Saying And Doing Anything To Win

DemfromCT writes;

Too many people have too many unwarranted expectations about what Obama would do as President. At the same time, Obama is sending a clear message that he intends to run pragmatically, and has the toughness to do so. Whether it's FISA or campaign finance, that means making some people unhappy. Running to the center means increasing his chances of winning and the size of the win, and it also means that the "Obambi" slurs (weakness, no substance) are badly missing the mark. I'm not suggesting we suck it up and like everything he does, I'm suggesting we be realistic about expectations.

(Emphasis supplied). I find it ironic and disingenuous that after a year of not just sucking it up but actively smearing Hillary Clinton and deifying Barack Obama, that post appears now. NOW there is an admission that Obama is just a pol. NOW there is an admission that all the talk of "new politics" was pure BS. It is a perfect example of why the Left blogs lost all credibility with their behavior during the primaries - their behavior towards Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama belied the belief that the Left blogs were truthtellers. It was a disgrace. More . . .

I always knew Obama was just a pol. I wrote it all the time. I knew Clinton was just a pol. I wrote it all the time. But the Obama Blogs NEVER wrote that. Never expressed that. Hillary was evil. Obama was pure and good and new. The reality based community was filled with delusion - or at least spread delusion.

Let's be honest, the Obama blogs were not to be be believed. Now DemfromCt admits it was all a sham.

I will repeat my mantra:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

Speaking for me only

< FISA Wasn't Broke, It Needs No Fix | Obama's Promise To Filibuster Telecom Immunity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I find it rather amusing (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by kenosharick on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:12:17 AM EST
    that many who thought of Obama as a saviour who is pure and walks on water are in complete shock or denial when they discover he is just another pol who will do anything to win- something they slurred Hillary for repeatedly.

    it really was all about Clinton Derangement... (5.00 / 30) (#17)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:58:39 AM EST
    It really was all about Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    Lets face it, just about everyone in the progressive blogosphere started out as "anyone but Hillary" -- and with good reason.  We knew that Hillary would not pursue a "progressive" agenda, but a 'center-left' agenda.  

    But when it came down to just two candidates, the progressive blogosphere split in two -- the real progressives who understood that the mess that Bush would be leaving behind would require someone with knowledge and experience to deal with, and the 'fauxgressives' who could not get over their "anyone but Clinton" obsession, and embraced the myth of Barack Obama.  (BTD is one of the rare exceptions who never embraced the Obama myth... he's one of the few non-delusional Obama supporters).

    The fact is that the fauxgressive blogosphere has always been defined by what it opposed, and as long as it was able to focus exclusively on being anti-Bush, it could maintain the illusion that it was "progressive".  

    But the more obvious Obama's flaws became, the more obvious the true nature of the fauxgressives became.  The fauxgressives abandoned everything they ostensibly stood for and instead engaged in an orgy of Hillary hate -- and the more obvious it became that Obama was completely unsuited for the oval office, the more intense Clinton Derangement Syndrome became within the fauxgressive blogosphere.  


    BTD tried to have it both ways, and this... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Talktruth on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    ...is where it got us.  He's what we call in the biz an "enabler."

    ": one that enables another to achieve an end; especially : one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior"

    Supporting BO is self-destructive behavior.


    With good reason? (4.00 / 1) (#113)
    by bridget on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:39:41 PM EST
    I don't think so.

    Hillary could have had the most liberal agenda aside from Kucinich and Grave - (progressive is just another word for nothing left to lose? ;-) I have no idea what it really means) -

    ... and they still would have promoted Clinton hate. It served the purpose and prepared the road for O b a m a. So the so-called liberals took the rightwing talking points and introduced them to a whole new generation of folks who never asked questions, had no sense of history ... but wanted to belong to the "netroots." Not everyone was a teen or twen or a thirtysomething, however, and that was the weird hypocritical stuff about it. Still is.

    ($$$ had something to do with it, too, because blogger's career-making path went thru Clinton hate). Remember the first kos/Armstrong/Russert interview on "Russert?" and the kos appearance on MTP immediately following? It all was so transparent.


    Something Amiss? (none / 0) (#133)
    by bridget on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 04:36:46 PM EST
    just wondering

    and curious re rater's doubts.



    The "Fauxprogressives"? (none / 0) (#60)
    by daring grace on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:52:42 AM EST
    Come off it. Get over yourself.

    'Just about everyone'?

    I've never felt in myself or other Obama supporters a greater nobility than Clinton supporters.

    I know some people on both sides do feel that kind of moral or ideological purity, but most of us (on both sides) just preferred one candidate over the other and were infected with none of the derangement that others seem to have--the derangement that makes them want to name call and belittle people who disagree with them.

    It's a childish form of identity politics that I wish we could get beyond now, especially since, as you point out, the corruption and degradation of the Bush-Cheney years that Obama may be inheriting are going to be so challenging to reverse.

    And I'd be saying this if Clinton was the nominee right now.


    Name the Obama bloggers (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by rilkefan on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:10:31 AM EST
    who took the sensible stance you describe above.

    Blogosphere (3.00 / 1) (#73)
    by daring grace on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    Does the term blogosphere only refer to those who own/operate blogs? I thought it referred to all of us contributing to those blogs, which is what my comments were addressing. There are many other people like me here and elsewere.

    In any case, you have me at a disadvantage. I'm not a well traveled visitor/participant at political blogs.

    I stopped regularly visiting the one blog I used to dependably participate in--Daily Kos--when it got so huge and so fractious, long before this election cycle.

    I sometimes sample comments at other sites, but, again, the level of vituperation is often so intense...who needs it?

    I used to lurk here for years, appreciating the progressive legal info I found. When I heard it mentioned as a Hillary-supporting site during the primaries, I started coming here again. Not to pick fights or promote Obama but to get a sense of why people were supporting her.

    Most of the Obama supporters I know--except for one or two--don't hate Clinton. Many had a hard time choosing between the two candidates. I hear other voices here and elsewhere in the blogosphere who are in the same place. That's what I was writing about.


    It was very strange... (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:04:50 PM EST
    I was talking with someone at work the other day about the primaries...at one point, the "HRC is just nasty and laden with baggage" stuff started coming out.

    That's about the time I pointed out that I really didn't get why supporting one candidate automatically meant that you had to "hate" the other candidate.

    He looked surprised...almost as though he hadn't thought about it that way.


    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by daring grace on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:09:06 PM EST
    ever since she became First Lady, has always seemed to provoke irrational and vicious criticism.

    It's something more than just the fact that she is a strong, effective person who happens to be female.

    But I've never been able to figure it out except that she made a convenient font for the right wing to slop all its vileness into.

    One of the reasons I welcomed her running for senator was that it gave me a chance to vote for her, gleefully imagining how it would make members of the VRWC eat their own livers! At the very moment they finally get to see one hated Clinton leave office, another one pops up!


    kredwyn, how old was that fellow (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by bridget on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:06:28 PM EST
    and if he was he a Dem
    did he get his opinions from reading blogs like dkos and Huffington Post?

    just wondering ... because people old enough to remember the 90s don't believe that kind of nonsense no matter how hard the GOP prosecutors and Starrs tried. Then the haters were rightwingers ... except for the liberal pundits who know who they are.

    But then in the new century the folks who didn't follow poitics in the 90s ate up the rightwing talkingpoints like Icecream with whipped cream and cherry on top. Arianna Huffington has much to answer for. So has Markos Moulitsas. They and others prepared the Clinton hating grounds for this election years earlier. On the internet mostly. When they aligned themselves with NBC and CNN their work was done.

    Huffington was a disgrace on Maher's last show. She just couldn't stop yakking about Hillary's Rovian campaign stragegies. Ah well! Clinton'hating made a lot of careers.


    Didn't mean to put you on the spot (4.00 / 1) (#75)
    by rilkefan on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:56:22 AM EST
    but that's what the discussion is about.  Many many liberal blogs I used to read got a bit or a lot crazy, from top to bottom.  I didn't think there were more than nominal differences between Obama and HRC, but it's hard to think of many posters or commenters arguing that.

    You Didn't Put Me On The Spot (none / 0) (#97)
    by daring grace on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:02:58 PM EST
    You called my attention to a distinction I wasn't aware of about the notion of the blogosphere.

    There were times during the primaries when I got furious at the Clintons and her campaign, and from my knowledge of her voting record as my senator, she was never going to be my first choice.

    But I am absolutely sincere when I say I have never hated her. Many times, I've respected her abilities, tenacity and stamina. And, if she was the candidate--even with my misgivings--I could support her.

    And, frankly, with 35 voting years of voting experience under my belt, the way I look at Obama is not as my savior but as someone with potential to do some good. If he falls short of even my most minimal standards, well, like I say, after 35 years, imagine my surprise.


    I hear you (none / 0) (#74)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:54:32 AM EST
    but speaking for me, I think this thread is excellent. This back and forth and examination is so necessary rather than personalities. I think is is very substantive and important for those of us who need to come to terms with what may be.

