"The Most Progressive"

David Sirota writes:

I, and many others who supported Obama, weren't misled by him. I had my eyes wide open - [b]ut I did think - and continue to think - he was far and away the best and most progressive person for the job, among the serious contenders out there.

Not to restart the primary wars- but the "most progressive?" Come now David. I also supported Obama, in famously tepid fashion. Because he was the one I thought could best move a progressive agenda and was the most electable. But on the issues, stop me if you have heard this - there was not a dime's worth of difference between them (going forward, in the past -- on the Iraq Debacle, Obama was right and Clinton was wrong) except on health care, where Clinton's position was deemed much more progressive than Obama's. David still has his hate on for the Clintons and still is living in a fantasyland on Obama's trade positions. Sorry David, Obama agrees with me and the Clintons on trade, not you.

Speaking for me only

< Elena Kagan's SG Confirmation Hearing: A Preview Of A Future SCOTUS Confirmation Hearing? | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Whatever happened to: (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:32:48 AM EST
    "not a dime's worth of difference on the issues I care about"?

    Same difference (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:36:37 AM EST
    Enough with 'not a dime's worth of difference' (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:02:44 PM EST
    BTD, the difference between Hillary's single-payer universal health care and Obama's hodge-podge is a whole lot more than a "dime's worth of difference". I'd say that's a whole world of difference.

    Furthermore, Obama has been open to some privatization/revision of Social Security, while Hillary has not. That's also a world of difference, imo.  


    Wow (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:15:36 PM EST
    You seem to be having fantasies again, but to give you the benefit of the doubt do you have a link supporting this statement?:

    Hillary's single-payer universal health care .


    I'm beginning to think (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:33:13 AM EST
    Clinton would have been a great deal more leftwing than Obama after looking at the last few weeks. The difference on the war is illusory Obama isn't all that different from bush on Iraq.  Obama would be happy enough to keep a long term us presence there.

    I wonder if Hillary Clinton would let (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:37:33 AM EST
    the GOP members of Congress drone on about how the House-approved stimulus bill increases the national debt?  Kay Bailey Hutchinson just finished speaking on the Senate floor on C-Span.  Same refrain last night after the President's press conference.  

    No (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:04:03 AM EST
    She would have had them for lunch. She has experience in beating them at their own game, remember? None of this hand-holding, campfire singing crap.

    Sorry but I have to disagree (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:13:18 AM EST
    Sirota's actions and posting brought this on.

    Sirota is progressive. I have no doubt.  But his tone and his tendency to bully is much more like the extreme right. Bullies, whether from the right or left, lose credence with me.


    Oh please (none / 0) (#138)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:54:11 AM EST
    BTD gives specific reasons directly to the offensive person as to why he/she may be deleted from his thread.   He has rules, they are clear and when broken they are enforced.

    Sirota's bullying of any and everyone who believes differently than him or who dare disagrees with his CDS is a whole different story.  


    Um that would require us to (none / 0) (#152)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    completely disregard her Senate Record- she like Obama is a centrist.

    You left out FISA (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by dk on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:40:13 AM EST
    and HOLC.

    I have to agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:41:58 AM EST

    I don't get some of these folks.  Maybe you know Sirota and maybe "busting his chops" is a way of needling a friend who is just wrong.  But to me, he comes off as an elitist, intellectual snob who thinks he is so much smarter than the rest of us.  Maddow hits me that way too (not saying she is that way, just that she comes off that way to me).  Somehow their hatred of the Clintons is justified and they look their noses down at anyone who cannot understand why we should hate and despise the Clintons.

    I really don't believe people with such closed minds, such blatant judgmental snobbery are truly progressive in any way.  More like...they simply have a need to be right...the left wing versions of Broder.

    Personally there have been a few things I have agreed with Sirota on.  Then I read his latest post on OpenLeft and shake my head in disbelief.

    I repeat my statement ... (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:42:58 AM EST
    from yesterday.  What progressive need to know about Obama:

    He's just not that into you.

    Had the economic crisis ... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:46:21 AM EST
    broken in the spring rather than the fall, I doubt Obama would have been nominated.

    Clinton spoke comprehensively on these issues long before Obama.  And long before many on blogs or the media even seemed aware of it.

    Always fun to speculate something better, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:02:52 AM EST
    but I think Obama was planned as the nominee long before he announced his candidacy. The bending of the rules from the get go was just to obvious.

    that's "too" obvious (none / 0) (#27)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:03:57 AM EST
    Did you miss the campaign? (2.00 / 1) (#32)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:06:37 AM EST
    Did you miss the fact that Hillary Clinton did not organize in ANY of the caucus states which were important to actually winning the nomination?

    The Bear Stearns collapse happened in March, iirc. Hillary LOST Iowa and SC and the momentum was shifting towards Obama at that point.  Based on the demographic groups that made up Obama voters and Hillary voters, Hillary still would have most likely lost because she wasn't organized in the caucus states and she was running out of money.


    How do you define "organize" (4.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:15:07 AM EST
    in your reference?  I come from one of those caucus states in the West.  I wasn't there during this but have heard plenty about what took place.  This is just my opinion but there is a big difference between "organizing" and bringing in Chicago machine teachers instructing how to shout down, strong arm, and flat out cheat.

    Shut up. (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    Or at least provide evidence for your original claims on Obama leading anti-war protests.

    That's some reasoned discourse (none / 0) (#153)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:47:00 PM EST
    there Bill O'reily- shut up! Good one!

    Of course she organized in the caucus (none / 0) (#37)
    by tigercourse on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:09:42 AM EST
    states. She just didn't organize enough. I'm not sure it would have even been possible to organize her particular base enough to beat Obama's base in a caucus system.

    Right, not many cheaters were pro-Hill. (3.80 / 5) (#38)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:10:24 AM EST
    It's not cheaters...It's working class and older (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:11:52 AM EST
    women.  Caucus meetings are easier to attend for upper middle class voters, and youth.

    Um (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:34:24 AM EST
    did you forget about blacks? Alas, we don't count how could I have forgotten.

    I know that. I'm alluding to (none / 0) (#41)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    what actually occurred in the caucuses.

    Yes of course! (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:38:50 AM EST
    The "thugs" beat innocent white elderly women into not going to exert their rights as citizens and participate in caucuses! It was the Chicago thugs and those blacks that doomed Hillary!

    The caucuses reminded me of Jim Crow and poll taxes! How could I be so naive!


    Oh yes (none / 0) (#154)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    I forgot how the noble and sainted Clinton machine   couldn't stand up to the political newcomer, truely it is amazing that such a thing could have occured.

    I also find the timing of the financial collapse (none / 0) (#168)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    to be highly suspect. How is it that they kept the wheels on until the Dems won the election?

    ummm (none / 0) (#173)
    by CST on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:18:24 PM EST
    regarding the timing of the collapse - it happened when Lehman tanked and the fed didn't bail them out like AIG.

    Are you suggesting the Dems orchestrated the whole collapse?  Or the Republicans intentionally tried to delay it (one would hope they tried to delay it as long as possible with the intention of preventing it)?  Neither party has that much control over the economy.


    The fed, under Bush, didn't bail out Lehman... (none / 0) (#179)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 06:25:45 PM EST
    I wonder why not. Also, if the GOP had wanted to nip the collapse in the bud, they would have passed a massive stimulus plan of their own - while they were still in control. Or, they would have supported the original, albeit imperfect, version of the Democrats' plan.  

    He's coming across as mushy (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by nellre on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    We need a president, not a committee chair.

    It's hard to take that post (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by dk on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:59:47 AM EST
    of Sirota's seriously, particuarly once he calls himself a "journalist."   Ha!!

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:27:12 AM EST
    I've scraped stuff off the bottom of my shoe that had more journalistic integrity than the piece of garbage Sirota.  What a hateful piece of dung.  He's all butt-hurt that now that he and his ilk forced Obama down our throats he doesn't want to hear any complaints or be laughed at because his ridiculous *ss was punked.  Awwww, that poor baby, we should just STFU as he so nicely stated.

