home

Obama Then And Now: RW Talking Points?

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Oliver Willis writes:

Hillary Clinton and her surrogates sure feel a strong need to echo right-wing attacks versus Sen. Obama. And that’s fine with me. At the end of the day this will teach us that no matter what the Clintons cannot be trusted anywhere near the leadership of the Democratic party in the future.

(Emphasis supplied.) I guess when Obama's camp says Hillary will "say and do anything," that repeating a "Right Wing attacks" is ok to Willis. But let's leave that aside. Willis' post reminded me of what Barack Obama said in 2006 about Dems and religion:

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Seems like Barack Obama forgot to heed to his own repetition of "Right Wing attacks." He appears to have "taken the bait" in his San Francisco remarks. Obama 2006 is quite harsh in his criticism of Obama 2008.

< Is The "Creative Class" Blogosphere New to Politics? | Jimmy Carter Won't Endorse Before Convention >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    kate harding (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:06:17 AM EST
    had a devastating post, the other day: obama is not a **ing progressive.

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    There is also a pattern of unbelievable f^cking tone-deafness from a man who's constantly praised for his oratory. He is either deliberately using right wing framing when he talks about gay marriage, abortion, and Social Security, or he doesn't realize he's doing it, and either way, it should be a huge red flag.


    [ Parent ]
    when i heard his purple america convention speech (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:17:06 AM EST
    i was in ireland, and it was very late, and i went to bed thinking- that guy is going to be president, some day. the next day, i was thinking about it, and it hit me that he was essentially arguing for clintonesque triangulation. the irony that he now condemns what he's really running on.

    [ Parent ]
    In case anyone is wondering (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    Not only do I NOT like Clinton's attacks on this, I think she is making a mistake. She is defusing the story.

    But I really HATE the shameless hypocrisy of the Creative Class blogs now. Willis' post is one of the most shamelessly hypocritical I have ever seen.

    They have all lost their minds.

    as with kerry and his vietnam record (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:13:05 AM EST
    sometimes you let others carry the conversation. do it yourself and it weakens the effect.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree about Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:19:39 AM EST
    I think she absolutely needs to say loud and clear to those voters Obama dissed that she doesn't think that way and vigorously disagrees with what he said.   Otherwise, Obama's idiotic comments can damage the entire Dem. Party, not just him personally.  She absolutely needs to speak out on this personally, I think.  (That said, obviously, she needs to do it carefully.)

    [ Parent ]
    She should have focused on what (none / 0) (#33)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:58:37 PM EST
    she is doing, succeeding with every demographic by showing how she would work on the problems they're experiencing. That said, he's made a terribly revealing statement.

    If you start by sneering at the voters you need with a "cling to" dismissal, you will not design policy that will help them.

    I am surprised that the wealthy were convinced by that answer. Frankly I think he sidestepped the answer:

    I would want someone who would say, "yeah, I do need to work on that demographic better...I know I can help them, and I want to, but they just don't know that about me yet. But I'm working hard on it. If I had more ad money I could reach them..."

    Really he was signalling to these wealthy guys, "Who cares about these dregs  of society that you'll outsource anyway, right? The're toast. Stick a fork in them. They just use up all your tax dollars on their expensive healthcare. "

    [ Parent ]

    If it's her last chance... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    she could overplay.  I want to see the debate.  She has to save the blow for that.  

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree with you (none / 0) (#21)
    by ajain on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:30:44 AM EST
    While these may be right-wing talking points, I think she is right in what she is saying.

    This is a huge General Election problem.
    Even Politico realised this, with their new article, this morning.

    [ Parent ]

    She should not have defused it (none / 0) (#35)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    by changing the subject:

    "cling to their guns or religion" is the real issue.

    "Bitter", schmitter. Every Democrat in the country is beyond bitter! Nothing shamefull about bitter.

    Since she represents the poor, the old, the disenfrandchised, the children, the disabled - she needs to show by kindness how he represents the heartless wing of the Democratic party, by deriding those who "cling".