    Identity politics (4.00 / 1) (#122)
    by VicfromOregon on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:10:21 AM EST
    May I suggest you study up on the phrase "identity politics"  It got misused so much this primary season that few remember what it really denotes.  And, when you choose to try and use it as a demeaning weapon against another blogger in future, you'll be more thoughtful next time, perhaps.

    The whole media coverage of Obama was about the zeal, the wave, the Pop star like presence, the thousands that cheered and roared, the youth movement, the "I've never seen anything like it", there's just something about him, "Heee's The Onnnne!".  I'd say there was a high level of crushing adoration for the man.  Hard to miss.

    Take your come uppins with grace.  There was nary an Obama supporter who didn't portray him as the savior to all that is wrong with America, nor take any opportunity to disingenuously dump spurious accusation after spurious accusation against Hillary, especially, and anyone running against Obama.  With Hillary gone, and McCain better at sidestepping the slop, Obama no longer has a foil against which to play or a distraction that the media would run after like a tossed bone to a pack of hungry dogs overlooking the meat all the while in their frenzy.

    Now we ALL get to see that Obama's M.O. is, and has always been - champion nothing while appearing to champion everything.


    Do you really think they are shocked? I feel (4.20 / 5) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:24:14 AM EST
    they knew all along and have conducted this promotion of obama, almost like an experiment to see how far they could go with it.  It is loathsome any way you cut it.

    Does that make Obama (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM EST
    the William Hung of politics?

    Will the world be laughing as he turns America into an even bigger joke than Bush had?


    Maybe hard to believe, but it is a distinct (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    possibility.  It appears as if we are on a dangerous course.

    They will not be laughing in the world (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by bridget on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:50:07 PM EST
    This is serious business.

    I have family and friends in Europe and there is a lot expected from the new US President. Change for the better. I learned from the net that they have also been bombarded by the press with the change propaganda about Obama. Last year, before the debates, that was the word: Only Obama could change Washington because Hillary Clinton belonged to the old garde etc. It comes Straight from dkos, NBC, you name it. In early June when Obama was itching to proclaim victory one article in "Stern" worried that Obama's skin color is a problem for him because of the Clinton's racist campaign strategists. It is really shocking to read that kind of stuff in the foreign press.

    Whatever happens AFTER Obama or McCain ....  Europeans will not laugh. They have to take it. Again. Grin and bear it. Just like always. Cause America has the power. They don't.


    Of course (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:16:41 PM EST
    you're talking about center-Left blogs, not necessarily "Left blogs".

    But, swinging wildly is the style of the day.


    Fighting for issues (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:22:25 AM EST
    If we could do that: look closely at the issues and choose pols who would disappoint least or would be least likely to disappoint, we could have had a Gore or a Kucinich or a Dodd or or a Feingold or....
    How many people say : I like X best on the issues but I'm not sure X is electable so I'll support Y. Or Z is best on the issues but he's too short, swarthy, femmy, brash low-key etc so I'll go for Y who is manly and tall and looks good in a suit.

    There are any number of pols who stand up regularly for the Constitution and are great on the issues and will never get noticed.

    In the days of our founders - no TV. Everyone wrote or gave speeches. The media is the massage I guess. The question is: how to we get attention paid to the pols who do stand up?

    When I "found my voice" (5.00 / 16) (#15)
    by Fabian on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:46:50 AM EST
    I found out that I am an issues voter.  It can be intensely frustrating at times when no pol appears to want to support this issue or that, but it is also much easier to be true to an issue than true to a single politician, or dare I say, political party.

    But the Left Blogs touted Obama as the mostest, bestest progressive running even when the evidence didn't support their claims.  I won't speculate on their motivations, but I feel sorry for everyone who believed the blogs and bloggers.  Sorry people.  Read the label.  Do your own research.  Don't trust people just because they say what you want to hear.

    And remember all this when the next election and the next incarnation of JFK/RFK/MLKJr is topped with a bow and presented to you.


    Read The Label ! (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:20:38 AM EST
    what a great campaign slogan, fabian: we are the fine print voters, in the cult of issues and substance...

    Read The Label !

    How, you ask? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Montague on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:09:21 AM EST
    The short answer is, We can't.  Not when it's for president.   I gave up hope long ago on that front.  

    All I can think is, thank goodness that people who look kind of goofy (Henry Waxman for one) can get elected as SOMETHING.  He may not be president, but he's doing great work in his current position.  


    Presidential power should be limited (none / 0) (#83)
    by splashy on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:34:16 PM EST
    For that very reason. Pick the "pretty one" as a figurehead, then pick the ones that are competent to actually make the laws and run things. Don't let the "pretty one" make any real decisions, because they may not be as conscientious or decent.

    Not that pretty people can't be all those things, and I'm sure many are, but since being pretty does not necessarily impart those virtues, I would feel safe to assume that a percentage of the pretty people will be bad leaders. The pretty ones that can actually do things well, and that go for the common good, can go for the positions they can make the most difference in. The others can be the figurehead.

    Make me think of "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" and the Galactic President in that series named Zaphod Beeblebrox.


    Zaphod Beeblebrox! (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Montague on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:49:36 PM EST
    Awesome character.  I would vote for him in a galactic nanosecond.

    Attractive people are proportionately just as likely to be good leaders, or sucky leaders, as less attractive people, but they sure do get more credit for what they didn't do.  I really, really hate it when a figurehead gets credit for what a hard worker or brilliant thinker in the background actually accomplished.  This is one reason I do not want Hillary to be VP for Obama.  She belongs on the TOP of any such ticket, based not on appearance but on her intelligence, wisdom, judgement, indefatigable hard work, lifelong commitment to helping others, etc.


    That would be me... (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:09:51 AM EST
    How many people say : I like X best on the issues but I'm not sure X is electable so I'll support Y. Or Z is best on the issues but he's too short, swarthy, femmy, brash low-key etc so I'll go for Y who is manly and tall and looks good in a suit.

    Issues are important, but so is electability.  And copetence and experience plays a role as well.

    When is first started looking at the field, I never even considered Obama -- it would have been irresponsible to consider him for president when there were so many other experienced people running, and one look at his background raised serious questions about his electability.  To me, he was no more 'realistic' a candidate than Kucinich or Gravel (indeed, I'm still convinced that he entered the race in order to establish his viability for a future run.... but when he was selected by the media to be the 'viable' anti-Clinton candidate, he started believing his own press releases.)  

    So while we can talk about 'issues' all we want to, we have to realize that there are lots of other factors involved in being the best candidate besides being right on 'the issues'.  


    Solution (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:20:24 AM EST
    I agree : electability is important. My question is how do we get the cream to rise to the top instead of the grease?
    Electability is placed too high on the priorities right now. If the media gives all its positive stroking to one candidate (Obama, GWB, McCain), they get seen as viable.
    We need a campaign to get the better issues deliverers to run and make them mainstream.
    The blogosphere has some power to do that. The progressive base loves a guy like Kucinich for his ethical stands and committment to our values and his activism. But when the Presidential prmaries came they jumped on the bandwagon of an unknown.

    VERY DISSAPOINTED.... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by georgeg1011 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:25:12 AM EST
    in Obama's statement yesterday.  As a supporter of his since Edwards dropped out I did not expect him to walk on water.  But as a constitutional law professor who TAUGHT the subject I expected more than the Lukewarm support for this bill that basically shreds the 4th amendment. Not that I wont vote for him over Mr. Magoo in Nov, that would be just silly...but I guess this will happen on other issues.  

    Just curious (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by sj on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:21:21 AM EST
    What would those other issues be?  The pro-Obama ones, I mean, not the anti-McCain ones.  Because I am seriously struggling here.  

    I've been an active Dem party member for many years, and I feel absolutely no inclination to knock on a single door this time.  The voting part?  As of now I can still hold my nose and pull the lever as I have so many times before.  But the more I see the harder that gets.

    Like I say, I'm struggling here.


    Ventured over to TPM last night (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by Jim J on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:27:55 AM EST
    to see what their reaction was to Obama's parsed cave-in. Needless to say it was of a piece with DemfromCT's nugget of naivete above: Don't worry, Obama's still OK, just trust and believe that he knows what's best.

    Weak minds dominate both sides of the political spectrum today.

    Many comments I read by (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:42:13 AM EST
    Obama supporters at other sites include:
    •  I'll vote for him, but I'm not going to give $
    •  I'll vote for him, but I'm not going to   continue working for the campaign
    •  I no longer want to vote for him
    •  I'm confused as to why he issued the statement he did on Fisa/telecom immunity bill

    This does not bode well for Obama, imo.

    Consequences (none / 0) (#67)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:15:25 AM EST
    "This does not bode well for Obama, imo."  You'll get no argument from me.

    Obama is placing an enormous bet that the lefites won't abandon him ("they have nowhere to go", etc.) in greater numbers than independents and righties will flock to him.  And the electoral map details only make it much tougher to predict how this will play out.  Obama can lose a barge load of votes in NY and CA without risking losing those states, but will he also lose some "purple" states?  And if so, does he pick up other purple or reddish states to offset the loss in electoral votes?


    Pennslyvania (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:22:25 AM EST
    imo is at risk.  I lived there for many years. Even Obama's demographics are generally more conservative than their counterparts in solid blue states.  I also think anywhere that Latino votes and turnout are essential he faces uncertainty at best, unless he does a more effective job of bringing Latinos into the fold. I looked at the internals for the latest poll in Georgia by Insider Advantage which reports over 60% of Latinos as undecided.  

    I am very interested in the post cave-in (none / 0) (#84)
    by thereyougo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    polling, which came in on the eve of his Newsweek poll double digit lead.

    Good reminder about Obama believing his own press releases. It is baffling how the better qualified just got brushed aside and this newbie got through. Give him credit for it plus a huge war chest and the populist theme, yada yada.  Oprah money?


    There's a lot of boding to be done here ... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:17:34 PM EST
    ... and most of it will be boded badly.

    Did You Miss (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:22:12 AM EST
    Greg Seargent's piece? It is only the headline for the last 24 hours.

    Hardly equivocating in his dismay about Obama's cave in.


    The glaring difference between Obama and (5.00 / 23) (#9)
    by carmel on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:30:37 AM EST
    Hillary, in my opinion, is that Hillary will fight for progressive issues, such as universal health care, while Obama will cave to the big corporate interests who are backing and buying his campaign and his present, for, no I'm against votes.

    Obama's cave? sorry couldn't help it (none / 0) (#85)
    by thereyougo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:42:07 PM EST
    dark days ahead for the audacious one.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by akaEloise on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:57:22 PM EST
    The headline on TPM is "Obama Backs Surveillance Cave" and I wondered if Surveillance Cave is like the Cone of Silence in reverse.  

    "My Candidate Went To Surveillance Cave And All I Got Was This Lousy Unity T-shirt".


    Now (5.00 / 18) (#10)
    by tek on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:31:21 AM EST
    we're supposed to be realistic about politics as usual?  AFter Obama totally smeared the Democratic candidate who was a shoo-in and illegitimately pushed her out?  The longer Obama runs, the more apparent it becomes that he is the worst sort of politics as usual and the weakest candidate but he is the front man for Democrats in D. C. who want to destroy the Clintons.  Great platform, no?

    I will never vote for this man because I am deeply opposed to what he stands for and what the Democrats who support him have descended to.  Might as well have the neoCons.

    What is it that he (3.00 / 2) (#34)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:31:47 AM EST
    stands for that you are against?  Given that what he supports is very similar to clinton, were you against Clinton?  By the way it is completely okay to say I don't like him, buy why disguise it behind the issues?

    he stands for bipartisanship (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:24:49 AM EST
    which means voting with Republicans, for the Republican agenda. I want a Democrat. And I deserve a Democrat after 7 years of hell, damnit.

    I especially don't want Republican-lite energy policy, like Obama's.


    I can't speak for tek (5.00 / 8) (#76)
    by tree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:02:48 PM EST
    but what worries me about Obama is what he doesn't stand (up) for. He won't stand up for UHC. He's willing to say a few words about it but he's made it clear that its not an issue he'll fight for. He's backpedaled on the war, so I don't see him taking a principled stand on that. On economics he's much closer to Friedman than Keynes. Frankly,   he hasn't shown that he will fight for any important liberal issue.

      Looking at his record, it appears to me that the one thing he has shown any interest in fighting for is getting elected or reelected. I don't want a candidate that puts all his time and effort and power into getting the job rather than doing the job. I don't think he'll stand for anything after he gets elected( if he gets elected) either, because then the most important issue to him then will be getting reelected. We'll get nothing on issues, and I worry that a candidate that will truly say or do anything to get elected, or reelected, could easily further corrupt and pervert our already corrupted system. He's already shown signs of doing that in the Democratic Party. Certainly, if his supporters will forgive him anything there is little to stop him from doing whatever assures his election and reelection. Right now, I can't really be sure who will be the lesser of two evils in this election year.


    UHC (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:51:43 PM EST
    Is a bit of a misnomer. It is a Universal Insurance Plan. UHC cuts out the Insurance industry. IOW you do not have to worry about figuring out who or how to get covered with UHC, you just go to the doctor. With Hillary's and Obama's plan you have to get your insurance sorted out first, then you get an appointment.

    Still better than the horrible situation we have today. Do I think the Dems can pull it off. Not sure, there is a lot of conservative opposition on both sides of the aisle.


    so...4 more years.... (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by georgeg1011 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:42:11 AM EST
    of Mr. Magoo is ok with you.  You would rather continue the policies that have brought us to where we are now than vote for the alternative....I felt the same about Hillary during the campaign but would have voted for her if she was the nominee....more republican governance is a recipe for more war, more debt, and no solution to our healthcare and energy crisis...don't you think?  

    Despite (5.00 / 29) (#14)
    by tek on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:43:50 AM EST

    the fact that you obviously "know everything," like the George W. Bush Republicans were "smarter and more enlightened" than everyone else, including moderate Republicans, there IS a principled position in opposition to Barack Obama.  It's only essential to get Obama in the WH if one is blind to everything but party label.  
    A thinking person sees immediately that the Democrats are now behaving like Karl Rove and the neoCons--those people we hate and have been slamming for 8 years because they pull the wool over people's eyes to satisfy their own greedy agenda.  A thinking person analyzes this situation and concludes that if it barks like a dog it most likely is a dog.  

    People of your mind-set assume that because a person calls himself a Democrat, he's going to put into place the liberal agenda, but Obama's history indicates no such thing.

    A thinking person might look at the fact that Obama and his D. C. PEOPLE keep eschewing the Clinton successes in favor of a pol like Reagan and the thinking person might think, hmm, if these people don't like what Bill Clinton did in the 90s, then what are they after?  Not anything that would be a real democracy.

    I found it interesting while watching Bill Moyers last night that the black professor from Howard outlined the kind of programs and policies that would benefit African Americans and the entire program that he outlined was in operation under the Clinton administration.  He is black, he does support Obama , and, yet, he doubts Obama will support the policies he sees as essential to the advancement of black Americans.

    [ Pa


    Well said, tek (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by DFLer on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:04:14 AM EST
    That Bill Moyers show last night was fantastic.

    The prof. you referenced was Orlando Patterson of Howard. The other prof., Glenn C. Loury of Brown, had some very interesting things to say. (part two)

    The first part of the show is a MUST SEE also, in my book: an interview with Douglas Blackmon, author SLAVERY BY ANOTHER NAME, which is a history of forced labor in the south from after the Reconstruction into the 1940s.


    Actually (5.00 / 16) (#46)
    by tek on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:05:17 AM EST
     I was so irritated with the first part of the show I couldn't keep in my seat.  I am a professional academic historian.  The history this journalist has written a "startling account" of--which he says has been suppressed and never published--is actually the subject of many award-winning books written by historians.  It's been taught since the 1960s.  But professional accounts have been consistently overlooked by journalists like Bill Moyers.  Now, a black man is running for president so Moyers latches onto a JOURNALIST who has written this stuff--with many inaccuracies--(as is the inevitable outcome of journalists writing history since they don't understand historical research and analysis) and features him on the show.  I was infuriated that he kept saying this history has been so far untold. I was further disgusted that the Harvard prof stated that historians will not recognize that the focus of slavery was to destroy the family.  I don't know what planet he's living on, but that is precisely the focus of academic studies of slavery.

    One of the most infuriating things was that at the same time in our country's history, white people in the North and Asians in the West were treated just as badly as--or worse than-- blacks in the South.  They were imported by the thousands from east European and countries China so they didn't speak the language or know the culture.  Their lives weren't worth a sous.  In fact, when white laborers tried to strike for decent working conditions they were shot down in cold blood by the private armies of men like Andrew Carnegie.  After a mining blast, Chinese were always sent in first so that any loose slate would fall on them and not kill the other miners.  But we didn't hear anything about that from this author.  He kept saying that white people in the North abandoned the blacks in the South.  It's a total misrepresentation, skewed to produce guilt and sympathy so white people will feel a responsibility to vote for a black candidate without looking at him carefully.  I guess Bill Moyers and his guest never read "The Jungle."

    The real trouble with this country IS labor, but it isn't just slavery or peonage in the South.  Actually, blacks and whites in the Gilded Age banded together in the Farmers' Alliance and created a separate shadow government that was a cooperative.  Eastern bankers and the federal government refused to allow them to use their own tender to support their cooperative movement.  It had nothing whatever to do with racism, it had to do with corporatists ripping off labor to get more for themselves.

    That is the problem with the United States.  People have always come here to get rich.  Business people--whether planters or industrialists--figured out early on that if they could get free labor they could make obscene fortunes.  That has been the system ever since, with the sanction of the federal government.

    Until we start looking at this problem as a whole--the problem that our economy rewards the privileged few and the Constitution states that the government is for all people--the U. S. will never be a democracy.  Framing all the problems in the country as racism is a grave mistake but that seems to be the main focus of Obama's campaign.  Believing that having a black president will solve everything is simply a myth.


