As an Illinois senator he was the only one to vote against a bill to prevent early release for criminal sexual offenders.

This has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and everything to do with Obama himself.

Certainly his online supporters are more vile than his offline supporters, on average. Certainly Obama is something more than just his supporters in general.

But no political candidate that I know of has tied himself more to his supporters than has Obama. They are his adoring audience; he is their idolized leader. They take their cues from him, and he takes many of his cues from them.

Can anyone say, for example, that one of the most vicious and gratuitous attacks on a political competitor -- the smear of Hillary over the RFK remarks -- did not come from the campaign itself, was not fed by the bile in his supporters, and did not feed it in turn?

Really, talking as though a political leader is not in many critical ways defined by his core constituencies strikes me as completely wrong to the facts. Probably nothing is more important about most political leaders, nothing more defining of who they are and what they will do, than is the nature of the people who become their most fervent supporters. The relationship is symbiotic and existential. And this is particularly so when the candidate explicitly creates a movement around himself, based far more on personal attributes than on external issues.

Following a presidential primary season highlighting broad public concern about current trade policies, the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act introduced on June 4, 2008 by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine) reveals a way forward to a new trade and globalization agenda that could benefit more Americans. The bill is supported by a broad array of labor, consumer, environmental, family farm and faith groups and more than 50 House and Senate original cosponsors.

for more info or to download a PDF of the full bill go here

Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report says it well:

It does not really matter if Senators Obama and Clinton ever develop a fondness for one another, now that the pay-for-play primary charade is over. Their policies are interchangeable, as are their advisers, most of whom will wind up drawing big fat checks from some section or another of the larger Democratic campaign effort.   All serve the same masters: the financial corporations that this season definitively redirected their infinitely corrupting campaign contributions to the Democrats. Hedge funds are reported to be backing Democrats, nine to one. They are betting that, whatever "change" occurs, it will not alter basic power relationships in ways that threaten the rule of the rich one iota.

Now we're being told we're grieving emotional sore losers. Believe me - we've lost plenty of elections in my 54 years. I worry for my country but I can move on.

I will never vote for a McCain. But Obama has yet to earn my trust or my vote. I will probably vote for him but I usually am at the polling places with leaflets, or making phone calls to GOTV.

"Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee, signaled Thursday that he really means business when it comes to health care reform."

Recently, he wore the good old flag pin.

In moments of jingoistic stupidity he has echoed Bush and McCain vis a vis Pakistan and Iran.

He fled from a progressive posture of willingness to meet with adversaries without preconditions.

We all know that he supported Lieberman against Lamont when his support for Lamont would have been meaningful.

If I am to be persuaded to consider voting for this man, he'll have to begin to enunciate progressive positions and hold to them.

Thing is, that fundies are OK with and support Bush is one way, a legitimate way, to express concern about his priorities and how he will govern.  To look at Bush and see a fundie's approval.

The Arizona senator's previous one-month best was $18 million in April. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers says the campaign currently has $31.5 million cash on hand.

McCain still lags far behind Democrat Barack Obama's one-month record: in February, the Illinois senator raised $55 million."

Link

I am judging Obama for his failure to speak out forcefully and frequently to condemn and curtail the remarks coming from the blogs and media fan base that have surrounded his campaign. His silence was tacit approval.

I judge the Democratic "leadership" for its similar failure to insist on a return to civil discourse.

To cast my vote for Obama is to tacitly agree to the disenfranchising of millions of voters from two important Swing States.  

To vote for Obama is to solidify the corrupt power of Dean and Brazile and to reward their allowing without comment the misogynistic, sexist treatment of a long-time Democrat and former First Lady (as well as a popular sitting Senator) by other Democrats just in order to weaken her so their guy can "win".  

To vote for Obama is to say that I'm okay with taking overt steps to block the candidate who won the most States, the most Votes and the candidate who won the States we really, really need in the GE in favor of the candidate who got the majority of his delegate power from Caucus States and States that haven't voted Democrat in nearly 30 years and then spent the last two or three months of the campaign demonstrating his inability to make necessary in-roads into those demographics we're really, really going to need in November.

To vote for Obama is giving support and credence to a stunning sense of arrogance and entitlement which believes the votes of those who've faithfully voted for the Democratic Party are no longer needed -- or will dutifully follow along because of the (D) behind his name -- because he and Brazile want a "new" Party which doesn't include women, blue collar workers, Hispanics, Latinos, those with a high school education or those who earn under $50,000 a year.

As for right now I am leaning toward re-registering as an independent and continuing to vocally oppose Obama, but also vocally opposing McCain and Republicans, and eventually voting for Obama if it's close enough in California to make my vote potentially valuable.  But like I said, I haven't really figured this all out.  It's complex and confusing, and important to boot.  And I want to act on my brains and on my heart, not on my glands.

Factors I didn't think would be part of my decision:

1. Voting for Obama, I'm voting for the guy the press chose for me. Ick.

2. Voting for Obama, I'm really voting for the Obama Movement, in addition to voting for the Presidential nominee. There's a lot I worry about there, starting with having people come to my door based on their social networking software. Neighbor against neighbor, anyone?

The nominating process is broken.  I want someone to acknowledge that and to promise that fixing it is a high priority.  I want the party to discourage caucuses if not eliminate them entirely.  One way to do this would be to fix the ratio of voters to delegates.  I would also like to see open primaries and per district delegate allocation discouraged.  If the party doesn't acknowledge and fix this, I can't continue to support it and I will switch my affiliation to independent.

I am worried that Obama will fail to advance the progressive agenda by not being a fighting Dem.  His plan to reach out to Republicans could set us back significantly.  Furthermore, if he is ineffective as I fear he may be, he may well lay the seeds for a significant run of Republican control much like Carter did.  Taking this long view, not voting for Obama is an entirely rational act.  It is up to Obama to convince me that he will advance progressive causes and be effective.  The actions he takes will determine how I vote.  So far his actions ( RFK incident, MI/FL, Clinton for VP ) have not helped him to earn my vote.

Currently, I do not see myself voting against the historic candidacy of Obama, but I am deeply disturbed by the Democratic party and Obama's  supporters. 1-2 years ago, on the favorable citation of John Dean (Conservatives without Conscience), I read the online version of Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians. Altemeyer is very clear that authoritarianism is not a right-left issue, that there are both right and left authoritarianisms.

I think we witnessed the emergence of a new left authoritarianism in recent months. Significant bloggers, media conglomerate/analysts, and Democratic party members were the architects of the new regime. As recent posts suggest (Cole's non-response to BTD in which he questions unconditionally the veracity of TalkLeft's political speech), the Obama movement is not likely to relent soon. I suspect that the longer Clinton supporters hold out or demand acknowledgment, the more acrimonious Obama and his "movement" will become.

The last two generations of Americans reached political consciousness in a dysfunctional democracy. In this respect, Obama, Axelrod, and the young Obamacans may not simply be imitators of Bush, Rove, and Republicans, they may - more importantly - signify the horizon of democratic thought and practice in the United States today.

I'll vote based on just how much I want to change the Democratic Party.  For me, it's either abstain/McKinney or it's McCain, depending on if "periodically I'm feeling low" at the time I fill out my litle bubble.

My vote will be an endorsement to re-organize the DNC.  It will be either a half a vote for it (McKinney) or a full vote for it (McCain).

I was just watching a rebroadcast of I guess 360, don't really know or give much of a sh*t to be honest with you, and Anderson's first real "question" was that why does Obama have to reach out to her voters, when someone wins the Presidency they are fifty million voters who didn't get what they want and the winner doesn't try to placate them, the loser just graciously concedes.

First off, what a loaded, POS question, and of course no one on the panel could give the obvious answer, they just blathered on writing their novels rife with both their banality and inanity.  Well, my answer is below:

"Excuse me Anderson, if I can get you away from your mirror and mousse artist for just a wee second, let me clue you in on what we call in the real world, well, reality I guess.  You see you stupid, vapid idiot (ed.  the repetition is necessary because he might not grasp merely being called an idiot) when a person wins the Presidency, he/she is not going to run again for four years, so they don't need any votes for quite a long time, two years if you count the Congressional elections...what's that Anderson?...yes, they are called Congressional Elections and they occur every two years whether there is a election for POTUS or not, been that way since before 1800 Anderson.  What?  No no Anderson, that's not a show like The 4400, you see it's what we call a date.  No Anderson, not the type of date you have to pay up front for and pay extra for going commando, I mean it's like a calendar date.  Yes, a calendar, that funny thing with the boxes and numbers in a neat little row that you use to keep your stylist appointments.  But I think we're getting off track here a little Bud, lets try to regroup a little if we can.

You see dipsh...oh, I mean Anderson, sorry about that, that is just a reflex when I encounter profound ignorance.  At any rate, Sen. Obama, Greek God that he is...no Anderson, not that type of Greek, which you really shouldn't go commando for even if you're paying her 5k an hour, it's not smart...anyway, Obama hasn't actually won the Presidency yet, in fact he barely won the Primaries, and so going into Autumn...yes Anderson (heavy sigh here) that's when the leaves turn all pretty just like you, and would you please look at me instead of your monitor, it's hard to talk when you are touching yourself due to your own beauty.  At any rate, he will need the vast majority, and before you ask, that means most, of her 18,000,000 votes if he expects to beat McCain.  Yes, I know that he can leap tall buildings in a single bound and he's the most original politician that the world has produced anywhere, and that the Glorious Path lies through him, the Golden One, but McCain didn't exactly buckle under to the VC, so he probably won't faint like a fan at a Hannah Montana show in front of him...what NOW Anderson, no I said VC, he doesn't need any of your Valtrex, he not doing too badly for a Regressive idiot who believes in a bankrupt philosophy.  And please, an adult is talking, why don't you go play Grand Theft Auto 4 or something, okay, really, you are not helping to facilitate this conversation at all.  (Insert dismissive, shooing motion here.  Camera shows a petulant Anderson trying to remember where he put his high chair at so that he can see the screen he plays the game on.)

