home

Profile of Obama's Politics While In Chicago

The New York Times (tomorrow's paper, available now) has a 7 page profile on how Barack Obama forged coalitions in Illinois:

The secret of his transformation — which has brought him to the brink of claiming the Democratic presidential nomination — can be described as the politics of maximum unity: He moved from his leftist Hyde Park base to more centrist circles; he forged early alliances with the good-government reform crowd only to be later embraced by the city’s all-powerful Democratic bosses; he railed against pork-barrel politics but engaged in it when needed; and he empathized with the views of his Palestinian friends before adroitly courting the city’s politically potent Jewish community.

To broaden his appeal to African-Americans, Mr. Obama had to assiduously court older black leaders entrenched in Chicago’s ward politics before selling himself as a young, multicultural bridge to the wider political world.

I have no use for the kind of unity that trumps taking a position on issues based on one's beliefs in favor of a taking a position based on who it will appeal to and then not sticking to it.

This is why it's so hard to figure out where Obama really stands on issues, from crime issues (here and here) to gun rights. He changes, depending on his audience and which voters he needs to appease or win over at the time. As I often write, where's Obama? Here, there and everywhere.

More from the Times:

Others see his deft movements as a politician shifting positions and alliances for strategic advantage, leaving some disappointed and baffled about where he really stands.

“He has a pattern of forming relationships with various communities and as he takes his next step up, kind of distancing himself from them and then positioning himself as the bridge,” said Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian-American author and co-founder of the online publication Electronic Intifada, who became acquainted with Mr. Obama in Chicago.

Exactly. He dumped his Palestinian friends like Rashid Khalidi when he decided to go after the Jewish vote. (See here, here and here.) If I were a Palestinian, I'd be upset too. If I were a strong Israel supporter, I'd be nervous. See the Times article on pages 5 and 6, about how once he got introduced to Chicago's billionaire Crown family and sought its campaign contributions, he moved towards supporting Israel. Khalidi now says:

Mr. Khalidi, who now teaches at Columbia University, said, “I’m unhappy about the positions he’s taken, but I can’t say I’m terribly disappointed.” He added: “People think he’s a saint. He’s not. He’s a politician.

Then there's his constant refrain about how things he believes may not worth expending the political capital on to change: like medical marijuana and mandatory minimums.

Back to the Times' article:

Even moments that supporters see as his boldest are tempered by his political caution. The forceful speech he delivered in 2002 against the impending Iraq invasion — a speech that has helped define him on the national stage — was threaded with an unusual mantra for a 1960s style antiwar rally: “I’m not opposed to all wars.” It was a refrain Mr. Obama had tested on his political advisers, and it was a display of his ability to speak to the audience before him while keeping in mind the broader audience to come.

Another group disappointed in Obama's shifting stances:

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama hewed closely to liberal orthodoxy, positions that have become controversial in the presidential race. A candidate questionnaire from one liberal group, for instance, detailed his views on hot-button issues like the death penalty (opposed) and a ban on handguns (in favor).

Today, Mr. Obama espouses more centrist views and says a campaign aide had incorrectly characterized his views on those issues — a shift that does not sit well with some in the group, the Independent Voters of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization.

“We certainly thought those were his positions,” said David Igasaki, the group’s state chairman, who noted Mr. Obama had also interviewed with the group. “We understand that people change their views. But it sort of bothers me that he doesn’t acknowledge that. He tries to say that was never his view.”

Obama against the death penalty? Hardly. He's against executing the innocent. Who isn't? There's something for everyone in this article. It covers Ayers, Rezko, Mayor Daley and lots more. I'll probably be coming back to it later.

Comments closed.

< Paying For Denial "Science" | Jenna Bush Getting Married Today >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Obama is (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:37:18 PM EST
    apparently a worse flip-flopper than John Kerry, and look what happened to him in 2004.

    The GOP is going to have a field day.

    "She will do anything to get elected. " (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:40:53 PM EST
    Now tell me who does this apply to?  

    [ Parent ]
    Are you calling him a woman? (5.00 / 16) (#34)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:06:49 PM EST
    I remember way back when the media actually tried to do its job and the AP ran a story saying Obama could have a pretty good argument with himself on myriad positions.

    When Clinton quoted this during the debate, she got booed (of course) but I can't be the only person with half a brain who finds it troubling that Obama is this close to the nomination and has absolutely no record of taking a stand on anything except running for the nomination.  Name one vote, one position, he has taken where he got political heat for doing so.  It cannot be done.

    This is the question we should be seriously looking at: Should Clinton not win the nomination (which, again, I think she has a good shot), then she will go back to the senate and keep fighting the good fight.  If (when!) Obama loses the nomination, do any of us really see him doing more than phoning in the rest of his term, then going to another trophy appointment on some corporate board and hitting the speaking circuit?

