Standing For Something

This post I wrote in April 2006 was, I think, the fairly standard Netroots position at the time:

What is the cost of wishiwashiness? Ask John Kerry. From the Texeira/Halpin article:

The direct consequences of the identity gap were most evident in the 2004 presidential contest. According to 2004 post-election polling, the most commonly cited reason not to vote for Kerry among Bush voters who considered voting Democratic -- in other words, the voters who turned the election to Bush -- was Kerry's "flip-flopping" on the issues. . . . Similarly, the top reason cited by white Catholics for why Kerry lost the 2004 election was that the candidate was "not clear on what he stood for" (48 percent selected this reason as one of the two top reasons Kerry lost, twice as many as selected "permissive views on issues like abortion and gay marriage" as one of the reasons).6

Glenn Greenwald's post on the issue today demonstrates how far, not in a good way, the Netroots has come on this point:

[W]hat . . . is the basis for the almost-unanimously held Beltway conventional view that Democrats generally, and Barack Obama particularly, will be politically endangered unless they adopt the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and National Security, which -- for some reason -- is called "moving to the Center"? There doesn't appear to be any basis for that view. It's just an unexamined relic from past times, the immovable, uncritical assumption of Beltway strategists and pundits who can't accept that it isn't 1972 anymore -- or even 2002.

. . . One could argue that national security plays a larger role in presidential elections than in Congressional races, and that very well may be. But was John Kerry's narrow 2004 loss to George Bush due to the perception that Kerry -- who ran as fast as he could towards the mythical Center -- was Soft on Terrorism? Or was it due to the understandable belief that his rush to the Center meant that he stood for nothing, that he was afraid of his own views -- the real hallmark, the very definition, of weakness?

. . . For that reason, isn't the perception that Obama is abandoning his own core beliefs -- or, worse, that he has none -- a much greater political danger than a failure to move to the so-called "Center" by suddenly adopting Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies? As a result of Obama's reversal on FISA, his very noticeable change in approach regarding Israel, his conspicuous embrace of the Scalia/Thomas view in recent Supreme Court cases, and a general shift in tone, a very strong media narrative is arising that Obama is abandoning his core beliefs for political gain. That narrative -- that he's afraid to stand by his own beliefs -- appears far more likely to result in a perception that Obama is "Weak" than a refusal to embrace Bush/Cheney national security positions.

What's most amazing about the unexamined premise that Democrats must "move to the Center" (i.e., adopt GOP views) is that this is the same advice Democrats have been following over and over and which keeps leading to their abject failure. It's the advice Kerry followed in 2004. It's why Democrats rejected Howard Dean and chose John Kerry instead.

It is telling that Glenn and I are now voices in the wilderness on this. It was not always that way. The dangers of candidate worship.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Biases | Sunday Afternooon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think it's clear that if WE don't demand (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:01:42 AM EST
    a politics of contrast from Obama, no one will.

    But since he doesn't read the blogs, I think it's clear that what we say probably doesn't matter anyway. Pissing in the wind, we are. (I can say that, right?)

    At least we can look at ourselves in the mirror (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:05:32 AM EST
    Sure, but most don't bother. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:07:33 AM EST
    When Did You Demand? (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by talex on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    Or even criticize Obama as of late?

    We are still waiting for you to step up and Tell It Like It Is. It would be nice if you did because the elephant in your room is HUGE.

    So far just: "Pols are Pols" which basically says don't fret over what they do, they do what they do and there is nothing we can do about it, so stay silent and vote for him, trust him even if his action don't evoke trust

    That message isn't selling because it is defeatist and non-sensible IMO.

    Hell even Chris Bowers meekly stepped up the other day. Matt Stoller too.

    How can anyone post a reference to the Greenwald piece that criticizes people endorsing Obama's  center-(right) position when they themselves will not criticize his center-(right) position?


    This is bizarre (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:56:11 PM EST
    You and Geekesque need to get your stories straight.

    One of you needs to decide why you hate me and stick to the story.


    Hate You? (2.00 / 1) (#172)
    by talex on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:38:59 PM EST
    Come on! I don't hate you. I may not agree with you often but that isn't hate.

    Pointing out the weakness in your unwillingness to criticize Obama has nothing to do with hate. It is no  different than when you prod other writers to not be afraid to Tell It Like It Is - or to take their heads out of the sand.

    Using your adjective; your response is bizarre. Instead of addressing the critique you try to turn the worm. That doesn't work with me. Distracting from the subject at hand is as plain as the sun in the sky.

    So why, when the rest of the blogosphere is criticizing Obama, won't you do the same? You cheerlead like a blind kool-aide drinker.

    And don't tie me with Geekesque because I have no idea what he/she is posting.

    BTW - yesterday OpenLeft was full of frontpage diaries that were criticizing Obama including one from David Sirota who has been a Obama fanatic. Seems to me that you are tiptoeing around what other people have concluded cannot be tiptoed around anymore. There comes a time when it just looks foolish to not address reality. It goes to credibility as a writer.


    P!ssing in the wind, we are (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by blogtopus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:19:15 AM EST
    Are you quoting Yoda? lol

    Yeah, its hard to hold someone's feet to the fire when they are greased in flame-retardants and held 50 feet out of reach.

    As far as mirrors are concerned, BTD, I imagine there are more covered mirrors in Kos' house than a grieving jewish widow.


    piss all over me, it is--says Bowers. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    Oh btw Viva Espania!  Death to teh Germans!

    But, but, but, but...... (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by standingup on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:59:17 AM EST
    Obama is changing politics, don't you know?  I mean he is all about the grassroots and a bottom up organization.  He is giving the little guy, the small donors, a voice.  Of course he is listening, just look at how many friends he has on MySpace!

    obama is for everything and for nothing... (none / 0) (#57)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:40:06 PM EST
    I am not sure he even knows what he stands for.

    Watching Jindal on CNN (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM EST
    Let me tell you something, the best advocate I have ever seen for McCain.

    Incredibly impressive.

    I changed my mind based on this - McCain should pick him.


    He's an interesting character (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:12:13 AM EST
    Way far to the right, Louisiana style, though. My recollection is that Club for Growth types don't like him because he voted to raise the minimum wage.

    he should be Mccain's chief of staff. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:37:56 PM EST
    the number one surrogate. I'd instead have Palin of Romney.  romney's case is how he could steal michigan.  I don't know if that is operative anymore.

    Palin would have a number of exelent advatages that are fairly self evident.

    Sanford would be the safe bet though.


    Please not Sanford! (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:54:42 PM EST
    SC needs to get rid of him for sure, but to loose him on the US?  

    I can see him now if he did succeed NcCain; did you know he brought a pig into the state house?  His
    'save the budget' routine cut aid to kids in order to avoid a cigarette tax increase.


    What do you have against pigs? (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:22:49 PM EST
    Changed your mind (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    about what? If I may be so bold.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#93)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:12:37 PM EST
    1. Inexperience off whose table? Jindal is a governor, he runs the state, he's not a part-time state senator. McCain is not soooooo old he couldn't easily survive 2 terms.

    2. So what? If you can prove it, do so. Otherwise, it's just tabloid information.

    He also delivered his own baby a couple of years ago, does that mean he's guilty of impersonating a doctor?

    1. That's politics. Can't please everyone.

    2. He does not look more black than Obama.

    if i'm not mistaken (none / 0) (#115)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    he overseeing NOLA reconstruction.

    Jindal and Obama are professional campaigners... (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    Jindal has campaigned for one political position or another within the past six years, not staying in anyone of his wins more than two.

    He ran against Kathleen Blanco for governor twice in 2004, becase none of the candidates reached 50%  of the voters in the first round. Then he ran for the U.S. Congress inmediately and won that election. He ranked in the top 5 representatives absentee list because he was too busy campaigning for governor of Louisiana during the 2006 election which he finally won, taking office in January, 2007.  

    After barely 15 months in office, the Louisiana legislature (historically not the most honorable in the U.S.) has decided in its first session to triple its salary,  He has announced that although he does not agree with the measure, he will not veto it. This is 180* turn around to his campaign pledge he put in writing that he would unequivocally veto.  The electorate is up in arms about his decision and there is a motion in the works for  a Recall against him.

    So, today on CNN, being coy about the possibility of being a VP pick and saying he looooves his job as governor, may be further proof that where he really is effective is at campaigning, not unlike our presumptive democratic candidate.


    Charlie Crist or Sarah Palin would be the best (none / 0) (#127)
    by AX10 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    choices for McCain.
    He should not go to far to the right.
    There is no desire for that type of governance at this time and McCain knows it.
    He has to play a delicate game here.

    I think Jindal is impressive too (none / 0) (#171)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:34:42 PM EST
    He kind of reminds me (looks-wise) of a young Indian Robert Kennedy.  ;-)

    He's 10 years younger than Obama yet he does have some accomplishments to show for it.  He's also a Rhodes Scholar, just like Wes Clark and Bill Clinton.  


    you must have read (none / 0) (#12)
    by Turkana on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:24:28 AM EST
    my friday post...

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    and we've both been reading Big Tent for a long time.

    blueness (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Turkana on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:01:20 PM EST
    says so...

    Honestly, (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    blueness was not a name I recognized until this week. I think it's sort of. . .interesting that I'm being kept track of.

    blueness (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Turkana on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:21:46 PM EST
    is self-styled track-keeper of dk.

    Good Post (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    See Geek is still at it. It may be O.K. to criticize Obama but only if we eliminate most words that imply criticism. He provided a list of DO NOT USE sentences. It would have been interesting to see his Geek approved ACCEPTABLE sentences. I have an idea that they would have provided a ROTFLMA moment.

    Ahhh, (none / 0) (#95)
    by tek on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:17:22 PM EST
    that's the phrase I've been trying to articulate.

    2004 was infuriating (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:17:24 AM EST
    Kerry would say something that was spot-on to my way of thinking - like the "global test" soundbite from the debates - and then the moment the GOP took a shot at him over it, he'd suddenly back away and start explaining himself into a hole.

    I really, honestly thought Obama was going to be tougher than that.  If anything, during the primaries he seemed to demonstrate a tendency to defend every statement to the death, even those that could have been worded better.

    But now, most notably on the infamous talking to Iran issue, it really seems like more of the same.  I guess the attitude is like, the election is in the bag, the only way we can blow it is to get caught saying something liberal.  But for those of us who hoped Obama could be the guy to articulate progressive positions and defend them successfully - the way Reagan did for conservatives - it's pretty disappointing so far.

    If he collapses, it will be because of this (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:20:28 AM EST
    yeah he did tend to say good stuff (none / 0) (#56)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:39:30 PM EST
    and them qualify it.

    he should have had Daschle and the gang do that for him instead.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:51:22 PM EST
    the strategy of saying something bold and then have advisors walk it back (Goolsbee on NAFTA, Power on the war) ran into some difficulty during the primary, although the true believers didn't have any problem with it.

    yeah but it can't be pinned on the boss (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:57:47 PM EST
    that's the trick

    Went to that well too often (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:36:39 PM EST
    The problem with blaming someone else, you start to wonder if he is running the show at all or letting the herd run wild. Too many times and people notice. Too many terror alerts and people notice although they did not listen.

    True believers (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:24:48 PM EST
    that's who will win him the election. Particularly the young and idealistic. Been there and done that an no one could have ever changed my mind.

    I'm thinking: McGovern. (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:32:26 PM EST
    True, but (none / 0) (#109)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:31:53 PM EST
    It also helped to have a complicit media. What is the feel around here for the fall - when things get really going and people are paying attention - is McCain still going to be more of the media's sweetheart than Obama was during the primary?

    You need to have some (none / 0) (#169)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    genuine passion, which generally means you need to have some genuine beliefs/ideals. The present system runs most of those kinds of people off the political landscape before they get very far,

    There are too many backroom deals to be made, too much money to raised, too many oppurtunites to exploit the position of power for self aggrandizement.

    What we're left with is tepid, wishy-washy pols who are generally going to personally come out on top -- compared to the average citizen -- regardless of whether their watered down - diluted "issues" triumph or not.


    Obama was never tough .. Never. (none / 0) (#183)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:46:04 PM EST
    and yes, he certainly defended every statement to the point where all he was doing was trying to define mambojambo. Was there ever a debate when he didn't ask Blitzer and the Russerts for more time ... so he could talk some more. ZZZzzz .... murmured the audience more than once. Obamafans ignored his nonsense gladly. Kudos for Hillary Clinton to keep her temper thru all those debates w. Obama trying to nail jelly to the wall.

    Anyone who thought that Obama would be the Dem candidate to articulate progressive positions and defend them successfully must have been wishfully dreaming under a rock with their ears stuffed with cotton. When did he ever do that? He maligned the 60s and the Clinton admin, for heavens sake while fawning over Reagan. Right in front of us. during the debates.

    Obama was selected by the Dems because he was Obama. Just like Ferraro explained it. And he was selected by the bloggers and the media because they fell for the concept Obama. And because Hillary Clinton had to be destroyed at all cost.  Just about everyone else on the stage voted for Iraq, too, but that was easily overlooked. Hillary refused to apologize. That made Edwards a hero but Hillary was out.... no matter her qualifications, no matter her toughness, no matter her core beliefs. She won election after election in the end but Dems, media and Obamafanatics called for her to stop campaigning. Not v. democratic, if you ask me.  

    Obama is a lucky camper and that is why he is the Dem candidate today.

    I bet even he knows it. And he knows he can do now whatever he wants. And that is exactly what he wants.

    Cause Its Obamatime.


    FISA is a litmus test (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by HenryFTP on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:30:30 AM EST
    because the Republican position has been both extreme and ludicrous, and the passage of time has proven it so.

    Republicans predicted the apocalypse when their original bill did not pass in February. Democrats were able to push back reasonably forcefully about how ridiculous that notion was, and have been proven correct.

    The Democrats, with Congressional majorities, could have come up with any number of legislative strategies to kick this issue safely into the next Congress, when the whole program could be subjected to real accountability and hearings on how some of the technical issues could be addressed. They could easily have pointed out that White House stonewalling, refusal to cooperate, demonstrated misleading of Congress, etc. made it impossible to look at any thoroughgoing legislation in this term, and essentially then dared the President to veto the PAA extension legislation and put the onus of "endangering the nation" squarely on his shoulders.

    Telecom immunity should never have been on offer, particularly because the Democrats could always challenge the President to defend the legality of  his program and to use his pardon power if he was so concerned about telecoms aiding and abetting his lawbreaking.

    People far more clever than me could "package" the above as compelling politics, not just a lot of high and mighty "principle". It would be good politics because Democrats need to show that they are different than Republicans -- why take the pale imitation when you can have the real thing? The voters out there looking for a red meat elective dictatorship aren't going to vote for Obama, anyway. This issue is too complicated for a shrewd "pander" in any event -- in the end the Republicans will still be saying that they believe in wiretapping the terrorists under people's beds while Democrats are worried about civil rights for terrorists.

    At the rate Obama is going, his campaign is going to boil down to the fact that he's younger and taller than McCain. By sacrificing "change" for "safer politics", he's putting his relative inexperience right back into play.

    He could still be saved by the economy, but he won't be achieving the realignment he's allegedly pursuing. Whether he knows it or not, he's also limiting his room for maneuver as President, as the Republicans and the corporate Media will be only too happy to hold him to his "centrism" with a ferocity only dreamed of by progressives wishing to hold him to what they thought were his beliefs.

    This is not just "compromising on principles", it's really a lost opportunity to change the framework of the national debate. So much for our "transformative" candidate.

    Read Greenwald's post (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by blogtopus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM EST
    He addresses the Criminal vs Civil issue by stating it is very likely that Bush will use his pardon power to let the Telecoms off the hook. Then both aspects will be covered.

    Thanks Obama (and his senate / congress)


    the FISA vote had to occur now (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    so the Telecoms would know where to send their campaign donations.
    btw - these same Telecoms are big sponsors of the corporate media and press that promote Obama.

    Aha, that explains it (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    as, like tjeania, I couldn't see -- despite trying this way and that -- why this bill was pushed now.  Yours is a much more satisfactory explanation than any "strong on terror" image stuff and the like.  It is always about following the money (bashes head on desk for being taken in by imagining it was about anything but that with Obama).

    I do have to disagree, though -- if you're reading this, tjeania -- about being okay with sacrificing integrity and core principles to flipflop on FISA.  It's doing anything to win, which is okay with you.  It's not okay with me.  

    And it exposes again the sick psychology of those who claimed it was what Clinton does, when it always clearly has been Obama's way.  That he attempted to deflect his character flaw (as I see it) on her, that his supporters were so willing to do so as well, was one of the most dishonest things I saw in an incredibly dishonest campaign flawed by hypocrisy at its very core.  Pols are pols, but they don't have to be hypocrites to his extent.  It is a disregard for establishing some level of trust that could lose it all for him.    


    Would he agitate for a filibuster ? Lead? (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by magnetics on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    In a word?  He is trimming and slicing the issue around the edges, looking for safety -- not daring boldly, or whatever that old trekkie mantra was.

    Most Democrats have never gotten over R. Reagan, who painted them as second class citizens, "Americans of the second declension" (with apologies to L. Durell, and any Latin scholars out there.)  That's why they fold.

    HRC was at least a Watergate staffer: she met the beast head on, and with all her faults and failings, is still truer to the old Democratic model.  Hey, WJC was only two term Democratic president since when, Truman? and it takes a certain belief in yourself to win.


    bollox (none / 0) (#77)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    First with the tosser... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:31:12 PM EST
    Now with the bollox.

    You're having quite a bit of fun today, aren't yeh? ;-P


    There's a limitation to the comparison (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:39:08 AM EST
    between Obama and Kerry, but I know it's not intended in all manner of fashion.  I guess that's the case anyway.

    Even the most ardent of Obama critics would have to concede he has the rhetorical skills and presence of mind to carry off flip flops.  Kerry did not.

    There will be no "I voted for it before I voted against it" soundbytes from Obama.

    At the same time, I agree with this post 100%.  People do tend to respect politicians more who do stay somewhat consistent to a sense of purpose.  But I still have something to say.  

    I have huge misgivings about this because of how easy it is to shamefully manipulate people on this issue.  My example is sitting in a diner and saying "i like ketchup on my french fries but i don't like ketchup on my hamburger" and then the person I'm talking to runs around and lies to people quoting me like this:

    "I like ketchup ...  I don't like ketchup."

    Which is what Edwards and Obama did to Clinton in that MSNBC debate.  Edwards moreso than Obama and it's why I actually find Edwards more deplorable than Obama at times.

    So I think it behooves an intelligent voter, and issue advocate, to listen carefully, and as far as that's concerned I think there's a case to be made that while Obama will carry off flips flops better than Kerry did, Kerry's flip flops were more media contrived than Obama's will be.

    There is simply no justice in the world.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:01:56 PM EST
    I didn't look at that and say "Clinton doesn't know where she stands on an issue" I looked at that and said "Someone just burned by General Election vote for Ewards."

    When it comes to a flip flop you have to think about the impressions given by politicians and their record, and if you relate it to this FISA business, I hold no illusions, Clinton never gave me the impression she would be leading the "stop FISA" charge at this point and time.  Her record is quite progressive but it's not a record that leads me to believe that she's that kind of issue advocate.  If one wants a Russ Feingold, I never had the impression she would be.  That wasn't why I supported her.

    But as far as Obama is concerned, one has to ask themselves if he gave them the impression he would lead a "stop FISA" charge, and if so, then one would have to conclude a flip flop has taken place.

    If Obama never gave one that impression, then I'll be the first to say no flip flop has taken place here.


    Or even if he didn't really mean to give (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:47:58 PM EST
    that impression, much as I think he did -- a proponent of the sort of politics that he claims would correct that impression, hmmm?  So either way, it's hypocrisy.  So what . . . but, again, there is a certain amount of trust that must be established by a candidate to win even the most skeptical voters.  There have to be some understandings established to differentiate from the other candidate -- or, as ever, why vote for either one, or even why vote at all?  That is Obama's problem to fix now, after so many flipflops so fast, so soon.

    Obie's strategy of voter distancing isn't the way (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    The calculation of relying on free media and YouToob to promote him as Teh One with direction from his campaign (supplemented by oPod Pestering) is innately flawed.

    The Inner Circle and Pests behave like imperious jackwads, but not in a way that compels the kind of compliance they're after. They're too quick to jump to whining about personal injury to themselves rather than Harrumphing Outrage On Behalf of the American People!, hence the waves of eyerolling.

    The standard GOP stompers wrote the book on being imperious jackwads but Dems are more obsessed with more finely filigreeing their hooey, which is counter-intuitive (or self-defeating, if you like).


    An attack on HRC (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:52:13 PM EST
    is an attack on me ( or "we"). I must've misread all those posts.

    Btw, vis a vis your "liar" pronouncment the other day, has HRC ever lied about anything?

    Or was she just made to do it by "bad intelligence", hate, unprecedented attacks, restless leg syndrome and hate (or did I mention that already?)


    WTF are you talking about? Address that specific (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    ... post and if I'm so inclined I'll respond.

    It aint Kabbala (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:43:05 PM EST
    but that's alright, dont bother. No point in debating someone who cant apply the same standards across the board.

    Shhh ... my case is resting nicely n/t (none / 0) (#178)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:29:25 PM EST
    Btw (none / 0) (#181)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 03:13:59 PM EST
    That "jackwads" may be a little unprecendentedly hateful and gender specific, but if that's as close as you've come to the real thing, it's understandable.

    Because he has little experience (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    other than Chicago politics and the teleprompter?

    I am not criticizing him.  Running for President is a wonderful opportunity for him and I think he is doing the best he can. I do see, I think what change means to him and that is he doesn't really need anyone nor does he want anyone to agree or cares if they don't. It's his mission statement which appears to be audacity.

    Forgot...3 years in the Senate.


    And audacity does not have to be a bad word (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    but I still am not a supporter

    Impressions (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by anydemwilldo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:09:01 PM EST
    Come from two directions though.  Obama has always been a fundamentally centrist democrat in most things.  He's taken some decidedly progressive stands on the war, certainly, and on gay rights issues.  But on other stuff (tax policy, non-war defense issues, farm subsidies) he's looked a lot more like Bill Clinton than he has like Feingold or Kucinich.  That's hardly surprising, after all: he's been looking at a presidential run since before he started in the senate.

    A lot of his reputation for progressivity comes not from the campaign itself, but from the progressive bloggers that support him.  But if those blogs were mistaken, that's their problem, not his.  It's certainly not a "flip flop" to accept support from someone who you don't quite agree with.

    Obama's actual position changes, and there have been some, are hardly irregular to my eyes.  Everyone does this stuff, especially in the "run to the center" phase of a general (does everyone remember "compassionate conservatism", and "uniter, not a divider"?).  Hell, Obama's been a whole lot more consistent than McCain, who has flipped on almost everything except the war.


    Kids who want to do something (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:11:28 PM EST
    that their parent says they cannot do use the phrase, "everyone does ths stuff" or "gee, everyone else is doing it." This does not impress me, nor does it endear me to this candidate. He is a follower, I'm looking for a leader!@

    I don't think being anti war is progressive per se (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:17:47 PM EST
    Or specifically this particular war. Labour in the Uk ( far to the left of the Dems on the real policy meat) went into Iraq happily enough.  Poor Old Georgeous George Galloway got the stick end of that experience.  hell Nye Bevan ran guns to the republican Spanish and was out ahead of churchill as someone who wanted to fight Hitler.

    Quite a lot of anti war sentiment is of the eisenhower brand.

    War brings on radical changes.  a small c conservative could just as easilty object to the unforseem consequences of the invasion.  I place Obama in the small c category, but he's hoodwinked and bamboozled and conned real leftwingers.  It's a pathetic site.


    He voted for funding and confirming Rice (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:22:51 PM EST
    and there's Donnie McClurkin re: gay issues.