    FU Sirota, this is YOUR pig in a poke, yours and others like you who let an irrational hatred of the best President since WWII (unquestionably the best Dem President, with Johnson coming close.  JFK trails because outside of the Missle Crisis, he really didn't do a lot, although I readily grant that there is an obvious reason for that) so that you could nominate and elect someone who thinks that Regressives have some good ideas when anyone who isn't a millionaire should know that that is utter stupidity at this point.

    So sorry you whiny skidmark, but those of us who knew better aren't going anywhere anytime soon, so get comfortable Mr. Centrist and make believe that you actually have some guts and face up to the music that YOU paid for.



    I'm the furthest thing. . . (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:30:17 AM EST
    from a Sirota fan, but

    I've scraped stuff off the bottom of my shoe that had more journalistic integrity than the piece of garbage Sirota.  What a hateful piece of dung.  He's all butt-hurt that now that he

    isn't what I'm coming to Talk Left for.


    I know... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:39:59 AM EST
    but did you read his hateful post?  At some point I fire back, but I should do it directly to him and not through a third party.  I'm just tired of being given crap for supporting someone who lost by a whopping 300 Delegates or whatever.

    While I think it was an appropriate response to his hateful screed, BTD should probably nuke this.  I'm sorry, I should try harder not to become what I hate and embrace the better angels of my nature.  I don't retract a word of it because every syllable is true, but this is the wrong forum to present this.

    Sorry everyone, but at some point if people hate you you hate them back, it's only natural.



    Ooops, (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:41:57 AM EST
    That last sentence needs a comma.  Easy jackson, focus on your words and grammar.  LOL



    No, I didn't read it. (none / 0) (#94)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    I think Sirota is generally off-base, and I think he's often unfair to genuine liberal people who are trying to accomplish things in the real world.  But I've never seen him use language like this and even if he did, it's still not what I come to Talk Left to read.

    BTD was able to slag him off (and I hope I contribute my fair share to slagging Sirota off) without that kind of Daily Kos like language.


    Sadly I did read him (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    While I did not like him in the primaries, I challenged myself to OPEN my mind to those with whom I disagreed, and try to learn or at least find common ground.

    Honestly, his diatribe today came off as more like a Limbaugh bully in tone (not in views) that anything.
    Some others on other blogs the same.  And like you, I have found TalkLeft one of the better places for avoiding that kind of tone.  


    I agree that Jackson's (none / 0) (#77)
    by dk on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    language is over the top.  I still stand by my original comment, though.  Sirota's writings have always seemed more like opinion wrapped up in a package to sell books or score TV appearances rather than jounalism.

    I don't disagree. . . (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:38:00 AM EST
    it's the language I object too.

    I've been personally diagnosed as "a sick, sick person" by Sirota -- just so you know where we stand.


    David gets fired up (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:38:56 AM EST
    He's not a bad guy at all.

    I disagree on three fronts. . . (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:46:09 AM EST
    First off, just personally he seems to really be a brawler.  I guess I shouldn't complain about that, myself, but sometimes I can't tell what he writes and what, for instance, DHinMI writes.

    Secondly, I think he's just wrong on so many things, and fundamentally intellectually dishonest.  Take the case you bring up here.  Sirota isn't some internet Obama fanboy -- he has all the information necessary to be aware that Clinton is nominally more progressive on most issues than Obama, he simply disregards it.

    But my biggest problem with Sirota is that I think he believes in and actively works for the destruction of the Democratic Party as a force in American politics.  He speaks openly and admirably of the actions of people like Viguorie (sp?) whose intransigence helped radicalize the Republicans to the point where they lost all credibility.  It's clear his vision for Democrats is to get to the same place on the opposite end of the spectrum and to do so more efficiently -- leaving out the two decades of political influence the Republicans had.


    I agree with all of Larry's (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by dk on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:52:36 AM EST
    points, but I think the second point is the most significant, and what I was getting at.  His inability, or unwillingness, to report facts disqualifies him from being a journalist, and the sheer wrongness of so many of his instincts makes him practially unreadable as a columnist.

    Of course, he may still be a good guy, but maybe he might be successful in another line of business?


    Clinton blindspot (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:12:42 AM EST
    I'll grant you he can not see straight when the word Clinton comes up.

    Well, the problem is that (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by dk on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:17:50 AM EST
    the Clintons were a major force in national politics, like it or not, and if one can't even begin to write or think somewhat objectively about them, how can one succeed as a political journalist?  

    I mean, if we blast all the MSM "journalist" for that kind of stuff, and easily acknowledge that they have no credibility, I don't think Sirota should be immune from the same fate.


    Hmm (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    I do not think I was throwing flowers at him in this post.

    What are you objecting to? That I did not cuss him out? I can't at this blog, even if I wanted to.


    I'm just stating my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by dk on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    that the amount of CDS he demonstrates disqualifies him from being taken seriously as a political journalist or analyst.  I just don't think it's possible to carve out that kind of CDS and say that otherwise he does a good job at his chosen line of work.

    Of course, that's separate from whether he's a good guy or not.  I don't know him personally, so I have no information on that front.


    Meh (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:40:50 AM EST
    We all have our blind spots. Except me of course . . .

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Mike Pridmore on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:40:56 PM EST
    The one time I actually met Sirota me seemed pompous.  When he worked for American Progress I thought he did a good and thorough job of skewering Republicans with the facts.  Now that he is more independent he often seems unwilling to lay blame at their feet for things that are obviously their fault.  I think that is because he wants to blame Clinton too, even when the facts say otherwise.  That is just intellectually dishonest and make him useless to me most of the time.

    correction: (none / 0) (#146)
    by Mike Pridmore on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:43:41 PM EST
    The one time I actually met Sirota he seemed pompous.

    Well, if you are a friend (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:50:58 AM EST
    you might advise him that his personal attacks are not going to make many want to read him.  He doesn't even stop at the Clintons, his vitriol toward regular folks that disagree with him is over the top. It's his blog and certainly he has rights as do you. But you at least warn others and explain in specifics to them why you prefer them to not post in your threads.  

    David's STFU and name calling really turns me off.  For a guy that want readers (I remember him asking people to write in to a papers carrying his work with positive feedback), he certainly is not doing himself any good.  

    Passion is one thing. I admit that at times, I can let my emotions get in the way. ( But I am not trying to build an audience either.)

    His reactions to disagreement and challenges come off as bullying to me. I was tempted to write a retort to him today but halfway through deleted my own stuff.  Honestly, the man scares me a little. It's a shame.  Why would people want to read someone who comes (IN TONE, no in issue points of view) off more as a left wing version of a Limbaugh bully than a progressive


    Well (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:11:58 AM EST
    fat chance that he will change.

    David IS a friend and I do not mind a good brawl myself.

    People take this civility thing too seriously. you can have a brawl and then dust yourselves off afterwards.  


    Well, you can you and I (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:17:50 AM EST
    come from totally different perspectives on the civility issue.  Then again, I come from a teaching background..........civility matters there.  At least I think it does.

    Well, you and I (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:18:29 AM EST
    come from totally different perspectives on the civility issue.  Then again, I come from a teaching background..........civility matters there.  At least I think it does.

    I don't mind a good (none / 0) (#147)
    by Mike Pridmore on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    brawl.  As a teacher of culture occasionally (I teach Spanish for a living and other cultural lecturing) I often point out that some cultures are accustomed to hard fights and hold no grudges afterward.  David comes across to me as one who takes things personally after a fight, which is somewhat different from the way you (BTD) come across to me.  He seems a little petty to me.  Maybe I need to get to know him better.

    Really? (none / 0) (#163)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:38:13 PM EST
    Another cool guy that one can have a beer with?

    Oh, would marvels never end?

    Lots of those 'nice guys' are respnsible for a couple of bad wars, a wall street collaspe, and are enablers of the system.  

    I'd rather have Somerby and Krugman any day.


    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#155)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:56:03 PM EST
    is this another one of those cases where everything good about the Clinton Admin was part of the Hillary package but it is simultaneously sexist to mention and or hold her responsible for any of the Clinton Admin's failings?

    Because that was a tactic that got sick somewhere around mid-Jan 2008. Oh, and I'd argue pretty strongly that Clinton is nowhere near the president LBJ was- LBJ had Vietnam, the legacy war that hurt him- of course he also had actual progressive domestic Achievments, Clinton basically had niche programs- seriously in terms of Domestic progress- I think you could look at JFK or heck Nixon and arguably have more total programs- Clinton was a good steward of the economy- he was our Reagan, but he never really left a permanent mark on the country in terms of programs that we'll talk about in 15-20 years. He had Head Start, and I guess the CRA what else can we hold up that exists today that Clinton started?


    I think you give him too much credit on Iraq (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by ricosuave on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:01:40 AM EST
    Yes, he gave a speech in 2002.  But that's pretty much it.  The idea of Obama as anti-Iraq war crusader is at odds with his failure to publicly act against it between 2002 and his presidential bid, or to even speak out strongly in any way.

    As for the 2002 speech, it didn't say much beyond "this is a bad idea."  There was no call to action, no mention of the AUMF vote (which was slightly before or slightly after the big speech, depending on what you believe the date of the speech was).

    Better than Bush?  Yes.  Better than Clinton, Edwards, Biden, et. al.?  Only if you get to count what people want to believe about Obama as much as what he actually did or said on the issue.

    You from IL? (2.00 / 2) (#26)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:03:26 AM EST
    As I stated to a poster above, you need to get your facts right about Obama and Iraq while he was in Illinois.

    Please provide evidence. I have (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:06:20 AM EST
    never read that he gave more than one speech. I certainly never heard anything about him leading war protests.
    Also, his original speech does not exist, btw---we only have his reproduction of it, recorded at a later date.

    What fact is wrong? (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by ricosuave on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:21:49 AM EST
    Read the speech.  Tell me what I got wrong about it?

    It is a fact that the speech was removed from his website for his senate campaign.

    It is a fact that he voted for all the Iraq war budgets before his campaign for president began.

    It is a fact that he supported pro-war Joe Lieberman over anti-war Ned Lamont, even after Lamont won the primary.

    It is a fact that he admitted he would have voted for the AUMF (the fact that it would have been politically embarassing to say otherwise in the context where he said it is NOT a point in his favor, by the way).

    None of this is in dispute.  The man took no meaningful action, and didn't even give any speeches, against the war between 2002 and his presidential campaign.  Given the opportunity (a US Senate seat), he exercised no leadership of any kind on the war.  I don't know what you are pointing to that says he was against the war during that time, but PLEASE post some links to prove me wrong because I would LOVE to learn that I am wrong here and that my president is actually anti-war.


    For someone who claims. . . (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    to be concerned with facts, there seems to be a dearth of them in your comments.

    In point of fact, Obama made an anti-war speech before an anti-war crowd in Chicago.  He's to be credited for that.  However, the speech wasn't recorded and when he wanted footage of it to establish his anti-war credentials he had to re-record it.  If he had a long record of anti-war speeches, why didn't he simply use a different speech?

    Furthermore, he has stated with admirable candor that despite the speech he gave he can't say for sure how he would have voted had he been in the Senate at the time of the AUMF.  That hardly makes him an anti-war leader -- a person of that description would know how he would have voted.  His record since arriving in the Senate is certainly not that of someone wanting to end the war at all costs.

    Obama was against the war, and he deserves credit for that.  But he was in no sense an anti-war leader nor is it clear that he would have held the same position if he'd held statewide office at the time, or been speaking to a group other than an anti-war one.


    Tell that to the folks in Illinois (none / 0) (#88)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:44:53 AM EST
    You can try to discredit him all you want but you are just wrong.

    Nothing you say is actually true. (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    I'm not discrediting Obama, I'm crediting him for what he actually did.

    You are attempting to credit him for imaginary speeches and anti-war protests that you have invented from whole cloth.  Perhaps that applies in fantasy Illinois, but in the real Illinois (where I do, in fact, know a number of people) while Obama is certainly well liked, nobody claims he was a leader of the anti-war movement.


    Black people? (none / 0) (#106)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    You heavily involved in the black community in Illinois?

    You are making progressively. . . (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:07:53 AM EST
    less sense (which I suppose is good because it has "progressive" in it).

    Are you suggesting that Obama held a series of anti-war protests and speeches to which only African American voters were invited, and which were deliberately kept secret from the media and from non-black voters in his district?

    Obama is certainly well liked in Illinois by both black and white voters -- but not in the notional role of anti-war leader which you've invented for him.


    No I am not (none / 0) (#117)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:10:59 AM EST
    what I am saying is that I am speaking about events that my friends attended and which may or may not have been covered in the mainstream press. There are a lot of things in regards to the candidacies of Barack Obama that was not and has not been covered in the mainstream press but it does not mean it didn't happen.

    A very good example of this is the lack of coverage of the MASSIVE outreach the Obama campaign did that got nary a peep from the press.  It quite engaging and is one of the main reasons why he won Virginia and squeaked out a victory in North Carolina.


    Link them. (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    If I'm wrong, it's easy to disprove me.  Simply link any anti-war event that Obama attended, or any anti-war speech he made, from any source (a blog, Obama's web site, the web site of the sponsoring organization) from before the campaign.

    I'm guessing you haven't been participating in blogs too long -- the first question you get asked when you make an assertion is for a link backing it up.  Most people include the links when they make the assertion.

    So -- link me wrong.


    Was he giving secret speeches (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    to the black community that no one else knew about?

    We get that you really like Obama and know a lot of other people who feel the same way, but the facts of Obama's anti-war history do not support what you are contending.

    So much for the post-racial thing, huh?


    You aren't black (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:25:39 AM EST
    and cannot speak about the black community and what goes on in them if you aren't part of it or even participate it in its activities.

    Barack Obama's base in Chicago IS the black community. Hyde Park is a part of it but it is the significant black community in Chicago that launched Barack Obama. He wasn't an establishment dem in Chicago and did not have the backing of the democratic Chicago establishment.  

    I'm going by the words of my friend who were out there with the Obamas and just because it didn't appear in the mainstream white papers doesn't mean that it didn't happen.  

    Sure I like Obama, why wouldn't I? I'm  damn proud that this black man and his black wife who doesn't look like a Halle Berry but is my mother's skin color is my President. I'm proud to have a man who had all of the odds in the world stacked against him make it and am not ashamed to admit it.  In addition, I voted for him because he was the closest to my beliefs. I expect to disagree with him on many things but I'm not going to deny my respect and admiration for him and his wife as a black person knowing what it is like to be black in America.

    I will however, not put up with nasty attacks by people who will not just come out and say that they despise him instead of trying to pretend that they are providing "constructive criticism."

    I've read your comments Anne and even though I may not agree with you, I can respect your opinion because they aren't snides disguised as being constructive.

    As for post-racial--no we are far from there no matter how many people want to pretend that we are.


    well, look (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:00:27 PM EST
    if you're going to slag off Hillary Clinton by saying as Senator she only accomplished the naming of a post-office (which is obviously not her only accomplishment), but expect us to judge Barack Obama by the extent of his advocacy on the ground, as witnessed by your friends, in Ill. in 2002, (I'm not saying you're lying or your friends are lying or anything, I'm just making a point), there's a pretty big double standard going on here.  I mean, really.

    I'm not all that interested in this debate, because Obama has tacked to the right since his nomination, and no doubt Hillary would've too.  It's an impossible game.


    Wow, I had no idea you could actually (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:13:09 PM EST
    see through the computer to identify my race; guess I will have to take care to always dress appropriately and not do anything disgusting.

    What I am, above all else, is a human being, and I am, frankly, a little tired of being told that I must hold my tongue if anything I want to say has anything to do with the black community.  I thought black people might be as diverse in thought and opinion and political ideology as everyone else - who knew?  

