Skip to main content

I wish this was an April Fools Day joke:

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it's also a terrible negotiating approach.

Instead of threatening Bush with even more restrictions and daring him to veto funding for the troops out of pique, Barack just surrendered to him.

Let me repeat that -- Obama just surrendered to Bush.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:57 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

        •  Rank amateur? (6+ / 0-)

          Is Obama's statement some sort of capitulation, or is it triangulation by an amateur?  Obama surrendered his moral high ground well before there was any perceived need.  Poker ain't his game.

          Whatever you say about Hillary, she's a pro.  As to fessing up on her war vote, she may not be quick about it, but she did leave the door open to admit her mistake in the future.

          For people of deep faith like George W. Bush, beliefs are intoxicating, and facts are sobering. Sober up, America!

          by slip kid no more on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:16:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry you are disappointed, Kos. (3+ / 0-)

            This man is only 27 months out of the Illinois General Assembly (which consists basicly of four legislative leaders and 173 wooden Indians).  If he is not ready to be elected President yet, better the voters learn now and not later.

            I know you are under some stress.  I hope that baby doesn't end up six weeks late like I was!

            •  Kos, you are wrong and you know it. (0+ / 0-)

              Kos, you are an extreme case.  Barack Obama has not caved in to President Bush, nor has he softened his position on Iraq.  Your problem is that if any politician slightly disagrees with you, then you compare them to Republicans.  Also, if a poster on your site slightly disagrees with you, you troll-rate them.

              Barack Obama doesn't have to take orders from you.

              •  Kos, you are wrong and you know it. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Phoenix Democrat

                Phoenix Democrat you are so right on this.

                Whether Kos and the people who populate this site like it or not, American troops are in harms way, and it would be criminally negligent for the Congress to increase that danger by cutting off their funding without an agreed timetable for their withdrawal.

                If Bush vetoes the Appropriations with a withdrawal date, then the Democrats must move their position as they are never going to get 67 votes to over-ride the veto.

                To be seen to place the troops in greater danger would be political suicide.  Obama has shown leadership by taking a sensible position on this issue, irrespective of how it may play on sites like this, and he has further evidenced his capability for the job of Commander-in-Chief.

            •   More choices (0+ / 0-)

              Obama unfortunately makes it sound like caving in will be the only option after a veto.  We have other options.

              We could cave in and pass an amended bill without the withdrawal requirement.  This would be a bad answer for several reasons.  First, we don't have time to debate a new bill because our troops critically need the funds now.  Second, it would send an incorrect message that Democrats were merely posturing when debating the original bill, wasting time while playing chicken with our soldiers lives, holding out for a provision that they were always willing to drop.  Third, and worst of all, it would send a message that Congress is powerless and irrelevant in comparison to the Unitary Executive.

              Alternately, we can do the right thing.  Within 48 hours of the veto, we can pass the exact same supplemental funding bill.  If necessary, Members must return to Washington from their district work periods to cast this time-critical vote.  The message is that there is no time to spare in supporting our troops.  We also send the message that Congress has already given in as much as it can by weakening the withdrawal provisions and is now standing on principle.  We assert that Congress does have the power of the purse and is an equal to the executive branch.  We force Mr. Bush to recognize that his only choices are to let the troops run out of money in a short time or to accept the will of Congress and of the People.

              Ask Congress to keep the withdrawal provisions in the spending bill no matter what.

        •  I had been flip-flopping back & forth between (10+ / 0-)

          Obama and Edwards, until this; this is almost as if Obama was channeling Lieberman.

          This is the end of my interest in Obama, permanently.

          Obama now becomes like Hillary, ambiguous & muddy on Iraq.

          Edwards now has a fantastic window of opportunity to become the candidate with the cleanest and clearest and strongest anti-Bush, anti-Iraq message.

          I still can't believe that Obama would undercut all the great work that Congress has been doing on the funding bill like this.

          Is Lieberman Obama's Svengali?

          Where did this come from?

          This reminds me of the very bad advice that Kerry's advisors were giving him re his 2004 Iraq campaign strategy.

          Is Obama a victim of similar bad advice?

          •  Harry Reid appointed Lieberman to be Obama's (4+ / 0-)

            mentor when Obama first took up his Senate seat.

            I hope the bad effects of this Liebercontact would not be permanent, but stuff like this makes me fear that Obama caught Lieberman cooties.

          •  I agree it WAS a toss up for me, Obama or Edwards (5+ / 0-)

            John Edwards is the only true viable anti-war candidate left in the race.  It may have been a rookie mistake, but framing it that way was obvioualy pandering to the pro-war crowed.  I really thought he was a different kind of candidate but in the end he's another Hillary, just not as polished.    

            "The sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society." C. Wright Mills

            by HGM MA on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:27:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is exactly right. (5+ / 0-)

              John Edwards is the only true viable anti-war candidate left in the race.

              I've been saying around here for a while that Obama has been tepid in his opposition to the war.   He did not support the Fingold-Kerry bill in 2006; he voted with Clinton against it.

              He did not support the Kennedy bill this January to defund the escaltion.  

              The first diary I ever wrote on dkos was about Obama on Face the Nation around Martin Luther King Day.  He was repeating Republican themes and triangulating then between Bush and the Democrats.  Soon afterward, I heard John Edwards' Martin Luther King Day speech and made my choice: John Edwards.  I had been leaning toward Edwards, and that made my choice easier.

              He did not support the Murtha bill.

              This statement is completely consistent with Obama's position, and that position is not good enough for me.

              Your statement is right.

              "We don't need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party." John Edwards 2/22/07

              by TomP on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:09:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry..but I'm for Bill Richardson. (7+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                decon, mjshep, Krush, demvet78, Steffo, cal in cali, TomP

                There are more choices than Hillary, Obama and Edwards.

                •  Richardson - Check First His Position on Trade (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Inky, nasarius, TomP

                  It's my impression that Bill Richardson is a free trader.

                  That's beyond alarming, it's enough to eliminate him from consideration.

                  Too bad, Richardson seems on the verge of understanding that US foreign policy has to undergo profound change.  Change overdue since the fall of the Soviet Union and NO, free trade isn't part of that equation. Continually weakening the American community weakens us on the world stage.

                   

                  •  He WAS (0+ / 0-)

                    Richardson has stated ( sorry I can't find the link right now) in an interview within the last few weeks that although he was strongly in favor of NAFTA, after seeing the results he has changed his position. He now favors stronger environmental and worker protections in trade agreements and would like to renegotiate those that do not have those provisions. He also said he wanted some protections for American workers when entering into those agreements. To me, this means  that experience has taught him to back off some of his previous pro free trade stances.

                    IIRC, he claimed he supported NAFTA because he believed it would both help the border/immigrant problem and strenghten Mexico's economy. It hasn't done that.

                    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. ~James Madison

                    by mjshep on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 05:53:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Richardson: "I'm a free trader" (0+ / 0-)

                      A recent edition of C-SPAN's Road to the Whitehouse featured Bill Richardson at a meet & greet in New Hampshire, where he stated "I'm a free trader".

                      Richardson represented my district in Congress during the NAFTA debate.  He played a pivotal role in putting the agreement on the fast track that prevented Congess from adding provisons to the NAFTA to protect workers, jobs, and the environment.

                      You are right. Richardson is currently talking about the need for the very provisions that he rejected years ago - especially when he is speaking in front of labor audiences.

                      For me, the bottom line is that I've watched him for too long to have any confidence in him actually meaning what he says.  I'm of the firm opinion that he tells people what he thinks they want to hear.

                      ````
                      peace

                •  Fair enough. He did rather well (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Inky, Morgan Sandlin

                  fundraising.  I find his economic policies too conservative.  Where is Richardson on the war?

                  "We don't need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party." John Edwards 2/22/07

                  by TomP on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:36:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Here's one comment... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Steffo, TomP

                    This is from Bill Richardson's speech to the New Hampshire Democratic State Party State Central Committee:

                    Like all of you, I am sure, I have struggled for a long time over Iraq. Like most Americans, I am saddened by the horrific violence that takes dozens, scores of innocent lives every day. And like most Americans, I believe that our country has a moral obligation to do what we can to help the Iraqis end that violence.

                    And because of that belief, it has not been easy for me to come to this conclusion: that the best thing we can do—for them as well as for ourselves—is to leave.

                    Carefully and strategically. But we must leave. And soon. Because our military has done all it can do there.

                    Our troops have done a magnificent job in Iraq under terrible circumstances. But our continued military presence is not helping the Iraqis create a stable order.

                    Our presence is not preventing a bloodbath. That bloodbath is already happening. More than three thousand civilian men, women and children are dying each month.

                    Eighty percent of Iraqis have said they want us to leave. Sixty percent say they think it justifiable to kill Americans. Sunnis and Shiites alike see us as occupiers, and believe our presence there is making things worse.

                    There is no military solution to Iraq's political crisis. We need to end this fiasco now, and start down the hard path back to a safer future and a more realistic foreign policy.

                    Our safety, as much as the safety of the Iraqis, is at stake. We need to stop throwing good money after bad. We need to stop sending our soldiers to die for a tragic mistake

                    •  and further comment from the same address: (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Steffo

                      Definitely a thinking person's candidate:

                      The message of the mid-term election elections was clear the American people have lost faith in President Bush and his Iraq policy.

                      Logically, we have only three choices: escalate the war, hunker down and stay, or stand down.

                      The leading advocate for escalating the war is Senator John McCain. I have served with John in Congress and I respect him. But John McCain is wrong, dead wrong to think that we can solve Iraq's political crisis through military escalation.

                      He ignores the fact that every time we have sent in more troops, violence only increased. There is no military solution to Iraq's political crisis.

                      The second option is to hunker down and stay indefinitely. Such an approach might allow George W. Bush to hand this mess off to the next President, but it will never stabilize Iraq.

                      We can stay and arm and train their police and army. But deadly militias have thoroughly infiltrated both the police and the army at all levels. Much of the sectarian violence is actually being committed by the very people we are training and arming. Only a political solution can stop that. And only the Iraqis can do it.

                      Our only real option is to redeploy our troops, and allow the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country.

            •  Edwards is NOT the only viable candidate (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Steffo

              Come on people, it's time to read up on Richardson !!!

              go big or stay home

              by clare57 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:14:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The Lieberman influence leapt to mind (3+ / 0-)

            the instant I read this. It's as if Obama's lips moved, but Holy Joe's whiny, nasal voice came out.


            I don't know that this can be attributed to bad advice, however. Obama has always tended to be overcautious and sensitive to whatever the prevailing "centrist" opinion of the moment happens to be. In short, he tends to triangulate a bit, though to a lesser extent than Hillary does. Where is the boldness and willingness to challenge the political establishment that we expect from our candidates?  


            If Obama were truly the champion of a "new" style of politics, he would have the courage to stand with the rest of the Democrats in fighting bush's plans, instead of giving up. The last thing we need from our candidates is an attitude of appeasement towards an unpopular president whose position has been rejected by the vast majority of Americans.

            There is no such thing, at this stage of the world's history in America, as an independent press. - John Swinton, 1890

            by Xeno of Elia on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:47:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Obama has sworn allegiance to the corporate state (0+ / 0-)

            from what I can see.

            The military industrial complex rules our country and economy and when it says feed me, everyone jumps.

            Stock charts of some (Offense) Contractors over last five years:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            Lockheed Martin
            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

            Boeing
            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

            Northrop Grumman
            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

            BAE SYSTEMS
            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

            Raytheon
            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

            General Dynamics
            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

            General Electric
            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

            Honeywell
            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

            Halliburton
            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

            United Tech
            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

            HealthNet
            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

            L-3 Communications Holdings
            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

      •  Didn't you read what George Miller had said... (0+ / 0-)

        before about 2-3 weeks ago?  

    •  It's (19+ / 0-)

      weird seeing your sig without the link to the Obama website.

      Poor form by the senator, I think.  

      Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you are...is a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

      by Sinister Rae on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:56:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Seconded (33+ / 0-)

      A major unforced error, awefully hard to excuse.

      Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

      by brainwave on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:01:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's be careful here. (16+ / 0-)

        First of all, I have been leaning Edwards since Feingold bowed out, so I am not an Obama partisan.

        I am a bit concerned about the timing of this article. Following a week in which Obama has been getting slammed for lacking substance, it seems to me that this is a bit convenient. The USA Toaday headline shouts:

        "Congress will fund Iraq war if Bush uses veto, Obama says."

        But Obama also said:

        "If the president vetoes this, the American people have to continue to put pressure on their representatives so that at some point we may be able to get a veto-proof majority for moving this war in a different direction," the senator said.

        So the headline might just have well read:

        Obama Calls For Americans To Speak Out Against The War.

        So I have to wonder why this is being framed by the media in this manner. And I think it would be fair to wait and see how Obama responds to this characterization of his remarks.
        .

        • Blog This: News Corpse
        • The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay.

        by KingOneEye on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:07:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yet if he really did say this (12+ / 0-)

          If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

          Then he folded.

          •  totally - (15+ / 0-)

            Obama could just as easily have said here:

            By threatening a veto, Bush is playing an irresponsible game of chicken with our troops.

          •  "If" is the operative word. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kestrel, SarahLee

            We all know how the media can distort. There is enough reason here to be suspicious. If he comes out blasting USAT for misrepresenting his remarks, everything changes.

            But if he doesn't, then I agree with all the rest of you.

            • Blog This: News Corpse
            • The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay.

            by KingOneEye on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:05:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That is not his quote. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SarahLee

            That is USA Todays version of his quote.

            •  More clarity on what he is trying to say (5+ / 0-)

              in this transcript from CNN

              BLITZER: ... he takes a principled stand. He's not going to vote to fund troops going off to this war, because he believes that would help bring the troops home.

              OBAMA: Right.

              You know, the problem is, is that you have got an obstinate administration that has shown itself unwilling to change in the face of circumstances on the ground.

              And, in that situation, what you don't want to do is to play chicken with the president, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor, you don't have reinforced humvees, you don't have night-vision goggles.

              Now, there is a ratcheting-up of pressure on the president. And I am very pleased about the vote that took place yesterday, where a majority of the Senate for the first time said we need to have a timetable.

              BLITZER: But he says he is going to veto that right now.

              OBAMA: I understand.

              BLITZER: And there is a game of chicken going on right now.

              OBAMA: I understand that he says he is going to veto it. There is no doubt he will veto it. But what you are starting to see, I think, is a bipartisan movement in the direction of having a clear endgame.

              And I am very pleased that the bill that I presented back in January calling for a phased withdrawal starting on May 1 of this year, with the aim of getting all combat troops out by March 31 of next year, that many of the elements in that bill ended up being part of this package that was voted on yesterday.

              BLITZER: If the president does veto it, as he vows he will, what do you do next?

              OBAMA: Well, I think we continue to put these votes up to the Senate. We put more pressure on many Republican colleagues of mine, who I think recognize that the Bush approach has not worked, but are still unwilling to put pressure on their president.

              BLITZER: Because he says the money starts drying up in mid- April...

              OBAMA: Right.

              BLITZER: ... for the troops to head over to Iraq.

              OBAMA: Right. I think that we continue to put a series of votes up and try to convince our colleagues on the Republican side that the only way that we are going to change circumstances in Iraq is if you see a different political dynamic; that there are, at this point, no military solutions to the problems in Iraq; that what we have to do is get the Shia, the Sunni, the Kurd to come together and say to themselves "We, in fact, are willing to start making some compromises around oil revenues, around the arming of militias and so on."

              In the absence of that, we can send 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, we're not going to see a significant change.

              •  I hope he recorded his interview (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SarahLee, joanneleon, maddogg

                More clarity on what he is trying to say . . . in this transcript from CNN

                When I read the AP article I at first thought that this was their very incorrect rendering of what I had just listened to on Late Edition.  But the AP article claims that it is based on an "in an interview with The Associated Press" that also took place Sunday.  Not a single one of the quotes in the AP article matches the CNN transcript.

                This AP article is very strange in that it has lots of quotes in it that all are all totally consistent with what he said on CNN the same day.  But the "statement" that was selected for the headline and the opening paragraph is at no point quoted.

                It seems to me that if Obama said that following the expected veto Congress would "quickly" send a bill to the president "without the withdrawal timeline" then the actual words of him saying that ought to have been quoted rather than all of the other things that are quoted.

                I hope that Obama is not so foolish as to give an interview to the AP without keeping a recording of what he said.  If he did that was a rooky mistake by his staff.

              •  Nowhere did Obama say cave and fund (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jerseycorn, Lesser Dane

                That was AP putting words in his mouth, which Kos, with other things on his mind, didn't read critically.

                See also this diary:  
                Kos, Obama and the benefit of the doubt

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

              •  This does NOT say "we fold to the President" !! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                maddogg

                I do not conclude -- as Kos apparently does -- that Obama's speech says, in any way, that we will let the President have money and play with troops in Iraq forever.

                We are arguing about a press report of a CNN interview. The transcript does not, in my opinion, bear out the charge that has been made.

                I still support Obama. To me, his response says that Democrats will continue to put forth challenges to the President's approach, and continue to demand that he get out of Iraq.

          •  Sarah, don't uprate the troll (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SarahLee

            check out hidden comments for "we be jamming", he's here trolling for mojo.  Please take back all your uprates.

            Chaos, fear, dread. My work here is done.

            by madhaus on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 01:35:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  but we don't need a veto-proof majority - (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cedubose, jimreyn, JVolvo, jpfdeuce, TomP

          by his veto, it is BUSH who will automatically be the defunder!

          why didn't Obama say THAT??

          Obama is playing completely to Bush's frame.

          •  Appeasement (8+ / 0-)

            In 2005 I would have expected this from Democrats.  In 2003 I would have expected it...  I would ahve expected it in 2004 too of course.

            But 2007?  While we have Bush by the balls, Barak Obama hands out this little quote and I feel like we've been pushed back into the chicken little days of the Democratic Party where Tom Delay, Trent Lott and Karl Rove had US by the balls.

            "Well, we tried to challenge him but they stopped us.  Back to our shells!"

            Baseball and Democrats have something in common: they're just getting started.

            by jpfdeuce on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:12:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Additionally (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Xeno of Elia, TomP

            In response to Blitzer's statement "he (Bush) says the money starts drying up in mid- April ..."
            Obama said "Right."

            Even if Obama wasn't aware that a few days ago the GAO said that funding was adequate through late July, he should have replied something like:  I would prefer to get information on funding from a more reliable source.

            If Obama wasn't aware of the GAO report then someone on his campaign staff should prepare a daily news brief.

        •  Let's wait for more details (6+ / 0-)

          I agree.

          I'm not particularly a supporter of Obama. I had hopes. Certainly this looks very bad for him. HOWEVER, I also think that this just may be framed badly in the USA Today story. It's not clear that it is his position or his prediction about his colleagues.

          BUT even so, as stated, it was very unhelpful for him to predict a cave-in.

          •  that article makes me suspicious (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnwmcn

            Let's wait for more details . . .  I also think that this just may be framed badly in the USA Today story. It's not clear that it is his position or his prediction about his colleagues.

            The reason it is "not clear" that he was really saying what the opening paragraph and headline says he said is that the unnamed author of the article, who uses lots of direct quotes in his article for some reason did not give us any direct quote that would support what he claims to be the bombshell in his article.

            This makes me very suspicious.

        •  Aren't Americans already speaking out (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nelsons, TomP

          against the war?  That was one of the main reasons the Democrats won back congress.

          I guess that feeling I had about him was right.  I can't believe that he is caving to the Bush Kool-aid already.

          "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore." -Carly Fiorina CEO, Hewlett-Packard

          by baffled on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:20:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think you're right on here... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fred in Vermont, joanneleon

          I've not made up my mind between Edwards and Obama yet.  Have been leaning more to Edwards since the beginning, but have wanted to take time to listen and consider things.  I agree that the media has a slimy way of framing issues and can start real problems very easily.  I agree that the way Obama presented this was unfortunate, if it is actually verbatim.  I would need to hear it myself.  But, I would be willing to wait to hear what he has to say about it.  

          Never grow a wishbone, daughter, where your backbone ought to be. Clementine Paddeford

          by blubryeyes on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:40:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It sounds like today's GOP talking points (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lesser Dane

            I agree that the way Obama presented this was unfortunate, if it is actually verbatim.

            Well the article is what it is.  The parts that are in quotes are presumably verbatim and a since those parts are totally consistent with the transcript of what he said Sunday on CNN I assume they are correct.

            The problem is that the key part of the article, and the part that seems so shocking, the prediction that congress would "quickly" send a funding bill "without a timeline" following a veto is not supported by any direct quotes.

            I would need to hear it myself.

            That is why I hope that there is a record of what he said.  This is the big time and I think he would be foolish to talk with a reporter without a recording being made by his staff just in case his statements are misrepresented.

            I would be willing to wait to hear what he has to say about it.  

            Yes I can't believe he is that far out of step with the rest of Senate Democrats who today were pointing to findings that the Congressional Research Service has found that the Pentagon will not really start to go broke until the end of July.

            If Obama really said that not "quickly" giving the President what he wants would be playing chicken with the lives of the troops then it sounds like he was reading a GOP talking point rather than one from the Senate Democratic leadership.  I just don't believe it.

            Obama is too sharp and professional to make a mistake like that.  But I am not sure that we can say the same for the nameless AP reporter who drafted this story.  He may have been so clueless that he didn't realize how unlikely Obama was saying what he thought he was saying so he turned in copy that included a paragraph that seemed to characterize his position in that way (though without a supporting quote). 

            Then some editor, correctly understanding that if that was Obama's position it was a big deal, made that paragraph the lead and headline. Anyway that is what I think happened.

            BTW right now I am more for Edwards than Obama, but I think this is a bad rap and that Obama is way too smart to make a blunder like this.

    •  I'm not shocked at all. (61+ / 0-)

      This is typical Obama, IMO.  He is so all over the board, he has no clue who he is or what he stands for.  Rock star indeed.  He has given new meaning to the phrase, empty suit.  "All talk, no go." I don't like Hillary, and I don't trust her one bit; but I can tell you exactly who and what Hillary represents.  

      "Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat." Mark Twain

      by dkmich on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:06:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  as peacenik points out below: (39+ / 0-)

      There's no quote in the article confirming this passage. The direct quote merely says that they won't cut off funding. I don't see any quote promising a clean bill without a withdrawal.

      The only quote suggests the opposite:

      "My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

      Let's listen to his own words.

      by peacenik23 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:59:49 AM PDT

      I think we should wait to see the full interview transcript before jumping to conclusions

      •  Two Countermoves.... (14+ / 0-)
        1. Pass a three-month increment, forcing Bush to come back this summer, hat in hand, and forcing Repugs in Congress to vote again; and
        1. As was diaried here recently, add a provision aimed at Private Contractors (Halliburton, Blackwater, et.al.) focusing public attention on both the sick underbelly of this war and the Bushies' contracting corruption.
      •  NeuvoLiberal; Barack did use the phrase (34+ / 0-)

        no one "wants  to play chicken with our troops", implying that that is exactly what the Dems are doing. THAT is not good framing for our debate.
        We need to be putting pressure on Bush--HE is the one threatening our troops.

        Spring starts @ 8:o5pm April 1st--in St. Louis

        by Phil S 33 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:16:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  maybe the question was: (7+ / 0-)

          "Will Democrats play chicken with our troops".

          I am kidding, but who knows what that quote was in response to, until we see the full text?

          Of course, the Dems should play hardball. It's 6 past due and 4.5 years past due on Iraq. All I am saying is that, it isn't a good idea to use AP's paraphrasing of his words, but instead we should wait to see the full text.

          AP has a notorious pro-war bent, as many are aware.

        •  And though it's not a direct quote, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee, TomP

          this attributed claim is problematic, if it's accurate:

          Given that Bush is determined to veto a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Congress has little realistic choice but to approve money for the war, Obama said.

          "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

          by machopicasso on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:21:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as you say, it's not a direct quote (0+ / 0-)

            So, in your interpretation of the truth of that indirect quote, much rides on your trust of the writer, or of the news organization that produced the piece.  The score on that doesn't look so hot, and the piece itself doesn't inspire any confidence in its veracity. The only person in the article who compares the United States Senate and President Bush's War to a game of "chicken" -- is the writer.  Nowhere in the direct quotes can the AP support a connection between those two ideas.  If it were possible, they would have included it in the story.

            Stuff like this makes my bullshit detector freak.  To me, it's a clear case of someone at AP just inventing their own context for the quotes.

            •  To be fair, I said "IF it's accurate". (0+ / 0-)

              It is only an attribution, and I agree with you that the AP's published many things in the past which undermine its credibility. The misattributions, though, aren't usually this brazen, which makes me wonder if there isn't something to it.

              As for the "chicken" metaphor, Obama's statement is dangerously ambiguous and the reporting of it even worse. The full statement we get later in the article:

              "I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground," said Obama.

              A charitable interpretation would be "I think that nobody wants to play chicken while our troops are on the ground."

              Unfortunately, the quotation is chopped in the opening paragraph and, as used, implies something more objectionable:

              If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

              Now, that makes it sound like Congress is playing chicken with the troops, and not with the White House. That's an incredibly irresponsible use of the quotation.

              Thanks for encouraging me to take another look at it.

              "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

              by machopicasso on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:15:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The implication itself is the lie (0+ / 0-)

                If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

                The key word here — and the basic lie within the piece, is the word "because".  Notice that it is not in quotes.  That's the key word that connects the ideas behind the entire story.  Without that word, the entire story falls apart.  It was the AP — not Obama — who drew the connection between a potential veto, Congress' potential response, and a game of chicken.  

                This is a non-story...unless we're going to simply talk about campaign tactics and spin.  

        •  Where do you people come from? (21+ / 0-)

          "Nobody wants to play chicken with the troops" means "nobody wants to play chicken with the troops." It does not mean "Someone wants to play chicken with the troops" or "Democrats want to play chicken with the troops." It means "No one wants to play chicken with the troops."

          When you say "No one wants to play chicken with the troops," you are implying not that someone (specifically, as you moronically assert "the Dems") wants to play chicken with the troops, you are implying there are some out there who think or say someone does want to play chicken with the troops. While acknowledging the existence of such talk, however, you underscore the fact that indeed, no one wants to do that.

          This is elementary.

          •  Agree that "no one wants to play (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            missliberties, leevank, McPeePee, ShadowSD

            chicken with the troops" is of course a true statement.  I think people here may be missing the intent of what Obama was saying----listen to what he was saying.  He said something that I'm sure everyone would agree with if you stop and think for just a minute.  No need to be off to the races and condemning him to a lifetime of hauling rocks---or whatever.  A little bit too much in a hurry to write him off.  I didn't hear anything evil.  Or untrue.

          •  If you are going to stand up for what you (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hiroprotag, TomP

            really think, what you FEEL, you DO NOT play into the Wingnut talking points at this time.  

            Senator Obama just stepped on our entire message, and you all better get straight and accept that reality.  You are the reality based people of this country.  

            We cannot have it both ways.  We cannot parse our words.  We have to say what we mean.  If that is what Senator Obama means to say to US, then I say to him, "Sit down and be quiet.  The adults need to speak now."

            Now, back to work!

            by funluvn1 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:14:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  More of them... (0+ / 0-)

              I tell you, you settle down for a nice bit of bloggage on Palm Sunday and the first thing you see is some crap written by a militant atheist on the top of the diary list, kos smearing your presidential candidate, and then some other nutter giving you some line of incoherent gibberish after you speak up about it...

              Listen, funluvn1, why don't you go tell the Senator to sit down and shut up and that adults like you with the wherewithal to express "our message" are taking over. I think you can expect a compassionate response.

          •  He didn't say that. (0+ / 0-)

            If you read the article, what he said was "No one wants to play chicken with troops on the ground." What he meant was that Democrats and Bush are playing chicken, and the troops are getting caught in the middle. There's some truth to that--unfortunately, this just teaches Bush that all he has to do is not blink, and the Dems will roll over and give him what he wants.

        •  Well, that's what it is. (4+ / 0-)

          The average voter understands it.  

        •  You can't read if you think it means that (6+ / 0-)
          He clearly meant that Democrats (and others in the Congress) DON'T want to play chicken with our troops, as Bush insists on doing.  I don't see how he could have made that any more clear.

          Why is it that everytime Obama says virtually anything, people in this community insist on taking it as a criticism of Democrats?  There's no question about it:  Responding to a veto by passing another bill that Bush has pledged to veto WOULD be playing chicken with the troops.  It would be doing it in response to Bush's starting the game of chicken, and it might well be justified (personally, I think it would be), but that's what it would be doing, because it would be based on the hope that Bush would blink first.

          I would hope for more hardball than this, but as a simple matter of fact, I think he's got a point -- there probably AREN'T suffficient votes in Congress to either override the veto or insist on passing another bill with pull-out dates, regardless of what Barack Obama does.

          The pundits have all been saying that Congress would back down, and the Repub. pundits have been crowing about it, but I think their celebration is very premature.  If Congress does give Bush a "clean" bill, but perhaps one that only extends funding for a few months and thus ups the pressure on Bush, it will be clear that the Democrats DON'T want to "play chicken with the troops," and that "playing chicken with the troops" is PRECISELY waht Bush has been doing.

          As for Kos' comment that "Obama just surrendered to Bush," I think it verges on hysteria -- especially when the very same interview contains quotes saying how he hoped to continually increase the pressure on Bush in hopes of getting a veto-proof majority.  And if this war continues the way it's been going, and the American public contines to be vocal about its opposition, that might happen sooner than we think.

          "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

          by leevank on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:53:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  i don't see why everyone is reading it this way (0+ / 0-)

          now, first of all, the content of this article is seriously in doubt.  it is difficult to asses whether the quotes are in context or not, whether Obama said exactly that or whether the AP writer inferred it.  even if it was a direct quote though, he is asked what the senate will do, not what he thinks is the best new plan to come up with, but what does he think they'll do?  and he thinks they'll provide funding for now, and try to ratchet up pressure on congress to do more.  so, what we've got here is Obama being asked what the Congress will do after Bush's inevitable veto.  and he describes what he thinks will happen.  but for some reason, people are reacting to it as if it was a direct quote stated along the lines of "i am terribly upset with my party for using language which would call for a withdrawl deadline, because that is playing chicken with our troops".  there is a vast difference between those two sentiments.  sorry, but this whole thread just seems like silly, hysterical overreaction to some bad AP writing.  of course, Obama could have thrown in a jab or two at Bush, for sure, but really there is no way to know what was actually said in the interview, so why all the willful over-interpretation here?

          ...i felt my pants' warmth as my legs became string and my arteries burst into song...

          by itsbenj on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 06:40:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  what pressure? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tle, StrayCat

        If not to cut the purse strings? Without Congress using its oversight authority in that way, saying they will "pressure" Bush is meaningless.

      •  Red Meat for the kossaks (13+ / 0-)

        Everyday its the same tune around here.

        To borrow a theme from palm sunday: crucify him! crucify him! crucify him!

      •  I would similarly withhold judgment. We've (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        missliberties, Wary

        seen how the MSM takes their quotes out of context. I would also point out that it appears to me that he is saying what he thinks the Senate will do, not necessarily how he will vote. He is being 'circumspect'. But the statement (if accurate) certainly seems very ambivalent.

      •  It's an indirect quote (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, faithnomore

        Given that Bush is determined to veto a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Congress has little realistic choice but to approve money for the war, Obama said.

        Using the phrase Obama said means they're attributing those exact words to Obama. I agree we need to corroborate, but this doesn't look good.

        Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

        by brainwave on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:35:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am sure some reports used the "Gore said" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snout, JVolvo

          phrase while misquoting what he said about his role in avdancing the internet. Unless they put something in quotes, we can't be certain.

        •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

          The absence of quotation marks means that's the reporter's understanding of the meaning of what he said.  They tend to put quotes in quotation marks if they're using somebody's exact words.

          "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

          by leevank on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:58:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lesser Dane

            You're confusing syntactic contexts. Let me illustrate:

            Suppose A says (1):

            (1) It's a beautiful day

            Now B has several options of reproducing what A said, apart from direct quotation. What you probably had in mind was a complementizer construction along the lines of (2):

            (2) A said that it was a beautiful day today

            Even though those weren't A's exact words, (2) is arguably a correct statement, because the complement of the speech act verb is a proposition in this case - B is saying that A committed themselves to a particular state of affairs holding, and that commitment has been adequately described.

            However, this is not what happened in the USAToday article. Instead, we have (3):

            (3) It is/was a beautiful day today, A said

            Here the complement denotes an utterance or speech act, and so (3) is stricltly speaking false since A didn't actually say the word today (the adjustment of the matrix verb for sequence-of-tense is permissible though, I believe).

            Now, I'm not saying the author of the article didn't screw this up, or even intentionally misrepresented what Obama said. All I'm saying is that's what they willy-nilly attributed to Obama.

            Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

            by brainwave on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:26:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you for on target Analysis (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeuvoLiberal, dotster

        I was about to make the same comment! This is BS to RELY upon this news paper on an ALLEGED full 'quote' by Obama when ONLY a partial is given AND the lead in before giving the ACTUAL only portion of the entire quote is given it is taken out of total context!

        If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

        Right now all members of Congress ARE saying just that, and Rangel also points out that the VOTES to defund ARE NOT THERE--

        BUT all are saying there's OTHER ways to accomplish this, Reid and Pelosi and a few others have pointed out that there's TIME to negotiate and have called on Bush to come into negotiations-- AND Reid has pointed out that there's plenty of time before the money runs out, even Rangel this morning stated that the Dems would ensure that the troops have what they need when they need it. Now i was able to HEAR him say that.

        Not so in the case of USA today at all, THEIR framing introduction and the republic  spin of the media is "veto and the Dems MUST fully fund IMMEDIATELY" and so that's the frame they positioned this partial Obama quote from.

        Listen if the Dems were ready to 'cave' right now, they wouldn't have gone on recess, they are taking heat for doing that.

        I just can't see getting all worked up over one partial quote.

      •  Elaborate (7+ / 0-)

        I elaborate on my critique of Kos and his front page post in this diary which defends Obama.

      •  As I mentioned (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChiGirl88, NeuvoLiberal

        already. I am disappointed in Kos's kneejerk reaction to this headline.

        The hard cold reality is that Obama though liberal is into building concensus.

        That in the end makes for a stronger position.

        I don't know if what he said was wise or not, but the headlines sure picked it up right away.

        Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

        by missliberties on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:51:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's written by Mike Glover. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeuvoLiberal, TrueBlueCT

        I wouldn't trust a word of it until the transcript is out.

        I'm crumbelievable.

        by clonecone on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:55:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't doubt this is Dem leadership thinking... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeuvoLiberal

        Didn't you read what George Miller said a couple weeks ago?

      •  Too late (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeuvoLiberal

        kos has spoken. I'm  afraid there are too many here to take his word as gospel and won't bother to look further.

        Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right. --Hunter/Garcia

        by jen on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:10:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No shit. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rising sign, alba

      What a puss.  No stones.  He suffers from the same disease as Hillary: all calculation, no guts.

    •  And I'm not sure who's support he gains (9+ / 0-)

      by doing this. Hillary not admitting she was wrong; that's a mistake, but there's a strategic rationale behind it. But Obama's statement? That just looks like a mistake without anything to gain.

      I really hope there's a very good explanation for this, because his statement is extremely unsatisfying, to say the least.

      "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

      by machopicasso on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:11:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh really! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      funluvn1, Swill to Power

      I can't believe he just said that, the f'in tyro.  I wonder if this has something to do with having been taken under Joe Lieberman's wing.

      What a flake.

      "Life rolls on in George W. Bush's America, forcing us to invent a new word -- greeed" --Molly Ivins

      by rhubarb on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:12:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rangel said the same thing on MTP (6+ / 0-)

      See- it's just all an act. Congress can't REALLY withhold the funds.

      Support our Troops - Stop funding the War!!

      by annefrank on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:14:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (6+ / 0-)

        This pisses me off.  It's one thing to cave at the last minute (bad enough), but to actually say you're bluffing . . . What is this bullshit?

        Dialogue is not possible, however, in the absence of a profound love for the world and for people -- Paulo Freire

        by rcald on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:17:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You failed to offer a complete quote of what (7+ / 0-)

        he said - he said that they didn't have the votes to defund the war which is true.

      •  You Beat Me To Rangel (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        salsa0000, annefrank, Wary

        I posted something on Rangel below.

        One important thing though that you did not mention nor did I in my longer post.

        Rangel did say that withholding funds was not politically feasible. That people did not want that and that they did not want a repeat of vietnam where we were withdrawing on a shoestring.

        We all know that Bush would pull the dirty trick of putting our troops in harms way by withdrawing them at the last minute complete with the helicopters rescuing our guys from the embassy rooftop in a Rovian photo-op designed to kill us for another 20 years as weak on defense.

        US Soldiers = Rovian Props.

        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

        by talex on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:37:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes - that's a political risk (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee, talex

          but I think Dems should have held their hand longer.

          Support our Troops - Stop funding the War!!

          by annefrank on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:40:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well Now After Getting Over... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annefrank

            my initial 15 minutes of disgust I put my 'sensible and pragmatic' hat back on and and this some rational thought.

            My guess is that because Bush will veto anyway that both Houses know that they are not going to get any more mileage out of this than they already have and that they are going to when the veto comes down. They have achieved all that is to be achieved.

            No sense in drawing it out and giving Bush more time to throw tantrums and distract from the other things we have going on. Gonzales, Rove, Meir battles still loom. Then Tax issues seem to be approaching the forefront as of this weekend with both Obama and Rangel talking about making adjustments and addressing the AMT. And of course you have bush's tirade on taxes in his radio address.

            With other Funding Bills we will be able to keep Iraq and Bush in the forefront. Also, unfortunately, there is still plenty of bad news out of Iraq - foremost being that the death tolls of American GI's are not down at all. So Iraq will remain an albatross around the necks of Bush and the repubs.

            Maybe given that and more from a tactical point of view the Dem's are right to shut Bush up and send him the bill to veto. That way the last thing in peoples minds will be the veto - not us giving in.

            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

            by talex on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:08:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, he said it, but (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, annefrank, optimusprime

        he is not running for president. When you are running for WH, you should expect that everything you say will be closely scrutinized.

        Also, not that many people watch MTP. However, when a presidential candidate expresses doubt so publicly, everyone will notice.

      •  Everybody knows Rangel isn't a real Democrat (0+ / 0-)

        And yes, this is snark.  But it's amazing that Obama gets attacked for saying essentially the same thing as Rangel, but from Rangel, it's taken (at least by most) as merely stating an obvious truth.

        "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

        by leevank on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:05:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Obama should read Doonesbury, (7+ / 0-)

      perhaps he will get a clue!!

       title=

      What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

      by Demfem on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:17:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have been rooting hard for Obama (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kevin lyda, missliberties, delphine, TomP, alba

      But I wonder what he is thinking lately. He just seems to be stumbling, and I am very disappointed in this. If he wants to demonstrate that he does not have the experience and judgement necessary to be President, he seems to be going full speed ahead. Between this, and his inability to discuss health care, I have been scratching my head. I know, I know, he has only been running for 8 weeks. I don't expect a detailed plan yet. But his message has been sounding awfully convoluted, both at SEIU and yesterday during his town hall webcast. (BTW, the house party I was planning to go to was cancelled because the host had still not received the materials promised by the campaign for the event--and she had signed up to host the day the webcast was announced.)

      Come on, Senator, PLEASE get your groove back! I really want to support your bid!

    •  Paraphrase (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wary, 4Freedom, meowmissy, ReggieH, IamLorax

      The above is a paraphrase, not Obama's exact words.  I'd like to see an exact quote.

    •  This is the Obama we (5+ / 0-)

      started off disliking and the one we thought who'd gotten lost. He's back and weak as ever.

      These are the Democrats that drive me crazy. How much better than Bush are they when they ignore the will of Americans? Bush, Republicans and now Democrats are ignoring what Americans want - which is to stop the occupation of Iraq.

      -4.25, -6.87: The next great step will be taken from here.

      by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:28:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rangel Pretty Much Said (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, baltimoremom, modemocrat, Wary

      the same thing on MTP today.

      He did add though that the House would continue to send him bills with withdrawal language to remind him and the people that he is on the wrong side of this war.

      I take it that Rangel is implying that the funds Bush gets will be short term funds although he did not say one way or another if that was the case. But if they are going to continue to send him funding bills that is what it sounds like.

      Disappointed? Yeah. Myself and many others here have been advocating for short term funds with 'restrictions' or 'withdrawal' language. Others including some front pagers have been advocating for short term funds without restrictions and withdrawal language. I think they were wrong but it looks like that is what we are getting.

      This is a loss for us. The war and the funding will go on. We will only be getting 'symbolic' victories with Bush vetoing future bills along the way. BFD!

      It is good that we will make him look like the ass he is but this approach will do nothing to end the war. The only way it will end now is if the public goes berserk over it but even then...

      We are talking Bush.

      I really wish no one no harm - but if summer lighting were to strike...

      "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

      by talex on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:28:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Talex on Rangel (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        talex

        I take it that Rangel is implying that the funds Bush gets will be short term funds although he did not say one way or another if that was the case. But if they are going to continue to send him funding bills that is what it sounds like.

        That's what I heard as well, I have also heard similar statements from Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein and others.

        Nothing conclusive but what i am also hearing is that Bush will NOT rush them BECAUSE they know that he has more funds to keep on going, so they are using this as a bargaining chip as well.

        This is just the stage where the Dems are laying out their strategy and their rationale for what is going to happen once the Congress is off recess and once the REAL battle begins.

        Right now we are just in the verbal exchange stage via media--and so far, I think the Dems are doing a terrific job OVERALL!

        •  I Hope You Are Right Wary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wary

          But my gut tells me we are in store for only a bunch of symbolic bills in the future.

          But I hope you are right and I am wrong. I hope that their comments are just to calm the waters for now and make Bush think he has won and then come back after recess and kick him in the balls.

          "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

          by talex on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:14:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  SenRangel said Obama not ready ... (0+ / 0-)

      ...to be president and SenClinton will be the Democratic nominee come Nov08 elections. I just heard this on the radio on way home from church today...in an interview. It was on local (LaCrosse WI) AM 1410 station. Anyway maybe SenRangel knew of the noted statement by SenObama and that convinced him SenObama wasn't ready to be president. Just thought I'd add this to the pro/con list as to SenObama's worthiness to be one of the frontrunner Democratic Presidential candidates Nov08.

      Our nations quality of life is based on the rightousness of its people.

      by kalihikane on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:32:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rangel is in the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee

        House of Representatives, not the Senate.  And I don't think of Charlie Rangel as being a "leader" in the House.

        Yeah, these are stupid statements to make.  Any Dem can simply say we don't have enough votes to override.  That's simply a fact.  To say we wouldn't play "chicken" with the troops implies that our first move WAS playing "chicken".  

        Obama does generate a lot of buzz, but I agree with other commenters that he is just not ready for a Presidential race.  He is helping my guy, John Edwards, with these statements.

        BTW, Edwards was looking great yesterday on the ActBlue page. Shooting for 3 million just on ActBlue, and last I looked, nearly made it.

        We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

        by Mary Julia on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:41:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rep Rangel...my error... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mary Julia

          ...I knew it didn't sound correct as soon as I said it out-loud to myself but let it go. Actually I think the more Democratic Pres candidates we have better to get the word out to American public. And the various perspectives they will bring to the table...and more targets Republicans have to generate talking points for as well as provides potential voters pro/con about Democrats vs Repubs...and we all know there are so many more cons vs Repubs especially significant-cons where cons against Dems are frivilous or pimped-up by lushbaugh and o'liely types.

          Our nations quality of life is based on the rightousness of its people.

          by kalihikane on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:57:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Rangel has been behind Hillary all the way (0+ / 0-)

        How in the hell could Obama's statement have convinced him that Obama isn't ready to be President, when Rangel just today said much the same thing as Obama?

        "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

        by leevank on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:46:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  He never had mine (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      I am not surprised at all. "If something seems too good to be true, it usually is".

    •  Were you going to diary what he actually (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      baltimoremom, mihan

      said or the one-paragraph blurb from the AP?

      If someone stating the OBVIOUS truth will cause you to withdraw your support, so be it I guess.

      •  Thanks for the sarcastic reply (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marc in CA, SarahLee, TomP

        And obviously money is going to end up with the troops somehow. But by saying that it is going to be passed without a deadline - that is a premature abdication of responsibility. We should be fighting tooth and nail for a deadline to get out.

        "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

        by PsiFighter37 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:49:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And we're not going to get out if the Republicans (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          missliberties

          have even the slenderest reed upon which they can rest the argument that Democrats are willing to cut off support for troops on the battlefield.

          So, it's his fault for stating what you characterize as 'obvious?'

          Who knew that stating the 'obvious' was such a crime?

          •  Its not a smart (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SarahLee, TomP

            way to fight and it shows significant flaws in his political-war-fighting capabilities.  We don't need a candidate that's going to show his cards before he has  to.

            Feingold is my hero

            by Marc in CA on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:15:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The strategy has never been to end the war today. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee

              It's about forcing an end to the war 6-12 months down the road.

              The Democrats know that the one thing that's propping up Republicans while standing by the least popular and worst president ever is the hope that they can paint Democrats as people willing to endanger US troops.

              •  There's nothing "forcing" (0+ / 0-)

                about "6-12 months".  And the only reason we're still in this fucking war is because:

                1. we don't have a veto-proof majority
                1. Democrats in Congress have been a bunch of fuckin wimps who can't even gather the guts to fight the President even though 2/3rds of Americans agree with them and want them to cut off funding!

                Feingold is my hero

                by Marc in CA on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:37:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Didn't you read what George Miller said weeks... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geekesque

          back about what would happen?  What do you think the Dem leadership is going to do?  Cut off funding for Iraq?

    •  I think that you just (0+ / 0-)

      capitulated to the intense pressure online.  

    •  Just like: (0+ / 0-)

      The Condoleezza Rice confirmation and just like his decision not to join other Democrats to filibuster Samuel Alito, a fucked up move that will affect generations.

      What does it say about someone who gives the worst president in the history of the US, every damn thing he wants.  Perhaps if he was US Senator Obama in the Fall of 2002, he would have also given Bush the war.  

      Who is this guy who never beat anyone substantial in any election he's ever been in?  Where is his fight? If you want a guy with a good voice, make John Boehner the president.  We cannot put all the marbles in this guys basket...no fucking way!!

    •  The article has been updated to (0+ / 0-)

      remove the AP reporter's conjecture.  Perhaps you should view his actual speech before you judge him.

      Have you read about the Kurds yet?

      by jhritz on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:37:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Apparently he doesn't know power politics (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      and will, as a result, be an inappropriate Dem. candidate against the republicans.

      He has lost my support, not just for this statement, but for a history of making statements that are damaging to the Dem. party unity.

      I came within a few keystrokes of sending him some campaign cash - hoping that he'd improve his substantative message.  I thought I'd wait for confirmation however, and I'm glad I did.

      He's not ready to be a major candidate.  Maybe not even a good VP selection, since he's off the reservation far to often.

      To bad, for he does raise hope among many people.  But a dashed hope is worse than a false hope.

      The Democratic Party: We the People (7801)

      by JimPortlandOR on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:39:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Didn't you read what George Miller said... (0+ / 0-)

      a couple, few weeks back.  It is the thinking of Dem leadership.  This battle was lost then.  What a bunch of BS.

    •  I like Obama (0+ / 0-)

      I think this shows his lack of experience. Biden's comments were much better and he was on fox. I am no fan of Biden either but his experience shows.

      Also.. I believe that Obama's comments were partially taken out of context. USA Today .. rightie rag.. picked pieces of quotes and then added their own words around it.

      Kos and other do a disservice to all of us by going with the USA Today piece.

    •  I was wavering between Obama and Edwards. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      This is unfortunate.  Edwards is now my guy, unless and until Obama recovers (or Edwards similarly screws up).

      "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."-GWB

      by BTP on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:35:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think statements like this from Obama (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      just prove his critics right. Not enough experience or substance. If he had either, he would never have made such a Lieberesque statement.

      WTF? Are these people Democrats or Republicrats?

      "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

      by crushie on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:00:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  don't be shocked (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      I saw Obama back in the fall speak at our state JJ Dinner. He was to say the least charismatic. For the most part, I liked what he said, but I felt like he was playing it safe. The reality is we don't have the luxury of playing it safe. I think John Edwards knows what it means when we say  tomorrow may never come and that he understands that what we NEED to do in this country needs to be done NOW.  
      I watched Clinton, Obama, and Edwards in back to back speeches on C-SPAN. Clinton and Obama sounded like politicians and Edwards sounded like a public servant.  My support is with Edwards. The problem is this process- it is about MONEY. Clinton and Obama are leading there and sadly that may be all it takes to win.

    •  Me too. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      Now I'm glad I accidentally missed his meet-up last night. I wish Gore would just jump in. I want to support someone I believe has vision. Edwards maybe?

      Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat. -Harry Emerson Fosdick

      by Jawis on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:33:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And Kos, YOUR strategy is? (9+ / 0-)

    The Democrats' options are limited here.
    I am not defending Obama on this. What does Edwards propose?
    I am not sure what the Democrats should do.
    Any ideas?

    If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen.

    by EZ writer on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:56:00 AM PDT

  •  gosh Prez (10+ / 0-)

    we were just kidding

    "no, how dare you sir!"-Jack Ryan

    by Rudykip on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:56:21 AM PDT

  •  Up in the polls and he gets cocky (6+ / 0-)

    I knew he was the Faux News candidate.

  •  WTF? Obama just proved he will NEVER be able to (25+ / 0-)

    negotiate with another country or group...ever.  Why would we want a President that can't negotiate?  This may have just cut out any support I had for him.

  •  Why in the hell would he say this? (8+ / 0-)

    I don't see an upside here at all.

  •  Be ready to toss that label ... (4+ / 0-)

    on MANY Democrats who endorse the same move.

    If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen.

    by EZ writer on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:57:36 AM PDT

    •  They deserve it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Silverleaf, Rex Manning
      But how many are running for president?

      put that in your pipe and smoke it...

      by you like it on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:17:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does Edwards differ? (0+ / 0-)

        What Democratic candidate differs on what Obama ACTUALLY said? (Rather than the out-of-context quote Kos used in his obvious anti-Obama campaign)?
        Let's contact Edwards and see if he disagrees.
        Or any other candidate.

        If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen.

        by EZ writer on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:30:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Probably, but really, who cares? (0+ / 0-)
          Assuming the AP is accurate, there is no reason for him to say what he did.  If asked about Bush's veto he should have said he hopes it doesn't come to that and that the president acts responsibly to fund the troops.  The line should be that Congress has done its part, the ball is in the president's court.  That's what Reid and Pelosi have been saying.  Whether or not a blank check eventually will be given, it is politically idiotic to say this.

          I don't see Edwards saying something so stupid, and personally, I do believe that he opposes giving a blank check.  I can't say that for sure because I'm no mind reader.  But we do know for sure what Obama thinks if the AP is accurate.  Obama has now reinforced the false dichotemy between giving a "blank check" and "cutting off funds" for the troops.  That is bad policy and bad politics and it is unacceptable from someone who would be a standard bearer for our party.

          I am angry about this because up until know I was warming to the idea of Obama as our nominee.  No more.

          put that in your pipe and smoke it...

          by you like it on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:40:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is Edwards' position. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP

          See link, the position is similar, the framing vastly different:

             MTP Transcript for Feb. 4, 2007:

             MR. RUSSERT: If you were in the Senate, would you vote to cut off funding for the war?

             SEN. EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I’m not running for the Senate, I’m running for president of the United States. What I would do is, is say we’re not going to fund an escalation of this war. That’s what I think we should do. I would not cut off funding for the men and women who are part of our troops and serving in, in, in Iraq.

          This is why Edwards is the better candidate. Obama, while very talented, is proving yet he's an amateur on the national stage for a Presidential race. Edwards got the framing right here.

          "Children in the U.S. are not only detained, but often... in facilities that routinely fail ... international and domestic standards." --Amnesty International

          by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:45:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The comparison is not completely fair (0+ / 0-)

            Senator Obama is a sitting Senator and he will have to vote. The question, not just the framing is different. So, though Obama is running for President he needed to answer as a Senator. It would though have been good had he transistioned the answer to do both.

  •  That's just too bad (11+ / 0-)

    Just goes to show, one should never jump behind any candidate with all engines firing without looking at trends...  I like Obama, but I always wanted to wait and see more of what he DID not just what he said he'd do...  now he's said something astonishgly odd as a democrat..  its too bad.

    "Be the change that you want to see in the world."- Gandhi

    by hopefulcanadian on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:57:42 AM PDT

  •  I haven't decided who to support (4+ / 0-)

    yet, but this will definitely factor in when the time comes to make a decision.

    Even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. -Jefferson

    by CTLiberal on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:58:04 AM PDT

  •  Barack Obama -- Surrender Monkey (13+ / 0-)

    I was leaning Edwards already so I don't really care what Obama says.

    George W. Bush is just like Forrest Gump. Except that Forrest Gump is honest and cares about other people.

    by easong on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:58:13 AM PDT

  •  Now this is the AP reporting (23+ / 0-)

    Who knows what he really said, or if that's even what he meant. The only direct quote they give has him saying they will "ratchet up the pressure."

  •  Oh my God. What ignorance. (9+ / 0-)

    Well, we still have Edwards.

    Bush doesn't listen to anyone but the competing voices in his head. The winner he calls "God" and runs with it.

    by dov12348 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:58:47 AM PDT

  •  Barack! What're you thinking!? (5+ / 0-)

    Good grief! How disappointing from my own senator!

    I sure hope you reconsider that stupid position.

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missliberties, JML9999

    Not particularly courageous, but it's an honest answer.

  •  Nothing but an empty suit (10+ / 0-)

    Just does not understand much, in this case entry level negotiating.
    And he is already pandering. He is not going to get caught on the wrong side of the issue. Who does that remind you of?

    EDWARDS/CLARK 2008-2024

  •  No one except the President (11+ / 0-)

    Wants to play chicken with the troops.

    A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.

    by Webster on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:59:16 AM PDT

  •  If Obama makes it to the White House.. (8+ / 0-)

    ...we're going to have to stay on his ass 24 hours a day to make sure he behaves.

  •  So by saying this he accused our Party of (11+ / 0-)

    starting and playing chicken up until now. Well, inexperience does NOT win out.

    You'll find me in the Edwards or Gore Camp.

  •  Edwards is looking better and better... (31+ / 0-)

    With Gore not in the race, I've been leaning to Edwards and Obama, but Obama has been steadily losing points.  First, the "no comment" on the Fox News debate, then the revelation that he's courting K street, now this?  Barack, you're disappointing me...

    The significant problems we face today cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. - Albert Einstein

    by AnotherMassachusettsLiberal on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:59:25 AM PDT

  •  This has been my concern about Obama (10+ / 0-)

    from the beginning-heck, before he even announced his presidency.  If you look at his voting record and other public statements, this latest is consistent.

  •  And I thought (6+ / 0-)

    the guy wanted to be president.

    I like the plan I read here, and forgive me for not having his/her handle ready, but the diarist suggested congress cut funding for contractors.

    Stop paying Halliburton, see how long it takes for them to "cut and run".

    A war without justification cannot be a war without end. Patriot4Peace -6.25 -6.62

    by Patriot4peace on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:59:33 AM PDT

    •  I saw Scahill being interviewed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wide Awake in NJ, Rex Manning

      on c-span yesterday. He wrote a book about Blackwater - it was reviwed here. What a frightening story he tells about Blackwater's role - in Iraq and in America. Shudder. We need to de-fund them, budget requisite or not. Their corp relies on unending war to stay in business and make profits.

  •  Markos is working for Warner! (6+ / 0-)

    He's funded by Exxon!

    He's an Edwards partisan!

    Just wanted to get that outta the way.

    Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

    by GussieFN on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:59:39 AM PDT

  •  Quote? (13+ / 0-)

    There's no quote in the article confirming this passage. The direct quote merely says that they won't cut off funding. I don't see any quote promising a clean bill without a withdrawal.

    The only quote suggests the opposite:

    "My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

    Let's listen to his own words.

  •  Are there any Democrats in this race? (7+ / 0-)

    What is he going for the Hillary Clinton vote?

    It looks like it's down to Edwards or Gore.  If Obama is too far out of touch to handle the job of Senator, then he's not ready for the White House.

  •  Edwards '08 (16+ / 0-)

    'Nuff said.

    "With great power comes great responsibility." -- Stan Lee

    by N0MAN1968 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:00:07 AM PDT

    •  Our only dependably (7+ / 0-)

      progressive candidate. His policy's will reflect the ideals of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

      "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

      by aggressiveprogressive on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:17:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which is why he co-sponsored the Iraq War Powers (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        missliberties, modemocrat, McPeePee

        Resolution...his incredible Democratic judgement.

        Look, This is being blown WAY out of proportion, ALL Obama is saying is that if BUSH vetoes the bill CONGRESS will find a way to fund the troops while continuing to "Ratchet up pressure" on Bush to change course.

        He said nothing about passing the full funding bill without the deadline...this is being blown WAY out of proportion.

        And by the way, I like Edwards, too, I;m just pointing out Obama isn't the only one who has made a mistake in dealing with this war- and this mistake PALES in comparison to those Edwards and Clinton have made.

        I'm starting to think kos might be on the Clinton bandwagon.

    •  Yes, it's down to Edwards - now on to Iowa (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      HRC is so done, we are so OVER her. So is the country. The reason Repugs are SO adamant that she will be the Dem candidate and probably the next president is because they are ALL TOO WILLING to help her create an "aura of invincibility" so that they can pull her apart in the general election. Forget her.

      FORGET OBAMA. This was a cardinal sin today -- he knew his words would make headlines, he calculated his position (haven't we had ENOUGH of that?) - I think voters are willing to accept a flawed candidate if that person will just fucking tell the truth and show spine, show GUTS.

      Edwards has shown an amazing amount of gravitas in this cycle that he so CLEARLY DID NOT HAVE in the '04 race. His wife is simply a force of nature and should be Oprah's replacement when she retires. They should run on one ticket.

      Edwards/Edwards '08 (forget Obama)

      by TX Unmuzzled on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 07:30:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Too immature to be potus n/t (5+ / 0-)
  •  Sorry but this makes him unfit for the job (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zericm, HootieMcBoob, TomP

    he is seeking.  In campaign terms, too, this would be bad.  At a minimum, when he tries to criticize the republican candidates - McCain, Giuliani, whatever - they will say that he agreed with Bush, or he will have to flip-flop.  But it won't work too well in the primaries, either.

  •  Obama is the new Arlen Spectre (7+ / 0-)

    Talks tough, then caves

    But hey, remember that his Senate mentor was none other than Joe LIEberman.

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

    by LionelEHutz on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:01:35 AM PDT

  •  he gave Bush full ownership (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, extradish

    or do you know something about where the votes are that he doesn't?

  •  Take a breath, drink some Kool Aid (9+ / 0-)

    If you see everything in black and white you are simply doing what the neocons are doing from the opposite point of view.

    "Panic attack: Obama just surrendered" is a ridiculous statement

  •  But...but...but (10+ / 0-)

    he's so inspirational! It's a NEW POLITICS people!!!! Who cares what he says or does...it's about being transformed by this holy being called Barack!

    /snark

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:03:12 AM PDT

  •  Deeply disappointing (11+ / 0-)

    A real leader frames the debate according to the goals he or she wants to accomplish. Obama sounds like he doesn't have any goals related to Iraq, so he's adopting Bush's framing instead. Yikes.

    •  Disappointing-hell yes. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Los Diablo, Rex Manning

      Well, better find my oars.  It looks as though we'll be rowing upstream again.

      •  The part that concerns me is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rex Manning, TomP

        Given that Bush is determined to veto a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Congress has little realistic choice but to approve money for the war, Obama said.

        "I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground," said Obama. "I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq.

        "Obviously we're constrained by the fact that a commander in chief who also has veto power has the option of ignoring that position," Obama said.

        He's comparing the Congress' attempt to end the war, with a frivolous but dangerous game where two drivers go at each other head-on to see which one will veer first.

        He seems to be saying that the Congress should get out of the way, and to fail to do so would be a disservice to the troops. He further suggests that the Democratic Congressional leadership should now permit the re-introduction of new funding legislation and vote for it since the previous vote was some sort of charade and we should not believe that the outcome of that vote was serious.

        Republicans will use this quote repeatedly up until election day regardless of who is the candidate, and probably afterward as well. For Obama's sake as well as the party's, I hope he will reframe his remarks and try to minimize the damage.

  •  What is the problem here? That he told the (7+ / 0-)

    truth?  Does anyone believe that there are the votes in the Senate to override a veto and force this bill on Bush?  If you read the article, Obama says that people need to keep putting pressure on their representatives so that we can get the votes.

    Lookin' for a leader

    by extradish on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:04:41 AM PDT

  •  THAT'S IT! (7+ / 0-)

    Obama just got taken off my x-mas list.

    Oh, and I won't vote for him either...in the Primary. Uggh, I don't even want to think about him winning the primary.

    If he can't stand up to Chimpy McFlightsuit, how's he going to face down any other baddy?

    There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. - Robert Benchley

    by dj angst on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:04:51 AM PDT

  •  Agh. (5+ / 0-)

      The title of the article is awful: "Congress will fund Iraq war if Bush uses veto, Obama says."  And in USA Today no less!  Last night I wasn't sure whether to donate my money to Obama or to Edwards.  It now appears I made the right decision.  This is cowardly.  This is not leadership.  We need a leader.

    •  And a leader (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jen, McPeePee

      has judgment in contrast to Edwards who got it wrong.

      •  Easy way out for Obama supporters. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP

        Obama never had to vote on the issue.  Pretty easy for him to say he wouldn't have and easy for you to take potshots at Edwards when all we have is Obama's word.

        I prefer the guy who makes an occasional mistake but has the wherewithal to apologize and try to fix it, than the guy who's supposedly never made a mistake.  Eventually he will and then what?

        At least Edwards can see his own fallability.  It's pretty refreshing.  Obama is going to make mistakes, too.  Will he acknowledge them?  Remains to be seen.  Until then, I'll trust the man who can take new information and learn from it.

        The media are only as liberal as the conservative businesses that own them.

        by MTgirl on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:16:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If voting for the Iraq war (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jen

          is an occasional mistake, I'm Lucy in the sky with diamonds.

          •  We'll have to agree to disagree on this. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP

            So it's only okay if the mistakes are little?

            It takes courage to apologize for a colossal mistake.

            He could be trying to obfuscate like Clinton.  Instead he says mea culpa.  I can, and do, respect that.  Edwards is leading by example, so far, and his recent actions speak volumes.

            Support Obama; I don't mind.  I like Obama, too, and I can pull the lever for him if/when I have to.

            Can you say the same about Edwards?

            The media are only as liberal as the conservative businesses that own them.

            by MTgirl on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:09:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You don't get a chance to undo (0+ / 0-)

              such a mistake. Obama just said that there are not enough votes in the senate to cut funding and that even Democrats including him don't want to go down that path yet. Yet.

              While Edwards's focus on poverty is admirable and deeply out of conviction, it is too narrow.

              Dividing America to patriots and traitors, to infidels and church-goers is a republican idea. Obama understands that the only ones served by this division are those who oppose progress.
              And it has been the case since Nixon, with a small shift of focus under Clinton.

              Of course we can only compromise our beliefs that much. But Kos's knee-jerk reaction and his continuing snipping at Obama is unfair.

              Maybe he and others should remember how Edwards jumped on Dean during that rock the vote debate in an orchestrated attempt to discredit him. Short memory.

              •  This is what I have the problem with: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TomP

                You don't get a chance to undo such a mistake.

                Please clarify what you mean by this, because it sounds to me like you are unwilling to forgive Edwards for making a mistake.  Am I reading you correctly?

                The media are only as liberal as the conservative businesses that own them.

                by MTgirl on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 07:11:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  The difference. (0+ / 0-)

          Who is getting right, RIGHT now?  Obama can't coast  on his anti-war credentials of 5 years ago.  We need to get out of Iraq now.  We need Congress to hear the American people NOW.  The Democrats have compromised enough already.

  •  I won't say that he didn't say it... (5+ / 0-)

    But the AP has a real tendency to put words in Obama's mouth. If he actually said it, why not quote him?

    •  Yup (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Big Nit Attack, legal alien

      I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage.

      is what he actually said.  And he's saying we need more votes to be able to override that veto.

      And he's right, they probably won't win that vote.  But, still, somehow Edwards manages to say things in a way that it's very clear where he stands, while still maintaining an optimistic tone that appeals to moderates.

      Obama's heart may be in the right place here, maybe what he's saying is being twisted.  But the way he says stuff makes it a bit too easy to twist.  I'm afraid that as a candidate, he'd be too easy for the other side, and the media, to define.

  •  Lieberman protege (6+ / 0-)

    I want to believe in Obama.  I want to think that my first and still lingering impression of him as a very good salesmen of used cars was inaccurate.  And that this being mentored by Lieberman was just a fluke or a youthful faulty decision.

    Then this happens.  Then he "takes the high road" while throwing a piece to us here and there.

    This incident is utter bullshit, but I fear it is an indication of a coming storm.

    "I'm living in an age that calls darkness light." -Arcade Fire, "My Body Is A Cage"

    by electricgrendel on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:05:05 AM PDT

  •  Dammit! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue vertigo, North Coast Ohioan

    I have alot of admiration and respect for Obama. I think he could do alot to bring about the ascendency of the Democratic Party--he exactly the media-adored, likeable, unifying canidate we need.  I was particularly impressed by his bi-partisan success in passing death penalty reforms in the Illinois state legislature.  He showed leadership on a unpopular issue and achieved remarkable results.  and of course his life accomplishments are impressive (in my mind, more impressive and progressively/politically focused than those of Edwards).
    but this!?!  for the moment he is dropping from my favorite list.  we'll see if he can redeem himself.

    "I should be able to love my country and still love justice." -Albert Camus

    by zkeats on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:05:31 AM PDT

  •  Too harsh (11+ / 0-)

    If you read the entire article instead of just the lead, you'll see that Obama is making some fairly realistic statements about the situation, and the the lead is suggesting something that he didn't quite say.

    I do not have my own blog.

    by Frank on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:05:53 AM PDT

  •  I bet (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hannibal, mcmom

    Pelosi and Reid would like to wring his skinny little neck today.

    I like the guy a lot, but damn this was a big error.

  •  Well...that was f'n stupid but... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Webster, extradish

    I am not about to stick my fingers in my ears every time talks from now on.

    This is certainly making me think twice about supporting Barack, but I am not ready to throw him under the bus.

    Oh and for all the Edwards supporters, it's not going to make Obama backers any more inclined to support him if you try and make us feel like pricks for our support of Obama.

    Obama? '08? Oh yea!

    by Skulnick on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:06:23 AM PDT

  •  Obama should have (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, barbwires, MO Blue, TomP

    learned the golden rule of better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and be proven one.  

    Far too soon for him to have said anything at all, except that he supports his party regarding this issue.

    I like him, not sure how I felt about his run for the presidency, and I am a huge supporter of Edwards, but I sincerely do not want to hear him start talking like a politician.

    Where the hell are we going and why am I in this damn handbasket?

    by panicbean on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:06:53 AM PDT

    •  But that's exactly the opposite of what he did (0+ / 0-)

      He was honest about the scenario that everyone sees in front of their face, instead of reserving that honesty for political calculation.  And he's getting REAMED out for it in this thread.  WTF is going on?

  •  Wait...let's withhold judgment. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Athena, Hannibal, MarketTrustee

    Maybe he's just ignorant about politics, the Constitution, the war powers, individual rights, the rules of Congress, the situation in Iraq, war, law, current events in general and human psychology.

    With everything else he might be ok.

    Bush doesn't listen to anyone but the competing voices in his head. The winner he calls "God" and runs with it.

    by dov12348 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:06:54 AM PDT

  •  CALL TO ACTION - LET OBAMA KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS! (6+ / 0-)

    http://my.barackobama.com/...

    I let my senator know I just shifted my support to Edwards. Please contact him and tell him what you think as well.

  •  Obama may have just lost my vote (8+ / 0-)

    There is no doubt in my mind now I'm backing edwards.

    •  Obama won't be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ameri, extradish

      the only one to screw up over the next few years.

      That said, it was a remarkabe comment to make. I'd suggest folks let this play out for longer than a day or so.

      Obama may have felt the most important point, for him, was to counter the myth that the bill is about leaving troops without funds.

      But I agree, wholeheartedly that Obama needs to follow up quickly with a clear alternative to just cutting Bush a check.

  •  Dear Obama Supporters (12+ / 0-)

    feel free to support John Edwards. :)

    Barack Obama says a lot, and says it well, but he doesn't stand up when he's needed to stand up.

    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:07:04 AM PDT

    •  And Edwards did this in October of 2002 right? (11+ / 0-)

      When he stood up and denounced the illegal invasion?

      I like Edwards too, but don't make a saint out of the guy and trivialize Obama's outspokeness against the war from the start.

      Obama? '08? Oh yea!

      by Skulnick on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:08:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama just trivialized his position himself (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        philgoblue, MTgirl, TomP

        and without anyone's help.  How can he be so outspoken against this war, yet completely caved in towards Bush's position.

        And BTW, Edwards has since recanted his position on the Iraq war, especially in lieu of the complete lack of evidence for WMDs/al Qaeda connection as well as the obvious stovepiping of that intelligence by this Administration.  If Obama is willing to recant his statement and call it an obvious mistake, then I will hold him in the same positive regard as Edwards.

        Until that time, he just lost his position for my vote.

        We're fixing Kansas Mr. Frank, slowly but surely.......

        by MisterOpus1 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:15:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Edwards voted against funding for the war (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          philgoblue, MTgirl, America08, TomP

          He voted against that 87 Billion to fund Bush's occupation.

          "Whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man, I am for that thing." Abraham Lincoln

          by MontanaMaven on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:28:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I wrote this in my post below but... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jen

          Recanting his vote is not a showing of courage, it's facing up to reality.

          He was wrong to cast the vote to begin with. There was no shortage of evidence that the WMD intel was shit. 30+ other Senators saw it and voted against it, but Edwards didn't.

          Edwards is a tremendous candidate who's support for the Environment, Labor and human/civil rights is commendable. But his credibility on the war is not something that he can claim superiority on.

          Obama? '08? Oh yea!

          by Skulnick on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:38:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So will Obama also face reality? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP

            Because as I've said, if he recants this ridiculous position then I will reconsider his position.  If Obama does not, however, what will you say then?

            We're fixing Kansas Mr. Frank, slowly but surely.......

            by MisterOpus1 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:41:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll say that he's lost a large amount of respect (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MisterOpus1

              in my eyes and it will make me reconsider my vote.

              But, there is a difference in making idiotic public statements like this and stepping up to the plate when the time counts.

              Let's see what he does when he has to cast a vote in the coming weeks.

              Obama? '08? Oh yea!

              by Skulnick on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:43:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  How on earth (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MisterOpus1, jen, Settembrini, Skulnick

              Can you equalize the importance of Edwards's vote in 02 with Obama's above statement?

              Seems to me that people are waiting to attack Obama.

              List armchair generals. Once you start a war there are no winners. I don't care if you realize your mistake later. Your mistake caused 10,000s of deaths and $billions.

              You don't get a second shot at the title after making such a mistake.

              •  I disagree because (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TomP

                although Edwards voted to start the war (to which nothing was certain as to the outcome, although a healthy number of intelligent analysts did predict the mess now) and subsequently apologized for doing so, Obama is in essence stating he will CONTINUE the war.  Now, knowing everything that we know about this war, you mean to tell me that continuing this war in lines with the Bush the Idiot that put us there (and completely defying public opinion to get us the hell out) is not in the same ballpark as voting to put us there in the first place by Edwards who recanted his vote?

                Sorry, I just don't see your position as strong.

                We're fixing Kansas Mr. Frank, slowly but surely.......

                by MisterOpus1 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:56:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  He never had your vote be honest. (0+ / 0-)
      •  Granted (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mcmom

        there's probably a different impression involved when it comes to people who don't stand up to Presidents with 70% job approval ratings, and those who don't stand up to Presidents with job approval ratings of 30%.

        Obama just lost to a poker game to a guy who had a joker, a poker instruction card, and an old maid.

        I guess we all have an audacity to hope that those who go to Washington DC won't just cave at the first sign of resistance.

        "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

        by RBH on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:21:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So standing up for what's right is only honorable (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Settembrini

          when the majority of the country stands behind you?

          That's a quality I want in my President, somebody who makes decisions based on approval ratings rather than sound advice. That's right, there was no shortage of people claiming that the WMD evidence was bogus. 30+ other senators were able to make this distinction, but Edwards couldn't.

          I am not going to defend Obama's statements today, but I will not allow people to rewrite history.

          It's not a showing of courage to renounce a bad decision when the results of that decision are being played out on the news daily and it is now obvious that he was wrong to begin with.

          Bottom line: he shouldn't of cast the vote, bad advice or not. There are many other excellent reasons to support Edwards but the war is not one.

          Obama? '08? Oh yea!

          by Skulnick on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:35:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is a difference between (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP

            not standing up when the majority is on the other side, and not standing up when the majority is on your side.

            Unfortunately John Edwards didn't do the right thing then, but he is making up for it.

            I think that Obama has given up his ground to be supported due to the War.

            As for Bush and Obama, didn't Obama produce some discomforting quotes after a meeting between Bush and Democrats (including him) in either 2005 or 2006. I can't recall enough to do a successful search on the topic too.

            "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

            by RBH on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:46:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is no difference. The Tyranny of the (0+ / 0-)

              Majority is a very real concept. Unfortunately in free societies what's popular is not always what's right.

              It takes brave men to stare the masses in their faces and tell them they are wrong. Edwards couldn't do that, but Obama could.

              What Obama said was wrong, but he's yet to actually DO anything worthy of losing his credibility on the war.

              Obama? '08? Oh yea!

              by Skulnick on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:53:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards does not hold himself out... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        America08, TomP

        as something different than what he is.  He said in clear terms he was wrong.

        Obama likes to say that he is better on the war than the others, but this is far from better.

      •  And Edwards did this in 2004 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jen, McPeePee

        when he reiterated his support of the Iraq War Resolution that he co-sponsored?

        To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

        by miriam on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:47:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Com'on... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      extradish

      This make is speaking realistically.  What world do you people live in???

  •  This guy wants to wage a war on cynicism? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zericm, Athena, MontanaMaven, StuartZ, TomP

    Then he should stop creating so much of it.

    Oh, and there's this, in case you haven't seen. Not good.

    Some of Obama’s K Street boosters keep their support a secret to uphold Obama’s image as a Washington outsider untainted by D.C.’s influence business.

    When Obama declared his presidential candidacy in February, he said he would re-engage Americans disenchanted with business-as-usual in Washington who had turned away from politics.

    “And as people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what’s filled the void,” said Obama. “The cynics, and the lobbyists, and the special interests who’ve turned our government into a game only they can afford to play. They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter; they think they own this government, but we’re here today to take it back. The time for that politics is over. It’s time to turn the page.”

    In a fundraising e-mail distributed yesterday, Obama emphasized his stance against taking money from lobbyists and PACs.
    Two lobbyists who are supporting another candidate and spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity said that Obama’s campaign contacted them asking to be put in touch with their networks of business clients and acquaintances.

    One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama’s campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist’s wife would be interested in making a political contribution.

    “I was quite taken aback,” he said. “He was very direct in saying that you’re a lobbyist and we don’t want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network.”

    •  Come on (0+ / 0-)

      One anonymous Clinton-supporting lobbyist is talking shit about an Obama fund raiser. If you wanted to discredit a rival campaign who are making headway arguing against lobbyists, isn't this exactly how you  would do it?

      •  Perhaps (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP

        this needs to be looked into some more. The source names names:

        One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama’s campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist’s wife would be interested in making a political contribution.

        “I was quite taken aback,” he said. “He was very direct in saying that you’re a lobbyist and we don’t want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network.”

        Is Dutta calling up lobbyists and asking for money from lobbyists' wives?

        I'd like to know.

        •  And in any case (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP

          Obama is cultivating a network of K Street lobbyists. That bothers me.

          Other K Street players working to build momentum for Obama are former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), a consultant for Alston & Bird; Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC; Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon; Jimmy Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America; Thomas Walls, vice president of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting; and Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young.

          Lobbyists tend to be cautious creatures. Evidence that they are flocking to Obama’s camp shows that his campaign has gained substantial momentum among the politically sophisticated.

          Some of Obama’s K Street boosters keep their support a secret to uphold Obama’s image as a Washington outsider untainted by D.C.’s influence business.

  •  Quarterly Funding is a good idea (5+ / 0-)

    If it's one fiscal quarter's worth of funding than Obama is spot on with his comments.

    WaPo 3/29/07: Conservative Democrats also discussed alternatives for providing troop funding, if the standoff proves to be prolonged. For instance, Reps. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.) and Mike Ross (Ark.) suggested that the war funding be parceled out in three-month increments to force Bush to keep coming back for more.

    If it's the full year supplemental then I think Obama is wrong. I will say people who react so strongly to comments by supposed allies without giving them the benefit of the doubt look a lot like children riding a bike who look six inches in front of the front tire instead of down the road. Lift your head up from six inches in front of you or you will be all wobbly and blind. The road is clearer and smoother ahead if you don't think you're going to fall off the damn bike every 5 seconds.

    Funding 3-months doesn't change the eventual timelines. Quarterly funding keeps the pressure on Bush and the initiative in this debate with Congressional Democats.

    Former Senator & Governor Bob Graham (D-FL) for Vice President.

    by joejoejoe on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:07:50 AM PDT

  •  Surprised? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JoelK in AZ, xanthe, TomP

    https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/mygrassroots/?page_id=Mjc3NzQ

    by floridadude on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:08:19 AM PDT

  •  that's it!! I'm a Gravel Gal now ;) (6+ / 0-)
  •  What a rookie... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MontanaMaven, Feanor, optimusprime, TomP

    This man is just not ready for prime time, and certainly not ready to carry the (D) banner in 2008. A total amateur in the Lieberman mold. A toxic combination.

    And the most shocking thing is not even DLC Queen Hillary said this.

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:08:44 AM PDT

    •  A Rookie Making Rookie Mistakes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      This man has NOT been tested. Let's not delude ourselves: The Republicans are effective, unbound and relentless. We need someone that can walk through the fire. Hill Dog all the way!

  •  As someone who uses the war... (9+ / 0-)

    to differentiate himself, this was a bad move.

    Even if that will be the outcome, Obama should never had said it.  His job is to be out in the forefront and let the others compromise.

    This is another example of his Kerry-Feingold opposition from 2006.

    Obama relies on his 2002 speech too much, when virtually everything else that follows variates from the fine sentiment stated thereing.

    •  2002 speech (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      "Obama relies on his 2002 speech too much, when virtually everything else that follows variates from the fine sentiment stated thereing."

      Obama cultists don't seem to understand that he was not a US senator when he gave that speech. Nobody knows how he would have voted if he had been in the senate.

      Once in the senate his voting record was no different from Hillary or Biden.

  •  This is what having... (5+ / 0-)

    Lieberman as your mentor does to your brain.

    The Pinstripe Blog
    It can't ALL be about politics, right?

    by fromer on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:10:36 AM PDT

  •  He must think there will be a war with Iran (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue vertigo, TomP

    and a resurgence of patriotism. I am listening to Robert Baer on KPFK and there is a third carrier group headed to Iran. 3 will barely fit.

  •  I get the feeling some of the Obama haters (7+ / 0-)

    (and sadly, there are many on this site) are enjoying this opportunity to pile on and denounce him, and hoping their candidate looks better in contrast.

    I suggest you don't poison the well you may have to drink from.

    Lookin' for a leader

    by extradish on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:13:10 AM PDT

  •  That's bad news for us who like Obama (7+ / 0-)

    When The Decider vetoes, Congress should send him a tougher timeline.  Not capitulate.

    Support for Bush's war is headed toward zero.  Why is this hard to understand, Senator?

  •  This is Obama's conception of bipartisanship: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silverleaf, TomP

    We bend over to the GOP's every whim, regardless of how cruel, dangerous, or wrong they are.

    Sorry Obama, but bipartisanship goes both ways.

    John McCain
    wants to put more meat into the meatgrinder.

    by SouthSideDem on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:13:46 AM PDT

    •  Very Liebermanesque of him (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      I've had the feeling for a while that he was capable of becoming the next Lieberman.

      I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat for 23 years and I don't like them now in my own country. - Ambassador Joseph Wilson

      by HootieMcBoob on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:11:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm so happy he said this. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizen53, PhillyGuy03

    It shows in general to watch out for the charmers.  There may be something sinister lurking beneath the surface -- or maybe nothing at all.

    Bush doesn't listen to anyone but the competing voices in his head. The winner he calls "God" and runs with it.

    by dov12348 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:14:20 AM PDT

  •  Nice to know that when the going gets tough... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HootieMcBoob, mcmom, Castine

    ...Obama gets going...in the wrong direction. haha. joke :)

    Yes, I prefer Gore and Edwards...how could you tell? :)

    Steven Joseph :)

    WWYTR? <-Stolen from PaintyKat :)

    by StevenJoseph on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:14:20 AM PDT

  •  Could someone explain... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, Quicklund, extradish

    How this is "agreeing" with Bush?  Or "surrendering" to Bush?

    All you enlighted folk: please tell me what the "plan" is when Bush vetoes.  Seriously, I want an hour by hour explanation of what happens to the 130,000+ troops over there.  

    Whatever happened to a reality based community???

    •  I think you might be missing something (0+ / 0-)

      Obama saying this is in fact surrendering. He's surrendering to the Bush talking points about how this supplemental bill doesn't "support the troops." He isn't fighting Bush on it, he's at best being an enabler, at worst he's agreeing with him. What he should've said would be something along the lines of:

      Bush is full of shit, this bill does give the needed funds, and then some. If he vetoes this, he's abandoning the troops in the field. The President's attitude is disappointing, but not surprising, he appears to think the office is a monarchy.

      Instead, he played right into the whole phony "support our troops" meme that the administration is pushing.

      Duncan Hunter for President, because evil always wins.

      by Hannibal on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:39:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  BushCo's Lying About The Funding Deadline (0+ / 0-)

      http://thinkprogress.org/...

      In a memo to the Senate Budget Committee dated Wednesday, the congressional analysts said the Army has enough money in its existing budget to fund operations and maintenance through the end of May — about $52.6 billion. If additional transfer authority is tapped, subject to Congress approving a reprogramming request, the Army would have enough funds to make it through nearly two additional months, or toward the end of July. Using all of its transfer authority, the Army could have as much as $60.1 billion available.

      This means there's time to insure that the will of the American people is expressed and steps are taken to get us out of Iraq.  As stated above some Democrats are proposing 3mo. funding bills that would protect the troops and fund equipment replacement and keep the pResident coming back to Congress.  The plan?  No more blank checks.

    •  i'm a moron... (0+ / 0-)

      and didn't spell "enlightened" right.

      i hate when i type poorly...i do it when i'm angry...

  •  Edwards (7+ / 0-)

    Edwards.  Or Al Gore if he changes his mind.

    I received some negativity some time back for wanting experience and backbone instead of pretty and beautiful words.  This is why I want experience and backbone.

  •  Obama was my #2 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blue South, MichiganGirl, TomP

    Now he's more like my #5.

    https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/mygrassroots/?page_id=Mjc3NzQ

    by floridadude on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:15:19 AM PDT

  •  this has got to be a joke (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaa T Tudeattack, clark08

    I'm still going to hold off before I decide between Edwards and Obama. (If I can, I'll hold off until Clark finally makes up his mind too.)

    there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

    by danthrax on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:15:37 AM PDT

  •  I hope the group of candidates (0+ / 0-)

    you're willing to consider has widened now to include the likes of Edwards, Gravel, and Kucinich.

    •  Oh please. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hlinko

      Dennis Kucinich?

      He's getting to be a Pat Paulsen sort of running gag.

      •  But (0+ / 0-)
        the facts that he is the most progressive Democrat running (based on his positions on the issues) and that he is one of the most vocal and uncompromising critics of the war make him a serious candidate and a serious addition to the debate. A number of the more "mainstream" candidates sold out a long time ago. I think this is a large part of the reason he is dismissed--he's just too big a threat to the status quo.
  •  WTF? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MisterOpus1, floridadude

    That's just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.  Stupid strategically, politically, morally.  How you feeling about him as your candidate now?

    Hopefully, this strategy will not be his decision to make.  Time to step up, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid.

  •  Obama, you are wrong to promote that. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, MarketTrustee

    The ball is in George's court, let him eat it!

    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:19:36 AM PDT

  •  And the winner is? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing

    John Edwards.

    Sorry Senator O, you lost my vote.  You still have time to get it back, but you've got your work cut out for you.....

    We're fixing Kansas Mr. Frank, slowly but surely.......

    by MisterOpus1 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:20:21 AM PDT

  •  do you even consider the possabilty (6+ / 0-)

    he was taken a little of context here before you go on the frontpage with an extremely inflammatory headline? I think Obama deserved a little bit more
    of the benifit of the doubt than you gave him Kos, It's good to hold the candidates feet to the fire, but you went to harsh and too quickly of one portion  of an article, I want to hear what he said
    in person not from a newspaper quote and in what context,if you guys want to enable a Hillary nomination based on this go ahead,because you all may not like it but it's going to be Hillary or Obama end of story.

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:21:08 AM PDT

    •  No, not end of story (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tmo, Night Owl, philgoblue, jen

      No, it's not going to be Hillary or Obama, end of story. It is still 9 and a half months before Iowa. Edwards, Richardson or Clark could all make viable challenges to the media anointed "frontrunners" by then.

      By insisting that only two candidates have a viable chance you play into the MSM false dichotomy and undercut our power to decide on our nominee.

  •  The AP report (13+ / 0-)

    doesn't directly quote Obama on this. This looks maybe like another AP hit job.

    Does the Obama team have a blog outreach person who can directly comment here on this issue?

    McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy

    by ctsteve on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:21:16 AM PDT

  •  I don't agree with that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    extradish

    But hey.  At least we're dissing Obama on the Front Page now.

    I guess that's what I wanted to happen.

    Not so much.

    The Democratic Party will not play chicken with our troops.

    I support that.  1000%!!!!

    More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:21:52 AM PDT

  •  Told ya (2+ / 0-)

    Forgive me for being immature and smug but I TOLD YOU SO!!! :-)

    Obama does not have the experience or political maturity to be president. He may, by 2012, but not yet. Much like Wes Clark four years ago, Obama is an attractive candidate in theory. In practice, well, his lack of experience reveals itself in idiotic comments like this.

    Yes indeed, Edwards is looking better and better. But to some of us he always looked great.

  •  Crucify Him! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mihan, jj32, vivycakes, DoctorWho, lump1

    unless it is true that other senators and congress people are saying the same thing on sunday tee vee.

    nevermind

    Crucify Him, anyway.  what the hell.

  •  Maybe he just can't help it. (6+ / 0-)

    Here is a quote from Michael Tomasky's review of Obama's books.  Tomasky likes Obama but found this nugget which has worried me since I read it.  It gave me a chill.

    In the chapter on Republicans and Democrats, for example, Obama confesses his "curious relationship" to the 1960s, and acknowl-edges that "as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan's election in 1980...I understood his appeal."

       It was the same appeal that the military bases back in Hawaii had always held for me as a young boy, with their tidy streets and well-oiled machinery, the crisp uniforms and crisper salutes.

    Now this is coming from someone who lived in Hawaii and instead of its exotic nature or it's lushness and wildness, he likes the military bases.  He likes "tidy".  He likes crisp uniforms.
    I just think he's really confused between what he likes inherently and what he is supposed to like as a black man.  That's just my guess that he's more comfortable as a conservative.

    "Whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man, I am for that thing." Abraham Lincoln

    by MontanaMaven on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:23:30 AM PDT

    •  Very interesting comment, MM. (0+ / 0-)

      He has an unusual background, which, in part, has propelled him into this race.  The psychological impact of that background in terms of forming whom he is, is interesting.  He has no connection with the 60s emotionally and seems to use it often as a foil.  

      That's just my guess that he's more comfortable as a conservative.

      There is something here.  In the past, he might have been a moderate Republican like Chuck Percy.

      His foreign policy mentor apparently has been  Richard Lugar and Lieberman was a mentor.  He likes to reach out to conservatives, perhaps because it validates a part of him.  

      "We don't need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party." John Edwards 2/22/07

      by TomP on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:15:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wish ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ctsteve, 4Freedom, America08

    I wish there was another source for the statement besides the AP so I could see the context of the "chicken with the troops" line.

