View Story | 26 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I'm no historian, but it seemed this country went through a progressive movement at the beginning of the 20th Century that led to a breakup of the trusts, increasing worker's rights, eventually giving women the right to vote. Perhaps we are at the beginning of new progressive era. But that era will need a special leader to convince more than just those of us that already visit a Progressive website. There is a bit of a risk. But, this country needs to take some risks right now. We need big, bold change and I think Barack Obama is the one that could possibly do that
reagan was great president social security is in crisis Trial lawyers are bad cutting off funding is not supporting the troops Gays can be changed by Jesus
That kinda stuff?
jes sayin
On Being A John Edwards Democrat
by Redstateresident on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:24:48 AM PDT
My immediate answer is that your bullet points are a pretty inaccurate summation of the real events. But I'm not going to argue with you. As I said, all of these candidates require a bit of faith. You can't make that leap for Obama. I can. We go on.....
Your ad could be here.
by TheC on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:27:21 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
that much faith, I really appreciate this diary for being completely fair, very well-observed and well-written, and for providing an answer to something that's floored me ever since hearing Lamont's endorsement. Thanks very much.
Please, God, don't let the Democratic party make me vote for some pinhead who believes in the GWOT. God grinned...
by planetclaire4 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:52:10 AM PDT
Is anyone perfect? Seriously - we will never have a perfect candidate - EVER. Every one of the big three has problems - every single one of them.
Have you ever had a "perfect" candidate? One that resonated with you on ALL of the issues & had the record to back it up? Pleeaaaaase.
John McCain doesn't want healthy children.
by aimeeinkc on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:28:23 AM PDT
The idea that Obama is a risky choice and Hillary is risk-free is a bit much. Each candidate has their strenghts and weaknesses. I, for one, am a bit tired of the misrepresentations of all candidates. Let's all agree that:
One Man with Courage Makes a Majority - Andrew Jackson
by Nick A on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:44:25 AM PDT
What the author was saying is that Hillary is more of a "known quantity" than Obama, there's no risk of getting something you didn't expect.
Bring the WAR home
by EthrDemon on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:09:37 AM PDT
Thank you for listening.
by planetclaire4 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:42:36 AM PDT
If this is your premise, you really have gone off the deep end.
by aimeeinkc on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:02:00 AM PDT
(Don't worry--I have my scuba gear on.)
All right, could we just have a capital-D Democrat, not one of these pale imitations? I don't know why Obama declined to join the DLC (small d dems to my mind, and barely that), though even those compromisers probably would have picked a better example than Reagan of presidents Worth Consideration. I want a strong, partisan Democrat. With backbone. One who will scare Pelosi and Reid into thinking they had better come up with some gnarly backbone themselves.
by planetclaire4 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:46:39 AM PDT
good luck with that. I just don't think it's going to happen. But it doesn't keep me working and campaigning for Dems.
by aimeeinkc on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:11:19 AM PDT
the trick is to just not work and campaign for conciliators, a "d" behind his/her name or not. Sorry, I'm just not settling anymore. Only doing Big D-Dems; small "d's" can look to Harold Ford and Rahm for help.
by planetclaire4 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:45:09 AM PDT
was at least a hint of honest about your posts.
by Yoshimi on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:36:29 AM PDT
What the diarist said was very true, and completely positive! You can't equate it with negative attacks on Edwards, or homophobic comments by people who support Obama.
The diarist is clearly 100% correct in the quote you raise, and doesn't make a negative comment about your candidate. Tell me what is wrong with the diarist saying "this country went through a progressive movement at the beginning of the 20th Century" and then saying which candidate they think can ignite a similar movement? (And don't say some Obama diaries are hit pieces -- that's true of all the candidates, and is roughly the same as saying "some moslems attacked us, and so. . .")
By innuendo, you equate the diary with attacks on your candidate.
One day you'll wake up and say: "I wonder why people did not tune in to my candidate's message?" And you'll happen to be standing in front of the bathroom mirror, and still not recognize that the cosmos is answering your question.
"Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes
by MarkC on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:48:21 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 26 comments