    As a woman, I think I know a little bit about discrimination, and this year's election seemed to make discriminating against women kind of fashionable - and I am sad to say that Barack Obama had a lot to do with that.  Seems odd for someone who suffered so, but you might be confusing the current Barack Obama with some other Barack Obama who grew up in the projects, because by all accounts, this Barack Obama did not struggle through a dense thicket of disadvantage to get where he is.  I don't understand why he has to be saddled with disadvantages he didn't have in order to make his election more meaningful, but maybe this is what happens when all you seem to be able to see is the color of his skin - I wouldn't know, of course, because I am not black.

    I cast no vote for president this election - a first for me.  I did not feel that either Obama or McCain was the right person for the job, and I would not help either one get elected.  I can't say that I despise either one, but neither do I feel like I have to respect the white guy more just because he's white.  I didn't have a greater respect for Hillary Clinton because she and I have our gender in common - I supported her because I felt she was the right person for the job.

    I have little hope for a post-racial environment as long as people on both sides of the racial divide refuse to let go of race as the primary factor by which people are judged.  


    Sorry Anne (none / 0) (#169)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:14:25 PM EST
    Discrimination as a white woman is nothing compared to discrimination as a black.  You may not be aware of white privilege but it exists. I'm sorry you didn't feel the need to vote--that is your choice. Unlike you though, my people were beaten and killed for the right to vote so not voting is not an option for me even If I write my own name in. I hate to say it but whites do take voting for granted because they weren't subjected to poll taxes and beatdowns for heading to the polls.

    I think it is rich that you can claim that Barack Obama as a black man with a white mother didn't struggle like other blacks who may have lived in the projects. I never lived in the projects and my family struggled but rose up despite being black.

    It's your opinion but we obviously do not see America the same way and maybe this would be a good time to hold your tongue regarding the black community as your sentence about "project Obama" as if blacks only live in the projects was offensive and disappointing.


    And you are naive (none / 0) (#172)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:17:26 PM EST
     if you think that people will not be judged by their skin color. You can just ask my Ivy League educated brother and his friends about being "judged" by their skin color--you might want to start with why they keep getting pulled over by the police for doing absolutely nothing wrong.

    Actually, a few seconds ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:51:08 AM EST
    of the beginning of the speech has survived on video.

    I did not mean to imply. . . (none / 0) (#107)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:03:18 AM EST
    that the speech didn't happen.  In fact, I believe it was taped, but the quality of the tape was just very poor.  The point I wanted to make was not to doubt the existence of that one speech, but to wonder why, if Obama had a long history of speaking publicly against the war, it was necessary to recreate that single, poorly recorded speech, instead of using readily available tape from a different event.

    Sorry if my original comment was taken to mean that I doubted the authenticity of that speech he did actually give.


    Larry, I wasn't implying ... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:41:21 PM EST

    Just correcting your statement that the speech "wasn't recorded."

    At least a few seconds were recorded, and have survived, and you can see them on youtube.


    I wouldn't be boasting... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:12:58 AM EST
    ...that Obama agrees with you on trade, since our trade policies is one of the, if not THE, reason, we have insanely decided we no longer need manufacturing jobs in this country.  As much as you talk about free trade, Tent, you haven't a logical leg to stand on when it comes to explaining why you think it is the job of the US gov't, or any gov't, to make it more difficult for their citizens to find work.  And don't feed me b.s. about studies that show this and that, because there is NO way to quantify the real costs of governments valuing foreign companies and profit above the security of their own citizens' employment.

    If free trade has been as big a boon to everyone as free traders claim, it is quite obvious that the world would not be in the state it is now.

    I mean, how on earth do you think you are going to have a manufacturing sector of vitality again?  You think those jobs are magically coming back?  You think we can have an economy based entirely on service jobs?

    This is one issue, Tent, where I find you to be, sorry, out to lunch, both logically and morally.

    The feeling is mutual (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:13:58 AM EST
    my friend.

    On trade (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Lora on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:18:18 AM EST
    Sorry David, Obama agrees with me and the Clintons on trade, not you.

    And you and Obama and the Clintons are wrong on trade.

    Obviously I disagree (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:21:49 AM EST
    Given the Goolsbee (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:26:04 AM EST
    Canada contretemps during the primaries, is it clear where the Obama administration stands on trade issues?

    To me (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:30:18 AM EST
    perfectly so.

    Politics is politics.


    Look if we're going to use the FDR example for (none / 0) (#157)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:00:43 PM EST
    how to fix the economy and argue for more stimulus spending how can people (not you I agree with your postion) seriously argue that the anti-free trade postion, you know one of the things that deepened the Great Depression is the way to go- Your postion is at least consistent, the position of Sirota, et al seems to be "Take whatever message from the 1930s we like"

    Look (none / 0) (#158)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:03:24 PM EST
    I don't think Free Trade is flawless, but its hard to give much creedence to people such as yourself who on the one hand use the very vivid example of the 1930s to argue for Keynesian spending (which I agree with) but on the other hand ignore that very example with regards to international trade- I mean do you not see how it might be a mistake to repeat the actions of the US Government in the pre-FDR era?

    And could you explain (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:27:38 AM EST
    what is right on trade.
    Seriously I do not know.

    I believe we can never get the international trade genie back in to the bottle. I believe that "protectionism" is past it's time. I believe Americans have over consumed resources and the level of every day living in our country is so different than much of the world.

    I walk into a grocery store, now, at the worst of times and I see an abundance of food, and am overwhelmed at times, how much we have compared to how many people are literally starving.

    So I really would appreciate an explanation of how it works fairly for all.  


    Krugman says trade is not inheriently the (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:30:54 AM EST
    result of wage inequality, but lack of unionization in the service sector.  I think that's the answer.

    I am all for unions (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:36:51 AM EST
    ALWAYS have been.

    I totally agree with that.

    But the truth is, in my idealistic dream, we would be exporting the notion of unionized workers......and training them from the beginning.


    Funny about unions... (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by ricosuave on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:57:00 AM EST
    My dad is a doctor and will instinctively tell you that unions are corrupt and bad and evil.  But when the hospitals in town were going to impose some lousy requirement on his specialty, they all got together, held a meeting, and agreed to boycott the hospitals until they rescinded this measure.  Basically, they unionized, but I bet every single one of them would be mortally offended by the idea that what they did counts as collective bargaining.

    The problem with acceptance of unions in America is all PR.  The next time someone says something bad about unions to you ask them these questions:

    • Can any group of people in America meet freely to discuss their problems?

    • Can they select a person that speaks for them through a democratic process?

    • Can they decide, in a democratic fashion, whether they accept common terms that they will work under?

    • Can they freely ask other people to join their group?

    • Should someone be fired from their job because they belong to an organization?

    If they don't answer NO to every question, call them a fascist or a commie or a terrorist and laugh at them.  If they answer YES to anything, even tepidly, praise them for being a union supporter and watch them sputter and steam.


    Reminds me of Milton Freidman, who railed against (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:11:37 AM EST
    unions everyday of his career, nevertheless benefited greatly from his status as a tenured professor.

    Actually, unions are rising fast internationally. (none / 0) (#85)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    Did you know Wal-Mart in China is unionized?  We are actually one of the few countries without fast rising unions.  Of course, they keep lying to us saying unions would only make us less competitive and they are a relic of the last century.  It's simply bs.

    No I did not know that (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:03:33 AM EST
    and I am glad to hear that unionization is growing world wide.  Still sad to know that too many Americans still remain ignorant to what unions did and can still do for us all.

    Dunno, but... (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Lora on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:58:30 AM EST
    Jobless Americans.

    Trade Mega-Giga deficit.

    When I call a store down the road, I get a call center -- where?  I can barely understand the person on the other end of the phone.

    Service from stores I used to get good service from is non-existent.  I am directed to the ubiquitous, frustrating, and impenetrable call center.

    No more parts.  No more repairs.  You have to replace the entire thing.  With a "thing" from out of the country.

