Ann Althouse writes:

I voted for Obama in the Wisconsin primary in part because I predicted he'd turn out to be flexible and pragmatic. I do agree with Krauthammer that it's funny the way the people who fell for the Obama of the primaries who, unlike me, actually liked those positions he was taking are letting him get away with the flipflop. I suppose, just as I convinced myself that the real Obama was not the one I was seeing back then, they are convincing themselves that the real Obama is not the one they are seeing now.

(Emphasis supplied.) Sully writes:

[Obama] is impressive precisely because he is neither a pure Adlai Stevenson nor a protean Bill Clinton. He's more like Jack Kennedy: cunning, ruthless, capable of political positioning as much as greatness.

More . . .

Jeralyn liked this diary:

I work with the system I have. Not the one I dream. So my key is this: who will most work to reduce suffering? Or, to express it in positive terms, who will work most to realize that ageless dream, expressed by Emile Zola through Jean Macquart: "All I ask is a quiet life and happiness and prosperity for all"? At this time, in this place, the answer to that is the Democrats. Barack Obama. And that is why I am here. I am a dog soldier for Democrats.

I can only shake my head. As Instapundit notes, someone is going to be disappointed.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Ireland Debates Statutory Rape | Seeing The Light Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    obama is just business as usual...he has (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:46:23 PM EST
    been the "me too" guy for the most part...back when he was in the IL State Senate, he was given bills to put his name on....I don't see anything that isn't just a rubberstamp of something someone else did at one time.

    I agree, and that does not resemble JFK (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:44:21 PM EST
    to my recollection. Granted, I was a young teen at the time, but politics was interesting to us for as far back as I remember.

    A big difference between JFK and obama (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:49:53 PM EST
    is that JFK worked hard (played hard too :)) and managed to learn from his mistakes...obama not so much.  JFK's wife brought people together, michelle not so much.  JFK wanted to do what was best for America...obama/jury's still out.

    I'd say almost EVERYONE will (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:47:40 PM EST
    be disappointed.

    except for those of us (5.00 / 15) (#20)
    by Turkana on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:16:02 PM EST
    with low expectations...

    Or (5.00 / 13) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:17:40 PM EST
    those with no expectations.

    Or those of us that are happy (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:34:53 PM EST
    With the dem choice

    I tend to agree, but the jury will be out (none / 0) (#86)
    by magnetics on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:39:32 PM EST
    for (at the very least) several months now.

    Instapundit (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:53:16 PM EST
    when he says this:

    To expand a bit: Either the people who believed the early-primary left-talk are the rubes, or the people who believe Obama now are the rubes . . . or anyone who thinks Obama has fixed principles at all is a rube. Your call.

    probably has it on the money. And I can't believe that I actually agree with anything he says.

    Sully has become a joke. He was a bush cultist and now is an obama cultist.

    What left talk? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:32:48 PM EST
    I never heard any.

    Instapuppet (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:16:51 PM EST
    couldnt get his money on the money.

    The meme that he's a complete mercenary -- which I've noticed you're rather fixated on repeating -- is about a half-step away from saying he's a sociopath. You think that's a fair characterization?

    Im having a little trouble believing you ever disagreed with him.


    Whatever. (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:20:22 PM EST
    Obama has repeatedly told people one thing and then flipped. Or he's told one group one thing and turned around in a day or so and told another group the exact opposite. Doesn't sound like a sociopath to me. Sounds like a jellyfish who tries to be all things to all people.

    You tell me? Who are the chumps? The ones who believed him during the primary or the ones who believe him now?


    Dunno (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:23:42 PM EST
    I guess if he's elected, we'll get to find out. But I'm not that excited to vote for a guy just to see which group was duped.

    Gumby is flexible. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by samanthasmom on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:23:45 PM EST
    Obama is more like jello. Stick a nail in Gumby's foot and he ends up walking around in circles, but at least he's anchored to something. Stick a nail in Obama's foot, and he just slides away.

    Like liquid mercury? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Grace on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:40:51 PM EST
    He probably should come with a warning:



    Do you really (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:32:09 PM EST
    need the laundry list of all the things McShrub and HRC have "flip flpped" on, or is the flip flop thing just your way of telling us that you're still in purple bandaid mode from four years ago?

    I have always been aware of HRC's limitations, (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by magnetics on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:47:03 PM EST
    and the degree to which she has 'gone along to get along.'  My support for her is not premised on ideological purity.  Still, I think the Obama flip flop on FISA is egregious -- not in the (mistaken colloquial) sense of outstandingly bad, but simply outstanding, i.e. head and (possibly) shoulders above the business as usual flip flops we expect from our pols.  Particularly because he is selling himself as the candidate of special sauce.

    I certainly do not (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:34:50 PM EST
    I am hopeful you weill understand that Obama is also a pol. This seems to be a controversial statement to some.

    He's a pol, He's a pol (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by talex on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:29:47 PM EST
    So? That seems like a lazy and uncreative excuse for supporting him and giving him a pass up to this point and predictably into the distant future.

    It shouldnt be (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:48:33 PM EST
    They all necessarily have a streak of player (in the  Robert Altman sense), and that's what the system is gamed for. It aint a meritocracy, or a virtueocracy and people that genuinely believe that their candidate is THE one exception are in for a rude awakening one day.

    A statement he made in his book (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by abfabdem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:51:05 PM EST
    was quoted in the NY Times on June 27--

    Mr. Obama is an introspective candidate, and perhaps the best analyst of his own political style. "I serve as a blank screen," he wrote in "The Audacity of Hope," "on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."

    It's disturbing but also kind of explains why he doesn't stand for anything.


    The key is the party (none / 0) (#151)
    by Rick B on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:48:22 AM EST
    I have found that that neither Hillary nor Obams is what I want. It doesn't matter to my vote.

    What I want is someone who will fill the top 9,000 or so political positions in the federal government by people chosen from the Democratic Party, not people chosen by Dick Cheney. I chose to vote for Obama over Hillary because Obama will have a lot more "coattails" in Texas than Hillary ever could.

    Neither choice was perfect, not could it be. Other than myself, no one can get the job right, and I couldn't get it or do it.

    The choice is vote for a Republican. I remember the Republicans I knew in Texas in the late 50's adn early 60's. The were also either John Birchers, KKK members or (three of them that I knew) members of the American Nazi Party. With John Tower and George H.W. Bush in the 60's they were no different, just more subtle. Goldwater was an arrogant fool and Nixon was just plain mean.

    The Texas Democratic Party wasn't a lot better. As a one party state, Texas had conservative vs "liberal" Democrats. The Democratic Party got better as the conservative gutterslime migrated to the Republican Party where they felt comfortable. Better, but not all that good. I have to admit, LBJ rather amazed me. Again, far from my ideal, but Medicare and Voting Rights were far above what I expected.

    I don't particularly like anyone with the ego and ambition to try to get the job of President. No one who goes after the job is qualified for it, but those are the people I have to choose from when I vote. Hillary and Obama are so much better than any alternative outside Edwards that it is amazing.

    So I'll ever vote for a Republican, and I won't vote for any military aviator. They simply aren't qualified for the job.

    If you don't like Obama - or Hillary for that matter - tough. They are each good. Remember, the Perfect is the enemy of the good. Don't do what I did in 1968. I thought that Nixon was smart enough and mean enough to get us out of Vietnam. He wasn't and he lied.

    Choose a human being who doesn't belong in an asylum, and no Republican belongs outside of an asylum. Then don't expect much. No President is worth very much as a human being and as Nadar repeatedly proves, anyone who wants the job is unqualified.

    For all that, the vote you cast is important. The wrong choice hurts too many people. That's what I learned from 1968.


    What do you mean "tough" if you don't (none / 0) (#165)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:35:04 AM EST
    like either candidate?! Since when in this country is "tough" a reason to vote for anyone. So if I believe the dem. presumptive is dangerous for this country, then "tough" and I should cross my fingers when I vote (again this year)? I'm sick of the lesser of two evils, I'm sick of caring for only one's self interest in an election, I'm sick of being "told" which way to vote and being threatened if I don't vote that way, I'm sick of settling yet once again. I live in Tx myself. Politics is ugly, cruel and dirty. This year has been worse than prior years and if we keep allowing it, it will continue. If you like your candidate, or are willing to settle, fine....but please confine your "tough" for everyone else to yourself.

    Maybe the ones (2.00 / 2) (#83)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:33:52 PM EST
    who believe you're a Democrat.

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:22:40 PM EST
    that Obama supporters have fought back against charges of being pod people and now rubes.

    I prefer to think they're just naive, which many of us have been along the way.

    Never fear. You'll get more cynical.  Sadly.


    Condescending Generalizations (none / 0) (#168)
    by daring grace on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:14:28 AM EST
    "...that Obama supporters have fought back against charges of being pod people and now rubes.

    I prefer to think they're just naive, which many of us have been along the way."

    Yeah, and Clinton supporters reject Obama because you are all 'hurt' and "angry" that your candidate isn't the nominee.

    Do you know any Obama supporters in your day to day non-internet life? Are they truly all like this?

    Because I know many (aside from being one) and NONE of them are. Ditto my friends and relatives who support Clinton. They are nothing like these stereotypes I see in the media and on the blogs.


    Firstly, and once again, the "we" (none / 0) (#176)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:23:32 PM EST
    who you refer to as the Clinton supporters are not all "hurt" and "angry" because she isn't now the presumptive nominee. This has absolutely nothing to do with that. Secondly, the people on the "outside" of blogging when asked why they are voting for Obama cannot and have not given me one reason to vote for him. It's always, well, at least the dems are better than the repubs. This country needs leadership better than just "settling" once again because there is a "d" after his name. Edwards would have been better!!

    You Missed the Point (none / 0) (#184)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:01:46 AM EST
    I was addressing the ways supporters and blogs and the MSM create erroneous images of Obama and Clinton supporters.

    I was saying that most Obama supporters are not "naive" etc. and comparing this distortion of reality with the similar distortion that pictures most Clinton supporters as angry and hurt that she is not the nominee, as somehow personally invested in her feelings.

    My experience of the Clinton supporters I know face2face is that many of them ARE very disappointed she is not the nominee, but it's the disappointment that the candidate they like, and respect and think is best qualified didn't win the nod.

    Many have also felt very angry during the campaign and some still do. Many also are not convinced at all that Obama is right for the presidency. But most of them are going to vote for him anyway, because McCain is even worse.


    I'm already disappointed n/t (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by mrjerbub on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:53:37 PM EST

    They just aren't making it (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:00:45 PM EST
    any fun to be a democrat these days.


    What progressives are (5.00 / 13) (#8)
    by frankly0 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:03:36 PM EST
    reduced to -- and it should have been apparent very early on -- is voting for someone purely because they are Democrats, and, as such is likely to be better on policy on average than a Republican.

    I can't tell you how much it angers me to think that it took so long for it to become apparent to so many people that this was the man behind the curtain. It is for this meager progressive product that the Obama movement has done so very much to demonize Hillary and to marginalize, hound, and deride Hillary supporters. For this, they have divided the Democratic Party as it has not been in decades.

    The bizarre thing is that Hillary supporters are now being expected to support a man for his policies, and being told we are crazy and irresponsible to turn away from him because of how much better he is in terms of policies than McCain, while he eagerly dilutes those policies as every day passes.

    By some magic, policies are terribly important when we are making our choice of whom to vote for, but are terribly irrelevant when Obama decides in case after case to flip flop on still another erstwhile progressive position.

    Just wait (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:16:05 PM EST
    until Nov. By then he'll probably be indentical to McCain so he'll make the choice easy.

    You can just vote based on experience then.


    All along, it was same on the issues w Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:37:18 PM EST
    But Obama was new and for change. Well, as he changes on the issues I expect he will turn more towards the right and McCain and then say, same on issues but new and improved. And Change from Bush and the GOP.

    If Obama were running against (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Grace on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:50:59 PM EST
    almost any other Republican, I think he would be a shoo-in just based on that "D" besides his name.  

    Unfortunately, McCain has worked in a bipartisan manor in the past and I would assume, if McCain were to be elected, he'd find a way to work with the Democratic House and Senate -- so I really don't find McCain scary.  

    Now, I will be scared if Obama and McCain end up looking the same in November:  Same on issues, etc.  What will be the difference between the "D" and the "R" candidate then?  

    (Obama has a bad habit of co-opting his opponent's platform.)    


    Already voting based on experience (none / 0) (#77)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:13:09 PM EST
    and not really that unhappy about it now.

    What is your evidence for this? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by oneangryslav on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:37:44 PM EST
    "For this, they have divided the Democratic Party as it has not been in decades.

    Please provide some support for this statement.  You think that the party is more divided now than the 1980 primary? (Although I suppose that's almost three decades ago, so technically you may be correct).  

    The only reason the party seems more divided today than in the past is because of the Internet.  Think about it; what if there had been a TalkLeft back in 1980?  This is the same type of stuff that has happened in primaries going back more than a century, only those whose candidate lost now have a much more accessible medium with which to demonstrate their frustration and non-unity.  


    You're right. (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by samanthasmom on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:50:21 PM EST
    The Democratic Party has been divided in the past, and the full extent of those divisions were unknown until the second Tuesday in November. Will knowing the extent of the division months before the election be helpful or does it just make the time before election is held more depressing?

    Not just a division in the "party" (5.00 / 9) (#60)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:00:52 PM EST
    this time. It is a division in DEMOCRATS.  There is a huge difference. This is the biggest division in my lifetime.  This is the first time I have seriously questioned what it means now to be a Democrat.  

    whats the difference? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by tben on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:38:25 PM EST
    Sounds like it is so impressive to you because this time you ended up on the wrong side.

    I dont see the divisions as anything out of the ordinary at all.
    I remember 68 and the disappointment of the lefties as well as the peeling off of Wallacites. Or 80, when both Anderson and Reagan got votes of disappointed dems. Or 92, when lots of Dems voted for Perot, or 00 when Nader picked up so enough Dems to give us 8 years of hell.

    I think the divisions are on track to be as small as I ever remember.


    You seem to have difficulty (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:48:25 PM EST
    writing in anything but the vaguest terms.
    I have seen all elections since 1968 (which I don't remember well) and this is certainly the worst division since 1980---if not worse.
    But then, I admit my view is subjective.
    I wouldn't dream of making a sweeping,dismissive comment like yours without actually having some.. you know.. data.

    When Sullivan writes: (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    He's more like Jack Kennedy: cunning, ruthless, capable of political positioning as much as greatness.

    it makes me realize that if only I could have some confidence, some sense of certainty, that Obama will apply those qualities to advancing a truly progressive agenda, I would not be feeling so reluctant to vote for him.

    The truth for me is that those qualities, in the absence of core beliefs, spell disaster and danger, which is why I cannot stop worrying about what he will really do if he is elected and has power to use as he sees fit.

    Who is Barack Obama?  If I thought he knew, I'd feel a little better, but I think he's writing a story, not living his life.

    This comment is just (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by frankly0 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:08:20 PM EST
    bizarrely ungrounded:

    capable of political positioning as much as greatness.

    How does any sentient being make such a pronouncement at this stage about Obama? Where is there, anywhere, something that one could concretely point to as evidence that Obama is "capable of greatness"?

    The hagiography never ends. Common sense never intrudes.


    I was focusing more on the (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:15:12 PM EST
    "ruthless, cunning and caoable of political positioning" part of that quote, obviously.