    I have no idea what you're talking about.

    If your impression is that he is more progressive on the war (whatever that means) than Clinton then, if he doesn't live up to the impression that he created for you on that issue, then you should consider the possibility that he flip flopped on that issue.


    I wasn't talking about Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by anydemwilldo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:30:48 PM EST
    I was responding to a claim that Obama was inconsistent, and pointed out that his reputation for being progressive had little to do with his actual record.  It's not about Hillary vs. Barack any more.  The primary is over.

    Well I agree with that 1000% (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:32:48 PM EST
    his reputation for being progressive had little to do with his actual record.  

    One might even call such a reputation a fairy tale.


    Again, tha'ts the primary talking (2.00 / 0) (#119)
    by anydemwilldo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:47:59 PM EST
    You're changing the subject again.

    All I was saying is that Obama really isn't particularly "inconsistent" for a politicial, especially given that we're in the general now, and specifically is much less of an inconsistent flip-flopper than McCain is.

    Yet, I see the "inconsistent" meme pop up here again and again.  It's time to put it to bed, it really doesn't apply.


    I see (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:50:35 PM EST
    You can't contrast General Election Obama with Primary Obama without talking about the primary and we're not talking about the primary anymore, is that it?

    Sorry, there's no reboot in politics (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:22:35 PM EST
    You can avoid the image of being a flip-flopper by claiming a bit reset when the primaries end.

    For pete's sake, people claim McCain is a flip-flopper based on statements he made 8 years ago.  The primaries only ended a month ago.  Clinton was held to things her husband said over a decade ago.

    Obama pushed a hopey-changey progressive narrative to get himself elected; whatever his actual politics are, the ones he put on display were the ones he knew were being lapped up by those who wanted to believe that narrative.

    A flip-flop is a flip-flog, you don't get to de-flop it by claiming oh, well, that's what he said yesterday.


    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:45:19 PM EST
    I just figured it out, and the Obama movement can pick it's poison:  

    If Bill was right re: "fairy tale" then Obama's not a flip flopper.

    If Bill was wrong re: "fairy tale" then Obama's a flip flopper.


    I disagree with your analogy, but (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    either way, Bill was right!!!!

    Say what? (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:55:22 PM EST
    He's taken some decidedly progressive stands on the war, certainly, and on gay rights issues.

    He gave a speech against the war then he voted to fund the war more than once.  What's progressive about that?  That's a flip flopper.    


    small quibble (none / 0) (#48)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:22:38 PM EST
    The problem wasn't so much that she was challenged heavily it was that Obama never received the same treatment until George stephanolpoulos got under his skin.

    It's not like Edwards wasn't manhandled in earlier debates. When Obama got away with his "four years too late" jibe, clinton ought to have spoken up herself abd said how inaccurate Obama was being.  she kinda laughed along with Obama and the moderators.


    Standard Repug messaging: repeat term du jour (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:28:30 PM EST
     My example is sitting in a diner and saying "i like ketchup on my french fries but i don't like ketchup on my hamburger" [... later quoted as ...]
    "I like ketchup ...  I don't like ketchup."

    Wolfe, The American People need ketchup!

    (No, they really do!)

    Punditstan are like pets: say the bobblehead's name first to grab his/her attention and tack on the term or phrase. Do the nuances in between, but only attached to the key phrase and keep repeating the talking point during your appearance.

    The problem with Dems isn't that they're not "on message" but that their nuancing or drift isn't consistently stamped with a key phrasing.

    YES, it's like sending the long-pants media to Obedience School.


    Only a choregraphed Obama may be able to do so (none / 0) (#184)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:07:08 PM EST
    I was absolutely amazed how problematic the debates were for Obama. And he never improved. Presence of mind? Hardly. He had weeks (e.g. the driver's license qs designed originally to railroad HC by the Russerts ... not that anybody cared when Obama bombed big time 3 wks later) to answer a qs and he still talked himself into the hole of no return ... and he still wanted more time from the host.

    Sorry, no to your statement IMHO

    "Even the most ardent of Obama critics would have to concede he has the rhetorical skills and presence of mind to carry off flip flops."


    On our little tiny weenie blog, we just outed someone sharing  our blog as a plagiarist. Blah, shows us for being too busy to keep track of everyone's posts. But I went through and discovered at least half of his posts were lifted directly from other bloggers or reports and articles.

    He vamoosed on us. But he hit the top of the rec list at dKos yesterday.

    I think that's fairly symptomatic of dKos, though, especially these days. The place was always about the pack, but used to be, there was still original content and interesting stuff being posted. Anymore, though --- not so much. It's about The Group and maintaining status quo, despite the mess we're in.

    So be it.

    O/t, I'm going to be in Puerto Rico for a week in August. :D It's a working "vacation, though, so I won't demand you meet face to face with Teh Fearsome and Pugnacious cookiebear.

    I would greatly appreciate, though, a few restaurant recommendations --- when not locked in a meeting, I plan to do my best to chow my way from one end to the other.

    San Juan, btw.

    < /end of o/t >

    What's your budget? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:52:04 AM EST
    San Juan has great high end places.

    I have a better idea - tell me the ones you are thinking of going to and I'll react to your potential choices.


    budget??? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:00:16 PM EST
    I'm paying a mortgage and student loans! My budget is frightening.

    But I would like to splurge at least a couple of times. And I haven't even looked at any restaurants, so I don't have a clue.

    I will say this: I love eating what locals eat when I travel. I'm not terribly interested in tourist specialties, unless they really showcase the best of a place.

    Hmmm ... okay, I'm looking for high end restaurants which really showcase foods unique to Puerto Rico, and low(er) end places where people just grab a bite and hang out.


    One of my favorites is Chayote (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:12:30 PM EST
    Blogosphere historical footnote - I had dinner with  Markos there.

    oh oh oh (none / 0) (#67)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:50:46 PM EST
    Fusion! Perfect.

    Be sure to look for the autographed (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:04:51 PM EST
    photo on the wall.

    At the risk of getting my head bit off (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by HenryFTP on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    is Ajili Mojili still going strong? From a parochial New Yorker's point of view, it was a place I wish we had in Manhattan -- what Victor's tries and fails to be.

    oh oh oh redux! (none / 0) (#74)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:55:55 PM EST
    Perfect again.

    I'm going to try to hit both, if I can.

    Now for cafes ...


    On a little isla in Mexico we love (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:53:53 PM EST
    some of the very best food loved by locals comes from the back doors of their best cooks, who sell meals right out of their kitchens, and set up tales in their backyards.  Darn, I can't think of the Spanish or perhaps local term there for such eateries -- but there may be such opportunities in Puerto Rico.  We found out about them by assiduous reading of the local blogs there (the ones by Americano exiles), and perhaps you can find such blogs as well for Puerto Rico.  

    Or ask a friendly cabdriver where he or she eats for good but cheap local food.  I bet it's a cousin's kitchen-and-backyard lunch-and-dinner spot.:-)  


    Oops, they set up tables (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    in their backyards, to cx that typo above.  But they set up lots of local tales, too -- another plus of such spots, listening to the local lore.  In between trips, as I tracked down book after book about Mayan history and culture, I found it fascinating how much of the local lore even now traces back centuries to Mayan "myths" -- often discounted as such by those who dis oral history, but we find more and more often there and here that the form of cultural transmission may be no more prone to error than our written records.:-)  And now that Mayan hieroglyphs are readable again by us, owing to exciting new research, the reliability of "myth" as history is being revisited again.

    A long way around saying that I wish that, between our first several trips there, I had been less of a tourist and more of a reader -- so I cannot recommend enough that you also might want to find books on Puerto Rico and read up first.  I know that I will do so, whenever I finally can get there -- as what I have read is fascinating.


    you just reminded me ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    maracatu is in Puerto Rico. And we share food mania.

    I'll email him!



    Here's a restaurant I enjoyed (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:59:22 PM EST
    40 years ago!   Probably classified as a tourist joint though.  It is in old San Juan and the black bean soup was so good I wrote and requested the recipe, which I have cooked many times in the intervening years.  

    La Zaragozana Near the cathedral in Old San Juan, wooden chairs and red table cloths create an authentic Spanish setting. Strolling musicians compliment the superior cuisine. ADDRESS: 356 Calle San Francisco Ph: 723-5103. Expensive.  


    It's pathological (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by fairleft on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:04:15 PM EST
    Despite the polls, despite your and many others' repeated advice, the 'experts' still advise the Dem presidential and Congressional candidates to move right immediately after doing their 'left thing' during the primaries. Conventional thinking wins again, and Obama will barely survive or lose running on it.

    Glenn is spot on. (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:12:41 PM EST
     I hate the move to the center. Why adopt Republican stances and ideas when those stances and ideas aren't worth spit, especially when you consider the last 8 years of historic ass-backwardness???

    Some of his supporters have argued that Obama was always more middle of the road than many believed. Well, that's certainly not how he positioned himself  as a candidate.

    Also, I hope everyone caught Glenn's final paragraph. Olbermann will have a Special Comment on Monday regarding Obama and FISA. I am looking forward to generous portions ass-covering and hero worship served with a huge slice of egomania.

    Political Psychology (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    Obama want's to offer the public a seamless transition between himself and Bush.

    Seamless transition indeed (4.66 / 3) (#97)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:20:10 PM EST
    Now Obama and his campaign advisors are floating the idea of keeping  SecDef Bob Gates on in the "anti-war" Administration?


    Maybe with Lugar are SecState, we'll never know the difference at all.  :-)


    Yes, KO is going to explain in his (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    "not so special" comment how obama can have his cake and eat it to on the FISA matter.  UGH...

    KO already did so on DKos (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    or somewhere I read, didn't he?  It was excusing a compromise of integrity to a new extent that bolsters arguments that there is a slippery slope -- and KO's at the bottom of it now and doesn't even know it.  Such lack of self-reflection is the sign of a sloppy mind or sick mind, whichever.

    I'll go with sick mind....I am not sure if KO (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:34:01 PM EST
    responded to it already....just saw the info in passing on the TV.  I can envision him already...huffing and puffing like the blowhard he is, acting indignant...how could anyone question obama?  The very idea....well I never...lol

    Monday, he'll be.. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    replying to Greenwald's response to his Kos diary rebuttal, which was laughable at best. I'll give Keith credit for not insinuating Glenn is a stalker as he did to Rachael Skylar.

    And that's disturbing because (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    McCain is going to bring out all the guns he has.  Is there a smoking gun in this?

    And Wesley Clark on Face the Nation (none / 0) (#137)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:18:27 PM EST
    "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."
    Is Obama swiftboating McCain? Heh.

    But Kerry being in a boat and shot at did (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:25:31 PM EST
    make him qualified for president?

    C'mon ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:01:46 PM EST
    Kerry did a bit more than just get shot at in a boat.  As did Clark.  Read up on how Clark got the Silver Star.

    Deja vu... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:42:21 PM EST
    Similarly, the top reason cited by white Catholics for why Kerry lost the 2004 election was that the candidate was "not clear on what he stood for"

    all over agian.

    And this is just one problematic issue Obama has.  Those who predict a landslide are deluding themselves, I'm afraid, unless something changes soon.

    It's just not in the cards as things stand now.

    contradicts the Dowdian thesis (none / 0) (#61)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:46:44 PM EST
    that rhetorical "sophistication" is a political virtue

    Those who can, do. (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:50:02 PM EST
    Those who can't, write opinion columns.

    Dowd can be clever, (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:51:23 PM EST
    and Dowd can be cute, but I don't put any stock whatsoever in her theses.

    What's the last brilliant, controversial thing she posited that turned out to be true and correct?

    She's more likely to write a column about how "Hillary has man-hands" than to put forward an idea that will change how we perceive the world.

    She writes a column about nothing--it's very Seinfeldian.


    I predict an electoral college landslide. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Lysis on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:53:58 PM EST
    I just don't think it will be in Obama's favor.

    I think the popular vote will be close, though.


    If one could bear (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:57:54 PM EST
    Sitting through Kerry's failed attempts at nuance, I doubt one could find a specific flip flop.

    he never really needed to explain (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:00:50 PM EST
    he had kennedy Daschle gephardt etc to do that

    If there is any question, (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by miriam on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    any question at all, about Obama being a natural born American, it damn well better be answered before August.  I see no way of getting around that Constitutional restriction, despite the previous machinations of the DNC to curb any damaging information on Obama from being released. If there's no problem, then why the stonewalling?  Produce the original birth certificate and be done with it...NOW.

    Obama's core beliefs... and Kerry (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:33:40 PM EST
    Obama lost me when he campaigned for Lieberman. Not only did he endorse him, but he encouraged the voters in Connecticut to have the "good sense" to send him back to the Senate so that he could continue to work in "our" behalf. "OUR" behalf!

    This was well documented in TalkLeft at the time.

    I remember the night of the primary in 2006 and how it felt when it turned out that Lamont had actually  defeated Lieberman for the nomination. It was the first ray of hope I felt that the Iraq war might actually be ended.

    And this was no thanks to Obama.

    So - what are Obama's core beliefs? If he could put ingratiating himself with the democratic party regulars ahead of the lives of those on the battlefield fighting what he called a "dumb" war, his core belief would appear to be his own ambition.

    As far as Kerry's campaign was concerned, I couldn't belief how terribly he performed in the debates. I particularly remember him kissing Bush's keister saying how wonderful the twins were etc.

    He didn't take the opportunity to point out in front of a mass audience how Bush and his crowd has lied. There was plenty of evidence out there, but he chose to ignore it.

    He did not appear to have any passion.
    He seemed intimidated by Bush.

    At the convention, his wife talked about her first husband, Mr. Heinz. If she had anything good to say about John, I don't remember it.

    Obama got up and talked about himself and what a great country America is. Hardly a word about Kerry.

    Edwards was positively dreadful in his debate with Cheney.
    I forgot which of them brought up the subject of Cheney's lesbian daughter, but it was a dreadful moment. How low can you get? And it was in the guise of a compliment to Cheney!
    I felt a twinge of sympathy for Cheney - a man I despise.

    Kerry stood for nothing.
    He had a chance to end the war. He lacked the passion to do so.

    Will history repeat itself?

    Well, GWB hid his drug records, (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    and his service records (or destroyed them), why not hide or destroy the truth by the party here. Obviously, he was not "vetted" so why must he be "verified?" I'm not being cynical, just stating facts.

    After the debacle on May 31, I do not have (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:20:53 PM EST
    any reason to trust dem leadership...

    A contrarian view (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Blogblah on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:30:53 PM EST
    "Progressive" is a word with a history, especially an American history from the late 19th Century and early 20th.  For me, an Obaman, Sen. Clinton was an FDR progressive with an extensive plate of programs designed to appeal to lower and middle income voters, the familiar FDR coalition.  Sen. Obama, OTOH, is from an earlier era of progressivism, and is less interested in programs per se than in another progressive goal, process.  Sen. Obama is more inclined to look at policies that "level the playing field" than building brick and mortar edifices.  This is not a black and white divide in the progressive movement and many of the programmatic ideas of Sen. Clinton contain process notions and vice versa.
    I don't want to debate whether Sen. Clinton's ideas are superior to Sen. Obama's nor whether the N.Y. senator would have made the better nominee.  For the purpose of this post, I'm happy to concede the points because, as far as I know, those who maintain those notions are right.  We'll just never know.  
    For progressives, though, the question now is whether Sen. Obama's notions are superior to Sen. McCain's plus whether the Illinois senator is "better" for the country than the Arizonan's.
    Looking at the question of "running toward the center" from this "process progressive" lens, the choice to me seems stark.
    There is nothing particularly wrong systemically with the FDA, OSHA, CDC, NIH, NOAA, etc., other than these watchdog agencies have been filled with incompetents.  As long as the Republican party insists on naming individuals who have ideas with very little substance that trump real science, and there is every reason to believe that Sen. McCain would do so, a vote for Sen. Obama is a progressive's only viable choice.  In addition, Sen. Obama is far more likely to give those agencies the kind of funding that would allow them to police the corporate interests that have corrupted the process by demanding zero oversight.
    This is also true of the Department of Justice, which is not science based, but, as we now know, has been corrupted by partisan policies that thwart the obvious intent of the many Congresses that passed voting rights laws, gender discrimination laws, and a whole panopoly of other programs the GOP could not repeal but could ignore under the present administration.  Again, no new program is needed, but the process must become less partisan and more "American" or the country loses something important.  Again, from a progessive point of view, Sen. Obama is the obviously better choice.
    It seems to me that all the "progressive" blogosphere is almost deliberately blind to Sen. Obama's foreign policy stance.  He's never been a pacifist and he's never been anti-war.  Even that famous speech in 2002 was not anti-war.  He opposed "dumb" wars and made clear that Iraq was in that category.  He has always said that Afghanistan was not in that category and that further effort and focus was necessary in that quickly failing state.  His idealism on the Iraq war has not been of the "Deaniac" brand. Nevertheless, the choice between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain seems clear to me and a choice that should be easy for progressives:  we've flailed about with a big stick for far too long and it is a now obviously failed policy; therefore, diplomacy -- talking softly, to follow the TR quote -- must be a new priority.  Sen. McCain has made clear that his kick ass and take names fighter pilot warrior hero personna is no friend of diplomacy and the choice is made.
    Both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama have made proposals concerning taxes, including Social Security taxes.  Clearly, Sen. Obama's plan (not at all perfect in my eyes) is more progressive than Sen. McCain's (I think, since I can't really tell what Sen. McCain will do since he's been on every side of the issue).
    I deeply understand those of you who supported Sen. Clinton's universal health care proposals.  Our choice, however, is between Sen. McCain who wants us all to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps while we coddle the health insurance industry and Sen. Obama, who would shift to addressing the most harsh realities of our national problem far more toward progressive ideals.  Far from perfect, but better by far as between our two choices.
    As to overarching economic policy concerns I have but one name: Phil Gramm, who sits at Sen. McCain's right ear.  A nightmare for progressives.
    I am among those who are disappointed by Sen. Obama's recent stand on FISA.  That said, the senator's campaign could not take that vote in isolation and has to consider it in connection with the builing GOP meme about flag pins, "proud", saluting the flag and saying the Pledge of Allegience, etc.  Yeah, he's a politician all right.  Now, however, imagine that it is 2009 and we have a President Obama.  How will things work out on the civil liberties front when the GOP is faced with someone other than their knight on a white horse W holding those powers?  I'm persuaded that Sen. Dodd will lose this battle, but ultimately win the war.  Compare/contrast a President McCain.
    Sen. Clinton's supporters, here and elsewhere, love to speak of Sen. Obama's legislative history on "choice".  The "present" votes and all that.  Yet, Sen. Obama was endorsed by Planned Parenthood and other choice advocates.  On issues that directly address women's reproductive rights, Sen. McCain really frightens me and Sen. Obama reassures me.
    Stand for something?  I can't tell you how tiresome the "empty suit" and "Kool-Aid" memes have become for me because it is so dismissive and, yes, arrogant as well as uninformed and unfair.  Abandon the core principles of the Democratic Party and its core constituence?  Those of you who say you will sit on your hands or vote for Sen. McCain have no standing with me to make that charge because it is you doing the abandoning at a time when the entire nation needs you the most.
    Rail as you will, but the choice seems to me to be just as Sen. Obama has consistently campaigned.  It is not a red-blue choice to say that our nation needs a better plan for Iraq and our entire global relationship.  It is not red-blue to say that we must somehow address terrorism.  It is not red-blue to observe the economy is tanking and that it is ordinary Americans who need help and not the uber-rich.  It is not red-blue to say that health care in America is not serving our needs and that action is required.  It is not red-blue to say that we've let many government agencies completely lose sight of their mandate and that they must be put back on track.  As of this past week, it is crystal clear that judicial activism is now the province of the wild-eyed conservative Federalist Society states' rights fringe and this must be corrected or at least stopped by a Democrat in the White House.  
    Can Sen. Obama be fairly criticized?  Oh, hell yes.  Are all of the criticisms of him in this thread (or TL, for that matter) fair.  Not from my perspective.

    BTD, Glenn & the howling void (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by bluejane on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:40:04 PM EST
    You are indeed voices in the wilderness and I thank you for being there. You and Glenn stand between us and the "howling void" of nonsensical spin and  massive doses of protecting/defending rhetoric of Obama's every move from the likes of KO and the Blogger Boyz. I commend you, BTD, for your "loyal opposition" to Obama, supporting him while holding his feet to the fire.

    "Tacking to the center" on FISA is a fallacy because it situates the Constitution on a partisan spectrum when, in my view, the Constitution is non-partisan, or should be as much as possible. Yet Barack had the idea that he could do a cheap throw-away "Sister Souljah moment" with the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law, as if to say we don't need to know those pesky facts about what Bush and Cheney did with the telecom companies; who they illegally wiretapped and all the ways they broke the law.

    The underlying kicker is that this FISA bill has little to do with "fighting terrorism" and much to do with allowing the executive branch to be even more unfettered and unaccountable and separate and apart and above the other two branches, with the ultimate aim of not having to ask permission of anybody.

    BHO had a chance to begin deconstructing executive tyranny and instead he appears to be willing to make it worse.  Maybe he thinks that because the power will be in his own hands when he's elected and he's such a nice guy (he thinks) and he can be trusted (he thinks) that it's okay to give away the Constitutional store to himself. But after his reversal on core principle to fold on FISA, how can he be trusted? And what about the next president? As a law professor, he knows the Founders set it up precisely so that we don't have to trust one man acting as king. Only the Constitution can be trusted, that's it. Period

    Barack had everything to win and nothing to lose by fighting FISA and he folded. It could have been a "teachable moment" for Obama to stand up to the schoolyard bullies on the right and call them scaredy cats and refuse to be cowered by being called "soft on terror" and refuse to allow the American people to be cowered in fear. This would have been real "change" but instead he is saying in effect we must be afraid, very afraid. The terrorists win (and their proxies are Bush and Cheney).

    This is assuming Obama does not reverse course yet again after the Fourth of July and come back and say "My position has always been . . ." that "this FISA bill along with the immunity provisions is a bad idea and so I am filibustering against it and voting against it and leading the charge of the Democrats in Congress against it."

    I won't hold my breath -- or maybe I will.

    Why do liberals have so little faith (4.90 / 10) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:00:09 PM EST
    in their core values?  Why don't they know how to explain them to the voting public and line people out?  My dog mentor who is a staunch Republican and voting for McCain said that yesterday she was able to get a prescription for an antibiotic free of charge on her medicare.  She was extremely grateful since her investments have plunked her into the poorhouse.  She is ready to have universal healthcare explained to her and sold.  I have to fight Tricare all the darned time to have anything done outside of a poorly staffed and equipped military hospital and the whole military is ready to have universal healthcare explained to them and sold.  But no....Dems are going to move to the center and take a position they don't really believe in therefore can't really explain or win a debate on!  Same Sh*t different election and this is where Clintons can kick some booty because they focus on makiing and explaining their plans to the little people!

    This is getting (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:47:03 PM EST
    to be a frequent refrain here, but I'm still not seeing the dem leadership reflecting those core values.

    That powder is so dry it's disintegrating.


    Are you referring to universal healthcare (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:51:39 PM EST
    or issues important to voting Democrats and progressives in general?

    Sorry, (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    sunshine beckoned.

    Issues important to voting democrats and acting like an opposition party.  Seeing less and less of that.  


    nah it solidified (none / 0) (#82)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    into gypsum.  it can't be used in shell casings and musket barrels anymore.

    he was a bit unlucky. But I reckon what sank him, (4.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:10:17 PM EST
    was the war-hero/war protestor dichotomy.  That nobility went way over the heads of the voters. Kerry certainly stood for things and fought for them.  Bush was infavour of Nam but never fought in it.

    So I conclude that since 2000 Americans like their pols to be small minded backstabby arrogant twerps.

    I don't think that is what sunk Kerry. (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:07:07 PM EST
    Swift boating was quite damaging, as was his failure to take a firm stand against the present war.  

    on a Fox show this Sunday morning (none / 0) (#10)
    by athyrio on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:22:15 AM EST
    it was strongly predicted as if they had inside knowledge that McCain would chose the Gov. of Alaska for his VP and that she would be awesome...Having no knowledge of her I have no idea...You are very correct that Obama should chose Hillary but I think that train has left the station....

    Sarah Palin? (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:24:14 AM EST
    Sure, maybe. Nobody's ever heard of her, though.

    That will last about two seconds (4.50 / 2) (#18)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:38:31 AM EST
    after McCain puts her on the ticket. From the little that I know, the media will love her (her personal story is good) and give her good (and, for a while at least, wall-to-wall) coverage. She would bring excitement to a campaign that sorely needs it.

    Not saying she should necessarily be his first choice because I don't know enough about her, but it would be ineresting.


    No question the race is shaping up (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    to where McCain will need some sort of bold out of the box move to change the Dem momentum.

    Palin could provide that.

    Imagine too the impact if the Dems nominate a fairly uninspiring pol for their Veep from the usual list of white male suspects -- that could leave a huge opening for McCain to go woman.

    Frankly, she would seem to have fewer major negatives than Jindal too, a guy who's so young he's almost literally half the age of the guy at the top of the ticket -- probably too young for people to imagine being ready for CnC, and also not helpful as he starkly highlights the relevant age issue with McCain.

    Repubs will likely have no problem keeping LA in their tent and Jindal wouldn't seem to have nearly the nat'l appeal that Palin could have.


    I was thinking the same thing and wanted (none / 0) (#33)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:07:43 PM EST
    to write that but you beat me to it. Well said.

    she's very warm (none / 0) (#40)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:12:09 PM EST
    and pleasant.  But it would make mcain look grouchy to have by his side.

    Do you think she would take it? (none / 0) (#113)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    Besides the obvious that politicians are power-hungry people, and who would pass up the chance to be a VP (especially the first female one)?  But doesn't she have a special-needs infant and a husband who is a commercial fisherman?  Do you think her husband would give up his job as a commercial fisherman? (It's not like there's tons of opportunities to do that kind of job in DC if he wanted to continue working?)

    Heh (none / 0) (#126)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    According to Wikipedia, Palin's husband works on the North Slope.  Trust me, no one loves the North Slope THAT much.

    I think having a baby with Down's would be a much bigger issue, but heck, being a governor is probably a busier job than being Vice-President.  We're all just guessing at this point.


    Well, Republicans to include McCain (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:13:23 PM EST
    don't have the same problem with being bold and moving boldly that Democrats have.

    difficult threading the needle (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    If McCain picks Palin, he may attract more women independent and democratic voters. But, at the same time, he will probably alienate republican male voters, who will not be able to countenance a woman who could be one step away from the presidency.

    This is wrong on many counts (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:43:25 PM EST
    If she's tough and ascerbic like Maggie Thatcher they will love her more than you can imagine.

    i tend to think a woman would have an easier shot at teh presidency from the GOP field than form the left.  

    she's amn NRA, prolifer and she's good on TV. The trouble would be to have her attack Obama.  Maybe she's the only one who could because to have Obama revive his anti-Clinton tactics would sink him finally.


    I respectfully disagree (none / 0) (#78)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    I think you woefully underestimate the fear of a female president among white republican males in this country.

    I respectfully disagree with your disagreement (none / 0) (#167)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    They're fine with female politicians as long as she seems to be under their control, and pays the right lip service on the right issues.

    I don't know enough about Palin to say whether she fits that bill.  But for a while there in the 80s I thought Libby Dole would be our first female president -- they sure seemed to like her well enough.


    IMO they like the vision of a Central Patriarch (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:51:07 PM EST
    With a supportive, well-behaved team of [fill in the cultural attribute] doing their supportive jobs from their niches:

    Dutiful Wife
    Karen Hughes, Ari Fleischer or other Locutus of George
    Sec'y States (Condi Rice, Colin Powel)
    Ambiguously Gay party leadership


    Lovely picture
    God's Man in the White House.

    Everything in its right place.
    Yesterday I woke up sucking a lemon.


    have you seen the way Maggie is deified? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:03:12 PM EST
    Limbaugh practically writes hymnals toward her.

    They love'em after they're gone or shelved (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:20:39 PM EST
    ... as a convenient resource to be chop-shopped into parts or redeployed as needed. (I don't listen to the Big Gasbaugh but his Maggie-worship doesn't surprise me.)

    Even Sen Clinton got an "affectionate" wave of approving applause upon suspending her campaign (for hitting the GOP-approved / Dem-endorsed ceiling).


    The effectionate wave of polite applause (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:30:18 PM EST
    for Sen Clinton, after she suspended, came from her fellow Democrats.  The GOP wanted her to keep going and had gained grudging respect for her.

    yeah, but he wouldn't vote for her (none / 0) (#85)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:04:56 PM EST
    here in this country. he is a rabid misogynist to his core.

    she's a governor is a Red State (none / 0) (#102)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    deal with reality. Most of the GOp would happily have QE2 back to be head of state.

    The D's won't want to admit it (none / 0) (#104)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    but, you're right.  It will be much easier for a GOP woman to become president.  That pesky weak on security problem would not raise it's head for a Republican woman candidate.

    um, OK, Salo (none / 0) (#108)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    I'll go deal with reality now. (your reality)

    I mostly agree with you Dr. Molly, (none / 0) (#89)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:08:42 PM EST
    however, Alaska votes mostly red (I believe) and they elected her. Don't know much about her.

    Her approval rating is (none / 0) (#103)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:27:39 PM EST
    the highest of any elected official in the country. The guys on the rightwing blogs describe her as a "hottie". Just as there are men in the Democratic Party who will not vote for a woman, I'm sure there are some Republican man who will not.  But to quote Senator Obama, "Where else are they going to go?" McCain does not need to pick his VP before Obama does. If McCain thinks he can pick up independents and some Hillary supporters with a female candidate, I think he'll go for it. Palin vetoed a bill that would have denied state benefits for same-sex couples and has admitted to using marijuana when it was legal in Alaska so there's a little bit to love for a lot of people. She is, however, pro-life and against gay marriage. Conservative enough for all but the very right? I don't know, but I think McCain might just risk it.

    Obama, is against gay marriage. (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    I think he's for civil-type unions but against the use of the word "marriage." I heard him say this. The funny thing about prochoice vs prolife is that in the end, I believe, we are all "prolife" just don't want govt intervention with our own bodies.

    And she just (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by Little Fish on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:15:26 PM EST
    wrote a letter to Congress urging them to open up ANWR for drilling.  The republicans are dying to make drilling an issue and McCain isn't exactly on the right side of the coin for them (heh).  She'd even that out.

    Plus I have to think the right would LOVE to throw the first woman candidate back in our face.


    whoops (none / 0) (#136)
    by Little Fish on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    meant to his preview, hit post instead.  :D

    I hope he does go for it (none / 0) (#116)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    She would seem an inspired choice to me.

    McCain (none / 0) (#165)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:45:15 PM EST
    would need to pick an insider in my opinion. (preferably from the south). He has enough of an image problem with hardcore Rep. Going with an unknown woman who state only would bring him 3 votes in EC might not be enough.

    For the record, I would really hate to see McCain win. If he did, he may succeed in pulling the party away from the fundies and that would make the Republican's a more viable party to many.


    Plus her personal story is great (none / 0) (#122)
    by davnee on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    Her oldest son volunteered for the army.  She gave birth while in office to a child with Downs Syndrome and calls him a gift from God.  She went back to work three days later.  She hunts.  She runs marathons.  She helps her husband out with his commercial fishing.  She's beautiful.  She's hip in a frontier, outdoorsy way.  She stood up to and stared down Ted Stevens of all people.  

    If she can deliver the goods on the campaign trail, I think conservative men will be falling all over themselves to vote for her.  Particularly the young Ron Paul types.  