    [ Parent ]

    I think the real issue (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:42:37 PM EST
    is that Obama clearly implied that small town Midwesterners are bigots.  No one wants to be painted that way.  I grew up in small Midwestern towns myself.  Some people in every place or class are bigots.  And some are not.  Generalizing like that is not smart for any politician.


    [ Parent ]
    also true (none / 0) (#54)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:55:24 PM EST
    (Hi Boston Boomer! All the people I miss from the old dailykos, now here...)

    [ Parent ]
    I think your priorities are in the wrong place (none / 0) (#24)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:26:01 PM EST
    You are say you understand that she's doing wrong,b ut post multiple diaries in which you also reinforce right wing talking points. The whole "elitism" shtick, and indeed, the "creative class" comments are standard ways of address progressives. How does this help? You did this to me yesterday when I disagreed with you. I really don't see how you think what you are doing in the way you are doing is going to help us win in the fall. What Obama is having to apologize for, by the way, is the way in which the story has been spun, not what he actually said. I think your priorities are in the wrong place.

    [ Parent ]
    you are wrong (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:20:20 PM EST
    Obama's problem isn't how the story is spun - it's what he said.  Which essentially was that these small town folks have economic problems but are too ignorant to recognize the economy as the cause so they blame outsiders while clinging to guns and god.  And he was explaining this in san fran, like some anthropologist circa 1905 just come back from a trip to nepal.

    But if you are so unhappy with clinton's actions, I can only assume you are emailing the obama campaign to complain that they are now calling her an elitist because she has money.  The same RW attack that was used on edwards, roosevelt, and kennedy.

    Elitism isn't about personal wealth.  It's about an attitude.  There are millionaires that are the farthest thing from elitist and starving students who are the epitome of snobs.

    Obama's attitude brought him this trouble - he has no one to blame but himself.

    [ Parent ]

    I invented creative class? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    Sorry, Obama effed up politically. And if you can;t deal with that, you are no better than the rest of the creative class.

    I thought you were.

    [ Parent ]

    Paul Rosenberg just posted this from Great (none / 0) (#26)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    American Hypocrite, and it succintly describes my problem with you and others here. The core issue is that you would leave Democrats not being able to say anything about anything. If you think Clinton , who was originally attacked in the 90s in this manner, will be immune or safe- I think that's a mistake. If you think other Democrats down ticket won't be attacked in this manner. that's a mistake. I think you get this. I think you take the wrong lesson from it. Namely, to be safe, say nothing that challenges. Anyway, this was about Edwards haircut- remember that? Here's the process:

    "STEP 1 A new Drudge-dependent gossip (Ben Smith) at a new substance-free political rag (The Politico)--or some rightwing talkradio host (Rush Limbaugh) or some credibility-bereft right-wing blogger (a Michelle Malkin)--seizes on some petty, manufactured incident to fuel clichéd caricatures of Democratic candidates.

    STEP 2 The old right-wing gossip (Drudge) employs his old, substance-free political rag (The Drudge Report) to amplify the inane caricatures.

    STEP 3 National media outlets, such as AP and CNN, whose world is ruled by Drudge, take note of and begin "analyzing" the "political implications" of the gossip, thus transforming it into "news stories."

    STEP 4 Our Serious Beltway Journalists and Political Analysts--in the Haircut Case, Tim Russert and Brian Williams and Adam Nagourney and the very serious and smart Substantive Journalists at The New Republic--mindlessly repeat all of it, thereby solidifying it as transparent conventional wisdom.

