home

Sharp Differences

On the campaign trail this week, some sharp differences emerge (or reemerge) between candidates McCain and Obama.

Obama would require employers to expand family and medical leave, for example, while McCain said Thursday it should "be subject to negotiations between management and labor."

Negotiations between management and labor? What power do employees have to negotiate family leave rights? Does McCain assume that most employees belong to a union that can bargain collectively for them? This from the man who voted to block a Senate vote on the union-friendly Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that Obama co-sponsored.

On reproductive rights: [more ...]

"I will never back down in defending a woman's right to choose," Obama said at a "Women for Obama" breakfast fundraiser. ...

The two candidates differ sharply on abortion rights, which McCain has long opposed. Obama says McCain would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision affirming a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

"Senator McCain has made it abundantly clear that he wants to appoint justices like (John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito," Obama said Thursday. "And that he hopes to see Roe overturned."

Underscoring his point, Planned Parenthood endorsed Obama this week. Given the two men's differences on reproductive issues, Obama told the breakfast audience, the group's decision was hardly "a nail-biter."

On the Fair Pay Restoration Act, a necessary piece of legislation discussed at greater length here:

Obama cited recent Senate legislation designed to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting the time workers have to file pay discrimination lawsuits. Obama said McCain "thinks the Supreme Court got it right."

"He suggested that the reason women don't have equal pay isn't discrimination on the job - it's because they need more education and training," Obama said, eliciting groans from the audience.

Obama backed the Senate legislation that would have made it easier for women to sue their employers for pay discrimination. McCain opposed it, saying at the time: "I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation ... opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems."

McCain, who calls himself a "proud conservative," takes a much more hands-off approach to most regulatory issue, making it easy for opponents to accuse him of not using the government's powers to help struggling women. They point, for example, to his vote against a Senate amendment that would have required insurance companies to cover birth control products. Many insurers cover products such as Viagra, prompting cries of unfair treatment by some women's groups.

How does McCain respond?

Asked about women in an interview this week, McCain said he wants to "make sure that any barriers to their advancement are eliminated."

And what would McCain do to attain that goal? Cut taxes? Extend the fighting in Iraq? If you mean it, Senator McCain, why not support legislation that would help accomplish that goal? Oh, that's right, big business opposes it, and McCain is the candidate of big business.

< Children Left Behind | Thursday Night TV >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • If only I could believe (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    Obama was far better.

    Being a little bit better isn't going to cut it.

    Not after Bush.

    TChris, (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    you can argue sharp differences.

    I'm not seeing it.

    Parent

    Then I question your eyesight (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:05:42 PM EST
    I do wear glasses. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:10:38 PM EST
    I think my eyesight is just fine, as I watch McCain move ever so slowly toward Obama's positions, as Obama moves toward McCain's.

    And it's only July.

    Parent

    McCain has been (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:42:54 PM EST
    moving to the Right.  He has changed his position on:

      1.  Oil drilling.
      2.  Immigration.
      3.  Bush's tax cuts.

    And, he is talking about "isolating" Iran--more saber-rattling, get-tough, neocon foreign policy.  McCain is even more likely to get in a war with Iran than Bush.....McCain's critique of Bush's Iraq policy was that Bush wasn't bellicose enough;  McCain says he would invade Iraq all over again, even knowing there were no WMDs.

    Parent

    Yawn. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:47:30 PM EST
    War with Iran (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:03:27 PM EST
    does concern me....The more one ratchets up the rhetoric, the closer we get to war.

    I am currently reading the newest book on the Cuban Missile Crisis, One Minute to Midnight, which reveals new info on the Soviets having positioned Cruise missiles with nuclear, Hiroshima-sized warheads just outside of Guantanamo.  The hawks here in the U.S. had no knowledge of the Cruise missiles and were planning a first strike on the long range missile sites in Cuba, to be followed by an immediate invasion of Cuba by the Marines and the First Infantry Division.  Guess what, the first strike would have failed to get the Cruise missiles, which would have--at minimum--been used on Guantanamo and the invading Marines and soldiers.....A first strike would have ensured a nuclear war....

    Thank God the doves prevailed and JFK and Bobby overruled Curtis LeMay.

    Now, we are zoning in on another confrontation, and McCain is the guy to make the call?.....Republican Senator Thad Cochran said he was not fit--too much of a hothead.....

    It does make a difference.....  

    Parent

    Have you read Obama's latest (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:48:20 PM EST
    position on Iran?

    "Iran is a great threat. We have to make sure we are working with our allies to apply tightened pressure on Iran," the Illinois senator said.

    Parent

    "Tightened pressure" (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:31:36 PM EST
    does not mean bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb Iran.

    And it does not mean "isolate," which sounds like the act-of-war blockade that Tom DeLay told Tweety testerday that he preferred.

    Parent

    Can you acknowledge (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:34:17 PM EST
    that if Hillary had said "Iran is a great threat" during the primaries, the pro-Obama blogs would have collectively freaked out?

    Parent
    Maybe (3.00 / 2) (#153)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:39:35 PM EST
    but why do you bring up Hillary?   Aren't we past that yet?

    Apparently not....I do think that much of the anti-Obama sentiment is driven by the hope that the superdelegates will wake up, change their minds, and put Hillary over the top at the convention.  The only problem....you've got to trash Obama so his poll numbers go down enough to get the superdelegates attention.

    Sabotage....

    Parent

    I bring it up (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:41:57 PM EST
    because those unfair attacks on Hillary are the reason that Hillary's supporters go nuts when Obama says the same kind of stuff and everyone just shrugs.  It's proof that the outrage from the primaries was completely phony and everyone knew it.

    Parent
    What I did not like (none / 0) (#166)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:46:47 PM EST
    was Hillary's talk of "obliterating" Iran with nukes....She knew the "massive retaliation" liturgy and yet sensationlaized her position on the eve of a primary.  And MAD ain't such a great thing--it almost didn't work....Blind luck more than anything else may have saved us in October 1962.

    Parent
    let'snot just "mis quote" her answer (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:55:08 PM EST
    and leave out the question she was answering at the sme time.

    Clinton said "obliterate"  she didn't say "obliterate with nukes".  And the question she was answering was what her response would be to Iran attacking another country "with nukes".

    She gave the right answer.  Iran needs to know exactly what would happen should they decide to attack another country with "nukes"

    Parent

    She made it clear she was talking about (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:01:48 PM EST
    nukes....And she put us into a new policy of MAD vis-a-vis the Arab nations--off the cuff on the eve of the primary...

    The term of art "massive retaliation" was used during MAD and recited as if it were the Nicene Creed.   She not only invoked MAD in a situation in which it has never officially applied (Israel has its own nukes), she violated the MAD policy--to sound tough.
     

    Parent

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:07:34 PM EST
    That's a "new policy" regarding what we would do if Iran nuked Israel?  What do you think the old policy was?  Do you realize Obama agreed with the policy in everything except word choice?

    Parent
    I do not believe (none / 0) (#193)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:10:41 PM EST
    there was a stated "old" policy of nuclear retaliation....

    The idea is to leave open a some ambiguity...so, the whole world doesn't freak out....

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:21:23 PM EST
    You think not only that there is ambiguity concerning what we would do if Iran nuked Israel, but that it is good for there to be ambiguity about what we would do?

    You don't seem to understand the idea of deterrence very well.  What would you think of the argument that we ought to leave some ambiguity as to what would happen if you murdered someone else, so that the whole country doesn't freak out?  Somehow, I suspect making it clear that killing someone gets you life in prison deters more murders than leaving some ambiguity would.

    Anyway, this sort of ridiculous demonization of Hillary is what created the resentment you see on display here.  Somehow, it's no problem at all for Obama to call Iran a great threat, but Hillary's words are so awful that they actually encouraged Iran to build nukes (an incomprehensible argument if I ever heard one).  Somehow, if the statements were reversed, Hillary would still be the evil one and Obama would still be the good one, and everyone knows this.

    Parent

    Obama said the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    All he left out was the word "obliterate."

    Parent
    When you talk about (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:04:54 PM EST
    or refer to nukes, language makes a difference.  You do not abandon the words everyone has used for more than a generation just to sound more tough....

    Obama said something along the lines of a "strong response." ....The idea is to leave a little amgiguity....Hillary left none to sound tough....Iran was incentivized to get its own nukes toot sweet....Wonderful.

    Parent

    It is a significant change from his (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:36:53 PM EST
    earlier statements that they are not a threat and that he would sit down with them. It is also similar to our current policy.

    Parent
    When did he say they were (none / 0) (#154)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:40:14 PM EST
    "not a threat?"  I never heard him say that....

    Parent
    Google is your friend (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:57:32 PM EST
    He did several times. Look it up. (none / 0) (#164)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:46:02 PM EST
    You missed it. (none / 0) (#165)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:46:18 PM EST
    "Serious threat to us (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:50:09 PM EST
    like the Soviet Union..." is what he said....And that is undisputedly true.....He was comparing the situation with Iran to the Cuban Missile Crisis and yet still JFK talked to Khruschev.

     

    Parent

    USSR was a great threat. (none / 0) (#174)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:55:20 PM EST
    In this instance he said Iran wasn't. He said they spent too little on a military budget for us to seriously worry about. He has once again significantly changed his position. His statements now are similar to our current policy.

    Parent
    I never said anything about bomb (none / 0) (#177)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:56:48 PM EST
    bomb bomb

    Parent
    There were no Curise Missles (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by mrjerbub on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:50:10 PM EST
    in the 60's. Don't believe everything you read. Relax. By all means, don't vote for John McCain. I'm not going to. You shouldn't either. But seriously. No one is going to war with Iran. Even that wacky due in charge there...what's his name Amadanutjob or whatever, he knows the only thing that might happen is Israel will try to bomb some places and we'll all be paying $9.00 bucks a gallon for gas. I think you have a better chance of Obama doing something stupid than 'Ol Johnny Boy. I don't think either are qualified to be POTUS. IMH uninformed O. Chill.

    Parent
    Cruise Missile (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:26:46 PM EST
    Check this out.  And this.

    And this.

    Moreover, in July 1960, the U.S. could launch 1,000-mile (1,600 km)-range Polaris SLBMs from submerged submarines[10], while the Soviet submarine fleet had only some 100 short range V-1-type cruise missiles which could be launched only from submarines that surfaced and lost their hidden submerged status.



    Parent
    I stand corrected. (none / 0) (#163)
    by mrjerbub on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:46:01 PM EST
    Still the source is Mr. Dobbs. I believed I mentioned that my opinion was "uninformed". Thanx for informing me. I still don't believe it.

    Parent
    Why do you doubt Dobbs (none / 0) (#176)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:56:45 PM EST
    The reviews of his book are favorable--I haven't heard of any negative reviews.....Does he have a tarnished past?

    Parent
    Well, first of all Curise Missles, in the parlance (none / 0) (#192)
    by mrjerbub on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:09:28 PM EST
    of our times, (If I may quote Lebowski) refers to a specific type of stand off weapon not introduced until the 70's and not deployed until the 80's. I suppose you could say the V2 from WWII was a cruise missle. I should have not challenged your terminology. Cruise Missles are a U.S. Navel/Air Force weapon. Maybe I was looking for Cruise "type" Missle. Please. I surrender.

    Parent
    I am not criticizing (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:12:28 PM EST
    If Dobbs is washed up or unreliable (perhaps on some other point), I would like to know, so I can discontinue reading his book.  

    Parent
    I have no good or bad (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by mrjerbub on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:26:37 PM EST
    information on Mr. Dobbs. I have not read the book you're talking about. I mentioned him only because he was the single source, other than Wiki, which anybody can edit. Since I was in Jr. High at the time of said crisis, I knew there was no mention of the term Cruise Missle until almost 20 years later. Please forgive me and read whomever you want.

    Parent
    I yawn at your yawn. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:01:32 PM EST
    Yeah. (none / 0) (#121)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:09:34 PM EST
    You're not convincing me.

    I don't have to convince you.

    By all means, keep yawning.

    Parent

    At this rate (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:38:34 PM EST
    we should at least both get a good nap.

    Parent
    Barack said he'd reinvade Iraq (none / 0) (#160)
    by Lysis on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:44:12 PM EST
    If it turned out there was a terrorist presence there.  That was a debate gaffe that he got a free pass on. Well, one of many.  

    Parent
    I recall him saying that (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:54:52 PM EST
    he would leave troops there to combat al Qaeda, if necessary....I doubt he said re-invade....The context sounded like sending in a limited force for the express mission of taking out camps....like a few Rangers and Special Forces...not a re-occupation of the country...

    Parent
    riiiight (4.80 / 10) (#27)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    "I will never back down in defending a woman's right to choose,"

    but let's make sure it's not because they're just feeling blue.

    Parent

    But what does Obamas "require" mean? (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by lambertstrether on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:19:07 PM EST
    It means, just as McCain said:

    "be subject to negotiations between management and labor."

    just that Obama is handling the negotiations for us.

    How can anybody believe he'll do a good job?

    And then, just as with FISA, we'll get the chorus of "Oh, that's the politics of it. It was the best he could do..."

    Parent

    Sadly, I can't take (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:02:06 PM EST
    Obama at his word. Especially when he's addressing women or our issues. Our issues were noticeably absent from his speeches and his remarks in debates, iirc. Heard "race, religion and region" often enough, but not gender. And then there's other issues like his interaction with women. "Sweetie" comes to mind . . .

    Actually, that's true (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:29:25 PM EST
    The only time he talks about 'women's issues' is when he is in front of a whole room of 'em.

    Parent
    But, couldn't someone (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by dk on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:03:45 PM EST
    argue that Obama is the candidate of big business too after the FISA vote?  

    I think it's great and all to compare the candidate's actual records, and their statements (though only if you include the whole range..for example, Obama's statement last night should be balanced with his "mental distressed" statements from last week).  But to draw simplistic conclusions such as "McCain is the candidate of big business" from not too much evidence just undermines what you are trying to achieve, IMHO.

    It 'should' be a no-brainer to compare (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:06:26 PM EST
    the two, but Obama doesn't make it easy these days . . .

    Parent
    That's definitely true. (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by dk on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:31:05 PM EST
    But, my point was also that bloggers lose credibility when they are too simplistic in drawing their conclusions.  I mean, Obama just voted to grant immunity to some very large businesses just yesterday.  And he certainly takes in a lot of campaign money from big business.  And, let's not forget the energy bill vote.

    So, to build up a post of quotes and climax with the statement "McCain is the candidate of big business" just doesn't cut it for me.  

    And, particularly on the issue of women's reproductive rights and equal pay, to pick and choose quotes that don't present, in my opinion, a full picture of either candidate's comprehensive record, isn't too convincing to me at least.  

    McCain is for VERY limited government.  Definitely.  Obama seems to be for some kind of government/big business/establishment-religion triumverate.  I think if you really fleshed out each candidate's full records, that's probably what you'd find.

    Parent

    I agree. This, in my judgment (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:51:30 PM EST
    does not sufficiently reflect the candidates' judgment.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:09:14 PM EST
    I don't see much reason for progressives to be unhappy with Obama on labor issues, aside from random crap like calling a labor 527 a "special interest" in Iowa.

    Republicans, of course, hate organized labor with a passion.  Unless their name is Arlen Specter.  Or the union is called Solidarity.

    Since I happen to think a strong labor movement is the key to just about everything else progressives want, this is a pretty solid reason why I'm a partisan Democrat.

    What I would like from Candidate Obama is for him to use his rhetorical gifts to reclaim some of the territory we've been losing in the war of words over union issues since Reagan's election.  The Right has successful branded unions as corrupt enterprises that do nothing but drag on productivity.  Passing the Employee Free Choice Act would be great, but gaining some ground in the battle of public opinion would be great too.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:14:26 PM EST
    aside from random crap like calling a labor 527 a "special interest" in Iowa.

    I didn't hear him complaining when they were spending big bucks advertising for him in places like Ohio . . . against Clinton.

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:14:48 PM EST
    Live in Michigan.

    Ford has rolled out some ugly new bus-like thing that the local (oldest running Ford dealership in MI) parked downtown today with balloons and everything.

    Mileage: 16 city, 22 highway.

    Are you kidding me?

    But unions are to blame (they partly share) for the downturn.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:16:37 PM EST
    I am a native Detroiter, which probably accounts for my strong pro-union tendencies.  But I will never own a Ford!

    Parent
    Clueless. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:26:13 PM EST
    Absolutely clueless.

    I did read a terrible story about a Japanese guy who was so overworked at Toyota that his death was blamed on it: 80 hours of overtime a month.

    The family got a settlement from Toyota after fighting for it.

    Parent

    My brother always said about Ford. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:43:18 PM EST
    Fix Or Repair Daily.  heh

    Parent
    Something funny/sad (none / 0) (#48)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    GM is the official sponsor of cars for the "green" Dem convention. Volunteer drivers are schlepping VIPs around in hybrids. The Chevy Malibu hybrid, mostly.

    There's a brochure we're supposed to give the VIPs, promoting the car. It has a table that shows gas mileage.

    The Chevy Malibu hybrid gets 32 mpg.

