Obama Decides on Olympic Stance: Calls for Bush to Boycott Opening Ceremonies

Once again, Obama takes a cue from Hillary Clinton.

Last Wednesday, April 2: Obama says he's conflicted on Olympics

"I am of two minds about this, ...On the one hand, I think that what has happened in Tibet, China's support for the Sudanese government in Darfur, is a real problem." Still, Obama said, "I am hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it's partly about bringing the world together."

Monday, April 7, Hillary Clinton calls for Bush not to attend the opening ceremonies.

I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.

This Wednesday, April 9: Obama says to put boycott of Olympic opening ceremonies on the table.

"If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies.

Comments now closed.

< Insider Advantage PA Poll: Hillary Up By 10 | Puerto Rico Poll: Hillary Ahead by 13 Points >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I wonder what Clemons will say n/t (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:58:16 PM EST

    I was going to note that Mark Twain ... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:35:00 AM EST
    ... died in 1910, almost 100 years ago. But I tried Google first, and found this this post by Steve Clemons. I don't know him, but guess that's who you were referring to. So ...

    I get your point. By agreeing with Hillary, albeit belatedly, Obama must be just as "way wrong-headed" in Clemens' opinion. Perhaps tomorrow Clemons will write a new post condemning Obama for his "simple-minded, binary approach to US-China relations." And while he's on the subject, he could also lambast Obama for simply parroting Clinton's statements about foreign policy.


    The comments on that post are pretty funny, (none / 0) (#149)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:40:42 AM EST
    ....most of them were from the 7th, but a few people have posted since Obama's change of position.

    No...it's very deserving (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:00:57 AM EST
    You have to stand for something.  My god, the whole idea of globalization is that we have to hold up human rights, our future cannot only be based on corporate and economic values.  For once there is something with the symbolism and the world attention that we can unite on.  There is no wishy washiness on this.  This is how you change the world view of America, you stand up with the other Western leaders and you say , these are our core values.  

    Taking a stand (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:02:15 AM EST
    The worst damage of all the damage (which will take decades to catalogue) that Bush has done to America is taking us off the high road with his hypocrisy, mendacity and violation of basic human rights.

    This is how you change the world view of America, you stand up with the other Western leaders and you say , these are our core values.  

    Stellaaa, your statement reminds me of when Obama went to a very hostile China and pronounced that "Women's rights are human rights."  (I am assuming he did it the day after Clinton did...)


    He really likes that there table! (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:01:19 AM EST
    isn't he the one that said if he puts a piece of paper down on his desk, he has a hard time finding it again?

    LOVE the pic

    "we are the ones..." (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:11:58 AM EST
    we were waiting for, we bring Hope to us, but forget other nations.  They can wait.  

    My God, this is how America gets to join the world community again.  Love his foreign policy experience.  

    The audacity (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by reality based on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:19:40 AM EST
    of his audacity . . . .  

    So (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by sas on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:31:07 AM EST
    for a long time I wanted to know specifics from this man, instead of vague speeches about hope and change.  I waited for an original thought.

    And over time I have learned.

    He stands with what Hillary stands for.


    Except for counting the votes (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by reality based on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:40:12 AM EST
    of the people of Michigan and Florida, opposing the Cheney energy legislation, supporting  mandatory participation in universal health care solutions and who knows what else he, Axelrod and the media are keeping from us.

    perfectly in line (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:12:13 AM EST
    Love his foreign policy experience.  

    With his vast experience as a child: "Me, too!"


    Edwards "Two Worlds" (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:32:45 AM EST
    Obama "Two Minds". As he moves closer to being "the" candidate, he is going to be forced to actually take positions. This is going to seriously mar his "all things to all people" stance on pretty much every issue.

    The Two Minds of Barack Obama (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Oje on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:44:32 AM EST
    would make a great commercial. He is of two minds on the Iraq war (no to beginning the war and no to ending the war), he is of two minds on health insurance mandates (yes for children and no for adults), he is of two minds on NAFTA (yes for Texas, no for Ohio), and he is of two minds on the Olympics.

    Postpartisanship is just another way of saying, "I can't make up my two minds!"

    it's another variation (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by miguelito on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:47:42 AM EST
    of voting 'present'

    Remember (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:05:36 AM EST
    Clinton quoting the AP piece during one of the early debates: "he could have an argument with himself."

    The statement fell a bit flat (she's much better zinging him with policy stuff he has no idea about) but if the press was doing their job (hahaHAHAHAHA! "If monkeys flew outta my butt!") they would be slamming him on these inconsistencies.

    Whenever he goes off the "hope! dream! click your heels together and think of home!" message, he still sounds like a college professor debating both sides and letting his students decide.

    Uh, I already got my degree.  I don't want to debate human rights.  I want to enforce them.


    Kerry endorsed Obama because (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:10:37 AM EST
    like Kerry, Obama has never found an issue he couldn't stand on both sides of.

    I actually agreed the first time.  I don't think the games should be made political and every time I see the protests on TV I think they look like a lot of ridiculous pains in the asses.
    What is happening in Tibet, between China and Tibet is too serious a matter to be solved by a lot of people getting hysterical over the olympic torch.


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:41:17 AM EST
    Too serious a matter?  By too serious do you mean the worldwide ignoring of Tibet as a sovreign nation invaded and occupied by China?  Tibet is no longer shown on maps as a nation...just the name of a region of China.  

    Tibet is a forgotten country, a problem dismissed  It isn't a serious problem to the rest of the world.  

    I salute the protesters in Tibet who are giving their lives for a little bit of light to shine down on their plight.

    I salute the protesters who hound the torch around the world...making sure that at least for a time Tibet is not forgotten.

    Tibet is not a problem with a solution as you intimate (too be solved).  Like Taiwan Tibet is claimed by China and China will not relinquish its control. (for all the tea in China)

    Hounding the torch is just a wake-up call and I hope the world answers the phone and revisits their perception of China, their trade agreements with China, etc until such time that China begins treating its people with the respect that its heretofore enabling trade partners afford their own citizens (the US being one such entity).


    love this idea! (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:19:15 AM EST
    If he wins, he may be calling Clinton at 3 am to see what she would do before he makes any decisions!

    the longer this goes on (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by miguelito on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:44:46 AM EST
    the more I think he is a total fraud

    Bob Barr on C-Span this morning (none / 0) (#97)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:43:20 AM EST
    considering running for president as Libertarian, noted Obama's lack of substance..."hope and change" won't work in the general, etc.

    Isn't Gravel doing the same? (none / 0) (#125)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:40:41 AM EST
    That will be a wonderful battle for the Libertarian nomination...I guess.  I actually like Gravel, don't know a thing about Barr.

    I hope Gravel gets their nom.... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:21:57 AM EST
    I much prefer a left-leaning libertarian to a right-leaning one, but either will probably get my vote.  

    They tyrannically corrupt D & R Train must be stopped.


    Leadership is something people are born with (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:50:27 AM EST
    I know.  I'm a follower.  HRC is a leader as she has demonstrated so many times during this campaign.  Before any politician talked about the subprime meltdown, HRC was out there like Revere calling attention to it.  The video of her speech, March 2007 spelled out all the housing problems.  Not even  investors from Wall Street had recognized the meltdown.  People did not begin to get their money out until after Merrill Lynch wrote down 7 billion dollars in October 2007.  I was floored when I saw  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8lIxuame_E

    She is the best candidate at this time to lead this country.

    She is smart, she cares, she inspires, (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by reality based on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:06:10 AM EST
    she works hard, she is tough, she has a common touch, she is surrounded by advisers who know how to use the American government to defend and benefit its citizens fairly, she is the best qualified of the remaining candidates.  I find myself really liking her.  Amazing.

    it happens (none / 0) (#83)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:24:16 AM EST
    I have told my brothers and a few friends who seems to hate her at the moment that they more they get to know her the more they will like her.  I was for Gore and only started defending her because of the ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense being said every five seconds on dkos and mydd.  I kept urging people to make a smart reality based argument against her rather than continue to mis-characterize her.  It hasn't happened.  What did happen was that as I got to know Clinton I really began to like her.  

    The first thing that really impressed me was that she went to ykos and told people the truth and regardless of the hostility, she said what she thought and not what they wanted to hear.


    Kind of reminds (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Left of center on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:09:15 AM EST
    GE Implications (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Davidson on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:15:58 AM EST
    I know during the primary race that CDS has overwhelmingly kept legitimate criticism (let alone mockery) of Obama off limits, but I know the media and the Republicans will run with this--hard--if he's the nominee.  I can't help but think they'll add a misogynistic twist to it, perhaps something like, "Obama has his ba**s so tucked in his purse, his idea of 'leadership' is to fret like a little boy, unsure of what to do, and then decide--to follow the lead of a woman!  And he thinks he's ready to be commander-in-chief?!"  They'll never so blunt about it (exception: MSNBC), but the implications will be there.  Especially since he'd be running against Big John.

    (I added the asterisks because I'm not sure if the word for a certain type of male genitalia is considered foul language here)

    Problematic (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by oldpro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:19:38 AM EST
    After all, he says he'd meet with our enemies without preconditions!

    So...which is it?

    Put it on the table and boycott maybe?

    What my grandma used to call 'wishywashy.'

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:58:03 AM EST
    He has gone on record saying he doesn't believe the office of the president should be used as a diplomatic carrot.

    And that's exactly what's at stake here.


    Does this guy (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:20:35 AM EST
    ever have an original thought all his own? He's constantly copied every one of Hillary's economic plans, only he always takes out the meat and ends up with something that won't do the job. Then he lets her answer everything first at the debates so he can basically say the same thing. What's he gonna do when Hillary isn't there for him to copy from? Oh, yeah, that's right - call her up in the middle of the night and panic!

    Yeah, (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Left of center on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:26:24 AM EST
    Hillary will get a call at 3:00 a.m. and it will be Obama bugging her for advice.

    That's a good one! (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:42:43 AM EST
    Did you see the SNL skit? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:49:03 AM EST
    Obama calling Hillary in the middle of the night, asking really easy questions - and Hillary with a hair net on and yukky cold cream all over her face.

    Yeah (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by IzikLA on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:30:34 AM EST
    To anyone posting here, this is par for the course.  What is so aggravating is not that he follows Clinton's experience and judgment but that he gets all the attention and all the press for it.  Because of this he is literally surfing to the nomination but will crash when he gets to the General Election.

    Gordon Brown (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by facta non verba on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:33:53 AM EST
    the British PM announced that he would not attend the opening ceremonies. Now this is rather significant because as the head of the British Govt and host of the 2012 Olympic Games, it is a noticable absence. Prince Charles had already stated his opposition to the Games. I doubt the Queen as Head of State will attend.

    Here's the story:

    I am most disappointed in my mayor, Gavin Newsom, today. The handling of the Olympic Torch relay today in San Francisco was a disaster. The relay might as well have been held in the middle of the night in one of SF's many alleys. The Embarcadero was where the Torch Relay was to pass so all that closed off. But Newsome chose to alter the route and not tell anyone move it to Van Ness from Broadway up to the Marina Green and into the Presidio. Total disaster. Half the city was shut down for this.

    Obama supporters have excused Obama's (none / 0) (#101)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:55:48 AM EST
    confliction over making a definitive statement because Chicago is seeking to be Olympic host in 2016.
    Politics vs. human rights?

    Oh, please (none / 0) (#102)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:01:19 AM EST
    the way the US is reviled internationally, there is no way we'll get the Olympics for at least another sixty years.  Most of the world doesn't even know Chicago exists, let alone that O is from there.

    umm... (none / 0) (#108)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:08:19 AM EST
    do you seriously believe this:
    Most of the world doesn't even know Chicago exists, let alone that O is from there.

    yes, I certainly do (none / 0) (#110)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:13:54 AM EST
    Having travelled extensively through Europe (where I lived for a while), Australia, and bits of Africa and the Middle East I feel confident in saying that most of the outside world thinks of America only in terms of New York and California.  They couldn't find Chicago on the map, even if you pointed them in the general direction.

    Some in the UK and Holland do, but that's only because they travel more.  And of course they read lots of crime fiction, so only know about it in terms of Capone and crime noir.


    I would agree, except for one small demographic.. (none / 0) (#157)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:01:06 AM EST
    horse racing fans know where Chicago is, all horse racing fans. It's where the Arlington Million runs, a race that draws international entries. It also is one of the more popular racetracks for foreign horses since it has a great turf track. Most Europeans know America from her TV shows. And they don't include geography.

    I'm backing up Kathy on this too (none / 0) (#164)
    by angie on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:26:20 AM EST
    I've also traveled extensively in Europe and lived there too for months at a time, which not only makes me more qualified than Obama on foreign policy (using his criteria) but makes me able to vouch for the fact that most people outside of the US think: New York & California.  After that, maybe D.C & Texas (and that's because of JR Ewing).    Surprising to most Americans, I know, but it always is when you find out you aren't the center of the universe.

    You forget Al Capone (none / 0) (#178)
    by pagerd on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:00:34 PM EST
    If they think of Chicago, they think of gangsters.



    It's not about being "jerks"... (5.00 / 9) (#55)
    by gmo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:14:05 AM EST
    ...it's about exposing a pattern of behavior that's unacceptable for someone running to be the leader of the free world.  

    What's infuriating about Obama.is that this has been his m.o. throughout his entire campaign.  He basically just wants to be a more likeable, more electable Hillary Clinton, except for the fact that he doesn't touch her level of experience, knowledge and leadership.  

    If you look at his platform, he's done everything he can to emulate her entirely, basically say "we are 95% the same, but you like me better, right?"   She comes out with an economic plan? Boom - there's his me-too plan.  She proposes solutions for homeowners in trouble? Boom - there's his me too plan, exactly like hers.  

    And the 5% that they aren't alike on?  Those are the pieces Obama's cherry-picked out of Clinton's policies because they're not as popular, and would require real leadership to enact, regardless of whether that 5% actually matters.    

    Healthcare mandates are a perfect example: if they were considered more popular and less contentious, Obama would be on board (in the company of anyone who knows about the real path to get to universal healthcare). But he knows that convincing republicans in congress to enact such changes would take a real feat of political maneuvering, and so he becomes the appeaser, giving up on the real ideological fights and eschewing any decision-making responsibilities (e.g. voting "present" in the Illinois state senate on several tough issues) to appear to meet in the middle on every issue.  (And no, an anti-war speech by an unknown politician on an unwatched stage does NOT count as leadership on the Iraq war, sorry. Nor does making a defensive, deflective rant on the state of race in America in the wake of questions about your personal affiliations with racist pastors count as leadership, healing, or a path to hopeful unity.)

    Even watching him early on in the debates -- with simple yes or no show of hand questions, he was always the last to answer, watching who else raises their hand up or down first.  Rarely does Obama answer a question with an original thought of his own; rarely does he offer to answer first.  Rarely does he actually show the courage of his ideology.  He's always hesitant, always measuring the room before making a response, instead of answering from his gut and standing on his own two feet.  

    Even answering the questionnaire on his policy views 10 years ago -- when he obviously DID give his own answers (terse and unqualified as they were), he backpedals and gives excuses that someone else was doing his work for him?  Please.  That was probably the closest we'll ever get to an unscripted, raw set of answers from Obama.

    I don't want a president who just follows the popular trends when they suit his pursuit of the presidency (or subsequently, his favorability numbers).  I want real ideological leadership, and the occasional ugliness and unpopularity that comes along with it at times.    Sitting back and waiting on this issue to see which way the winds blow, an issue of basic human rights (about as black-and-white and ingrained in the definition of being an american as you can get, imo), is just embarrassing.