    As someone who (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    once upon a time was studying 17th century U.S. history, I'm saying thanks for your informative post.  Any reading recommendations?  When I was history grad student, I always found that the 250+ page monographs I was reading had been more tersely presented in 50-page articles in prominent history journals, so if this is still true & you can recommend same, I'd appreciate it.

    Couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#127)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 07:00:41 AM EST
    It's not RACE but LABOR which should be important.
    Things like minimum wage, UHC, pensions, public housing etc COUNT.
    When I look at Rezko, or the way the Hospital where Michelle works is run, I feel HURT.

    You (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sas on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:52:30 AM EST
    think Obama has solutions to any of these problems?  or even cares to deal with them?

    I believe you are in for disappointment of epic proportions....but time will tell.


    Obama same as McCain on Iraq.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by chopper on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:34:08 PM EST

    Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain.

    from Washington Post interview


    Thanks BTD (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:33:49 AM EST
    You have nailed this right on the head. I still don't understand how so many of the progressive blogs (many that I respected for their relentless pursuit of the truth) seemed to abandon their own principles. Just common sense should tell you that no one runs for president without being a politician. And anyone that blindly trusts government is a fool.

    Simple answer (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    I apologize in advance if this sounds like snark, but here's how I explain it: It's high school politics at Internet speed and scope.

    Put another way, the similarities of this primary cycle to American Idol are exceedingly uncomfortable.


    Yeah Well Let's Not Forget (none / 0) (#43)
    by talex on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:52:10 AM EST
    that as of a few days ago BTD was cheerleading Obama and saying he will make 'a great President". Then reality started to set in and he wrote his - "mantra' on Thrusday! I now hope that the cheerleading on this site will diminish and we will get serious about talking about just who Obama is and how in the long run will not be good for the country or the Democratic Party.

    I have said over and over, and have been doing so for many many months - Obama will set back the Progressive wing of the Democratic party decades. What took us decades to accomplish so far, which is not enough, will be destroyed in less than a week when Obama takes office. That is what I'd like BTD to write about if he wants to be in step with the reality of the times.


    I appreciate BTD's stance (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:27:51 AM EST
    I couldn't do what he's done for us for this entire ghastly primary. He has been surrounded by we who are not buying Obama, providing a sanctuary of sorts to exiled kossacks. Yet he (tepidly) supports Obama. So, kudos to BTD. What an example.

    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by talex on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:34:10 AM EST
    if you can give kudos to a position that is wrong imo then you have a point. I see Armando now slowly distancing himself from that position though.

    But I do mean slowly. His commentary today is weak tea compared to some other bloggers I have read who wrote on Obama's statement yesterday. In fact Armando has yet to respond to Obama's statement and parse it for what it is.


    I guess since they will all vote for him (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:43:31 AM EST
    no matter what, because he is nothillarynotmccain, he can do whatever he wants on issues, including throw the constitution under the bus. He could break every promise he made, and they will all still vote for him. What does he care?

    When He Breaks Every Promise He's Ever Made (none / 0) (#64)
    by daring grace on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    then I will not vote for him.

    Actually, long before that moment.

    Certainly by the time he throws the constitution under the bus.

    But he has broken no promise yet about FISA that I know of.

    Opting out of public financing is just the kind of savvy political move I approve of: For once we have a Democrat running who is in a superior financial position to his Republican opponent. Who knows? if Kerry had managed to raise more money, we might have been spared 4 more years of this disastrous leadership?


    Kerry left $15 million (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:13:55 PM EST
    on the table in 2004.  He had more money than he spent.  Opting out of public financing, when the promise to take it is on paper, is just flat lying.

    Then Kerry (none / 0) (#93)
    by daring grace on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    was even more inept a candidate than I already thought he was.

    He didn't fight with everything he has.

    You call it lying.

    I want to see an end to the Bush years and find this issue a non-issue in the larger scheme of things if it means the Democrats finally have someone who won't leave anything on the table in order to defeat the right wing in power that's destroying the country.

    So I guess I call it savvy strategizing to a good end.

    But, hey, I'll be honest. If McCain did this, I might say it was lying. It's still not an issue that decides the election for me.


    Good one! (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:43:36 PM EST
    "You call it lying. I call it savvy strategizing to a good end."

    Ah, integrity is so, like, yesterday.


    Strategy (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by chopper on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:52:15 PM EST

    I'm sure Obama calls it strategy when he is in cahoots with the DNC to deny Hillary her delegates in Florida and Michigan. Which, by the way, if her delegates were counted legitimately, she won the delegates AND the People's Votes.

    More strategy when he took his name off the Michigan ballot to gain favor with Iowa. Yes, he won Iowa by bussing in hoards of Chicago punks to disrupt and steal the caucus delegates.

    More strategy when he had the DNC give him the Michigan delegates even though he wasn't even on the ballot. Some Michigan voters were ticked off when they found out their Mike Gravel votes went to Obama.  Their second choice would have been Hillary, they can't stand Obama. But Obama hijacked their votes.

    More strategy when Obama sent his goons in to Texas and other caucus states to steal delegates through the use of fraud, theft, threats, and force.  Over 2000 complaints were filed in Texas alone, even with the phone lines jammed.

    More strategy, Obama took over the DNC so we won't hear anymore about that.

    Obama may call it strategy.  I call it corrupt  and about as undemocratic and un-American as you can be and still get away with it.


    For the Record (none / 0) (#131)
    by daring grace on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:27:09 AM EST
    Obama didn't call it strategy.

    I did.


    integrity (none / 0) (#123)
    by VicfromOregon on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 03:14:18 AM EST
    Dr Molly, Vic from Oregon here.  I was trying to figure out what I was seeing during this election and you summed it up - "integrity is so, like, yesterday". This frightens me deeply.  If congress is strong, things will work out whoever gets the pick. Obama is weak and can be pressed.  McCain can be out maneuvered.  The sad thing, though, is that little good may get done.

    But the lack of integrity, or the seeing it as getting in the way of defeating the Republicans is like condoning any other unethical act in order to get what you want.  The thing that scares me is how often I see this very sentiment expressed on other sites by Obama supporters, too.  There is something very Karl Rovey about it all.  An earlier blogger went into great detail about this.  But your summation is concise and portable.  I'll credit the use of it to you when I blog elsewhere when addressing this issue.  But, this is a core theme running through this election.  It marks some shift or change where culture is now normalizing and reflecting the worst of politics. It is more destructive than any single candidate.


    The worst of politics (none / 0) (#129)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 08:43:51 AM EST
    Yes. It's amazing how cynical this election season has been, so far from the early idealistic promise of Obama. The lying, the distortions, the smears - and the democrats just shrug. I guess it's naive to believe in democrats having more integrity than republicans.

    What's sad to me are comments like the one above that rationalize it all away as 'smart politics'. Liberals used to stand for a few things like principles, truth, fairness, etc. At least that's why I thought I was one.

    I think people underestimate how betrayed some feel by Obama. Some of us believed that he was different in the beginning.


    The Purity of Politics (none / 0) (#132)
    by daring grace on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:49:00 AM EST
    Once again, I'm puzzled by the wistful tone of your writing here, the way you seem to believe that this  election cycle is 'more cynical'.

    I'm also envious of the idealism you seem to still be able to bring to your participation in the American electoral process. Sadly, each presidential election has taught me the harsh lesson that I'd best leave my idealism at the door. Leading with my idealism in presidential politics in the last 35 years has never served me well in terms of seeing a truly progressive candidate elected.

    I've never been an Obama zealot or someone who sees him as magical or exceptionally different from other pols. I like some of his positions better than those of his opponents. And he's  implementing a grassroots organizing approach that may serve to get more Democrats elected in November.

    Cynical, because I can forgive him opting out of an early-season 'agreement' with McCain to accept public financing? Okay, then I am.

    I'm sorry if you feel betrayed by Obama. I guess I've never gotten that deeply engaged with him to feel that way in the face of this issue. His flip on FISA distresses me, though. And I'm not going to forget or let up on him or the Dems in Congress who side with him on it. Whoops, there's some of that pesky idealism slipping out.


    Political cynicism (none / 0) (#138)
    by VicfromOregon on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:58:29 PM EST
    It's not Obama that makes me cynical.  He was fairly easy to decipher early on, though I really am still confused why people think he is a liberal?  I'm not a Democrat, so I feel no requirement to follow the urgings of any party, though I end up voting for Democratic candidates more often because many are closer to my own "social values", but in Oregon, we often have socially liberal candidates from both these two parties and that widens the choices for us here.

    I'm not a liberal myself, but I support some liberal legislation.  I'm a radical. There will never be a candidate that comes close to representing the world as I would like to see it.  But, I always hope that people will make wise choices and work towards greater personal empowerment and responsibility rather than relying others to do so.  While the Democrats have gotten the idea of needing to create a level playing field, they have really not figured out how to create one since Medicare and Social Security.  And, we are still having Nixon to thank for nearly all our major legislative environmental protections.  

