Asking Nicely: A Petition For Obama

The Nation is organizing a nice letter to Barack Obama asking him to be the progressive they believe him to be:

Dear Senator Obama,

We write to congratulate you on the tremendous achievements of your campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Your candidacy has inspired a wave of political enthusiasm like nothing seen in this country for decades. In your speeches, you have sketched out a vision of a better future--in which the United States sheds its warlike stance around the globe and focuses on diplomacy abroad and greater equality and freedom for its citizens at home--that has thrilled voters across the political spectrum. Hundreds of thousands of young people have entered the political process for the first time, African-American voters have rallied behind you, and many of those alienated from politics-as-usual have been re-engaged.

[MORE . . .]

You stand today at the head of a movement that believes deeply in the change you have claimed as the mantle of your campaign. The millions who attend your rallies, donate to your campaign and visit your website are a powerful testament to this new movement's energy and passion.

This movement is vital for two reasons: First, it will help assure your victory against John McCain in November. The long night of greed and military adventurism under the Bush Administration, which a McCain administration would continue, cannot be brought to an end a day too soon. An enthusiastic corps of volunteers and organizers will ensure that voters turn out to close the book on the Bush era on election day. Second, having helped bring you the White House, the support of this movement will make possible the changes that have been the platform of your campaign. Only a grassroots base as broad and as energized as the one that is behind you can counteract the forces of money and established power that are a dead weight on those seeking real change in American politics.

We urge you, then, to listen to the voices of the people who can lift you to the presidency and beyond.

Since your historic victory in the primary, there have been troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance--including, most notably, your vote for the FISA legislation granting telecom companies immunity from prosecution for illegal wiretapping, which angered and dismayed so many of your supporters.

We recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy. We understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense. But retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised.

Here are key positions you have embraced that we believe are essential to sustaining this movement:

 Withdrawal from Iraq on a fixed timetable.

 A response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between the rich and the rest of us through a more progressive financial and welfare system; public investment to create jobs and repair the country's collapsing infrastructure; fair trade policies; restoration of the freedom to organize unions; and meaningful government enforcement of labor laws and regulation of industry.

 Universal healthcare.

 An environmental policy that transforms the economy by shifting billions of dollars from the consumption of fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, creating millions of green jobs.

 An end to the regime of torture, abuse of civil liberties and unchecked executive power that has flourished in the Bush era.

 A commitment to the rights of women, including the right to choose abortion and improved access to abortion and reproductive health services.

 A commitment to improving conditions in urban communities and ending racial inequality, including disparities in education through reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and other measures.

 An immigration system that treats humanely those attempting to enter the country and provides a path to citizenship for those already here.

 Reform of the drug laws that incarcerate hundreds of thousands who need help, not jail.

 Reform of the political process that reduces the influence of money and corporate lobbyists and amplifies the voices of ordinary people.

These are the changes we can believe in. In other areas--such as the use of residual forces and mercenary troops in Iraq, the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan, the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the death penalty--your stated positions have consistently varied from the positions held by many of us, the "friends on the left" you addressed in recent remarks. If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don't. We look forward to an ongoing and constructive dialogue with you when you are elected President.

Stand firm on the principles you have so compellingly articulated, and you may succeed in bringing this country the change you've encouraged us to believe is possible.

Some of this I agree with, some of this I do not. But I won't sign the petition. Not because of my disagreements with some of the issue positions. But because I do not agree with the tactics nor even the description of how Obama has positioned himself on these issues.

There is not a progressive substantive issue that Obama has fought for or identified himself with forcefully and vigorously, other than his opposition to the war in Iraq (he did not fight to end it while a Senator) and, to his credit, he has stood by his timetable for leaving in 16 months. But other than that, there is not an issue you can call Obama's. He has no mandate for anything. He has not sought a mandate for anything.

The petition is nice. I applaud the thinking. But it is not a realistic document and it will mean nothing to Barack Obama. But by all means, give it a shot. If it works, hats off to all the signatories.

Speaking for me only

< Nacchio: 10th Circuit Orders Full Rehearing | Rethinking Rats >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's does make THE NATION ... (5.00 / 15) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:14:42 PM EST
    look a bit pitiful.

    Like Oliver Twist asking, "Please sir, can I have some more?"

    Except, as BTD notes, this is a Oliver Twist who never even got a first helping, even if he thought he did.

    I think it's pretty pitful they (5.00 / 11) (#4)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:18:17 PM EST
    even had to ask at the stage of the game.

    nyc....apparently desperate times call for (5.00 / 10) (#17)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:39:36 PM EST
    desperate measures...:)

    But do they have to sound ... (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:45:42 PM EST
    so desperate?

    Well yeah!! It couldn't be anything but... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:52:26 PM EST
    reminds me of a divorcee (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:36:41 PM EST
    who does want to admit they are getting divorced.

    doesn't want to admit they are getting divorced (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:42:41 PM EST
    I meant, and they are setting a list of demands to the spouse who filed the papers to be a better husband.

    Are you saying he's moved on? (5.00 / 11) (#110)
    by lmv on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:22:11 PM EST
    It does kind of look like progressives were kicked to the curb without even a cursory "I'll call you" and a fake cell number.  

    But, here's my question.  Who's the new honey?  Evangelicals?  Conservatives?  Moderates?  

    I honestly don't know.  Really.  That wasn't snark.


    Yep.... (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:47:03 PM EST
    ...please sir can I have some more, but it's okay if I can't.

    Please, sir, may I have some? (5.00 / 16) (#54)
    by lambertstrether on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:30:54 PM EST
    Because you can't have "some more" when you haven't had any.

    I don't know which aspect of the letter is more pathetic: The belief that Obama is some kind of progressive, or the belief that they have some power to influence him.

    Good luck to them!


    lambertstrether, you're breaking me up. (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by WillBFair on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:27:26 PM EST
    UHC is the only real game changer (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:35:56 PM EST
    everything else can go hang.

    that's nice (5.00 / 12) (#91)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:00:33 PM EST
    But, Obama has NEVER supported or proposed UHC.

    He proposed access to insurance if you fell like buying it


    UHC (5.00 / 9) (#100)
    by Miri on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:11:40 PM EST
    "He proposed access to insurance if you fell like buying it"

    That's right. No different than McCain.

    And the Nation didn't know this?

    These people are truly pathetic.

    Obama used GOP talking points against UHC throughout the primaries. He has never been for UHC.


    The Nation (5.00 / 14) (#72)
    by daria g on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:43:41 PM EST
    they look like suckers, IMHO.  Why didn't they hold him to account before now?  They could've taken a look at his advisers and what he was saying instead of pretty much blindy praising him to the skies and running some pretty vicious anti-Hillary stories.    

    The Nation was enamored of Obama (5.00 / 9) (#193)
    by stefystef on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:16:30 PM EST
    The editor would write about Obama like he was the savior, the Messiah of the progressive left and Obama would be the ONE who would make American great again.

    Well, Obama used them and now he's pushing folks aside.  And the Nation has to beg him to come back like a dumped girlfriend.

    Is this what is happening in the liberal circles?  This does not bode well.


    If they wanted someone (5.00 / 13) (#93)
    by Coral on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:03:44 PM EST
    who would take the progressive stand on these issues, they should have backed Hillary, not Obama.

    Why would Obama listen (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:17:59 PM EST
    to something that sounds exactly like something his own campaign would put out?

    This is a love letter.  The kind of thing a campaign responds to with a preprinted signature and a picture of the family dog.

    I wish I could swear. (5.00 / 12) (#3)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:18:15 PM EST
    Your candidacy has inspired a wave of political enthusiasm like nothing seen in this country for decades.

    This is infuriating.

    pie...yeah against obama, not for him... (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:40:42 PM EST
    Look how politically enthusiastic puma's are?

    Really? (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:23:31 PM EST
    It's about so-called political enthusiasm.  Been there.  Done that.

    Of late, for those with short memories, 2004 was a wave of political enthusiasm to rid the country of the Worst President Ever.  Is there an adjective worse than worst?  Because that's what we got.

    Unfortunately, we now have two fairly mediocre candidates.

    Political enthusiasm?



    I have not been so tepid (5.00 / 15) (#119)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    about a Dem presumptive nominee in decades.  I have not been so bored by a campaign as I am now.

    There is nothing of substance being discussed now.  And there is so much that needs to be debated and done.


    You said it. (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:43:24 PM EST
    I've said it.

    We've all said it.

    Instead, it's inane crap.

    Obama, you suck.


    Hi Cream. I am so bored I can't even read all (5.00 / 9) (#197)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:19:31 PM EST
    the comments on this post.  I have lost almost  all interest in the election because I am sitting this one out on the top spot.  We could have had an exciting, energetic, intelligent candidate who doesn't think she hangs the moon, and whose supporters think about the issues and don't continually make excuses for the flip-flops, etc.  In a way it has been a good thing because hubby and puppies are getting more attention and I'm getting my a$$ to the gym in the mornings; work has become a priority as well.  And I'm a happier person because I JUST DO NOT CARE ANYMORE.  The media and the DNC have annointed the Democratic candidate so they don't need me or my money.  Que sera sera.  

    and 2004 (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:47:48 PM EST
    also saw, during the campaign season, Michael Moore's documentary slamming the Bush Administration.  Lines around the block, people fired up all leading to yet another four years of Bush.

    As of yet, I don't get any excitement for Obama.  Sure, you see the crowds -- tummies full of free beer and the songs from the opening bands still ringing in their ears --, but do you see that enthusiasm translate to support?  To giving him a strong leg up in the Polls?

    Sure, polls this far out don't mean much, of course.  But when Obama's inevitable slide occurs, it would have been nice for him to have something of a buffer before heading for the political basement pre-November 4th.


    How many people signed the FISA (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:18:27 PM EST

    It's a nice petition, but I don't think it will work either.  

    Petitions are crap. (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:09:11 PM EST
    Worthless 9 times out of ten.  They keep the do-nothing pretend activists busy, tho...and give them the cover and feeling that they actually did something political.

    I never sign them...not since the 'stop invading Cambodia' petitions.  Learned my lesson.


    Do I have to tell everyone under this bus (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by honora on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:21:08 PM EST
    that the Nation is on its way?  Please we just had to make room for Ludachris, the guys down here will not be happy.

    When did Ludachris get tossed under?! (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:29:13 PM EST
    He wrote an offensive song (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:32:06 PM EST
    Obama rightly condemned him.

    Ah, ok. I knew about the song (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:33:16 PM EST
    but not that O had responded. Thanks!

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:50:19 PM EST
    The part where he asked for a pardon almost made up for all the bad stuff!

    I do believe that the Obama campaign (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by honora on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:33:04 PM EST
    said that Obama did not like the song.  "We were not amused and we do not want our daughters to listen to such things.", and then he waved his wand.

    Funny how during the primaries... (4.85 / 7) (#140)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:45:47 PM EST
    he allowed the song "I got 99 problems and the B***h ain't one o'them" to be played, alluding to Hillary.  Where was his concern then? Should I trust his sincerity?

    I think (2.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:52:59 PM EST
    that was one of those claims that, you know, didn't actually turn out to be true.

    I think not, but if you're right I stand corrected (none / 0) (#167)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:59:51 PM EST
    a little late in the day isn't it? where were (5.00 / 17) (#7)
    by hellothere on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:21:43 PM EST
    they during the primaries? oh yeah that's right they were in the tank for obama. maybe it would be better to aske for what you want and need first.

    Needs, wants, desires. (5.00 / 9) (#45)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:19:11 PM EST
    They teach that in kindergarten nowadays.

    Apparently some people's needs consisted of "Beat Hillary!".  They got what they thought they "needed" and now they are on wants and desires.

    I'll give them a standing ovation for that accomplishment and then I'll sit down and snicker quietly.


    a level of honesty rarely seen in print... (5.00 / 10) (#75)
    by Josey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:44:27 PM EST
    The Nation admitting they were duped by Obama's forked tongue.

    "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."  - Obama, The Audacity of Hope


    Some view this as a boast (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:49:48 PM EST
    I think it reflects ironic detachment, a recognition that it isn't really about him.

    Aah yes... (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:21:22 PM EST
    born with a silver fork in his mouth... like so many of our politicians. Nothing new there.

    There are always those (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:22:10 PM EST
    who say that politicans don't listen to the people.  The Nation is just another example of tone-deaf politics.

    But for some strange reason, people listened to Hillary Clinton.

    Yeh, some listened so hard to Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:34:38 PM EST
    that they heard things that weren't there.

    That Is For Sure (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:36:45 PM EST
    Particularly regarding the Iraq war, and Afghanistan.

    A one-issue voter? (5.00 / 6) (#139)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:45:43 PM EST
    Obama wasn't in the senate, so he's your guy?



    Incoherent As Usual (1.00 / 1) (#155)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:53:17 PM EST
    Your comment makes no sense.

    Squeaky, (5.00 / 5) (#206)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:23:01 PM EST
    you're not a Hillary supporter.

    I don't give a flying eff what you think, frankly.


    Well.... (none / 0) (#101)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:12:05 PM EST
    there ya go!

    Today's editorial in my local paper (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:22:58 PM EST
    called on Obama to join Senator McCain in a mutual sit down to discuss the issues.  The editors, who supported Obama, have now begun to ask for answers to some of his policy statements and seemed a little annoyed at his distancing. I wrote this which they are publishing tommorrow:
    Don't hold your breath waiting for Senator Obama to agree to a conversation with Senator McCain in your offices. Ever since Obama engaged in a difficult interview with CBS earlier this year, he has refused to do anything but give teleprompter speeches before large crowds. Last week in his appearance before La Raz,a friendly crowd I might add, he also refused questions.  Why should he?  He is the better candidate. We all know that.  Therefore there is no reason to spoil the illusion.

    That's just so "Wizard of Oz"-ish! (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:03:31 PM EST
    Don't look behind the curtain!  You might find a regular person!

    What I wouldn't give (5.00 / 10) (#48)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:20:55 PM EST
    for a little "teleprompter malfunction" just to see the man behind the curtain.

    Remember when Bill Clinton (5.00 / 12) (#79)
    by mogal on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:45:39 PM EST
    found the wrong speech in the teleprompter during his state of the union speech? He didn't miss a beat and no one knew until his aids told the story afterwards. Oh how I miss those times!

    I remember that (5.00 / 12) (#95)
    by Miri on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:05:28 PM EST
    I didn't have much of an opinion of him until that night. I was truly shocked to hear the teleprompter had failed when he was giving that speech to Congress. It was clear he had thought the issues through in his head and knew the policy inside out.

    There are very few politicians alive today who could do what he did that night. Al Gore could do it. Hillary could do it. That is about it.

    Why can't we have Al Gore as the nominee?

    Damn it, I want a president with substance and intelligence once again.

    I feel sick to my stomach watching The One give Hallmark speeches from the teleprompter. He reminds me of Bush.


    I miss Bill! (5.00 / 7) (#113)
    by lmv on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:27:35 PM EST
    A friend of mine, an Obama supporter who would have been happy to vote for Hillary, said to me the other day, "everybody loves Bill!"

    I'm sorry.  I know it's not PC these days but I miss Bill.  


    Oh, but we HAVE... (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:06:39 PM EST
    and it hasn't been pretty, yet his adlibbing gaffs don't stick to Mr. Teflon-can. Not yet, anyway.

    He was interviewed this last (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:52:05 PM EST
    week by CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, and FOX.

    He was interviewed? (none / 0) (#102)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:12:35 PM EST
    By the media?

    Hardhitting questions?  I don't remember hearing that.


    Yes, Katie Couric (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:36:04 PM EST
    relentlessly grilled him about the surge--it was fairly widely reported.  That was the interview where she played McCain's rebuttals right after Obama's answers--and edited out McCain's gaffes about when the surge and Sunni awakening started.  Katie was a big Hillary fan and has stated publicly sexism is worse than racism.

    He was on Meet the Press with Tom Brokaw for an entire hour.  Not easy but not excessively in your face.

    Bill Hemmer of FOX asked him about his cancelled trip to visit wounded troops in Germany.  Digging for the typcial FOX dirt.

    Obama has received much less favorable coverage from the Big Three Networks than McCain.  Obama gets a lot of coverage but it comes with a lot of digs...


    If you think (5.00 / 7) (#211)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:25:41 PM EST
    those were tough interviews, you're younger than I thought.

    I'm finding myself at odds with the Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:35:50 PM EST
    over the rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The Dems are trying to save it.  

    Someone who runs a very apolitical economics/finance blog (he refuses to discuss politics at all) said a couple of weeks ago that the rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would likely take $1+ trillion dollars and the danger was that it would cross contaminate the Treasury bond market and wipe the USA off the financial map.  

    The current government has been hemming and hawing over the size of the rescue -- last week they said "$25 billion" but they raised the national debt ceiling over $500 billion...  Then I found this editorial today (written by Dick Armey, whom I don't like but I agree with him on this issue) here.

    An explicit government guarantee for Fannie and Freddie could ultimately end up costing taxpayers more than $1 trillion, according to an analysis by Standard & Poor's in April.

    Obama supports rescuing Fannie and Freddie, as does Pelosi and all of the Dems as far as I know.  McCain doesn't support this and he's in the minority with only a handful of Republicans standing by his side.  