For you sentient viewers, if there are any at this point watching and I must say you must have the patience of a fisherman at a dry lake if you are, let me wrap this up so that I can go out back and vomit on Donna's Mercedes.  Barack Obama, Senator from the great state of Illinois, cannot and will not win without at least 15,000,000 of those votes, as at best he can win a slim majority of Independents and steal away a few Regressives, he will not net 15,000,000 of them, at least that is not very likely.  Now I know Hilary is a shrill witch and all that, but all of this disrespect of her may actually cause a not so insignificant part of those 18,000,000 votes to actually vote for McCain, which will damage him further.  He needs a united, excited Democratic contingent if he has a prayer for victory.  Yes, I hear what you are saying to your tv's, that most of your favorite bloggers have told you that that is not true, but I ask you to speak to Senator Lamont about that, I hear he has a lot of free time lately.  He can explain how even with an excited Left only base you can lose to a pathetic garbage candidate that shouldn't be on a non-voting Advisory Panel, let alone a Senator from a Blue State.  And large swathes of this country are quite Red, and the Red areas of the country is where Obama secured his delegate victory, places that unless the whole world is turned upside down he will never win in the General Election.

Anyway, I'm done here; I'm going to go do something more productive, which will probably involve alcohol and Punk Rock music.  Hey Anderson, I know killing those hookers got boring and you went on to something else, but you really need to put down those Crayolas and come back to host the show, I'm sure there's somebody who wants you too, it's just a shame they actually want you to talk, but Hell, someone has to take up the rest of the hour with bland Corporatic nattering.  (Mutters to myself, and I thought Olbermann was a tool, good God where in the Hell is the f*cking exit from this abattoir where common sense comes to die.)  Good night and really good luck, because you are going to need it."

Watch out Rude Pundit, I'm coming up on your outside man!  :)

Health Care: the Dems' Lost Opportunity

A remarkable thing just happened in the people's party. Democrats have chosen a candidate, in the year 2008, who does not have a plan for universal health coverage. Barack Obama caresses the words "universal coverage" almost hourly, but his proposal offers nothing of the kind -- unlike the plans of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and other Democratic hopefuls.

Now, if he totally embraces universal health care, with everyone included, then I would be fine with it.

Thank you Talk Left for having a site that I have read daily to keep my sanity. CNN was the network that I watched previously, and I was about to "lose my mind" watchin them.  It was obvious that they were under Obama spell.  The Obama bloggers are really a piece of work.  Most of them are just too young to know what they are talking about.  The things they said over, and over, and over, and over again about  Hillary, Bill and Chelsea would make me so angry my blood pressure would rise, and rise, and rise.  I mainly stopped watching CNN for health and sanity reasons!!!  I really hope I haven't violated any rules with my long winded introduction, so I'm going to read the rules and learn what I can and cannot do when I log on. (I print Talk Left and read the comments on my lunch break at work)  So thanks for being here Talk Left and I am looking forward to participating in your outstanding conversation.

I'm confused. I wandered to this site months ago when I was still quite undecided and the folks here appeared far more logical in their approach to politics than over at AmericaBlog. Now I see quite the opposite with many posters here becoming exactly what they despised.

Hopefully you and Jeralyn can instill a bit of rational thought into the very strong Hillary fans (and yes I did vote for Hillary) because any woman that would consider voting for McCain, a man that publicly referred to his wife as that lovely four letter "C" word...I just can't imagine an independent woman anywhere pulling the lever for such a man...or voting in such a way as to assist him in winning the election.

if you are a Democrat, believe in ending the war in Iraq, in providing fairness to our tax system, in improving our health care system, in providing a fairer society, then the choice is clear - Barack Obama is clearly superior to John McCain.

 According to Roger Simon, Obama is not going to be wasting his time trying to bring Hillary supporters into the fold.

It has been a hard-fought and sometimes bitter campaign, but Obama is not, one of his senior advisers assured me Tuesday night, going to spend a lot of time in the next few months wooing Clinton supporters whose feelings may be hurting.

"I think there are always immediate feelings of disappointment and anger," Anita Dunn said. "But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans."

 According to Roger Simon, Obama is not going to be wasting his time trying to bring Hillary supporters into the fold.

It has been a hard-fought and sometimes bitter campaign, but Obama is not, one of his senior advisers assured me Tuesday night, going to spend a lot of time in the next few months wooing Clinton supporters whose feelings may be hurting.

"I think there are always immediate feelings of disappointment and anger," Anita Dunn said. "But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans."