand him....LOL.....

    Parent
    A Leap Of Faith | 144 comments (144 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment