View Story | 405 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Every time Obama says "the" we get closer and closer to privatized social security.
Barack Obama is the nominee.
by Mark Warner is God on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:22:35 PM PDT
Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott
by rasbobbo on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:26:21 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Obama talking about "The" war on terror while Edwards says the whole "war on terror" concept is bullshit is so funny!
Obama talking about "The" right of Americans to not have healthcare while John Edwards is out there campaigning for universal healthcare is so funny!
Obama talking about how "The" unions ought to shut up while janitors and hospital workers band together to support John Edwards is so funny!
I'm glad you have written this hilarious diary. Highlighting Obama's use of "The" in his bizarre attacks on progressives and the left is an excellent way of trying to disguise his triangulating agenda.
We need more centrist, triangulating "Democrats" like Barack Obama and Mark Warner and fewer progressives like John Edwards. Funny!
by flubber on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:31:25 AM PDT
false characterization is 'the'. That is funny.
Obama!
by fisheye on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:28:46 AM PDT
We'll need a landslide
Dear Iowa and New Hampshire
by joan reports
by joan reports on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:37:29 AM PDT
An upset. Gravel 08 is who I'm rooting for. Shake everything up!
by Sharon Jumper on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:04:20 AM PDT
From Driftglass:
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton was every single thing Republicans claim they want in a “bipartisan” Democrat: Smart Capable A superb communicator Fiscally disciplined A surplus-maker Willing to compromise on just about anything and – to the horror of his party’s most loyal supporters -- give away to the GOP win after win on NAFTA, GATT, Welfare Reform and a slew of other items on the GOP Lifetime Wish List. Respected on the world stage. And for his troubles the GOP didn’t simply hard fight him on the fair-and-square every fucking inch of the way. Oh no. Instead, their political and media Parti apparats crawled up his ass and ripped into his guts like Furies on a mean whiskey drunk. Morning, noon and night. Wartime or peacetime. 24/7/365. Under the banners of DeLay, Gingrich, Limbaugh and Falwell, they rededicated themselves to Total Political War on everyone Left of Pat Buchanan, and redoubled their efforts to destroy! destroy! destroy! the other side.
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton was every single thing Republicans claim they want in a “bipartisan” Democrat:
And for his troubles the GOP didn’t simply hard fight him on the fair-and-square every fucking inch of the way. Oh no. Instead, their political and media Parti apparats crawled up his ass and ripped into his guts like Furies on a mean whiskey drunk.
Morning, noon and night.
Wartime or peacetime.
24/7/365.
Under the banners of DeLay, Gingrich, Limbaugh and Falwell, they rededicated themselves to Total Political War on everyone Left of Pat Buchanan, and redoubled their efforts to destroy! destroy! destroy! the other side.
The whole piece is here. It's worth a read.
There is no one, NO ONE with a D after his name who won't face the same treatment from the Rethugs. Obama seems to be the only candidate running who thinks otherwise.
Vote for Evita Clinton, dump Howard Dean, bring back McAuliffe, end people-powered politics and restore triangulation.
by expatjourno on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:18:10 AM PDT
Republican operative class.
He is calling for reaching out to the American public at large.
McCain & Clinton = WAR Authorizers | Veep prefs for Obama: 1. Sebelius 2. Richardson
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:09:06 AM PDT
What the individual can do is to give a fine example, and to have the courage to uphold ethical values .. in a society of cynics." - Albert Einstein
by smijer on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:19:11 AM PDT
Markos believes the Democratic Party slammed the door to new members after his Republican arrival. His diaries were very sad and we may well be in trouble with winning the national election without those SINISTER "Independent" and disenfranchised voters that are "FIRED UP" by Obama. What happened to "Crashing the Gate", the 50 state strategy and working to elect progressive candidates? Markos should have stayed in bed yesterday morning. mjd
Catholic, white woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (endorsed 12/06)
by mjd in florida on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:16:58 AM PDT
by cris0000 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:41:15 AM PDT
Ick -- A progressive who can capture the imagination of independents and move them to vote for a democrat -- eww -- Obama must be a bad man.
"His mind is as sharp as anybody's I've ever met," Feingold said of Obama.
by Joes username on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:10:56 AM PDT
haven't you heard?
You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata
by byteb on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:36:35 AM PDT
actually, it was that genius diary that inspired me to finally subscribe so I could rec and comment rather than just lurk.
by Joes username on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:42:52 AM PDT
:-(
Bill Richardson's reaction is the reaction every Democrat should have had to Barack Obama's historic speech on race. Paging Edwards and Gore...
by DraftChickenHawks on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:16:06 AM PDT
on xmas day, by this same genius diarist MarkWarnerIsGod. See his page at that link for the diary.
...safe assumption that is byteb's cannibal reference....
Obama '08!
by Joes username on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:14:39 AM PDT
another hit on Obama by that same taylor marsh who refered to Obama as a cannibal in her headline that MarkWarnerisGod parodied.
by fisheye on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:14:08 AM PDT
rather than a mover and a doer. He has no leverage with the Republican extremists; they are dug in in mental trenches. He does not truly LEAD.
Support Andrew Rice for the US Senate: link
by tsunami on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:09:51 AM PDT
than his major opponents.
Good morning Daily Kos.
Obama's Progressive Record Barack Obama's IL Senate record, by ChiGirl88, Sun May 06, 2007 at 03:04:59 AM PDT ADA Ratings for Obama: 2005 (100%), 2006 (95%); Avg: 92.5%. Edwards lifetime ADA rating is 81% (and a poor 70% in 2002). link. Red state excuse doesn't fly because, eg, despite NC's union tradition which made even Jesse Helms vote against China MFN, Edwards voted for it. Interest group ratings for Obama: vote smart Issues 2000 on Obama IL death penalty reform: Adam B's diary Obama has 1 bill with his name that was passed into law. It's a Congo relief bill. Edwards has zero bills passed into law. See here for links. Obama's work on ethics reform: barath's diary. DL's diary. More diaries and excerpts here Obama has an excellent environmental record. He has 100% and 95% LCV ratings, had a strong record on it in the IL senate (despite IL being a heavily industrial state). Responded to environmentalists' concerns and opposed Bunning's bad CTL bill and stated a 20% CO2 reduction target for him to support it. See my compilation of links here. By contrast, Edwards had a weak to poor environmental record: a poor overall LCV rating (59%) as well as poor ratings in 1999 (78%, weak compared to other Democrats) and 2002 (59%, poor) when he had no excuse of running for President.
Obama's Progressive Record
Biden has a better legislative record (outside of his war vote, but he was one of first to start putting out meaningful and thoughtful exit plans) of getting things done most other candidates; he's been there for sometime and mostly knows what he's doing. Kucinich has the most consistently progressive record of all of the candidates. Obama is currently much more viable for getting elected than both of these strong Democrats. That Kucinich has called for his supporters to vote Obama as their second choice and Biden is said to be learning towards the same, should also tell us something.
And good morning Iowa. Hope you'll choose wisely tomorrow.
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:31:39 AM PDT
and realized Obama has a record of action and achievment.
by fisheye on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:09:27 AM PDT
In case you hadn't noticed. And it is also divided, with blue urban and red rural areas. So republicans and Democrats have some history of compromising with each other.
Nothing in Obama's Illinois record is relevant in this election.
by expatjourno on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:36:32 PM PDT
to front on a bill for
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act) requires a single searchable website, accessible by the public for free that includes for each Federal award: The name of the entity receiving the award; The amount of the award; Information on the award including transaction type, funding agency, etc; The location of the entity receiving the award; A unique identifier of the entity receiving the award.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act) requires a single searchable website, accessible by the public for free that includes for each Federal award:
Try it; you'll like it.
Oh, also check out the Lugar-Obama Law which expands the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines. It previously just covered nuclear threats.
Hillary: channeling her inner Repuglican: Free at last
by samddobermann on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:48:21 AM PDT
that is a total tightwad and a maverick and who is a total pain to the Republican leadership because of his thrifty ways. Coburn is my Senator in Oklahoma, so I know a lot about him.
by tsunami on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:22:33 PM PDT
"centrist" BS policies. No one is clamoring for partial privatization of Social Security. They either want it privatized or left alone. No one is asking for semi-universal health care. They either believe it is the government's job or it isn't. Etc., etc. This imagined "center" that lies "between" those who think the government has a role to play in protecting citizens against capitalism's excesses and those who think the government is the problem does not exist. Those are starkly opposing views and don't have compromise positions.
by Anaxamander on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:25:55 AM PDT
No one is clamoring for partial privatization of Social Security. They either want it privatized or left alone.