    STEP 5 When called upon to justify their endless reporting over such petty and pointless Drudge-generated matters, these "journalists" cite Steps 1-4 as "proof" that "the people" care about these stories, even though the "evidence" consists of nothing other than their own flocklike chirping"

    My problem here with Clinton, who I would be happy to have as our nominee, is that she did the exact same thing here for her own political gain. Obama has been guilty of this in the past. Now, to me, this is a time when Clinton has done it. Its unacceptable from either of them.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton WILL hurt down ticket Dems? (none / 0) (#29)
    by OxyCon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:12:06 PM EST
    "If you think Clinton , who was originally attacked in the 90s in this manner, will be immune or safe- I think that's a mistake. If you think other Democrats down ticket won't be attacked in this manner. that's a mistake."

    ---------------------

    You mean like this?

    NRCC Continues to Hammer Democratic Congressmen with Obama Remarks
    April 12, 2008 1:00 PM

    Focusing this time on Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., the National Republican Congressional Committee is trying to damn local Democrats with the comments about small towns made by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
    ...
    "Americans don't want liberal politicians like Barack Obama who believe Washington is a substitute for faith, personal responsibility and belief that the Constitution guarantees our freedoms.
    ...
    UPDATE: The NRCC says it's going to send out similar news releases about Democratic Reps. Nancy Boyda and Dennis Moore of Kansas, Bruce Braley of Iowa, Joe Courtney of Connecticut, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Joe Donnelly, Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Gabrielle Giffords and Harry Mitchell of Arizona, Ron Klein of Florida, Nick Lampson and Ciro Rodriguez of Texas, Rick Larsen of Washington, Tim Mahoney of Florida, Jim Marshall of Georgia, Jim Matheson of Utah, Jerry McNerney of California, John Salazar of Colorado, Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Zack Space and Charlie Wilson of Ohio, Bart Stupak of Michigan, and John Yarmuth of Kentucky.

    [ Parent ]

    thats not what I wrote (none / 0) (#48)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:35:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    well (none / 0) (#38)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    It was very helpful of obama, the, to just confirm the stereotype.  The RW didn't even have to make something up!

    I appreciate him making all democrats look bad.  "This is what they really think of americans behind closed doors."

    [ Parent ]

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:29:25 PM EST
    Honestly, if that is what you think, then you really are not bright about politics.

    [ Parent ]
    basically your arguement is that I am ridiculous (none / 0) (#47)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:35:20 PM EST
    got it.

    [ Parent ]
    btd's point is about the hypocrisy. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kangeroo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:38:40 PM EST
    why have obama's supporters never cared thus far when obama and his supporters do much worse things in the same vein to hillary, and with unbounded enthusiasm?  your silence thus far when he's pulled this crap daily--or what's more, your having piling gleefully onto the bandwagon--speaks for itself.  oh, but when hillary is ostensibly the one doing it (surprise, surprise!) you're suddenly soooo outraged and indignant.  um, and you expect us to listen?  you have no credibility.

    [ Parent ]
    I input BTD's post into my Obameter, (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:11:17 AM EST
    and this is the response it gave me:

    "And nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of religious intolerance than I have."

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:12:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    GOLD STAR (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:13:52 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here's another Obama comment (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:22:18 AM EST
    that basically condemns in advance the "bitter/cling" comments.  According to Politico, it's from that Charlie Rose interview.

    ""If we don't have plausible answers on the economic front, and if we appear to be condescending toward those traditions that are giving their lives some stability, then they're going to opt for at least that party that seems to be speaking to the things that...provide them with something solid to stand on."

    It's breathtaking.  Is he even aware that what he said in Marin is completely in opposition to this?

    the biggest problem (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    is all those pics, like the one from snubgate, where Obama is looking down his nose in disdain.  They've already got a poster of that same pic being parodied ("Snob") over at No Quarter.

    Man, I love No Quarter.

    [ Parent ]

    Snob mugs, t-shirts (none / 0) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    and it looks like refrigerator magnets over at Michelle Malkin.  Don't blame me, someone else here linked to this yesterday when it had just a picture, and it has now expanded to products.

    malkin

    [ Parent ]

    true enough BTD. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:35:27 AM EST
    Pols are vessels.

    unfortunately, in sen. obama's case, people are starting to realize how empty this particular vessel is. in large part, due to his lack of actual on-the-job experience.

    running wholly on intangibles will only get you so far, at some point there must be some substance. we don't know what that might be because i'm not certain he does.

