View Story | 1155 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Needless to say, I'll support whoever gets the Democratic nomination, because, as we all know, anyone in the Democratic field is better than any Republic.
And - who knows? - maybe congressional Democrats will wise up, and select some fire-breathers as their majority leaders this year (Dodd comes to mind). In that case, with a Dem in the White House and solid Dem majorities in both houses, the progressive (i.e., human-centric) agenda might have a chance.
But I don't want Congress to be the "go-to" branch of government when it comes to defending the rights and interests of American citizens. I already know which elected officials are going to look out for the interests of American (and, for that matter, foreign) corporations. What I'm looking for in my Democratic president is someone who will take the lead in championing the people's interests.
And I'm guessing that if they're not willing to do that on the campaign trail, they're not willing to do that in the Oval Office.
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas
by occams hatchet on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:26:52 PM PDT
. . . if Obama is so clueless and so weak, then how is managing to destroy the careers of cold, hard, fighting realists like Clinton and Edwards so easily and completely?
Emancipate yourself from mental slavery none but ourselves can free our minds. Bob Marley
by dbratl on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:52:04 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
The End
Psst! Don't panic
by Quicklund on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:58:59 PM PDT
as angry as Edwards do not fully take into account the question of race. As a white man, Edwards can afford to take liberties with his attitude and rhetoric that a man of colour like Obama simply cannot. It's as simple as that. He's a black man in a country with a very deep history of institutionalized racism. The scars and barely-forgotten antipathies are everywhere to see.
Obama isn't stupid. No sudden moves, as he said. If he bared fangs and unsheathed his claws, my suspicion is that he would very quickly become unelectable. Perhaps conciliation is deeply ingrained in his bones. Or perhaps he knows to appear conciliatory, and will behave less so when in power. But I think you cannot hold him to the same standards as Edwards and expect him to do as well.
Proud member of the Coalition of the Insignificant.
by justforkix on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:38:27 AM PDT
very important as a signal of future intent... as would his AG.
by skippythebox on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:36:30 AM PDT
then he better develop some "code words" like the fundies do.
Although I have no "cheat sheet" per se, so I don't know the words Bush has fed the fundies over the past seven-years but I do know they exist.
That might sound CrAzY but I don't mean it literally. Obama doesn't need to act all schizoid to convey to potential supporters that he will indeed do what is necessary to get this country back on track.
Btw, I cannot believe that we're going to leave the "impeachment" thing off da table for the remainder of this campaign.
But, I digress. Obama needs to convey that he will hold the Bush regime accountable -- even if that means prosecuting Bush/Cheney -- after they leave office.
Obama already signed the American Freedom Campaign pledge so I'm not worrying about him following the Constitution. He's also talked about the middle-class, climate change, and he wants to end the war.
He's got to let people know that he knows that in order for our democacy to survive and flourish -- we must hold Bush/Cheney accountable.
Oh, and I liked his answer on what he'd do if the election turns out to be a sham again. He said he would fight tooth and nail.
Obama has a lot to offer progressives but he's still got a whole lot of provin' to do to convince me he's the better candidate.
Just my opinion.
Save the Endangered Species Act
by markthshark on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:22:11 AM PDT
McCain? Huckabee? Bloomberg?
by Quicklund on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:50:03 AM PDT
The Democratic nomination isn't a forgone conclusion... yet.
I was referring to Edwards, my 1st choice.
by markthshark on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:17:55 PM PDT
Edwards promises vengance.
Clinton promises 1992.
This, I would say, are the three campaigns stripped down to their bare emotional bones. If you ask me Sen Obama is not campaigning on a message of anger because of two reasons. Keadership is the policy the country wants to hear, and ladership is the policy Obama believes the nation needs from its next President.
You want change? Elect a leader.
by Quicklund on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:46:41 AM PDT
Edwards promises to fight for changes to the system that is bankrupting our country. That is not vengance and you know it.
"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson
by NearlyNormal on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:05:25 AM PDT
When he was a Senator, John Edwards voted for some of the worst legislation in history. Not only the AUMF, for which he's apologized, but also the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill, which was a crime against working people of breathtaking proportions. Dodd called him on the carpet for this vote (and for his vote against the Wellstone amendment that would have made the bill far less draconian) and Edwards called the vote a mistake.