    The rescue of Fannie and Freddie is OLD POLITICS.  It's a recipe for total disaster and it shows once again that our politicians (almost all of them) only care about the rich and mighty.  This is Enron X 1,000,000.

    Anyway, the petition above doesn't address this issue and only looks towards "Reform of the political process that reduces the influence of money and corporate lobbyists and amplifies the voices of ordinary people" and some basic Democratic principles towards the economy.  

    Somehow, we need to get people focused on this issue because it's huge and it will affect us all.  

    Franklin D. Raines (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:48:05 PM EST
    is an Obama advisor on Fannie/Freddie per this link.

    In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae's chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself.

    Let's put all the foxes back in the hen houses!


    More bad news. (none / 0) (#104)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:14:41 PM EST
    GM and Ford are reviewing their leasing operations because of the value of used cars.

    Value of used gas-guzzlers, I think they mean.


    GM is laying off 15% of white-collar workers (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:40:11 PM EST
    said NPR tonight.  GM agreed that the figure was "about right."

    I don't wanna think about how many thousands of workers that means in a company the size of GM.  We're just beginning to deal in my state with 7,000 blue-collar workers and others laid off with the closing of a GM plant.

    The ripple effect is picking up.  See the number of big dining chains closing?  Story in the paper listed several.  No discretionary income for some folks, while others are in fear that they might be next.  Consumer confidence is going to tank worse than seen before, I bet.  And then the ripple will become a tsunami.


    So...ummm... (5.00 / 23) (#16)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:37:34 PM EST
    Why didn't they think about this in the first place? Like when he was one of many candidates vying for the nomination?

    This is like...the horses leaving, someone shut the gate, and put out a sign:

    Dear Horses,

    Please come home.


    I just laughed and laughed (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:48:36 PM EST
    You have hit the nail on the head.

    Or...They are like jilted lovers turned stalker.


    LOLOLOLOL! (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:57:55 PM EST
    Me too, I'm still laughing.  Brilliant!

    or (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:47:36 PM EST
    like filing a motion in court where the person being divorced sets up a list of demands for the husband/wife be a better more loyal spouse.

    Now that you are divorcing me Hariet/Harold i'd like you to pick up the kids and do the dishes and PS please do the dishes every third day and vacuum once a week...or stop drink at Honky Tonk bar ,woman--I can't stand it when you don't come home at night and forget to give the kids their dinner.

    The judge would have to think wtf?


    LOL - Perfect (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by lmv on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:17:55 PM EST
    You said it.

    Wasn't the time to nail down his stands and get his commitment before the presumptive nomination?

    According to Rasmussen, there are twice as many uncommitted voters as there were in 2004 and there are about 1 1/2 times more uncommitted Democrats as Republicans.  Really, does that surprise anyone following this election?  

    There is a reason inexperienced candidates have such a tough time getting elected.  It's not just that Obama has a thin resume (which has been talked to death, I agree) but he's making some big rookie mistakes.  The biggest one is not standing for anything.  He came home with some pretty pics from Europe but what did he do?

    Despite all the pundits and commentators and talking heads, voters want something and someone they can believe in.  "I voted for X because he/she stood for Y."  


    OT (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    But BTD, I just had to say how sorry I was for missing the VP thread earlier.  It was an almost perfect mind-meld!

    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:56:43 PM EST
    does not see it our way you know. In this as in most things I think.

    On the blogs (5.00 / 10) (#51)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:26:33 PM EST
    by far the most annoying theme I have seen is "he's the nominee, it's his decision."

    Well duh, of course it's his decision!  If he wins the election, everything within the scope of Article II will be his decision for the next four years!  Does that mean we all get to sit around and see what happens?

    It's like Obama has single-handedly killed off the concept of activism.


    Yeah the movement (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:41:05 PM EST
    reminds me of a neat Stalinist clique.  But strangely located on teh righ of center of the political spectrum.

    It's the oddest thing i've seen in American politics in the last 140 years.


    No wonder you're so smart! (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:45:16 PM EST
    well i'm not claiming (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:50:48 PM EST
    i'm an eyewitness to the lat 140 years.

    Just the history of presidential selection post civil war.


    Why don't you just admit it... (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:18:15 PM EST
    you're Duncan McLeod...and there can be only one.

    The blogs that say it's his decision (5.00 / 8) (#131)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:42:46 PM EST
    are the same ones that, if the decision is wrong, will say that his decision was Hillary's fault.

    You can take that one to the bank.  If, of course, the bank has not had to close its doors. . . .


    I think deep inside of me, I always thought he (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:05:49 PM EST
    would give in and choose Hillary. After watching the news, I'm about 100% sure he won't. I just don't understand and I'm surprisingly disappointed even though I started out not wanting her to be the VP. I didn't want her to get blamed if he lost.

    Now that I think he will win, I want him to choose her because I think he needs a VP like her. What a wasted opportunity.


    18 million votes for nothing (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by lmv on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:37:31 PM EST
    Any other candidate would look at the primary results and say, "hey, the easiest way for me to unite the party is to pick my very popular opponent!"  He or she would do so and look like a genius.  

    Why can't Obama?  I can't think of a serious reason not to ask Hillary.  (Spare me the Bill histrionics.)  Now, if she declines, that's another issue.

    It would make him look gracious, confident, and statesmanlike.  


    I Think Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:44:39 PM EST
    Would be the best choice as well. The main problem, as I see it is that he locked himself into the BS nonsense talking point:

    Change you can believe in.

    And Hillary is the opposite of change in most people's minds. Most people that I have talked to think that Hillary as VP would represent a contradiction. Many people see the Clinton's as old school.

    It is stupid because the only change going on is eliminating GOP rule for a third term, not a small change, but much smaller that Obama has implied.


    Because there must be some things (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:45:20 PM EST
    more important to him than uniting the party?

    That's all I can think, when I also follow the line of thinking you lay out here.

    And yeh, as if Bill would be the problematic spouse.  I also think that there is another who can't be hidden from the glare forever, and who will make headlines again.


    You make an excellent point - why not unite? (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by lmv on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:59:54 PM EST
    Are they really trying to rid the party of the "Clinton wing" whatever that's supposed to be?

    Just a question.  But, you made me think.

    What would be his reasons for not uniting the party?  He's not only not made any substantive outreach to Hillary's supporters, his surrogates have gone out of their way to be insulting.  And, his donors have raised little money to pay off her debt.

    Why would he do this?  Just a question.


    All Projection (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by pluege on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:53:35 PM EST
    The Nation and other former paragons of the progressive movement (who have been named many times on this blog), from opening day of the "election season" projected their progressive agenda onto Obama without a shred of reality that Obama supported any of it (in fact his republican courting [which they so blithely ignored] ALWAYS suggested just the opposite). They, and they alone created the myth in their heads that Obama is progressive.

    Naturally, being that he was in a struggle for the nomination Obama did nothing to correct their delusions and also naturally egged them on with his rhetorical slight of hand abstractions of change and humanity, but never with actual policies to support the progressiveness the deluded ones were imagining and projecting on to him.

    Now that Obama has been exposed for the center-right candidate that he is (complete without an end to war, but merely shifting to a different war as what he meant all along), their feeble attempts to rescue their fantasies by getting Obama buy-in are really, really pathetic. Someday maybe the deluded ones will join the reality-based community, but I wouldn't count on it.

    I expect that someone (none / 0) (#78)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:45:38 PM EST
    will be doing a piece any day now on the death of the reality based community.

    He needs a signature issue other than Iraq. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:55:34 PM EST
    McCain out polls him there. Change sounds nice after the last seven years but I'd like to know what we are changing to. I don't think it is "get along with Republicans" because we already give in to them.

    Pathetic (5.00 / 10) (#30)
    by Barbara D on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:57:33 PM EST
    It's sad how they just don't get it. They don't understand that Obama used them to get the nomination. They projected what they wanted to see and he enabled them to believe the charade!

    And Obama's reply will be...what? What's the old (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:58:26 PM EST
    expression? "Laughing up his sleeve"?

    Obama's Reply.... (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:40:49 PM EST
    That's easy enough.  He'll just dust it off his shoulder, scrape it offthe bottom of his shoe and scratch the side of his nose with his middle finger.

    Re Obama's vote for FISA. (5.00 / 12) (#33)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:59:48 PM EST
    Why the deafening silence?  

    They're sheep, not citizens (5.00 / 10) (#34)
    by fafnir on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:00:11 PM EST
    Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, "The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens."

    Our republic is sick, are candidates are weak, and the best that The Nation can do is to beg a conservative, neo-liberal, empty suit for consideration of their values rather than to demand it?

    The letter makes me feel vindicated for canceling my subscription to The Nation magazine more than a year ago.

    Let's Just Accept It, The Progressive Agenda (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Richjo on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:07:02 PM EST
    will be DOA in an Obama administration. Obama will not take the risks necessary to advance that agenda in any meaningful way. Obama's priority will be securing re-election, not any issue progressives truly care about. He won't take those risks in his first term, and by the time he is willing too it will be too late because the backlash against the Bush years will have subsided. An Obama adminstration can hopefully stop our backward slide in many important areas, but anyone hoping for really forward progress is deluding themselves.

    I was embarrassed (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:09:52 PM EST
    for The Nation when I read this. OT on another note: If he doesn't choose HRC, I hope he does it soon so he has time to try and recover from the decision. Reading this Nation thing and other stuff with the campaign is making me very nervous. This whole narrative of him not having a plan etc. For those of you who said it was pathetic (The nation letter), I wholeheartedly agree. Staring to get what I call the Kerry knot in my stomach (We will find a way to blow this; I hope not).

    What Movement? (5.00 / 11) (#41)
    by santarita on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:11:01 PM EST
    The Nation's letter is a lot of wishful thinking.   Is there really a movement that has bought into all of the points that The Nation outlines?  Or is the "movement" a loose conglomeration of anti-Iraq War/Occupation people, anti-Clinton people, progressives  and people who liked the catchy phrases and the people who saw Obama as The Next Big Thing.   And if there is a movement, who is or who are the leaders?  Certainly not Obama.  

    Obama caught a wave and is going along with it.  The loose conglomeration that The Nation thinks of as a movement will be ineffective power players in Washington.

    I think Obama will respond in about two and a half years when the election cycle starts up again.  

    A lot of true progressives are not anti-Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by pluege on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:25:19 PM EST
    Or is the "movement" a loose conglomeration of ...anti-Clinton people,...

    Both of the Clintons may not be (have been) as progressive as many would like (would have liked), but they are infinitely supportable by reality-based progressives. Obama is also supportable by reality-based progressives even though he is even LESS progressive than the Clintons.  

    The following may be said:

     1) Obama supporters are anti-Clinton.
     2) Obama supporters may be progressive.

    But it does NOT follow from this that:

    progressive = anti-Clinton.


    I agree... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by santarita on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:59:29 PM EST
    and I didn't mean to suggest that anti-Clintonites were by definition progressive.  In fact, by definition to the extent that they were motivated by hatred and flawed understanding of the past, they epitomize the opposite i.e. they aren't rational. What I was trying to say is that there really isn't one unifying movement behind Obama, that there is a lot of discrete groups who seem to be unified by the person as opposed to a set of principles.

    Next up (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by cawaltz on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:16:20 PM EST
    a sternly worded letter if he doesn't comply with their nicely worded request. Sigh. It seems to be the modus operandi for Democrats and somehow, like CharlieBrown with the darn football, they do it over and over.

    That whole... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:19:39 PM EST
    "here we go again..." vibe has just gotten under my skin.

    Followed by a series of (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:17:15 PM EST
    "But...but...but...you said..." pouts.

    Asking nicely is humiliating. (5.00 / 11) (#44)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:18:10 PM EST
    We are the people of the United States.
    We are supposed to be electing public servants.
    We have been in some sort of monarchy - or corporate controlled state - for so long we have forgotten what it feels like to be in control of our own destinies.

    Yes."There is not a progressive substantive issue that Obama has fought for or identified himself with forcefully and vigorously, other than his opposition to the war in Iraq (he did not fight to end it while a Senator) and, to his credit, he has stood by his timetable for leaving in 16 months."

    But even his opposition to the war in Iraq is suspect.
    As you mention he did nothing as a Senator to end the war. He voted to fund it. He supported Lieberman. And I don't agree that he has stood by his timetable. He added a rather large loophole to that commitment when he claimed Bush's "listening to the commanders on the ground' as his own. So I don't know where he stands - even on Iraq. I don't know if he wants us out or not.
    I had a more positive impression from Hillary Clinton on this issue - which was unexpected.

    So - if the issue is the avoidance of Bush's third term, Obama had better begin to convince the 66% who disapprove of Bush that he, Obama, would not be that third term.

    To be devil's advocate for a moment:

    Obama is not taking any progressive stands.
    Not on civil liberties, not on health care, not on corporate domination of the political process and not on the war in Iraq.
    Neither is McCain.
    But - people might be led to feel that McCain is the one who could actually end the war. Nixon was the one who opened the door to relations with China. He could do so because he and his cronies were the ones who closed that door. So, McCain is the one with the credibility should he decide to pull our troops out.
    He would not be afraid to be called weak. Obama hasn't got that luxury. And because he is not taking a moral or courageous stand on ending the war, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He could be motivating the hunger of the American people for peace. But for reasons known to him and his advisors and sponsors, he is doing nothing to galvanize the electorate. And this is really a shame because the electorate is starving for leadership. And instead, Obama is going around reciting fairy tales.

    His trip to Europe was another example.
    A real waste of time.
    Pure show biz - meant to establish credentials among those who couldn't be less interested.

    I was really startled to read the poll results showing McCain gaining on Obama. One even had McCain ahead.

    And it is Obama's fault.
    And it is the fault of the people on the left who so unquestioningly championed him - and for the most part continue to do so. The best they can come up with are the pathetic supplications embodied in the "petition" quoted above.

    And lastly, Obama is apparently not even considering asking Hillary Clinton to run with him. He should be on his knees.

    I pondered the Iraq/Europe tour. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:27:49 PM EST
    I wondered what he could do that would get the same message across.  I figured that his trip, shallow though it was, was probably a good idea PR wise.

    Otherwise, what did he have for National Security and International Relations credentials?  Almost nothing.  He still has almost nothing substantial, but he's got some good photo ops.  And elections are all about image, PR and marketing.  Sadly.


    The first half of his trip was worthwhile (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:49:49 PM EST
    but the second half was not, and negated the benefit of the first half.  Or worse.

    There was concern that he had not been to the Middle East enough.  But I don't recall a great clamor about him not have been near the Brandenburg gate enough.

    Above all, he needed to spend the trip listening.  The first half looked more like that.  The second half was about him talking again.


    Too little too late (5.00 / 8) (#47)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:20:02 PM EST
    I've been wondering how so many of the progressive blogs would handle the reality that they forcefully backed a candidate that, in reality, has very little of their interests at heart. If this letter is an example of their effort to right the ship, they're sunk!

    Dear Santa (5.00 / 15) (#49)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:23:35 PM EST
    Please send me a pony. And an iPhone. And please make my democratic nominee agree with my views on important policies.

    The Nation

    Dear The Nation,

    No on the pony, too difficult to carry. No on the iPhone, I can't even get one for myself. And on making the nominee agree with your views on policies, perhaps you should have picked a nominee who agreed with yours views in the first place. It's a little late asking for that now. So no on that score as well. How about a nice stuffed animal. An elephant perhaps.


    The Nation (5.00 / 15) (#53)
    by Miri on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:29:15 PM EST
    Is there a more pathetic magazine than the Nation? OK, maybe the New Republic.

    Obama has never been a progressive. If the idiots at the Nation had looked at his record, such as it is, they would have known this. Instead they projected their hopes and desires onto him and saw in him something that was never there.

    Paul Krugman was the only liberal pundit to say wait a minute this guy is not a true progressive. He is running on empty slogans like lets all hold hands and get along.

    Transformative candidates run on issues. They forcefully advocate for policies that will radically change the country. Contrary to the belief of his cult followers Obama has never shown the capacity to be a transformative candidate. His main issue is himself and how wonderful he is and how we all need to get along.  This is not a platform for meaningful change. It is Hopium.

    And the editors at the Nation have been smoking Hopium. They are fools.

    Polite letters won't do much. (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by ajain on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:34:00 PM EST
    I got an e-mail calling everyone to action against Tim Kaine:

    The latest word on candidates for Vice-Pres. on an Obama ticket has Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia at the top of the list.  Gov. Kaine is NOT pro-choice.  The Senator and the DNC need to hear from women -- and all supporters of a women's right to make decisions for her own body --that we cannot support someone who does not support us!

    DNC # 202-863-8000
    Obama Campaign # 866-675-2008

    Martha Baker
    Baker Consulting llc / Equity in Education & Employment

    I feel like this is a better way to make your self heard.
    I bet this letter was by Katrina vanden Heuvel. Sounds like her. In any case its passive. He might as well take this group for granted since they will always be there with him, even if they disagree with him. This is allegedly your activist left.

    The Senator needs to hear women. (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:52:22 PM EST
    He has heard from a lot of women, and you can see how well that has worked.  As long as he's got the cute young ones, so what?