    The Chevy Malibu non-hybrid gets 30 mpg.

    And the hybrid costs $3,000 more.

    Parent

    I am basically pro-union (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:53:26 PM EST
    though I'm now old enough to see the problems with unions AND with being pro-business.  

    I'd like to see more "share the wealth" business models.  It's like, Bill Gates became a billionaire but he created a lot of millionaires among the people that worked for him.  He shared the wealth.  A lot of "new economy" companies have done this, while others have not.  

    Costco is a "share the wealth" company.  Wal-Mart is not.  

    I appreciate the unions because I live in a union town and I worked in a union industry.  But if we had sufficient "share the wealth" companies, would we really need unions?  (No.  I can answer that myself.)  The reason unions exist is because there are too many greedy companies who think that money should only flow to the top and they shouldn't have to "share the wealth" with those below them.  

    One of the problems with being "pro-union" is that the deals that are often struck are "anti-business" -- so there is kind of a tug-a-war being fought there.  If benefits for workers are so onerous that it leads to a company's bankruptcy, then no one really profits.  

    Anyway, I'm still pro-union but I'm also pro-business because without businesses, we have no need for unions.  There need to be BOTH to have a good country.  (And I sure would like to see more "share the wealth" companies in the USA.)

    I'm troubled by Obama's ideas of taxing companies more.  If companies are taxed more, they'll often cut jobs or move them somewhere else where the taxes are more advantageous.  We need to be careful about taxing companies.  Sometimes "pass thru" taxes are best (Tax the companies less but tax the employees more) because the companies stay in the USA and pay better because of the taxes their employees have to pay.  If you study the states in the USA and their tax policies, you can learn a bit about how business taxes affect businesses.  Since all 50 states operate separately, it can serve as a "mini experiment" in taxation.    

    Parent

    During the Ohio race (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:16:54 PM EST
    when the press and everyone was fighting over Hillary's NAFTA position, Obama stated that America "needs to move away from a blue collar economy to a white collar economy." I was stunned that he could make a statement like that on television.

    He lost Ohio because of that statement. He also lost Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky because of that and other comments like it.

    Parent

    The USA doesn't need to move (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:43:04 PM EST
    from blue collar to white collar...

    What they need is fairer "profit sharing."  We need CEO's who don't insist on getting millions of dollars per year while the average worker barely earns minimum wage.  

    I pointed out Costco:  The Costco CEO makes something like $300,000 a year.  Average workers make around $15 an hour.  The CEO makes less than most CEOs (though he owns a lot of stock).  The workers make more than most retail workers.  I don't know the details of either's total compensation or perks.  I do know that the Costco CEO once said that he thought it was ridiculous for a CEO to make more than twice what a district manager makes -- so I assume he makes that much money.

    More companies ought to think this way.  Why should the CEO make 20 million dollars a year if the average worker is making 12 thousand dollars a year?  It doesn't make sense.  If the company can't afford to pay workers better, they can't afford to pay the CEO that much money.  

    Anyway...  I don't trust Obama a whole lot since he backed out on FISA and he's proven that he's only moving his lips -- I don't believe that he means much of what he says.  

    I also can't count John McCain out because I don't know what the heck McCain is thinking.  Maybe he thinks he's losing so he's not putting much into this or maybe he hasn't asked anyone he thinks is sharp in economics for advice...  I just don't know what to think anymore.  

    This has to be the WORST presidential election I remember in my lifetime.    

    Parent

    Obama's rhetorical gifts... (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by lambertstrether on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:24:16 PM EST
    Again, FISA.

    If Obama, a professor of Constitutional law, and the presumptive nominee, that is, the leader of the Democratic Party, doesn't use his rhetorical gifts on behalf of the Fourth Amendment, against a very unpopular law, and against even more unpopular corporations -- who do you know that likes the telcos? -- what in the name of sweet suffering Jeebus makes you think Obama's going to roll back Reagan's assault on the unions?

    Sure, I know everbody would "like" that, but if my mother had wheels, she'd be a teacart. Ya know?

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:15:28 PM EST
    More than 60 million Americans will vote for John McCain in November.

    If you can't imagine what makes a single one of them tick, that's on you, not them.  I was raised to believe that liberals were the open-minded ones, but in my experience, we seem to have a real blind spot for understanding differing opinions as something other than stupid or uninformed.  This, in turn, makes it much harder for us to persuade those who differ.

    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:34:41 PM EST
    If you can't imagine what makes a single one of them tick, that's on you, not them.

    That's on Obama, isn't it?

    He listening to too many voices.

    Hillary has her own voice.  It's surprising that some people don't get that.

    Parent

    He's (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:59:33 PM EST
    not Bob Dole. Bob Dole ran against a very popular president up for reelection. McCain does have the Bush albatross but Obama has the albatross of agreeing the craven democratic leadership. Kind of cancels each other out on that issue.

    Parent
    I have to disagree (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:03:42 PM EST
    that the media is paying attention to McCain.  In the last few days he has joked about killing Iranians by exporting cigarettes to Iran, called social security a disgrace, had his top economic advisor call America a nation of whiners and dismiss the economic downturn as a "mental recession."  When asked about the discrepancy in viagra/birth control coverage by insurance companies, he said he didn't know what his opinion on it was.  The media has largely given him a pass on all of these things.  Remember the 2 week Rev Wright-a-thon?  The media is still looking the other way when it comes to McCain.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:08:59 PM EST
    expect that to last. McCain is the original "straight talker" and "media darling" if ever there was one. It's probably only going to become more obvious after the conventions.

    Parent
    Who are you? (none / 0) (#29)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:43:25 PM EST
    And what have you done with Steve M?  It's nice to hear you understanding other sides for a change. :)

    Parent
    Believe me (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:49:05 PM EST
    I don't always understand the other side, but I always try.

    It has been sort of frustrating to drag the pro-Obama arguments out of some of you over the course of this campaign.  Often it seems to boil down to me not understanding his awesomeness.  But I love it when I can hear people articulate actual feelings and thought processes as opposed to talking points.

    Back in the day MyDD used to let a handpicked set of candidate supporters post weekly diaries on the front page about their candidate, and they were really high-quality and great for understanding what people liked about their candidate.  Recall that I didn't start out this election as a Hillary supporter.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:00:46 PM EST
    that it's a fatal flaw of many Dems that they DON'T try to understand why people vote for the GOP. They seem to think that everyone thinks the same way they do and they can't possibly see how someone could vote for a party as awful as the GOP. A lot of it is not issue based, it's culturally based. We have too many Adlai Stevesons running for Pres and not enough Bill Clintons.

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#45)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:55:28 PM EST
    inconsistencies and irrationalities

    Obama is inconsistent.

    That's all that matters to me.

    Parent

    No. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:15:41 PM EST
    You have plenty of blogs that feed your need.

    Go there.

    I hope (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by TChris on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:22:04 PM EST
    you realize that this blog supports Obama.  Obama fans are quite welcome here.  Please don't tell them to go elsewhere.

    Parent
    If all they're looking for (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:49:55 PM EST
    is blind Obamadoration, then it's only fair to let them know thy aren't going to be happy here.

    Parent
    Obama supporters here (none / 0) (#20)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:29:15 PM EST
    only make me less inclined to vote for him.

    We still are allowed to express our very realy concerns about Obama, however.

    So y'all can keep trying to convince us.

    Parent

    I wouldn't dream of trying to convince you (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:47:31 PM EST
    That's a job for Sisyphus.

    Parent
    Perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:04:59 PM EST
    you should think about making such posts, instead of just ordering other people to make them.

    Your posts, at least the ones that don't poke pointy sticks at Clinton supporters, all seem to be like "McSame sux, times infinity."  While it might be fun to have a thread where we all sit around and type stuff like that, I suspect it would get old.  A coherent argument offers much more basis for discussion.

    Parent

    "Pointy Sticks" (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:23:43 PM EST
    and "cleanup" with reference to a troll....That is using lingo I've only heard at RedState....Did you post there?..... I know Flyerhawk does....

    Parent
    Once upon a time (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:29:58 PM EST
    They ultimately got too nutty for me.  Flyerhawk, as we've all seen, has a remarkable pain threshold.

    Parent
    Sorry Liberator that this blog (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:02:14 PM EST
    does not WORSHIP Obama as so many on the left do. I see very little Barack bashing here; certainly nothing close to the way Hillay was assaulted by so many sites. It seems the Obama fans expect 100% falling in line with no dissent allowed. As for this "devotion" you write of- are you as equally outraged by the DEVOTION of most MSM, led by MSNBC,to elect Obama?

    Parent
    Do you see any space at all (none / 0) (#61)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:07:21 PM EST
    between all Obamadoration all the time and "bashing" Obama?