    I also wish that there was less bickering between the Edwards and Obama camps --- seems like anytime there's anything to say about either candidate supporters on both sides rush to jump on each other.

    A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. - Benjamin Franklin

    by meowmissy on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:24:03 AM PDT

  •  Imagine if Hillary Said This (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing, TomP, arogue7, lump1

    What would the response be then?

    •  Hillary would not have said it. (5+ / 0-)

      A big compliant against Hillary is that she is too stiff and programmed, that she thinks too much before she speaks. However, she is smart enough when to when to hold to the cards, fold the cards and when to bluff.

      I have no doubt that Obama is against the war and will be a great president someday.  However, we have 18 months before the next election.  The dem candidate must have the ability to stay on message and take care in the language they use at all times.  We cannot afford another Kerry - a great candidate with his foot in his mouth at the wrong time.  

      I like Obama, but he needs more seasoning as a campaigner.  Running against Alan Keyes was not a fight.  

      •  excellent (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Allogenes

        this is the best argument I have heard for hill dog

        •  I think its an argument for edwards (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP

          HRC is a better politician than obama, but her persona is fraudulent and everyone knows it.

          edwards is the only candidate who demonstrates leadership and is comfortable being himself.

          Scooter wears indicty-whiteys!

          by skyterrain on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:07:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

            but that is not what wins elections, sadly. he's too liberal to win a general election. he'll be the darling of the netroots, but daily kos by no means represents america as a whole.

            •  I think the electorate (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MTgirl, MichiganGirl, TomP, arogue7

              has moved beyond the "too liberal" meme.
              "Too liberal" to have gotten us stuck in Iraq? "Too liberal" to let his crony/appointee bungle the government's response to a major natural disaster?

              When civilizations clash, barbarism wins.

              by Allogenes on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:32:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  He's not too liberal to win a general election. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              skyterrain, owl06, TomP

              In fact, he would have the easiest time winning in the general election.
              Why?  Because he has the same quality as Jon Tester.  He's honest and authentic and that resonates with people no matter which side of the aisle they are on.
              Edwards will win the general election in a landslide if he wins the primary.  I grew up in a red state.  Trust me, he'll appeal to average folks much more than Clinton, and I think more than Obama.  He'll win southern and western states that won't go for Clinton and may not go for Obama.
              If Clinton wins the nomination she'll have a more difficult time winning the national.  I'm not saying she can't do it, but it'll be much tougher.  People will be sharpening their knives.

              The media are only as liberal as the conservative businesses that own them.

              by MTgirl on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:35:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  For all her infinite wisdom (0+ / 0-)

        Clinton still voted for this war. And she has yet to apologize.

        Serenity now, insanity later.

        by chicagovigilante on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:02:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I didnt support (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    Obama before, not that I saw this coming, but I am not surprised by it.

    He is saying the right things on most issues, and if he was willing to back it up in situations like this instead of caving to Bush he would be at 60% in every national poll.

  •  Where's the quote? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Abou Ben Adhem, ctsteve, jj32, Quicklund

    Where's the quote of Obama saying that "Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline"   or words to that effect?

    If that's what Obama said, why didn't they quote him saying so?

    •  Here's the actual quote: (8+ / 0-)

      My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course.

      Interesting definition of 'surrender' that folks have around here.

      "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

      Anyone who disagrees with this observation gets to sit in the dunce's corner.

      "I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground."  "I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq.

      "Obviously we're constrained by the fact that a commander in chief who also has veto power has the option of ignoring that position."

      Again, tell me where he's wrong?

      If the president vetoes this, the American people have to continue to put pressure on their representatives so that at some point we may be able to get a veto-proof majority for moving this war in a different direction

      Heaven forbid people try to apply pressure to some Republicans.  Much better to attack our own, I guess.

      Send in CODEPINK.

  •  Strange way to report an "interview"? (6+ / 0-)

    I thought the interview format went something like this.

    Playboy:  Which anceint Greek philospher is your favorite?

    Pauly Shore: Plato buuuuuuuuuddie.

    But this article is constructed something like this.

    Presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill) today announced he likes to skin kittens and eat then while still alive.

    Sen. Obama: "Thank you for the interview, but I have to leave now for a luncheon appointment."

    I'm not saying that somewhere in the interview Senator Obama let slip mention of his fondness for fresh kittens.  I'm just saying that it's a bit strange for a story about an interview to not include the interview.  We are left with the writer's summation of the Senator's comments.  But the writer is not the one runnning for office.

    So it is entirely possible that Senator Obama made exactly the sort of tactical mistake it appeaars he made.  If so, I agree, it is a very poor way to go about confronting the White House.

    But something about the last paragraph has me thinking the Senator's real point mighthave been entirely different.  It may have beensomething like a call for further action.  "Watch out voters.  The Senate will cave in to President Bush uless you the grass roots keeps up the relentless pressure."

    It would hardly be the first time a headline writer mutated the intended point into somthing completely different.

    Let's hope the interview gets released, I guess.  

    "A Republic, if you can keep it". Ben Franklin 1787, regarding the new Constitution. "Challenge accepted." George W. Bush, Jan 20, 2001.

    by Quicklund on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:25:55 AM PDT

  •  Jeez, I hope (0+ / 0-)

    he didn't say that. Next he'll be trying to explain what he really meant and the righties will have another field day twisting the meaning at democrats expense.

    Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) 1-800-787-3224 (TTY)

    by Sassy on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:27:12 AM PDT

  •  Learn to read, people. (14+ / 0-)

    "My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

    The senator said it is up to war opponents to be vocal about their position.

    "If the president vetoes this, the American people have to continue to put pressure on their representatives so that at some point we may be able to get a veto-proof majority for moving this war in a different direction," the senator said.

    A cut-off in funding that would endanger troops on the ground was NEVER a serious possibility this early.

    And people wonder why David Obey went off.

    •  A cut-off in funding that (0+ / 0-)

      would endanger the troops on the ground will NEVER be a possibility, period.

      I can't believe you imply that it would ever be something the dems are

      The point is that Obama gives support to the bullshit meme that cutting of funding, that ANY dem proposal vis a vis funding, would amount to a game of chicken with the troops or would endanger the troops on the ground.

      There is NO stage the dems propose to precipitously cut off funding for troops on the ground.

      If Obama can't articulate this, then he needs to take a moment and get it together before speaking.

      •  Tell me what was wrong with what he (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vivycakes

        actually said.

        That is, identify the quotes and tell me how they are incorrect.

        Also, tell me how cutting off money for supplies, ammunition, and armor for troops in Iraq isn't playing chicken with them.

        •  Because it isn't cutting off funding (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          philgoblue, MTgirl, adrianrf

          for supplies, ammunition and armor for troops in Iraq.

          It's cutting off funding for deployment of additional troops, for the continued presence of troops.

          If I tell you I'm not paying for your hotel room after 7 days, that doesn't affect your accomodations for those 7 days.  You simply have to leave.

          Congress isn't saying "Stay there guys, but your MRE's won't be arriving because we're cutting off funding".

          Congress would be saying "Bush, you fuckhead, you and your generals have 30/60/90 days to start drawing down troops because we're not giving you money to (a) send more troops or (b) keep them there.

          If Obama can't articulate this point, that no one is saying we should be taking guns and ammo and food from troops ON THE GROUND, he needs to stay away from reporters.  Otherwise he's simply saying the Senate doesn't have the will to give Bush an ultimatum, and Bush will simply keep the troops there indefinitely.  

          •  Is it your position that the supplemental funds (0+ / 0-)

            only new troop deployments, and not the troops currently on the ground?

          •  I'm not sure you're understanding... (0+ / 0-)

            ...how Congress funds an appropriation. Certain details of defense spending bills are classified, but you can see from the way that civilian bills are funded that they happen at the Program level.

            You give the Program (e.g., 101st Airborne) funding, and the Commander-in-Chief gives them orders.

            If you de-fund all the deployed "programs" Bush "has to" bring them home (because the alternative would be letting them starve or be overrun or direct other monies to them if Congress does not specifically disallow it)

            In AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL there is no "come home" language. There's fund the program or not, and for what period the money may be spent (e.g., the money dries up in 90 days). Bush decides how the money is spent.

            John McCain is a MINO: Maverick In Name Only

            by malharden on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 07:43:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Let me clarify (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivycakes

      Your final sentence is the actual problem here.  

      Cutting off funding is what MUST happen to end the war.  Bush will never bring the troops home unless he's forced to.

      We DO want to see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding.

      You highlight "at this stage" - this is the exact stage to cut off funding.  Waiting doesn't make it better, won't bring a better time to vote to cut off funding.

      And WHY isn't a cut-off in funding a serious possibility "this early"?  Because folks like Obama (and your comment) allow the meme to continue that it would "endanger the troops" to cut off funding.

      In reality, the dems are not proposing at any time, a cut-off in funding that would endanger the troops.

      Merely equating "cut-off in funding" with "endangering the troops" is falling into the republican/bushie trap.

      •  How is cutting off funding for the war--which (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vivycakes, malharden

        means the troops' salaries, medical care, armor, ammunition, food, water, and other items--how would cutting funding for that off NOT be playing chicken with Bush over their welfare?

        Just so you know, I think BTD is 100% wrong on the defunding issue.  The Republicans WANT the Democrats to go down that road.

        •  We defunded (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          philgoblue

          the Viet Nam war.

          I don't hear anyone saying troops died in Viet Nam because they were not properly equipped because the Congress defunded the war.

          •  No, they cut off aid to South Vietnam. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            karenc, vivycakes

            US troops had already been withdrawn.

            BIG difference.

            •  The point being that no one in the democratic (0+ / 0-)

              party is saying we should cut off funding to troops in the field.

              This is about bringing an end to the war.  Obama knows this, he knows that no one is asking for MREs to be pulled from the mouths of soldiers on the ground.

              He is perpetuating the republican meme when he implies this.

              This bill, this particular bill we are discussing, simply requires there be a timeline connecting to FUNDING.  I.e, here's the money, but there are some rules.

              There is nothing in this bill that would defund troops on the ground; it is an appropriations bill.

              They need to put the ball in Bush's court - and make the case that they ARE funding the troops, that it is Bush who is refusing to even consider their timeline, it is Bush who would be defunding the troops.

              But instead, it seems he is saying "Well, we wanted this timeline thingy, but Bush stomped his feet, so we'll give him the money regardless . . ." as if we can afford the lives that will be lost as the war continues without a timeline, on bush's terms.

              What if, articulate Obama and Hillary with her bullhorn and who-all else were able to instead go to the American people and say "Look, this preznit is willing to stop appropriations for the troops so he doesn't have to face the idea of getting out of there.  His ideology is killing our troops!  We are standing our ground - he MUST acknowledge the need to get our guys out of there . . ."

              What if they did that instead of capitulating?

              •  "Appropriations Bill" = Harder, not easier... (0+ / 0-)

                You're saying "nothing in this bill that would defung troops on the ground; it is an appropriations bill."

                Have you seen the high level at which appropriations bills are written?

                It's not a case of funding the line item for "MREs" at 100% and the line item for "stay in Iraq" at 0%.

                The money is structured differently. It's not as easy as you're trying to make it sound.

                I agree with Geekesque's assessment that yours is exactly the kind of statement that drives David Obey to scream at people.

                John McCain is a MINO: Maverick In Name Only

                by malharden on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 07:37:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And I feel yours' is the kind of (0+ / 0-)

                  attitude that makes it difficult for Democrats to actually find a way to stand up to Bush.

                  As long as the idea of "no funding without benchmarks" is misstated as "defunding the troops on the ground", the Congress will fail to exercise its power to reign in this fool.

                  It doesn't defund ANYTHING - no one's talking about line items - you misread my comment.

                  It's a funding bill, it's TO fund, not to DEFUND.  It's about APPROPRIATING MONEY FOR THE TROOPS.  The only thing it does differently is set benchmarks for withdrawal.

                  No one's talking about precipitously removing funding for troops on the ground.

                  The dems need to do a better job explaining to the country that they are standing up for the troops, not playing games like boooga boooga bushie, we won't fund unless you throw a fit.  

                  Obama is right, they need to get veto proof.  But the idea I reacted to with regards Geekesque is the concept that the dems have ever or will ever support the idea of putting the troops in danger by defunding them while they're in country.

                  The dems want Bush to draw down the troops.  With a veto proof bill that (a) funds the troops on the ground and (b) sets a deadline at which the troops need to start coming home because funding will begin to dry up, Bush will HAVE to bring them home - unless the dems again get squeamish about explaining to the country that it is Bush who wants to endanger the troops, not the dems, who are the ones proposing the funding.

                  •  We are missing each other by... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...a far enough margin that I fear the only way to reconcile would be to speak in person. But, I'll take another shot.

                    Regarding "But the idea I reacted to with regards Geekesque is the concept that the dems have ever or will ever support the idea of putting the troops in danger by defunding them while they're in country."

                    The point that I want to make (echoing) is that the tieing appropriations to a withdrawal date DOES put the troops in harms way. It does. We can argue that this is the only effective course against Bushco. It's the only real lever of government to push. We can frame. We can do lots of things. But the real fact of the way appropriations work is that if you defund something (even if you provide knowledge of when the de-funding would commence) because Congress does not execute the programs (Bush's appointees do) you run the risk of them not transitioning it correctly and stranding the program (or troops) mid-initiative.

                    Here is an example of an appropriations bill. I am using Dept. Of Agriculture as an example, because details of Defense bills are obscured from the public and summarized on OMB's site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

                    Page 4 shows you the funding lines. Not a summary, not an estimate, but the actual lines.

                    So, if Congress wanted to transition out of the "Rural Development" business, they would just take that number and slap an expiration date on it. But they can't say "Execute the program such that the staff doing Rural Development are doing something else by XYZ Date." They just shut the money down by a date. So in that example, the Congress WOULD MOST DEFINITELY be putting the Rural Development staff in danger when the money expires. Because the executive office still has to smartly execute a transition.

                    This is checks and balances. Both branches of government must execute a transition within a timeframe in order for it to work, per the will of the people.

                    And, this is the frame we should be using.

                    John McCain is a MINO: Maverick In Name Only

                    by malharden on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 06:22:22 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'll let Russ Feingold answer: (0+ / 0-)

                      http://www.salon.com/...

                      Defenders of the Iraq war pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops, and raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. And every member of Congress should know that we can do that while at the same time ending funding for a failed military mission.

                      The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.

                      Then as now, by setting a date after which funding for a military mission will be terminated, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way. As Sen. Orrin Hatch said at the time, "The McCain amendment provides the president with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops."

                      •  Apples and Oranges (0+ / 0-)

                        What Russ is suggesting, when translated into the real world (which is what I'm trying to drill to) means funding the relevant program at $0, then funding a "Transportation" Budget Object Class at the $$$ amount necessary for troops to travel.

                        Yes that can be done.

                        But when you fund Bush's "Program" line item, HE GETS TO DECIDE how that money gets spent.

                        Feingold does not counteract my point.

                        John McCain is a MINO: Maverick In Name Only

                        by malharden on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 06:09:09 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  THANK YOU!!! (0+ / 0-)

      The AP report was edited to take out the reporter's conjecture.  It was a frame job at first.

      This is a perfect example of why this community needs to remember its reality based position.

      Facts should be checked.

      Thank you for doing so.

      Have you read about the Kurds yet?

      by jhritz on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:52:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA (0+ / 0-)

    In the interview, Obama pointed to a speech he gave five months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. In that address, Obama warned of grave consequences if the United States went into Iraq.
    ...
    "I think that it's important for voters to get a sense of how the next president will make decisions in a foreign policy arena," said Obama, who is in his first term as a senator.

    1. this is an improvement over 1954.

    Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

    by MarketTrustee on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:27:22 AM PDT

  •  The Obama Phenomenon (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MontanaMaven, david mizner, TomP

    I've been trying to figure out what is the jazz is about this guy.  Every time I see him making lengthy speeches, he never say where he stands on anything.  He acts more like a reporter giving commentary on the events in DC than being a leader.

    It seems to me that he just throw in the towel at half-time while his team was winning.  What a freakin loser!

    He is much worse than Hillary who I also don't like.  I  see Edwards as the most progressive and Richardson as the most experienced.

    •  Edwards/Gore (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      America08, TomP

      I keep hoping that Gore will volunteer to fight to put Edwards in office.  He can also watch his back and concentrate on Global warming and poverty while not having to go through the mess of another campaign.  That would take great sacrifice on Gore's part.  But all of this is about sacrifice.  You need an extravert as your President because he is the face of America and he is the one that gets out their to plead our cause in a positive upbeat way.  Or Gore as Secretary of State.

      "Whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man, I am for that thing." Abraham Lincoln

      by MontanaMaven on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:33:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's because the rest of the field is so weak (0+ / 0-)

      As I commented downthread, Capitol Hill Democrats--and that's what makes most of the field of presidential contenders--almost ceased to function as an opposition party. That was especially true under the "leadership" of Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt.

      Time begins on Opening Day.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:47:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  yeah but they have no chance (0+ / 0-)

      c'mon you know how this works. You essentially have Obama or Clinton? Unless a credible candidate,like Gore, comes out.

      Googling Monkeys-R-US -2.75,-3.54 http://www.politicalcompass.org/

      by Dour on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:53:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's what is going to happen (0+ / 0-)

    So I don't know if I'd call it surrendering to Bush at all. Power of the Executive Branch.

    Since nothing has actually happened here I don't see much need to panic. You can provide funding without providing an open-ended blank check...such as the 3-month requirement.

  •  I'm gonna wait (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jhritz

    until I can see exactly what he said but it does not look good if it is what they are implying. Undercutting a strong message to the President that he can not continue this war indefinitely is not good.

  •  "Caves to Bush" (7+ / 0-)
    I am not supporting Obama in the primary, but let's be clear - Obama opposed Bush's Iraq policy (including the war) from the beginning.

    What Obama is doing here is politically reponsible and underscores why we need a change of leadership at 1600 Pennsylvania.

    Obama's Iraq policy is unlike the policy of the one candidate for whom Kos seems to consistently reserve praise - John Edwards.

    Kos has attacked Hillary, Obama, Biden and Dodd, ofthen with as equal devastating comments as anything from the RNC.

    I wish Kos would cut this "neutrality" crap out and admit that Edwards is his preferred choice.

    "Quotes from others represent a mental laziness in themselves" - Dailykos member "Rudgirl"

    by misterblaine on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:30:07 AM PDT

  •  Go read the whole article... (11+ / 0-)

    I think the characterization is wrong.  Does anyone seriously think Congress won't fund the war?  I wish it wouldn't, but that is not likely.  I think when you read the article Barack is OK as he talks about keeping pressure up.  No rush to judgment folks, go read the article.  I am amazed at how quick people are to change their choices based upon one short observation by KOS w/o reading the article.  And, yes, saying the war will be funded is what most Demo congressmen are saying today in media shows.  

  •  Well all this brouhaha about a mole hill (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    modemocrat, vivycakes, McPeePee, ReggieH

    Wont change nuthin'
    The guys and gals jumpin off Obama's boat into the other candidates ship can do so. That is fine.
    Its 9 months out and these candidates will say a lot of stupid things.
    This is one of them.

    Big deal!!

    I am interested in the real story of what effect the first quater money primary details will have on the polls and what the community roll yesterday will have on the Iowa polls and national polls. I hope it will give Obama a bump and all this stupid nonsense will become back burner material.

    This is fucking bullshit. One statement and its like the house is burning! So most of the jumpers will jump back to Obama if Edwards makes a stupid statement?

    Fuck that!
    Get a grip folks. I hope none here are 'single statement voters' which are worse that single issue voters IMO.

  •  "Caves to Bush" (5+ / 0-)
    I am not supporting Obama in the primary, but let's be clear - Obama opposed Bush's Iraq policy (including the war) from the beginning.

    What Obama is doing here is politically reponsible and underscores why we need a change of leadership at 1600 Pennsylvania.

    Obama's Iraq policy is unlike the policy of the one candidate for whom Kos seems to consistently reserve praise - John Edwards.

    Kos has attacked Hillary, Obama, Biden and Dodd, ofthen with as equal devastating comments as anything from the RNC.

    I wish Kos would cut this "neutrality" crap out and admit that Edwards is his preferred choice.

    "Quotes from others represent a mental laziness in themselves" - Dailykos member "Rudgirl"

    by misterblaine on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:30:33 AM PDT

    •  It's strange to me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivycakes

      how when a Republican says something, we often look at their record, look at their past statements, look at context, and analzye what they're comments really mean. With a Democrat even one thing they said, which isnt even quoted, draws outrage. I remember in December there was a WaPo article which noted that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer would be courteous to the GOP minority, and allow them to bring up amendments. The "Democrats are pansies, wusses", and "Oh no,  we've lost our majority before we even had one" comments started. Of course, Pelosi and Hoyer have not, in reality, let the GOP run the House the way they want to. But that didnt matter then. We needed a good overreaction I suppose.

      Barack Obama 08
      It's says a lot about conservatism when they have to add "compassionate" to it

      by jj32 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:45:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Substantially, you are right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vivycakes

        And it's because of that substance you need to look a bit deeper here, with every diary entry bashing Clinton and Obama.

        Kos seems to be quietly (but not very subtile) backing the candidacy of John Edwards. It's understandible. Elizabeth Edwards has been a friend of the netroots and a diarist herself. Edwards is running a campaign targeted at progressive voters - which could make a general election for him harder.

        Kos needs to state:

        1. Is he offering strategic advice to the Edwards campaign on netroots strategy?
        1. Does he post anti-Clinton and anti-Obama screeds that he gets from the Edwards War Room?
        1. Did Kos recommend bloggers to the Edwards campaign?

        Until Kos clears these points up, every anti-Democratic diary needs to taken with a grain of salt.

        "Quotes from others represent a mental laziness in themselves" - Dailykos member "Rudgirl"

        by misterblaine on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:54:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What do you want? Political suicide? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    modemocrat, jj32

    Come on, political suicide.  This is Bush's war. No matter how much I want it to end it is going to go on and on as long as Bush II is president. The Dems risk 2008 if they keep this fight up.

    Keep your eyes on the prize.

    by Better Days on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:30:42 AM PDT

    •  I want a statesman not a politician (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      delphine, America08, TomP

      "Whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man, I am for that thing." Abraham Lincoln

      by MontanaMaven on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:38:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I want Leadership! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue, America08, TomP

      Obama correctly calls the Iraq war the 800 Lb. gorilla it is, that is makes all other policy initiatives impossible until Iraq is dealt with.

      Then he uses this as an excuse not to effectively articulate anything he might do  as president -- saying all the Dem's are on the same page but just differ in the details -- and ignores those details because of the war.

      Now, he feeds into this circular logic trap by abdicating on one of the only three options there are to ending the war which excuses his failure to address the details of anything else.

      We either defund (possible), impeach (very difficult without half of the GOP on our side), or wait Bush out (with blood on all our hands for not even trying the other options).

      Be excellent to each other.-Bill and Ted
      Dispassionate Liberal

      by Mark Adams on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:20:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  as of now I will never use this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivycakes, blue vertigo, jhritz

    site as a way to donate to candidates anymore, I'm not happy, Kos has alot of power and that's mostly a good thing but the front page rip based on what we know is unfair and wrong, we should talk about what he said and he should clarify his remarks, but a highly chopped up quote in a newspaper article should bot bring out the wolves like this, a very bad day for the netroots and this site if yoou ask me.

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:31:49 AM PDT

  •  If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, vivycakes, 4Freedom, adrianrf
    the President will be responsible for NOT funding our troops.

    period, end of that story

    IMPEACH THE CHEERLEADER... SAVE THE WORLD! © ®

    by KnotIookin on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:32:20 AM PDT

  •  stupid stupid stupid (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xanthe

    This was all stupid too clever by half posturing.

    They should have voted to pull the plug NOW.  If they didn't have the votes to do that, they should have just given Bush what he wanted in a clean bill.  

    Now everybody got their chance to make their concerned sounding speeches, BEFORE they knuckle under to Bush.  End result -- not only no change, but they make themselves look stupid and ineffective.  

    There won't be a new Iraq policy until 1/20/09.  

    Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

    by jimsaco on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:33:20 AM PDT

  •  Wow the knives are certainly out today (13+ / 0-)

    As peacenik23 commented upthread - can we wait for any context on this quote before we cast judgement?

    Seriously, this shit has gotten to the point its not much fun to read here anymore. Everyone has their preferred candidate - fine. This may support your preference for a candidate other than Obama - fine. But lets not start demanding that each candidate parse their words so carefully that nothing can be taken out of context.

    I don't get from this very limited quote that this represents a change in how Obama intends to vote, or how he intends to lobby for or against funding - I expect he'll continue to oppose and vote accordingly. This sounds more like his sense of the situation. And he's probably right, again.

    (Can't we go back to fighting Republicans?)

    •  great comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivycakes

      I don't mind people supporting Edwards, I like him too, but Obama has alot of fans in the netroots and on this site, Kos should have brought the quote up, it's fair game and Obama should say if he was misquoted, taken out of context ect....what I think is disgusting is the way it's been discussed here and the the "gotcha" mentality of both Kos and others who may be Edwards backers.

      this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

      by nevadadem on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:38:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It reflects years of pent-up frustration (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sphealey, TomP, adrianrf

      Time and again, Capitol Hill Democrats have backed away from challenging the most radical administration in living memory. Russ Feingold nailed it last year when he criticized his colleagues for caving in on the renewal of the Patriot Act: they're brainwashed by Beltway consultants who tell them, "but you can't do that, voters will think you're soft on terrorism."

      Kos is right: Every Democratic member of Congress will eventually die, retire, or get primaried. Getting rid of the deadwood can't happen soon enough for me.

      Time begins on Opening Day.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:43:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then the Netroots will replace them with (0+ / 0-)

        Netroots heroes like Jim Webb who will also cave in on an issue like Defunding.

        Seems to me at this point the Netroots has faired no better at getting people elected who support the Netroots than Beltway Insiders.

        More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

        by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:59:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not electing "netroots-approved" candidates (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          philgoblue, TomP

          It's about electing candidates who stand up to the Republican agenda and reverse the rightward lurch of American politics.

          The current crop of Capitol Hill Democrats have been derelict, to say the least, in their duty to defend the Constitution. And now a number of them think they deserve a promotion? Sheesh.

          Time begins on Opening Day.

          by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:03:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

            But are you primarying Webb and Tester in 6 years cause they're not for Defunding?

            More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

            by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:08:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Some might favor that, I don't (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TomP

              Primarying incumbents is like the death penalty: it's meant for the worst of the worst. People like Joe Lieberman.

              Last summer, a number of bloggers in Michigan said that they wouldn't vote for Debbie Stabenow (who was up for re-election) because of her vote for the Military Commissions Act. It a limburger vote on her part, but not grounds for the political death penalty.

              Time begins on Opening Day.

              by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:04:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Are we surprised? (0+ / 0-)

    The red state voter's concerns always trump the reality-based community when it comes to vital issues. This is Obama's MO

    btw, Joe Lieberman is an ass

    by ejbr on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:35:10 AM PDT

  •  Kos is like Bushco, he thinks just "repeating" BS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    baltimoremom, blue vertigo

    makes it true.

    "When I fed the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why are the poor hungry, they called me a communist." Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by PrometheusSpeaks on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:35:35 AM PDT

  •  Ok, in addition to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    4Freedom, blue vertigo

    saying that we need to ratchet up the pressure, he also says this.

    "If the president vetoes this, the American people have to continue to put pressure on their representatives so that at some point we may be able to get a veto-proof majority for moving this war in a different direction,"

    Very different sense of it than just rolling over.  From his words I get the sense of someone looking ahead tactically.  Not smart to think out loud in front of reporter, perhaps, when you know the AP will twist it.  

    This is a rookie mistake.  It is not the end of human decency as we know it.

  •  The REAL 'Game of Chicken' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, TomP, adrianrf

    We've been hearing about 'playing chicken with the lives of our troops' in this timeline/funding debate for a while, now.  In the "classic" game of chicken, two cars race at each other and someone either 'chickens out' and turns away from a fatal head-on collision, or there's a couple of dead kids.

    Between Bush and Obama (or Pelosi, Reid, whomever on the Hill) the game of 'chicken' risks only political reputations.  The real risk of dying is being borne by our soldiers and the Iraqis they're occupying -- and that's ALL BUSH'S driving full speed into a brick wall.

    The only cowards, here, are those that say they believe the war is on a tragic course, that the war must end, and yet vote to continue it, in my humble opinion.

  •  Weak willed Dems...again. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    There can be no accountability without Impeachment.

    by mattes on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:37:40 AM PDT

  •  Will Capitol Hill Democrats EVER grow a spine? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    judybrennan, adrianrf

    Face it. With a few exceptions, such as Russ Feingold, most of the Democrats in Congress went into a fetal position and hid under their desks on September 12, 2001, and have yet to come up for air.

    Worse yet, the 2008 presidential field is dominated by members and alumni of the Congressional Democratic "Class of 9/11". Which is why the entire field leaves me cold.

    Time begins on Opening Day.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:38:40 AM PDT

  •  Senator Obama, has a loss of Spine (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    Senator Barack H, Obama

    As I read this, I have too written, too you to say, if this is your words, you’ve just stepped away from me backing your Presidency.

    If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "

    wants to play chicken with our troops

    ," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

    I don’t want to believe you said this, "Playing Chicken, with our troops," lives I want to vomit, you candidacy.  Bush has lied, so many times and gotten the US and the Troops, into a an untenable situation, there in the middle of a growing Civil Conflict, one they have to be removed from, the majority of the country want them out of Iraq, I and you should know, we cannot, just leave completely, but we can re-deploy to defensible positions, with in Iraq and t Borders.

    But too say; Congress will cave into Bush, is so far from what’s the truth, Bush will not leave troops in harms way, he would be impeached, he is playing a dangerous game, he is the commander and chief, he can leave them there with out weapons, and he can leave them with out re-enforcements, he can, but he won’t and you need to grow some balls, the Generals won’t let anything like that happen, ask the Generals what they’d do, ask the Contractors, what will they do, when the Money, Funds run out, will they leave the Troops, and move away.

    Both Houses of Congress have passed bills, with all the money necessary, for the Iraq Conflict and the War in Afghanistan, there some things Bush does not like, he will get over it, there are some things in the bill Congress does not like, they will get over it, but here’s the bottom line, Congress has done the job, they have a bill passed, that has everything in it Bush wants, in funding the Military, both side compromised to get too a PASSED BILL, Bush can sign, or don’t sign, that on him, but America’s majority, is on Congresses side of the Bill, not on the side of Tantrum’s, Meltdowns, and hissey-fits.

    You have undermined the work, of a by partisan passed Bill and the Will of the Nation, your going south and you will see it, soon.

    My Letter to the Senator

  •  The point is that we were counting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grayslady, TomP

    on Obama to be able to articulate the real democratic message to the voters, you know, to make it clear that "cutting off funding" WASN'T playing chicken with the troops.

    If Obama either (a) doesn't understand that cutting of funding for continued presence and/or surge has no effect on how well our troops in the field are equipped or (b) is too scared to both defund the war AND explain his position . . .

    then he's not the rock star he's cracked up to be.  

    Reagan and even bushie are able to sell total bullshit to the masses, terrible policy packaged up and marketed as "tastes good, and nutritious too!"

    If Obama can't sell good policy, finds it RISKY politically to do the right thing in case it's misperceived, why would I vote for him.

    Al, Russ!  Please reconsider!!  

    Meantime, Edwards, here's my dough . . .

  •  I will not vote for Obama (in the primaries) (5+ / 0-)

    I've never quite understood the following that he has gathered.  "Oh, but he's so inspirational."  Well, for somebody who speaks so well, he sure does need to get a handle on his wording.

    I loved Dean because he was inspirational and had experience as a successful Governor of Vermont.  I like Richardson for much of the same reasons, although Edwards is certainly impressing me.  You want inspiration?  There you go.

    But I haven't seen much leadership from Obama in the Senate.  I know he's a junior Senator, but if you're gonna run for President then you have to get it moving quickly.  I was very interested in his candidacy at first, but all I have seen lately is triangulation.  He's holding back.  If I wanted any of that, then I would vote for Hillary.

    •  Edwards Does Have a Different Take (4+ / 0-)

      "The new Congress must intercede to stop Bush from stubbornly sticking to the same failed course in Iraq and refuse to authorize funding for an escalation of troops.

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      Edwards is for the the Kennedy and Murtha bills which would at least not fund the Republican Escalation of the War.  This is in stark contrast to Obama who seems to want to give Bush all the funding he wants now that the non-binding resolution has passed.

      As Edwards has said:

      "We don’t need debate; we don’t need non-binding resolutions; we need to end this war, and Congress has the power to do it."

      Or to put it another way,

      [Edwards is] threatening Bush with even more restrictions and daring him to veto funding for the troops.

      The Edwards Plan on Iraq: http://johnedwards.com/...

  •  Ok, so let's take a real look at Edwards (0+ / 0-)

    both of 'em. The 'faggot's' looking better every day.

    Diebold! Democracy's premiere supplier of coffin nails since 2002

    by moon in the house of moe on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:41:14 AM PDT

  •  Told you so (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fools on the Hill, PhillyGuy03

    It's tough to match the rhetoric with action when you are actually in a position of power.  We are now seeing the truly timid Obama that I always felt was there since the McCain apology.

    Say what you will about Hillary, but after over 16 years of actual policy behind her, she is the real thing.  She has real accomplishments and real grit.  And that is why the Republicans will do whatever they can to divide the Democrats on her nomination. She is the biggest threat to Republicans and they know it...because she is accomplished on actually enacting policy.  

    But you are right....from a purely strategic point, this statement of Obama's is disgusting...for its weakness and ability to undermine ANY Democratic strategy or objective.  Obama would be putty in the hands of the ruling elite.  Don't ever forget that.  I would trust John Edwards over Obama any day.  But again, as a senator, he did not stand out. Nor did he try anything new or progressive when he was a senator.  Hillary has shown her progressive colors.  
    We must not forget that.  And the last adjective  I would use for Hillary is weak and non strategic.

    This is a big indicator of Obama's character.  When the going gets tough, Obama blends in.

    •  Hillary isn't much better. (0+ / 0-)

      Give her a minute, she'll be parroting the same bullshit.  And she doesn't have 16 years of policy.  She has one term in the Senate.

      Does Laura have 8 years of policy behind her?  C'mon.

    •  Even if Hillary would be the most capable (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      president, Bill has a tailor problem, and it hasn't gone away.

      The MSM/Neocon press has been pretty nice to Hillary. Don't you find that odd? And just about every teevee neocon has said how much they want to run against Hillary. And have you noticed how they are going to great lengths to criticize Obama and Edwards, even using little neocon Katie to do a hatchet job on Edwards using his family as the weapon? I think it is obvious they are scared to death of Edwards.

      But they seem very welcoming of Hillary. WHY?? Because they have the goods on Bill with his pants down. And I'm guessing they have video, which will go up so well on YOU TUBE. Americans cannot take sex, sex, sex with their politics.

      Edwards is the only electable Democrat, and the sooner we all get behind him the better. If he wins early, the money will swing his way.

    •  Realistically - fairly - by the numbers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      Nor did he try anything new or progressive when he was a senator.  Hillary has shown her progressive colors.

      Consider the time when Edwards worked in the Senate. Came in with the 1998 Freshman class. Gone by 2004. Was the 4th 'most liberal Senator' in 2003 with a "perfect liberal score" in the categories of economic and social issues.

      During the time Edwards served, an American Presidential election was hijacked by the Republicans and the Supreme Court an the worst President in history and a Republican majority sealed the rubber-stamped ill fate of progress in this country.

      Re: your comment about Sen Clinton and  "progressive colors," I'd also like to point to the actual numbers.

      Senator Clinton showed red, white, and blue colors when she jumped on the flag-burning bandwagon. Do you really consider that to be a sign of progress? In terms of public perception of her views, in a Gallup poll conducted during May 2005, 54% of respondents considered Senator Clinton a liberal, 30% considered her a moderate, and 9% considered her a conservative. [source: Wikipedia] On a three-dimensional spectrum of a study of roll-call votes assigned to Sen Clinton in 2004 - [a National Journal survey], Sen. Clinton rated this way on her "liberal score:" Economic = 63, Social = 82, Foreign = 58. Average = 68. Hardly the "perfect score" of one of Edwards' last years in the Senate.

  •  Edwards #1, Richardson #2. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, floridadude

    Obama has dropped to #3 in my book for now.

    http://rochesterturning.com/

    by optimusprime on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:42:29 AM PDT

  •  Obama statement also is FALSE (0+ / 0-)

    but, for all you "support our troops" but "oppose the war" fans out there, it is the logical outcome of your position.

    •  Logical outcome (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      should be a fully funded withdrawal.

      •  miss the point of my comment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP

        when rhetorical arguments elevate "support the troops" to an over-riding imperative, that is not only  stupind ploy that plays right into the hands  of those who call the Dems soft, but it sets up a dynamci whereby we shouldn't be surprised when politicians take the easy way out and repeat convenient lies.

        Sorta like a Sista Soulja rap on the military.

  •  Where's Al Gore? (0+ / 0-)

    It's time for another backbone-inspiring speech.

    "A triviality is a statement whose opposite is false; a great truth is one whose opposite is another great truth." -- Niels Bohr

    by Autarkh on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:44:13 AM PDT

    •  Just watched an interview Al Gore did on tv in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Autarkh

      Just watched an interview Al Gore did on tv in Sweden. The host wished him a happy birthday.

      She asked him about running for president, and if he might be able to accomplish more with regard to the global warming issue if he were president.

      Al Gore: “I don’t have any plans to be a candidate for president again. I haven’t completely ruled out going back into politics at some point in my life. But the reason I don’t ever expect to be a candidate again is partrly because I’ve fallen out of love with politics, and I have less patience for some of the aspects of the politicsl system. But also because the way the political dialog is conducted over these 30 second TV commercials now, there is less of a chance to deal in depth with the biggest crisis that we have to face–this climate crisis.”

      This is a post from FDL. The interview was in Swedish.

  •  And I just cut this guy a check (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    that is the sound of me slapping myself.

    Be carefull what you shoot at, most things in here don't react well to bullets-Sean Connery .... Captain Marko Ramius -Hunt For Red October

    by JML9999 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:48:19 AM PDT

  •  UPDATED: Obama's actual words totally different. (22+ / 0-)

    The article now has more direct quotes from Obama.

    "My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

    ...

    "I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground," said Obama. "I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq.

    "Obviously we're constrained by the fact that a commander in chief who also has veto power has the option of ignoring that position," Obama said.

    ...

    The senator said it is up to war opponents to be vocal about their position.

    "If the president vetoes this, the American people have to continue to put pressure on their representatives so that at some point we may be able to get a veto-proof majority for moving this war in a different direction," the senator said.

    It seems to me, reading this, Obama was not proposing a course of action but simply talking about the situation in a way that each and every one of us knows to be true. My God, we've had diary after diary on post-veto planning with positions little different from that Obama stated.

    It seems the part that offended kos so much was ad-libbed by the AP reporter, not an Obama quote at all.

    •  Exactly! (5+ / 0-)

      My problem with this darn blog post is that everyone is getting fired up over a quote but if they read the entire article, Barack Obama isn't taking a different position.  He's simply acknowledging what is going on in the Senate.  

    •  Poor framing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999, TomP

      I'm disappointed because Obama is usually an effective speaker and clearly in this case he undercut the message we were trying to send by makinhg this statement. He should have left the playing chicken meme out. Democrats have not now were they ever playing games with American soldiers lives. What Democrats were attempting to accomplish was ensuring that American soldiers had the proper equipment, rest, and a clear timeline for when they came home. It is the President who has been "playing games" by failing to ensure the reason was valid for going to Iraq, failing to ensure their was adequate planning, and not even bothering to ensure there was adequate equipment before sending these American lives over there for an indefinite period of time.

      •  the Senators are not playing chicken (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vivycakes

        but Bush is.  I know I'm in the minority on this, but I think Obama has slyly reminded everyone of that fact.

        •  He didn't say (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP

          explicitly that it was Bush playing games with soldiers lives and in order to play chicken their must be TWO players. The Republican talking point on our bill was that this was political posturing and oneupmanship between Bush and the Democrats. Obama walked right into pretty much saying that the GOP is correct labeling it that way when he insinuates that the last bill was playing chicken since they had told even before they passed it that Bush had said he would veto it. This was poor word choice on the part of Obama. He would have been better off had he said that the Democrats were committed to ensuring the troops had the equipment and materials and stated that if Bush had been managing this war adequately to begin with we would not have been brought to this point.

    •  I hope this correction is added to the front page (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jhritz, legal alien

      I don't like the idea of a reporter manipulating anti-war voters against an anti-war candidate, especially since it's an old MSM trick that continued to work as recently as the burying of Dean in 2004; this is the kind of thing blogs need to fight, not help along.  

    •  /cheer (0+ / 0-)

      Googling Monkeys-R-US -2.75,-3.54 http://www.politicalcompass.org/

      by Dour on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:03:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  why the hell did kos post this? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jhritz

      now everyone's riled up for no reason, misconstruing obama's statement.  

    •  They ALL should just shut up and let the bill (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivycakes

      speak for itself.  Let the chips fall where they may regarding Dim Son's inevitable veto. By their votes, they've gotten reasonable stipulations on record, while agreeing to continue to "support the troops" with the funding.

      They don't need to take ownership of this war just yet. Later this year, when we're closer to the primaries, yeah.  But they've done what they needed to do for the near future. By talking the bill and its veto to death, they thereby dilute the power of it. Someone with some sense in the party leadership needs to get the word out that no Democrat and, especially, no presidential candidate, should publicly comment on the funding bill.  

      When pushed on the subject by media hacks, they should keep the main thing the main thing--that both houses, with some republicans voting with the majority--did their jobs and served their constituents.

      See, free nations do not develop weapons of mass destruction." ~ George W. Bush October 8, 2003 Washington, D.C.

      For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye. ~ Ezekiel 18:32

      by 99 Percent Pure on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:55:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think you guys (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      understand Kos' point.

    •  thanks for this (0+ / 0-)

      I sometimes worry about Obama because he doesn't always state where he stands on the actual details, but tends to speak broadly about the larger issue, and our values. But even this seemed like a little too odd, out of character.

      I'm still trying to decide between Obama and Edwards.

      there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

      by danthrax on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:17:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clear What Obama is Really Running for Now (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, floridadude

    A place on Hillary's ticket. Step aside, Tom Vilsack!

    George W. Bush is just like Forrest Gump. Except that Forrest Gump is honest and cares about other people.

    by easong on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:49:14 AM PDT

  •  Kos, I'm dissapointed (8+ / 0-)

    I'm not a huge fan of Obama, personally. Giving that defeatist sounding outtake to the MSM for free was dumb. But its pretty goddamn clear that he didn't say what you seem to imply he's saying.  They don't have the votes, they know they don't have the votes, and pretending that this line in the sand is the last is bad politics.  It is the first time the Congress has stood up and made the voice of the people heard, and in context with the rest of the quotes, Obama seems to be saying that people need to realize that this is the first of many plays the anti-war Democrats will be making and we need to keep our heads in the game for the next few drives.  

    Your choice of outtakes is pretty damn close to being a smear job that doesn't accurately represent his statements or the thrust of the article.  Come on, man.

  •  If you actually expected the dems on the hill (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ReggieH

    not to cave in to Bush and provide funding, you were living a freaking pipe dream and I'm glad Obama burst your bubble.

    Get real.

    The troops will only be out IF there is a dem president in 2009, and it depends on which dem is in there.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:50:20 AM PDT

  •  Does Obama really believe that "Nobody (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RainyDay, blue vertigo, adrianrf

    wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground"? If so, he is way out of touch...playing chicken with our troops is exactly what Bush is doing.

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:50:39 AM PDT

    •  I read it as Obama pointing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jhritz

      out that that is exactly what Bush is doing, and how unfortunate that is.  He's emphasizing that a majority of senators won't play that way, but there's one a##hole in every crowd <cough> Bush <cough>.

      Of course, I tend to read a lot into things :->

  •  Still haven't changed my mind - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhillyGuy03

    The race will be between Clinton and Rudy.

  •  Maybe I'm the only one here who gets the article (9+ / 0-)

    I just read the article written by the Associated Press and it doesn't seem like Barack Obama is taking a different position on the Iraq War.