    Is he equally capable of political positioning and greatness?  I guess that would depend on what his positions were, and what the result of the positioning was.


    I didn't mean (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by frankly0 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    to imply that your own comment had a problem with it. I was really reacting to Sullivan's bizarre comment.

    In Sullivan's world, the hero worship simply can't be turned off.

    If I had a wish, it would be that one's command of rhetoric were exactly on a par with one's ability to think. If that were so, the Andrew Sullivans and Josh Marshalls and Maureen Dowds and Christopher Hitchens of the world would be exposed for the mediocre intellects they are, and could never achieve the prominence they have in today's media.


    Unfounded (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:24:02 PM EST

    And they wonder why we're unenthusiastic.


    I won't quote Lloyd Bentsen (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by badger on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:26:30 PM EST
    but I will say that JFK was elected on my 11th birthday, and as an 11-year-old I admired him greatly - maybe if I was still 11 I'd admire Obama as much.

    JFK was able to be great at a time when the US dominated the world both economically and militarily, upward mobility and unions were more than a memory and we weren't bogged down in a quagmire in a foreign country. Charisma isn't much of technique for solving real-world problems (except for 11 year olds).


    Your memory of JFK is rather rosy. (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:55:45 PM EST
    During his presidency, he authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, a fiasco; authorized increased involvement in Vietnam (a quagmire), and stared down Kruschev during the Cuban missle crisis.  

    Exactly.. and Kennedy was far more (none / 0) (#129)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:18:54 PM EST
    experienced that Obama. Is Obama ready for an international crisis? I see nothing in his background to support and affirmative answer to that question.

    Hey, give the Senator a break already. (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:22:32 PM EST
    He's going to Iraq in July.

    obama is not jfk. he is who he is period. (none / 0) (#119)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:00:20 PM EST
    like he has said, he is a blank slate upon whom his experiences, writing, and actions speak only for him and him alone. to try and dress himself up in camelot is just not factual.

    Ted Kennedy tried to "dress him (none / 0) (#131)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:41:16 PM EST
    up" as JFK! When JFK was president, I believe Teddy was still a kid. What he probably knows about JFK's presidency, was told to him.    

    Hardly. TK is 73 or 74 now. Do the math. (none / 0) (#136)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:04:34 AM EST
    He's been a Senator since the 60's---I believe he took over RFK's seat.

    76 per recent reports of his illness. (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:06:07 AM EST
    Okay, like I said above, I stand (none / 0) (#139)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:08:25 AM EST
    corrected. Mixed up my dates.

    JFK's Senate seat was filled (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:27:09 AM EST
    by Benjamin Atwood Smith II.  Teddy Kennedy succeeded Smith.

    Ted represents MA (none / 0) (#158)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:39:49 AM EST
    Bobby represented New York

    JFK - Obama (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by bobbski on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    JFK greatness?

    In which alternate universe?

    Bay of Pigs JFK? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:16:00 PM EST
    Or ask not what your country can do for you JFK?

    Or ask not what Obama can do for you... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:07:55 PM EST
    kind of JFK?

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:07:07 PM EST
    He was a hawk. remember.  He upped the troops in Vietnam.  Bay of Pigs - drastic mistake. He appointed his young brother as AG.  He "targeted" the mafia, despite the fact that they were really targeting one ethnic group. They wiretapped MLK.  

    Am I misremembering anything??  Don't get me wrong, I was swept up in the aura but I, too, was  a child when he was elected.    


    A lot of people (none / 0) (#164)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:57:14 AM EST
    like my parents, voted for Kennedy for one reason: he was catholic.  My parents were RINOs.  In our conservative county, despite living in the one poor town, steel town, near the Main Line of Philly, registering R guaranteed county jobs.  

    I remember my cousin and I, in our early teens, concerned.  He was a debate team guy, and early intellect, and most likely would be an Independent now if he had lived.  Despite our catholic upbringing, going to catholic school, he was very upset about people voting for JFK because of his religion.  

    Of course as a 14 year old, I was caught up in the glamor, the excitement and did not know what to think.  But now, I understand how spin works. I saw it in this primary.  Similar to the American Idol circa 1960.  I am a Hillary supporter.  I will vote democratic no matter what.  But I understand it now. Hillary was, imo, the better candidate but did not have the right kind of aura needed for hero worship.  Maybe her gender, maybe her age, probably both.


    JFK - Obama (none / 0) (#178)
    by bobbski on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:23:58 PM EST
    You are not misremembering.

    The one good thing he did was end the Cuban Missile Crises without ending civilization.

    I was an E4 in the USAF at the time, an AC&W Radar Maint.  instructor at Keesler AFB in Biloxi, MS.  The convoys from army bases in east Texas would pull in for the day after traveling on US90 (no I10 then) at night.  They were all heading for Homestead in Florida...  it's a wonder south Florida didn't sink from all the military and equipment.

    J Edgar Hoover wiretapped King, without the knowledge much less permission of JFK, as he did any number of people, probably including the Kennedys and half of the congress.

    Bay of Pigs, because he took the CIA at their word which was then, as now, not worth a bucket of warm piss (apologies to John Nance Garner).

    Perhaps because of The Bay of Pigs fiasco, JFK was ready to end the support of the illegitimate regime in S. Vietnam, or so it has been intimated.

    It was a very bad thing that he was assassinated in front of God and everybody but he was mediocre at best before he was shot and the manner of his death certainly did not make him great.


    Sure would be nice (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Lahdee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:10:30 PM EST
    if the "purity days" were behind us. Then we could proudly look others in the face and say, "I am a Democrat, I'm disappointed."

    that blueness (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Turkana on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:12:25 PM EST
    No comment (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:16:54 PM EST
    That comment was a little disingenuous (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by badger on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    for someone who wrote a long diary just to effectively argue that Mussolini could be considered great because he made the trains run on time.

    Pragmatism isn't about supporting your candidate no matter what he does - it's about supporting a candidate who does the things you want done, and for me, Obama fails by that definition.


    Oh jeez (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:27:26 PM EST
    Raw isn't the first adjective that (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:57:55 PM EST
    comes to mind.

    The references to JFK are tedious (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by wurman on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:13:36 PM EST
    We need essence of Sen. Lloyd Bentsen:

    Quayle noted that he had as much political experience as John F. Kennedy when Kennedy ran for office. Bentsen fired back with the retort "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

    Sen. Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy.

    There is disappearingly little enough about the Obama Campaign that resembles Kennedy's, to such an extent that the comparisons are bizarre.

    From my point of view, comparing Sen. Obama to Pres. Kennedy indicates a complete lack of awareness about either of them or their political campaigns.

    Better to make comparisons (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:17:34 PM EST
    after Obama has served slmost three years, no?

    Why do people quote that windbag anyway?


    I don't think you can say such a thing (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:58:51 PM EST
    w/o a reprimand from the Obama campaign.  

    Lincoln... (none / 0) (#150)
    by CryptoPolitico on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:36:44 AM EST
    served only one single term in Congress (1847-49) prior to his ascent to the presidency.  There was nothing in his background that indicated that he would become one of our greatest presidents. And I'm not comparing Obama to Lincoln, only to say that, at this point, we really don't know what Obama is capable of. Despite his lack of experience, he may become a great president. Or he may fail utterly, and be consigned to oblivion.

    Not Lincoln (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by mwb on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:49:47 AM EST
    Saying Lincoln only served one term which indicated nothing, is far from an accurate assessment. There was plenty in Lincoln's background to indicate his character (far more than Senator Obama's at parallel points in their careers.)

    He was elected the Illinois State Legislator four times (1834 - 1846), where he became the state party leader (Illinois Whig Party.)  During that time he became noted for his impassioned speeches against slavery in the legislature.

    In his term in the US House he fought and spoke against the then extremely popular Mexican-American war to the point that he undermined his political career that he did not stand for re-election.  

    From there he followed his conscience to join the new Republican Party with its strong anti-slavery platform.

    If the leadership qualities shown there aren't an indication of Lincoln's potential, then what does that say about Senator Obama?  Who never became  a state party leader and never took such a strong stand in office that he knew it would end his political career at that time.

    I'm not against Senator Obama, but I'm sick of both the outrageous comparisons some supporters make of him to historic figures and others who denigrate historic figures to make him seem a brighter star.



    Maybe (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:24:39 PM EST
    the comparison of the campaigns isn't that far off...and that Axelrod is the senator's 'Bobby.'

    I doubt he'd be paid off in an AG appointment, though...doesn't really want to live in DC....and...no law degree?  Hmm...maybe FBI or CIA tho...that might appeal!


    At this stage I saw only Kennedy's primary (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by wurman on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    campaign as even remotely comparable to the recent Democratic Party primary election.

    First: at this point JFK was not the presumptive nominee--he led, but not enough for a 1st ballot win.

    Second: JFK had won West Virginia.  Sen. Obama did not.  

    Third: the Convention was a totally different system back then--as well as the primaries; i.e. favorite sons tied up state delegations & took them to the 1st ballot as pledged.  The superdelegate system did not exist & very likely would have prevented JFK's nomination.

    Fourth: Sen. Harry Byrd & Sen. Strom Thurmond were making a lot of 3rd party noise on Kennedy's far right flank, which deprived Lyndon Johnson of some traction that could have made a difference.  Sen. Obama has no danger on either flank, other than possibly his own "flanking" move toward Sen. McCain & the center or center-right.

    Sen. Kennedy was widely respected for his military service.

    You know what:

    There actually isn't any comparison at all.


    West Virginia (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:13:02 PM EST
    Yes -
    WHen Jack Kennedy was told he would have difficulty being elected President because he was Catholic and, in particular, he could not win West Virginia, he went to West Virginia and asked for the residents' votes.  When Obama was told he had difficulty attracking white working class voters in West Virginia & elsewhere in Appalachia, he did not personally try to show the voters why they should vote for him. Instead, his campaign proclaimed that they would run on the basis of the "new map."

    I spent this evening at a (none / 0) (#134)
    by samanthasmom on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:59:17 PM EST
    performance of "According to Tip" starring Ken Howard. I was reminded of Tip O'Neil's "Mrs. O'Brien's rule".  If you want someone's vote, you need to ask her for it. If I send Obama a ticket to the show, do you think he'd attend?

    1960 / 2008 primary (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:03:35 PM EST
    campaign comparisons can be dicey -- almost two different eras, though 60 was the beginning of the modern tv campaign era.  In 60 there were only a half dozen or so contested or semi-contested primaries, fewer actually as it played out, compared to today with nearly all states having their say.  So back then a lot of the work of lining up delegate support, including big-time Dem power brokers and favorite sons (the SDs and Super SDs of their day) had to be done behind the scenes, something Kennedy was good at.  

    He also had to show that a Catholic could win in Protestant states, like WV.  He showed up and took a risk of utter failure.  His real opposition (mainly Lyndon and Symington) failed to show up to contest in Northern states and tried to win it by working the phones only.   Dumb move politically since, 48 yrs ago, a candidate from the deep south had to go out and prove his viability with the voters.  Lyndon's failure to do so probably turned off a lot of the key delegates who otherwise might have leaned in his direction.

    Not dissimilar to Kennedy, Obama had no choice but to show up and contest -- and proved in IA and even with a narrow loss in NH that a black guy with a funky name could win in lily white states.  That sent a huge positive message, not just to the AA voters in states to come, but to neutral SDs sitting back and waiting to back a winner.

    In both 60 and 08, the winning and 2d place (HHH) camps were accused of some dirty politics.  Humphrey's team deeply resented how Kennedy sent out surrogate FDR Jr in WV to strongly suggest that HHH had been a draft dodger in WWII.  Kennedy himself was the recipient of a whispering campaign at the convention, regarding personal issues, by the Johnson camp.  In the end, the party came together, despite considerable grumbling from the liberal wing and unions about the selection of LBJ as #2.

    This year will likely play out similarly wrt sharp elbows in the primaries but with a unified party in the end.  


    There were 15 primary states in 1960. (none / 0) (#103)
    by wurman on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:49:51 PM EST
    Kennedy won 10 of them.

    Dunno where you get your #s (none / 0) (#106)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:07:17 PM EST
    but I'm referring to the actual number of truly, vigorously contested primaries with 2 or more viable candidates in non-favorite son states openly campaigning for votes.  I can think of WI, WV and maybe OR.  NH was conceded to Kennedy.  Perhaps another state or two was at least semi-contested.  But nothing remotely like the number of primary and caucus states Obama and Clinton competed for.

    Wikipedia, 1960 election (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by wurman on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:50:54 PM EST
    Massachusetts (home state)
    New Hampshire
    West Virginia

    South Dakota
    District of Columbia

    California (home state)

    Florida (home state)

    Ohio (home state)


    Non responsive post. (none / 0) (#160)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:12:33 AM EST
    Though you help make my point since you list favorite son primaries which Kennedy didn't compete in and others where he chose not to enter for strategic/resource-time reasons.  

    There were only the several contested key primaries which I noted above, not the 10-15 you falsely assert.  

    Also, Kennedy didn't lose a single contest he entered that year.  


    I don't assert. Wikipedia lists. (none / 0) (#177)
    by wurman on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:44:02 PM EST
    I have no idea why you would claim I "falsely assert" something that was a cut & paste from the Wikipedia entry on the 1960 election.

    There were 15 primaries in 1960.  Kennedy entered 10 of them & won 10 of them.


    axelrod is no bobby kenedy in this (none / 0) (#120)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:02:19 PM EST
    or in any parallel universe.

    Well, that's your view.... (none / 0) (#142)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:20:59 AM EST
    but if you'd lived and worked through that convention and/or followed & read the many books, articles and documentaries since written about Bobby's role in Jack's campaign and nomination, you might take a slightly different view.

    Then again, perhaps not.

    I was talking about that role in the campaign...nothing else.


    i am reasonably familar with bobby (none / 0) (#143)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:25:33 AM EST
    kennedy during the jfk campaign and even afterward. i'll grant you bobby played hardball for jfk and was the behind the scenes fixer. but as a person, there is absolutely no comparison between the two. i am sure you meant strictly in the political sense during the campaign. it just galls me no end to see any comparisons.

    Yes. I was not (none / 0) (#147)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:45:33 AM EST
    making any personal comparisons but even if I had been, what's it to you?  Why would that "gall" you?  Are you related in some way?  Were you a close friend of Bobby's?  Why would you personalize any comments about a political figure (or any celebrity) unless you knew them personally?

    oldpro, i am sorry to have disagreed (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:55:30 AM EST
    with you. i am sure there is much merit to your comments. tempers are short right now. at least i know i am disgruntled. so sometimes it is easy to misinterpret. that might what i did.

    Sigh...easy to see now (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:16:32 PM EST
    how you might have taken my words as criticism...sorry I wasn't a bit more careful in choosing them (ie. "what's it to you?" could sound pretty confrontational depending on tone of voice...I can see that).

    Yes.  Tempers.  Short.

    Let's all calm down and try harder to "be the friend we'd like to have."

    I'm working at it...still pretty damn testy myself over this campaign...

    Time for a break.  And some chocolate.


    take care and have a nice week. (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:53:23 PM EST
    you totally misinterpreted my post (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    and basically showed yourself to be quite rude. i am sorry to see that as i have enjoyed your comments. i won't be responding to you again. i had thought to agree to a point with you but apparently that isn't how you see it sorry to say.

    Sen. Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy. (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Moishele on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:50:45 PM EST
    But even Jack Kennedy was no Jack Kennedy, not the legend the man has become.

    When I see Michelle Obama whispering in Barack's ear that he is a great man it makes chills run down my spine.... with dread. Obama thinks he's already there, that he already has acheived greatness, and because of that anything and everything he does, in his mind, is perfect and justified.

    One of the better things about the real Jack Kennedy was that he knew himself, and the imperfections he saw made him try even harder. Would that Obama had even a bit of that same self knowledge.


    Jack Kennedy constantly challenged (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:17:25 PM EST
    Americans to be better than then they were.  Not just with his 'Ask not what your country' speech but across the board.

    He was far from perfect, farther from the myth he has become, but yet he looked at the U.S. and challenged its citizens to be great.

    Obama, on the other hand, challenges no one and panders to the egos of his fans ('We are the change we've been waiting for'?  C'mon now).

    That's why the 'pols are pols' thing does nothing for me.  JFK was a pol, but his rhetoric inspired people, rather than being a big ego-stroke.  All pols are not equal.

    Here's the JFK quote I've had by my desk for years:

    We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to
    the moon in this decade and do the other things,
    not because they are easy, but because they are
    hard, because that goal will serve to organize
    and measure the best of our energies and skills,
    because that challenge is one that we are willing
    to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
    one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

    I spent a few years teaching high school. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:02:02 AM EST
    I used to ask my students to write an essay about what they did "not because it was easy but because it was hard". I always had at least one tear jerker every year.

    He looked at the U.S. and challenged its citizens (none / 0) (#182)
    by Moishele on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:05:11 PM EST
    Amen brother!

    Re Bentsen's famous debate knockout punch, (none / 0) (#96)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:12:40 PM EST
    you are aware that it was a matter his camp easily anticipated -- Danny Boy just couldn't refrain from making the comparison -- and so they had carefully prepared and rehearsed his spot-on answer.

    The other thing is that LB, when he was given the lines to utter, apparently hesitated about saying "Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine" since calling their brief time together in the senate a "friendship" was quite a bit of a stretch.  But he gave in after aides convinced him the retort just wouldn't have the same effectiveness or punch without it.


    Bentsen served in the senate 1971-1993 . . . (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by wurman on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:42:43 PM EST
    . . . well after the assassination.  Kennedy (House of Representatives 1947-1953) & Bentsen (House of Representatives 1949-1955) were in the 81st & 82nd Congress together for 4 years during the Eisenhower administration.  The Democrats had a substantial majority & the Speaker, Sam Rayburn of Texas, was supportive of young Bentsen, who also became a compatriot of Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Majority Leader.

    The comment that Kennedy & Bentsen never knew each other is a falsehood from a Sean Hannity website with no substantiation whatsoever.  It's in the comments section.

    Kennedy & Bentsen worked on House committees that tried to amend Taft-Hartley (failed), produced a modern GI Bill of Rights (passed), & a sequence of Fair Labor Standards Acts about minimum wage & standard work day (passed).

    They totally disagreed on the Korean War--Bentsen wanted to nuke cities North of the 38th parallel if NKorean troops failed to withdraw from the South.  Kennedy advocated a total US withdrawal.

    They knew each other.  Very well.


    Once again you miss the point. (none / 0) (#162)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:26:41 AM EST
    I clearly referred only to LB's assertion that he was a "friend" of JFK, not his statement that he "knew" him.  Yes, he wasn't off base in saying he knew Kennedy because they both served together in Congress for several yrs in the early 50s.

    But the question was whether LB knew him well enough to be considered Kennedy's friend.  During debate prep, as described by Rbt Shrum in his book, his aides went over the rebuttal language and merely asked him if he knew Kennedy.  They used his affirmative response and decided to stretch it into a friendship.

    Small matter actually, and typical of pols who seem to have countless hundreds of "friends", many of them of the "close" variety.

    (btw, good to know you read Hannity's website.  I haven't had the pleasure, though I'm sure I should rush over to read all the unbiased unvarnished truth he publishes there)


    I didn't miss the point. (none / 0) (#174)
    by wurman on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    You wrote that they served a short time together in the senate.

    They didn't.

    I don't read Hannity.  You referenced a "storyline" that originated there & has been debunked on other websites that I do read--though I did go look at the actual comment, which is falsely developed from some Brokaw comments in that he hosted the Bentsen - Quayle debate.


    Kennedy or Bush (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by chopper on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:14:33 PM EST
    You could say Obama is "cunning and ruthless" like Kennedy, or you could say he's a two-faced liar like Bush.

    I'm inclined to think he's more the (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:20:29 PM EST
    Dick Cheney version of cunning and ruthless than the JFK version.

    That's Funny (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by oneangryslav on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:45:17 PM EST
    I'm inclined to believe the exact opposite of what you believe.  Funny how that works.  And judging from a fairly objective comparison, I'd say that I'm (much!) more likely to be correct than you are.

    Cheney?!?  Wow! No wonder you don't want to vote for Obama.


    Me too! (none / 0) (#110)
    by MojaveWolf on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:48:22 PM EST
    I have thought of Obama as a younger, more charismatic Cheney with a slightly different set of political ties for months now . . .

    Well he certainly (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:21:21 PM EST
    has the appearance of flexibility - otherwise why would people believe he would support FISA and preclude the civil investigation of telecoms, then later, as president, support criminal prosecution of telecoms for the same set of crimes?  Even though Greenwald points out the "heightened difficulty of proving criminal intent and, most importantly, the fact that Bush, on his way out, can pardon telecoms from criminal but not civil liability."

    I think it's funny when he's compared to Jack Kennedy...since Obama wants to cut back on the space program.

    That's a real issue with me. (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by samanthasmom on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:34:05 PM EST
    He wants to delay the moon to Mars project and use the money to support better education.  It was the race to the moon that inspired so many kids who went to school in the 60's to become scientists and engineers.  One of problems in education today is that so few students who excel at science and math are motivated to become anything other than video game designers.  Given that the solutions to our energy and climate crises may lie in the same research needed to build  bases on the moon or Mars,  delaying that project may be very short-sighted on Obama's part. At the very least, our students could benefit from the motivation that a "sexy" national challenge would bring.

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:45:24 PM EST
    The space program is so important. Look at what they are finding out on Mars right now. If he wants money for education, then he can take it from the Iraq funding.

    Tons of inventions (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Grace on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:11:05 PM EST
    have come out of the space program.  Things like kidney dialysis, freeze-dried foods, insulation -- lots of things that are used everyday.  

    I don't want to see money cut from the space program either.  We don't spend that much on it and the benefits are great.  


    My father worked in the space program. (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by AX10 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:19:10 PM EST
    Yes, many inventions and advances in science and living came as a result of the space program.
    I must say that Mr. Obama is appealing to the "creative class" indeed.  I know many of these types and they are 100% against the space program.

    Don't know why someone downrated (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by splashy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:49:31 AM EST
    You for this. I uprated to counteract, unless someone convinces me this is worthy of a downrate.

    whatever obama's advisors are saying (none / 0) (#121)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:05:39 PM EST
    to him and what he is saying doesn't sit well with me. today my sister who voted for hillary in the primary said she couldn't support obama. she had been on the fence. the conduct of the obama campaign in recent weeks leaves me tepid.

    flexible seems to be synonymous (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:35:22 PM EST
    with flippity flop...

    Difficult to know (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:14:59 PM EST
    According to John Dean, it is difficult to figure out if the legislation would even permit criminal prosecution.  So, we are being asked to cross out fingers and hope....

    Sully is silly. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:30:29 PM EST
    He is a desperate character...desperate to 'be somebody.'  Consequently, he tries to tie himself to icons like JFK...associate himself with words that make him and his chosen seem powerful...words like "cunning" and "ruthless" and "greatness."

    Baloney, any way you slice it.

    I like my baloney fried.... :) (none / 0) (#41)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:35:53 PM EST
    Comin' right up.... (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:39:08 PM EST
    Isn't he a Republican? (none / 0) (#88)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:46:03 PM EST
    Well, yes.... (none / 0) (#148)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:48:06 AM EST
    among other things...

    For better or for worse till the next election (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by fctchekr on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:38:04 PM EST
    That's why there are no assurances Democrats will win in Nov; There are so many of us who knew exactly what he was about, didn't vote for him and now we're stuck

    So I guess pragmatic (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:45:54 PM EST
    is the new mystery word - what does it actually mean?

    Instead of being defined as a series of realistic goals, it seems like his supporters are holding it ahead of them to shield themselves from Obama's next move.  Whatever that move will be, it will surely be pragmatic.


    here ya go... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:51:26 PM EST
    prag�mat�ic �� (prg-mtk) KEY �


    Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical.
    Philosophy Of or relating to pragmatism.
    Relating to or being the study of cause and effect in historical or political events with emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from them.
    Active; busy.
    Active in an officious or meddlesome way.
    Dogmatic; dictatorial.

    A pragmatic sanction.
    Archaic A meddler; a busybody.


    What does pragmatism mean in this situation: (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by pluege on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:53:17 PM EST
    • It means being afraid of the cult of republicanism mighty Wurlitzer to stand up for anything.

    • It means being a follower and selling out the American people, American values, and the constitution.

    • It means not having any integrity.

    In other words pragmatism means being the same old spineless corrupt pol that infests the government.

    Pragmatism (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:51:54 PM EST
    is also Abe Lincoln writing to Horace Greeley that "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
    If Lincoln were a progressive ideologue, he would have written that his paramount object was abolition of slavery, but as he was an enlightened, progressive pragmatist, he worked relentlessly for abolition of slavery while championing the worthy goal of preservation of the Union.



    He workled relentlessly to end (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:33:29 PM EST
    the EXTENSNION o0f slavery.

    the Emancipation Proclamation was limited to states in rebellion.

    Of course Lincoln's goal was the end of slavery.

    But luckily, there were many to his Left on the issue prodding him to do more. without that prodding, it is not at all clear that Lincoln would have done what he did.

    Yes, guess what, Lincoln too was a pol who needed a Left flank.

    When will people EVER understand this?


    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:58:31 PM EST
    "Wendell Phillips said that if Lincoln was able to grow 'it is because we have watered him.'"  (Zinn, A People's History of the US)

    Lincoln and Obama (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:13:02 PM EST
    If Lincoln needed to be "watered" by the left, Obama needed to be flooded, threatened, cajoled, shaken, have some ice water poured on his neck, and given lots and lots and lots of coffee.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:38:30 PM EST
    Probably he did need the Repub (none / 0) (#98)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:20:52 PM EST
    abolitionists pushing him to act faster on the EmanProc, but he never would have gotten elected -- never would have gotten the nomination in fact -- by running on a true abolitionist platform in the 1860 campaign.

    There were also his statements in the famous L-D debates where he accepted that blacks were not the complete equal of whites in certain important respects.  But for his time, those were not controversial statements.

    And had there been an internet back then, purists on the left would have been screaming that we'd nominated a guy with no principles/willing to say anything to get elected/not really interested in the plight of negroes, etc etc.  

    Oh, not much of a speaker, too.  That high-pitched grating voice ...


    I have ALWAYS said that (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:36:29 PM EST
    My argument is about the nonsensical shut up and sit down line that was endorsed today for some strange reason by Jeralyn.

    Obama NEEDS a Left Flank.


    The abolitionists (none / 0) (#99)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:31:05 PM EST
    were issue purists.  Greeley spoke loudly and creatively about the need for the abolition of slavery.  

    I realize now (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:37:59 PM EST
    I write no new posts, I just repeat all my old ones.

    I love the nonsense people will write to me in that tome, the one you just used about Lincoln. Believe me, you can teach me nothing about Lincoln.


    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:32:51 PM EST
    where are our Greeleys?  Obama has made it pretty clear he will not be drawn into a conversation with Daily Kos.  

    I'm not saying that bloggers aren't useful, but if Obama feels he has them under lock and key, then there's no point in being drawn into a conversation with them.  

    As Greenwald pointed out, he gave into the Republican framing of prioritizing safety over liberty.  Hopefully Obama does not continue this.  

    He will need some pressure from the left to enact good healthcare reform, I think.


    Uh oh... (none / 0) (#145)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:38:37 AM EST
    a gilas girl mentioned in one of her posts that she was worried that Armando would take her to task, perhaps ban her, for repeating an old post.

    In fact, she linked to one of your "I am not kidding, don't make me stop this car" admonitions to back up her worried claim.

    Now, whatever will she think if she reads THIS?  


    oldpro (none / 0) (#179)
    by suki on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:06:57 PM EST
    Where is she posting? I always liked reading what she had to say.

    BTD linked to her (none / 0) (#185)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:06:52 AM EST
    in a recent diary...I think still at DK off and on altho I don't go there any more so can't say for sure.  I was quoting her on an old post of hers re Armando...

    Thanks for the response (none / 0) (#186)
    by suki on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    I don't go to DK anymore either.
    Not even for a gilas girl.

    Obama is doing what every moderately... (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by pluege on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:47:39 PM EST
    intelligent person knew he would do and knew who he is. Unfortunately, none of those intelligent people are among the "top librul A-list progressive bloggers" or Olbermann or the millions that fell all over themselves frothing at the mouth at the mere sight or sound of Obama and who shouted down everyone else that wasn't a true believer.

    Clintonian (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by chopper on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:14:10 PM EST

    8 Years of Peace and Prosperity and


    Which Obama doesn't agree with!!!

    Can't wait to see what kind of mess he comes up with.  He did agree with Bush on several issues.

    Iraq War (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    Because he used the Iraq War during the primary as his focal point, too many in the progressive community accepted that as his credentials as a true progressive candidate. Is never was the person they thought he was.

    They were mostly uncritical of his (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:31:17 PM EST
    conduct re Iraq.

    It was unfortunate (none / 0) (#112)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:56:13 PM EST
    that when Bill Clinton referred to Obama's anti war stance as a "fairy tale (because it didn't match his voting record) Obama and his campaign were able to distract the truth of the statement and turn it into a racial slur.

    Maybe with the help of the media (none / 0) (#128)
    by sallywally on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:06:05 PM EST
    Playing it falsely over and over again....

    Thank you (none / 0) (#175)
    by chopper on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:03:18 PM EST

    Thank you for recognizing the fact that Clinton didn't start this racist crapola, it was Obama. He's doing the same thing with McCain now.

    Yes, Obama's Iraq talk is a "Fairytale".  Just like most of what comes out of his mouth.

    It's unfortunate that so many people are fairytale starved.


    Not (none / 0) (#180)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:19:39 PM EST
    a bad issue to run on if you're serious about it. Of course a big part of "the war" is the redirecting of a measly hundred billion plus of public funds away from kids, schools, hospitols, roadways etc and into the pockets of larcenous contractors and those fine Americans with offshore tax shelters. Oh, and "rebuilding" what we dedicated energy and resources to obliterating.

    All and all, not a bad place to start if you're passionate about it, but I keep having this gnawing feeling that the two twits and McSh*t are mostly passionate about getting out on that 100 k a pop speaker circuit.


    He is not Jack Kennedy... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:49:20 PM EST
    nor is he Bobby.

    Both of these men stood up for stuff. They took the hits for standing up for their positions.

    Sully is mistaken...as usual.

    How awesome... (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by OrangeFur on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:05:15 PM EST
    ... in a year in which almost any Democrat would beat almost any Republican, we managed to pick someone whose core principles nobody seems to know.