    Pesticide residues found in children; gone when organic food is eaten.  Produce from out of the country grown with what kinds of pesticides?  I don't know.  Can I find out?  I doubt it.  Will they harm me and my family?  I dunno.

    Toys from China that can hurt our children.  Poison in the pet food and poison in the milk.

    Factories closed locally, gone to Mexico.

    Jobless Americans.


    And I blame (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:05:42 AM EST
    much of that on deregulation.

    One can trade with other countries and demand regulation.  I do not believe they are mutually exclusive.


    I don't either (none / 0) (#128)
    by Lora on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:22:12 AM EST
    But somehow regulation gets written out of our trade agreements.

    Side note on grocery stores... (none / 0) (#75)
    by ricosuave on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:33:23 AM EST
    Walk into a grocery store in another neighborhood and then make posts about abundance.  You can't find one in poor neighborhoods in many big cities, and in other areas you have nothing but convenience stores.  I think Morgan Spurlock should do a movie where he tries to eat healthy only shopping in Anacostia or some other big-city dive.

    Sorry...bit of a digression, but I couldn't resist.


    I understand that (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    I am not saying that there are not pockets of poverty (which started growing under the Reagan and Bushie admins).  But, still, comparatively speaking....to places where literal starvation happens daily. Think about it.

    I taught for years in the poorest part of the cities in which I lived. I KNOW that quality is lacking.  I also know my poorest students at least got a decent breakfast and lunch, even if their evening meal was nothing more than fast food, or Mac and Cheese.

    But the abundance, comparatively speaking to countries where children die of starvation daily......is there.  


    Sirota has no idea what he is talking about (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    I was skeptical of Obama long before I decided to support Clinton and my skepticism was based on his record and statements.  In 2007, I knew that he would put "entitlement reform" on the table as a way to kiss up to the Broders of the world, I knew he would prenegotiate against the progressive position and I knew that "post partisanship" would never work so long as the Jim DeMints of the world were around (because what possible rationale does DeMint have to burnish Obama's credentials?  None).  I also knew that oratorical skills would only get us so far and we needed someone who understood the legislative process (ie LBJ was important too!) but apparently that analysis was verboten early on.

    I wanted a fighter as President and I knew the only group Obama had fought in the Senate was progressives opposed to Alito and Roberts.

    Obama has proven me right.  Sirota may want to cal me bitter but I take no joy in the fact that we apparently have an ineffectual president who is unwilling to stand up for basic progressive principles at a time when we need those principles the most.

    Clinton had her faults, but she knew what Republicans are and she knew what the Village was.  She wouldn't have started out targeting Social Security or offering 80% of what she hoped to get.  

    Sirota made a choice on who to support in the primaries on emotion, now that the result is playing out, he's projecting.

    oh please!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#131)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    where are you getting your info from?

    "unwilling to stand up for progressive principles"

    i bet you can't name 10 things obama has done since he has been in office

    if you can name 10 things

    which of those things aren't " progressive" ?

    which do you disagree with?

    Stop criticizing Obama based off of what you read in the newspaper or tee-vee. Unless he has said it out of his mouth or there is a direct quote, in context, i would be hard press to believe anything the msm said.  Their number 1 job in to write or say provactive things to drive readership or eyeballs inorder to sell tv or ad space period.

    Example Media Polls in the 2008 General Election.

    Example: Fox News Corp.

    There will be times where we can criticize the Pres.But if we do it when there is no basis, facts or proof we then become one with the MSM, except we don't sell ad space. lol


    You are right about one thing (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:57:30 PM EST
    I can't name ten things Obama did in the Senate.

    But I do recall a certain SFTU DFH diary he did on DailyKos during the debate over supreme court nominees.  As a media darling he could have weilded a lot of influence in legitimizing a filibuster against Roberts and/or Alito and instead he chose to attack those on the left.

    I also disagree with his Fall 2007 sop to David Broder of putting Social Security "reform" back on the table after Democrats worked tooth and nail to kill it in 2005.  And I disagree with his move to advance "entitlement reform" now.

    Now if you read my post you would see I mention both of these things, so I would suggest you reread my post before claiming I don't give an example.

    The rest of your post is borderline incoherent.  


    thanks for the reply Columbia Duck (none / 0) (#164)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:49:32 PM EST
    1. first of all i wasn't replying to your post.  there was a post right below yours-- but it now seems as though it has been deleted.

    2. So i guess you can apologize--to me-for accusing me of not reading your post.

    pls explain to me seriously what part of my post was incoherent-- thanks

    i will try to correct it and make it more coherent.



    columbianduck (none / 0) (#165)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:59:33 PM EST
    in my post -- i asked the question i bet you can't name 10 things obama has done since he has been in office

    i did not ask about the senate.

    But would i be wrong if i told you to re-read my post?

    thanks for your civil response.


    If you weren't replying to my post... (none / 0) (#171)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:17:19 PM EST
    ...how could you quote from it?  "Unwilling to stand for progressive principles" was something I wrote.  You can apologize whenever.

    The part about the MSM was incoherent and had nothing to do with what I wrote.

    I was also summarizing my view of Obama in 2007 - a view I believe has been justified by his actions in office.  Clearly then I would be referring to his progressive accomplishments - or lack thereof - up to that time.  So in the Senate.


    But... (none / 0) (#174)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:19:40 PM EST
    If we are going to talk about Obama not fighting for progressive policies in the White House, I have no problem citing two examples:  "entitlement reform" rhetoric which is counterproductive in the extreme and his milquetoast efforts on passing effective stimulus.  

    thanks ColumbiaDuck (none / 0) (#176)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 05:20:16 PM EST
    sorry it took my so long-- my laptop restarted on it's on it's like this things has a mind of its own--lol

    1. The poster below you used the same quote. I was just replying to thm replying to you.

    2. Of course the part about msm didn't make sense to you because-- (which gives more power  to my point) i was addressing the other  poster.

    3. Although i wasn't responding to your original post-- is it ok for me to respond to it now?

    but before i do-- may i ask you a few question

    1. do you think Obama has been a progressive president?

    2. What metric are you using to decide that?

    2a. Are you basing that on your feelings or do you have a verifable score card or list?

    1. Do you value rhetoric or action?

    2. Can you list all the actions Obama has done since he has been president?

    3. How many of them do you consider progressive?

    4. Do you think the stim pkg is more important than  ledbetter-- schip and gitmo-- or is the stim pkg the most important thing?

    5. If we get a less than progressive pkg is that obama's fault?

    6. Is it obama;s fault we do not have 60 votes in the Senate?

    7.  In another thread you said that we need 60 votes to pass the stim pkg period and there was no way to get around that-- is that Obama's fault?


    No (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 05:33:29 PM EST
    I'm not going to fill out a questionaire.  Obama has not effectively fought the most important progressive battle of his presidency, in fact, he started it out prenegotiating with Republicans and bad-mouthing the House Democrats.  I have stated and restated why I had serious doubts about Obama more than a year ago and why I believe I was justified in that view.  I have no obligation to respond to your survey any more than I have to respond to telemarketers.

    But I will tell you this:  in 2001, with no mandate at all, Bush managed to push through his ridiculously wrong-headed tax cuts with a 50-50 senate.  He did it by louding staking out a position, putting pressure on the moderates and not giving up an inch.  Those tax cuts wrecked our federal budget but he still got them done.  Why can't Obama do the same?  Either because he is not good at this or he doesn't really believe in it.  


    Thanks Columbia Duck (none / 0) (#178)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 05:54:55 PM EST
    Why are you gettin upset with me?

    I am just trying to figure out your logic.

    Where are you getting this " he bad mouth house democrats from"?

    Are you getting this from the tee-vee or the internets or how about  the reporters who cited unamed sources?

    Pls tell me you have proof to your assertions?

    You know the one thing i respect about people like Oculus, RUffian, Steve Jeralyn- Tchris BTD-- thatonevoter Dr. Mollyand many others on?

    They usually try to provide some type of proof for their claims. Links-- verifiable metrics.