    And so,  Jeralyn's post calls this continued pattern of behavior directly into light.  It's not about being "jerks."  It's about needing to see Obama really, actually put his neck on the line for something he believes in, instead of hedging, voting "present" or otherwise copying the ideas of others.  That behavior might be okay when you're a junior senator who's still learning the ropes; it's not okay for the President of the United States.

    that is your opinion... (3.50 / 2) (#59)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:21:55 AM EST
    ...and it's about as right as Obama supporters claiming Clinton has a pattern of lying and playing the victim.

    It's just an opinion.  it's not fact.  What's so wrong about the state of discourse in this country is too many people touting out their opinions like we're all just supposed to look at it and go "Hmmm..you have a point".

    If Obama supporters have it wrong about Clinton (and I'm perfectly willing to accept that they do) why is it so hard to even conceive that you might have it wrong about Obama?

    THey're really not that bad...either of them.


    For someone who claims (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:32:08 AM EST
    not to be an Obama supporter, you certainly preachy. Opinions, generally grow out of observable FACTS.  

    See...that's a perfect example... (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by gmo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:34:00 AM EST
    ...of what I'll start calling the "Obama-95%" rule.

    If anyone draws a fairly legitimate distinction that shows Clinton's edge over Obama, the retort is usually something akin to what you've written -- that hey, they're basically the same, so stop criticizing him!

    I'm not buying it anymore.   On healthcare, on the economy, and yes, even on Iraq, Clinton shows superior leadership (which is, after all, the point of this thread).  

    Saying that Obama has similar views doesn't point to leadership. It shows that he knows how to take a temperature and be well-liked. You can argue that that quality makes for a better president (I don't believe so), but you can't argue that there's not a difference between the two here, or that we should accept either candidate willingly.  Because I don't.


    Yep and I would buy that argument more.... (3.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    ...if it worked both ways...ie, see they're basically the same so stop criticizing HER. Never works that way, though, does it?

    you normally post at orangeland (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:22:05 AM EST
    so take your holier than thou schtick back over there.

    I haven't seen you make one similar condemnation of the Hillary smears on dKos....Maybe you have..but I just checked at least the last two weeks of your comments and NADA.  Did you defend Hillary over the Bachtel smear?  NOPE.  Did you once say, "hey she has a right to stay in the race?" No, you didn't.

    Forgive me for being so blunt but you annoy me.  Calling for reason from one side while looking the other way for the opposing side?  That is your unbiased "I'm not for either side" stance?  Doesn't sound unbiased to me.  Sounds hypocritical...but then again I'm an abusive low information Clinton supporter...so what do I know?


    The problem with Obama is that (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:21:34 AM EST
    there is nothing behind the rhetoric. His "record" in the Ill. state Senate is mostly manufactured by Emil Jones to give him political credibility, he had little or nothing to do with actually writing or passing those bills. He does claim that they wouldn't have passed without him, which isn't true either. The Dems had a majority in the legislature, and they had been waiting for a majority to pass those bills. Obama had nothing to do with it.

    His association with Rezko and the fact that he never bothered to go a mile from his own home to see how his constituents were living in the housing that Rezko built is very telling. He recommended the man, and didn't do any follow up, except for accepting campaign contributions from the person who had Obama's constituents living in unheated slums paid for by tax money. His first responsibility was to his constituents, not Rezko.

    Why no one sees that and deplores the bad judgement repeatedly used is a mystery. I guess you Obama supporters just don't get it..he isn't qualified to be President, he didn't do the work he claims he did, and he didn't care enough about the people who voted for him to walk or drive a mile to see how they were living in housing his buddy put up. This is not an engaged politician, this is a narcissist looking for the next step up.

    Hillary gives a damn, Obama doesn't. It's just that simple.


    Then why bother responding? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:18:14 AM EST
    You sound like Obama:  saying one thing and doing another.  In the final analysis, no one really needs to explain their reason or reasons for preferring one candidate to the other.  First you called me biased and unfair and and I said "of course I am,"  lastly, one "whose opinion you do not give two squats for . . ."

    I will sleep very soundly tonight because I know Hillary will eventually be the nominee.

    Oh man (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:53:20 AM EST
    That's so sad.


    I didn't check through every single comment.  If you'd like to provide one where you scold the behavior of kossacks in the same manner you just scolded us, that'd certainly go a long way towards establishing for yourself a small measure of credibility.

    As the race wears on (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:22:33 AM EST
    I think that Obama's strategy, which is basically, "All Clinton, none of the baggage," is starting to wear thin.  The biggest problem is that he had to tear HRC down even more (talking about her "negatives" and "divisiveness", all the while touting himself as Mr Happy Pony) in order to build himself up.  He scripted the perfect movie with the good guys and the bad guys.  The only problem is that it's a remake--and the longer this goes on, the worse the remake seems.  Everyone has been to a remake of a movie where you enjoy it while you're watching it, but then you go to the bathroom and hear folks talking about things they didn't like about the movie, and you start thinking, "yeah, that was a weak scene," or,  "they're right, the original handled that plot point much better," and suddenly, you aren't as crazy about the movie anymore.

    Obama is a bad remake of a good Clinton movie.

    It becomes more obvious every day (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:27:10 AM EST
    why Obama is not ready to be president, and this is just the latest.

    You know what worries me?  When you have someone in the WH who is essentially afraid to lead, who does the leading for him?

    [And I just realized that "Me, too" abbreviates to "MT" - which sounds like "empty."  Interesting.]

    Why do think the Kennedys and Kerrys... (none / 0) (#150)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    of the world jumped on his bandwagon so early? They have seen him up close in the Senate and they think they can manipulate him. Hillary? Not so much.

    But of course to the MSNBC crowd this will be a glorious example of Obama's courageous leadership skills.


    Thumbs up, Thumbs down (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:35:51 AM EST
    Really not that interesting as politics.

    The US-China relationship is one of the most complex and intractable foreign policy challenges faced by the US right now. Obama was right to be cautious about approaching this issue. One can dismiss this thoughtful approach as wishy-washy, or copycat, but all it reveals is a visceral revulsion toward the guy, and possibly some serious confusion about what is at stake in this particular case.

    The boycott is a rhetorical gesture, not entirely empty, but notably limited in its effect. I'd be more impressed if there was some actual expression by those who favor it as to what they would be willing to sacrifice to "punish" China. How about some serious inflation? How about watching the collapse of some very large US companies, ones that still employ large numbers of Americans, ones that are now so leveraged and dependent on Chinese cheap labor that they wouldn't last a day without it.

    Hillary had to weigh all those factors too (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:48:55 AM EST
    But she was out front on this. Even before Gordon Brown made his position known. Now it is very safe for Obama to say "me too" when the leader of the UK is boycotting.

    On practically every single issue Obama practices followship, not leadership.


    its like drug addiction (none / 0) (#103)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:04:56 AM EST
    it may suck to quit in the short term, but it will be healthier in the long run.

    The reestablishment of trade with China came with the agreement that China would meet certain standards regarding, among other things, human rights.

    China has failed in that regard.  The United States should revisit our trade agreements with China.  The US should get itself off the Chinese tit in terms of loans to pay for our budget overruns.

    Will some companies get screwed?  Sure.  So what?  I haven't shopped at Wal-Mart for over five years for two reasons:  treatment of employees (specifically immigrants) and their reliance on sweat shop labor in China, India, Indonesia, etc to provide their shoppers with cheap goods.  

    If those companies had a moral code they wouldn't be doing business in China anyway.  They aren't driven by morals though.  They are driven by the quest for bigger profits.  Why should I care if they fail?  

    Inflation already exists by the way.  In most parts of the US wages have risen far slower than the rate of inflation.  Congress gives themselves an inflationary bump in pay annually.  Most of us aren't that lucky.  


    When I first saw this on Raw Story (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:52:24 AM EST
    my first thought was, "Me too!"

    I have been wondering for a while why Obama ran for president after such a short time in office. Wouldn't it have made sense to build up more of a record? He's such a young guy, even if he waited another ten years he'd only be 56.

    But now I know: It's because his schtick only works if he's a political unknown. Everything he's selling depends on his being a blank slate. If he had amassed more experience and spent more time in office, he couldn't pretend to be a Washington outsider and a new kind of politician.

    He would be seen as he truly is: a man who is blessed with the gift of oratory and a lot of charisma, but not much else, and certainly not a Senator who is presidential material.

    Senators have a tough time running (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:33:24 AM EST
    for President when they have long voting histories.  They take a lot of flack for how they voted on certain bills during the campaign while their competitors leave out all the details of why they voted how they did because some bills are very complex things.  Governors historically fair much better running for President.  Ideally though if a Senator wants to run for President most pros would tell them to do it early in their Senatorial career.  McCain is an exception here but considering his lifetime devotion to the Republican party they sure made him fight for it.

    Caption: "What she said!" (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:06:11 AM EST

    wow were you guys (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:17:14 AM EST
    this harsh on hillary the FIRST time she was asked about this on March 25th and she didn't answer? I mean that what 10 days till she finally made a call, I hope you guys weren't atacking her the same way.

    so what exactly is the problem again? that Obama hasn't officially called for boycotts?

    I mean heaven forbid people have DIFFERENT opinions on what should be done, I think boycotting at all is a waste of time as we won't follow it up with anything. what has China been under a rock? They know the world wants them to change their policies but they also know we won't actually do anything besides meaningless gestures as they buy our debt and money rules all. they are a most favored nation for a reason.

    but still where was this outrage on March 26th when Hillary wasn't calling for boycotts yet, or 27th or the 28th? or the 29th? how about the 30th? was anyone praising Hillary for her stand on the 31st? were you questioning Obama's ability to lead on this issue back on April 1st?

    but the second Hillary finally declared a position THEN the well why hasn't Obama also called for boycotts start?


    You're missing the point. (none / 0) (#120)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:36:18 AM EST
    Barack Obama has a history of copying everything Hillary does. This is just another example. Read upthread for more.

    no my point is why (none / 0) (#130)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:51:03 AM EST
    did this not become about Barack BEFORE Hillary said anything?

    everyone is acting like this is a forgone conclusion that you should be calling for boycotts, but I am pointing out I didn't notice any of this talk back when Hillary had her first chance on the 25th?

    so I asked why not?

    where were the calls for the boycott then? was it because it wouldn't make sense to attack Obama on it when Hillary hadn't done it? was Hillary questioned for not deciding right then and there? is anyone upset it took her what 10 or so days to make a decision?

    so why is Obama getting flack for not doing it before Clinton?


    so you have no response (none / 0) (#132)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    to the actual topic of the post.

    does Barack continually copy HRC?



    I think its incorrect, (none / 0) (#135)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:09:23 AM EST
    or at least, the balanced thing to do would be to point out that Hillary is NOT the first person to call for boycotts, so its kinda hard to say that the 8th person is following the 7th person, and say that the 8th person should be ashamed for not being the 7th himself.

    also like I said  I wonder why no one was worried about Obama and his boycott stance a week ago, a concern that no one still seems to want to address,

    but no I don't tend to think Obama follows Hillary, both their Healthcare plans are based on SOMEONE ELSE'S idea, and were published a while ago so no copying there.

    and I just assume that most democrats are going to share alot in common, are we then to suggest that the first democrat to state something gets credit and ALL other democrats are just copying that 1 democrat? or is this only a Hillary/Obama thing? I seem to remember Edwards supports claiming once that Hillary was copying Edwards on something.

    and I am pretty sure Obama didn't go out of his way to give an opinion, more like people like you who were silent while Hillary took 10 days to decide on a course of action, immediately started saying why hasn't Obama stated an opinion once Hillary was done giving hers.

    but I could be wrong, which then brings back the question, where were the calls for Obama's stance on the boycott on the 26th (day after Hillary didn't answer) to the day she did finally give a stance? and what does it say that none of you cared about his stance until AFTER Hillary finally gave one so you could attack him for it.

    also why is he attacked for taking so long to make a stance, but Hillary gets a pass? and Why is Obama copying Hillary but Hillary is not copying Pelosi?


    Factually, you are incorrect about whether (none / 0) (#141)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:22:35 AM EST
    Barack does continually copy HRC.

    His policy proposals, such as his economic plan and his health care plan, came out after hers and are essentially the same or weaker.

    Thus, the point of the post is factually correct, whether you agree with it or not.

    I am concerned with BHO's ability to make his own decisions and come up with his own ideas because he is running for President. What I've seen so far gives me more confidence in HRC than BHO.

    Now THAT is an opinion (with which I'm sure you'll disagree). ;-) However, I am basing that opinion partially on what this post is pointing out.


    I think you could also add (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:44:13 AM EST
    the fact that Obama voted "present" 130 times in the Illinois Senate.  I understand the argument that on a few key votes, you need political cover, but 130 times?? Is this leadership?

    "..in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

    In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

    In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

    And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.


    And at least 36 times he was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.

    This seems to be a pattern with him - stick his finger in the wind and see which way the wind is blowing.


    Nice Spin (none / 0) (#175)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:49:50 PM EST
    Any particular reason that you left out the fact that the 129 present votes were out of 4000 votes?  Didn't know? Well I would think that if you interested in doing anything except repeating empty talking points, you would see how the 129 votes compared to the total and how it compared to other legislators.

    Yes, why bother doing a little work when ignorant slamming is more fun.

    And if anything looking carefully at the votes, especially where he was the lone dissenter, it shows leadership more than it does not.

    For instance one on his lone dissents:

    State Senator Christine Radogno, a Republican, was a co-sponsor of the bill to let children as young as 15 be prosecuted as adults if charged with committing a crime with a firearm on or near school grounds.


    "If he voted a flat-out no," Mr. Mannard said, "somebody down the road could say Obama took this vote and was soft on crime."


    A present vote is a protest no vote. It is not an abstain vote or an absent vote

    In Illinois, the "present" vote works as a vote against a measure during final action.

    State Sen. John Cullerton (D) calls the "present" vote "a no vote with an explanation." Legally, there's not much difference between the two votes, but practically, it can let the sponsors or other legislators know of problems with the bill that should be corrected.



    It's been pointed out (none / 0) (#143)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:27:16 AM EST
    Pelosi isn't a presidential candidate.

    Pelosi says what she says as a representative of a very liberal part of America not running for election or re-election.


    so what the only 3 (none / 0) (#171)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    opinions that matter on this issue are the 3 Candidates for the President? what about Ex presidents? does Bill Clinton's opinion on this matter? Al Gore? why is it that only these 3 people, are the ONLY opinions that seem to matter on this?

    what about John Kerry he ran for president in '04? so the only 3 opinions that we should seek out on this are 3 people running for President in 2008, anyone else is not important enough for their opinion to matter, including Bill Clinton a former president who actually made China a Most Favored Nation, he would have no sway whatsoever with China? none at all huh?

    I guess I just don't understand the argument that Obama must come out and speak on the issue and no one else besides Hillary or Obama matter because they aren't running for president and thus couldn't possibly have any influence.


    But Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#173)
    by kayla on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    has been critical of human rights violations in China for quite some time now.  Longer than this Olympics engangement was ever an issue.  I don't know much about Pelosi's position on this over the years, but it was no surprise to me that Clinton is against showing up for opening ceremonies, because she's been so openly critical of China for so long.  Based off of previous statements from Hillary on China, this isn't a surprising stance for her at all, whether Pelosi took the stance first or not.

    That being said, I think Obama was right in his first statement, and it's odd that he decided to be more firm on it now.  I wish he had stood by his original position.  


    TruthMatters, respectfully... (none / 0) (#182)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:26:59 PM EST
    you would agree that right now, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have a unique opportunity regarding even a symbolic gesture given their high media profiles?