    Here Obama says...

    "If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday."

    That doesn't mean he's advocating for this.  It just means that Obama expects Congress may in fact provide funding for troops even if President Bush vetoes the Iraq War spending bill.  

    Here's another part of the same article...

    "My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

    And another...

    "If the president vetoes this, the American people have to continue to put pressure on their representatives so that at some point we may be able to get a veto-proof majority for moving this war in a different direction," the senator said."

    Therefore, I really don't see Barack Obama taking a different position on the Iraq War.  What I see is him acknowledging what's going on in Congress and what may very well happen if Bush vetoes the Iraq War spending bill.  

    In short, I think Obama is just acknowledging what is going on in the Senate at this time but I don't think it represents a different point of view on the Iraq War.  I myself am not jumping to the conclusion that Obama's views have changed yet.

    Here's the article...

    http://news.yahoo.com/...

    •  No, Obama slyly says he will back the president. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      "If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday."
      ...
      "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

      Unless Obama is asserting he's no lawmaker, he is - using very little obfuscation and plenty of wind - indicating he will vote with the president unless enough other, more principled Senators provide him with cover.  

      That's the opposite of leadership.

  •  I think this is GOOD politics... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivycakes, ShadowSD, ReggieH

    I disagree with Kos on this.  I think the best thing for Dems to do is say, "You know where we stand.  We did our best short of cutting off funding, which we will not do and, really, cannot do.  We will support the troops, but this is Bush's and the GOP's war.  Come 2008, you'll have a choice."

    Whatever the Democrats do, they should NOT assume ownership of this war in any way, including one that allows them to share in responsibility for its failure.  The reality is that they do not have the majorities necessary to stop the war, but are in a perfect position to be trapped by Bush.  Clearly he's setting them up, and Obama knows it.  He will fight this war as he wishes until January 2008.  

    I wish we had the majorities to end it, but we don't.  Continue to voice opposition, make it politically difficult, show that this is THEIR war, not ours, but in the end, write the checks.  

  •  Although (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivycakes

    If this is indeed Obama's quote, then that was a bad decision on his part to say it, eventhough he's right that congress wont have any other choices then to fund the war.

    The problem is, the troops are already on the ground, and there is no way in hell i could see pelosi play hard ball with Bush and not give him the money....Im just being realist..Even members in the cuaus privately admitted this fact.

    I know the majority of KOS believe that hard ball could be played here where congress could withhold the fund, but i dont think it's possible...Too many members of the dems caucus would never go along with it out of fear they would be blamed for not funding troops that are already on the scene.

    Its one thing to not fund more troops going in, but to not fund troops that are already fighting on the ground?..I just cant see how you could say we could do that.

    Obama is realistic, but you cant show the opposition your cards like that...I agree this was a bad decision to to say this.

    •  He so wants to be like Hillary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jinny, TomP

      I say he is trying to get the big corporate donors from Hillary.  He knows he cannot sustain the money he is getting online because the more he talks the more he shows how naive and experienced he is.  Sorry Obama.  Maybe next time.

    •  Supplemental funding (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      The debate that Obama is commenting about, concerns supplemental funding beyond what is included in the normal budget process. This year for the first time, the bulk of Iraq war costs are included in the president's budget proposal, and so far no one has advocated cutting it.

      The troops have plenty of funding, far more than what is necessary to pull them out safely by the deadline. Pelosi doesn't have to allow any further bills for supplemental funding and shouldn't.

      If Obama did indeed compare the debate over supplemental funding to "playing chicken," then he's suggesting that the Democrats' position is frivolous and that the House vote wasn't serious. That would be a big mistake. If he was mis-quoted, he needs to get out and say so, right away.

  •  There we go Obama fans... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Fools on the Hill

    See?  I hate to say I told you so....but the guy never was going to keep up with this God-Like image folks were painting of him.  I never saw what the huge acclaim was about, except that he had a polished image, and could give an interesting speech now and again,, although many of them were just run of the mill like the other candidates.  Nothing new under the sun here.  He not only lacks the track record, he doesn't have anything innovative, he's very politic, and middle of the road.  That's all folks...

  •  HRC announces she'll stay in Iraq (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing, Levity, adrianrf

    but will not interfere militarily should ethnic cleansing ensue (funny how "detailed" her war plan is but she's got nothin' to offer on health care.)  Now Obama proves the "supplemental" was all show and never intended to bring the troops home. "Aw what the hell, give Bush his money... another couple friedman units... what the hell... anyway, I can't really be a Senator right now, I'm too busy running for president.")

    Wow...  I guess the truth about our frontrunners hurts around here. It's distressing to see the Democrats shoot themselves over and over again, but when your my age you've come to expect it... sadly.

    Looks like Edwards is the most credible voice... we'll have to watch how things go in Iowa.  HRC has a ton of money...  Obama isn't exactly struggling...

    "...history is a tragedy not a melodrama" - I.F. Stone

    by bigchin on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:55:38 AM PDT

    •  ignore the above re: Obama (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue vertigo, jhritz

      I just watched peacenik's linked video and kos is out of line with his interpretation here.  I'm still not a huge fan of Obama, but his opposition to the war was important.  If he'd so carelessly caved to Bush, as was suggested in this diary, he'd have given me reason to rant...

      but he didn't do that.

      "...history is a tragedy not a melodrama" - I.F. Stone

      by bigchin on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:12:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Geez. . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ctsteve, vivycakes

    This is the stupidest Kos diary I have ever read.  Sometimes this site is okay, but things like this make me wanna hurl.  Well, that's a hyperbole, but you know what I mean. . .Get it together Kos.

    •  This is a telling moment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fools on the Hill

      Totally disagree that this diary is meaningless.  Obama supporters need to see who they are supporting.  Maybe Obama's supporters don't care about substance and experience.  What Obama said shows he lacks both.

      •  Naw, making mountain out of molehill (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vivycakes

        Kos didn't even give the full quote.  I think that Kos, by accepting the AP's version of the story, quoted Senator Obama out of context.  Even then, I think he is merely stating a VERY obvious public sentiment.  Not to say whether or not it is right or wrong, correct or incorrect way of thinking.  Just that the Senator is VERY good at realistically gauging public sentiment.  Go back, reread the quote, then talk to me.

        •  No offense, but that's S.O.P here. Mt. Molehill (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ReggieH

          I'd say a very sizable percentage of kossacks can't help themselves -- they go off into crazy hysterics, at the most routine, predictable stuff. Especially, if it means screaming about allies. Kos is right, but he's wrong. It may be bad politics for Obama now -- at least it is here. It may be a poor way to negotiate, but that presumes there is a real negotiation here.

          Anyone who thinks Bush is going to be the one to blink and agree to a timetable for withdrawal is in a fantasy world. The Democrats wiil cave on that because they have to -- because, in the end, they will fear the american people will resent that degree of interference in foreign policy. They may not like the policy. In the end, though, they expect Democrats should not undermine policy. Obama was just expressing the bottom line -- that may be bad negotiationg, but it won't make a difference. Result was giong to be the same.

          Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

          by FischFry on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 06:57:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You don't think... (0+ / 0-)

      ...that Obama is lame for caving in like that?

      How was this a smart, astute move on his behealf?

      What is to be gained?

      Defend your man.  Don't just say you want to hurl.

      Why was this a good move?

      CD

  •  Obama embarrassment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, comstockgrants, PhillyGuy03

    I agree with those who think the Blue Dog strategy of funding for 3 months is a good one.  AS for Obama, do not forget he is the man  of  the media...and we know how good the media is at picking 'em.  They loved the compassionate conservative Bush, hated the  Clintons' and the corporate Gore and crazy man Dean (they destroyed Dean single handedly).  If the media is pushing Obama, you know he is a pushover.  And that is why the media hates Hillary..because she is not.  I say follow who the media doesn't like.  (And they never covered Edwards much either...)  But stop repeating the media meme on Hillary.  It is a set up.

    •  I see your point but also remember what they did (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue vertigo

      to Dean. Remember that at one point that Dean was the media darling during the sleepless summer tour and the tens of thousands at those rallys.

      So guilty by association is not exactly perfect?

      Googling Monkeys-R-US -2.75,-3.54 http://www.politicalcompass.org/

      by Dour on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:01:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are right on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhillyGuy03

      Obama cannot win.  Hillary can win, despite the media bs that kossers are eating up. You guys are as gullible as the Jesus Camp kids. She can't win, you watch her go!

      •  How about she SHOULDN'T win? (0+ / 0-)

        Because she really is a disappointment in her policies.

        Because she is truly a hated person.

        Because she will mean a 45 state GOP sweep and loss of Senate and House seats.

        I'm not eating media BS. I would have said this 5 or 10 years ago.

        She sucks and I won't have her jammed down my throat just to prove I'm not buying 'media bs' or even in the name of 'party unity.'

  •  Kos implies that (0+ / 0-)

    Obama wants the President's nine figure bill to pass as it was drafted by the President's people.

    It is unclear whether this is true.

    I hope that Sen Obama merely wants to pass a bill that provides 1 to 3 months of funding and lacks a withdrawal provision.  He certainly has the room to do that, based on what he said today.

  •  Obama Caves to Bush - ? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ctsteve, jhritz, ReggieH

    I'm disappointed in you, Kos. You directly quoted the AP article without noting that the chicken comment was apparently taken out of context. You also did not mention his other comments that indicate he has no intention of "caving to Bush." I expect that kind of 'reporting' from Republicans - but not from you.

  •  Well Shitfuck (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing

    I don't know what else to say at this point.

    Thanks for making my Democratic Primary decisions easier Senator.

  •  Obama must suck at Poker (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, PhillyGuy03

    That is the quickest lamest bluff ever. Obama flinched before the Senate acts and holds his cards open faced for everyone to see.

    Maybe Obama should stick to 21. Though I fear he would hold at 14.

    http://rochesterturning.com/

    by optimusprime on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:05:32 PM PDT

    •  Bingo - don't miss this Poker Party piece. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      David Mamet nailed it here.

      But we must admit, Obama is forecasting exactly what Pelosi and Reid will do - just a few weeks earlier than he was supposed to.  She forecast it last summer, so she's an even deadlier poker player.  

      Truth is, they all folded back when they started pretending that funding the Iraq war equals supporting the troops.  They helped Cheney and insulted us all.

      Do we have permission yet to listen to Woolsey, Lee, Conyers, Kucinich, Nadler, the Out of Iraq Caucus, the Progressive Caucus (and most people on Earth) and have their genuine peace plans debated and voted on?  That's what most Kossacks would prefer over any more Iraq Supplemental votes.  

      Ironically, now that the posing is over, the Bush veto can benefit us all - but ironically, only if we have the guts to stand up to Obama and his kind!

  •  I don't agree that this is nothing! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, NCCarboys

    Look Obama is supposed to be a front runner and presidential.  He just broadcast that Congress will give in to whatever Bush wants.  What will Obama do when special interests what him to bend over and take it, if he became President.

    Obama should be using his bully pulpit to explain why the war needs to end now and why Bush is dead-wrong.  He should be convincing citizens to support ending the war not pretending Bush is King and Congress is powerless.

    Grow a spine Obama or stop taking everyone's money for a futile chance of winning the primaries that seems more an attempt to be self serving and build up a campaign war chest for the future.  Perhaps in 2012 or 2016, Obama will have enough experience and a record to judge him by but for now he is all audacious talk, no substance that equates to little or no hope.

    •  You're on the fringe. (0+ / 0-)

      Fact is, the majority of the American public is not for defunding the troops.  Prove me wrong.  I am not saying whether or not they should be, just relaying the public sentiment as I see it.  If you don't believe me, just go ask people on the streets.  Not people on this nutty website, but people you meet at the bar or just chilling on the corner.

      •  Caving in to Karl's talking points (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pete Rock

        Congress is providing funds.  It would be Bush who rejects the funds with a veto because he wants a blank check with no strings attached, like a mobster.

        Being reactive to republican talking points that fail in logic and reality is no way to win.

        Obama isn't ready for prime time.

        No President in US history has had a blank check with the authority to send troops any where and for whatever reason he wishes.  This is not what the framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

      •  Taking care of the troops (0+ / 0-)

        = getting them out now.  And nothing else.

      •  It won't be congress' fault. We also want them... (0+ / 0-)

        ... to stand up to Bush according to the polls and the election. It will be the right bill. If he vetos it they need to keeps sending it back. It went through both houses and if the troops aren't going to be funded it will be Bush showing his true colors. He doesn't care about the troops - just his ego and ideology.

        It's time for our party to be as stubborn as that jack-ass from Crawford and let our reps know in no uncertain terms that they are not to compromise on this bill. It's the Republicans that will, in the long run, be under pressure to get it signed. Not the Democrats.

        It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair

        by Noodles on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:18:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I knew when I saw (5+ / 0-)

    this

    that he'd lost my vote.

    Michelle Obama, Barack Obama's wife, has hired a former Joe Lieberman staffer to be her Chief of Staff:

    Connecticut for Lieberman Party

    by Sprinkles on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:06:49 PM PDT

  •  Two Candidates, Two Judgements (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivycakes

    Imagine two candidates:

    Candidate #1:  On the basis of all of the evidence I saw in October 2002, I voted to authorize the Iraq War Resolution.  I made the wrong judgement, and I apologize.

    Candidate #2:  I always opposed the invasion of Iraq.  I thought it was the wrong policy and would lead to disaster.  I stated this in October 2002, and had I been in the Senate, I would have voted against the Iraq War Resolution.

    If we make our choice based on the experience of two candidates and the judgement they have shown in the past, how can we not vote for candidate #2?

    The fact is that Edwards knew this was bad policy, but he made a political calculation to support it.  He was wrong, and now he's sorry.  Anybody who doesn't believe that is hopelessly naive.  I'll bet 90% of Kossacks knew without a doubt that Bush was fabricating his case for Iraq in 2002.  It was so INCREDIBLY clear to all clear-thinking people.  We were disgusted at the gullibilty of the American public in general.  And you know what?  WE WERE RIGHT.

    Why would you possibly support a candidate who was so wrong about the crucial issue of our time, and almost certainly out of political calculation?

    Obama didn't want this war, but he can't end it given current political realities.  Edwards approved of the war (even though some advisors are now saying it was a political calculation), and now says he made a mistake.  Can you trust someone who made a mistake of that magnitude, especially when chances are (if you're reading this) you knew it was a mistake (and probably thought it was criminal).

    •  Yes, I can trust John Edwards. (0+ / 0-)

      Obama's big problem is he opposed the war starting, but once it started he failed to follow through and try to end it.

      John Edwards is the antiwar candidate now.  Obama's 2002 speech does nothing now.

      Obama voted with Clinton against the Kerry-Feingold bill in 2006.  Kerry voted for the AUMF.  Is Obama more  antiwar than Kerry?  Under your reasoning, yes.  But in real life, John Kerry tried to end the war in 2006.  Clinton and Obama voted no.

      By the way, your statement that Edwards made a political calculation to support the AUMF knowing it was bad policy is false.  Shrum said that to sell a book.  John Edwards said it was not true and I believe John Edwards over Shrum any day of the week.

      "We don't need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party." John Edwards 2/22/07

      by TomP on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:33:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As a constituent (0+ / 0-)
    I just wrote him a note telling him to show some backbone and stand up to this highly unpopular President.  How disappointing.
    •  You might want to wait on that note (0+ / 0-)

      There's a question as to whether the AP story is correct or if they twisted it out of context.

      The only way to know is to listen to the speech.  I've asked some users above to post a link.

      Have you read about the Kurds yet?

      by jhritz on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:34:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  To be fair (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    salsa0000

    Obama is not a netroot favorite, so even those words wont give an edge to edwards since everyone here is pretty much on edwards's camp or leaning edwards.

    Obama, too my surprise, has ran a general election type of campaign by allowing Edwards tack to the left.

    Anyway, i don't think Obama is no longer trying to be DKOS/MYDD favorite...He gave up on this thought a long time ago..

    If you expect him to say that we will not fund the war and we want all troops out tomorrow, then you will never get that from him because he's looking at the situation realistically..

    Lets all be fair, as long as Bush is an the white house, the war will go on and as long as he keeps the troops in Iraqi, congress will have no other choice but to fund the war.

    •  BlueStateLiberal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      salsa0000

      ...you are right.  It will be funded, but the Democrats need to repeat loud and clear:  This is Bush's and the GOP's war.  We don't want it, but will fund the troops.  Remember that come 08.

      •  I believe (0+ / 0-)

        a fair reading of Obama's interview will show that he said "Dems don't want it, but will fund the Troops."

        (Just goes to show fair readings of statements made by Democrats is more important to some here than the candidates themselves).

        More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

        by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:14:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        This is definately a blunder on Obama's part..Wrong wording if those quotes are indeed his...but KOS should just chill out a bit because the majority are already On Edwards camp because Edwards, according to them, is the only guy that will stop the war.

        I have more respect for Obama who says we will fund the war as long as the troops are on the battleground, which is what will happen...As long as Bush is the president, i dont see this changes.

        Edwards, which i dont respect his politics, would say whatever the netroots wants to hear, eventhough  he fucking kows that we wont have no choice but to fund this war.

        Edwards and the majority on DKOS believe we could withdraw all troops tomorrow and not face a crisis, which is ridiculous...Obama is just being realistic...thats all...If it was your son in iraq, would you want congress not to fund him so he could get bullets and ahmvees etc etc??...i doubt that.

  •  The article has been updated. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jhritz, ReggieH

    Maybe your knee jerk reaction to it should be as well.

  •  Relax, Everybody (0+ / 0-)

    It's moot.  Bush won't veto a bill with a deadline.  Why should he?  It's got what he wants (war money), and he knows what to do with the part he doesn't want.  He's done it before, remember?

  •  Shows 'Charisma' Does NOT = Competence. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nelsons

    Iraq is a Republican War.

    by Kdoug on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:17:09 PM PDT

  •  On Edwards vs. Obama (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivycakes, floridadude

    John Edwards is good man with very good character.  The partnership with his wife tells you alot.  However, one cannot underestimate the stress he is going through over her illness.  No matter how much we wish it weren't so, every complication in her treatment, will impact him.  It would be impossible not to have an effect.  And given the enormity of our task in defeating the Republicans, we need a candidate with NO distractions, especially with one as severe as a cancer diagnosis.  

    Who knows what would have happened without this upsetting news about Elizabeth.  But it can't be ignored or wished away...just like Obama's lack of experience or record can't be ignored.  We must take things as they are, and maximize our strengths.  By the way, I am all for a debate of issues with Edwards leading the way for the left.  But I am not for demonizing Hillary or constantly attacking her..nor should any Democratic candidate land any major blows against her ..it is counter productive and only serves the interests of Republicans.  We must find a clever strategy that outsmarts Repubicans.  At any rate, only Edwards stands a chance in the big arena...Obama is a lightweight.  I hope all can see that.

  •  The right strategy should be obvious (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pete Rock

    And I don't know why it isn't to some people.

    "Put the responsibility for cutting off funding with Bush."

    Congress passes a bill that funds the troops.

    Bush has a choice: sign the bill and fund the troops, or veto the bill and cut off funding.

    If he vetoes, Congress can once again pass a bill that funds the troops.

    Bush then has a choice again: sign the bill and fund the troops, or veto the bill and cut off funding.

    In any case, if Congress passes a funding bill, regardless of what conditions are attached to it, the act of "cutting off funding" is the President's.

    What's so hard about that???

    Your freedom is in jeopardy. Let me take it away from you so I can protect it. -- John Ashcroft

    by jcs on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:17:11 PM PDT

  •  The misleading AP article has been updated. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, jhritz

    Now without conjecture from the reporter.

  •  Wow what an idiot- (0+ / 0-)

    They're laughing at the WH.

    Jimmy Carter is right.

    by LandSurveyor on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:20:59 PM PDT

  •  Comparing Laura to Hillary? Stupid (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    larryrant, nieman

    Hillary was in a position to make policy under Bill and did.  She made policy in Arkansas.  To even suggest that she is to be compared to Laura makes me think a mole has been uncovered.  Only a moron would use the names Hillary and Laura in the same breath.  

  •  Bad move, Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmericanRiverCanyon

    Thank God he's not in charge of negotiations.

  •  Troops shouldnot be punished because of Bushs'... (0+ / 0-)

    failed policies AND not fundung the troops in NOT an option....OBAMA IS RIGHT

    •  Your are a GOP talking point! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Levity, Alex of the Sea

      "funding the troops" is nothing but a Faux News sound bite and by your very support it legitimizes Bush's war.  All the billions of dollars wasted in Iraq, it's done nothing for the troops except send them to their deaths.  I can't believe you fell for that propaganda, don't you get it?  Wasting more money in Iraq IS supporting Bush's falied policies and if cutting off funding gets these kids home sooner, well the better!  I could care less about the 2008 election, all I want is for this ilegal war to be over and those who put us there to  be held accountable which after Mr. Obama statements, it seems very unlikely.

      "The sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society." C. Wright Mills

      by HGM MA on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:37:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's what defunding the troops means: (0+ / 0-)

        No more poorly-armored convoys where soldiers get killed...they can't afford the gas.

        No more door-to-door "searches" in the interest of pacifying the region...they can't afford the bullets.

        No more bombing innocent houses because of a "tip" from a "reliable source"...they can't afford the bombs.

        So, basically, defunding the troops means they stay in their safe bases and don't get killed. Defunding the troops does not mean their pay goes away...that's a separate budget item that's already been passed. Defunding the troops does not mean they'll starve, there's months worth of MREs, even after the contracted chefs run out of supplies. Defunding the troops is nothing more than defunding the war.

        Go ahead, shrub. Veto the bill that provides funding for the troops. It does nothing more than play right into the wishes of the American people. I want the troops home. A majority of the American people want the troops home. The rest of the world wants the troops out of Iraq. The occupation will end. It's the President's choice whether he wants to look Presidential by removing our forces in an orderly and sane manner...or look like the little screaming child he is and fight the inevitable every step of the way.

  •  Timing Is All...And this isn't the time for a Dem (0+ / 0-)

    to make further public pronouncements regarding Shrub's War--whoever's running the party should be gagging them from publicly speaking about the veto or any other portion of the war funding bill they're sending to him.

    Now's the time to let the bill speak for itself as to where they--and We the People--stand.  When Dim Son vetoes it, then so be it.  Maybe--and that is a very strong maybe, after he vetoes it, a carefully worded collective response should be released, and that's all.