I don't doubt that changes of heart are possible, and I respect a person who can learn from mistakes, but John Edwards did not take the courageous stand to keep America out of a pointless and bloody war and he didn't stand up for the poor and the working class against a 'kick 'em when they're down' piece of shit bill. Leadership is doing the right thing when it's hard. When it's not popular. And when it goes against the interests of the rich and the powerful. Edwards talks a good game, but when has he shown leadership in governance when it was really, truly difficult?
by Alakazam on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:29:01 AM PDT
That is not an emotional underpinning. "Fight" "Punish the criminal corporations" "Etc." He aisn't sellin sunshine, sister!
by Quicklund on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:20:39 PM PDT
Lets all come together to go where, to do what?
by DemSandy on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:16:21 AM PDT
There are the three issues that will drive the next President. Everything else is happy talk.
America wants health care reform. Money will somehow be found for that.
America has no choice but to prepare for a warm future. Hooray for getting off our butt, but doing this will consume considerable national effort and resources.
There's no more money left to do anything else on a major scale. Our hands are tire until at a minimum this Iraq (Afghanistan / Pakistan / South Asia) crisis can be addressed. There's the Big Enchilada. Want to get anything done? Fix Iraq first.
These issues will drive the next Presidency, regardless of happy campaign promises. So vote for the person you think best able to lead our country the United States of America through these challenging times.
by Quicklund on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:18:59 PM PDT
You aren't going to get 1, 2, or 3 by asking nicely. You might get 2 by negotiating, but you won't like the finished product (think Medicare Part D).
Reality is that anything good that we've ever gotten in this country has been fought for. Nothing we've gotten without a fight, has been what we thought it was.
Some people seem to take such a narrow view of things. John Edwards talks about fighting FOR the American people and the pundits say he is angry. He has a message that he can carry right through the general election, but people dismiss him because he isn't "hopeful" enough. He gives ME hope that we can change the direction this country is headed.
by DemSandy on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:44:48 PM PDT
If we haven't learned that 'truth and reconciliation' will never happen with the GoP in its modern iteration, we've learned nothing. Bipartisanship is another word for doing whatever the GoP will tolerate. I'm not interested in 'healing the country.' I'm interested in repairing our democracy, restoring the balance of power and rescuing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That means excising the sickness. Not cooperating with it.
Borrowed Suits
by Gooch on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:25:11 PM PDT
by BeTheMedia on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:36:49 PM PDT
...that Hillary had to use to appear "tough". Sexism in this country has forced her to go against herself. Since she is a woman, she has to deal with her emotions and make sure that she keeps them in check and doesn't allow compassion or understanding to enter into the equation of national security or military issues. Many people on here criticize Hillary for voting for the Iraq war, subsequent funding, the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, etc... People say that she was calculating in doing so because she was running a General Election campaign and not voting her conscience. She has been criticized and ridiculed handedly for it. Rightly so in some cases.
So, please do tell me why Obama's calculations (He can't be too confrontational or too angry cuz he might upset the white folk) are any more worthy than Hillary's? Why are his calculations considered "strategic" (something he has to do because he's a black man) and Hillary's just plain calculating and self-serving (aren't there some things she might have to do to get elected in a sexist mysoginstic society)?
Food for thought.
By the way. I'm currently a Hillary supporter, but I'm leaning Edwards now. In fact, if it looks like Hillary's campaign is going to slide, maybe it'd be smart if Hillary supporters switched sides to Edwards. I like Obama, but I'm just not convinced he can win in a General Election. He is great with words and flowery prose, but where does he stand on policy? He doesn't talk much policy on the trail at all. Actually, all is "Hope and Change" rhetoric reminds me of the "Compassionate Conservative" rhetoric Bush campaigned with. Slogans and propoganda. I want solutions... Obama seems, to me, into himself and concerned about his ego.
My two bits...
I agree with this Diarist.
by kipzoo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:51:21 PM PDT
You expressed very well the pressure on candidates to be calculating in their public statements for fear of drawing attacks based on what I'll call the superpower mythology of fear driven/greed motivated mindless corporatism. When I was hoping Wes Clark would run, I was drawn to his clear and rational, no punches pulled policy choices. For me, he was a breath of fresh air, not afraid to say that invading Iraq made us less safe, not afraid to say that we needed a surge in diplomacy in Iraq instead of a politically motivated troop surge, not afraid to say that single payer universal health care was our only real choice because the administrative costs of private insurance were 10 times that of medicare and we have the appalling state of affairs where over 45 million people have no health insurance.
I honestly have no idea which of the candidates will stand up and fight for the average person against runaway mindless corporate greed.
I wish I knew... I just don't want more back room deals where corporations write policy that is shortsighted and unsustainable.
It was encouraging yesterday that Senator Clinton said she stood for transparency.
As we see the Citigroup and Bear Stearns melt downs, it's obvious that our corporate leaders have no clue what's good for America...they don't even know what's good for themselves...it's time to take the decision making out of their hands and for a grownup in the White House to chart a course of fairminded enforceable regulation and a direction toward renewable sustainable clean energy away from fossil fuel.
by eve on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 03:07:50 PM PDT
Obama pays for state-of-the-art micro-targeting to identify and massage voters other candidates miss.
That's the Mark Penn story and the story of this election.
by kidneystones on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:59:17 PM PDT
HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth my vote.
by kck on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:21:50 PM PDT
Most everyone wants to "get along", but the problem arises when each faction has a basic difference in the way they see the world. There is seldom a way to breech the major faults that lie between the two groups.
It is especially true today with the extremes on the other side.
Saw this today as a perfect example relating to our friend Sen. Tom Coburn:
Oklahoma Senator Blocks Widely Accepted Gun Bill
FULL STORY: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
If my memory is not as faulty as I think, haven't the dems tried to "reach across the isle"? You know where that got us!
It's the Supreme Court, stupid!
by auapplemac on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:40:24 PM PDT
Obama's universal appeal then, doesn't it?
Let's face it. NO politician has universal appeal. Every politician appeals to some groups more than others and they get elected by winning over the larger group of people - Rove's 50%+1. That's the math. Anything over that is gravy.
Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!
by Fabian on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:23:26 PM PDT
many may not be aware that the specific content of the messages and banners that show up on our computer screens is the result of increasingly sophisticated data-mining and mirco-targeting techniques.
You like band A? Wow, candidate X has an original cut of the tune Lz. Wanna hear it? Click here! And guess who is going to at the community center this Thursday...Later
Blade Runner babies, all of us.
by kidneystones on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:35:32 PM PDT
I avoid ads with a passion. Google probably loves me, though.
by Fabian on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:37:45 PM PDT
that the gates have been well and truly crashed.
And the demographic Obama is mining is far larger than this ground-breaking community.
Guess what the prize is for being first?
by kidneystones on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:42:47 PM PDT
It will be what it will be, but as someone who was never blown away by Bush, here's some of why I wasn't blown away by Obama (although obviously, Obama is a much better man, better orator and would be a better President).
Obama is going to be a uniter. I remember hearing that before.
He's going to have a Big Tent, that doesn't have red and blue.
His speech has a lot of "they saids" which leaves me waiting for his incorporation of Bush's more preferred, "some people say"
No one is supposed to be angry and blustery - just all compassionate. [Note: Nataline's parents somehow thought they were entitled to feel angry - who wants to deliver the news to them that if they are angry, Obama's big tent has room for everyone but angry?]
He spoke of a health care goal - coverage for all Americans - that isn't what his plan provides - but it sounded very compassionate.
He gives a litany of things that will be made better in America by him and then works into the middle of it that he will bring all that about while giving a MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT. Well yippee. If only Bush had thought to make sure he wrote tax refund checks to Americans when he took office ...
Obama is a smart man and if we were not coming off of such horrific times, I probably wouldn't be worried at all. But having seen America become a state sponsor of torture, I'm left pretty cold by the news that the relieved torturers, who Democrats like Harry Reid and "independents" like Obama's pick for the CT primary - Joe Lieberman - have made sure are insulated from consequences, are welcome to come hop on the hopemobile. But someone like me who is angry - who worked their butt off to help get Dems elected in 06 bc I was so angry - - - no room, even at the back of the hopemobile, for me.