    But, whether it's the political polarization of today or the numbing fatigue that comes from constanting looking to leaders for solutions rather than creating them ourselves or in community, I fear there is no longer a distinction between utilizing an institutional mechanism such as the electoral process to achieve social benefit and passively keeping to that institution while "waiting and waiting over and over" for the benefit - like putting change into a vending machine that displays the desired goodie, but it never drops down to the swinging door where we can grab it.  We keep pounding on the machine.  Others come and put in more coins.  Someone comes and takes the money out.

    I'm not advocating repairing or replacing the machine at this point.  I usually believe in small internal change over revolution any day.  But, I'm really questioning if we should be using the vending machine model at all anymore.  We have gotten used to standing there waiting.  Our involvement limited to how to cajole or coerce a dispensing mechanism to function better.  I think this is putting us to sleep.  I think this is the root of the cynicism and anger and callusness by both parties and intraparties.

    Any thoughts?


    Cynicism (none / 0) (#139)
    by VicfromOregon on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:40:34 PM EST
    Dr Molly,  I think, rightly so, you are still addressing the issues from a cultural/social/personally emotive perspective while many are staying to the purely "political" lens.  Seen through what can easily become the tunnelvision of party politics, the deeper current can be overlooked or missed entirely.

    There is something going on here way beyond politics.  There is a shift, maybe subtle because it has been gradual? ( i'm not sure), but a shift in attitude and heart and a willingess towards desperation.  I don't see hope and change and solutions and unity and all the slogans of all the candidates.  I don't see these playing out.  I don't see them in people's hearts.  There is a disconnect for many of us from the effects of our actions while we actively engage in conflict and subterfuge.  The far liberal Left sees its first chance for real power since the early 70's and is throwing away anyone in their way.  The far Right licks their wounds from the past struggle.  The centrists seem overwhelmed and torn and tugged, and often clueless to the very forces that pull them back and forth.  Everyone is bringing forth their respective champion who will solve all this!  Make order from the disorder.  Reorder the rigid.  

    A glacier, when it moves, grinds everything underneath it by its shear massive size and weight, yet the friction is nearly imperceptable.  Is that what is happening here?  Or, maybe overload.  Or, simply just too much betrayal after betrayal, as you suggest.  I don't know,  Maybe all of it, but I think it is important to grasp.  Maybe just the collision of politcal giants, the two parties, as they both topple in a kind of slow-motion falling.  Their crashing opening up sky to let sunlight reach a new seedling.  I hope it is this.  I hope the response to the betrayal is to nurture a new path of greater conscience, deeper compassion for all the while it appears to be getting more impossible.

    But, how do people get to their goals without also taking along the values that are necessary to reaching those goals - healthcare, security, global warming and the subsequent climate destabilization.  These will all take our deepest most developed integrity and abilities to cooperate with one another.  Few of Obama's supporters ever speak in these terms, talk with these terms.  Now even Obama speaks to them even less.  Each passing day it will be even more so.  Just like Chicago.  No different.

    At such a critical time, I fear we are clinging to institutions that are too encumbered to match the real concerns and issues of our times.

    If all the money and time we had all just spent was used to improve the system rather than place bets on a horse, maybe we wouldn't be trapped now under the ice.  We could have made room for both Hillary and Obama.  Even McCain.  But...


    Just Curious (none / 0) (#130)
    by daring grace on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:25:55 AM EST
    We seem to inhabit different political environments.

    Has every politician you've ever supported always lived up to your highest expectations for integrity and doing and what you want them to do?

    From your scathing comments about Obama, I would take that to be the case which I find surprising since as a progressive, I've NEVER found that to be true.

    Perhaps you reside in a dependably ultra blue area. But even then, how do you work that on the national political level, as in when voting for president?


    Scathing comments? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:29:15 PM EST
    I think you missed your calming meds today, or else you took the ones that make you overreact.

    I Apologize (none / 0) (#135)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:12:49 AM EST
    Mistakenly, I associated you with others here who routinely (even reflexively) and often irrationally criticize Obama.

    Having reviewed some of your recent comments, I find this is not so. That was what I meant by scathing.

    Still, it would be delightful if we could have a civil disagreement, one that doesn't involve giving into the temptation to snark.


    Not with you, thanks (none / 0) (#136)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:04:40 AM EST
    Not surprised, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:57:09 AM EST
    Remember he voted for renewal lof the PATRIOT Act, but no contrast with Clinton who voted for it twice.

    Ever since Feingold decided not to run I've seen the Primaries as a choice of the best of mediocrities.  

    Obama Let Us Down (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by john horse on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:07:03 AM EST
    I too am disappointed in Obama.  This was about doing the right thing.  About defending our Constitution.  And Obama let us down.  I had the audacity to hope that this election would be something more that chosing between the lesser of two evils.    


    Memo to DemfromCT (5.00 / 15) (#20)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:07:05 AM EST
    Enjoy that weak sauce you're cooking up there, pal.

    Being realistic about expectations = giving up on the principles you and the Mighty Hordes claimed to be standing on.

    It was never about principles, was it?  It was about doing anything to get elected--the very thing you all swear that you hate.  I'm kind of enjoying the irony that it took less than 2 weeks from HRC's official concession speech to get to Obama's first substantive failure as leader of our party.  I imagine you're expecting a lot more of this "realism" in the future; I wonder how long you're going to pretend it constitutes political courage.

    BTD is right here; our job is to push like hell against bad policy, no matter who is making it.  

    Too sad (5.00 / 12) (#21)
    by kmblue on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:08:37 AM EST
    I supported Hillary because she was tough and willing to fight.
    Now look what we're stuck with:  A man who won't stand up, and supporters who will excuse anything he does.

    Not all his supporters. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Fabian on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:15:23 AM EST
    People at dkos who are giving Obama (and other Deomcrats) grief for their positions on the FISA bill are getting an earful.   They aren't just supposed to hold their nose, they are supposed to believe that what they are seeing now isn't what they will see when Obama wins the White House.

    Maybe some people believe that President Obama will be a whole different person than Senator Obama.  I don't.  WYSIWYG.


    Fighting for issues (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by laurie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:14:12 AM EST
    is actually a lot more difficult than it seems.
     My biggest issue is Universal Health Care, and that is why I preferred Hillary, because I knew that in all her life, that was the single and most important issue to her.

    However what happened during the Primaries was that wherever I looked, I was being told that on the issues Obama and Hillary were more or less the same, that there was little difference between them... thus making it superfluous to even discuss such trivialities...

    Now Obama is facing the Republicans, and similarly he is clouding the issues. Now he is pro NAFTA, the Free Market, Wall Mart, Evangelical Christians, FISA etc.

    His supporters all believe that realism is the key, and that he does what he does in order to get himself elected.

    At times, I too find myself dreaming, yes he'll do all he can to get in...when he gets in he'll show those in power what a load of spoilt sobs they are...he'll give a real wake-up call to Congress...He'll get the issues I'm interested in thru...

    That's the strength of Obama's appeal-he is all things to all men. And so ISSUES no longer count-the IMAGE is the message. C'mon BTD you didn't really expect him to stand up for the 4th Amendment-did you? Yes, I know the only thing we actually know about him is that he taught Constitutional History...
    But Pols are Pols, and ethics don't sell.

    perception (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by VicfromOregon on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 03:20:13 AM EST
    I think of Obama as someone who champions nothing while appearing to champion everything.

    Yes, they are all pols (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Lahdee on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:15:51 AM EST
    Yes, dears, the pony ride is for pols. Just remember children, "...you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols."

    But, but daddy, you said he'd be shiny!
    I'm sorry child, there is no shiny.
    But daddy...
    You'll understand someday child, for now you'll just have to trust me.

    I don't know what's better (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:57:02 AM EST
    Better slogan for a tshirt:

    "Read the Label"


    "There is no Shiny"

    Great stuff.


    P.U.M.A. vs R.O.V.E.s (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:16:53 AM EST
    what this is all coming down to is a question of whether you're a

    PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) who refuses to support an unsuitable candidate and tacitly endorse the corruption of the DNC that has made him its standard-bearer.

    or a

    ROVE (Reactionary Obama Voters Everywhere) -- someone who will vote Democratic as a knee-jerk reaction against anyone with an "R" next to his name.

    The convention is two months away -- but it doesn't look like the ROVEs will admit that they've screwed up, and join with the PUMAs and demand a better candidate.

    I can't believe (5.00 / 10) (#31)
    by Fabian on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:24:47 AM EST
    I'm hearing supposed Democrats saying "Never mind all that (FISA, etc).  When we get Our Guy in, you'll see.  Things will be different.".

    I expect a certain amount of fluffery about the candidate.  But Don't worry, be happy, vote Democrat!  is appalling.


    I can't believe it when I read that garbage too (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    People will go through a lot of contortions though in their avoidance of acknowledging that they have gotten themselves into this situation and told everyone who saw where the road was going to "F" off.  Denial can be a river running through the progressive base.

    Mind All That FISA Stuff (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by daring grace on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    I do.

    So, if Obama doesn't support/participate in a filibuster as he said he would last year, yes, hold his feet to the fire.  

    I plan to.

    But, yes, I am one of those who believe having him in the White House is better than McCain. Is HIS position on FISA better?


    'believe' (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:00:13 PM EST
    is the operative word here...so "all that FISA stuff" aside, just swallow hard and remember the campaign slogan:  stuff you can believe in.

    Problem is, it's not just on Sunday from 10 to 11 that the country will be required to pretend to believe absolute nonsense...it will be 24/7 for at least 4 years with reality intervening more often than not.  

    If memory serves, we're in the 8th year of that experiment right now.

    Oh, well...maybe in the next life belief will be enough...


    My Previous Statement (none / 0) (#103)
    by daring grace on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:25:00 PM EST
    is already inoperative.

    I see that Obama has said now he supports this FISA 'fix' that Pelosi et al are promoting.

    So, yes, I'm disappointed. Since I never saw the sun rising and setting in his eyes, however, I'm not devastated. I've been living with this supposedly Democrat controlled Congress now for about a year and a half now, so this is not shocking.

    As for any Obama slogans, who votes based on slogans? Do you? I never have, even in my starrier eyed youth,

    As for the last eight years...what exactly is your point? I never voted or believed anything positive about Bush-Cheney.  Do you believe Obama, more than McCain will be a continuation of Bush- Cheney? That he will be the same?

    Or maybe your point was that believing in anything in the political realm is a chump bet.

    Well, eyes wide open, I'm still supporting Obama. If you see something better in the running, please let me know.


    Took you a while (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:15:11 PM EST
    but yes....chump bet was my point.

    I'm not the one who used the word 'believe'...that was you.

    And the candidate, of course.


    Better than Obama in the running? (none / 0) (#125)
    by VicfromOregon on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 03:49:21 AM EST
    Ralph Nader.  Hillary write-in. Ron Paul.  The only reason we are arguing between 2 candidates is because someone has decided we only get 2 to argue about.  People get to vote for whoever they want to vote for.  This party control is more damaging than the candidates themselves.  It wasn't always this way.  But, worse, people actually create reality by believing only party endorsed candidates are viable, and so, that is what happens.  The best people may go unnoticed because people act on the illusion that the party selects the candidate, not the people.  This only happens because we let it happen.  Any candidate is viable if enough people vote for them.  But, again and again, people only think party endorsed candidates are viable.  It's like being caught in "Whos on first base"! I don't know.  Who's on first base?  Do you know?  Yes.  Whos on first base.  I don't know."

    The dems and Reps cannibalised the smaller parties.  The VP was the person who lost, thus forcing a semblance of a half-hearted coalition government.  There could be several small popular parties at any given time.  Your cabinet waqs expected to contain both opponents and allegiances.  In many ways we are moving away from democracy, not towards it, while, through populist movements, and not political machinations, the disenfranchised are brought to the table one by one to some degree.  The government may endorse change, but it rarely initiates it.  Indeed, that may not even be its primary role.  Preserving the status quo may be more its responsibility, while reflecting and institutionalizing the changes the citizenry most demands.  But a 2 party monopoly simply cannot represent all of us well, and the dialogue here bears that out.  The fact that people actually fear "wasting" their vote by voting for a better candidate outside the major parties is an indication, though, of the erosion of democracy and why party platforms were created in the first place.  However "pragmatic" the rationalization to limit our choices appears, such thinking will always risk taking us to our lowest common denominator, and I don't think that is ever in our best interest as individuals or as a nation together.


    I'd thought that (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by mkevinf on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:21:32 AM EST
    I'd crossed the river, choosing to follow Hillary's lead.

    Then he walks away from public financing, and now he will vote for - after "trying" to remove the immunity clause - this abomination of a compromise.
    I have had a gut feeling almost from the beginning that the guy was untrustworthy.

    He makes it harder and harder to stay on the course of voting the Democratic ticket in the fall.

    When You Ask For Nothing Before You (5.00 / 16) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:26:50 AM EST
    jump on the bandwagon and give your undying support, once a candidate is nominated and then elected, you get exactly what you ask for.

    I watched Obama supporters twist themselves in knots rationalizing his actions. Actions that they scorned when Blue Dogs or Republicans did them.

    I finally decided on Hillary right before my primary because she the issues and the details of her programs inside and out. I knew there would be a few things that I cared about that she would fight for like health care and women and childrens issues. Obama OTOH couldn't give more than the briefest overview of his programs and stumbled anytime he tried to go further. So far I have yet to discover any issue that Obama would be willing to fight for and some he has been willing to put in danger.

    Marketing 101 (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by fctchekr on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:27:42 AM EST
    Even duds sell. If it's a new product and offers a new spin to an othewise old imperfect variety, buyers grab it up. The primary result is about a convergence of circumstances and marketing ploys that resulted in the dud looking like the best value for our money. With some 60's exuberance to dash the old and bring on the new, HRC was tossed to the pile.  

    Hillary threatened and threatens and that's why last night on MSNBC Keith Olbermann still tried to frame her out by saying since women are now voting for Obama he doesn't need her as VP. No other channel spun their joint appearance next week with that lead in.

    Though the HRC hate has subsided considerably in the last two weeks, it can be coughed up at will again, as was the case on MSNBC last night.

    Whenever she appears too formidable, they counter.It will be intriguing to watch both to see which way the media spins and how much the public buys it.

    I predict his polls will jump.

    DId you see the video of rally when Gore endorsed? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:50:40 AM EST
    Obama fans in audience booed when both Gov Granholm & Obama himself praised Hillary.  Gov. Granholm reacted in defense of Hillary, while Obama, I believe, said nothing.  

    How many ways can we misspell unity? (none / 0) (#102)
    by fctchekr on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:41:32 PM EST
    Yep, saw it. But, I don't recall one national media outlet calling attention to it. I'm getting used to the fascist style non-reporting and turn it off, or get out popcorn and a pop for a little comedic side-bar. He's got the cool down and walks the tightrope; eventually he's going to fall off. That's entertainment!!

    Not delusion, Deception (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by pluege on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:49:13 AM EST
    reality based community was filled with delusion - or at least spread delusion.

    "the realty based community" acted exactly like wingnuts lying through their teeth with every word to promote "their guy" and denigrate the competition dishonestly, deceptively, disingenuously.

    Mutually agreed-upon delusion (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:53:05 AM EST
    The Obama blogs agreed to see Obama as a great progressive, and he agreed to pretend his organization is run and funded 'by ordinary people' that the blogs can pretend to influence, and pretend to be progressive leaders.  Hence his shout-out to the grassroots in his FISA statement yesterday. That was a 'hey, we are in this together, you better have my back' message.

    It mirrors the arrangement Russert had with the pols: We will all pretend I ask tough questions - then we all look good.

    this is the kind of "toughness" (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Nike on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:00:39 AM EST
    that I am afraid Obama will likely bring to his own Supreme Court/judicial nominations as well. Any one who thinks that they need to vote for Obama beause he will save Roe v. Wade is almost certainly, I fear, going to be disappointed.

    Doing that is going to be hard and will take not the toughness of political expedience and personal complaisance, but that of actual leadership.

    no profiles in courage yet he's got (none / 0) (#92)
    by thereyougo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM EST
    Caroline Kennedy on his side. The Irony of life rollseyes

    Thank you, BTD, for your consistent honesty (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by songster on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:34:50 AM EST
    about all this.  I wish more Obamans and Hillarians alike had your attachment to the truth.

    When we give into delusions (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:46:14 AM EST
    and encourage mass delusion we lose strength and ability decreases.  This is a fact of life and does not apply to only politics.  I couldn't stand to read the Obama blogs, I still can't.  I have a naturally occuring abhorence to inflexibility, rigidity, and brainwashing that comes from being an often face planted woman.  They were so full of it and they still are really.  DemfromCT isn't coming fully clean in his/her complicity in creating delusion that now has kool-aid drinkers upset and disgruntled.  BTD seems to be trying to help out in the confessional.  I love TalkLeft more than ever, thank you for setting an example of how to have a progressive blog that doesn't lose its credibility or its strength.  If there were more such blogs, that would create a true and lasting internet grassroots block of unignorable voice.  Thanks for blazing this trail in this new media.  TalkLeft is a sanctuary for constructive kudos as well as criticsm.  I am safest and at my strongest and most productive where all truths can be known.  It can be a little lonely sometimes dealing with the fact that there is no messiah other than the messiah I can sometimes be to myself, but it is also the most empowering reality that I have found that exists so far.

    Again (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:47:58 AM EST
    The failure to include competence as an issue in this equation creates a false picture of what went on.

    I can make this real simple.  I didn't believe, when it came to something like this FISA situation, Obama would be any different than Clinton, or Clinton would be any different than Obama.

    So IT IS FALSE for any Obamaton to point out there was similiar deification of Clinton on the others side.  No one ever said, "Elect Clinton she will do exactly as we ask when the time comes".  No one ever said that......  Good.  Glad that's cleared up!!!!