    No true progressive will ever hold a position of (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by pluege on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:34:14 PM EST
    power in the United States government until Big Media is broken up.

    It's a cynical time... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:36:20 PM EST
    ...when what is right and elegantly so is perceived as pointless.  Imagine, as John Lennon sand, a superpower acting as no superpower in the history of the world has.  A superpower admitting it was traumatized by the worst terrorist attack in the history of manking, admitting it make horrible mistakes of unforgivable proportion, and asking the world to be BETTER than we are.  The petition may not work, but it is certainly not to be denigrated or dismissed.  If Obama does dismiss things such as this, or they have no utilitarian effect on him, then he isn't worth a good or bad godd*mn.

    We live in certifiably pathetic times, both intellectually and socially.  That is, considering what we have been through historically and what we should have learned.

    I did not denigrate it (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:43:49 PM EST
    I do dismiss it.

    I hope I am proven wrong.

    If I am, more power to them.

    I would love to eat crow on this one.


    you won't have to worry (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:46:58 PM EST
    about developing an appetite for "crow" anytime soon.

    LOL! (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by Miri on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:36:45 PM EST
    "Please send me a pony. And an iPhone. And please make my democratic nominee agree with my views on important policies."

    The nominee is laughing his ass off!

    He used you to advance his career and now he is laughing at you because you are such idiots.

    It is not his fault that you declared him Lincoln/FDR/RFK all rolled into one. He was selling Hopium and you bought it.

    LOL! (5.00 / 9) (#69)
    by Miri on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:42:27 PM EST
    "The Senator and the DNC need to hear from women"

    The Senator and the DNC gave the women of this country the finger during the primaries.

    After all women have no choice. They have to vote for The One or McCain will take away Roe v Wade!

    All they have to do is repeat Roe v Wade over and over again and women of this country will embrace The One. This is what they are counting on.

    They see women as pathetic creatures, obedient, fearful, easily manipulated.

    Obama could pick Dick Cheney as his VP and his cult followers would make excuses for him.

    This is about the third "list" (5.00 / 12) (#77)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:45:22 PM EST
    of supposed Obama positions that I have seen that have listed Universal Healthcare.

    Has The Nation lost all theie memories?  Obama NEVER supported or proposed Universal Healthcare.

    He proposed universal access to private insurance if you felt like buying it.

    How they have turned that into Universal Healthcare is puzzling to say  the least.

    BTD is right on with this post.  I don't recognize anything from this wish list that Obama ever really strogly supported.

    Sorry BTD (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:06:58 PM EST
    His opposition to the war was not vigorous.  If it was vigorous, there'd be more than one obscure speech.

    He doesn't even have that.

    No, he doesn't. (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:31:32 PM EST
    But people climbed on the bandwagon anyway.

    He's had over a year to be impressive without propping.

    Even with propping he's unimpressive.

    Thanks, DNC.


    Oh, by the way (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by candideinnc on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:18:03 PM EST
    Don't forget to stop kissing up to homophobic evangelic preachers. Some of us would like than an awful lot.

    Full repeal of DOMA (2.00 / 2) (#129)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:40:11 PM EST
    OK, now you are telling lies again.

    Rev Wright has always been a gay inclusive preacher
    Additionally Obama wants full repeal of DOMA, but Hillary will not support that.  In fact she is still fully in support of sections 1 and 2.    This is HUGELY significant now that California allows same sex marriage and Massachusetts is going to allow out of state couples to marry.

    Additionally, I have not heard one word about Hillary's position on Proposition 8.  Obama has already come out strongly against it and campaigned against it.  Why hasn't Hillary gone to California to campaign against it?  


    He was talking about (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:43:37 PM EST

    McClurkin (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:46:44 PM EST
    OK, McClurkin, but he has also told McClurkin that he is wrong.  He has gone to black churches across American and told them that they are wrong to discriminate.  He stood in Ebenezer back in January and told that Congregation that we need to include gay issues as civil rights issues.

    I see no other politician at the national level spending so much time telling religious leaders that they are wrong when they are not gay and lesbian inclusive.


    And yet (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:57:11 PM EST
    Advocate April 08

    Obama rarely gave interviews to the gay press...

    The Advocate: Let's start with what's hot -- why the silence on gay issues? You've done only one other interview with the LGBT press. I know people wish they were hearing more from you.

    Senator Obama: I don't think it's fair to say "silence" on gay issues. The gay press may feel like I'm not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times. Obviously, when you've got a limited amount of time, you've got so many outlets. We tend not to do a whole bunch of specialized press. We try to do general press for a general readership.

    Oh yes, I'm sure Maureen Dowd has the same complaint.


    Are you complaining (2.00 / 2) (#177)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:06:27 PM EST
    Because he doesn't compartmentalize?  Look I would rather have a President who can talk about gay issues in front of a general audience and who never talks to the gay press, than a president who talks to the gay press on a regular basis, but never talks about gay issues in front of the general population.

    No. (5.00 / 5) (#210)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:25:30 PM EST
    I'm complaining because Obama's concept at the time was that talking to conservative audiences about gays was the talking to the "general population."  And denying access to the gay media was appropriate in that context.  Well, I don't think small talks in front of churches are "general audiences."  I think he could have done more.  Wingnuts are wingnuts, not "general audiences."

    I thought Hillary did a much better job of embracing gays in the mainstream and in the gay community.  She attracted much more press for embracing the gay community, and gave a greater number of interviews.  Whereas Obama seemed to treat gays as a special interest group.  Personally, I found his interview with the Advocate to be a source of dissatisfaction, from his chracterization of a gay professor as not "prosleytizng him" to his resentment of interacting with the gay press on their terms, and, finally, to abdicating a leadership role on gay rights - "That doesn't mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. King back then, I would have told him to lead with repealing an antimiscegenation law, because it just might not have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward.

    That's a decision that the LGBT community has to make. That's not a decision for me to make."

    He's the party leader now.  Again, his statement about gay marriage in Cali was quite good.  But I still find his attitude in the primaries to be perplexing.


    yes, i know the drill (5.00 / 8) (#173)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:03:29 PM EST
    he told them they were wrong.  But, still associates with them and still values them...

    Is that the way he treats racist bigots?   No???  Why???  because he thinks racial bigotry is WORSE than anti-gay bigotry..... and, I have a BIG problem with that.  bigotry is bogotry and should all be treated the same way.  even if it comes from deeply held religious beliefs lke anti-gay bigotry does.


    No one has done more (4.90 / 10) (#147)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:49:54 PM EST
    Yes.  I know.

    And possible James T. Meeks (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:18:06 PM EST
    A reverend/state senator/Chicago connection of Sen. Obama's with a case of homophobia.

    Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for "spiritual counsel", James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner...

    [N]ot only has Meeks himself served on Obama's exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the Obama's campaign website as one of the senator's `influential black supporters', but his church choir was called on to raise their voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007....

    A spring 2007 newsletter from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named Meeks one of the "10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement". The newsletter cites him as both "a key member of Chicago's `Gatekeepers' network, an interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state" and "a stalwart anti-gay activist... [who]... has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major state-level `family values' pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in `clearly understanding the threat of gay marriage.'"

    Oh (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:44:16 PM EST
    And he said he'd vote against FISA too.

    Why won't he have his picture taken with Mayor Gavin Newsom?


    In 2004 (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:50:39 PM EST
    Bill Clinton spent a lot of time trying to get Kerry to come out more strongly against same sex marriage.   Since Kerry lost, I am sure you will now argue that maybe Kerry should have come out against it.

    Obama has, even just this month, come out strongly against Proposition 8.  If he wanted to support a ban on same sex marriage, he would have had every opportunity to do so by endorsing it, or even keeping his mouth shut.  Instead he has come out strongly against it and yet you still refuse to recognize this.


    You'd do well (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:51:48 PM EST
    To stop lying about Bill.

    the more they lie (5.00 / 7) (#199)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:20:02 PM EST
    about the Clintons -- or even bring them up in an unkind way --, the more you know they're worried about Obama's campaign.

    CDS, you know.  When all else fails, blame Bill and Hillary.


    again, didn't Obama (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:55:52 PM EST
    promise to be a "new kind" of politician?  Why won't you hold him to that standard instead of constanly comparing him to "old style" politicians when he ran AGAINST those kind of politics in the primary?

    The new part is (2.00 / 2) (#168)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:59:53 PM EST
    That he is taking a different stance, a much more brave one that the politicians took in the past.

    Again, it would have been very easy for Obama to completely ignore Propostion 8, after all it is a issue for the state of California.  Instead he has come out against it.   he is urging California citizens to vote against it.