I do buy the subpart of his message. We're just one big country so it doesn't matter who you vote for, bc the Hopemobile will end up driving to the same destinations whether it is filled with Republicans or Democrats. Unfortunately, with Reid and Pelosi I've pretty much found that to be true.
I'll hope for the best with Obama and he has some very good programs and very lovely - albeit reminescent of another Uniter - rhetoric. And he really has gained in confidence, which sets very well on him and makes his delivery more convincing.
But I've lived to see what happens when a Fordesque "heal the nation" approach takes hold to block a "kick the bastards out" approach and it's always just a closing up of the surface opening of the puncture, while the putrid mass that was never cut away or brought to the light festers to erupt another day, more virulent than before. I wish I felt that Obama saw that too and was committed to doing something about it, but it doesn't matter. I was convinced Bush was very bad news and it didn't matter - we ended up with him for not just 4 years, but what will be 8. Obama isn't active bad like that, just passive acquiesence. And history would be left with nothing to do if people didn't give it a chance to keep repeating itself, with grand nations becoming corrupt and immoral with no will to fight to be better.
by Mary2002 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:09:21 PM PDT
And it makes me really really sad that Gore isn't running.
Because although I like our candidates, they all belong to that big club up on the hill. Sure, they might not be as chummy with everyone as they used to be, but they still are part of the Establishment. Even Obama. You don't get to be a Senator by being an outsider.
Gore has been there, done that and moved on. He isn't part of all that anymore - but he knows how the game is played.
by Fabian on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:34:24 PM PDT
Forget who he picked as his running mate, did you?
He had his first shot to make an important decision -- one of THE most important decisions, who would be president if he were elected and something happened to him. And his in his great judgment and wisdom, he picked Joe Lieberman. Still give you a warm, fuzzy feeling, that?
by firenze on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:52:57 PM PDT
Yeah, Ol' Joe had a nasty habit even back then of hanging out on talk shows and stabbing Democrats in the back.
Yes, while Ol' Joe went on to be successfully challenged in a primary, Al went on to jointly win a Nobel Peace Prize. (with the IPCC - always give credit where credit is due.)
Damn, I just love when people give me an opportunity to trot out that Nobel Peace Prize! There's ways to make your mark in this world and being nominated as a presidential candidate is a good one. But having the whole world recognize your contribution? Oh, that's awesome. That's sweet. That sets you apart.
Of course, Al would probably be disappointed if I didn't remind y'all that you'd best be spreading your particular candidate's gospel on how they plan to kick the petrol habit, conserve like mad and create an alternative energy grid. We need a diary - "Cycling for Obama!", "How Obama Inpsired Me To Cut My Energy Use!" and so on.
I'd be impressed.
by Fabian on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:16:50 PM PDT
either. n/t
Democracy is a contact sport...
by jsmagid on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM PDT
that was no diary!!! That was a condescending, one-sided, cynical, disingenuous, don't-confuse-me-w/anyfacts-my-mind-is-made-up piece of horse shit!!!
You may have some valid arguments here, but BenGoshi's arrogant hit piece was a helluva poor way to start!!!!
Oh, btw, if we're dealing in real facts, as Barack Obama was cutting his teeth and learning his trade in South Chicago, his organizing principles came from a man named Saul Alinsky and a book called Rules for Radicals.
Some here might want to check that out.....
by serrano on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:25:33 AM PDT
......due to his absence on the ballot I intend to vote for Edwards. I find that I generally agree with his positions on the various issues. There is no way of knowing at this point, of course, how he will act upon his stated positions as president but, finding no suitable alternative among the other candidates, I'll take him at his word and cast my vote for him.
by calibpatriot on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:06:25 PM PDT
My libertarian friend prefers a constant state of gridlock in Washington because he is convinced that Congress cannot craft any good legislation. And it does seem that whoever gets the upper hand creates legislation that benefits their base and harms the rest. The real question is whether or not we can find enough common ground to move forward. Corporations and individuals have their own best interests at heart. We just have to find a way to dovetail those interests. I think the long-term survival of corporations dovetails with consumer interests. Greed has a tendency to backfire, as we've seen in the savings and loan debacle and the current sub-prime mortgage crisis. Businesses need a social conscience in order to prosper over the long term and we have to remind them of that. Many companies are implementing community programs and finding that the PR generated by these programs is invaluable. We cannot succeed with the attitude that it is either them or us. We need to find common ground and defuse the arguments that corporate and individual interests cannot be served simultaneously.
by MagisterLudi on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM PDT
Talk about putting your finger right in the wound and wiggling it around.