    Would you agree that in the midst of a very tough nomination race, even the smallest misstep could be a big problem?

    If so, then being the one to stand up and take the politcal risk first is showing at least some courage and leadership, don't you think?

    And you can see how the one who stands up second can be perceived as waiting to see which way the wind blows?

    Is this the first time Sen. Obama has trailed his opponents in public positions? No.

    Is this the first time Sen. Obama has chosen the safe route politically? No. His "Present" votes are indicative of this choice, though I would argue that not ever vote against core principles is cowardly.

    I understand why politicans would vote for or against or "Present" on a core political belief because they need political cover. For example, the Illinois State Senate anti-abortion votes Sen. Obama made. There was no risk on the issue itself, but some of the State Senators would face fallout in the next election---that's why Sen. Obama went to Planned Parenthood and made the argument for himself and other State Senators before the vote. Planned Parenthood said okay.

    This is just politics. Not new politics. Not old politics. Just politics.

    So here we are with this goofy symbolic call for Pres. Bush to make a symbolic gesture, and Sen. Obama can't be the first to take a stand. Again.

    Can you see how someone can judge this as yet another failure of political nerve and leadership?

    I've got some other examples (his anti-war stance for one), but I don't think I have to go that far to show you how this is a valid argument.


    Yes He Can! (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by OxyCon on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:33:14 AM EST
    ...copy everything Hillary does or says!

    The new Obama slogan "Just like Hillary, only with Newkindapolitics!"

    Or another "Just like Hillary only cool and hip baby! Wanna kiss!"

    This is a good example of why I have a problem (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by FLVoter on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:48:39 AM EST
    with Sen. Obama.  Early on I was conflicted with whom to support.  As I researched I firmly became a Sen. Clinton supporter because sometimes you do not need to look at "all sides".  Sometimes things are either right or wrong and you need to take a stand even if it is unpopular.  At times Sen. Obama gets bogged down with "analysis paralysis."  But to me the bottom line is that when you stand for everything, you stand for nothing.

    They occupy Tibet... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:18:00 PM EST
    ...we occupy Iraq.

    While one can certainly criticize and condemn the Chinese government for their actions and their repressive ways, our crimes in Iraq FAR outdistance the Chinese in Tibet -- and in Darfur.  The Chinese are wrong and violently so, and I have no problem with the protests.  I have a problem with the double standard, especially when the standard we have set in Iraq is a much more wretched one.  The Chinese never really surprise us, we know who they are.  It is us, the freedom loving U.S., who is the real two (if not more) faced beast around the world.  Our hair trigger gets pulled a lot more, in a lot more places, for reasons as dubious as the Chinese in Tibet.

    But he's not actually calling for a boycott (4.66 / 3) (#23)
    by Grey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:01:02 AM EST
    Obama's statement, in full (emphasis added):

    "If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies. As I have communicated in public and to the President, it is past time for China to respect the human rights of the Tibetan people, to allow foreign journalists and diplomats access to the region, and to engage the Dalai Lama in meaningful talks about the future of Tibet. I am also deeply concerned about China's failure to support efforts to halt the genocide in Darfur. Regarding the Beijing Olympics this summer, a boycott of the opening ceremonies should be firmly on the table, but this decision should be made closer to the Games."

    Obama is only saying it should be in the table, to be considered later.  He is not calling for a boycott at all, at least not right now, and it's a mistake to say that he is.

    The media have been falling for this all day and it's been driving me nuts.

    Same as Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:12:01 AM EST
    Her statement was:

    I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.

    They read different to me (4.75 / 4) (#36)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:28:46 AM EST
    Hers is, he should plan on staying home unless something changes. His is, it's on the table for consideration and we'll look at it when we get closer (and I know which way the wind is blowing?)

    To me, too n/t (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Grey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:08:11 AM EST
    Not faulting you (4.66 / 3) (#32)
    by Grey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:17:27 AM EST
    My annoyance is with the media, not you (at all!).  They've been parsing Obama's statement all day to make it sound as though he's taken a firm stand.  He's not.

    My patience has been thin with them for a while.  Can't imagine why.



    funny how most people (none / 0) (#165)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:26:27 AM EST
    don't even know just how "exactly the same" Obama's position was to Clinton's!  Thanks Jeralyn.  I myself had not even heard anyone talk about the qualification in Clinton's statement.

    There are no two minds on this! (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:04:22 AM EST
    There is only one:  protect human rights.  

    Come on... (3.50 / 2) (#1)
    by ROK on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:57:49 PM EST
    You're digging if you think that this is worthy of a post.

    It's just one more example (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:31:10 AM EST
    of his experience deficiency syndrom.  With troubles in several places in the world happening all at once, and he touts his stay in Indonesia when he was 6-10 years as part of his foreign policy strength . . . Heaven help us all!

    Of course, what other choice does he have except to follow in the wake of Hillary in terms of policy initiatives?


    you'd have to be pretty biased... (4.33 / 3) (#16)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:47:26 AM EST
    ...to think that both Clinton and Obama lack in the "leadership" department.  They've been dancing around each other's positions throughout this entire campaign cycle.

    You say Obama has experience deficit, an Obama supporter would say Clinton has a judgement deficit.  A clinton support might say Obama lacks substance.  An Obama supporter might say Clinton lacks political courage.

    Just stop it already!  I don't want to hear it anymore!  I'm tired of people telling me what they hate about the candidate they DON'T support, like they are some how an unbiased paragon of reason and perspective.

    Tell me what you love about Clinton.  That is a credit to her.  Don't tell me what you think you know about (and dislike about) Obama.  


    Of course I am biased (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:36:57 AM EST
    in favor of the candidate I think will make the best president, and that is Hillary Clinton.  This is my right. She'll make a better president than Bill Clinton, according to Chelsea Clinton.  You want to talk about judgement?  How about Rezko and Wright who precede the Iraq situation, which incidentally 85% of the people at that time supported the decision (if we can believe the polls)?

    And I also discriminate against people who say one thing and do another. As in practicing a new kind of politics then turns out to be just like any other politician.

    And if Obama is going to tout his stay in Indonesia when he was 6-10 years old as part of his foreign policy strength; what about the judgement he showed as a teenager in using drugs "a pothead" to use his own words? Of course he chose to give it up.  It seems to me that this issue should also factor into assessing his character, especially in light of his "words".  


    Can you accept at least... (3.00 / 1) (#47)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:55:58 AM EST
    ...that you being biased for Clinton doesn't exactly give you a fair perspective on Obama?  Because I've seen it the other way around and it's not any prettier.  

    NO matter who wins, we cannot afford (as a party) to build up such a strong hatred of the "other" candidate (the one you don't support), that we don't unify around the nominee.

    NO matter who wins the nom, the democrat has GOT to win the white house.  Spending time trashing each other is going to make that difficult to impossible.

    Clinton would be a good president.  Obama would be a good president.  McCain would be a disaster.

    We have GOT to keep our perspective in this.


    no, see that is where you take the leap (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:07:26 AM EST
    "Obama will be a good president"...I don't HAVE to believe that because YOU think it.

    Don't ask someone to refrain telling you what you should think while finishing your statement with a proclamation as to what others should think.

    I do NOT think Obama would be a good president.  I do NOT believe McCain would be a disaster.  I don't HAVE to vote for either one.

    Every single one of us is splitting more than one hair.  So what?  We all come to our conclusions through information we gather.  Some see Obama as new and different.  I see an opportunist who is neither new nor different.  Some see Obama as a great leader.  I do not, nor can I, because the record of achievement is not there.  Clinton isn't the be all end all..but for me she is the here and now.  Obama is not the be all end all...but for me he is a maybe someday but not today.


    Biased for Clinton because she is better (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:08:09 AM EST
    and would make a better president.  It is a perspective gained from considering their qualifications and everything that has gone on in this campaign.   I really do not think that Obama will make as good a president as Hillary Clinton.  If your idea of fairness is for me to accept that the two of them would EQUALLY make good presidents, then call me unfair.  That is your right.  But I am not voting for Obama and that's that.