    And usually if they can't-- they say IMHO-- i think BTD  does this at the end of threads.-- which i respect.

    But pls i beg for the good of blogosphere-- pls try to stay away from claims that you will not back up or can not back up.

    When you can provide  verifiable metrics on which the others can judge obama progessiveness, it adds greater dimension and substance to this blog. Where people of like minds can in engage mental and political flourishes.

    And in the eternal words of my Blog Father



    Whatever (none / 0) (#181)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 06:58:56 PM EST
    If you want to pretend the last three weeks of congressional action and debate didn't happen, you are welcome to it.  We arrived at this moment with nothing preceding it.

    Somehow with overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate and the White House, we ended up with a half-ass senate bill and an emboldened Republican party.  It's like magic!

    I'm done with you as you seem to have no coherent argument beyond "but obama is great!"


    Columbia Duck (none / 0) (#182)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 07:21:36 PM EST
    NOw Columbia DUck

    Nowhere did i say Obama was great.

    I know its difficult to respond to someone who is aking you to make a linear argument with facts.  ANd you are unable to provide them.  So instead of debating me on the merits. You result to slightly putting me down.. That's fine -- that's a normal human reaction in this situation.

    Pls don't take this as put down.

    Albert einstein once said: " great minds will always encounter violent opposition from mediocre minds" paraphasing

    usually in a debate the one who gets mad first loses.  

    Honor the defense rests.


    BTD Adopted Son (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    You are a new commenter here. New commenters are limited to 10 comments a day for the first 30 days. You have 38 for yesterday and today. Please return another day and limit your comments to 10 a day. Thank you.

    i meant provocative (none / 0) (#134)
    by BTD Adopted Son on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:30:52 AM EST
    Actually, Daschle, Senate Majority Leader at the (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by esmense on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:32:48 AM EST
    time, worked tirelessly to try to guarantee that every Democrat in the Senate would get onboard and "support the president" on both the war and, in fact, the Patriot Act. Optics over principle OR genuine pragmatism. For me, Obama's very, very close association with Daschle, among others, always argued that he would likely prove to be another cautious, obsessed with bipartisanship, determined not to be accused of being "weak" or unpatriotic, or of stepping out ahead of Beltway common wisdom, Midwestern moderate. Not, in terms of foreign policy or economics, a progressive at all. Would Obama have voted against the war had he been in the Senate at the time? We can never know, but what we do know is that NONE of his strongest backers, those ideologically compatible people who most supported him in the party and encouraged his run, who were in the Senate at the time, did.  

    we shall see (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:47:08 AM EST
    exactly how Obama turns out.  If the current stimulus bill is the best that "the best" progressive candidate could do, that's kind of sad.

    "Not to restart the primary wars..." (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    passing the popcorn

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:09:42 AM EST
    Style matters (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Manuel on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:56:02 AM EST
    sometimes as much or more than substance or facts.  The silver lining is that Obama is a quick learner.  In the end, I think he'll get the post partisan bit just right.  He'll do enough to maintain the support of the "centrist" MSM but he'll get better at not letting it affect the core of his proposals (where he cares).  Another thing to keep in mind is Obama's cautious nature.  He is not one to quickly shift from one approach to another.  However, he is willing to shift, if slowly, unlike the previous WH occupant.  So far I see some serious mistakes but nothing fatal.

    Health care should be up soon (after he recovers from the self inflicted Daschle wound).  We'll see if he has learned anything from the process so far.

    I am glad to see (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by ricosuave on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:10:09 AM EST
    that we have all (including myself) put the battles of the primary behind us and moved on! ;-)

    I think you hit the nail on the head (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:10:30 AM EST
    the same people who STILL cannot let go of their irrational hatred of all things Clinton, have been silent on Daschle and others.

    And while I am a supporter of most progressives, I don't kid myself. Ted Kennedy, certainly considered as progressive as it gets, supported NCLB........and still does.  So does Obama.  Obama says he will "fix it" but most teachers tell you DUMP IT.  But Kennedy and Miller are hanging on to NCLB like it actually did not hurt education.

    Hillary is not, never was perfect. NO POLITICIAN, NO HUMAN BEING IS. But Sirota and his ilk's irrational hatred is vile and frightening.

    You left out the money quote (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by lambert on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    Here it is:

    To Clintonites, just STFU and slither back to your rathole of bitterness.

    I didn't know that Sirota was commenting over at Kos, too. Busy man.

    Wow, Let the reconciliation begin! (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by addy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:36:24 PM EST
    I'm feeling warm and fuzzy all over.

    He's always been way overboard in (none / 0) (#140)
    by tigercourse on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:12:11 PM EST
    his harsh rhetoric. Back when he used to love Edwards and hate Obama and Clinton I always complained that he called himself a journalist.

    The funny thing is that for a "progressive" or whatever he calls himself, most of the pols he's worked for have been conservatives, well to the right of Clinton or Obama.


    Actually, there is a dimes worth of difference (4.70 / 10) (#16)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:48:08 AM EST
    between them.  Hill is to the Left of Obama on virtually every domestic issue.  And, you are one to talk.  You rationalize Obama for a number of false reasons:

    1)on the Iraq Debacle, Obama was right and Clinton was wrong

    We have no idea where Obama would have come down on the war had he been a sitting Senator.  None.  You'd be more accurate to say "Hillary was there, Obama was not" and if that makes you feel better about Obama, great.

    2)He was the one I thought could best move a progressive agenda and was the most electable.

    Well, it turns out experience dealing with Congress is relevant, and Obama's penchant for Kumbaya is a problem moving forward a "progressive agenda".  The other part of that is just silly.  The election was a referendum on Bush.  There was no chance Hillary wouldn't win and no evidence she were less electable.  As it turned out, Lehman Brothers fell, the economy fell apart, and a ham sandwich with a D next to it's name could have won.

    I'll give you trade.  I agree with you on that.

    To me, Obama is ok---just ok. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:51:47 AM EST
    There's just no reason to get excited about his greatness. I don't want a President with "potential", either.
    One thing you left out was BTD's insistence that experience doesn't matter.
    Oh, really?

    No kidding. I seriuosly doubt Hillary would have (none / 0) (#19)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:53:56 AM EST
    right out of the gate on her economic recovery plan, but that's part of Obama's Kumbaya.

    Actually... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:15:34 AM EST
    We have no idea where Obama would have come down on the war had he been a sitting Senator.  None.  You'd be more accurate to say "Hillary was there, Obama was not" and if that makes you feel better about Obama, great

    Actually, we DO have an idea where he would have come down. Remember this? In 2004 he said "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage," and that also in 2004, he didn't think the case for war had been made, but he didn't know how he would have voted had he had access to classified information at the time, because he was not in the United States Senate.

    And I agree with you on this:

    There was no chance Hillary wouldn't win and no evidence she were less electable

    The election would have been over the night of her acceptance speech at the convention.  It wouldn't have been as close as it was through September and October.  He's done a few early things that have surprised me and I think have been good, but I think once we get some sort of stimulus bill and the months trudge on, and the newness of Our Very First Black President wears off, I think we'll see a much less progressive leader.  He's already shown he'll cave to Republicans on things like more tax cuts and rendition (and besides, they have good ideas).

    Going to be an interesting 4 years.

    That being said, however, I want whatever Sirota is smoking if he thinks Obama is a progressive, let alone the "most" progressive.


    I mean, just look at the FISA vote. (none / 0) (#18)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    Would Obama the Senate primary candidate have supported that?

    Please edit. Confusing. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:06:23 AM EST
    "Obama the Senate primary candidate."

    Obama, the Senate primary candidate,... (none / 0) (#34)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:08:57 AM EST
    what's the confusion?

    Are you referring to the FISA (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:13:29 AM EST
    revise, for which Obama, as U.S. Senator from IL, voted after stating he would support a filibuster against it?  We know how he voted.  And that Senator Clinton voted against it. What am I missing?

    Oculus, yes, what I am saying is Obama was (none / 0) (#52)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    "right" about AUMF and Hill was wrong is a false comparison.  One was in Congress, one was not.  Would the Obama, who was against the AUMF vote as a primary candidate, have been for the FISA vote as a candidate in the IL primary?  Somehow I doubt it, but that is how he voted as a sitting Senator.

    Obama against AUMF? (none / 0) (#67)
    by ricosuave on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:27:46 AM EST
    He never said anything at the time.  Democrats knew the Iraq war was wrong in 2007, so being against the AUMF then was not some amazing piece of leadership.

    Obama was NOT against the AUMF 2002.  He never said a word about it, didn't mention it in his "big speech" (which was either just before or just after the vote), and later (2004) said he would have voted for it.


    Thanks. I thought that but couldn't quite (none / 0) (#69)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:29:31 AM EST
    remember.  Well, then, not a dimes bit of difference between Obama and Hill.  She actually gave several speeches against the war even though she voted for AUMF.

    Well you are (none / 0) (#161)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:37:13 PM EST
    forgetting that one was canidate for national office at the time and the other was the Junior Senator from NY- its a lot easier to take a stand of something when you know it doesn't matter- I mean wasn't that the gist of the argument used by those who wanted to discount Obama's rather prescient speech on the war?

    Who was a candidate for a national office? (none / 0) (#167)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 04:08:22 PM EST
    Obama?  He was running for the Illinois Senate at the time of his "greatest and most prescient speech ever".

    Hillary's Senate record (none / 0) (#160)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:34:41 PM EST
    makes it very hard to claim she was some sort of progressive champion, she consistently voted center, center-left at best, much like Obama the idea that say was some sort of Paul Wellstone type  is a convenient fiction adopted by those who supported her and dislike Obama.

    on the iraq debacle (4.63 / 11) (#4)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:30:14 AM EST
    (going forward, in the past -- on the Iraq Debacle, Obama was right and Clinton was wrong)

    obama was nothing. since, at the time, he had zero say in the matter, and made one famously tepid speech, that perhaps five people heard, he has no claim to being "right" on anything.

    please stop spreading that nonsensicle lie. he's voted to fund the iraq war ever since he got to congress, making his position no different than clinton's.

    aside from that, he's historically (think primaries and general campaigns) empty on the actual issues. toe-to-toe with clinton, he always came up second best, at best.

    clinton wouldn't put up with this "post-partisan" nonsense, there is no such thing. if there were, we wouldn't have different political parties, with different political philosophies. politics is partisan, by its very nature. to think otherwise is to demonstrate your total detachment from reality.

    That is the best formulation I've read. (3.66 / 3) (#9)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:37:11 AM EST
    You from Chicago or live there? (2.50 / 4) (#22)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:00:00 AM EST
    obama was nothing. since, at the time, he had zero say in the matter, and made one famously tepid speech, that perhaps five people heard, he has no claim to being "right" on anything.

    Because I know folks from Chicago and downstate IL who remember very well when he gave his speech(es) on the Iraq war and held protests against the war as a State Senator.  Hillary voted for the war because she was being advised by that odious Mark Penn and because she thought that the only way to best position herself for a WH run would be to act like a hawk.

    The mistake that lots of people make is that just because Hillary was in the Senate for 7 years that she actually accomplished a lot--she didn't. She got a Post Office renamed in NY and that is about it.  Her last name was Clinton so many believed that the experience of her husband was transferable--it isn't.  

    Hillary is an outstanding individual in her own right and her advocacy should not be discounted but these ignorant arguments about how "inexperienced" Obama was compared to Hillary need to stop.

    We don't know how Hillary Clinton would act if she were President now, to claim that she would be some savior right now is absurd. If you want to say that you despise Obama, do so but please don't try to argue how much better you KNOW Hillary would have been if only she would have won.


    What evidence supports (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    more than one speech?  Where and when did Obama publicly protest the Iraq war (with the exception of the re-recorded speech in Chicago)?  

    Hillary told you why (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    she voted for it?  Wow, I'm impressed.  Didn't realize you two were such intimates.

    It was considered a sign of weakness (none / 0) (#43)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    if she didn't vote for it and would make her open for attacks in a general election campaign as being weak on terror as her advisers thought. It is the same reason why she was strongly advised not to apologize for that vote as well which I think was a big mistake in a democratic primary where voters were far more enraged with Iraq than anything else.

    Hillary ran a campaign that was circa 1996 in 2008 and it was one of the reasons she lost the nomination. She was being advised by a sexist out of touch triangulating tool who she thought could repeat the magic of 10 years prior.  By the time she realized this, it was too late. Sad but true.


    "It was considered" (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:13:14 PM EST
    Oh, I see.

    Stop now because you're embarassing yourself.


    Your comment is sad, but not true. (none / 0) (#46)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:14:11 AM EST
    Actually it is true. (none / 0) (#56)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    What is sad is how a wonderful woman who had every single advantage going into the nomination process and whom I would have gladly voted for over John McCain or any other neanderthal Republican could allow herself to be so poorly advised by such a narcissist and lose.

    Hillary made serious mistakes and it doomed her in the end. Her biggest mistake,imo, was not going back home to IL and running for Senate there.

    Hindsight is of course, 20/20.


    Are you retracting your claim about (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:21:42 AM EST
    Obama? You've been challenged to provide some evidence. It's not possible, is it?
    I bet he never once led an anti-war protest.
    That would definitely have been mentioned by the Republicans.

    I have friends in Chicago (none / 0) (#73)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:31:13 AM EST
    who were there when he would speak at anti-war rallies back there.  They were in his corner from back in his days as a state senator because of how he was very outspoken about the war.  Both he and Michelle were quite the activists especially in Chicago's large and influential black community from what my friends have told me up to the run up of the war.

    Articles please (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:35:52 AM EST
    If Obama had any sort of leading role in anti-war rallies, that information should be readily accessible from articles at the time.  So it would be helpful if you could provide such backing.  My own searches have found a single mention of him at one rally that did not contain any of his actual remarks.

    If an elected official was "leading" any anti-war effort, there should certainly be contemporaneous accounts.


    I'm sorry I can't be of more help. (none / 0) (#86)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:41:55 AM EST
    Try nexis! I'm responding to folks that were on the ground when I was still saying "Barack who?"

    No... (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:45:03 AM EST
    You should "try nexis" because you are making claims based on ancedotal evidence.  As I said, I've done that research and cannot substantiate the claims of your friends.  Since you are making those claims, you should provide the evidence that Obama was some "leader" in the anti-war movement.

    Yes (1.00 / 4) (#92)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:48:15 AM EST
    because of course my friends would lie about ACTUALLY BEING THERE WITH HIM AND MICHELLE when they were out protesting and speaking out in the community.

    I strongly suggest that if you have nexis you do a search. There are other avenues of information besides google and  yes, first hand accounts from people on the ground who can speak at length about Obama  because they were there actually count for something besides, "I can't find it on google so it can't be true!"


    No (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    You are making a claim that is unsubstantiated by any account.  A claim I didn't even hear from folks last year who were trying to hold Obama up as an anti-war warrior.  There is no proof of that claim besides your friends' say-so.  I don't know if they are lying nor do I care (nor do I know or care if folks who claim to have been at other historical events were actually there) but if you can't back it up from some verifiable source, you should stop repeating it.

    Sorry (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by ricosuave on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:07:26 AM EST
    I don't mean to call your friends liars, and I am not doing that.  But I have never heard ANYONE make the claim that Obama was leading anti-war rallies.  I am sure that there are cases of his showing up places, shaking hands, whatever.  I am sure he is perfectly charming and dazzling and your friends were thrilled to see him, and that they are all fine people who worked hard for what they thought was right.  I agree with everyone who says Obama and his wife are good looking people ahd that the kids are cute.

    But there is no evidence (google or otherwise) that Obama led anti-war rallies.  There is PLENTY of evidence (google and non google) that he did nothing active or passive against the war and had several passive "non-anti-war" actions while in the US Senate.  I am not accusing him of inventing uranium stories--just of exercising no leadership one way or the other on Iraq.

    If your argument was that he was secretly good on the issue until he hit the national stage, then that doesn't make me feel good about the guy.


    Maybe you misheard. (none / 0) (#148)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:50:35 PM EST
    Hillary's biggest mistake was (3.66 / 3) (#60)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:22:46 AM EST
    eschewing dirty politics. No one else did.

    I guess we get to count (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by ricosuave on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:09:12 AM EST
    Obama's speech in 2002, but not Hillary's?  She was much stronger against the war in her explanation of the AUMF vote.

    Can we stop pretending that this AUMF vote would have stopped the war?  At the time, everyone knew that we were going to war and that the AUMF vote was an attempt to put democrats in a bind choosing between international cooperation and opposing the war.  They had no good choices there.

    But please, since you are so versed in what happened back then, tell me what Obama said about the AUMF vote in his big speech?  It was just before or after the vote, so if it was such a big deal, what did he say about it in his "big speech"?  And why did he later say he probably would have voted for it?

    And, for that matter, who has he put on his cabinet or in charge of Iraq policy that voted against the AUMF?

    Obama didn't consider the AUMF vote important back in 2002 and he doesn't consider it important now.  It was only important to Obama supporters during the primary because it was something to throw in Hillary's face that resonated with the press.  But as an issue it was just a run-of-the-mill (albeit slightly dishonest) campaign tactic that has since been abandoned and it is time to stop bandying it about like it actually means something.


    Oh...and (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ricosuave on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:12:20 AM EST
    we still don't know how Obama will act as president, either.  But we are starting to find out from things like this.

    The 'this' (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:20:03 AM EST
    you refer us to, makes me think we are accepting Mr. Cheney's recent advice.

    Say, wasn't Hilary the (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Radix on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:01:38 AM EST
    Senator from New York, at the time of her vote? You don't suppose the New Yorkers were upset, for some reason, about the time of her vote do you?

    BS Radix BS (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Politalkix on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:15:35 PM EST
    61% of House Democrats and 42% of Senate Democrats voted against the Iraq War Resolution. NY House Democrats like Nadler, Hinchey, Rangel, Meeks voted against the resolution.

    HRC is more progressive in non foreign policy related matters than a lot of other politicians. However providing excuses for her Iraq War Resolution vote seriously undermines your credibility.


    Yes (none / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:40:21 PM EST
    This NYCer and all the NYCers I know were horrified that Hillary voted for the AUMF.

    Unfortunately, you and your friends (none / 0) (#151)
    by Radix on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:44:46 PM EST
    were in the minority opinion column for that time period.

    Really? (none / 0) (#159)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:29:59 PM EST
    Got some data supporting your theory?

    bs (none / 0) (#162)
    by CST on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 03:37:46 PM EST
    minority in the country.  Not the minority in NYC.

    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and most NYers knew that.

    here is a link, the important part being:

    "A March 25 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University showed opposition to the war at 59 - 37 percent in the days before the war began, dropping to a 49 - 47 percent split by day five of the hostilities."

    After the war began, support for it went up, but before it happened it was not very high at all in NYC.


    Your argument isn't helped by CDS. (4.66 / 9) (#33)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    Hillary only got a post office named in 7 years---Really????

    Ask a NYer if they can name 5 things she did . (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:15:39 AM EST
    It isn't about CDS it is about facts.

    Can't find the dates and locations of (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:17:08 AM EST
    the protest marches Obama led?
    Did he sing "Kumbayah" at them, by the way?
    And also btw, I doubt you have even examined HRC's Senate Record. You don't even have the facts about Obama down.

    No average voter can name 5 things (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:18:34 AM EST
    any Senator has done. Most people in Mass. can't name 2 things Ted has done.

    Best comment (3.66 / 3) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:19:38 AM EST
    Very true (1.66 / 3) (#61)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:23:20 AM EST
    but when someone is going to try to argue to me that one politician is so much more experienced (which is what a commenter above did) than another -- I would like to see it backed up by things other than what their last name is and what their husband did.

    You should try (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 11:09:45 AM EST
    considering what others in the Senate thought of her. By all accounts she was universally respected, worked hard and learned how to talk to everyone.

    She even attended mark-up sessions and that's something a lot of Senators skip.

    She laid the foundation for working the Senate.

    Don't short sell experience.


    I'm a New Yorker and so is my husband (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by chezmadame on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 06:38:10 PM EST
    He's FDNY, a 9/11 survivor, "uninjured" that day, decorated for valour, now retired and unwell.

    He lost 16% of his lung capacity between February 2001 and November of 2001. He has recurrent throat lesions that need to be removed.

    Sad thing was, my husband couldn't "prove" that this was a result of surviving the collapse of the towers, working search and rescue/recovery for months, or doing service at the Staten Island landfill combing through debris for the remains.of victims. He was therefore ineligible for medical monitoring.

    That all changed when a feisty advocate fought  the Bush guidelines. She also went to bat for our National Guard whose duties were fully federalized, but whose benefits weren't.

    My husband's health is now being monitored  and he gets his meds at a reduced cost. Deployed guardsmen (including those from New York's Fort Drum) are eligible for full veteran's benefits. If any die in the line of duty, their families receive what "regular army" is entitled to, rather than a paltry sum.

    All thanks to the efforts of the former junior senator who is now secretary of state.

    I know that's only two things, but this post was getting long.


    Depends On What You Mean (none / 0) (#149)
    by daring grace on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    by 'five things she's done'.

    There are 'things' of national interest and 'things' of state and local significance.

    As our senator, HRC was known (generally) for her hard working constituency outreach. As tireless and relentless as she was on the presidential campaign trail, that's the reputation she (generally) has among New Yorkers. There are dozens of ways she made things better, esp. in upstate New York.

    I say this as an Obama supporter who voted for HRC in her first run for the senate and abstained in her second.


    YES (none / 0) (#62)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:23:25 AM EST
    politics is partisan, by its very nature. to think otherwise is to demonstrate your total detachment from reality.

    Right on the nose cpinva.  The whole post-partisan schtick can only appeal to Village media and those who've never paid close attention.

    I give that a 5 on a scale from 1 to 5.


    Troublemaker. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:26:00 AM EST
    Going forward...!

    I like busting David's chops (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:27:18 AM EST
    on his Clinton hate.

    Works for me every time. (none / 0) (#3)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:29:43 AM EST
    I agree (none / 0) (#5)
    by Lil on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:30:44 AM EST
    the biggest difference I see between Clinton and Obama is not in policy but in popularity. The main reason I think it is better that Obama won is I can't imagine the resistance Hillary would be facing now. CDS would be in full rage. I mean look at the punches thrown at Obama so far and then try to imagine how much more insane everyone would be if Hillary was trying to push through an 800 billion dollar spending bill. There would probably be blood in the streets.

    It's silly to me (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:46:02 AM EST
    When I read some of the more afflicted with CDS types, I get amazed.  One would think they have been personally in touch with Hillary, talked to her one on one for years, know her, know how she thinks, how she feels......and have condemned her.  They surely cannot be looking at her voting record, her lifetime of advocating for the poor, for women and children.  They surely cannot look at he public record of accomplishments.

    Oh well...I guess, for some people, the old middle school mentality remains in tact.  They can only feel good about themselves by trashing others who actually have accomplishments.


    BTD you missed another major area where Clinton (none / 0) (#184)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:03:40 PM EST
    and Obama differed. Clinton proposed ages ago the real solution to making banks solvent again and getting a handle on what is really behind this financial crisis was to get a HOLC (Homeowners Loan Corporation) established.  Obama and his U of Chicago/Milton Friedman centric economics team are not seriously attacking the real problem and aren't likely to until it is too late. Her approach is progressive theirs is not.

    (And I refuse to concede that Obama was right on the war when this is based on a speech never even reported in his local paper when he was the state senator from a very liberal district in Chicago and not in the US Senate. Particularly when once he was there and could have made a stand he chose not to at every juncture and voted with Hillary for every vote. It just isn't credible)