I agree 100% about sealing the putrid mass below the surface only to erupt later.
What do
...right-wing spear-carriers see in Obama? At the most basic level: a free pass. An Iowa victory for the 'forgiver-in-chief' and his message of 'unity' means the principal criminals and their boot-lickers can continue to cash-in big for being wrong about everything, all cheered mightily by the rapidly diminishing prospect of any troublesome prosecution. America re-boots, the powerful keep their place at the trough, accountability goes out the window, and the rabid lambs lie down with lions. Trust, of course, has its price.
...right-wing spear-carriers see in Obama?
At the most basic level: a free pass. An Iowa victory for the 'forgiver-in-chief' and his message of 'unity' means the principal criminals and their boot-lickers can continue to cash-in big for being wrong about everything, all cheered mightily by the rapidly diminishing prospect of any troublesome prosecution.
America re-boots, the powerful keep their place at the trough, accountability goes out the window, and the rabid lambs lie down with lions.
Trust, of course, has its price.
by kidneystones on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:37:45 PM PDT
Though Obama's speeches are far more inspiring, the policy approaches he proposes are reminiscent of Carter's, and look how effective Carter was during his presidency.
Carter was far more effective after his Presidency as a global diplomat.
Obama's hopemobile in the current partisan environment is naive.
Too bad we keep repeating an ineffectice democratic policy approach.
Economic Justice to protect and restore the Middle Class, which is the backbone of America. Real NOT hyped CHANGE!
by fayeforcure on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:43:46 AM PDT
that worries me about this election.
I hope that you and I are both wrong.
But, as I have been told so often by the anti-impeachment police: hope is not a plan.
All hail the triumphant Leader, and let the healing begin! Hoo-ha!
Bush repealed Godwin's Law with a Signing Statement.
by Mad Kossack on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:06:08 AM PDT
by santh on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:29:35 AM PDT
But my job isn't to elect candidates.
My job is to shove the Overton Window left.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
by lambertstrether on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:32:46 PM PDT
You have to consider what the Republican Party and it's president have done to themselves here as well.
Democrats are getting a free at bat...
by demer on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:56:59 PM PDT
And I think you'll see pretty quickly there's whole lot more to Barack Obama than 'kumbaya.'
Everytime I listen to Obama I become more assured that he's ready to fight.
BTW, I still support Edwards first, and I like how Obama tends to appropriate parts of Edwards' message.
Because folks, we need to start thinking a whole lot harder about Barack Obama. And how to help the man. Not wound him.
To a Democrat, "democracy" means "free elections." To a Republican, "free markets."
by XOVER on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM PDT
I think he's a good legislator. I think he cares. But I don't think he's really some kind of fresh face. Sure he's a little younger, but he's no new kid on the block. I don't think he has new ideas. No one has new ideas. They just have the same old ideas that have been kicked around for hundreds of years. Anyone want to point me to a new idea that hasn't actually been suggested somewhere and somewhen else?
As for uniting people - you either get people to rally around a person(cult of personality) or you get them to rally around a cause(WWII, civil rights, war on terra, space race). Otherwise the coalition will fall apart quickly once the bills come due or a sacrifice is called for. It's human nature.
by Fabian on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:42:32 PM PDT
doing the heavy lifting?
by Jim J on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:21:38 PM PDT
fighting alone. I think he can and will fight together with Edwards. Edwards would be well suited to fight as an AG. Obama can be very precise, if he wants to and gets misquoted or attacked. He can invite the opponents to the table, talk to them and make them lose their own arguments while at the same time forcing them to shut up or put up. I think he can fight, if he needs to and wants to. At least I find him thinking much more precisely about foreign and national security issues than Hillary Clinton.