    Look at how Willis attacks Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by OxyCon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    Here is a shameless Willis attack on Hillary, that many can even say is lower than what a right winger would do:

    Hillary Clinton's Spiritual Adivsor Doug Coe And His Curious Admiration For Nazis And Communist Killings

    Google it if you want a link because it's too long to post here.

    Anyway, I pointed out in Willis' comments how that attack blew up in his face because Obama went to the same prayer meetings.

    Well apparently (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by facta non verba on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:42:06 PM EST
    right wing charges against the Clintons are fair game. Over the course of this campaign, I have seen blog writers on Huff Post bring up Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travel Gate, Hillary Care and yet no one lifted a finger in defence of Mrs. Clinton.

    The comments by Obama on Pennsylvania offend across the political spectrum. But in Obama land, the truth hurts.

    It is beyond bizarre that Obama supporters now complain about media coverage when for four solid months MSNBC has done nothing but campaign on his behalf. Keith Olbermann and his comparison of Geraldine Ferraro to David Duke, how do you think that comes off to Clinton supporters? Geraldine Ferraro whose long and illustrious career was nothing but a tireless effort on behalf of the disadvantaged reduced to the company of a KKK leader. It was uncalled for especially since her remarks were in fact accurate. Obama has benefitted from his race in this campaign. That 90% of African-Americans are voting for him should demonstrate that his race is a factor in his popularity. It is indeed odd that John Kerry cites that only Obama can bridge the current divide with the Muslim world. The reason he gives is that Obama is black. Weird how that works. His race is an advantage when it is convenient for the mantras otherwise we must shut our eyes and not notice his skin colour.

    Condescending remarks by Obama and his surrogates are now part of the political lexicon. "Hillary, you're likeable enough." Lawrence O'Donnell calling John Edwards "a loser" on the Huffington Post in January simply because Edwards remained in the race and in O'Donnell's mind such was preventing Obama from winning the nomination. Two and a half months after Edwards dropped out, Obama still has not won the nomination. Guy Saperstein, also on the Huffington Post, then followed with charges that Edwards would be forever damned if he failed to endorse Obama before Super Tuesday so that Obama could forever "banish the Clintons from public life." Comments like "it's time to slay the bitch" have been echoed more than once. Clinton has been called a "whore," a "monster," "a serial liar," and accused of corruption and murder. Chris Matthews with a straight face noted that the only reason she was elected Senator from New York was because of the sympathy for her abject humiliation during the Lewinsky scandal. Never mind the fact that as both First Lady of Arkansas and as First Lady of the United States, she has played a major advisory role and that in her work for Children's Defense League she was largely responsible for the SCHIP. While her attempts to reform the health care system failed in 1993-94, name another politician who worked as hard and as tirelessly on behalf of a fairer more just health care system. Or the fact that her constituents in New York like her and that she has won praise from state leaders on both sides of the aisle.

    Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos, and Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post have waged an unrelenting war against all things Clinton. In their campaign, they have resorted to calumny and vile misrepresentations of the achievements of the Clinton Presidency. They seem to forget that when William J. Clinton left the White House he left a balanced budget, a surplus, a record creation of jobs and a period of economic growth like few others in the history of this country. They are unable to bridge the credibility gap over Mrs. Clinton's Iraq Authorization Bill and thus everything else goes out the window. Their world view is seen only through the prism of that one moment back in early 2003. Never mind that what matters is the situation on the ground now (or technically the situation come January 2009) and to thus extricate ourselves without leaving Iraq in a vacuum. Colin Powell's Pottery Barn dictum still applies. We broke it, we own it. So who best can glue back together the Humpty Dumpty that is Iraq is the question we should be asking ourselves.

    Obama and his supporters fail to grasp the obvious affront and the sheer condescending character of his San Francisco remarks and he and they seem to forget that this not the first time he has made holier than thou and elitist remarks.

    It is not that voters in Pennsylvania are not angry (the emotion Obama really meant) but that he painted them as clinging to their guns and their faith because of their so-called bitterness. He then went to characterize them as anti-immigrant and anti-free trade. In other words, xenophobic protectionist narrow-minded neanderthals. Then there is the venue he chose to make these remarks. It was not to them in a rally but in a closed session with Gordon Getty and his fellow billionaires in San Francisco of all places. In a city many see as the epicenter of liberal elitism and as some modern day Sodom and Gomorrah and on a day he raised $2.7 million from his backers, Obama decides to expound his true feelings when he believed that the outside world would not hear his remarks. And those of us who are his critics have long accused Obama of wanting to be all things to all people and noting that in the end will be nothing to every one.

    Here are pictures from the event:

    http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_b...

    That 2800 block of Broadway in the Pacific Heights neighborhood is called Billionaire's Row. Nope not elitist at all. I live about a mile away now in the Castro but for ten years I owned a TIC third story flat on Union and Taylor in Russian Hill just above North Beach and Chinatown and a half block from the staircase up to Macondray Lane, the setting for Tales from the City. George Schultz, Caspar Weinberger, the Hearsts, J. Paul Getty, the Tobin DeYoung family, Neil Young, Frank Quattrone all lived within a two or three block radius of me. It's a privilege to live in San Francisco and I am proud to have San Francisco Values but at the same time I recognize that this 49 square mile slice of America is much more fortunate than most of the rest of it. And at times we very much come off as elitist. BCertainly much of the country views us that way. I know that I am part of a elite and with that comes with greater responsibility. There is no doubt that Clinton, McCain and Obama are part of n elite. They belong to a club with only 100 members. Obama has a responsibility to not be so callous in remarks he thought private but weren't.

    What is so galling to me is his duplicity. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama rails against NAFTA and free trade but to the Canadians (however murky those circumstances were) and now to Gordon Getty, Obama is singing a different tune. To his billionaire friends, Obama said it was all just part of getting elected. Don't worry, I have your back just give me more cash.

    He voted for the Peru and Costa Rica FTAs but rails against NAFTA and the FTA with Colombia. He so garbles his facts on Colombia that the Colombians actually had to send a diplomatic note to the State Department. Obama's gaffe? He told a Philadelphia audience that trade unionists in Colombia were being murdered at a rate of 200 a year. That's true if the year was 2001. Last year it was 26. And blaming Uribe for those 200 murders back in 2001 was a pretty silly thing to say considering Uribe became President in August 2002.

    But never mind Colombia, Obama winked and nodded to his billionaire friends that free trade agreements were safe under his watch.

    And the subject of guns came up. Up in Boise on February 2, 2008, Obama told his enraptured audience that there were a lot of hunters in southern Illinois and that he wasn't going to take anyone's guns away. But in gun-shy San Francisco, the junior Senator from Illinois says something quite different. While gun control is not politically feasible now in the world according to Obama (funny we got an assault weapons ban under Clinton), Obama said he would close loopholes and ban certain types of guns. Not exactly what he told the good people up in Boise and in Montana just a week ago. There it was guns, guns and more guns.

    It is not that he is wrong in some of what he said in San Francisco, it is that he is telling different audiences different things. To the LGBT community, full equality. To Reverend Meeks, it is a state's rights issue so don't worry it will never get passed. To voters in the Keystone state, free trade is bad, to his donors in the Golden state, free trade is good and thus safe.

    So which Obama is it? The pseudo-populist faux progressive from the campaign trail or the elitist effete politician? Either way he will say whatever to please his audience.