    Because surprise, you're in that space.

    Parent

    Meh. (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:46:28 PM EST
    We're up a creek if he DOES win.

    Parent
    Why don't you join us (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:05:30 PM EST
    on the issues you disagree with him on instead of trying to force all of us to agree on every issue...  Cuz we are not gonna agree.  

    Many of us were originally Hillary supporters because we didn't agree with Obama from the start.  Many of us still don't agree with Obama.  Many of us are part of the flock that's thinking about hightailing it to another pasture.  

    Coming over here and shaking a stick isn't gonna work.  We're adults.

    Since you obviously weren't graced with "original Herding dog" genes, perhaps you could try to find a gentler way to herd us into the fold?  Most of us aren't sheep either.    

    Parent

    Sorry sweetie! ;) (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:18:16 PM EST


    I will continue (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:20:47 PM EST
    to criticize Obama, because I don't like what he says.

    I'm a democrat.  When he starts acting like one, he'll have my support.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:40:04 PM EST
    "Senator McCain has made it abundantly clear that he wants to appoint justices like (John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito," Obama said Thursday.

    Really. And just who did Obama think was hunky dory to want to vote onto the bench until he was told it wasn't good for his Presidential aspirations?  Hmmm......let me think....it will come to me eventually.

    Hi pot.  Meet kettle.

    There's a difference (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:47:22 PM EST
    Between voting to confirm a justice (which Obama did not, by the way) and having that justice as your first choice for a SCOTUS appointment.  Lots of republicans voted to confirm Ginsberg and Breyer, but no one expected Bush to name more like them, did they?  You can't seriously be arguing that Obama would appoint another Alito.

    Parent
    I did not say he voted for Roberts (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:58:46 PM EST
    I said he was GOING to vote for Roberts until he was told it wasn't politically expedient.  You missed the point - he thought Roberts was ok to put on the bench.

    Add that to his numerous flip flops in the last month alone, and frankly, it proves Obama can't be trusted on any position.

    Parent

    But be honest (3.00 / 3) (#58)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    But you thought that before this month, and before the McCain camp started pushing the "flip flop" narrative.  The flip flop thing didn't change your mind, it just changed your talking points.

    And because it's a vague talking point, you can use it as an excuse to argue almost anything about a candidate.  I just thought you stepped over the line when you seemed to argue that Obama would appoint another Roberts or Alito.

    It's kinda like saying Obama is a flip-flopper, so that means you can't be sure he won't engage in human sacrifice and satan worship.  Some things just don't make sense.

    Parent

    Search and research here, then type (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:25:07 PM EST
    as you then would know that this concern about Obama's near-vote for Roberts has been discussed here for a long time, throughout the primaries.

    You have not been a regular here until recently, but you can catch up before speaking up -- and speaking ill.

    Parent

    Read thread first (none / 0) (#88)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:37:19 PM EST
    Before typing sneering attacks.  My point (really: it's like three messages up) was that Obama would not appoint another Alito.  You understand the difference between voting to confirm and appointment, right?

    Seriously: is it possible for you guys to argue without flinging insults around?

    Parent

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:43:21 PM EST
    My point (really: it's like three messages up) was that Obama would not appoint another Alito.  You understand the difference between voting to confirm and appointment, right?

    Really?  How do you know?  Because he said so?  Sorry, we've seen numerous times that this doesn't really mean anything.

    Parent

    I read this here, where is the proof? (none / 0) (#105)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:55:24 PM EST
    On Obama's Website n/t (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:01:35 PM EST
    Hmm reading is fundamental (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    First, I did find what you are talking about.  But you are just plain wrong, because plainly you did not read what he wrote.  He siad he thought that he was an amazing lawyer, with an awesome mind, who was qualified to be on the court for 95% of cases, the problem was the 5% that was not okay.  In fact he writes, "The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak"

    Here is the meat of his statement, it can be found at obama.senate.gov (and not on his website):

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

    The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

    ___

    It angers me to attack someone based on factually incorrect information.  Research it for yourself.  There are plenty of real reasons to not like Obama, this is not one of them

    Parent

    It IS on his Website (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    or it was. Perhaps he scrubbed it. I'm not giving him the click.

    It was in a WaPo article, and it was discussed here on TalkLeft

       It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

        And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.



    Parent
    You owe echin an apology (none / 0) (#161)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:44:26 PM EST
    The Washington post, August 27, 2007

    "Sen. Barack Obama had hired Pete Rouse for just such a moment.

    It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

    A relative newcomer to the national scene, Barack Obama has assembled a team composed of seasoned campaign hands, confidants from his law school days and insiders who had worked with former Senate Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle.

    And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no."

    Parent

    No I do not (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:58:25 PM EST
    Again reading is a good thing.  Here is the only line from a three page story on Justice Roberts, "Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds."  Is he saying in this quote that he supports his ideas? No.  Is he saying that he supports Roberts? no.  What he was saying is that he was qualified.   And though ideologically he disagrees with him (the important point), he would not want someone voting against his Supreme court choice based on ideology.  He then took the advice of an experienced washington insider, and voted against Roberts.  He then elaborated on how he came to that decision (see the post above).   Taking this information with HIS WORDS and ACTIONS, you can see that your argument HOLDS NO WATER.

    I go with the words and the actions of the person.  Maybe you should start doing the same.  Instead you consistently choosing the argument that suits your interests.

    Parent

    Yes, you do. (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:16:23 PM EST
    Here is what you asked for proof of:

    I said he was GOING to vote for Roberts until he was told it wasn't politically expedient.  You missed the point - he thought Roberts was ok to put on the bench.

    As the WaPo article clearly shows beyond a shadow of a doubt, he WAS going to vote for Roberts until he was told it was not politically expedient.

    I go with the truth, not the words and actions of a person who is known to be a craven liar who does not keep his word.

    Parent

    Obama voted against Roberts (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:47:34 PM EST
    and Alito.  If one wants to look at action, that speaks volumes....

    Parent
    It took action to get him (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:49:37 PM EST
    to vote against Roberts. Does that speak volumes also?

    Parent
    Feingold actually voted for Roberts (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:16:58 PM EST
    That doesn't make him a pro-life toady....

    Parent
    And if Feingold were the nominee (none / 0) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:44:45 PM EST
    I might not hold his vote against him, because of his record and rhetoric that cuts pro-choice.

    Obama -- esp. on rhetoric -- not so much.

    Parent

    I thought Obama skeptics (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM EST
    eschewed his rhetoric as mere words..... He should get credit for his vote....

    If you measure rhetoric, why reject only his pro-choice rhetoric and accept his  supposedly anti-choice rhetoric?  Seems like a  heads-I-win, tails-you-lose scenario.

    Has Obama ever voted in favor of an anti-choice bill?  Ever?  Has Obama voted the pro-choice position?

    McCain is close to a 100% anti-choice record.

    Parent

    Fortunately, I'm not responsible for (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:20:47 PM EST
    what you think Obama skeptics say or think or feel or whatever.

    Obama's dismissal of 'mental distress' as one of the bases for which a third-trimester abortion is allowable is frightening.  Not just his opinion, but the way he discussed in the original report and later, after he got flack for it.  The just feeling 'blue' comment truly bordered on snark.  And sorry, you don't get to snark about my constitutional rights, buddy.  I can't tell if he was just reacting badly to being questioned (which he's done in several contexts) or truly believes the right-wing frame on 3rd trimester abortion that there are hordes of careless women who would get a late stage abortion to chirp themselves up just 'cuz they're feeling down, the same way they might go on a shopping spree for new shoes.

    Even without the mental distress comment, the fact that he has repeatedly included the clergy as part of the 'consultation' process when discussing a woman's right to choose is repellant.  His lecturing the pro-choice community on their lack of understanding of the deeper 'moral' issues on abortion fits right into a plausible reading of his attitude toward women's right to choose as at best condescending and at worst just more patriarchal bullsh*t.  That's a right-wing frame, too.  For those who think history just started a few years ago, the phrases 'abortion on demand' and 'using abortion as birth control' are longstanding anti-choice rhetoric.

    Obama's path to a Senatorship started in one of the most liberal districts in the country, in a Democratic-machine city.  His votes on abortion (aside from the 'present' and wrong button ones) could easily be not from principled belief in the right itself but just plain party-line votes.  Fast track to nowhere without them.  Or they could be real belief.

    So the 100% vote record is an important factor, but it's just the start.  All he's done is vote.  He's never risked political capital for a pro-choice cause.  Now he's making statements that undermine his voting record.  To me, that makes it more likely that his pro-choice voting record is due to political opportunism than principle.