    What I believed is that Clinton had a better handle on the job, more experience, came from a wing of the party that had a record or creating jobs.  Of levelling the tax disparities.  If not perfectly.  Of helping poor people.  Of creating peace in areas of the world where there had not been peace before.

    So this mantra sounds good from an activist point of view.  And a gentle reminder to never deify out politicians can always, almost in every circumstance, be extremely useful.

    And, yes.  The Obamablogs are discreditted self-serving consultant wannabes who may not even care about issues in the long run.  Who knows?  This is not news to some of us.

    when some big issue came out that required (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by thereyougo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    leadership Hillary always stuck her neck out  f irst and then he would either say, me too, or like the gas holiday she supported, he was against, yet didn't offer anything in return.

    he's got no cojones AFAIC.


    I have a hard time with (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sj on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:42:28 AM EST
    that "catchy speaking pattern".  Don't mind it in a sermon, but I don't want to be preached to as a matter of course.  It's patronizing and I don't like it.  Of course sermonizing worked for his so-called hope-change thing, hallelujah!

    But on issues?  Not so much.

    There's a name for that catchy patter-pattern (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM EST
    It's the old okey-doke.

    Get heads nodding, and after a while you can say anything and the heads keep nodding.

    Same thing Colin Powell did in his UN presentation on WMD. See cow, say cow, see cow, say cow, see cow, say unicorn ... heads keep nodding.


    I told you so :-) (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:44:12 AM EST
    blogged it, yelled it, lettered it, signed it.

    I am a liberal (progressive has become anathema to me) and supported Hillary Clinton.  I  knew that Hillary was more centrist than I would like and I also knew there would be times she would disappoint me.

    I think that those who carried the mantel for Obama want it both ways.  You say you want a centrist candidate but you want a progressive.  Isn't that what the new progressive means? No centrist, liberal, right or left....a little this way and and a little that....and give everyone a piece?

    As I said, I am liberal but I can tolerate the center on some issues with the candidate that tells me and shows me who they are. That was Hillary.

    I think those who are so offended by Obama's politics should suck it up.  This is what you got.

    At least with (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:20:32 AM EST
    Hillary you knew what you were getting. With Obama, I think his supporters really believed that he was a "progressive" because  he was against the war. They tended to ignore a lot of what he said. I got his number early on so none of this surprises me.

    Why don't the Dems take on the issues (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:56:41 AM EST
    John Dean last night on Olbermann claimed that many House Dems voted for FIsa amendments because they face tough re-election races this Fall. I believe Obama is dissembling so as not to allow Repugs to paint him as weak on national security.

    Where are reality and backbone here?  Reality:  Majority of Americans do not want telecom immunity.  Reality: It is doubtful that the overreaching to eviscerate the 4th Amendment will make us safer.  So where are the Dems saying as much?  Where is Obama and his mantra of "they're trying to scare you?"  If Dems would only believe their own positions and communicate them to the public, they might be surprised to find they could win on reality.  This may not have been the case in 2004, but now they have the ear of Americans who are looking for answers and for real leadership in the nationwide vaccuum.

    Has Hillary relinquished her delegates? (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:01:34 AM EST
    I believe there is method to her madness. She's letting the populace make their own decision, instead of trying to convince them.

    August is still a long way away; there is a reason Dean and Co. don't want that vote available for Hillary during the convention.

    If this continues, expect to hear a LOT of yelling during the convention. Reports of Hillary's demise have been greatly exaggerated, methinks. And Hillary hasn't done a thing to encourage it, in fact she's discouraging it, but still the people have been and WILL BE clamoring for her in August.

    I agree (none / 0) (#88)
    by thereyougo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:13:32 PM EST
    there has been speculation that there are going to be many surprises this year.  I hope this is one of them.

    she has held on to her pledged delegates until (none / 0) (#94)
    by thereyougo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:53:50 PM EST
    the convention.

    Brazile is promising BLOOD in the STREETS... (none / 0) (#128)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 07:10:53 AM EST
    She Even Made the Point (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by The Maven on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:10:18 PM EST
    of citing to unions as a principal reason why she wouldn't forswear PAC/lobbyist money.  It was a deeply unpopular answer among most "progressives", but I had to respect Clinton for sticking to her guns on it.

    Obama promised an end to politics as we know it (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    Like it or not, a dominant share of Democratic activists (old and new) bought it.

    When they realize how they got taken in this, their formative political experience.

    The young impressionables will turn off of politics, especially progressive politics. They be immunized to Hope and Change, and that immunity will take decades to wear off if it ever does.

    Progressive politics is premised on trust. No trust, no movement.

    Obama is the death of progessive politics - at least in this country, in this post-Bush era.

    Many Obama Bloggers are ... (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:06:58 PM EST
    very young.  They have little experience with anything, let alone politics.

    And a large portion of the older Obama fanatics in the blogosphere are former Republicans.

    That confluence created the horror show we're now living through.

    Wiser heads screamed the truth ... it didn't matter.

    Obama got some of the unions to back him (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by thereyougo on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    on the promise that he would ease up on federal oversight,  caused by corruption since the deaths of Jimmy Hoffa and mafia influence misused pension funds and a host of other union related scams

    Unions haven't had many headlines lately on that scale. Thanks Obama for making it tougher on labor unions to sign up more members. No wonder he feels uncomfortable around the working class.

    Yeah, I always saw through Obama, because I listened to him and dug in to his supposed 'successes' as a minority candidate, which he didn't openly .

    But he's the product of affirmative action, an easing up of sorts on the rules that had kept him,and women out opportunities to advance.  He 's young enough to have reaped the benefits of  the liberal ideology some of us are not sure he adheres to. Except to say that he's a democrat. I'm not sure what that means to him.

    I must admit (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Nadai on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:58:12 PM EST
    I'm finding this whole FISA thing darkly amusing.

    For months, the O Teamers have been running around, waving a sh!t sandwich in everyone's faces and crying out, "Look at my Change burger!  Obama himself gave it to me!"  And the rest of us went, "Uh, dude, that's a sh!t sandwich.  Put it down before it gets all over your clothes."

    The O Teamers' response was to clutch the sandwich closer to their chests and howl, "It's Unity Pony!  On a sesame seed bun!  You're just a bunch of racists!"

    So now, for the first time, they've taken a bite, and they're standing there with a half-chewed mouthful going, "Uh, wait."  Well, eat up, boys.  That's one d@mn big sandwich you're holding and you're going to finish the whole thing even if you choke on it.  Cause after all, it's not like you have anything else to eat, do you?

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    as someone elsewhere said, it's like a clown died....a sad occasion in a funny sort of way.

    I figured we'd have to wait until the GE to see it.  


    Fools. (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:26:38 PM EST
    They think the Constitution is a negotiable item and claim to be trying to advance so-called progressive values.

    How about advancing some basic American values which imo would include a dilligent adherence to the Constitution.

    I've lost all respect for most of these people chattering on about how dedicated they are to restoring this country's democracy and when the rubber meets the road - when their IDOL blows it big time - they just totally ditch everything they said they stood for and continue - like idiots - to "hope".

    I am disgusted.

    I will not make a claim that anyone else who entered this Democratic Primary would have been any better, but I will say that all these kool-aid drinkers did was to ENSURE that none would be very good by focusing on "electability" (something few to none even understand) over policy and issues.  I would just for once like to lose (if that is our destiny) with the best trained candidate - the person who really was a fighter for democracy and Democratic policy  rather than the most coddled and arrogant fool the Dems always seem to gravitate towards.

    If you can't be good - be good at it.  I want LBJ back without the war in SE Asia.  I don't need some unity goof.  I need my democracy back damn it.  Thanks for listening/reading.

    Obama supporters can be realists, too (1.00 / 1) (#111)
    by RosieScenario on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:10:13 PM EST
    The other day, my husband gently expressed his concern that I will be disappointed by Obama, just as I was with Bill Clinton.  I told him "I know that I will be."  (my number one disappointment was Hillary's horribly-managed health care task force --an enormous failure)

    If people are going to be involved in progressive politics, they are going to be disappointed in their standard-bearers.  That's reality.  And it would be the reality if Hillary Clinton was the nominee.

    I hope that the new, enthusiastic Obama voters will remain involved even through their disappointment.

    I strongly disagree with a poster above who called Clinton a shoo-in.  I have been 100% sure, ever since she announced her candidacy, that she would lose the GE.  I was so sure that the Democrats would nominate her and the Republican would win in the fall, that I paid no attention to the race at all until February.  It seemed pointless to me (though of course I planned to vote for her in Nov.)

    The reasons I felt she couldn't win are:
    a)  The almost-unconstitutional third term for the Clinton co-presidency, which I think would have been a major RW radio talking point if she had been nominated
    b)  The motivated Hillary-haters flocking to the polls to vote against her
    c)  Clinton fatigue -- all of the old baggage
    d)  Dynasty fatigue -- I didn't think the voters would go for Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton

    Many Democrats do have fond feelings toward one of only 2 Democratic president they've known in the last 40 years.  That's why I thought Hillary would be the nominee.  