Just not true. Plenty would like to see it shored up long-term without privatization.
"Not This Time"
by pragprogress on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:22:24 AM PDT
The crisis is in Medicare. Social Security would be fine if we hadn't spent its surplus, but it will still be fine if we take the cap off salary subject to the payroll tax. No other fix is needed for it. So partial privatization is not required for "shoring it up" and no one is really asking for partial privatization that I have seen.
by Anaxamander on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:26:45 AM PDT
If the budget is not brought under control then social security will take up most of the available money. That is why Al Gore talked about "the lock box", because we would be in better financial shape if we control the budget now and save for when the Boomers retire.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan
by atlliberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:56:59 AM PDT
tax revenue would not be avaialble to use for other spending but would be put in a "lock biox" to pay SS benefits dowen the road. Our failure to dot hat means that there will be a small shortfall. But it is little compared to other problems and can be fixed with the removal if the cap on SS payroll taxation.
I agree we have budget problems, but, to me, SS is sacred. Any candidate who wants to meet the crazy corptocracy Bushies in "the middle" on this issue by allowing them to fundamentally alter what SS is cannot be my candidate. It is crazy and it is unnecessary. We WON this fight when we were in the minority in both houses and with BUSH in the WH. Why would we go back and cave on it now that we have MORE power than that? That kind of unnecessary giveaway of CORE democratic principles is what we find worrying about Obama.
by Anaxamander on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:45:27 AM PDT
by Anaxamander on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:46:47 AM PDT
But Obama has come out and said that raising the cap would be his preference to fix it. He has opposed any attempt to privatize it. What he intends to do is create apanel to come up with ideas to solve the budget problem with SS, but he has already said he is opposed to privatization, opposed to lowering benefits, and is open to raising the cap. There are some people here who criticize him for how he talks about the problem but don't go into detail about how he would fix it. Whether you say SS is in crisis, or the budget is in crisis is irrelevant. There is a problem which has been exacerbated by 8 years of republican irresponsibility, and it needs to be solved.
by atlliberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM PDT
...and not just stick to talking about the budget?
by expatjourno on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:38:48 PM PDT
on SocSec and any type of privatization, least of all Obama. He did refer to problems in a really dumb way not realizing Democrats would have hissy fits because of a dumb word.
by samddobermann on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:08:57 AM PDT
Please see above
His record is positively superior in every way that I can thing to that of John Edwards.
His record, message and his better foreign policy vision make him more trustworthy than Hillary.
There is no part of the public that espouses "centrist" BS policies.
Obama isn't "espousing" "centrist" policies. That's a spin which you seem to have unfortinately fallen for.
No one is clamoring for partial privatization of Social Security.
Obama firmly opposed and opposes privatization of SS.
"A Hope to Fulfill" Tuesday, April 26, 2005 Remarks of Senator Barack Obama National Press Club Tuesday, April 26th, 2005 But I couldn't disagree more. If we privatize Social Security, what will we tell retirees whose investments in the stock market went badly? We're sorry? Keep working? You're on your own? When people's expected benefits get cut and they have to choose between their groceries and their prescriptions, what will we say then? That's not our problem? When our debt climbs so high that our children face sky-high taxes just as they're starting their first job, what will we tell them? Deal with it yourselves? This isn't how America works. This isn't how we saved millions of seniors from a life of poverty seventy years ago. This isn't how we sent a greatest generation of veterans to college so they could build the greatest middle-class in history. And this isn't how we should face the challenges of this new century either. And yet, this is the direction they're trying to take America on almost every issue. .... I think we will save Social Security from privatization this year. And in doing so, we will affirm our belief that we are all connected as one people - ready to share life's risks and rewards for the benefit of each and the good of all. Let me close by suggesting that Democrats are absolutely united in the need to strengthen Social Security and make it solvent for future generations. We know that, and we want that. And I believe that both Democrats and Republicans can work together to do that. While we're at it, we can begin a debate about the real challenges America faces as the baby boomers begin to retire. About getting a handle on the growing cost of health care and prescription drugs. About increasing individual and national savings. About strengthening our pension system for the 21st century. These are important questions that require us to work together, not in a manufactured panic about a genuine but solvable problem, but with the spirit of pragmatism and innovation that will offer every American the secure retirement they have earned.
"A Hope to Fulfill" Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama National Press Club Tuesday, April 26th, 2005
But I couldn't disagree more. If we privatize Social Security, what will we tell retirees whose investments in the stock market went badly? We're sorry? Keep working? You're on your own?
When people's expected benefits get cut and they have to choose between their groceries and their prescriptions, what will we say then? That's not our problem?
When our debt climbs so high that our children face sky-high taxes just as they're starting their first job, what will we tell them? Deal with it yourselves?
This isn't how America works. This isn't how we saved millions of seniors from a life of poverty seventy years ago. This isn't how we sent a greatest generation of veterans to college so they could build the greatest middle-class in history. And this isn't how we should face the challenges of this new century either.
And yet, this is the direction they're trying to take America on almost every issue.
....
I think we will save Social Security from privatization this year. And in doing so, we will affirm our belief that we are all connected as one people - ready to share life's risks and rewards for the benefit of each and the good of all.
Let me close by suggesting that Democrats are absolutely united in the need to strengthen Social Security and make it solvent for future generations. We know that, and we want that. And I believe that both Democrats and Republicans can work together to do that. While we're at it, we can begin a debate about the real challenges America faces as the baby boomers begin to retire.
About getting a handle on the growing cost of health care and prescription drugs. About increasing individual and national savings. About strengthening our pension system for the 21st century.
These are important questions that require us to work together, not in a manufactured panic about a genuine but solvable problem, but with the spirit of pragmatism and innovation that will offer every American the secure retirement they have earned.
which clearly shows that he opposed privatization back when Bush tried to shove it through.
"No one is asking for semi-universal health care."
None of the candidates have a truly universal healthcare plan (except Kucinich's single payer UHC) because of this: JRE and HRC plans require forced mandates (the "Romneycare" approach) to make any claim of universality. But, mandates may or may not work. Experience in MA from Romneycare seems to be proving that they're unlikely to work.
"This imagined "center""
For academic purposes, everything that isn't one of the two extremes (A) or (B) below is somewhere in the center: A. Pure, unbridled capitalism with ZERO regulation and 100% private ownership B. Pure, unbridled communism with ZERO private ownership We know that both (A) and (B) suck.
Is Obama more of "centrist" than others? His record is more progressive than Edwards' and HRC's, if you give high enough weight to her IWR and Kyl-Lieberman votes.
Is his platform more centrist? No, because the alleged basis for that (as with your SS and UHC remarks) is almost all spin and not substance.
His rhetoric is not red meat primary-time populism because he's telling us like it is as to what he'll do, what he things we can get done, and how he thinks we can get it done, namely, by appealing to the public at large.
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:57:39 AM PDT
He's succeeding. Get over it.
"We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." Barack Obama
by keeplaughing on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:21:01 AM PDT
Clinton triangulated from the start by pursuing a more conservative agenda: NAFTA, reform welfare, shrink government, balance budgets. Those weren't compromises for him, that was what he ran on. Obama has a totally different political ideology. And as gifted as Clinton was, and likeable, he was slick and corrupt back into his Arkansas days. Why is it that Democrats in the senate were the leading opponents of Hillary's health care plan? From the beginning, they showed an astonishing sloppiness as well as a refusal to acknowledge any error that is almost Bush-like.
Yes the right went after them from day 1 with a fury, and yes they will go after Obama the same way. But it's time to acknowlege that the Clintons were not just victims, that they made choices and conducted themselves in a way that alienated big parts of the public (left and right). I defended him throughout his presidency, because he was all we had and because the attacks were so unfair, but now that a little time has passed, I think it's time we on the left acknowledge his flaws as well. Or certainly not use him by saying "He was perfect, and he still got attacked."
by mishar on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:22:55 AM PDT
I'm so sick of the Obama-bashing, I truly can't construct an intelligent comment anymore.
Thanks for doing it for me! :)
Please make some calls for Barack!
by sick of it all on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:12:28 AM PDT
Thanks... I know what you mean. It's hard to argue against so much stupidity, especially coming from otherwise intelligent people. The sheer craziness of all these partisans on a left-wing site bashing the most exciting progressive possibility in a generation...
Well, nobody ever said it would be easy. What Barack is doing is so remarkable, he's bound to attract some enemies.
by mishar on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:18:46 AM PDT
Obama speaks a good line but does not LEAD. He will not get much done, just put nice bandaids on the current situation. He's an appeaser.
by tsunami on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:13:09 AM PDT
by DraftChickenHawks on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:17:57 AM PDT
I know it's only Jan. 2nd, but this is the most brilliant thing I have read in years.
by fightorleave on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:17:36 AM PDT
by expatjourno on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:33:20 PM PDT
Sorry, but my recommend button is defective, I guess.
Don't sell out John! Damn, too late, lost another to the dark side!
by ichibon on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:52:44 AM PDT
by expatjourno on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:42:53 PM PDT
but he is trying to go over their heads to their dissatisfied, disaffected and disillusioned voters, to in fact dis-arm the intransigent electeds -- quite subversive and delicious...
by DraftChickenHawks on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:14:32 AM PDT
#6 is strictly hind sight with no bearing on Obama's modus and completely lacks evidence that he would follow Clintons path of corporate deregulation.
The welfare reform I would argue was not entirely detrimental. The system we had was devestating inner cities, including my own, and had run it's course. Tiered economic incentives to build viable tax bases in depressed areas, including mandates for mixed income developements and work incentives rather that 'projects' and welfare that provided no incentive for self determination has been beneficial for inner city economic sustainability.
by fisheye on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:07:58 AM PDT
... and not just talk.
You know, if he'd actually been part of a legislative body at some point. Perhaps in the DC area.
Man, he would've really been a heck of a progressive leader. Singlehandedly would've fought to stop the Iraq war from happening.
Oh well, guess we'll never know what might have been.
BareNaked Pundits!
by Hlinko on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:23:18 AM PDT
Barack Obama is running against universal healthcare using right wing talking points.
John Edwards says having people without healthcare in America is morally wrong.
Some folks think talk matters.
Barack Obama is trying to become President by slashing the left. I don't think that's particularly funny.
by flubber on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:36:56 AM PDT
Mitt Romney is having issues on the right because he was a liberal Republican for his entire career, and yet he's this uber-conservative Bible thumper (albeit the Book of Mormon) now that he is running for President, and he keeps saying, "ignore my record, listen to what I am saying."
Most on the right are not buying it.
Meanwhile, we have people on the left somehow believing that John Edwards is the ultimate progressive because of what he says, while Barack Obama has a record that actually says he is a progressive.
If you can somehow prove through actual facts that Edwards is a liberal, and by facts I mean actions not talk, great. But you cannot.
At least most on the Right have their BS detector going off for Mitt. Not sure why the BS detector on the Left seems to be broken though.
by baronzito on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:49:11 AM PDT
Edwards is running on apologies and promises. His supporters are going on a wing and a prayer. Just. Don't. Get. It.
by elizm on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:07:12 AM PDT
in North Carolina, a state that elected and repeatedly reelected Jesse Helms. He ran and won against a Republican incumbent with the Helms machine behind the incumbent, and also at the same time without taking any money from PACs and lobbyists. Surveys in 2004 said that if Edwards were to run for Senator again, he would have won.
by tsunami on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:18:00 AM PDT
He carried both NC and SC (the state of his birth) in 2004 too...
by DraftChickenHawks on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:21:34 AM PDT
and has been badly criticized for that, but the campaign did not let him campaign there. If I were in those shoes, that would make me sore.
by tsunami on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:18:51 PM PDT
Here in SC, his home/birth state, is the only state he won and he is WAY behind in the polls here now.
by elizm on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:21:44 AM PDT
also has a solid record as a progressive.
Then he became a slimy apologist and ass-kisser.
Obama endorsed Lieberman after the change.
He could have supported Lamont. But he didn't like Lamont, didn't like Lamont's policies, didn't like Lamont's netroots connections even though Lamont was the official Democratic candidate.
So yeah - Obama is a total progressive, who's going to be pursuing an aggressively progressive agenda as president.
He's so bipartisan and full of words like 'hope' and 'inspiration' that he won't even support his own party's official candidate.
And I like this bridge so much I'm going to sell you a share as a special favor.
"Be kind" - is that a religion?
by ThatBritGuy on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:22:50 AM PDT
Is it so hard to look at?
He is consistently among the top rated Senators by just about every progressive organization on the planet. Edwards in his time in the Senate never came close.
Show me ANYWHERE in Edwards' voting record where he was more progressive than Obama. Show me. Not words. Actions. Edwards is not exactly good on actions.
by baronzito on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:32:11 AM PDT
Obama supported Lieberman in the primary (regrettably, as far as I'm concerned), but endorsed Lamont in the general.
by mtullius on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:03:11 AM PDT
Why was only Lieberman targeted, when we had many neocons of our own?
Understand that Lieberman is not exactly a favorite of mine, but he has a much more liberal track record than many many other neocons in our party, not the least of which are Edwards and Clinton, neither of whom has a more liberal past than Lieberman...
by DraftChickenHawks on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:26:17 AM PDT
Uses any opportunity he can get to Bash Democrats. He will go on fox news and claim Democrats aren't serious about protecting the country. He is NOT a moderate. He is a radical Neocon.
by atlliberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:02:02 AM PDT
where Lieberman
has a solid record as a progressive.
Either that is a bold-faced lie or I've been living under a rock for the last ten years.
by pragprogress on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:25:30 AM PDT
the way John went after those insurance companies when he was in the senate. Tooth and nail! What a fighter!
And all that legislation he wrote and introduced on behalf of those people without health care during his six years as a paid legislator - wow!
---
If you can't see that John has used this raging populist rhetoric to distract from his negligent performance on the Senate Intelligence Subcommittee, you've got a real problem there.
by keeplaughing on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:28:39 AM PDT
Nothing of that sort would have passed.
But Obama is in the majority for the past year. What's he done?
Oh, besides miss the vote he claims authorized war with Iran.
by huntsu on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:00:18 AM PDT
As you have all found out to your dismay, the democratic majority is not much worth at the moment, dependin gon Lieberman and all that. So the difference betwenn the opportunities for majority Obama and minority Edwards is not that big.
by IM on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:11:32 AM PDT
We saw Dodd do some fricking amazing leading even as he was campaigning for President.
Had Senators Clinton and Obama stood up and fought for things, shown some leadership, the majority might have been a little stronger. Maybe enough stronger to block some odious things that got through even if they didn't pass others.
by huntsu on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:14 AM PDT
When your guy "just talks" it's wonderful and you post a link to him saying words...
When Obama talks, it's just that - talk. Oh yeah, with RW talking points that slash the left.
Please. Such hypocritical bullshit.
Since Edwards doesn't have the record Obama does, I can see why this is so important to you.
Yeah, let's just focus on words. Grand idea. /snark
by sick of it all on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:16:52 AM PDT
Edwards realized his mistake and voted against the funding authorizations, and was one of the first with the courage to stand up and admit that authorizing the war was wrong.
Edwards did that while running for President at a time when it was not a popular view for most Americans, or even many Democrats. He was in the minority party with a position on the war that WE support but the Republicans, most Democratic Senators and the majority of the public didn't support.
Obama is currently a sitting Senator in the majority party with an overwhelming majority of Americans in support of ending the war. What has Obama done as a "part of a legislative body ... in the DC area" to end the war?
Seriously, Edwards was in an impossible position with the majority of Senators and the public still supporting the war. There was nothing he could do that would end the war.
But Obama is in the exact opposite position. And still a year after taking the majority we have nothing but talk.
by huntsu on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:58:57 AM PDT
cheers,
Mitch Gore
Wanna win in '08...?
Put your money where your mouth is.
by Lestatdelc on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:32:28 AM PDT
and the "war on terror" repeatedly, insistently and obsessively for years on end. That disqualifies him from the label "progressive".
Obama's plan will work to cover everyone that actually wants healthcare.
Mandates may or may not work.
Obama has a pro-labor record.
Teh War. Teh Edwards. Teh Co-Sponsor
Obama: No Dumb Wars.
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:07:48 AM PDT
by keeplaughing on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:29:45 AM PDT
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:02:16 AM PDT
They've all long since apologized.
Murtha, in fact, like Edwards, has done more than apologize: He's worked to end the war.
Last I looked, we weren't demonizing Murtha here.
Learn all about Michele Bachmann. Heheheheh.
by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:22:09 AM PDT
Iraq many times and based on the situation in 2005, came out strongly calling for withdrawal. He actually recently said that surge seems to be working, he likely said so because he probably believes that to be the case (I have not looked into whether surge is really working or not to offer my views on it).
Edwards on the other hand promoted, supported and took unpardonable, incoherent and self-contradictory positions, mis-advised Kerry into making the Grand canyon blunder (NYT, Globe), made a strategic shift in 2005 to reposition himself for 2008 precisely in order to gain favor with the activist/netroots community vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton, who was always the presumptive establishment candidate. I know his and others' record on invading Iraq quite extensively, and the above is what his record shows in a manner that I can thoroughly document and substantiate.
Based on his record, Edwards simply cannot be trusted on war and peace matters.
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:12:10 AM PDT
for removal of Saddam Hussein and a Marshall plan. We might have pulled it off if our administrators had delivered properly.
Instead, Bush and his henchman gave us a recreation of Pinochet's Chile, which catalyzed and added fuel to the Civil War. Bush's original name for Operation Iraqi Freedom was Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).
Anyone who uses Right Wing talking points raises big red flags in my mind.
by tsunami on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:25:21 AM PDT
Too bad all the Edwards folks seem to have lost their sense of humor somewhere near Ottumwa....
by serrano on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:53:53 AM PDT
This diary reveals the intellectual bankruptcy of the Obama "movement." Obama may always have been to the right of Clinton, but now people can see past the Kenyan Kansan and actually judge Obama based on his positions.
"There is one man who knows in his heart that we have to build one America - not two - and that man is Barack Obama." John Edwards 5/14/08
by TomP on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:49:17 AM PDT
please tell me you didn't write this.
talk about intellectual bankruptcy...
by byteb on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:40:07 AM PDT
as troll does.
by Bluesman48 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:03:17 AM PDT
is finally calling out the troll! I TRed him (?) yesterday - alone. Fine with me. The guy (?) is so f'ing over the top with his lies and Obama-bashing. All day, everyday.
by sick of it all on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:21:04 AM PDT
TomP needs to back away from the computer for a good long time.
Northern Illinois University: Kate's and Matt's parents meet, 1976
by chicago minx on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:13:21 AM PDT
Are you still NOT GOING TO VOTE for Obama if he is the general election candidate? (you stated that as fact in one late night diary) You spend so much time dissing Obama on Obama diaries or throwing in Edwards "clips" or "stories" within minutes. I feel we have a right to know your Democratic party allegiance. Many of us may consider Edwards our 2nd choice but happen to believe that Obama is better and more electable this time around. How about you? Are you still not going to vote for Obama as the general election candidate? Just because of the McClurkin mishap, if I remember correctly. I am sure that Obama wishes that he didn't speak but I guess a raped-as-child, sexually abused singer doesn't fall into your idea of "inclusion" or some "understanding". Funny how that works!
by mjd in florida on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:41:00 AM PDT
to vote based on one issue.
I do have a problem with people who then continually disrupt threads and discussion with baiting and lies. That's the issue I have with Tom P. S/He's got it out for Obama. I think s/he should start her/his own website and quit being so whiny here.
It's gotten way old.
by sick of it all on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:24:25 AM PDT
we are "messianic" about our candidate for calling people on their lying.
The last time I was "messianic" about a candidate, he promised me stem cell research and failed to deliver because of a confluence of events.
Now I am older and wiser.
I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan
by arielle on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:47:08 AM PDT
having his ratings privileges yanked. Now, there were a LOT of people who did, including some Obama supporters. Most seemed to chalk it up and move one. But TomP has been on thread after thread after thread, whining and martyrizing himself ever since it happened, saying he has been stifled for "speaking the truth". No WONDER they pulled the plug on him
by chicago minx on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:18:17 AM PDT
I was up in Michigan for 9 days and missed the commotion. Did it happen on one diary or the normal aggregate? I have noticed more whining/dishonest posts but thankfully less troll-ratings and upgrades since my return.
by mjd in florida on