    And reproductive rights are to me what FISA is to the netroots.  (more, really, since you'll not catch me taking a black eye on abortion and then licking the hand that punched me).  Maybe he really is solid on abortion.  Maybe he's not.  And any maybe is too much maybe for me.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#107)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:56:35 PM EST
    Has Obama ever voted in favor of an anti-choice bill?  Ever?  Has Obama voted the pro-choice position?

    Maybe when he didn't vote "present" or just not show up or voted the wrong way.

    Parent

    I didn't realize he was running 4 pres (none / 0) (#189)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:06:07 PM EST
    And Obama agreed with Thomas and Scalia (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:01:28 PM EST
    with what Obama said about abortion.

    What I am hearing from him suggests that he is more likely to seek changes in Roe v. Wade than McCain, as the latter has less incentive to do so.  The paradoxes of politics.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:07:29 PM EST
    McCain won't do anything about Roe.  If the Republicans really wanted to do away with it, they would have.  Print the word "Roe" in a flyer, and it's an instant huge fundraiser.

    I am more worried about Obama trying to get it changed or curbed.

    Parent

    McCain certainly will appoint anti-roe justices (none / 0) (#79)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:27:25 PM EST
    I mean, clearly he will.  All politicians are slaves to their base.  Just look what happened when Bush, early in his second term and perhaps at the height of his political influence, tried to put someone on the bench without blessing from the religious right.  He got skewered, and Meirs had to pull out.

    McCain has publicaly stated that he wants Roe overturned.  I'm just stunned at how many people here honestly think he's lying (?!) about this...

    Parent

    and if McCain does NOMINATE bad justices (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:19:02 PM EST
    the dems being in control of thye senate judiciary cmte canmake sure they don't even come up for a vote.  (if they grow a pair)

    But, if Obama a dem appoints "centrist" justices, how will other dems in the senate be able to stop their own party's nominees?

    we need LIBERAL justices appointed to replace the LIBERAL justices that are likely to retire.  I don't trust Obama to do that.  He's more likely to appoint centrist justices to make sure he doesn't get any flak from the right.  Not what we need at all.

    Parent

    The democratic leadership (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:26:51 PM EST
    have let us down for eight years.

    Why should we trust them now?

    FISA is huge, no matter how they try to spin it.

    The democratic leadership backed Obama.

    Parent

    actually i don't want (none / 0) (#139)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:30:47 PM EST
    the justics that either of these candidates wold nominate.  So, I would like McCain to win so win can defeat him in 2012.  And, then I just hope the liberal justices stay healthy for 4 more years

    Parent
    Centrist justices? (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:19:30 PM EST
    You mean, like O'Connor and Souter?  Hell yeah, gimme some of those centrist justices!

    Parent
    Do you really thing the Dems (none / 0) (#142)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:32:05 PM EST
    will be that strong against McSame. They have not demonstrated any such strength against Bush.

    Parent
    Probably (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:50:51 PM EST
    not but you have to realize that if McCain wins it will be due to Dems voting for him. He has a history of being willing to compromise and work with Dems McCain/Feingold and Kennedy/McCain are two bills that come to mind.

    Bush never wanted to work with Dems so I hardly think his record is all that comparable with McCains.

    If Obama had some sort of record to go on it might be easier to vote for him. Since he doesn't you have to go by his far left IL senate voting record and his Lieberman record in the senate. You really can't get much out of those.

    Parent

    McCain will have no choice but (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:11:46 PM EST
    but to put up a pro-life judge.....McCain cannot afford to tick off the pro-lifers, or even come close to doing so.

    And, relying on the Democrats in Congress to stand up to a Republican President is very risky.  Why would the Democrats do that?

    There is a difference between Scalia's and Robert's position on abortion, and Obama's.

    Parent

    As Obama agrees with Thomas and Scalia (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:27:26 PM EST
    I am not sanguine on his SCOTUS nominees, either.

    There 'tis.  The Dem candidate disagrees with the Dem party platform and principles on this issue, not to mention with SCOTUS.  So I have no good choice in this election, without a truly pro-choice and thus truly Dem candidate.

    Parent

    Obama does not agree with (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    Scalia and Thomas on abortion--that is a distortion.

    Parent
    It is not a distortion. (none / 0) (#133)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:26:45 PM EST
    Both Thomas and Scalia oppose the requirement of a mental health exception on abortion bans. So does Obama.

    Parent
    Please, let's not use Republican frames (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:33:45 PM EST
    about abortion. It's bad enough that Obama does.

    It's not pro-life and pro-abortion, it's anti-choice and pro-choice.

    It's not partial-birth abortion, it's late-term or third-trimester.

    And, relying on the Democrats in Congress to stand up to a Republican President is very risky.  Why would the Democrats do that?

    Like I've said before, we don't know if they'll stand up to McCain. We know they won't stand up to Obama.

    There is a difference between Scalia's and Robert's position on abortion, and Obama's.

    Yes - Obama's position on abortion is more restrictive than under Roe.

    I'm supposed to be happy that Obama wants to make abortion more restricted, while McCain only gives lip service to banning it?

    Nuh uh.

    Parent

    Roe allows (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:40:03 PM EST
    restrictions in the third trimester.  Under Casey, O'Conner wrote about the health of the mother with respect to third trimesters.

    O'Connor also twice wrote the opinion on late term abortions concerning the exception for health of the mother--and those decisions are...no more.....And, I do not think O'Connor ever defined the "health" exception.

    Parent

    Indeed, Roe does (none / 0) (#106)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:56:17 PM EST
    and so does Bolton. Obama's position is more restrictive than either of these.

    Obama told a Christian magazine, Relevant, that only women with a "serious physical issue" should be able to get an abortion post-viability.

    As I wrote yesterday, that's contrary to 35 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the issue, which has always demanded that abortion bans contain an exception to allow the procedure to protect a woman's "mental health," as well as her physical health. Only Justices Thomas and Scalia have expressed the view that a "mental health" exception is not required.

    "It is not just a matter of feeling blue," Obama said.

    ...Obama is trying to restrict abortions after 22 weeks to those women who have a serious disease or illness. But the law today also covers some women who are in "mental distress," those women who would suffer emotional and psychological harm without an abortion.

    This standard has long been understood to require less than "serious clinical mental health disease."  Women today don't have to show they are suffering from a "serious clinical mental health disease" or "mental illness" before getting an abortion post-viability, as Obama now says is appropriate.

    source

    Parent

    Planned Parenthood (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:06:33 PM EST
    has recently endorsed Obama....That should count for something.

    Parent
    Ya know (none / 0) (#138)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:30:10 PM EST
    Planned Parenthood's endorsement is one thing. It may be enough for some people. I like to dig a little deeper than that and find out what his actual position is before I decide who to vote for.

    And I do not like his position on abortion.

    Parent

    Ya think (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:34:58 PM EST
    Planned Parenthood didn't dig very deep on this one....People whose job it is to dig deep on this issue.

    Perhaps they are more objective....

    Parent

    Here's the (none / 0) (#158)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:43:32 PM EST
    Planned Parenthood website.

    Show me where the Obama endorsement is.

    Parent

    Here is the endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    Here it is:

    The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), saying his 100 rating by the fund for consistently backing pro-abortion legislation makes him the best choice for president.

    July 8 endorsement.  100% rating....

    Parent

    In contrast, McCain has a zero (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:19:39 PM EST
    percent rating by Planned Parenthood:


    "In contrast," Brewer said, "Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has a zero percent voting record on women's reproductive health and has stated he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 25 years in Washington, D.C., Sen. McCain has cast 125 votes against women's health."


    Parent
    Baloney. (none / 0) (#149)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:36:05 PM EST
    I see the google meisters in force.

    NARAL members broke with the DC group.

    No way would Planned Parenthood back him the way he talks now.

    Parent

    They did on July 8 (none / 0) (#200)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:17:13 PM EST
    See the link above....

    Parent
    Sandra Day O'Connor (none / 0) (#137)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:29:22 PM EST
    is no longer on the bench.


    Parent
    That was the point (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:35:41 PM EST
    Her view has become obsolete....

    Parent
    Obsolete? (none / 0) (#151)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:37:54 PM EST
    I found her position to be just fine.

    Wow.

    Parent

    You are distorting my position (none / 0) (#156)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:42:44 PM EST
    Her decisions have been overruled.....You no longer have the same health exception as previously existed....

    I never said I disagreed with her approach....

    Parent

    I don't think late term abortion= partial birth (none / 0) (#111)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:00:26 PM EST
    abortion.  One is a time frame and the other is a misnamed proceedure (at least technically that is correct, maybe I am wrong in terms of what they are arguing?)  