    Back in July 2007 this problem of Obama being out of touch first arose when he complained to farmers in Iowa about the price of arugula at Whole Foods when there isn't even a Whole Foods in the state of Iowa and when of all things to complain about Obama chooses a bitter green that is hardly staple in my own elitist kitchen (I was a food writer for a time and have a published cookbook). That is his problem he is Whole Foods through and through. But most of the country is Wal-Mart. And to be President you at least have to pretend you understand Wal-Mart shoppers. And Obama does not.

    Blind men are at their blindest when they suddenly think that they can see. That defines Obama and his supporters pretty much to a tee. No criticism is fair. There are always excuses. The acronym WORM is now popular. It stands for What Obama Really Meant. Increasingly to middle America, Obama is becoming a joke but they fail to see it because in their view Obama is a demi-god who will bring us all together in some sort of Earthly paradise. Trust in Obama and he will fix everything. They write such implorations like "Oh please America, don't be so fucking stupid" or "Obama only speaks the truth" or "Obama will lead us to the Promised Land if only we let him." What is he, Moses? Do they realize these comments border on insanity and zealotry? And they wonder why some think them a cult of personality?

    The whole "we are the ones we have been waiting for" is plainly messanic. Geez who else says the same thing? Jim Jones, Warren Jeffs, Ron L. Hubbard? I am not looking for a false prophet but a competent experienced manager who is fair minded, open to admitting mistakes and changing course, tireless, willing to expend political capital on moral imperatives, willing to teach and to learn, to admit they are human.

    In Obama's view, our problems can all be solved if we simply sit down and talk to each to other civilly. He sets a fine example by disparaging the culture of rural and small town America to billionaires in San Francisco. But apparently that's not obvious. And yet he seems to think that I as a gay man have to negotiate my rights with the likes of James Dobson, Donnie McClurkin, the Reverend Meeks. That as a typical white person, I have much to share with the Reverend Wright who thinks HIV is a govt plot, that FDR allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, that Truman didn't bat an eyelash when he dropped two Atomic bombs on Japan and who knows what else. Reverend Wright may have his good points but he sure does not come off as someone I want in my home.

    In the land of Obama, Obama is always right and Clinton is always wrong. There is now clinical psychological term for this. It is called Clinton Deranged Syndrome or CDS. Maybe the Clinton Health Plan will cover it because the Obama one will certainly not. No pre-existing conditions. It also leaves out at least 15 million people and costs more to boot per new insured. Now that's bright. $4,200 per new insured under Obama and no universal coverage and $2,300 per new insured under Clinton's universal plan. Paul Krugman noted this and guess what suddenly after 10 years of being adored he is suddenly a personna non grata. Elizabeth Edwards notes that she too prefers the Clinton plan and people on Daily Kos have the temerity to ask why doesn't she just go ahead and die already. Yup that sort of loving feeling is bound to win her and us over.

    They are digging their own grave. And probably ours as well. They fail to see that in their obsession they are dividing the Democratic Party. Loathing Obama may be the country's fastest growing new passion. And rather than showing prudence and judgment they demonstrate nothing but hatred and ignorance. They fail realize that some people may actually be offended by Obama's remarks. Some Americans actually are. Consider that as a possibility.

    Clinton is not perfect. But Obama ain't god either, in fact, he is rather human and yet afraid to be so. He's never wrong. Still his mistakes are beginning to accumulate a serious bleed of his once invincible popularity perhaps not to wound him enough in his pursuit of the Democratic nomination but we will end up offering a bloodied corpse up come November. When I a San Francisco Values Democrat won't vote for him, then he has a problem. So does Nancy Pelosi because I ain't voting for her either. If moving weren't such a hassle I'd move into Jackie Speier's district. She I like.

    I apologize for the rant but there are few things I needed to get off my chest.

    Charles Lemos


    this is way too long for a comment (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    Please, this isn't the first time you've done this. Don't corral the thread.

    [ Parent ]
    yes, sorry (none / 0) (#46)
    by facta non verba on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    i'll send you a cheque because i do feel bad about abusing your bandwidth.

    [ Parent ]
    Fabulous (none / 0) (#45)
    by zyx on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:14:17 PM EST
    Long, but worth it!

    [ Parent ]
    wow. (none / 0) (#52)
    by kangeroo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:18:27 PM EST
    i totally respect and appreciate jeralyn's rules (which help keep all of us sane here), but remarkably well put--i was moved by your comment.

    i live in SF too, and your comment just now made me think of starting an informal SF chapter for pro-hillary TL folks (for venting, socializing, moral support, etc.)  while blogs are an essential staple in my political diet, i'd like to get reacquainted with more of that old-fashioned face-to-face contact thing.  i wonder if there's already any such group here?  if anyone here's from SF/the bay area and is interested, lemme know.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    About the divisions in the Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:04:54 PM EST

    I don't think Obama's dividing the Democratic Party. I think he's just showing exactly where the divide is. And like it or not there is a little truth, too much IMO in Republican insistant that liberals are elitist.

    I noted at kos and Huffington Post and several other blogs before the election of 2004 that all too many of the comments were scathingly dismissive of Republicans as Trailer Trash, Bubbas, Poor White Trash and other similar insults that many of us as Hillary supporters now hear on a regular basis. And no, not all Obama supporters are "creative class/highly educated/misogynistic elitists". Nor are all Hillary supporters "low-income/low-information, less educated racist Archie Bunkers".

    That division has always been there between the Elite Democrats and the Blue-collar/Reagan/Moderate Democrats. It has just become far more evident in this election.

    I'm not articulate enough to explain it but anglachel certainly is. I think this post is spot on and explains a lot about what's happening in the Democratic Party and why so many of us are feeling alienated. And that doesn't even begin to get into the misogynistic issue.

    http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/

    Naturally, IOKIYO (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:04:25 AM EST


    See, that idiotic Lakoffian stuff (none / 0) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    It's all that "framing" claptrap.  My god, say what you feel.  Some post modernist  Berkeley prof finds language nuance and hamstrings everyone into a contrived language of politics.  That is why Obama and his campaign will fall apart.  They played out the Hope stuff and now what do they have.  You cannot work from a script all the time, you get busted.  You have to develop your voice.  I think Hillary is brilliant at that.  In any situation she can speak like a politician.  The Bosnia thing was her only mistake that is why they make so much of it.  

    Say what you feel? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    Sorry, the job of POL precludes that. Do not be as naive as some of the Obama supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    What I mean is (none / 0) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:14:44 AM EST
    not what you feel, but what you believe.  Obviously he does not believe the unity shtick that is why it's falling apart.  No one can sustain that level of contrived language.  You can be political, but you cannot do that constricted lakoffian structure.  Whatever...

    [ Parent ]
    Um (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    Well, we disagree. Pols say what they must to get elected. It is voters who have to decide what pols have to say to get elected.

    Pols are vessels.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree, but there has to be something (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    (this is an idea in progress)

    Obama as a vessel, is completely contrived.  Hence his discomfort. They took a charismatic, smart guy and like a Mr. Potato head made him into a presidential candidate.  I think too early.   Maybe it's seasoning, cause if you say stuff long enough, you have to start believing it.  What I get from Obama is that he does not believe what he says.  But Hillary feels like she does.  McCain, appears like he believes what he says.  

    Obama is awkward with his own speech, he makes mistakes, big ones.  He hesitates. He does not have a flow with political language cause he is constantly thinking of the playbook.  

    [ Parent ]

    Except for the subset of people (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:18:46 AM EST
    who turn them into gods and devils.

    [ Parent ]
    The reason they played out the hope stuff... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    ...was because they deviated from it in order to demonize the Clintons. Now they can't go back to it, even though it would have been a winner for them. I honestly think, and I know that many disagree with me, that if the whole Obama campaign (surrogates and all) had taken "the high road" they would have been impossible to beat because he does that really well. When he becomes just another politician, he's easy to deflate.