I want to know whom he would chose as Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State, if he picks Edwards as AG.
by mimi on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM PDT
I want Edwards for President, but AG might not be exactly the place Edwards wants to be if he can't be President. How about HHS?
by ColoTim on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:18:51 AM PDT
he's a fiery prosecutor, and at AG we need someone profoundly understanding of and committed to the Constitutional Issues. Edwards was a GREAT Plaintiff's attorney, but we need to do huge things to bring back the Constitution!!!!
by serrano on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:37:47 AM PDT
and now I can't for the life of me find where I found it, but it's very enlightening.
The guy is fucking ruthless.
"'Politics' is made up of two words. 'Poli,' which is Greek for 'many,' and 'tics,' which are bloodsucking insects." --Gore Vidal
by Illissius on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:48:42 AM PDT
makes TNR readable. Nobody should underestimate the Senator.
I still don't think he's the best Dem.
by kidneystones on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:04:15 AM PDT
Every politician appeals to some groups more than others and they get elected by winning over the larger group of people - Rove's 50%+1.
But we want - and need - so much more.
Fifty percent plus one? Really?
What is it you want to accomplish? To be granted merely the right to hold the reins?
If we want to:
and so much more, we're going to have to do better than a slim edge over fifty percent. Our side needs to be able to cause the minority opposition to tremble every time they think they'll need to filibuster in the Senate. We need leadership who can take their case to the American people.
No, no politician's appeal will be universal. Our side's never going to convince much of those dregs who think Dubya's doing a good job now. But there's more than a dime's worth of difference between the group-size of those dead-enders, and "Rove's 50%+1". If it's all the same to you, I'd like very much to be able to find 60 votes in the Senate for an up-or-down vote now and then during the next president's term.
Which pundit most resembles Ruby Rhod?
by wystler on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:34:29 PM PDT
Obama's a "rock star" because he's new--new enough to still bill himself as "above the D.C. fray," but with at least a few years' national experience. (And of course, his race and personal story are huge factors, too, which is hardly inappropriate.) He's new and exciting, and people want to latch onto that, even if most of the general public doesn't even know what his positions are.
Society and the media that feeds it both have a miniscule attention span...we no longer tolerate repeat acts. Look at Edwards, the Obama of 2004. He had his chance, lost an election, and now he's old news. One good shot is all you get now. If Obama loses this year, he'll likewise be crowded out in 2008 by the Next Big Thing.
Sadly, it's a far cry from even a few decades ago, when politicians got the chance to learn and grow from a loss and take a second crack at it a few years later. (Cases in point: Nixon and Reagan. Both wretched people, but you get the point).
Only Democrats need to "pay for" any of their proposals; it's just understood that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives." - Atrios
by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:07:56 PM PDT
most Americans are sick and tired of confrontation. They're beaten down and weary by the anger and recriminations, the name calling, the berating of the other side. They long for reasonableness. And Obama is reasonable - or at least he sounds reasonable...and well-intentioned and hopeful. Exactly what people want so badly right now.
People don't want to listen to Edwards promise more fighting and confrontation - even though that's what it's going to take to wrest control of the government from the corporations and make it work for the benefit of the people. They need to put their full faith behind a promise of hope, not to step back into the full-fledged war the Republicans waged against the Clintons.
Obama is likely to be the one annointed and sent into the lion's den. I hope he's not as naive as he sounds, and I hope he's ready to spill some Republican blood.
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken
by SueDe on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:47:54 PM PDT
reelected Bush.
Don't assume for a second you know what "most Americans" want. Confrontation is democracy, and do you really think playing nice is what we should do after Cheney, Karl Rove and their neocon brigade have destroyed the Constitution?
It's time to push the republicans back. Tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up. I almost want to throw up at how spineless this party is.
There is only one uniter in America--the Constitution. Remember that. Playing patty-cake with the republicans is not on the agenda for 2008.
"it's a success that hasn't occurred yet" —The entirely nonpartisan Frances Fragos Townsend on capturing Osama bin Laden.
by hour on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:27:34 PM PDT
Don't take your frustration out on me. I'm on your side. I never said anything even vaguely approaching "playing nice." Go back and read my comment again. I made a point of stating that fighting and confrontation is what it's going to take to wrest our government back from the corporations.
I know it's time to push the Republicans back, and you know it, and most people around here know it. But the general public seems to be fed up with yelling and snarling and name calling.
That's why I'll vote for whoever is willing to talk sweet, but once elected, pull out the long knives and be ready to use them.
And don't condescend to me - or anyone else on this site - about the constitution. We have at least as much fealty to that document as you do. I'm just less willing to attack the other commenters and more mannerly at expressing myself around here, where I know I'm among the like-minded.
by SueDe on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:51:54 PM PDT
and commitment to the Constitutional Restoration we so desperately need is bedrock.
by serrano on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:39:38 AM PDT
I disagree with your optimistic reading of the scope of the problem and, therefore, contend that the last thing America needs right now is a divider.
The election is about the environment and the economy and the animals Obama trusts are going to leave nothing but the skull and spine.
Trust has a price.
Three guesses who gets to pay?
by kidneystones on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:44:55 PM PDT
I agree with you but I just wish the time would come when an honest fighter would finally get the public's support.
We have election after election of politicians selling themselves as uniters and the end result is a wider gap between rich and poor, less jobs for Americans, larger corporate welfare while children go hungry and on and on and on...
With the chance for the Democratic Party to control the legislative and exec I was really looking forward to a Edwards presidency... I am afraid we will just get weak-ass, cave-in-to-the-corporations-that-fund-their-campaigns bills that don't really solve problems, just put them off.
by demer on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:09:38 PM PDT
The reason CHANGE and HOPE work so well is Bush is so bad. But just remember that a lot of people would have embraced Gore getting back in and some were asking for Clark and on the GOP McCain is staging a comeback of sorts so it's not impossible. It's also partly the dynamic of Clinton not being able to remind people of good times in the 90s without also reminding them of gridlock and impeachment. This year is a bad year for legacy candidates. People want a fresh start.
by Joe Willy on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:03:15 PM PDT
...he seems to fight both hard and intelligently.
You know, I've seen a lot of these "Obama wants to make nice with the enemy" diaries today, but I have yet to be convinced that is the case.
If Obama merely had to collect activist Dems for voters, I'm sure he'd be breathing fire, too. But we're not his only (nor nearly his biggest) constituency. And the bottom line is, the kind of campaign rhetoric he's been using is both useful for getting votes (kind of have to get elected before anything else) and for marginalizing wingnuts who won't compromise.
by Jonathan on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:27:42 PM PDT
Many of the people on this site seem to think we can get back what the republicans have robbed us of in the same way Bush brought democracy to the middle east: at the end of a gun.
It doesn't work like that.
by nisleib on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM PDT
he's using the old school macro-targeted messaging system. He offers the same message to everyone.
OTOH Clinton is using this micro-trend (Penn) strategy and it's falling flat.
"There has never been anything false about hope."
by enarjay on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:56:59 AM PDT
King/Kennedy: Ending Poverty? Check! Ending Racial Discrimination? Check! Single-Payer Healthcare? Check! Opposing Illegal Wiretapping? Check! Bringing All The Troops Home From Iraq, NOW! Check! Affirmative Action? Check! Constitutional Rights Front & Center? Check!
On these and many other issues, Obama? He's no Robert Kennedy or Martin Luther King Jr. Word!
by leonard145b on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:01:57 PM PDT
and bringing the troops home from Iraq?
Wtf...
"The real war will never get in the books." - Walt Whitman
by otheruser on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:32:03 PM PDT
King Opposed The Vietnam War, And J Edgar's Wiretaps. Mr. Smart Aleck!
by leonard145b on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:37:00 PM PDT
by otheruser on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:58:00 PM PDT
I would say yes.
Don't confuse this confusion with disorganization, because we're not that organized yet. -5.13/-3.38
by Grannus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:51:28 PM PDT
It was RFK authorizing the wiretapping of King
Rudy Giuliani, the hero of $9.11
by who threw da cat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:59:09 PM PDT
that JFK authorized the wiretapping of MLK Jr. Hoover did that all on his own, like he did so many other things. RFK would only have been involved if it was a JFK directive. I would like some proof before I believe that.
by Grannus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:30:04 PM PDT
Not wiretapping. Although the FBI bugged Dr. King's phones and violated his civil rights anyway.
It's not like FISA was in place back then, so I think JFK understood the implications of this "investigation" by Hoover (who hated King and desperately wanted to expose his communist allegiances), but it's hard to be absolutely certain.
http://query.nytimes.com/...