    Parent
    Better tell Obama (none / 0) (#118)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:06:44 PM EST
    He uses the term "partial-birth."

    Parent
    What is stupid he shouldn't do that (none / 0) (#120)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:09:24 PM EST
    Though when he was talking about mental distress he was talking about and using the correct language.

    Parent
    Only if he wanted to sound anti-choice (none / 0) (#136)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:27:56 PM EST
    Um, no. (none / 0) (#167)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:47:01 PM EST
    he was talking about and using the correct language.

    Good grief.

    He was using incorrect language that appeals to the anti-choice groups.

    Parent

    Give it a rest He is Pro choice (3.00 / 2) (#187)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:04:31 PM EST
    Very pro choice.  Again, there a lot of reasons to not like the guy, but I find this one not accurate.

    Parent
    Give it a rest yoruself (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:11:31 PM EST
    He is on record as wanting to further restrict abortion.

    Since you will never need one, pardon me if I don't share your complacency.

    Parent

    So are you saying I it is a non issue to me (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:19:26 PM EST
    Because I am a man?  Are you saying I am complacent in this because I am a man?  That is just plain insulting.  I don't go around telling white people, you can't care about issue X as much as me because you aren't black.  I say please care as much me.  Find your own reason and care.  It might be different reason, but please care.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#77)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    But McCain will have to pick someone palatable to the Democratic Senate, while I fear that Harry and John and Teddy will rubber stamp anyone Obama puts up and any legislation he wants pushed.  

    That's just as scary.

    Parent

    Why "palatable" (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:30:56 PM EST
    to the Democratic Senate...did Bush clear FISA with them first?

    The scenario for a McCain win would be that he had come from behind, he is the newest rock star.....The Democrats have been rejected--that would be the narrative.  Pro-life McCain would have a mandate to appoint pro-life judges.  If the Democrats can't stand up to an unpopluar Republican President, why would they stand up to what would be very popular Republican and avowed pro-life President?

    Parent

    Fair point (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:38:44 PM EST
    But as I said, I'm more afraid of who and what Obama will put up and the Dems will roll over so they can continue to worship at the altar of the Chosen One.  As one of the earlier posts here said - Obama's ok with changing the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments.  Should I vote for him because I agree with his stance on the 23rd amendment?

    Parent
    Oh my (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:47:37 PM EST
    Not so.  You of course greatly exaggerate.....

    The First Amendment?  I get the allusions to the others but not the First....And not really to the Fifth, either....  It would be simpler to say that he is against the Constitution in toto.  

    And D.C. electors?....

    Parent

    Read this (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:54:18 PM EST
    Link

    Remember his awful positions on faith-based initiatives?

    And the DC electors comment was snark.

    Parent

    I like his position (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:57:02 PM EST
    on faith based initiatives.....a position he has held since he worked on one as a community organizer....

    I don't get bent out of shape over AA being a faith based initiative--helping them is a good thing...

    Parent

    "Higher Power" (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:00:38 PM EST
    can be the Periodic Table, for Pete's sake.

    Parent
    As was perhaps much (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:58:24 PM EST
    or some of the exaggeration?

    Parent
    No exaggeration (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:00:04 PM EST
    Bottom line;  He can't be trusted and he is no Democrat.  I'm a centrist and his positions are too right wing for me.

    Parent
    No, I don't think (none / 0) (#146)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:34:20 PM EST
    that follows. He has alraed said that he wants to appoint more Antonin Scalias to the SCOTUS. And I don't think the Dems are strong enough to resist him.

    Parent
    TChris, what you post is Obama today. What he'll (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:44:45 PM EST
    be tomorrow is another question.

    One could say the same (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TChris on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:00:48 PM EST
    about any politician.  That would not be a good reason to ignore what they say today.  Perhaps both candidates would make a 180 degree turn after being elected president, but it seems likelier to me that they will remain reasonably true to their stated positions on most issues.  And the stated positions of the candidates are quite different, as these and other posts have tried to demonstrate.

    Parent
    But Obama said he was a "different kind of (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:11:36 PM EST
    politician."  I think it makes a difference when you advertise yourself as one thing and then become the thing you advertised yourself as not being.  He is a hypocrite and a machine politician who has tried to paint himself as something different.  And that is what so many people bought into - the meme that he would transform politics and be something other than a regular politician.  The stark difference between what he said he would be and what he actually is gives us reason to not believe anything he says.  Because what he "believes" changes from day to day depending on the audience.

    Parent
    I Agree There Are Differences (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:46:23 PM EST
    between Obama and McCain.  

    But forgive me if I'm not impressed by Obama saying ""I will never back down in defending a woman's right to choose" at a breakfast to woo women voters when he was only too quick to do exactly that when the audience was a Christian magazine by using right-wing framing (we must stop all those wacky women trying to get late-term abortions because they are feeling blue) and defining the health exception more narrowly than current law (e.g., requiring a medically diagnosed mental illness and that's being kind and using his revised remarks, his initial remarks didn't include mental health as part of the health exception).  By helping to continue inaccurate stereotypes about the women who seek abortions and by claiming he supports current law but then defining it more narrowly than the Supreme Court, he's already failed to defend my rights.  

    No doubt McCain would be awful on abortion rights while Obama will "only" use the framing that has let conservative chip away at Roe for the last twenty years, assuming he doesn't decide to reach a compromise on this as he did with my Fourth Amendment rights yesterday.  Is that a difference or a sharp difference?  I'm not sure, but I can't say it makes me enthusiastic about an Obama administration.  And no amount of pointing out how much McCain sucks (no argument here) is going to change that or undo what Obama has said and done the last two weeks.  

    Which one of the candidates (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:51:52 PM EST
    have been on every side of every issue? And, oh, by the way, they didn't have t.v. sunday shows in 1894....but if they did, at least he has a trail we can look at and compare.

    Of course... (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:57:00 PM EST
    ... there are big differences between McCain and Obama, and indeed between almost any Democrat and any Republican. Many of the differences will manifest themselves in small-to-medium ways, in the flood of everyday decisions made by political appointees in the executive branch.

    To the extent that some liberals are reluctant to support Obama, it's not because they have any doubt about that. It's that they feel there are other things that may be more important this time--holding the party accountable for its horrendous behavior during the primary being the primary one.

    The reluctance is made stronger by the realization that while Obama, and even Lieberman would be a big improvement in many policies over McCain, Obama himself is not presenting himself as someone that liberals absolutely must put into office. His rightward positioning on public financing, FISA, NAFTA, abortion, the death penalty, universal health care, and Iraq aren't exactly inspiring. Combined with the (somewhat misguided) perception that McCain isn't so bad as Republicans go, some disaffected liberals feel that they'd rather send a message to the party that they can't just take us for granted.

    I fully agree that McCain doesn't get it (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:58:08 PM EST
    on labor issues with this quote, as I am in a group that by law is denied collective bargaining rights.

    But I am denied those rights by state law.  And I and others have been working for years to get this law changed -- including under the current Dem governor and current Dem upper house of our legislature.  Yet our support has come from Repubs in the lower house of our legislature.

    The Dem governor is a super-delegate for Obama.  You talk to him for me, please, and tell him to tell his super-delegates to support good labor practices in their own states, and with their own state employees.  Yes, my state law denies collective bargaining rights to only one group -- a group of state employees, my group.

    When Obama and his super-delegates support my rights instead of voting against them, we'll talk.  Until then, neither candidate convinces me on my labor issues.  So I'm stuck working for them at the state level, and I'm left to decide what to do at the national level based on other issues.

    And on those, I still haven't been convinced by the Dem candidate, either.  There 'tis.

    I have never heard (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:59:18 PM EST
    of Republicans supporting a pro-union issue, on any level.

    What accounts for them supporting your right to organize?

    Parent

    The Repub leader on this is (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:04:45 PM EST
    married to a teacher, which may be one reason -- although she is not at the university level.  It's state university teachers in my state who are denied collective bargaining rights.

    This Repub leader is a wily one, though, and may have other reasons.  Whatever.  We take what we can get in hope that we get this awful law killed.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#64)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:07:38 PM EST
    That's Republicans for you, always so understanding about rights when they find themselves personally affected!  Kind of like Cheney being fine with gay marriage, and all that.

    I'm surprised whichever union wants to organize you isn't able to persuade the Democrats to get on board, considering Democrats don't do very well at the polls when they don't have unions working for them.

    Parent

    There just aren't enough of us (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:20:56 PM EST
    faculty in the state to matter to Dems, it seems.  And a lot of them seem awfully anti-intellectual (but then, that surfaces here as well; it's endemic in this era).

    And without bargaining power, we will keep being replaced by temps, parttime teachers, and the state university and students will suffer.  Too many Dems are not known for long-term thinking.  See Promises Made in Primaries, 2008.

    Parent

    I'd love to teach a class or two (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:42:48 PM EST
    On military history or the journalism and war. Jut for the sake of it.  Any tips short of a PhD?

    You quite literally can't break in even if you love the subject and what not and have a masters and are published.

    My professor in an art hitory class once upon a time only had a BA (Oxon)

    hehehe.

    Parent

    Salo, sure (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:23:46 PM EST
    A master's is sufficient for many campuses.  Not usually research universities, but more likely smaller four-year campuses or two-year campuses.  The systems vary in different states, but basically, research universities award Ph.D.'s, so the teachers  ought to be (at good campuses) Ph.D.'s.

    But it depends a lot on the particular discipline, of course.  Some in the arts and professions such as journalism, for example, may hire extraordinary performers without Ph.D.'s., even in departments that award graduate degrees.  That may apply in some cases in art history, archaeology, etc., too.

    But above all, it's supply and demand.  There are a lot of current and former journalists (and more all the time, with the massive layoffs and buyouts for early retirements from newspapers) who want to teach, and so there is rarely a dearth in that field.  Ditto in history, and especially in military history, with all the retirees at 40 or so.

    And it's also about location, location, location.  Some small towns with two-year campuses beg for teachers with master's; many big cities have more than even many campuses in town can handle.

    Basically, call and email around -- do the homework, find the correct departments at each campus -- and ask who does the hiring in a department (it can vary due to size) and ask for an information interview.  Send letters with c.v.'s.  And we have to plan 'way ahead -- we've already hired for next spring at my campus, for most courses.  But life happens, parttime hires fall through if they have other jobs that change, and it's always good to check in again and let them know you're available with a few weeks' warning.  Once you get a foot in the door, often that way, the rest will follow.

    But don't blame me when you find, as so many of us have who switched late in life (I didn't get my Ph.D. until after three previous careers:-), that teaching is as exhausting and exasperating as it is exhilarating. :-)

    Parent

    Doctors and teachers it seems have the same (none / 0) (#102)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:53:51 PM EST
    problem.  I wonder if there is room for some sort of alliance?  The leaders of these organizations need to start looking for commonalities.  As this country becomes more and more "specialized" we become less able to see we all have the same problems.  

    Parent
    Doctors who are state employees (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:10:58 PM EST
    have collective bargaining rights.

    Doctors who have their own practices are self-employed businessmen, and it does not apply.  They do not need collective bargaining rights to negotiate with the bosses.  They are their own bosses.  

    I think you do not understand the distinctions.  They are not comparable.  I do not wish to set up a college in a corner office.  There are enough of those scams here.


    Parent

    I think the idea is the same? (none / 0) (#197)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:14:42 PM EST
    Doctors pay comes from insurance companies.  They used to set their prices and the insurance companies paid.  Doctors did not need nor want to bargain amongst themselves.  That changed. Instead now insurance companies pay what THEY want to pay.   They tell doctors what they we will pay for procedure X (it is usually 10% above medicare- which is one of the reasons the medicare cut was such a big deal).  Doctors of course are powerless, because they can't get together to set their price for services, so insurance companies that are huge can play one off the other, lowering the price of the procedure to absurdly low levels.  

    Doctors want to be able to get together and bargain to set their price.  It is one of the big issues that the AMA tries to get through (useless organization)

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    so Obama tells the voters at a Women for Obama meeting that he'll stand up for choice? Okay, and then when he goes to the national assembly of evangelicals what is he going to say? He's going to say that women should talk to their minister right?

    Employee free choice act? Feh, he won't fight for it. Frankly he won't fight for anything. He's shown numerous times already that he'll readily cave.

    I just don't believe anything he says anymore.

    What is wrong with that? (none / 0) (#119)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:07:08 PM EST
    It is not a bad assumption to think if you are at a evangelical meeting that a ministers judgment is an important consideration.  For someone who thinks or questions if life occurs at conception, asking your minister for their ADVICED would be very good idea. Some people need no help or input, others need some and want some. The important point is that Obama is supports any women having the choice to have an abortion and to make the choice who to talk to and confide in.  

    Parent
    As long as they're not just feeling blue. (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:20:01 PM EST
    Seriously, do you not get how offensive this is?

    He's enforcing the RW trope that women get abortions on a whim, because they're emotional, they're silly, they can't be trusted to make the decision themselves.

    As Melissa McEwen said, "[h]e's breathing life into the damnable lie that there are legions of women who seek out late-term abortions just because they've changed their silly little minds and make up lies about "mental distress" to get them."

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:21:53 PM EST
    you missed my point. My point is that he'll go in front of a crowd and pander to that crowd. Then the next day he'll go in front of another crowd who holds an opposing view and pander to them too. He tells every group what they want to hear. He tries to be all things to all people and in the end comes off as having no core values, stances that can always be compromised and a total waffling weasel.

    Parent
    I understood your point (none / 0) (#162)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:44:59 PM EST
    I just think it is pandering.  Saying one thing to someone and then saying something else that is NOT counter to that statment is not wrong.  People have different interests that do not conflict. The question of pandering or untruthfullness in this case can be answered by looking at the underlying question, does he believe that a women's right to choose is hers.  The answer is yes.  Thus through that lens, if you go into a group of secular individuals and talk about abortion, there is no need to talk about ministers.  If you go into a room of evangelicals, there often is the need.  

    One should not assert that there is a correct path to this very hard decision.   instead the goal, and I believe it is Obama's goal, is to  have many paths, that ultimately end with the women making a choice about her body.

    Parent

    But he (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:57:23 PM EST
    does say things are complete opposites of what he has said before. Take Iran for example. He's said that it's a threat and 2 days later said it wasn't a threat. What happened in those two days? Did new facts come up? Nothing and No are the answers.

    Frankly, I don't know if he believes in Roe v. Wade or not. Having lots of paths? That's why Obama comes off as indecisive and waffling. He should have just stuck to "safe, legal and rare" like Bill Clinton did. If you are in front of evangelicals then you can explain why you have your views. You don't have to pander to them. Most voters don't respect panderers and really question their ability to make decisions.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:08:46 PM EST
    He said Iran WAS a threat and WAS NOT a threat on the same day, to two different audiences in two different states.

    Parent
    You're once again (none / 0) (#169)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:49:21 PM EST
    in that annoying mode of a certain poster at Eschaton.

    Please don't remind me of him.


    Parent

    Just don't think of me as him (none / 0) (#182)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:00:11 PM EST
    I don't know what Eschaton is?  

    Parent
    A presidential candidate (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:30:54 PM EST
    is what we're talking about here.  A Constitutional law prof.  He ought not be basing what he says on what ministers say.  He ought to know what the Supreme Court says what the Constitution says.

    And Obama said something else.  That's the problem.

    A presidential candidate may, personally, question if life occurs at conception.  Obama questioned it publicly, which is not what a presidential candidate -- if he is a Dem, anyway -- ought to do.

    A presidential candidate must support a decision between a woman and her doctor and not suggest any others be involved.  That's the law.  Obama keeps bringing in the pastor, the husband or parents, and whoknowswho next, which is not what a presidential candidate -- if he is a Dem, anyway -- ought to do.

    Thus, the question of whether, at least on this issue, he is a Dem.
    Obama

    Parent

    No matter what, I'm voting for the Democrat. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Lysis on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:20:17 PM EST
    Now all I need is a Democrat to vote for.  Is one running?

    McCain will be a terrible president (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:21:37 PM EST
    most likely. And now that he has the FISA changes thanks to Obama, he might even be a worse president than he would have been a couple of days ago.

    Since putting pressure on Obama to be a Democrat doesn't seem to work, maybe we could start putting pressure on McCain to be a bit more to the middle. OK, a bit of a snark. :-)

    You might be snarking (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:49:10 PM EST
    but there's actually some truth in it. McCain seems to at least be interested in the votes of hillarycrats while Obama is more interested in the votes of evangelicals.

    Parent
    differences...feh!! (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by hilldemgoneindie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:34:38 PM EST
    you can argue differences about obama and mccain all day and night 'til hell freezes over. i don't care if mccain is a botched bush clone science project. i still will not vote for someone who i perceive by his many, many actions as a cheating, arrogant, misogynistic liar. that's just my humble little opinion based on the facts as presented to me.

    it boggles my mind how people imagine we're ever going to get rid of politics that aren't rife with corruption if we keep on accepting the status quo as a means to the end. would you accept it if your kids behaved horribly, writing it off as "oh, they're just kids?" or they're going through a phase, or the other kids are doing it... UGH.

    when do we americans - not democrats, republicans, or any of the many minor political parties but americans - when do we finally say that's enough and stop trying to be politically correct or savvy or strategic? when do we finally say our country is strong enough AND IMPORTANT enough to handle four years of mccain while we clean the house of the democratic party of the miscreants and political tyrants?

    mccain is no hitler - he may end up being the worst president ever (though i would suggest that obama might give bush a run for his money) but he's not hitler. further, satan himself could get elected president and the current spineless capitulating democrats would ask how high when told to jump so what's the diff anyway?

    and if anyone thinks obama is going to do the right thing by this country... well, don't hold your breath. he's already proven many times over in just a short while he is not to be trusted - by anyone.

    differences... feh!!