    [ Parent ]
    Same old Obama (none / 0) (#17)
    by Universal on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:21:07 AM EST
    Barack Obama is a hypocrite, which is not a surprise. "The Politics of Hope" should be relabeled  "The Politics of Nope," as in "Nope, there's no attack which is beneath me."

    "Senator - Punjab" anyone?

    Obama is an ivory tower enmeshed pol who has an affinity for eccentric spiritual advisers and whose wife seems to have a deep dislike of the country which allowed her to achieve two Ivy League degrees.

    Dissonance much?

    Paul F. Villarreal AKA "Universal" AKA "RokSki"

    to add (none / 0) (#23)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    Let us not forget that the obama campaign was making snide references to "cattle futures" (among others) just a month ago.  I'm sure josh et al deplored those uses of RW talking points.  Unfortunately, he's been kidnapped so I can't ask him.

    I hate to break the anti-Obama vibe going on here (none / 0) (#25)
    by jericho4119 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:36:28 PM EST
    But just what is wrong with what he said?  I have lost my job.  I have MS and my medication costs $4000 a month.  To describe me as bitter is spot-on.

    Obama said that we, as citizens, have been hearing politicians trope across our country for decades and consistently these politicians have told us "they feel our pain".  And yet, at the end of the day, our jobs continue to disappear just as fast as always.  And the very people who have jobs that cannot be outsourced preach to us about "training", as though that were a solution.

    The very people who have health care provided by us, tell us that we need to search for "the best health care provider" as though we were comparing car dealers.

    I'm bitter.

    Sorry about your troubles (none / 0) (#27)
    by rilkefan on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    but are you clinging to guns or religion or xenophobia as an explanation for them?  Note that Obama was (if I read him correctly, and given the location and audience I suspect I do) deriding your concern about outsourcing.

    Also note that HRC's healthcare plan is more ambitious than Obama's.

    [ Parent ]

    Willis is an advocate for Obama... (none / 0) (#30)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    that's his choice, that's his right.

    He's not objective, that's obvious.

    I wish that you had made this diary about what Obama said in 2004 (to Charlie Rose), what he said in 2006 and what he says now rather than about Oliver Willis because I think the subject would be eminently more substantive.

    Never Heard Of Willis or Saperstein. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Sweet Sue on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    So this Saperstein person wants Obama to banish the only Democrat to win the Presidency twice since WW11 from public life. Who are these "progressives" and why do they want to destroy the Democratic Party?

    Another BTD Hit (none / 0) (#43)
    by Oliver Willis on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    I didn't like those statements from Obama, but then you had to go back a few years for them and not in the midst of a presidential election where Sen. Clinton has decided to use the same lines of attack as John McCain and Fox News.

    I'm wondering what this creative class bugaboo you're on about now is all about. I work for a living and come from a lower middle class background.

    Sorry Oliver (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:55:38 PM EST
    If you mean finding RW talking points - I told you the ones that have been your staple and that of Obama for this entire campaign - Hillary is a lying piece of crap who will say or do anything.

    I picked the 2 year ago statement because Obama 2005 critiques Obama 2008. did you NOT get hat?

    [ Parent ]

    The Truth Is Inconvenient (none / 0) (#51)
    by Oliver Willis on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:06:38 PM EST
    Can anyone objectively look at this campaign and not find a pattern of throwing crap against the while and hoping it will stink coming from Sen. Clinton? You seem to think this means that Obama can't play politics while I acknowledge he is a politician in a political fight, yet he's found a way not to sound like Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans while doing it.

    Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, is continuing the pattern the right began against her and President Clinton and directing it at Sen. Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    If anyone has sounded like he came (none / 0) (#53)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    out of the RW school it is Obama and his followers.  After all they blame everything on Bill Clinton and go out of their way to say that his administration did not help the middle class.  Sorry but to me your words sound hollow.

    [ Parent ]