    Right now, people are saying, "Don't worry--he doesn't really mean any of the things he says." And those are his supporters!

    Meanwhile, the DSCC continues to bombard me with fundraising emails. Some of them are from people who I admire--Al Gore, for example. But just as I waver a little and reach for the credit card, I get one from Donna Brazile.

    Sorry... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:08:07 PM EST
    but I'll be able to take Ann Althouse seriously that one remarkable day I order onion rings and get an obvious symbol for a vagina instead.

    Situational ethics (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by OxyCon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:28:30 PM EST
    To the Obama loving Left blogs, the Clintons were to be loathed and demonized for being guilty of doing the same things these people now applaud Obama for doing.
    All I can say to that is I'm so glad that I am not like them.

    People who believed Obama was (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by roadburdened on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:39:40 PM EST
    a progressive rather than a centrist will be disappointed. I never made that mistake, so I'm happy with him. And so is Hillary.

    Over the past couple of weeks, I think he gets a 'C' on FISA, a 'D' on the death penalty, and a 'A+' for opting out of public financing.

    I wish you had graded my school work! (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:06:18 PM EST
    Fisa is a definite F. There's no way to excuse it or to candy coat it. If the primaries were still going on, I don't believe Obama would have made the same decision. I'll go along with the D in the DP ruling even though it was clear pandering. Opting out of PF would have been acceptable if he hadn't made it a campaign issue.

    Excuse me.... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:06:05 PM EST
    Sully said:
    "[Obama] is impressive precisely because he is neither a pure Adlai Stevenson nor a protean Bill Clinton. He's more like Jack Kennedy: cunning, ruthless, capable of political positioning as much as greatness."

    Sully finds Obama to be "impressive" because he is not a pure Adlai Stevenson. I find that a failing. I am not impressed.
    He is not a Bill Clinton. I find that neither impressive nor unimpressive.
    But to compare Obama to Kennedy in any respect is rhapsodic idiocy, in my opinion.

    As davnee said: (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by AX10 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:08:08 PM EST
    "Somebody in the cult got served and I don't think it was me.  Phew!

    Shorter Sullivan:  Oops gotta think of a new way to tout Obama as the next JFK.

    Shorter Blueness:  Thank you sir may I have another.  Hey, even if you can no longer say it sincerely, you still gotta say it."

    This is all a crock of s**t and these mules know it.
    Obama is an inexperienced kid in the political world.  He is trying to fit in by being a typical politician.  His entire selling point was "I'm not like all the other politicians".  What nonsense indeed.  The entire thing was a sham built up by Obama and the media to get rid of Hillary.

    There is not a chance in HELL that I will support Mr. Obama in the fall.

    oh. our. god.! (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:11:55 PM EST
    please stop the comparisons to jfk, it's insulting to those of us with a brain. at this point in his life, sen. obama lags far behind jfk, in both experience and intellect. jfk, for all his failings (and there were many), actually framed his own original opinions. to date, sen. obama hasn't. he has no opinions of his own, he is totally reliant on those of others.

    jfk was a legitimate combat veteran. he was a pulitzer prize winning author (profiles in courage), as opposed to a self-aggrandizing one. jfk made no bones about his lineage, he was what he was, take it or leave it. appointing his brother AG was a smart move. bobby was a smart guy, with the right instincts. it was mostly the two of them that kept wwIII from erupting, during the cuban missile crisis.

    the bay of pigs was a holdover from the eisenhower administration, that jfk reluctantly (and stupidly) allowed to go to fruition. he took full responsibility for its failure. i don't see a pres. obama taking responsibility for any failure, any more so than he did during the primaries.

    we have seen the true sen. obama: vaccuous and vaccilating. it won't get any better with even more pressure on him.

    should he be the dem. nominee, his glaring weaknesses, of both character and judgment, will be blindingly exposed, assuming even more doesn't come tumbling out of his closet.

    i can't, in good conscionsce, vote for him. i won't vote for mccain either, i'll write-in sen. clinton, if the opportunity avails itself.

    Katanga was more important. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:14:37 PM EST
    There the US Executve went toe to toe with European governments and corps and elemnts of the US intel communty.

    Don't like the charge of bigot? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by splashy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:08:26 AM EST
    There is always McKinney, a black woman. You get a twofer, and she is very liberal in her issues, a big plus.

    I'm seriously looking at her, mainly because of the issues.

    i've got bennie thompson (none / 0) (#156)
    by english teacher on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:42:44 AM EST
    for whom i have repeatedly voted, quite proudly i might add.  voted for him and mike espy when obama was polishing a chair with his butt at harvard law review.  no way in heck will i vote for obama.  

    frankly, knowing that althouse and sully support obama just further edifies my not-voting-for-him-ness.  if those two clowns think he's worth voting for, that's all i need to know.


    Bennie Thompson, hmmm (none / 0) (#187)
    by splashy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:14:30 AM EST
    Don't know about that person. Will check them out.

    Comparing Obama to Kennedy is moronic (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:06:43 AM EST
    Kennedy would have chastised his political counterparts for agreeing to have meetings without preconditions.

    In fact, he did precisely that.  

    Well, I'm going by his Senate voting recordq (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:00:54 PM EST
    It paints the picture of a center-left Democrat.

    That's a pretty thin record. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:02:18 PM EST
    Then there's "present."

    Ach (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:08:30 PM EST
    Comparatively speaking, that is. (none / 0) (#18)
    by pie on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:15:25 PM EST
    However, courageous stands are in short supply these days anyway.

    I really don't know what he'll do if he's elected, or what Congress will support.

    I can only hope there will be some positive change.


    Pragmatist, not an Ideologue (none / 0) (#42)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:36:00 PM EST
    Throughout the primaries, Obama stressed that he was guided by "pragmatism", not "ideology". Obama has been pragmatically consistent throughout his political life; part of his strength lies in his ability to see the forest for the trees while engaging in progressive politics. Some differences in Clintonism Vs Obamaism are highlighted in the following articles 1 , 2

    Pragmatism was not stressed during primaries (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by WakeLtd on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:29:20 PM EST
    What was stressed was "Yes We Can" because we should believe in "change & hope".

    We did not hear "No We Can't" because a) we don't have the votes, or b) it is not practical at this point in time considering the impact it might have on the elections, or 3) let's vote for it now, we can fix it later.

    Pragmatism became the theme on or about June 7th. There is nothing inherently wrong with pragmatism, but let's not rewrite the history of the primaries, and what the message was at that time.


    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:33:50 PM EST
    I followed the primaries very closely and can confidently say that you are wrong. Throughout the primaries Obama stressed that he would launch a post partisan progressive era in American politics. He emphasised his legislative record of working with Republicans to solve problems of interest to all Americans (eg: with Tom Coburn on Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency, with Richard Lugar on nuclear non-proliferation issues, his convergence of ideas with Chuck Hagel on the Iraq war, etc). Even though he praised HRC during the primaries, he said that he would be the better President because he was not hampered by ideological baggage that had its roots in University campus politics of the 1960s. He did not oppose HRC's or Edward's health care plan because he was opposed to them conceptually, he criticized them because he believed that those plans never had any chance of passing through Congress because of Republican opposition. He decided to pursue the progressive goal towards UHC by putting forward a plan that is slightly less ambitious than those of HRC or Edwards but which has a better chance of getting passed. Obama has been the pragmatist all along.

    You call Obama a pragmatist when he (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:53:44 PM EST
    rejects mandates for philosophical reasons, thereby driving up the per capita cost of his plan (compared to Hillary's) nearly twice.
    What a laugh.