    Sharp Differences (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:41:08 PM EST
    True.  McCain is a nightmare on issues A, B, and C.  Obama is a nightmare on D, E, and F.  Paraphrasing what a commenter said in an earlier thread - it's like having a choice of getting one of two deadly and painful diseases.  No choice.

    For me (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:24:32 PM EST
    McCain is a non-issue. I will never vote for him. I like him as a person. But his social and economic policies over the last four to six years have left me cold. I feel no need to bash him.

    Out of loyalty to the Democratic Party... out of loyalty to Hillary... Out of loyalty to my country... I am still looking for a reason to vote for Obama. I have not yet found a legitimate one. Every time I hear what he has to say... he just makes me angrier.

    I like McCain as a person too (none / 0) (#175)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:55:40 PM EST
    but I don't like everything he says on policy.

    One thing I will give him kudos on is this:  He has a sharp sense of wit for a person his age.  

    Once upon a time, I had a mentor in the antiques industry (she was over 90) and she told me that most old people lost their senses of humor.  I subsequently read a study that proved the same thing:  Most old people lose their sense of humor.  

    For some reason, John McCain still has a great sense of humor.  His comments today (about making Gramm Ambassador to Belerus) were spot on and funny!  

    Yesterday I heard he made some crack about "killing Iranians one at a time by selling them cigarettes."

    Anyway, he's funny.  

    I've yet to hear Obama crack a joke.  Can anyone tell me a joke that Obama has made on the campaign trail?  He seems like he's so stiff.  

    Parent

    Hilarious (none / 0) (#195)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:11:38 PM EST
    Yesterday I heard he made some crack about "killing Iranians one at a time by selling them cigarettes."

    You really think this is funny?  It's disgraceful for anyone to say let alone a person seeking to be head of state.


    Parent

    How can anyone trust Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:02:23 PM EST
    Two Items:  

    FISA?
    Campaign Finance?

    I can't trust him.  If you can, good for you.  

    No doubt about differences (4.50 / 2) (#62)
    by Munibond on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:07:22 PM EST
    between center right and far right.  The question for me is whether to accept this as an appropriate choice or take a longer view.  I think we have been forced into a very narrow range of choices by the interests that fund the two dominant parties.

    Yet, the Middle roars (4.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Salt on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:54:46 PM EST
    ....Finally, the middle of the electorate is reasserting itself in this election. There are more swing voters than there were at this point in the campaign four years ago. The proportion of self-proclaimed independents is up from 2004 and nearly half say they are uncertain about their vote choice.

    The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 18-29 among 2,004 Americans


    Interesting note (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:36:36 PM EST
    from Steve Clemons, Obama fan:

    There has been a ton of interest among the people I have met in China over the last ten days in the US presidential elections.

    My informal poll of folks here runs something along the lines I heard from an anonymous think tank entrepreneur here in Pudong, Shanghai:

    "If we could vote, we would vote for Barack Obama's foreign policy and John McCain's economic policy. Can we merge them?"

    I have to admit, I never considered that particular Unity Ticket.

    He uses some (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:39:25 PM EST
    comment from a Chinese man about the election?

    Well, by all means, Clemons, let's give his opinion some credence.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:45:19 PM EST
    I've never been to China, but it seems to me that when you go there, you mostly end up talking to Chinese people.

    I find it's actually pretty interesting to hear the perspective of foreign folks on US politics.  One of Clemons' commentors said he had talked to a Chinese military officer in 2000 who really wanted Bush to win, because he figured it would be good for the Chinese military budget.  Smart bet, there.

    Parent

    Well, you miss one point (none / 0) (#41)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:50:49 PM EST
    and then make another.

    Parent
    I'm sure they like "Mr Free Trade" (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:46:37 PM EST
    for economic policies. I wonder if they've checked out Obama's backtrack on trade and his advisers?

    Obama has a foreign policy?

    Parent

    See there, you missed your chance (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:19:02 PM EST
    to tell us all about Obama's wunnerful foreign policy.

    Instead, you bashed McCain.

    Honestly, I've been asking Obama supporters to tell me what is so farging great about their candidate for six months now. In the primary, it was "His policies are the same as Clinton's" (so why not elect Clinton?) and now it's "He's not as bad as McCain."

    This is not very convincing.

    Go on, you wanted the opportunity. Take it.

    Parent

    Obama vs. McCain (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:34:47 PM EST
    I'm no Obamabot, and I have grave concerns about the guy, but my concerns about McCain go beyond grave and right INTO the grave.  One huge example: A man (McCain) who makes wildy ignorant and absurd statements about how safe the streets of Baghdad are, and must know they are b.s. unless he is completely out to lunch, is no man fit to be commander and chief.  Period.  I don't think Obama will end the war as fast as he needs to, I don't know WHAT he'll do, no one does, but McCain on this issue is so hawkish, so neo-con, and the long record is there to see, that it is off the charts frightening to ponder.  A billion dollars every few weeks in Iraq and McCain would be happy to keep it up for a century.  That is, on it's face, complete and imperialist insanity.

    Obama may infuriate, baffle and whatever me, but in this race, in this time and place, sorry, but to me, with a brother in Iraq for his third tour, no way, I won't let war policy continue even more to the right of Bush policy, which it almost assuredly would under McCain.  

    Like I said, though, Obama has certainly left much to be desired.  For me, however, it's not nearly enough to allow me to help McCain become president.  Can't do it.  

    You feel the opposite.  So be it.  Depressing as hell, the state we're in.  

    Parent

    Dadler my man.... (none / 0) (#207)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:27:59 PM EST
    if Obama didn't have my state locked up I'd vote for him after reading your comment.

    As someone firmly in the belief that it will take a third option to cure what ails us, I'm gonna try to get 'none of the above' some numbers.. since my horse can't win obviously I'm routing for Obama.

    Slim chance is preferable to none...you said it.

    Parent

    McCainomics (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:24:51 PM EST
    Of course the only thing that holds up the value of currency is people's confidence it has value.  But McCain is so disconnected and condescending and dismissive that he believes the people have no reason to lack confidence in the dollar.  He is telling the American people they are wrong to think what they do about the one thing they all have to to chase or get access to in order to survive in our modern world.  He is telling people, in essence, that their perception of their own lives is wrong.

    The recipe fro economic disaster is historically clear: wage a war of wild cost and even wilder unpopularity among your people.  McCain won't even let himself slip out of denial long enough to simply glance reality.  He is a robot of the military-industrial mindset.  He is a born and raised child of it, literally.


    Parent

    A friend and I were talking about the (none / 0) (#92)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:42:03 PM EST
    fact that technically, Pres and VP are voted on separately in the GE.  She was an Obama supporters during the primaries (and for you new folks on the board, I wasn't).

    We were giggling over how funny it would be if Obama  ran with Clinton as VP, but McCain won the top spot and she won VP.  Now THAT would be a hilarious situation.

    (ok, ok, yes I know the election is a very serious endeavor and I shouldn't be mocking it by rooting for a McCain-Clinton administation.  And yet...)

    Parent

    Since 1894? McCain isn't THAT old (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    and neither is television.

    I know you know that.  But it cracked me up.  Freudian slip?:-)

    Aha, I thought it was a typo, i.e., 1984. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:32:42 PM EST
    I'd like to see FMLA juxtaposed w/abortion (none / 0) (#125)
    by Exeter on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:17:54 PM EST
    Most nongovernmental employees in this country work for small businesses that are exempt from the FMLA.  How many of these millions of women have abortions every year because they can't afford the time off requried to have a baby?

    Here is... (none / 0) (#208)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:28:48 PM EST
    The stark difference I saw today.

    North Dakota 2000   Bush +28
    North Dakota 2004   Bush +27
    North Dakota Today McCain +1

    No matter what the remaining anti-Obama Dems think, nor what McCain and his economic adviser Phil Gramm think, the rest of the country is beginning to realize that the Dem brand is better able to fix this nation of whiners that are suffering from nothing more than a mental recession.

    Phil Gramm will provide a Dem bounce all by himself.