    I am comparing because Obama's position is much better than any of the nominees have taken in the past.

    Now, I will admit that Al Gore has the best position of all, but he is not running this year.  I will also admit that he would have had my vote if he did.


    New? (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:09:42 PM EST
    New was trying to change the situation of gays in the military in the early 90s when it wasn't "fashionable" before getting undermined by members of your own party.

    Obama's position on gay issues is EXACTLY (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:22:13 PM EST
    the same as Hlllary's position with the exception of the one difference you pointed out on DOMA and that difference accomplishes NOTHING.

    The difference is that Obama tries to take his position on gay issues and make it APPEAR like it is more than it is.  He supports civil unions and then tries to make you believe it is EQUAL when it is the same as the old separate but equal crap.  INone ofthe earlier debates he tries to have it both ways by saying he thought the state should leave the word "marriage" to the churches.  He IMPLIED that states would issue civil union licenses to ALL couples gay and straight and churches could then do what they wanted to about marriage.  Many of his supporters believed this was what he meant.  I posted on his web site and got his campiagn to admit that he didn't mean that at all.  He only meant that the state should leave the word marriage to churhces for GAY couples.  Again, separate.  I could have supported his position if it meant civil unions for ALL.  Because it would have ended up as marriage for ALL anyway because many churches would MARRY gay couples.

    At least with Hillary, she holds the same position but doesn't try toconvince you that itis MORE than what it is.


    Hillary isn't the (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:49:27 PM EST
    presumptive nominee.

    Why should she?  She worked much longer hours when she was running for the nomination.  Now she's working for the country in her capacity asa senator.


    Um (2.00 / 1) (#161)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:56:53 PM EST
    Because she and her supporters still claim that she is a national figure.  They still claim that she needs to represent her 18 million votes.

    Additionally because David Patterson is going to recognize marriages performed in other states like California.  This will have a huge impact on the citizens of her state.


    She is a national figure. (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:07:12 PM EST
    And not the fraud that he is.

    Sorry, that trip across the pond was in poor taste.


    really? (none / 0) (#184)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:09:58 PM EST
    Hmm, it seems very funny that just a few weeks ago everyone was still criticizing him for not having gone overseas.  

    Why was it in bad taste?  


    Who's everyone? (5.00 / 5) (#198)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:19:43 PM EST
    You don't get foreign policy creds in a whirlwind tour across the pond.

    damn (5.00 / 6) (#203)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:21:54 PM EST
    so I can't stand on the steps of City Hall and then claim to have what it takes to be Mayor?  Or suit up in scrubs, hang around a hospital and then claim to have the ability to perform open heart surgery?



    Omigosh! (5.00 / 7) (#145)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:49:47 PM EST
    Hillary fully supports section 1 of DOMA?  The one that reads, in its entirety,


    This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act."

    That's really something!

    As for section 2, the section that says no state is compelled to recognize another state's marriage if it offends their public policy, that's nothing more than a restatement of what the case law already provided prior to DOMA.  And spelling it out in the statute was probably the single most effective tactic in combating a federal marriage amendment.

    But it sure sounds better to say Obama favors repeal of the entire statute, right?  Means he must be even better on GLBT issues, hmm?  Don't forget to point out he wants to repeal the all-important section 1 while you're at it!


    Thank you (1.00 / 4) (#153)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:52:50 PM EST
    Thank you for pointing out my flaws.  When Bill Clinton went on Christian radio stations in 1996 crowing about how he supported DOMA it was all for my own good.   I forgot that Bill Clinton was allowed to be bigoted on Christian Radio

    Thank you so much for letting me know that I am just a worthless little fag and wouldn't be anywhere without Bill Clinton.


    Heh (5.00 / 11) (#159)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    Got caught in a dishonest argument, and now you have to try and make me into a gay-basher to weasel your way out, huh?  Nice try.

    You'll be a racist too (5.00 / 8) (#171)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:01:28 PM EST
    soon enough.

    Well done Steve. (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:03:07 PM EST
    And for the record, I appreciate the comments Obama made that embraced gay marriage in California and congratulated the newly hitched couples.  But his bizarre relationship with the gay media during the primary was certainly not progressive.  Basically, the gays were runners up and great conversation pieces on his evangelical camapaign tour.  That just irritates me.  I don't need the approval of evangelicals and I think Dem politicans should encounter gays on a non-evangelical level.  The gay community doesn't need to be translated to evangelicals alone; it has its own needs and functions despite some insane hate and ignorance.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:30:25 PM EST
    I was also very happy with what Obama said on the CA issue.  It has extra meaning when he takes a bold stance, because it sends a signal to other Democrats that they can take a bold stance, too, and the world won't end.  That's why I get frustrated that he doesn't take more of them!

    I, personally, do not worry about Obama on issues like abortion or gay rights.  But I don't think the people who do worry have been snookered by some insidious smear campaign.  Rather, Obama, like many successful pols, sends enough mixed messages that people with differing opinions can all imagine he understands their point of view.  And when you're relatively new to the national scene, without a long body of work that lets people know they can count on you, some people are going to be skeptics until they see you in action.  That's just political reality.


    not dishonest (none / 0) (#187)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:12:31 PM EST
    You keep avoiding the subject.   Bill Clinton did sign DOMA into law and did claim that he supported it fully when he went on Christian radio.

    I still voted for him in 1996, but I know that several of my friends did not because of this.  They refused to vote for Bill because of how he treated this issue.


    If not for Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:17:55 PM EST
    you wouldn't be where you are today.

    Your friends (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:19:05 PM EST
    Have probably spent a lot of time listening to others build the strawman Clinton that we hear a lot about from people on the internet.

    That's too bad.

    They probably really believed it and ended up supporting someone will actually be worse on the issue.


    ummmm.... (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:51:32 PM EST
    Rev Donnie McClurkin???
    Rev Meeks???

    And, many Obama supporters FALSELY assume that full repeal of DOMA would FORCE states to accept legal gay marriages from other states through  "full faith and credit".  But, I have been told it's not true at all.

    I happen to believe it isn't true.  But, if it is true that it would force states to acknowledge legal gay marriages, just what chance do you think it would have of passing?  Does snowball and hell sound familiar to you?


    I am not a lawyer... (none / 0) (#215)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:31:12 PM EST
    thank the flying spaghetti monster.

    Uh,no offense all you law talking guys and gals. Please don't sue me.

    Anyway, TimNCGuy, if I'm understanding you, you believe that repeal of DOMA would not force states to accept gay* marriage.

    Sen. Obama apparently agrees with you.

    "The Full Faith and Credit Clause [of the Constitution] does not prevent a state from refusing to recognize a marriage that is contrary to its own marriage laws," said Obama in October 2004, according to a Chicago Tribune clip provided by his campaign.

    This quote is from an ABC news story from August 10, 2007.

    *FTR, "gay marriage" is a stupid term. Marriage is marriage is marriage. That being said, my fab GF and I are totally gay married. Got to love those Canadians.


    If his wave of enthusiasm was soooo (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by nellre on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:29:35 PM EST
    If his wave of enthusiasm was so overwhelming why couldn't he truly beat Hillary?

    He asked them to believe and they did.
    But as far as I can tell he never articulated exactly what, besides generic change, they were investing their faith in. They filled in the blanks.

    Bingo. (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:33:44 PM EST
    They filled in the blanks.

    This worked for Bush, the Worst President Ever.

    Here we go again?


    Y'all are being way too tough on (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:32:38 PM EST
    Sen. Obama.  For example, he is profoundly distressed the media treated Sen. Clinton so poorly.


    Jayzus. (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    I addition to the tepid remarks, we once again read how he was talking to Paulson while on his way to meet the Pakistani prime minister.  Now I learn he also met with Bernanke.

    Who needs to vote in November?

    It's ooooooooover.



    Not really (5.00 / 7) (#130)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:42:24 PM EST
    That's probably just snark, but I have to point out he's still not willing to just say it was wrong.

    He understands I'm "frustrated" with it.

    If he thinks he can find a way to make me feel better about it without him having to actually say the words, "it was wrong," then he either believes it was right or he's a moron.

    And in this case, we really are talking about something with, at this point, total and completely nil political risk.

    He must think it was right.


    i want him to be willing (5.00 / 6) (#183)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:09:54 PM EST
    to admit he participated in it and he played the race-card too.

    i do too (5.00 / 4) (#200)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:20:22 PM EST
    but I can see why he wouldn't.

    What I can't understand is why he can't just say the sexism was wrong.


    I can't believe this (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:42:49 PM EST
    those women sound pathetic also.  A few little lines after all the months of abusive garbage. I can't type what I would really like to say to this.

    I also hate it when women sound so accepting in delighting in his "reaching out".