    Flawed Projection (none / 0) (#169)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:39:37 AM EST
    HRC's healthcare plan would cost $45-60 billion per year more than Obama's. That is a lot of money. Republicans are hostile towards mandates, many democrats and independents are also strongly against it. The projected relative per capita cost of Obama and HRC's plan that you provided is flawed, it is certainly not based on reality. It is not pragmatic to ask Congress to approve an additional $45-60 billion dollars/year when most taxpayers are not even sold on the idea of mandates.

    This election deserves more (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:50:41 AM EST
    I think it's unrealistic to assume the a Republican minority is going to allow Obama to be the mender of this "damaging political rift" that has gripped the country. I have seen no willingness on their part to compromise on any of the major issues that face us. Just because he's sitting in the office won't change that. So if we're going to have to have the fight anyway, why dilute our principles to the point that we have none?

    I actually think they're misreading the mood of the country. There's anger in the people, not appathy. People are ready for bold change. We finally have an election where bold leadership would work and instead we have the same spineless leaders that choose not to lead.


    This talking point (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:15:29 AM EST
    Of the Obama campaign was one of the first things that bothered about him.

    "the better President because he was not hampered by ideological baggage that had its roots in University campus politics of the 1960s."

    It is that very baggage that has allowed an AA to seek the highest office in the land. It's also the same issues and rights that continue to dominate our society today. Republican's have spent the last 20 years trying to roll back these rights. If he feels that supporting the gains of the 60's will hamper him, maybe he's in the wrong party.


    You are wrong in your interpretation (none / 0) (#166)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:37:09 AM EST
    If you can get out of your good Vs evil and us Vs them interpretation of historical events, you will find that it is possible for one to passionately support progressive causes like civil rights, gender equality and Vietnam war protests while distancing themselves from some of the excesses that many "liberals" associated with (drugs, free sex, disrespect towards Vietnam war veterans, disrespect towards religion, bloated government, etc). Obama's
    own mother or people like Rosa Parks were progressives at heart and were remarkably ahead of their times.

    Republican talking points (none / 0) (#167)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:56:51 AM EST
    The issues weren't drugs and free sex and disrepect for Viet Nam vets until the Republican created the myth. It was a h#ll of a lot more than sex and drugs involved. By Obama embracing these mischaracterizations, he enables them to be the story rather than the real issues of them and now.

    I'm not into a good verses evil mode. But I do think principles and values are more important than any candidate or party.


    Principles and Values (none / 0) (#170)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    When did Obama say that principles and values are not important? AFAIK, in almost every speech, Obama addresses how proud he is to promote the ideals espoused by FDR, JFK, RFK and the millions who marched to promote civil rights, etc.
    OTOH, "Republican talking points" were bought hook, line and sinker by many supporting HRC's campaign. Obama's supporters have been repeatedly called "latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies" by many of HRC's supporters. Please go the following link to find out more on this regard.

    Ands indeed, I would describe them as exactly the saqme. My gawd, I DID describe them as exactly the same.

    It seems to me your mistake is is not understanding what Bill Clintonism was.

    very Sully of you.


    The First Thing Everyone Should Learn (none / 0) (#154)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:02:24 AM EST
    About Political Activism is that everyone believes their Ideology is, of course, the most pragmatic solution.

    No one's going to say "I believe in this or that because it doesn't work."

    More to the point.  If you are an Obama supporter who believes in stopping the FISA bill enough to write a letter about it, then you are one who believes that is most UNpragmatic to support it.

    Now is Obama still being pragmatic?


    IMHO (none / 0) (#172)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    Irrespective of what Obama personally feels about the  FISA bill, it will be unpragmatic for him at this time to play a starring role in preventing its passage. Remember, many in his own party strongly support passage of the bill. Were Obama to throw his personal prestige on the line to prevent passage of the bill and fail because he did not get support within his own party, many people who are criticizing him now would gleefully once again criticize him for supposedly being a weak Presidential nominee.
    Obama will get plenty of opportunity to take corrective action on many fronts once he becomes President. Once he becomes President, it is not outside the realm of possibility that support for FISA would decrease (not just among Democrats but even among Republicans who would not like a President from the other party to have so much power).

    This is not surprising (none / 0) (#70)
    by phat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:37:43 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure I predicted this all along.

    Shorter Althouse: (none / 0) (#78)
    by davnee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:24:21 PM EST
    Somebody in the cult got served and I don't think it was me.  Phew!

    Shorter Sullivan:  Oops gotta think of a new way to tout Obama as the next JFK.

    Shorter Blueness:  Thank you sir may I have another.  Hey, even if you can no longer say it sincerely, you still gotta say it.

    Heh, awesome post on instapundit. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Faust on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:46:36 PM EST
    Many will be disapointed. Some will be pleased. Some will be both. Unless he gets the big seat though, we won't get to find out who is who.

    republicans and many independents are (none / 0) (#122)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:10:19 PM EST
    not going to be pushed around by bigot charges i think. if anything it will send them running to mccain. talk about backfire!

    The real Obama and his message (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yotin on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:55:31 PM EST
    Obama has campaigned to change the same old, same old politics in Washington. He has in not a small measure garnered millions of votes in the primary because of that campaign message.
    Now that Obama is the presumptive nominee, he's up to flip-flopping to take politically expedient positions. And many of his supporters, like Sully, admire him as being cunning and clever in exercising political moves expedient and politically advantageous to him. This is a repeat of Bush supporters in total admiration of whatever actions he took in office.
    If Obama's supporters continue to support him on his flip-flops, don't expect him to listen to criticism from the other side.
    Those who voted for him in the primary on the basis of his campaign message made a fatal error in not judging the messenger. They even failed to press him on his integrity and sincerity.
    I sure do hope they begin to look at the messenger in this national election campaign.

    I stand correct on Teddy's age. It (none / 0) (#138)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:07:23 AM EST
    was me who was the kid!!! The comments are a reflection of the "change" the presumption dem nominee has brought to the table.It was Ted Kennedy who compared Obama to JFK along with Caroline. Was that an absurd comparison. I believe it was.

    I never understood... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:36:52 AM EST
    ...the JFK fascination myself.  But I wasn't alive for it.  Telling me he was like JFK is like telling me he was a rabid anti-Communist cold warrior with a penchant for supporting disastrous foreign policy.  

     Anyway, I agree the comparison doesn't hold.  If only because that was a very different Democratic Party than exists today.  It is like comparing McCain to Eisenhower.  


    You might want to try (none / 0) (#163)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:41:03 AM EST
    checking out a few recent books on JFK and how he was far from the knee-jerk CWior you describe but instead was attempting to end the CW madness.  He got tremendous resistance from the Pentagon and his NS staff, not to mention the devious and ultimately deadly CIA, which Kennedy didn't quite have the time to "shatter into a thousand pieces and scatter to the winds" as he threatened to do after the BoP.  

    David Talbot's "Brothers" lays it out for the general reader.  Gareth Porter's "Perils of Dominance" goes into far greater detail on Kennedy's FP, and his interesting attempts to get things done despite foot-dragging by powerful gov'l entities, for those who want to go deeply into the issue.

    Then James K. Galbraith, writing for TAP and the Boston Globe, has some stuff online, iirc, re Kennedy's real plans about withdrawing from VN.

    Finally, in some of these accounts you'll read some interesting stuff about Ike's FP, particularly as he was leaving office.  Not the sort of info some Dems who tend for some reason to idolize him would find palatable, but there it is nonetheless.


    Actually (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:09:43 AM EST
    the only people you list there who haven't been thrown out by Obama are the Kennedy family and African Americans.

    Typical Obama stuff. Anyone who doesn't support him is a dixiecrat or a racist. It's all about the color of his skin with you guys isn't it?

    Did Ann Althouse write this kind of (none / 0) (#141)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:16:47 AM EST
    commentary during the primary where she really didn't like Obama's positions as she says she does now? This should have been a banner year, instead, for some, it's another same ol' same ol'stuff only this year, imo, it's worse!!