    Uh..what??? (2.00 / 1) (#168)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:35:10 AM EST
    we cannot afford (as a party) to build up such a strong hatred of the "other" candidate

    This is the wrong site to be preaching that, you need to go back to DKos and tell them. They are the ones excoriating Hillary in vicious, rude, misogynist and profane terms. They are the ones who say that they won't vote for the Dem candidate if Obama isn't nominated.

    I came here from DKos, was DemFem there, because I got so tired of being called names, getting troll rated for having a differing opinion, ie. Obama isn't God on a stick, and saying so.

    Coming over here and calling for civility in political discourse is really disingenuous, given the atmosphere of uncivil discourse at your home blog. You should go back there and post about civil discourse on the candidates. We already have that here, but it is sorely lacking at DKos.

    Go home and clean up your own house before coming here and telling us that ours is messy.


    Dems must win! (none / 0) (#169)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:40:27 AM EST
    I have to say, I'd have agreed with that a month back.  Now I am more focused on whether the winning candidate is qualified to be president.  This is the first election I may sit out since 1956.  Please, let it be Hillary!

    What I like (not love) about Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:28:48 AM EST
    I like Clinton because she is the best candidate in 2008.  She has a tremendous mind to understand a massive amount of information and synthesize that information to identify problems.  She has also a great ability to look at the problem and come up with solutions to solve it.  A good example of something that is happening right now is the meltdown of the housing industry.  To give you an idea of the immensity of the problem, the IMF has issued an alert for world leaders to deal with the crisis.  In March of 2007, yes 2007, HRC looked at the economic data and sounded the alarm of the danger to the economic stability of the US if the problem was not addressed.  She came up with a detailed stimulus package to help homeowners. Those who understand the issue, like Jim Cramer, have called Hillary the best candidate with the most sophisticated understanding of complex economic issues.  We know how much she has worked to get healthcare for every American.

    I want to like Obama. (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:40:51 AM EST
    I really do.  

    But I keep on waiting and waiting for him to show me what he's made of, what he has and why he's not a just another pretty face with some glowing oratory.

    I'm impressed by some things.  I'd consider him an employee with a lot of potential, but I wouldn't pick him as my CEO.  I see talent, not leadership.  I see the ability to play to a crowd, to make them like him, to make them like themselves.  Obama is a great front man, a first class figurehead, a stellar salesman - but where's the substance?  

    A motivational speaker does not policy wonk make.  Sure he can rely on others for that, but we've had seven years of that particular style of leadership.  I don't want to risk that again.  


    oh please Dawn (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:01:50 AM EST
    you would be more credible if you ever once made this argument to an Obamapologist on dkos.

    If it provokes a reaction (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:45:19 AM EST
    it's worthy of a post.

    Seems like it did.


    and if that reaction... (3.50 / 2) (#18)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:48:50 AM EST
    ...is a strong desire to pull out my hair and scream at the stupidity of mocking a candidate for doing (essentially) the right thing...does that still make it worthy?

    It's kind of hard to see that from here.


    Jeralyn wasn't mocking him (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:58:55 AM EST
    for "doing the right thing."

    She was pointing out that, once again, the candidate who offers superior judgment in lieu of experience is following Hillary's lead.

    If he's just going to do what Hillary says, why don't we elect her and cut out the middleman?


    uh huh. (1.00 / 2) (#26)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:06:13 AM EST
    and clinton's always the one leading is she?

    She has never EVER EVER just followed what Obama says.

    Uh huh. Riiiiiiiight.

    Those two have been following each other all cycle.  neither are strong leaders, they're just circling each other.


    clinton is a strong leader, obama is not (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:30:29 AM EST
    It is beyond the pale to suggest Clinton isn't a strong leader.  She made mistakes, but she did introduce universal healthcare at the national level waayyy back in the 90s and set the stage for SCHIP.  She clearly understands bold and incremental change solutions and has led in both cases going back over well over 10 years.  She has a history of leadership.

    Obama is known for two things to my knowledge: working with the police unions to get videotaped interrogations and hiring a lawyer to get everyone else kicked out of the primary.  Both are only known by policy wonks.  More recently, he ignored his "star power" and opted not to use political capital while in the senate--instead letting others do the work on immigration and remaining silent on democratic issues that he could have championed.

    Both candidates followed Edwards in this campaign, but Clinton has a stronger record of leadership historically and in the present.  


    And he didn't even do that (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:31:37 AM EST

    Obama is known for two things to my knowledge: working with the police unions to get videotaped interrogations

    according to Todd Spivak's article.  BTW, I'm friends with a Houstonite who says that the Houston Press is a very credible news org.


    I am not suggesting clinton is not a strong... (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:44:00 AM EST
    ...leader as a means of saying Obama is.

    I don't happen to think either is a strong leader.


    Cite examples please (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:13:36 AM EST
    neither are strong leaders, they're just circling each other

    You must have been watching a different campaign from me. Please cite examples of Clinton's position on issues having been arrived at by following Obama.


    Can you provide an example (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:15:41 AM EST
    of an instance where Obama led and Hillary followed?

    The war in Iraq isn't one.  If anything, he's followed her lead there too.


    name one issue Obama has led (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:13:34 AM EST
    When Edwards suspended, the joke was "Obama lost his best speech writer" - because Obama had always been last to release a major policy proposal after Edwards and/or Hillary.

    You don't get credit for being right ... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:01:44 AM EST
    ... if all you did was copy someone else's answer. Didn't you learn that at school?

    There's really only two answers.... (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:11:48 AM EST
    ...there's the right answer, and there's the wrong answer.

    Should Oama just shut the heck up for no other reason than Clinton just happened to come up with the right answer first...this time?  I'm sure you wouldn't diss him for staying silent...would you?

    Or heaven forbid, should he be bold and come out in favor of the wrong answer so you can call him out for some completely different reason?

    I stand by my claim.  She is mocking him for doing what's right.  I'm sure Clinton supporters don't like it when Clinton gets criticized for being a johnny-come-lately to denouncing the Iraq War.  We should be spending less time watching the timelines for these answers and spend more time rewarding good behavior when it happens (and criticising bad behavior).

    get some freaking perspective.  You guys are being total jerks for no good reason.

    And no, smug self-congratulatory validation is not a good reason.


    Time is of the essence, in this instance (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:02:47 AM EST
    Should Oama just shut the heck up for no other reason than Clinton just happened to come up with the right answer first...this time?

    If it were just "this time" you might have a point. But this is just the latest example of Obama copying Hillary's answers rather than having his own opinions.

    When challenged to produce the right answer, it does not work to first say "let me think about that" and then later to say "Oh yes, I knew that too" after the right answer has been revealed. People who seen taking that approach are not respected by those who observe it. They are dismissed as "fakers," "frauds," or "phonies".

    If you do not already have enough experience of life to know that, then you will just have to accept that your opinion is not going to add much value to this particular discussion. On the other hand, if you do know what I'm talking about, then please respond to the substance of this thread, rather than pretending you don't get the point.


    It's 3 am.....time is of the essence! (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:45:09 AM EST
    Heh.  Maybe I'll make a button:

    [What Would Hillary Do?]

    (I already know what Obama would do.  Give a masterful speech and then make the rounds on talk shows, launching the propaganda.)


    a powerful speech first given by Deval Patrick (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:24:28 AM EST
    and then only if he can read it off a teleprompter.

    3 AM-Yeah, I know the critics punked it, but (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:04:35 AM EST
    Over the course of elections, a few ads always stand out. Doesn't mean they are right or wrong, but they stand out. Interesting that when anyone says 3AM anymore, everyone knows it refers to the Hillary ad. And to Hillary.

    Never seen the ad! (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:28:51 AM EST
    I loathe ads in general.  I like information, data and facts.  But being force fed a POV and a narrative - I don't like that.  That's why I'm here instead of dk.