    Doesn't it bother anyone that, if Obama doesn't get the nomination, he basically goes back to...nothing?

    [ Parent ]

    Him a woman? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    No, he does not have moxie.  

    [ Parent ]
    I love the word ... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Robot Porter on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:28:49 PM EST
    "moxie."

    [ Parent ]
    But think of all the time he can spend with his (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:31:39 PM EST
    family and save michelle conjuring up faux tears about missing time spent with his girls.

    [ Parent ]
    Answer (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:37:20 PM EST
    Are you calling him a woman?

    Given that he's on both sides of every issue, if we did deeper, we may find that he's a hermaphrodite! ....kidding...

    ....I hope this article includes something about the fact that he criticized Jimmy Carter for talking to Hamas, while his own campaign advisor was talking to Hamas....

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, it bothers me right now because (5.00 / 9) (#177)
    by chancellor on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:40:46 PM EST
    I'm one of his constituents. I have never, repeat never, received a single response from Obama to the emails I've sent him on various issue positions. Durbin always sends me back either a snail mail or email position letter, as does my rep., Melissa Bean. Obama has been nothing more than a huge waste of taxpayer money, IMO. If this is how he treats me--and I'm a constituent--how responsive do you think he'll be if he gets into office? Sorry for those of you who hold out hope, but this man truly is an empty suit.

    [ Parent ]
    Common Rove technique (5.00 / 7) (#132)
    by dianem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:04:35 PM EST
    Attack your opponent for doing something, then do it yourself. If your opponent comments on it, you can accuse them of being hypocritical and lying to distract the public from their own problems. The opponent tends to not attack, though, because they know that once they are marked as the transgressor it is very hard to turn it around. This doesn't work backwards, by the way. If the accused can immediately point to evidence that the accuser did something in the past similar to what they are accusing them of doing, then the hypocrisy label falls on the accuser.

    [ Parent ]
    Nearly everything he said (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:30:29 PM EST
    was really about himself.

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't I Read On One Of These Threads That (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:43:15 PM EST
    the GOP has a 1000 page dossier on obama already?
    Fasten your seatbelts obamatrons...It's gonna be a bumpy ride!

    [ Parent ]
    yep, 1000 pages on his past (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by karen for Clinton on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    The Hamas/Malley article mentions this:

    "The Republican National Committee has amassed a 1,000-page dossier on Mr Obama, with researchers spending weeks in Chicago seeking fresh material.

    [ Parent ]

    Hilarious (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:59:47 PM EST
    Are you suggesting that they have less pages on Hillary, or is it that they just do not see her as a threat.

    There is a good argument, that is if you believe that Hillary is still a viable contender, that the GOP is more terrified of Obama than Hillary because they have not sent out the attack dogs on her. You can be sure that the attack on Hillary will be just as vicious if she does get the nomination.

    IMO, focusing on what the GOP is doing or going to do is not a good argument for either nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    It's all been done (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:04:01 PM EST
    with Hillary.  And with her, what you see is what you get.  She's upfront about her positions.

    Obama is fresh meat.  And he's got more in his background that hasn't come out.  Thi is not going to be like the primary, which was mild compared to past contests.

    If he gets it, you guys aren't going to be able to use the same tactics and cries of foul.  The GOP loves the mud.  

    [ Parent ]

    That Is The Talking Point (3.00 / 2) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:13:02 PM EST
    For sure. But I do not believe that she will be any better off in the coming storm than Obama. The fact that the press loathes her is what will make things particularly nasty. And the public has zero memory in general. Everything is new, even if it is rehashed.

    Besides, I was responding to the point that there is 1000 pages on Obama. Do you think that compares to the number of pages on Hillary?

    And why do you think that they are going after Obama and not Hillary? The only answers I can imagine is  that either they see the nomination contest as over, or that Obama is a bigger threat.  

    [ Parent ]

    I actually agree with you (5.00 / 10) (#48)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:17:39 PM EST
    that they've certainly got lots of crap dug up on her, too.  Where you lose me is when you say that anyone will care.  The press are so rabid about anything that paints Clinton in a bad light that it almost cancels itself out.

    And, yes, I agree that the media is completely against her.  The fact that she is still standing, that she is still a viable candidate, tells me a lot more about her character than Obama's 57 state strategy through the Great Lakes of Oregon.

    [ Parent ]

    So Is The Sexism (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    And Misogyny that so many here have been arguing as more virulent than the racism, going to all of a sudden lessen because instead of Obama supporters mouthing it we will have the GOP spewing?

    I think that the attacks against both will be equally as nasty and harsh. The media will protect Obama more than Hillary imo, but in either case I really think that the public is fed up with the GOP and their nastiness, warmongering and poor economic policies.

    [ Parent ]

    You think wrong. (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:34:38 PM EST
    I really think that the public is fed up with the GOP and their nastiness, warmongering and poor economic policies.

    People are fed up with Bush, not all republicans.  As I said yesterday, congressional approval is poor, disgustingly so.  Dems aren't making many friends either.

    McCain will soothe voters and promise to be different.  And since he's a straight-talking maverick and media darling, he'll be formidable.

    [ Parent ]

    Not Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#103)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:45:00 PM EST
    But we disagree. imo, McCain wears BushCo bling around his neck in lengths that would make Isadora Duncan jealous.

    [ Parent ]
    Media darling. (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:04:54 PM EST
    Let's see if that changes if he's the nominee.

    I really hope he isn't.  Hillary is the better candidate.  You don't have to agree, but it doesn't change the fact.

    Obama is being touted because he can supposedly bring more voters into the party.  He'll also lose some long-time dem voters, but as usual, this is about $$$$$$, too.

    Not qualifications.  Money.

    Think about that.  It makes me angry.  You?

    [ Parent ]

    A Fact? (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:13:57 PM EST
    How is your opinion a fact? My opinion is that the two are about the same, and I voted for Hillary, but that is my opinion not a fact.

    When you come up with the standardized test to evaluate which life experience make for a more qualified POTUS, let me know, otherwise it is just shilling.

    I do not think either candidate would be anywhere without big corporate money behind them, and that is a huge problem in US politics. Yes, that makes me angry.

    [ Parent ]

    Let's meet back here (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:22:07 PM EST
    in November and see.  That's the only way we'll know, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry squeaky, but I find it awfully hard to (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:39:30 PM EST
    believe you voted for Hillary, based on your comments.  I might be wrong, but I sincerely doubt it.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, yes. (none / 0) (#146)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    I do not think either candidate would be anywhere without big corporate money behind them, and that is a huge problem in US politics. Yes, that makes me angry.

    Hillary's supposedly out of money.

    [ Parent ]

    OK But (none / 0) (#150)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:21:15 PM EST
    I do not get your point. Does that make her less in the pocket of donors than Obama?  

    [ Parent ]
    It seems to right now. (none / 0) (#161)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:29:08 PM EST
    BTW, you never answered my other question.  Does the candidate with the most money (and the most media "support") win?

    Media support can be diminished if voters disregard the "message" and go to the polls.

    It's ironic that the GOTV campaign is superceded by declarations of victory at this point.

    What a country.

    [ Parent ]

    Media support is about (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:24:57 PM EST
    to turn as the polls keep showing that Hillary is stil considered a contender in spite of their non-stop chattering.

    The boys in the big booth are going to sit up and take notice that nobody is apparently watching or caring about those shows.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Other Question (none / 0) (#230)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM EST
     
    Does the candidate with the most money (and the most media "support") win?

    Certainly not always, but tons of money does not hurt. Media support is huge though. Most people voters are plugged in to it. If a candidate neck and neck positive media (or negative) makes a big difference, imo.

    So far McCain is also a media darling. I do not imagine that changing either.

    [ Parent ]

    the big difference is (5.00 / 11) (#88)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:38:51 PM EST
    she can handle it; he can't.  It's an issue of maturity, experience, and the understanding of living in the public arena.

    Michelle Obama said that she wanted to scratch out Bill Clinton's eyes.  In front of  crowd of people and on camera, Obama himself flicked "dirt" of his shoulders, implying Clinton is dirt.  This sort of childishness is inane in the best of circumstances, but do we really want that kind of petty behavior in our nominee and his spouse?

    They are sooo not ready for prime time.

    [ Parent ]

    For Someone (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:49:19 PM EST
    Sooo unready for prime time, he has been doing remarkably well,
    just saying...

    With all due respect, I do not think that your taste is reflective of the average american, because if it was he would not be remotely a contender.

    [ Parent ]

    Doing so well? (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:54:22 PM EST
    By avoiding debates and press interviews?

    [ Parent ]
    Looks That Way (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:56:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    really? (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    I do not think that your taste is reflective of the average american

    Let's count all the votes and see, all right?

    [ Parent ]

    No (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:06:06 PM EST
    That is not the point.  I am not talking about your fondness for Hillary but your total distaste for Obama. From what you have said the guy shouldn't be able to sell water in the mohave desert, it is clear that that is not the case, regardless of who the nominee is.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:25:57 PM EST
    is such an empty suit that there's nothing to dislike or like.

    Now, what the party pulled?  Whoa* Nelly......

    [ Parent ]

    Over (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by sas on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:21:58 PM EST
    on the Republican sites they are hoping the nominee is Obama.

    They do mthink the Democrats are DUMB, but will certainly him, because that is how Democrats work.

    [ Parent ]

    More than the nomination (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by christinep on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:24:12 PM EST
    The problem is that it really is more than winning the nomination...you have to win the general. (And, as G. Bush &/or his people found, you then have to govern.) For those who get so wrapped up in the politics of the campaign and the prelude only, and then shrug with a "damn the consequences" gesture, well.... We all get a bit that way, of course. Yet, down the road may come the question that Obama's supporters may want to look at: What are his positions and do they align mostly or generally with ours?  My impression is that is unknown right now.  This "maximum unity" politics, as referred to in the ariticle, is successful campaign & placement politics, but it can also come down to "maximum me" in the end.  Slight-of-hand can be impressive; it can also be disappointing if it turns out to be mostly style.

    [ Parent ]
    Better Than McCain (3.00 / 1) (#89)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:38:57 PM EST
    What are his positions and do they align mostly or generally with ours?  My impression is that is unknown right now.

    Both Hillary and Obama are not aligned with my positions. The country has shifted to the right in the last 20 years and both candidates reflect that shift. Which is why both seem electable, to me.

    Both are miles closer to my position than McCain, though. And I think closer to most Americans today. I also think most Americans are eager to participate in making history by electing a woman or black as POTUS. The typical white men running things have been looking weak and out of touch these days, imo. I am dying to see a unity ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    Same can be said about Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by 1jane on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:29:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I know one thing about Hillaryfor sure. (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    She will take anything that's thrown at her, stand tall. and keep fighting

    No one, even his most ardent supporter, knows what Obama will do.

    [ Parent ]

    Refuse to debate McCain? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Fabian on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:40:15 PM EST
    Heh!

    [ Parent ]
    You Assume (5.00 / 4) (#229)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:32:10 PM EST
    Hillary has proven on multiple occasions that she certainly can weather the GOP storms. She won't be whining for them to "stop being mean" because she is far more committed to her ability and desire to do everything she can for this country.

    I read the excepts above from the Times article and I get very nervous about our foreign policies.

    [ Parent ]

    Why not go after him? (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:18:12 PM EST
    He's won how many times now? Going after him while McCain is out there appealing to the voters who aren't in the O camp yet seems like a good strategy.

    [ Parent ]
    I want to see (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by janarchy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:25:01 PM EST
    how he handles this. One thing I've always admired about the Clintons going back to 92 is they always fight back. They're almost always prepared for what's thrown at them and can rally round and fight back almost immediately. It's called anticipating the enemy. It's a good strategy and iirc, that was courtesy of Carville (see "The War Room").

    Somehow Obama seems to think that if someone attacks him, he can just whine and complain that people are being mean to him and that will end the situation. It worked in the beginning but anyone with half a brain knows that the Republicans don't give a sh*t. They'll just keep hammering away and digging up dirt, whether it's true or not. Either you have to refute it and counter it, or you have to fight back. To date, I've seen Obama's camp do neither when it comes to direct attacks (although they're real good at smearing their opponents).

    If the RNC and/or Republican 527s have no compunction going after one of their own (McCain), a triple amputee war vet (Max Cleland) and a war hero (John Kerry), they're not gonna lose sleep going after Obama, even if the entire MSM and his supporters shriek that it's racist. Hannity has been making thinly veiled allusions to this for some time -- they've been compiling, fishing and digging up dirt. They're just salivating and sharpening their knives.

    It's politics.

    [ Parent ]

    Really (5.00 / 7) (#104)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:45:42 PM EST
    For sixteen years the GOP and the media have attacked Hillary Clinton with impunity. You'd have to have been MIA or Rip VanWinkle to have missed that. And yet she still stands, was elected with strong majorities twice to the US Senate in spite of non-stop assaults from the GOP aided and abetted by the media.

    If nominated the GOP will attack again and the media will assist in any way possible.

    But much of it is old and for many people it goes in one ear and out the other.  After sixteen years it becomes nothing more than background noise. Anything new and creative may well be dismissed as just more background noise.

    In spite of non-stop media misrepresentations and assaults, the underhanded, divisive tactics from the Obama camp and constant media pressure to give up she's still winning primaries.

    Obama's gotten off easily so far.  The press' embrace to get rid of all things Clinton.  If Obama is nominated the GOP and the press will turn him into a wanted desperate criminal and it'll all be fresh, new and believable.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:55:46 PM EST
    But she has not been in a national race for president. Big difference imo. I am all for Hillary, and think that she can beat McCain, but I do not have any illusion that she will be any better off than Obama regarding slime, old or newly minted.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess you missed my post then. (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    I certainly do know how she'll handle it.

    Anyone who watched her during the 90's, during her Senate campaign, and now, knows exactly how she'll handle it.

    I'm sorry that you weren't paying attention.

    [ Parent ]

    Was Not Responding To You (3.50 / 2) (#172)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:38:36 PM EST
    As compelling as you are, I was responding to another commenter, so that is why I was not paying attention, to you.  And I voted for her in 2000, saw her campaign. But I have no illusion that that would be anything like what she will face in a national campaign, same goes for imagining that Obama's senate race will be indicative of what he will face if the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    squeak, I think you raise legitimate points (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by lookoverthere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:46:50 PM EST
    But I would add that sen. Obama has been protected by the media and blogs while Sen. Clinton most certainly has not.

    Now, what happens if Sen. Obama loses his media darling status? Will he be able to fight back a media attack alongside a blog flogging plus Republican ugliness? What if he no longer has the kind of funds he has now? Will he be able to withstand all of these events coming at him?

    I say no. I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

    Sen. Clinton, OTOH, appear to be able to withstand the onslaught of this primary and remain a contender. Will the GOP attacks be vicious and ugly? Yep. But she's seen the vicious and the ugly. And so have we. And we've all seen her stay tough and keep campaigning when everyone else has coutned her out.

    Does Sen. Obama have this kind of tenacity? Again, I have seen no evidence supporting this.

    Of course we can agree to disagree with respect and good manners.

    [ Parent ]

    Hard To Tell (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:54:13 PM EST
    But we will see, if he gets the nomination. Still I cannot imagine the press turning on him anyway near the level of viciousness that they have done to Hillary. Although if she is the nominee I still think she will win.

    My guess is that the GOP smears will backfire on Obama, the media will come to his rescue him and he will win.

    McCain has plenty of baggage too.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you have any valid arguments besides trying (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    always to turn things around to get the heat off your boy?  Perhaps you have been asleep the last 16 years and don't realize that just about anythin that could ever be thrown at someone has been thrown at Hillary.  So, YES, we know there is a dossier on everyone in the mix.  Next stupid question....

    [ Parent ]
    They stay after her with their special rules (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by itsadryheat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:56:31 PM EST
    They have special rules for Clintons.  The other night on CNN David Gergin was asked if Obama would pick Hillary for Veep.  His answer incidated that he thought that Obama would not survive his presidency if he did.
    Now how does a comentator on a national media outlet get to imply a candidate will murder another candidate to get their job and NOBODY said a word of rebuke to Gergin.

    Bill  Clinton has the audacity to say something that may be comparative about Jesse Jackson's run and Obama's in South Carolina and all hell breaks loose.

     Wonder how Jackson feels to have Obama consider his name such a distasteful one to be associated with? But a Republican in the media can say what Gergvin said and nobody bats an eye?  Nobody asserts it is untrue, unfair, unfounded, un acceptable, misogynistic,way over the top and totally outrageous.

     Nobody called for Gergin to be muzzled and no large demographic rose up to take action against him.  Special rules for Clintons.  You can claim anything and get away with it.  They can never defend themselves.  So they focus on trying to keep working for us.

    When will we rise up and do what we need to do for them?  Has each of us written a media outlet to let them know how outraged we are that tnhey are trying to call the race over, depress the vote, depress the money raising, sway the superdelegates and act like we really want Obama? And did we cc it to every other outlet we know an email address for.  

    If somebody has a good up to date email list for talking heads and print reporters can you post it for those who don't?  And have we told the Sunday talk shows what we think of the conventional wisdom, just so they know?

    [ Parent ]

    Here's a list from FAIR (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:19:20 PM EST

    It's too long and detailed to paste in. Includes broadcast and print:

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=111

    [ Parent ]

    Get Rid Of Your TeeVee (4.50 / 2) (#200)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:01:23 PM EST
    I did. It will save you a lot of tsuris. Not to mention it hits them where it hurts.

    [ Parent ]
    My Boy? (1.00 / 1) (#188)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:48:40 PM EST
    Sorry to disappoint you and interrupt your fanclubbing, but Obama is not my boy, I voted for Hillary. And FYI, seems that you are the one who has been asleep for some time, calling Obama a boy is considered racist and demeaning.

    And if you believe that anyone that would question Hillary is  stupid you qualify as a cultist.

    [ Parent ]

    You (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:59:31 PM EST
    should read around here.  People call Hillary their "girl" all the time.

    Hence the "boy" reference.

    Yet another objectionable thing about nominating Obama is that suddenly practically every word mentioned could be deemed "racist" if it in any way addresses him.

    But Obama himself will still be able to get away with making mentions of "typical white people," "Archie Bunkers," "bitter-cling" etc, basically racial stereotypes of all kinds with impugnity.

    [ Parent ]

    Teresa....thanks, but maybe squeaky is just (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:19:58 PM EST
    spoiling for a fight.  I have been around a long time and never got called a racist for using the word "boy".  This is a not-so-pretty look into how much more b.s. we have to look forward to with obama on the scene.  

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely right (5.00 / 2) (#225)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:27:21 PM EST
    What they're doing is an attempt shut down any talk about Obama.  They want people to say glowing things or nothing.

    If Obama is nominated, I welcome McCain's neutering of the whole "racial" issue.  And they'll do it.

    [ Parent ]

    He's been doing it since childhood! (5.00 / 5) (#226)
    by itsadryheat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:27:25 PM EST
    In a Newsweek article last month a  reporter interviewed people who knew Obama growing up. The article mentioned some examples of Obama's habit of blaming "racism" for his lack of performance, starting very young.

     His high school basketball coach said that Obama had accused him of racism.  Obama said that the reason he got benched in a basketball game was that the coach was a racist.  The coach said he benched Barry because he had just taken two bad shots in a row!

    A college professor reported Barry had accused him of racism.  It seems that Barry didn't like a grade he got and determined it was caused by the racism of the professor.  The professor said the grade was low because, "although you are bright enough to do the work, you won't work hard enough to do the work."

    [ Parent ]

    White Washing? (1.00 / 1) (#207)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:06:47 PM EST
    You should read around here.  People call Hillary their "girl" all the time.
    Hence the "boy" reference.

    Sorry not buying it. I am aware of the past comments by pssst and imo this was clearly racist comment. Have a little sensitivity, please. Obama is a black man and to call him boy is heavy.  We have enough racism, and sexism. Not sure why you would want to be an apologist in this case.

    [ Parent ]

    Squeaky...you doth protest too much. Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:16:39 PM EST
    you would do well to worry about what you say, while I worry about what I say.  If you don't like what I say, then fine.  And FTR, I am not a racist, but if you feel better thinking I am, then have at it.  Are you sure you aren't Indy33 in disguise?

    [ Parent ]
    Never Said (1.00 / 1) (#221)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:21:31 PM EST
    You were a racist. What you said was racist, imo. To call Obama a boy in almost any context is a racist comment, imo. I find your comment offensive, as I imagine would most progressives.

    [ Parent ]
    I know you aren't buying it (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:26:01 PM EST
    You don't appear to be in the market for the truth.

    [ Parent ]
    has the teevee mentioned anything today (none / 0) (#87)
    by Josey on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:37:47 PM EST
    about Obama's advisor resigning because of ties with Hamas?


    [ Parent ]
    Good question! (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by itsadryheat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:16:42 PM EST
    We need to see a really good piece on the whole Israel/Palestine issue and Obama. It needs to include the relationship of members of Hamas as a part of the government elected by the people, as  opposed to stock reactions to Hamas as a "terrorist group".

    Anyone want to write about Obama's position on how to solve the current impasse.  Don't we need to understand how he will defend himself against the Republican meme of "Obama associates with terrorists/enemies of America" and its' potential impact on Reagan Democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama IMO its more say and do anything... (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Salt on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:04:06 PM EST

    D - Difficulty making everyday decisions
    D - Difficulty expressing disagreement with others


    [ Parent ]
    Flip-flopper, Waffler, Vacillator, Sways Whichever (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    way the wind is blowing = obama.  He has not faced any hard tests to date and I fear for America.  Empty suit as a definition of obama means we have aimed too high.  He has shown me nothing at all...the emperor has no clothes.

    I think it is evidence of his (5.00 / 11) (#6)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:43:34 PM EST
    arrogance, of which all politicians have a healthy dose.  He probably has convinced himself that he hasn't really switched positions on anything, he is just trying to understand all sides.  The problem is that while there might be a lot of evidence about what he says, there is very little evidence about what he will actually do or has done and what he truly believes.  Hence, the confusion. Is he a liberal? A republican? A centrist?  The evidence of what he says could be used to support all three positions.  What does the evidence of what he has actually done prove?  I have no clue!

    The creative class doesn't switch (5.00 / 12) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:57:09 PM EST
    -- it "evolves."  I actually read that defense on some site.  A defense of "moral flexibility."

    (Translated: lack of personal, core, ethical principles.)

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, my gawd... (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:59:26 PM EST
    Ok...now I get it.  I used to believe in social justice, but now that I have money, well...I evolved.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama needs more time (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Leisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:45:12 PM EST
    defining himself before he will ever be elected president.  I share many of your views Jeralyn.  

    I do not know where he stands on the issues and he has appeared to use people as stepping stones to get to the next objective while discarding them when they are no longer needed or useful to him...

    I look forward to reading more.  I am wary of the NYT now, however.  

    I Read It (5.00 / 13) (#50)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:20:05 PM EST
    I read the article - and it's all about Obama's chronology of sucking up to the important people with money and connections - Rezko, Ayers, Minow, Miner, Jones - but at the end - you have no sense of what he has actually accomplished.  In fact, it's 7 pages of how to get the great and powerful on your side as you keep climbing up the electoral ladder.

    It's a portrait of pure power-climbing, unattached to ideology or belief or purpose.

    [ Parent ]

    The mark of a good politician (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:21:07 PM EST
    So long as you always remember that he's working for himself, not you.

    That's true of any pol, of course.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama magically unstained (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Josey on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:27:34 PM EST
    by grime of Chicago Way - Chicago Trib, 5/10
    http://tinyurl.com/472ayg


    [ Parent ]
    Excellent description (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:21:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If there's an issue you really care about (5.00 / 12) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:49:53 PM EST
    there's a good chance, once you look at the record, that you won't quite trust Obama on it.

    This is not going to be a fun campaign season.

    He has never had to make decisions (5.00 / 12) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:54:20 PM EST
    on implementing policy.  If he is the nominee, healthcare is dead.  Cause the process, the process will be his first love.  So, nothing will get done.  That is why I truly believe that he got all that support, to kill healthcare.  The powers that be got scared with Edwards and Hillary.  

    The discussion got pushed to the back and minimized.  He will fight to preserve the Obama name.   In two years, if he is elected, nothing will have happened and we will lose Congress.  

    Round and round.  

    [ Parent ]

    That issue got Jim Cooper on his side (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:57:20 PM EST
    but I don't think it explains most of his institutional support.

    No, Tom Daschle and the Cook Machine think he's their puppet. Where he really stands on many issues, well, it's hard to say.

    President Obama would probably govern the way Senator Obama votes. That is, he wouldn't be terrible, but those looking for concrete reassurance are unlikely to find it.

    [ Parent ]

    I feel the same thing happened to Dean (none / 0) (#166)
    by abfabdem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:33:53 PM EST
    because he was vocal about breaking up the media and they sure didn't want that to happen.

    [ Parent ]
    there isn't a single issue I (5.00 / 21) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:57:00 PM EST
    trust him on, from mandatory minimums to medical marijuana to preserving social security, the death penalty, health care, gun rights and immigration.

    I've said a million times he's no liberal. Is he better than McCain? Of course. But it's like buying a pig in a poke -- we just have to hope. Maybe that's what the "hope" in "hope and change" means.

    Hillary may not be any more liberal than he is, but at least you can identify where she stands and that she sticks to it. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

    [ Parent ]

    That's been my feeling (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:59:59 PM EST
    At least with Hillary, I know where she stands, and it's pretty easy to know where we'll disagree.

    As they've behaved in the Senate, the two are virtually indistinguishable, but Obama's history before the U.S. Senate just doesn't inspire much confidence that he won't waffle on one issue--or all of them.

    [ Parent ]

    he was only there (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:02:28 PM EST
    two years. The last year and a half he's spent running for President.

    [ Parent ]
    and those two years in DC Obama spent (5.00 / 11) (#73)
    by kempis on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:29:45 PM EST
    laying the groundwork for his presidential run.

    A really enlightening article is "Barack Obama Inc" in Harpers, 2006. Obama hit town, immediately started working lobbyists and fund-raising to build one of the most powerful PACs in DC. The whole "he's too pure to associate with lobbyists" business is just another Obamamyth.

    He distanced himself from his lobbyist friends to sanitize himself for this election, but he's a classic, cynical, manipulative politician who is primarily interested in winning office.

    Like George W. Bush, governing doesn't seem to interest him as much as the climb.



    [ Parent ]

    Let Them Eat Process (5.00 / 8) (#76)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:31:29 PM EST
    Plus - Hillary keeps saying "I want you to hold me accountable."  That's only meaningful when tied to specific goals.  She's running to get specific things done.  Health care, education, etc.

    Obama is running to "end the game."  It's a process goal, with no demonstrable metrics - unless your definition of success is entranced masses, dining on the thin gruel of procedural rearrangements.

    [ Parent ]

    Totally agree (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:01:54 PM EST
    and further when he had to be tested, I think he made the wrong choice.  I know I obsess about this, but when he should have stood up for the people that lost their housing in his District, he defended his money guy.  I will never trust him to do the right thing if it means he loses, money or if it affects his "transcended" persona.  