    They said one of her strong points is (none / 0) (#13)
    by athyrio on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:28:00 AM EST
    that she has been very instrumental in helping clean up corruption in her state of Alaska...

    Oh yeah, she's the one (none / 0) (#16)
    by HenryFTP on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    who demanded and obtained the resignations of the corrupt Republican Senators Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski from Alaska.

    Are you sure her "corruption clean-up" hasn't involved cracking down on voter fraud among the Inuit and other Native Alaskans?


    plenty of U tube clips of her. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:33:50 PM EST
    she could easily be their version of Maggie Thatcher.

    Paul Rosenberg! (none / 0) (#22)
    by bordenl on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:45:54 AM EST
    He has been livid about this for days! Bowers also wrote a post about how it is becoming more acceptable to criticize Obama.

    It never (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by standingup on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:09:00 PM EST
    should have been unacceptable to criticize Obama.  They are figuring this out a little too late in the game for any criticism to have much impact now.  Obama has the nomination wrapped up and as many of Obama's surrogates like to suggest about the unhappy Clinton supporters, "where else are they going to go?"  Obama's message to those unhappy with his move to the center will be the same he had for Clinton supporters - "they will get over it."  

    Now there's some scalding truth...ouch (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:11:25 PM EST
    I'm not sure who you need to pay for that one.  Maybe you can just send me a check and I'll see that it goes where it needs to go :)

    You are not allowed to criticize him (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:40:00 PM EST

    Sebelius: GOP will use race against Obama

       Echoing comments by Barack Obama, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius predicted that Republicans would undertake "a major effort to try and frighten people about him" because of his race.

       "That has been the Republican playbook for the last eight years," said Sebelius, an Obama ally. '"He's not qualified, he's somebody who should scare you. He's too liberal.'"

       The Kansas Democrat, often mentioned as a possible running mate for Obama, said those were all "code words" to try and make voters "uncomfortable."

       "I don't think anybody's going to go directly at the race issue, but that's going to be an underlying theme," she said in an interview this week.

       Obama said much the same thing to an audience in Florida last week.

       "They're going to try to make you afraid of me," the presumptive Democratic nominee said. '"He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"'


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:43:59 PM EST
    Qualified is a code word?  Patently ridiculous  :-)

    From day 1 (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:55:14 PM EST
    They played it as if "qualified" was a code word.

    I say no more.


    They've already been doing it (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    if we didn't vote for him because of his lack of experience, we're really just racists. And that was referring to the Dems in the primaries. . . .

    I have to wonder what effect it will have in the GE. With the Dems who didn't vote for Obama, that is  ;)


    The Obama Dictionary (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by BoGardiner on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:55:53 PM EST
    The Obama Dictionary
    Helping You Correctly Interpret Criticism of Obama

    Waffling.  Subliminal suggestion to voters that Obama shouldn't be allowed to eat his waffle.  Also, a reminder of voter nostalgia for restaurants that only allowed whites to eat their waffles.

    Move to the Center.  Reminder to voters of their nostalgia for the days on the bus when only whites could Move to the Center, with everyone else moving to the rear.

    Hypocrite.  Subliminal reminder that Hippocrates was white, and whites make great oaths.


    This could backfire big time (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by davnee on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:08:29 PM EST
    Pre-tossing the race card runs the risk of feeding into a meme that Obama is weak and a whiner.  That he'll call the pc police to defend him rather than answer criticism like a man.  I'd tread lightly if I was the Obama camp.  I certainly don't like the thought that the Sebellius VP trial balloon includes this kind of rhetoric.  The Clark trial balloon had Clark taking the fight to McCain on the merits of the experience critique.  That was good tough politics and made Obama sound like a real player, serious about being president, and not some social experiment to prove that we've come a long way as a country and are now enlightened about race.

    I emailed this quote to an Obama supporting friend (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:22:55 PM EST
    and told him that I had been fairly quiet about things since the primary was over, but this kind of crap just disgusts me.  I also think it's despicable that we are again hearing false claims of racism and when there are real racist things that need to be admonished in the future, these kinds of comments are going to be tired and unbelievable. It's The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

    Haven't heard back from my friend yet...


    Bowers said that whenever I criticize (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:09:54 PM EST
    Obama I also need to be writing him a check at the same moment.  I thought it was a pretty pathetic display of okaying Obama criticism myself.  I have to pay in order to be honest in America now?  The truth isn't free ;)?

    That's just amazing. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    I don't like what you're doing but heres a 50-spot so you'll keep on doing it.

    That goes from being a totally non productive (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    way to effect change into the realm of being totally dysfunctional. Completely delusional.

    I didn't mean that post (none / 0) (#151)
    by bordenl on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:38:06 PM EST
    I meant this one. From the context, Bowers was saying in the post you mean that the Obama campaign expects us to criticize because that is what activists do, but continue to give money. He was nonplussed.

    Somewhat relatedly, Glenn's post pointed out several articles about Obama "moving to the center". But there was more MSM twittering about not taking public financing, which they understand, than about FISA, which they don't understand. The winking and nudging about moving to the center being what they all do questions Obama's claim to be different more than it does his integrity.


    what a tosser. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:10:58 PM EST
    What do you mean? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    Kerry fought back hard releasing his 180 AFTER the election.

    Genius move on John's part. Just f-in brilliant.

    All he has to do (none / 0) (#130)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:02:52 PM EST
    is run on the economy.  

    When a Republican says hypocrite! he is always believed.  Somehow, Republicans turn their own hypocrisy into "I do what I gotta do [to keep the country safe]."

    Obama is now up against traditional Dem problems while running from his views.  He better make sure he has the staff he needs in the swing states if this plays out in the manner the last two elections did.

    There is also the matter of a plane trip (none / 0) (#143)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    about the time obama was born...the trip was made by his mother from Toronto, I believe.  Wouldn't that be something to find out he is not a natural born citizen?  Rise Hillary Rise :)

    Whether it's true or not (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:57:22 PM EST
    Jeralyn and BTD don't want those rumors discussed on this site.

    The same goes for Obama's education in Indonesia, and the other "smears" listed on his "fight the smears" page.

    The false rumors should not be discussed.  The true rumors really shouldn't be discussed.  If you want to talk about those things, you'll have to do it somewhere else.


    I thought this had been resolved? (none / 0) (#146)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:30:38 PM EST
    What's the story??

    Zfran...This is what I found.... (none / 0) (#161)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:03:33 PM EST

    This is another wait to see what happens situation...


    Thanks, PssttCmere08.. (none / 0) (#175)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:10:02 PM EST
    Saved it to read later...Would that be something, tho'!  

    I don't know the backstory on this but ... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:39:16 PM EST
    ... does Obama have a decent slapshot? That could be the smoking puck.

    Prosecutors were probably just worried (none / 0) (#156)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:47:30 PM EST
    there might be a few Obama supporters on the Jury. And by a "few," I mean more than half, given where the trial was held.

    All it takes is one idiot juror to let a guilty person off for the wrong reasons.

    Plus, I think the only ties the prosecutors had between the two were above-board (except the real estate deal for his house, which smells).  There may very well be a smoking gun showing that Obama was involved in criminal acts with Tony Rezko, but if so, no one has publicized it yet.  There was nothing to show the jury about Barack Obama that would make them more likely to convict Tony Rezko.

    And yet, Obama found it (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    necessary to have someone at the trial everyday taking notes for him!!

    I don't understand one part (none / 0) (#176)
    by TheRealFrank on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:15:02 PM EST
    What's most amazing about the unexamined premise that Democrats must "move to the Center" (i.e., adopt GOP views) is that this is the same advice Democrats have been following over and over and which keeps leading to their abject failure. It's the advice Kerry followed in 2004. It's why Democrats rejected Howard Dean and chose John Kerry instead.

    Democrats rejected Howard Dean because he.. moved to the center? Huh? This was all in the primary, and neither Kerry nor Dean had "moved" anywhere yet. That doesn't make any sense.

    Other than that, I agree with what he says.

    Funny thought. (none / 0) (#182)
    by rbtalk on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    What if cheerleaders were like normal fans and had special cheers for when their team f'd up.  That would be a sight.