    But anyway - if Obama has to check which way the winds of public opinion are blowing every time he makes a decision....geez, what will he do when there's no time to look at the latest polls?

    I'm beginning to think Obama is the anti-Gore: great campaigner, poor candidate.


    stop it...just...STOP IT! (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by DawnG on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:16:25 AM EST
    agreement isn't copying!  You guys are so far gone, you have completely lost perspective.  Obama and Clinton agree on a lot of different things.  That doesn't make Clinton the source of all good stuff and Obama the simpering tag along.  It means they both have more in common than they have in difference.  You'd think that'd make both of them perfectly good candidates but...my mistake.

    go on, go ahead.  Hate Obama if it makes you feel better.  I don't care anymore.  I'll just be over here in the corner getting used to the idea of a McCain presidency.  Don't let my cries for reason get in the way of a perfectly good burn on the object of your derision.


    Nobody "hates"... (5.00 / 8) (#61)
    by gmo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:26:48 AM EST
    ...Obama.   But many of us believe firmly that he's simply not ready.  

    And frankly, no one appreciates the following two things:

    1. Dangling the specre of a McCain presidency as a method for brow beating others into voting for either candidate.

    2. Making the "hey! they're just the same!" argument for accepting Obama, because they're NOT the same.  This forum is for drawing out the distinctions between the candidates.  Calls to end discussion based on the "Obama-95%" rule don't cut it.

    I wouldn't say I hate Obama (4.33 / 6) (#72)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:19:13 AM EST
    but I strongly dislike Obama as far as being a potential president as I find him insufferably arrogant, experience challenged, and too quick to say or do whatever needs to be done to keep the media on his good side.  I don't have a problem with him wanting to get off the Wright track...but I had a problem with his speech and the media's immediate portrayal that a "spin" political speech was somehow akin to speeches given by MLK Jr.

    As for Dawn:  you want why I like Hillary?

    Smart, steadfast, an open book to the media and the right.  She was a decade and a half ahead of the curve on health care.  She has commented time and again on how we need to help the POOR when Obama (and even Edwards) more often say that we need to help the Middle Class.  She stands behind the fight against AIDS in Africa.  She has called for Bushco and Congress to step up to the plate concerning Darfur.   She HAS worked for and stood behind racial and gender equality issues...what has she gotten for the efforts?  Twenty-something women calling her a "hag" and other twenty-somethings calling her a race-baiter or outright racist.  

    How much would you like?  I can make a list as long as you need.


    Quick question (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:45:07 AM EST
    On Dailykos, when someone says "Clinton copied ____'s plan", how much time would you spend defending her saying she has the right answer and that's all that matters?

    Would you say those people were too far gone!???

    The needle on the hypocrisy meter is fluctuating wildly.  I'll await your answer.


    DawnG: Agreement isn't copying! (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:08:27 AM EST
    You are right, but please notice that as a rule, as seen in the debates, over and over BO agrees with HRC.  If it went both ways, you would be correct, therefore I find your statement FALSE.  If you are going to defend BO on not copying, you have to come with at least a few of those policies where BO was ahead of the curve.  I'll start: healthcare, housing meldown, stimulus package.

    they don't agree on this (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:59:28 AM EST

    So would that be out of bounds as well?  I mean it points to Hillary being right, first!


    You ignore the smart answer... (none / 0) (#127)
    by tbetz on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:45:56 AM EST
    ... which is that George Bush is the wrong president to execute such a gesture.

    It's sad that neither Clinton nor Obama said, "If anyone else were President, I'd call upon him or her to boycott the Olympic opening ceremonty.  But given the Bush administration's history of invading a nation that never harmed nor threatened us, illegally and immorally imprisoning both American citizens and foreigners without just cause or warrant, and illegally and immorally torturing many of those prisoners, George Bush boycotting the Olympic opening ceremony would be an expression of pure hypocrisy, and would do nobody any good.  In fact it would have the potential to harm the just cause of the oppressed Tibetan people.  Therefore, I call for George Bush to hang his head in shame for having stolen the moral high ground from the good people of the United States of America."


    You go to the Olympics (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:14:38 AM EST
    with the President you have, not the one you wish you had.

    Truth must really hurt. (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:48:19 AM EST
    But there's no reason to be pulling hair out:  after all Obama is practically the nominee, if are to believe the MSM and his supporters.  But we all know Hillary--she's the 'unsinkable Molly Brown.' And as Maya Angelou says, "she'll rise!"

    No, it reveals his character (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:49:15 AM EST
    He is indecisive and unsure of himself, so he is unwilling to take a firm position on anything until he is sure that his words will be seen as "the right thing". This is why he so often parrots Hillary's responses during the debates.

    To advocate a token protest at the Beijing Olympics was not a hard decision for Obama -- especially when Bush is the one who would have to actually do the protesting!

    When he forced the US to boycott the Olympics in 1980, Carter showed orders of magnitude more courage and personal convictions than Obama is showing by his belated statements today. This incident may seem trivial, but to me it reveals a key difference in their characters. And the more Obama differs from Carter, the less I admire him.


    Great pic... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by workingclass artist on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:35:00 AM EST
    Chuckling over coffee. Thanks. He's starting to remind me of my annoying little brother. Go Hill.

    Who Is Clinton Copying? (3.50 / 2) (#39)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:33:48 AM EST
    Merkel? or is it Bernard Kouchner or Donald Tusk or was it Václav Klaus?

    Geez can't the Americans do anything original?

    iirc - none of them are Americans (none / 0) (#105)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:05:45 AM EST
    but perhaps they LED on the issue in their own countries.

    Except (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    The Pinata party here has nothing to do being American or not, it seems to  be only solely about rallying the fans, because the actual issue as stated is beyond thin, as I thought I pointed out above.

    I get it, it is like the frenzied rooting for sports teams, which I am not fond either. Most of the pinata threads here have at least a smidgen of content, this one seems so thin that it should be embarrassing obvious that the only point of the thread bashing Obama to, at best.


    Angela Merkel (none / 0) (#133)
    by Nasarius on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:58:59 AM EST
    Wow, that's a terrible article. Here's what Deutsche Welle reported:

    The decision to stay away was not a boycott in protest to China's crackdown on Tibet or its wider human right record, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Friday.

    Steinmeier said that neither the chancellor, Interior and Sports Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble nor he had plans in place to attend even before the People's Republic's recent crushing of pro-independence protestors in Lhasa.

    "As far as I know, Schaeuble has not planned to take part in the opening ceremony... As for myself and the chancellor, I don't think so either," Steinmeier told journalists ahead of an informal meeting of EU foreign ministers in Slovenia. "In that sense, there has been nothing to cancel."

    "A 'no' to the Olympics in order to relieve our consciences would help neither the people in China nor the sports organizations... At the moment I am against the kind of boycott debate that is going on in some European member states," he said.


    Merkel is not attending, only in the sense that she was never going to bother anyway.


    In my mind, (2.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:22:31 AM EST
    his name is now Barack Ometoo.  (I am not slinging mud at BO, but does anyone else recall the foghorn radio commercial for Lifebouy soap?)

    so what does that make Hillary? (none / 0) (#114)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:27:35 AM EST
    she only made a stand after Pelosi did.

    Is Pelosi running for president? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:30:59 AM EST
    That would explain a lot, actually.

    And, technically, I said Bush should boycott the ceremonies last November, so Pelosi stole from ME.


    SO YOU (none / 0) (#119)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:36:18 AM EST
    started all this!

    well I disagree with a boycott! but influence is greater then I thought!


    I have often said (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:39:33 AM EST
    that I am all powerful.  And now you see that it is true.

    Actually, I made a speech about this back in 2002.  I took it off my website for a while, but I put it back up when these poseurs started trying to co-opt my ideology.

    Sincerest form of flattery my a*s.


    Kathy - thank you (none / 0) (#126)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    for your great sense of humor; it's sorely needed these days.