    But Bill Clinton was elected with 43% (then 46%) of the vote, with Perot in the races.  Our nominee in 2008 needs to get a lot more votes than Bill Clinton ever did.  So, Bill's winning 2 terms was not at all an indicator to me that Hillary could do the same.

    I have my doubts that Obama can win.  When Democrats start off with pretty much no chance to win the entire southeast quadrant of the country, it's a very tough challenge.  Yet, I strongly feel he's our best chance, and I support him enthusiastically.  And realistically, knowing he is not perfect.

    {also posted in "Why we Fight"}

    I'm tired of being smarter than the President.
    Obama '08

    Apologies for the double post. (none / 0) (#119)
    by RosieScenario on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:52:43 PM EST
    My dial-up connection is cranky.

    I.O.K.I.Y.A.O. (none / 0) (#53)
    by OxyCon on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:36:13 AM EST

    Orangeland has become a funny place ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:32:14 PM EST
    in the last twenty four hours.

    Many of the lemmings have finally woken up and said, "We're running toward a cliff!"

    Of course, when there was still time to change course and avoid falling off the edge they didn't listen.

    False pretences (none / 0) (#91)
    by zebedee on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    I agree with the spirit of BTD's post but as is clear in his post, even if you accept the pragmatism argument there is a problem with Obama. Ideally I would want a candidate that sticks to his/her principles rather than pander to political reality. However many will accept that if you're too reluctant to play the game you may end up achieving even less as years of principled opposition may get you nowhere.    So I'm not against a pragmatist, within reason, and it's a fine balance where to draw the line.

    Hillary was/is a pragmatist and may have taken a similar stance on FISA or campaign financing but purity is not what she was running on. Obama's only real claim was purity, change, hope, blah blah blah. If Obama was truly the principled type and won by attacking her as a typical pol many of her supporters could live with that, as at least he had some differentiating justification for his nomination. When (as many suspected by his actions during the primary campaign) it turns out he is just the same typical pol but with no experience or agenda to speak of, he seems to have blatantly won on false prenteces.

    And, if that is the case, has he technically won the nomination before Denver and can anything be done to reverse this false-pretence victory?

    Obama supporters can be realists, too (none / 0) (#104)
    by RosieScenario on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:05:04 PM EST
    The other day, my husband gently expressed his concern that I will be dissappointed by Obama, just as I was with Bill Clinton.  I told him "I know that I will be."  (my number one disappointment was Hillary's horribly-managed health care task force --an enormous failure)

    If people are going to be involved in progressive politics, they are going to be disappointed in their standard-bearers.  That's reality.  And it would be the reality if Hillary Clinton was the nominee.

    I hope that the new, enthusiastic Obama voters will remain involved even through their disappointment.

    I strongly disagree with a poster above who called Clinton a shoo-in.  I have been 100% sure, ever since she announced her candidacy, that she would lose the GE.  I was so sure that the Democrats would nominate her and the Republican would win in the fall, that I paid no attention to the race at all until February.  It seemed pointless to me (though of course I planned to vote for her in Nov.)

    The reasons I felt she couldn't win are:
    a)  The almost-unconstitutional third term for the Clinton co-presidency, which I think would have been a major RW radio talking point if she had been nominated
    b)  The motivated Hillary-haters flocking to the polls to vote against her
    c)  Clinton fatigue -- all of the old baggage
    d)  Dynasty fatigue -- I didn't think the voters would go for Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton

    Many Democrats do have fond feelings toward the only Democratic president they've known  (or one of only 2, depending on their age).  That's why I thought Hillary would be the nominee.  

    But Bill Clinton was elected with 43% (then 46%) of the vote, with Perot in the races.  Our nominee in 2008 needs to get a lot more votes than Bill Clinton ever did.  So, Bill's winning 2 terms was not at all an indicator to me that Hillary could do the same.

    I have my doubts that Obama can win.  When Democrats start off with pretty much no chance to win the entire southeast quadrant of the country, it's a very tough challenge.  Yet, I strongly feel he's our best chance, and I support him enthusiastically.  And realistically, knowing he is not perfect.

    I'm tired of being smarter than the President.
    Obama '08

    CHANGE You can CHANGE and CHANGE and CHANGE and .. (none / 0) (#109)
    by occam on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:56:00 PM EST
    CHANGE ... what you'll have left after I raise taxes.
    CHANGE ... your gas prices upwards, but gradually
    CHANGE ... my hat size because every day my head gets bigger
    CHANGE ... the national motto to: In Obama We Trust.
    CHANGE ... what I do to my story depending upon whom I'm talking to.
    CHANGE ... what I do every day to my foreign policy
    CHANGE ... what I do to my trade policy depending upon whom I'm talking to
    CHANGE ... your lifestyle because the rest of the world doesn't like you
    CHANGE ... my friends when they turn out NOT to be "The person I knew"
    CHANGE ... what my radical left-wing ideologue handlers have in store for you
    CHANGE ... what I do to facts to suit my needs.
    CHANGE ... from public to private campaign financing because I can raise more money
    CHANGE ... the words of others and claim they're mine, because words count.
    CHANGE ... more of you into victims of something and build government programs to take care of you
    CHANGE ... you into a ward of the state so that I OWN you and your vote
    CHANGE ... your mind and believe in me for I am the Obamessiah come to save you
    CHANGE ... into giggling sycophants; liberal mainstream media do under the spell of the Obamessiah
    CHANGE ... the chant I use to control the weak-minded Obamanized masses
    CHANGE ... into an Obamatron; join the cult, repeat the chant: CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE ...
    CHANGE ... what I plan to do to America because it's the greatest country on the planet.
    CHANGE ... the national anthems of all the nations of the world to Kumbaya using my messianic  foreign policy skills
    CHANGE ... into mumble-mouthed idiot when I don't have prepared speech to read.
    CHANGE ... but not for us, not the left-wing liberal elite,  CHANGE is for YOU.
    CHANGE ... anything and everything I've said or done in my life if it will help me win
    CHANGE ...  the definition of change to: What I say, when I say it, to whom I say it.
    CHANGE ... your underwear because you'll defecate in your pants when you wake up to find out what the left-wing liberal ideologues have done after gaining complete control of government.

    CHANGE ... you better freaking BELIEVE in because it will WORK you over.
    Obama: the AUDACITY to count on you and I being DOPEs

    What else could Barack Omama have done? (none / 0) (#116)
    by OssieBarnes on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:17:34 PM EST
    Go against 100+ House Democrats? Would this be uniting the party?

    By the way...cut the crap with the Hillary comparison! She lost! Obama is the nominee! Get over it! He cannot please everyone!

    He could have stood his ground (none / 0) (#126)
    by VicfromOregon on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 04:29:13 AM EST
    Obama isn't uniting the party.  But, that aside, agreeing to go against your "alleged" core fundamental principles isn't how you get to unity.  You get to unity by making respectful reasoned arguments and offering ways for those who disagree to meet you halfway.  That is how you get to unity.  Unity doesn't mean clone-thinking.  Going along to get along is called collusion.  Not a trait you want in your president.

    The other scary thing you've said is "what else could Obama have done".  The question suggests he isn't powerful.  That he was a victim of circumstances, of those bad, bad congressmen and congresswomen.  If your leader is already this powerless, this uncreative and unable to seek out moral resolutions and is at the mercy of "the others" who won't let him, then, he ain't gonna make it.

    Putting another weak individual in one of the most powerful positions on earth is really, really not a good idea.  An empowered person finds ways to utilise what they have or find more or uniquely different solutions despite great odds and public pressure.  This is the secret to bringing about change.

    I've already had my privacy violated by the Nixon and the Reagan administrations.  My brother smuggled in information banned by our government about what was really hapening in Vietnam.  I lived in a radical lesbian commune.  These things got you noticed.  Still do. It's nothing new for me.  Nothing I fear.  I try not to live my life in secret or fearing those more powerful than me.  But, clearly, for many here, FISA is really important, and once upon a time, Obama said it was important to him.  So, if i had supported him, I would expect that FISA would still be important to him unless something significant changed.  But, there are no significant changes outside of Obama's public personae changing from change agent to pragmatist.


    1 pol does not equal 1 pol (none / 0) (#118)
    by speakingwheat on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:48:14 PM EST
    just because obama is a pol who will do anything to  win does not make him equal to hillary (if this were true, then it wouldn't matter who we elected). hillary supporters simply can't stop their anger---inventing a new justification each week for why they are right and those who support obama are delusional or naive or whatever.  their unleashed anger and continuing down the path of victimhood only shows what their personal lives must be like.

    This is news? (none / 0) (#137)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:37:14 AM EST
    Is it just me, or does it seem at all to others that American politics at some indefinable point mutated into a kind of giant Roach Motel that only attracts a certain type of hyper-ambitious, morally ambiguous, mercenary personality type?

    Does anyone still believe that our "best and brightest" are drawn to politics above and beyond all other avenues of endevor?