    [ Parent ]
    I'm Worried About What He Is Willing (5.00 / 7) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:24:36 PM EST
    to bargain away to keep his bipartisanship creds especially when it comes to SCOTUS.

    [ Parent ]
    And his Senate votes to fund the war (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by abfabdem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:37:55 PM EST
    He could have made a statement and backed up his anti-war speech with actions but he didn't.  I just don't see evidence based on performance in his past public positions that he has the will or ability to get the work of the President done.

    [ Parent ]
    Add to this that Sen. Obama campaigned (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by lookoverthere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:54:59 PM EST
    for the U.S. Senate saying,

    Obama also is the only candidate to say he would have fought Bush's $87 billion reconstruction request for Iraq and Afghanistan had he been in Congress.


    [ Parent ]
    His pandering on the environment (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by otherlisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:07:32 PM EST
    told me everything I needed to know. It was obvious by his stated platform at the beginning of the campaign that he either didn't care about the environment enough to learn the issues or was deep in the pocket of special interests. Then a month or so in, his platform miraculously "Greens."

    Didn't know, didn't care or bought.

    [ Parent ]

    I think his Ag and Enviro thoughts (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    were/are tied to $$$. Everything seems like a game piece to him, imo. What will it get him (not us).

    I can't find out enough about where he stood on Ag pre-Iowa. Really hard (or I've turned into a lousy googler) to find any info from his state senate time.

    [ Parent ]

    On Ag - Three words (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    Archer Daniels Midland

    BIG AG

    [ Parent ]

    ADM (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    Ugh.  My daughter does environmental mediation in DC and she has nothing good to say about this company.

    Every time NewsHour began its newscast with its promo, I would wince.

    I don't even watch NewsHour any more.  Things went to he** during Bush's reign. Sad.  

    [ Parent ]

    That was what I was looking for (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:59:55 PM EST
    I was looking for connections with them, Monsanto etc. I'm very suspicious in that area  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Pig in a poke has been running through (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by jawbone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:37:30 PM EST
    my mind since the early debates, but I've hesitated to type it in comments figuring that someone somewhere would call it racist.

    So, note: One is not calling the person a pig. The phrase just means you don't have any way of knowing what you're actually getting. It'a a metaphor.

    Which is how I still feel about him. Somehow, I think he'll return to generalities in the general election.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh my, yes. (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:44:59 PM EST
    Somehow, I think he'll return to generalities in the general election.

    He'd have to, especially if he wanted to have crossovers.  It'll be painful for liberal supporters who, of course, will excuse it.

    [ Parent ]

    Unfortunately True (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:11:37 PM EST
    I know that I do not trust him on some key (make or break) issues that I care about. That is why I'm having a really hard time with the "hold your nose" and vote Dem, this time around.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not (3.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:20:21 PM EST
    I've voted for worse candidates.

    I'm not very worried about him--I think he's a generic liberal. I just don't think it's possible to pin him down on much.

    [ Parent ]

    Wish I Shared Your Viewpoint But I Do Not n/t (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:25:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think he is what he admires (4.75 / 4) (#96)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:42:31 PM EST
    a Reagan Democrat

    [ Parent ]
    Academics (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:57:21 PM EST
    He will also fill DC with academics.  They will sit around and ponder and no one will know how to get a program designed or implemented.

    we call it analysis paralysis (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:59:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Neoliberal academics ... (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:55:54 PM EST
    ... marinated in regulatory capture, and Coase Theorem, and dead-weight loss, and all kinds of reasons why it's better to keep government on the sidelines at crunch time.

    Paralysis by right-wing ideology.
    P.U.M.A.
    [ Parent ]

    P.S. At least Reagan had that cocktail napkin (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    ... with the Laffer Curve on it. :-)
    P.U.M.A.
    [ Parent ]
    Do Kennedy, Kerry and Daschle (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by MichaelGale on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:15:55 PM EST
    like academics?  Since they will be the power brokers and the appointers.

    [ Parent ]
    Power Failure (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:57:41 PM EST
    He's a people pleaser.  But that's at the expense of deeply-felt, unshakable positions that can't be traded for a favor.

    His goal is power, not transformation.  That's been apparent to many of us.  Hillary's pursuit of power is considered ugly and venal, while Obama's dash to power is a "noble aspiration" - however it is achieved.

    I wish I said this (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Leisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:05:25 PM EST
    He's a people pleaser.  But that's at the expense of deeply-felt, unshakable positions that can't be traded for a favor.

    when I was talking about his need to define who he is...  

    I just do not feel that I can rely on him on any issue that is important to me.

    [ Parent ]