    Then again, I think something about some "women" in this country is getting to him. ;-)


    "I serve as a blank screen (5.00 / 8) (#121)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:34:25 PM EST
     on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."  - Obama, The Audacity of Hope

    He told them.

    Feet to fire petition. (5.00 / 4) (#201)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:21:21 PM EST
    The new politics, huh?

    Fighting Dems...only a memory...

    The Nation. is hopelessly ignorant. They stumped (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by WillBFair on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:23:12 PM EST
    for Nader. They think Obama is a progressive because he recited the liberal wish list while the media were getting the Clintons out of the way. And it hasn't occured them that if Obama really tacked to the left, the msm would start a smear campaign that would make what they did to Hillary look like fresh cotton bloomers.

    I hate to rain on any parades here.... (5.00 / 5) (#216)
    by pmj6 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:35:04 PM EST
    ...but there is no "timetable for leaving in 16 months". There's that pesky little thing called the "residual force" (several tens of thousands of US troops) which would remain in Iraq well past 16 months. In other words, per Obama plan, we're staying in Iraq.

    lmv (5.00 / 3) (#218)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:52:18 PM EST
    I miss Bill, too.  Now there's a PRESIDENT!

    Gmonkey (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:26:40 PM EST
    you are out of here. You have insulted TalkLeft and its commenters numerous times. You are a brand new poster and ignored the new commenter limits. You are bloghogging. You are gone. Take your negativity and insults elsewhere.

    Interesting (1.50 / 2) (#55)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:31:35 PM EST
    I didn't realize that Obama now wanted to ban abortion.  Last time I checked, he still supported a women's right to choose, even opposing the ban on partial birth abortions, but I guess I missed his change.

    He has also spoken forcefully about the need to reform drug laws, to get rid of the racist laws that give bigger penalties to crack over cocaine.

    I also didn't realize that Obama now supported off-shore drilling.  I certainly hope that someone tells Jerome over at mydd because he has been pounding Obama relentlessly because Obama didn't want to allow drilling.   I guess he was right, we should drill more.  I am so glad Obama changed.

    I am also glad to see that the commenters here have now told me that Obama has changed his previous stance on immigration.  I hadn't realized he was now supporting the immediate deportation of everyone.

    And finally I am glad that the commenters told me he no longer wants ro raise taxes on the weathly.  That is certainly good to know.

    The truth is that many of the posters on this thread are just Obama haters and no matter what, will not support him.    It is just interesting that it is perfectly acceptable and encouraged to hate Obama, but it is heresy to dislike Hillary.

    I am looking (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:34:30 PM EST
    for the comments that say all those things, but I guess they don't actually exist.  Oh well.

    True dat (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:40:58 PM EST
    But it actually highlights a bigger point in my mind, one I explain in my own reply to that comment.

    read harder (none / 0) (#64)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    This is pretty much what everyone in this thread is posting.  If the purpose of the so-called 'progressive' agenda is to support these proposals, than Obama must have abandoned them because everyone is saying that he has fully abandoned that so-called 'progressive' agenda

    Read harder? (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:41:27 PM EST
    Come now.

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:42:31 PM EST
    Your post is not responsive to anything here.

    It's just a generic "you're all haters" comment, the type we've all seen a million times.

    If you have any interest in constructive discussion, let us know.


    I want to comment that way (1.50 / 2) (#82)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:48:20 PM EST
    But most of the comments here are pure snark.  I find it rather funny that I am being singled out now for my bit of snark.

    Just look a little further down and the basic argument is that Obama is not going to be pro-choice because he refused to give women a choice in the primaries.

    Look at the Cheech and Chong post and people are stating that they will only vote for Obama if he will toke up.   So now we have gone from drug reform policy to getting a nominee to posting 420 ads on craigslist.


    Oh, come on (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:19:32 PM EST
    That whole sub-thread about only voting for politicians who smoked marijuana was pure snark. I was part of it, and I have never even tried the stuff. Get a grip and a sense of humor. We were nominating Barney Frank for President, too. It was a kdog moment.

    You know what is funny about your comment? (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:40:06 PM EST
    You state Obama's positions papers quite well. what you do not realize is Obama does not makes those issues his own.

    Most of America does not know his position on any of these issues.

    He is not running to gain a mandate for anything.

    sort of the point.


    Mandate (5.00 / 7) (#88)
    by Miri on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:58:43 PM EST
    "He is not running to gain a mandate for anything."

    He is running for a mandate of "lets all get along" which is not really a mandate for anything but a Hallmark card.

    Presidents who bring about meaninful change don't worry about getting along. They want to push through their policy agenda. FDR didn't care that republicans hated him. He was proud of it.


    The way I see it (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:29:53 PM EST
    Obama isn't worried about not getting along. He is speaking for his own policy agenda.

    He just isn't speaking Democrat or Progressive.


    he DOES have a mandate (5.00 / 7) (#185)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:10:33 PM EST
    He wants us to put him in the History Books as the First African-American President.

    Once that happens, he'll then figure out what to do.  But he really, really, really wants to make History.

    Now, doing all that hard work that comes with the job?  Um ... not so much.

    (snark ... kinda)


    he DOES have a mandate (none / 0) (#186)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:11:05 PM EST
    He wants us to put him in the History Books as the First African-American President.

    Once that happens, he'll then figure out what to do.  But he really, really, really wants to make History.

    Now, doing all that hard work that comes with the job?  Um ... not so much.

    (snark ... kinda)


    But he does (2.00 / 2) (#74)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:43:56 PM EST
    I am sorry, but he has run with these issues as his own, maybe just not strong enough for you.

    I get almost all of my news and information via reading and not watching TV or listening to the radio, so maybe my absorbing of the issues is different than yours.

    Since you think he is not taking ownership of these issues strong enough, could you please tell me what you want him to do to take ownership?

    I ask because I don't understand how you can 'take ownership' of, for example, a pro-choice agenda.  It is basically understood that the Democratic nominee is going to be pro-choice.  

    Additionally, Obama has been quite strong on the drilling issue, and if you look at the attack ads of the last two weeks, they are focusing very heavily on that fact.


    maybe you take ownership (5.00 / 8) (#83)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:49:29 PM EST
    of a pro-choice agenda by NOT suggesting a woman needs to discuss her options with her husband and pastor just to suck up to the evangelicals.

    That Is A Lie (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:30:46 PM EST
    The context of your quote was Intact dilation and extraction aka partial-birth abortion. And Obama said nothing about anyone needing to consult anyone. His voting record is clear. He has voted against teenagers needing to get permission from their parents to get an abortion. Whatever problems you or I have with Obama his pro-choice position is clear. He is 100% pro-choice.

    Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?
    A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it.

    Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

    Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

    Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

    Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

    Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women.



    i did NOT LIE (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:43:01 PM EST
    Obama's statement bringing women's families and clergy into the woman's decision making process is right there in your quote.  And, as far as I'mconcerned, it doesn't matter that he is, in this instance, talking about "late-term" abortions.  By the way, you do know there is no such thing as "partial birth abortion", right?

    What part of "in conjunction with" don't you understand?  He didn't say he trusts woment to make this decision.  He said he trusts them "in conjunction with" their families and clergy.

    You try to make it appear as though he said and talk with their families and clergy if they feel like it is necessary.  And, he didn't say that at all.  He didn't say and get some input from your family and clergy if you feel like you want their opinion.

    But, since you felt it was necessary to call me a LIAR (which is completely against the rules of this site, please point out in your quotes that you provide anywhere you see that Obama says anything in what he says about "in conjunction with" is OPTIONAL.


    "Need To" (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:50:47 PM EST
    Is a requirement, mandate, rule or law. By spinning the quote you are in effect lying. Besides the fact that the context of the quote is the extremely rare partial-birth abortion or Intact dilation and extraction. You also misrepresented Obama's position by suggesting that this quote refers to all abortions.

    I would say that willful misrepresentation is a bigger no no on this site than calling someone a liar.  


    Oh really (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:59:05 PM EST
    What do YOU think of people who spin quotes in order to mis-represent the positions of a politician?

    What do you think of the Crashing the Gaters, for instance?


    Hello? (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:03:55 PM EST
    You also misrepresented Obama's position by suggesting that this quote refers to all abortions.

    You don't understand that the language could be used against a woman's right to choose.

    I called you sister the other night, but you're not.  You most likely a dumb man.

    You do not get it.  And you do not get to set the terms of the debate.


    lol (none / 0) (#181)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:08:25 PM EST
    Dumb man one shade worse than sister? Hilarious.

    You sound like a bigot.


    No. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:14:59 PM EST
    Dumb man is shades lower.

    The question on CNN wasn't about partial-birth. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:59:43 PM EST
    No context there to worry about.

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:05:23 PM EST
    What was the quote? Anything close to I will make sure that women cannot get an abortion without first consulting their clergy?

    The guy has voted against laws requiring teens to get parental notification. Whatever you are reading into it, I am not. His position is that it is 100% up to the woman, or girl. Whatever else is dressing.


    No, nothing about passing a law and I don't (5.00 / 4) (#188)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:12:58 PM EST
    expect him to do that. I just don't like anyone suggesting that my decision is between me and anybody because it is not. I don't think he will suggest changing anything but it makes me wonder about his willingness to give in on that issue when it comes to judges or even for speaking up for us.

    I just think he needs to quit volunteering that abortion is a group decision when he has no need to do that. Stick to the safe and rare the others say.


    Whatever Pandering He Is Doing (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:24:15 PM EST
    Is typical pol BS. His record is clear. Criticize him on FISA, Iraq war, Afghanistan, crime, not being a politician of contrast, religiosity, etc. But planned parenthood would not endorse him were he not 100% pro choice.

    Only anti-Obama cultists continue to spread misinformation about this issue, imo.


    I just posted his pandering for you because (none / 0) (#212)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:26:33 PM EST
    you said the other poster lied and I don't think he did.

    Obama at CNN faith forum (5.00 / 4) (#204)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:22:12 PM EST
    OBAMA: Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family.
    I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past.

    MEACHAM: Senator, do you personally believe that life begins at conception? And if not, when does it begin?

    OBAMA: This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.



    More quote... (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:24:17 PM EST
    We're not going to completely resolve it. I mean, there -- you know, at some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.

    Sqeaky, he also used the family and pastor (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:54:16 PM EST
    line in the Faith forum on CNN where he and Clinton and Edwards appeared separately at that event.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:57:27 PM EST
    I do not like any of these Pols talking about religion, as I think organized religion is hooey. The fact is that Obama has 100% record as pro-choice and he has never even implied that he was interested in mandating, passing laws or forcing women to speak to anyone about getting an abortion. That is what choice is all about.

    Sorry. (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:05:05 PM EST
    He has no such record.

    exactly (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:14:34 PM EST
    unless you count a Present vote as support.

    What are the site rules for calling another Poster a liar?  Seems a bit overboard to me, doesn't it?


    pro-choice... (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:52:52 PM EST
    when he supports it...but the shifts away from parts when he announces that:
    Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."
    and then tries to move back towards it...sorta, it seems as though he doesn't really want to take ownership.

    Same as 1992 (2.00 / 1) (#90)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    If you go back to 1992 you will see during that campaign Bill Clinton did everything he could to not discuss abortion, other than to say he was pro-choice.  Now some of this was probably to get away from his earlier more pro-life stance when he was governor, but a lot of it was because it is a very troublesome subject for many people, even people who claim to be pro-choice.

    I mean look at what happened at that town hall meeting back in 2004 in Missouri with that one supposedly independent women, who broke down crying over the abortion question she asked.    This is the kind of thing that is going to keep popping up.

    I am a total misanthrope so I really don't care how many abortions take place.  The more the better as far as I am concerned, but for most American's going any farther than "Safe Legal Rare" is going to be unacceptable.


    Bill didn't leave the pro-choice (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:05:20 PM EST
    position. And I don't recall him ever bringing the pastor into the decision (Roe puts the decision process right in the purview of women and their doctors...pastors and blokes aren't in the equation).

    But I'm pretty sure that equating Bill's stated pro-choice position back then with the shifting statements going on now is odd.


    Gee (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:10:30 PM EST
    Maybe I missed the part of Obama's primary campaign where he explained that the "new kind of politics" actually involves re-rerunning Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.

    Perhaps if I was savvy enough to get my news from reading, I would have caught that.  Somehow, I got fooled into thinking he intended to take the party someplace better than where it was in the 90s.


    so.... (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:13:30 PM EST
    you want to judge Obama's pro-life stance by comparing it to Bill Clinton's stance when Obama basically ran against the entire 8 years of the  Clinton Administration in the primaries?

    That's odd.


    more snark (2.00 / 1) (#122)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:34:31 PM EST
    So now you are emphatically misrepresenting Obama by stating that he has become pro-life, and yet no sanctions.

    I was not comparing Obama's current position to that of Bill Clinton in 1992.   My point was that even the Clintons were not perfect, although I am sure that many people here would believe that they walk on water.

    My point was to state that even the Clinton's did everything they could to avoid talking about abortion in 1992.  I do not understand why you think that was OK, but are completely unsatisfied with Obama for not being forceful enough now.


    You have this habit (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:56:49 PM EST
    of putting an apostrophe in plural nouns.  You've changed your posting name, but you continue to make the same mistake.

    You're not fooling anyone.  I understand that you want people to think there are more Obama supporters here, but it's not really the case.

    Obama's in trouble, because he's not getting dems on the bandwagon.

    McCain isn't much better.

    I believe that the one who wins in November is going to be determined by the choice of vice-president.

    This alone will make it unprecedented.


    Oh, wait. (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:13:03 PM EST

    I stand corrected.


    please try to get this right (5.00 / 4) (#217)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:43:55 PM EST
    you will not find any post of mine where I say Obama is pro-life.  even though you keep making that claim.  Would taht be you LYING?

    I don't think he is pro-life.  

    I also don't think he is reliably pro-choice.  If he was, he wouldn't feel the need to throw in the "consultation with family and pastor" when he is talking to religious audiences.  It's pandering pure and simple.  And, he is HOPING they willinfer more into what he is saying than he actually may mean.  You notice he doesn't throw that crap in when talking to a non religious audience, right?  Wasn't this kind of pandering what he was always accusing Clinton of?  Say anything to get a vote?

    He should just leave it a a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE and then stop talking.


    One more thing (none / 0) (#92)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:03:39 PM EST
    This comment was specifically directed only at 'late-term' abortions, or what the GOP calls the partial birth abortions.  And he still strongly opposed the Supreme upholding the ban on this type of abortion

    I don't care... (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:07:17 PM EST
    His stepping into a position of trying to state that "mental stress" doesn't qualify is bizarre.

    What? Is he a doctor now that he can make that determination?


    You said (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:47:16 PM EST
    It is basically understood that the Democratic nominee is going to be pro-choice.  

    On what level?  When Dem politicans do a tapdance with Republicans about how much they can work together, how frequently they can see eye to eye when they try, Dem values and "basic understandings" get sidelined.  The focus is on ...REPUBLICANS.  The Obama "pursue evangelicals" strategy is based on trying to make the abortion issue as unobtrusive as possible.  Ideally, that would signify a triumph of the pro-choice position, no longer a "make-or-breaker", but I don't think that's exactly what's happening.  

    Post-partisanship means ambiguity...and ambiguity, as BTD says, means no mandate.  The Obama apocrypha is one thing, but if Obama doesn't take it to the people and mass media he will find little support for his positions we actually like a year from now.


    Are people mis-representing the positions (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:16:50 PM EST
    Of your candidate??????   How can that be???

    What do you think of people when it seems to you they are mis-representing the positions of candidates?????!!!!!!!


    One more time (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:47:47 PM EST
    My threads will be policed. No insults of me because I do not get to insult you.

    No falsehoods about Obama or Clinton or anybody.

    When I suspend you, comment no further.

    My threads. My rules. Which are all within the rules of the site.

    You do not like the way I run my threads, do not comment in them.


    If you have a problem with it, then complain to Jeralyn and either she will agree with your complaint, in which case, I will close comments on my posts, or not post at all, or she will not.

    That is the way it is.

    I do not get to say what I think about some of the comments I see. So I have to live by the rules too.

    No comment. (none / 0) (#35)
    by pie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:00:40 PM EST
    No insults of me because I do not get to insult you.

    I totally agree with you on this BTD! (none / 0) (#112)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:24:12 PM EST

    The Nation sucks (none / 0) (#220)
    by RedSox04 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:31:08 PM EST
    I canceled my subscription mid-primary, because of their illogical unmitigated support for Obama, and demonization of Hillary.

    I certainly understand that most progressives backed Obama; that being said, there certainly were signs that Obama was much more of a center-right politician at heart, and/or that he was more conservative (or at least more willing to compromise) on core Democratic issues.  To say, one-sided, that Obama was infallible and that Hillary was completely fallible (and possibly evil), was ridiculous even ex ante.

    The one-sided hysteria we saw during the primary was the Left's version of the Right Wing's total embrace of GWBush after 9/11.  And similarly, I suspect that a lot of the loudest and most aggressive of Obama supporters will be the ones feeling the most sheepish 4 years from now.  Obama imo will turn out to be a fine President, but a progressive leader with a bold vision of change?  Hardly.