    [bowing down - I hope that's the appropriate homage to your all-powerfulness! ;-) ]


    That was very fun (none / 0) (#139)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:15:24 AM EST
    I just about spit out my coffee.  I needed a good out loud laugh after reading a certain poster this morning.

    Man, he reminds me... (none / 0) (#75)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:43:22 AM EST
    ...of my childhood Richard Scarry books (you know, Lowly the Worm?) and the story of Pig "Will!" and Pig "Won't!".  Pig "Won't" started to see the kinds of rewards Pig "Will!" was reaping for his good behavior and Pig "Won't!" became Pig "Me Too!"

    Wow, it's a separate book, but the book I had when I was little had the story in a collection.  I loved those stories...a great way for kids to learn manners, friendship and leadership.  Perhaps Obama should've had those books at his disposal.

    You know BrandingIron (none / 0) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:41:33 AM EST
    The troll rating is not intended for you to voice your displeasure at the content of a post.  As a matter of fact, according to Jeralyn, that is explicitly against the rules.  

    You guys are becoming amusing (none / 0) (#85)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:45:48 AM EST
    There are 2 possible answers to this question.  Either you favor a boycott or you don't.  Hillary doesn't have some sort of magical ownership of one of the choices.  

    Personally I find this issue to be utterly meaningless.  The Chinese are not going to give one whit whether George Bush attends or not.  Having him boycott the Olympics is an empty gesture that allows politicians to show a symbolic opposition to China's actions rather than a material opposition such as advocating trade sanctions.  

    Demanding that George Bush boycott these Olympics takes no courage or political will.  It's cheap rhetoric.  It was when Hillary called for it.  It is now that Obama calls for it.

    the Chinese (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:54:43 AM EST
    care very much about manners and appearances.  They would take a boycott as a slap in the face, doubly so if it came from the American president.

    And you are right--either you favor it or you don't.  Obama's equivocation on this topic shows the cut of the man.


    the perfect equivocal response (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:05:42 AM EST
    that worked so well for John Kerry didn't it.

    The point of leadership is leading.

    The point of Obama is equivocation so he can morph his position at pivotal moments.


    Love the picture LOL (none / 0) (#88)
    by Andy08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:12:05 AM EST
    I think the picture pretty much summarizes many of his positions well.

    I heard on the radio someone said that US presidents never go to the Olympics opening ceremonies ... and that Bush planing to go is in fact unusual. Is this so?

    bush was at the winter opening (none / 0) (#91)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:32:46 AM EST
    ceremonies.  Remember he sat next to that young skater?

    thanks (none / 0) (#147)
    by Andy08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    I didn't know. How about previous presidents?

    U.S. presidents attend (none / 0) (#176)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:59:21 PM EST
    the opening ceremonies when the Olympics are in the USA. Bush at Salt Lake City, Clinton at Atlanta. I don't recall a president at Olympics in other countries. During the Clinton years Hillary and Chelsea did the honors. IIRC, the bush twins went to the last Olympics.

    I don't get it. (none / 0) (#94)
    by DodgeIND on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:29:54 AM EST
    You're bashing Obama for agreeing with Hillary?  Or you're bashing him because HIllary said it first?

    Bashing (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:46:58 AM EST
    because he's all about the injustice to AA's here in the US, but when it comes to boycotting the Chinese Olympics for human rights reasons? ... he has to think about it.  He's of "two minds".

    Wishy washy and not nearly as interested in liberal issues like human rights as we want him to be.

    Obama is of "two minds" about everything. He's going to get destroyed in the GE because of this.


    Let's be honest here (none / 0) (#112)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:21:08 AM EST
    Obama had to think about the Olympics because one of his top advisers, Valerie Jarrett, is the vice chair of the committee that is trying to bring the Olympics to Chicago in 2016.



    It is not "bashing" (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:05:53 AM EST
    to make the observation that Obama is consistently a beat or two behind on issue after issue.  And it is not "bashing" for people to express their discomfort with and annoyance at this trait, and to question whether someone who does not seem to be able to put himself out in front, as a leader, is really the right person to be president.

    I know it's "just a word," but it's the wrong one.


    Besides, what's wrong with bashing.... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:52:14 AM EST
    ...when it is deserved? This country doesn't need another coddled president.

    Uh-oh - now what? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:35:19 AM EST
    From the NYT:

    During a brief stopover in Japan on his way to the United States, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader told reporters no one should try to silence demonstrators who are protesting against Chinese rule in Tibet. But at the same time, he struck a conciliatory tone toward Beijing, apparently distancing himself from calls in the West for a boycott of the Olympic opening ceremony.

    Now, I'm sure the media/Obama supporter message will be: Obama really has the same opinion as the Dalai Lama, and that nasty Hillary Clinton doesn't...

    [Head-On...apply directly to the forehead!]

    no, I would hope (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:38:32 AM EST
    Obama supporters would know Hillary is entitled to he opinion and admit there is no 1 right way to solve this problem.

    those who seem to think they know what the right response is in this situation and thus think anyone else who doesn't do it that way, those are the ones to be scared about. They don't like differing opinions.


    It's not "All Clinton's Fault" (none / 0) (#128)
    by tbetz on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:47:15 AM EST
    ... but she must, in all fairness, be apportioned part of the blame.

    Under your theory (none / 0) (#142)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:23:11 AM EST
    The only blameless people are:

    1. Congressmen who didn't vote for the AUMF

    2. People who didn't vote for Bush

    3. People who voted against Congressmen who voted for the AUMF (before and after.)

    I'm guessing most Americans must "be apportioned part of the blame."

    I have this horrible feeling that (none / 0) (#144)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    When Obama is president, he and his supporters will handled their first crisis by issuing the following statement:

    "I made a speech in 2002.  Clinton voted for the war."

    What's sad is the media will probably spin that as an adequate handling of the crisis.


    What's sad as the same folk (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:35:40 AM EST
    who ridiculed Bush for blaming a Clinton will then jump on the Clinton blame train again.

    Of course, I don't think O will get the nom, let alone the presidency.


    BTD is right (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:38:38 AM EST
    The media will choose our president.

    BTD is wrong to accept that as a valid criteria for supporting a candidate.


    They will choose John McCain. (none / 0) (#158)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:01:43 AM EST
    But I think BTD's argument is that they will choose Obama.

    Personally, I choose the candidate that can stand up to the media.


    Under what criteria (none / 0) (#174)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:15:32 PM EST
    do you see Obama not getting the nom?  I support Clinton and I think several issues will make it extremely difficult for him to get elected (the distress of his supporters is one) but I just can't see the party not giving him the nom.  My feeling is they  will use whatever metric they can to do so.

    I believe more Clinton supporters will vote for McCain or stay home, that she is stronger in the states needed for the GE, her baggage is so old it is just annoying to hear it again, his inexperience will be glaring in the GE, etc.  I just can't see the party looking at anything other than he raises money and has brought in new democrats (that are not showing the strength in voting down ticket needed to grow the party.)


    there haven't been (none / 0) (#138)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:15:16 AM EST
    major changes by the red chinese gov't since 1948, with regards to human rights. i just have my doubts it's going to happen between now and the start of the summer olympics.

    sen. obama is obviously a very bright, well educated and articulate man. however, he doesn't seem to be able to put together an original thought, or his fear of how it will be taken causes him to wait until someone else (mostly sen. clinton) expresses an idea in public, before coming out with something remarkably similar, but with just a slightly different wording.

    either way, it's not very presidential.

    Accountability (none / 0) (#156)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:54:52 AM EST
    He wants to stay a blank slate.  He wants no marks on his record so that he can pander all sides.  But, guess what, it will not work in the GE.  He will have to prove that he can do something about Iraq and not only talk of the past.  

    I don't think he will be convincing on this matter.  We will lose if he is the nominee and the cadaver will win.  


    comments closing (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:06:35 PM EST
    thread got hijacked, it's closing, I'll clean it later. TBetz is banned for insults.