    Really though, I ascribe to the policy that, until the primaries, no Democrat should--even by inference--make any statements now that they've passed a bill with stipulations about funding the occupation.  Certainly, nothing should be uttered by the presidential candidates that could be misconstrued as taking ownership of the Iraq fiasco. A majority in both Houses have already established their position via legislation.

    To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, the Democrats, each and everyone of their pie-backed butts, should heed TR's advice about speaking softly but carrying the big stick when it comes to Iraq.

    "You subscribe politics to it. I subscribe freedom to it." ~ George W. Bush April 6, 2000 Referring to the Elian Gonzalez negotiations in Miami, Florida. Reported by the Associated Press.

    For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye. ~ Ezekiel 18:32

    by 99 Percent Pure on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:38:53 PM PDT

  •  Only Gore is same league as Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    And only Gore in the race would make me reconsider who Democrats should support.  I wanted Gore to run in 2004.  I think he would have beat Bush.  No one would listen then, especially Gore.  There is absolutely no one with the experience to govern other than Hillary or Gore.  And I trust Gore.  But only in an emergency would he step up.  And everyone would have to urge him to do so, even then.  He just does not have the fire in him to go through what it takes to win the Presidency.  Hillary does.  But for the record.  I love Gore.  And I have supported him always.  But he was a senator for many years and then VP and he had policy accomplishments.  Edwards and Obama don't have that.

  •  Good. Decisions on Dem Candidates got easier (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Levity

    Guess he'll find out which is a bigger Chicken Game.

    The bogeyman of "not supporting the troops" or "burning his constituency"

    We know the answer.

    He's officially out of the race for my vote in the primaries, along with Hillary.

  •  Obama is a victim of Rove's talking points (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, philgoblue, blue vertigo

    Obama just threw in the towel by legitimizing Karl Rove's nonsense.

    Edwards's has the intelligence and decency to point out the BS even if it might cost him some support on the right.

    Wake up Obama.  The US is going into bankruptcy just like the Soviet Union did because of the Bush war profiteers.  There is no means for the US to win in Iraq, not after all the incompetence.  Bush is trying to prop up the Shia who are more friendly with Iran.  It is a no win situation and the military and US treasury are being destroyed in the foolishness and incompetence of the worst President in US history.

  •  Obama didn't surrender to Bush, but to reality. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JohnnyRook

    And that can change.

    We're way over-reacting, you ask me.

    WORST GODDAMN PRESIDENT SINCE 1789.

    by perro amarillo on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:44:28 PM PDT

    •  The reality is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zinger99, Pete Rock

      that, if Bush does as most presidents do 99.9% of the time: sign a bill passed by the Congress into law, the troops will be funded.

      Congress passed a bill to fund the troops. The choice to cut off funding for the troops is the President's.

      Your freedom is in jeopardy. Let me take it away from you so I can protect it. -- John Ashcroft

      by jcs on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:51:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How long do you think Dems can hold that pose? (0+ / 0-)

        WORST GODDAMN PRESIDENT SINCE 1789.

        by perro amarillo on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:55:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As long as they stick to it. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          perro amarillo, okamichan13

          It's not hard to understand: something becomes law in two steps: 1. Congress passes a bill. 2. The President signs it.

          Everyone learns that in seventh grade civics class.

          But "the Democrats are not serious because they passed a bill they knew the President would veto!"

          The President has a choice to veto the bill or not. This president has vetoed only one other bill.

          The American people agree with Congress that this war must end. It's entirely up to the president whether he wants to go against the will of the American people and cut off funding for our troops by vetoing this bill.

          Your freedom is in jeopardy. Let me take it away from you so I can protect it. -- John Ashcroft

          by jcs on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:37:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  KOS - YOU MISREAD THIS ONE BIG TIME (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    vivycakes, otheruser, ScottyUrb
    Hidden by:
    TeresaInPa

    Hi,

    Dude, you need to go back and re-read the article you linked to.  Senator Barack Obama was simply speculating on what Congress would do, not on what he would do.

    Why did you take this out of context?  Is it because Hillary Clinton's a big advertiser on this site?    I think she gave you about $5,000 last month alone.  

    So, time to come clean, dude.

    Best to you.

    Zennie

    Visit http://www.zennie2005.blogspot.com

    by zennie on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:45:06 PM PDT

    •  Hillary bribed KOS?........ (0+ / 0-)
    •  Doesn't change a thing (0+ / 0-)

      Speculation is useless.

      He should have put the responsibility for funding the troops with the President: "Congress has done its part to continue to fund our troops. The president now has to do his part by signing this bill into law, or he can choose to cut off funding for the troops. It's his choice now."

      Your freedom is in jeopardy. Let me take it away from you so I can protect it. -- John Ashcroft

      by jcs on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:54:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, now I know (0+ / 0-)

    just who and what he is.....another spineless politician.  Glad I didn't waste any time thinking of him as a candidate.

  •  Obama fell in the trap (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, zinger99, PhillyGuy03

    of accepting that the sole responsibility for funding the troops lies with Congress. It does not.

    The fact is: it takes two parties to fund the troops: Congress and the president.

    Congress has done its part. Now where is the president?

    "It is hypocritical of the Democrats to send a bill to the president that they know he will veto!"

    Oh, really? Isn't that the typical bully line? "Look what you made me do!" If funding the troops is that important to him, he should sign the bill anyway, despite his personal misgivings.

    This is so, so easy.

    Your freedom is in jeopardy. Let me take it away from you so I can protect it. -- John Ashcroft

    by jcs on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:48:21 PM PDT

  •  Good point Delphine (0+ / 0-)

    Excellent point that Reagan and Bush could sh*t to the masses...actually Republicans in general do that...but especially Republican presidents..so why can't Democrats learn that black art of dealing with the masses with finesse.  Obama's performance was pure rookie.  And we need a consummate professional, perhaps a shark...who understands..message and packaging.    Very good observation Delphine.

  •  Obama caves? (0+ / 0-)

    So it looks like Obama doesn't walk on water. He is a politician, no different from Hillary, Edwards Biden.

    How shocking.

    Obama supporting have been behaving like cultists. Maybe this will help them see things with more clarity.

  •  I am so going to let this simmer in the pot (0+ / 0-)

    I'll see what floats to the top.  Hopefully, I will be able to separate fact from fiction.

    :)

     

    I've had it with the Fox News: "We Deceive-You Believe" fascist machine

    by IamLorax on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:54:30 PM PDT

  •  Unbelievable (5+ / 0-)

    It really is amazing to me that, after the other two front-runners for the nomination legally authorized the president to engage in the worst foreign policy mistake since Vietnam, people are ready to castrate Obama. And for what? One sentence without any context?

    If anything, Hillary Clinton surrendered to Bush with her vote on the war. If anything, John Edwards surrendered to Bush with his vote on the war. Clinton won't even admit that she was part of one of a colossal fuck-up. So why is it that on the front page of Daily Kos, one of the few places that voices of reason spoke out against the war as Obama did, we have a condemnation based on a misinterpreted sentence?

    Come on Kos, you're above this.

    Serenity now, insanity later.

    by chicagovigilante on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:59:23 PM PDT

    •  Only right once? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue vertigo, TomP

      Problem is that once Obama got into the Senate he has been content on playing Mr. Bipartisan.  He was absent when Kerry, Reid and Feingold took to the Senate floor and debated that the troops should be redeployed and that a diplomatic solution was the only option.  Like Clinton he hid and he refused to say where he stood on the issue.

      Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time, was not privy to the bad intelligence.  So what he would have actually done had he been a Senator is pure speculation.  

      That Edwards has stated he was wrong, regrets the vote, is very unique for a politician.  I prefer someone strong enough to admit they were wrong.  Someone who will let the buck land on his/her desk instead of one who hides or spins.

      •  Point taken (0+ / 0-)

        That Edwards has stated he was wrong, regrets the vote, is very unique for a politician.  I prefer someone strong enough to admit they were wrong.

        I prefer someone that doesn't screw up in the first place. That being said, I would love a President Edwards but Obama is my preference.

        Serenity now, insanity later.

        by chicagovigilante on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:14:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hmmm. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nelsons

    Well, Obama has yet to convince me that he's anything but a charismatic, ambitious politician.

    I don't trust charismatic ambitious politicians, as a rule.

    Fed up with spineless Dems? Getcher Spineless Citations (PDF) here!

    by Mehitabel9 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:11:52 PM PDT

  •  Dumb Ass Statement! (0+ / 0-)

    You Gotta Be Fucking Kidding Me.

  •  Kos is right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leptoo, TomP

    It is less material what the exact quote is...because this is not the first time Obama has shown his lack of experience or fighter instinct.  I just think this particular move, in general, outraged Markos...because he is a strategy and message man.  I repeat my complaint about Obama's apology to McCain.  It is, in general, similar to this faux pas.  It is lacking in strategy.  The precise words are less important than the image it conveys.  In the McCain matter, it would have burnished Obama's image to be tough with McCain and not apologize...especially to the hypocrite McCain...the one who went all out to elect Bush.  But Obama did apologize...and it said something.  It certainly indicated a complete inability to craft an image or hold tough against a Senate insider.  
    So it doesn't matter where you stand, pro Hillary, pro Edwards, etc.  Kos is correct...crafting a good, consistent, tough image for Democrats is important...especially against the Republican message machine.  Obama just failed at this most basic task.

    Most people think HIllary is tough and smart.  And being tough and smart is important...at least to a majority of Americans, who elected Republicans for their so called toughness and ability to run businesses . (the question remains for Hillary is whether she is tough enough for the general electorate, not whether she is "left" enough). How can you ignore the fact that Republicans held Congress for 12 years?  Our message must be Republicans are incompetent and weak...because Congress  never stood up to Bush and Bush was incompetent and a paper tiger.  But don't underestimate the importance of appealing to a general electorate...some who feel we should not have gone into Iraq and others who felt if we did go in, it should have been with a plan to win.  We must underline how the Republicans lose on both counts.     Obama fails to repeat the Democratic meme, and instead highlights a Republican meme. The general sense is of weakness, not strength.  And it's the general sense that counts.

  •  Proof that no one's perfect, by a long shot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivycakes

    If you expect ANY of our candidates to be perfect, then you are expecting the impossible.

    Name a Democratic candidate, and I could tell you a few thing I don't like about them. Yet I'd still vote for them over John 'Double-Talk Express' McCain and Mitt 'Flip-Flop'  Romney.

  •  lets be real, this is smart politically. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zkeats, vivycakes

    There were many people on this site saying to the effect after we passed the house and senate bills:

    "Ha ha, now Bush has to pass this bill or HE will be the one cutting off money for the troops!"  as if this is some grand trap that we have him in.

    And then there were plenty of diarists saying hey, now after Bush vetoes, how about we just give him funds for three months, or one month at a time, and then keep getting him to have to go back and ask for more money again, and again, and again, until the GOP reps break.

    I'm sorry, that is advocating playing chicken with the troops, and while it sounds cute in a dailykos diary it will never play on the Hill or around the country.  Obama isn't talking about other restrictions, he said the timeline, that Bush has clearly and emphatically shown he rejects.

    I'm sure other Dem leaders are thanking Obama right now for continuing to uphold the commitment that the Democratic congress will fully support the troops.  I'm sure kos darling Jim Webb fully supports what Obama says.  He is against deadlines.  

    This is a kneejerk netroots reaction that is unfounded.  If you want a Dem president in 2009, whoever it may be, then you realize that the Democratic leaders must fund after the veto.  And you can say, hey, I like Edwards now because of this, but Edwards has the advantage of not being on the Hill now just like Obama had the advantage of not being on the hill in 2002.  You decide what was worse.  Not playing hardball with the money for the troops when you have zero chance of overriding a veto or cutting off funds? Or not playing hardball when the decision was made to put the troops in a war in the first place?

    What Obama is saying is fine politically.  It is smart.  You go to the polls in 2008 and tell voters, honestly and correctly, that you couldn't bring the troops home because there were enough GOP reps that stuck with Bush and you couldn't override Bush's veto.   Voters understand that easy message.  If they want a commander-in-chief that sees things more the way that they see them, they vote for the democratic candidate.  If they see Iraq policy as more of how Bush sees it, they vote for the GOP candidate.  And you win big in 2008.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:38:25 PM PDT

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      loudGizmo

      there is a tendency on this site to have very purist views of politics and feel betrayed when our politicians, who have to deal with the day to day realities of politics, act in a way that is politically wise but not what we would want.  I personally know that the country would have to change alot before anyone I approved of 100% of the time could be elected President.  I like Obama and dont want to write him off based on this alone.  As part of a larger pattern maybe but Im still watching with an open mind.

      "I should be able to love my country and still love justice." -Albert Camus

      by zkeats on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:56:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Funny thing is ... (0+ / 0-)

      Webb supported a deadline with his vote .. who was the only Dem that voted against the deadline?   Holy Joe ... not Webb

  •  PS..compare to Webb (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, TomP

    And my point is made that much easier by talking about Webb.  Webb is a fighter.  Nobody, Democrat or Republican would disagree.  That says something.  He is pro second amendment...and wow, this latest dust up with the guns is either happenstance or brilliant image crafting...but Webb will fight and this takes him a long way with whatever his policy ideas are.  He picked a fight with a Bush and stood up whereas Obama stood down with McCain. I was very pro Webb in the beginning when he didn't have a chance...and always felt it was Webb who had the  character and balls that people find in Obama.  
    Don't get me wrong.  I like Obama.  I think he is very smart (he taught at U of Chicago after all) a good senator and a big addition to the team.  He is just not ready for prime time..or ready to captain the team. (actually,Democratic senators are incredibly impressive...just watch the hearings highlight their talents) I also think Democrats were smart to pick Webb for the response to Bush's State of the Union.  It was good message/image management.

  •  Jesus, this is horrible (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HGM MA

    I liked Obama the most of all the candidates before this.  Now, I don't know what I'll do.  

    Time to start crossing my fingers for Gore again.

  •  Overreaction (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snout, vivycakes

    You want to know why elected officials (all of them) are so cautious about saying anything?

    Because so much of the public will leap from one disappointment to blanket denunciation. Dems are no better than Repugs on this score.

  •  How Rangel handled this question today (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StupidAsshole

    From Meet The Press, or Press the Meat, whatever:

    MR. RUSSERT: What happens if the president says, "I’m vetoing this bill because it has a date fixed for withdrawal," and Congress says, "Well, Mr. President," then what? You won’t give them the money for the troops?

    REP. RANGEL: Oh no. Ultimately, politically, we have to give him money. But we will constantly remind him that no president in these great United States can continue a war that the people do not support. It’s not going to happen. And so as long as he send back bills, we’ve got to send him back bills.

    I say that Rangel handled the issue better than Obama.

  •  Webb distinction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    And that is why Webb could take the same position as Obama and yet explain it differently..and it would be reported differently.  People know Webb will fight when he NEEDS to and CAN win. He projects brains and brawn. So it is the image/message that is important here, not the actual realities of funding or vetoes. Because the Democrats clearly don't have the votes to override a veto. Obama hurts his image by seemingly caving to Bush without adequately crafting a strategic message.

    Democrats have been losing up to 2006 because of an emphasis on too many policy proposals and not enough image/message crafting.  John Kerry epitomized that.  

  •  When the smoke clears... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sybil Liberty

    Clark for President.

  •  His message management is very poor. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gradinski chai, TomP

    I like Obama.  Lots of people like him.  But this is the issue many of us have had about Obama, since he came to Daily Kos and wrote that, to my mind, condescending diary.

    The problem: he reinforces Republican talking points.  He did it with religion.  In retrospect, it was ironic that Fox news attempted to mess with him on the religion issue.

    You don't bring a knife to a gunfight.  You don't bring a handshake either.

    He likely didn't mean this at all the way it sounded.  But it sounded terrible.

    We are not the ones playing chicken.  As another poster mentioned, GWB is the one who has been doing so for four years now.  It is terrible that Obama would be doing the Republicans' messaging work for them, even unwittingly.  Terrible.

  •  Obama is the new Hillary n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair

    by Noodles on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:05:09 PM PDT

  •  All the more reason why (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nelsons, jen, blue vertigo

    Wes Clark needs to get in this race.

  •  Can you spell, s-u-r-r-e-n-d-e-r m-o-n-k-e-y? (0+ / 0-)

    This might work out kind of OK because now they can include the defunding of Gitmo they forgot the first time around.

  •  The numbers are in...strange (0+ / 0-)

    People should take a hard look at these first quarter numbers.  I would bet anything there is a lot of Republican money behind Obama.  They funded Nader and they are funding Obama.  It doesn't make sense otherwise.  Maybe I am overly paranoid...but there is nothing the Republicans won't do to deprive Hillary of the nomination....and as we can see by Obama's latest message foul up...he serves the Repubican message machine well.  Maybe there is no conspiracy...but it feels funny...and we know they funded Nader.  He just is not tough enough...so these numbers are from corporate sources...As an earlier commenter said...he brings a knife and a handshake to a gunfight ...so can we doubt where that will lead us....Kos's instincts on Obama are right.

  •  Do you NOT suppose he was telling the truth? (0+ / 0-)

    Do you NOT suppose OBAMA was telling the truth and calling it like it is?

    Visit: http://OsiSpeaks.com

  •  the link is to USAtoday (0+ / 0-)

    not a link to the video or even a transcript of what Obama said.

    does anyone have an actualy link to a transcript or a video.....i dont like to form opinions about potential presidential candidates based only on what some reporter claims was said by someone...

    reporters often 'get it wrong'

    IMPEACH THE CHEERLEADER... SAVE THE WORLD! © ®

    by KnotIookin on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:50:08 PM PDT

  •  Obama is too inexperienced! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

        Talk about a rookie mistake. He just undercut every Democrat in the United States. This is an early but valuable lesson whenever dealing with Sen. Obama... never put your ass on the line for him, because he will walk out on you in a heartbeat. How can you negoiate from a position of weakness? Perhaps he forgot as Senator from Illinois, its his responsibility to fund this war in a matter that brings accountability to the people which he represents. If he can't do that, he really has no business running for President. I felt he was really raw, but this is absolutely unexcuseable. John Edwards was 100% correct when he called for "political courage" not "political calculation".

  •  People here need to learn to fucking read. nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CAL11 voter
  •  Whoa (0+ / 0-)

    I think we should all slow down here and take a deep breath.  Part of me wants to say to Edwards and Hillary supporters, by way of defending Obama, that both of those senators voted to authorize the war in Iraq.  But then, I recognize the counter-argument: Barack had the luxury of being a "Washington outsider," to use the cliche, at the time of that vote.  So while he speaks a big game about being against the war since day one, the circumstances were obviously different for him.  

    But I suppose my point is that, any way you slice it, the war remains a difficult political issue for all of our viable candidates in 2008.  And I don't believe we should rush to condemn a candidate like Obama because of this one quote.    

       

  •  Don't forget to Act Surprised! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StupidAsshole

    Thanks Markos, for not mincing words about this.

    Come on everybody - it's time again to act surprised!

    Really, the surprise here is that Obama is folding 3 weeks before any Bush veto, offering Bush carte blanche / blank check up front (a $100B check was too restrictive) and acknowledging that the past 2 months of negotiations were an extended pose.  Will it still fool the US majority - which is strongly against continued funding of the war, but it opposed by leadership in both parties and Obama too?

    This week both John McCain and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have advocated closing the Guantanamo torture prison.  Have you heard a peep out of Obama, Edwards or Hillary on the subject?  Of course, we should discourage them from following down that left wing road.  Shall we drop the subject, or act surprised?

  •  Hmmm two thoughts (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nelsons, TomP

    (1)  Pretty clear why Obama didn't last very long as a community organizer;
    (2)  this should strengthen his hand immeasurably with the centrist and establishment Dems that have been thought to be lined up with Hilalry.  I'd say this move may lock up the nomination for Obama.

    •  Quite the opposite (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      Now Hillary can claim they have the same position on the war. It's to her advantage to blur her difference of opinion so that primary voters don't reject her for being pro-war.

      Obama's biggest advantage over every other candidate is that he was against the war from the beginning. If he surrenders that, expect Hillary to start mopping up support from him.

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:27:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Big screwup by Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    He basically kicked the legs out from under our congressional leadership. By saying Congress would remove the timetable, he's letting Bush know that he wins no matter what. If Congress stands firm, Bush is the asshole cutting off funds.

    If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

    by dole4pineapple on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:18:06 PM PDT

  •  doing the republicans' jobs for them? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sorry, but I can't help think that we're doing the Republicans' job for them.

    It sounds like you're now fully saying Obama can't be a Democratic candidate, so what we have left then is Edwards or Clinton, really.  

    Will Edwards or Clinton beat the Republican candidate?  Do they inspire as much passion as Obama does?  At this point it seems like we have to hope so, if Obama is now fundamentally out of it.

  •  Massachusetts just elected a new governor, (0+ / 0-)

    Deval Patrick, who reminds me a lot of Obama.  They both are young African Americans with not a whole lot of experience in politics or holding management type office and who both  campaigned using the word hope in their very lofty campaign speeches.  In the first few weeks after taking office Deval Patrick made one mistake after the other due to his lack of experience.  That is what I forecast for Obama if he wins the presidency. Can we afford to let this happen in this day and age of terrorism. I think we need someone with a lot of experience as President, which is what Hillary has.

    •  Damn, you had me with you (0+ / 0-)

      until the penultimate word.

    •  Great comment except (0+ / 0-)

      for your conclusion about HRC.  

      •  I still like Hillary (0+ / 0-)

        I don't know but sometimes I think that people accept certain things in men, like toughness (I mean look at Guiliani) or shrewdness that they think is shrewness when women act the same way.  Look, Obama says he was against the war from the beginning, as I was.  However,  he didn't have to deal with tainted info from the administration or pressure from fellow senators or congressmen to vote to show support for the president.  It's different when you have your own opinion, but when you are going up against the powerful force of congress or the president it is hard to stand your ground.  Hillary is tough and has been through the wringer many times.  I give her credit.

  •  Let me repeat - Obama is NOT ready for prime time (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nelsons, TomP, floridadude
  •  This diary is almost finished, but (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    seastar, dole4pineapple, TomP, floridadude

    I would be remiss in not registering my extreme disappointment in Obama and his completely inexplicable response to the president's strong stand.  Chicken?  That's tantamount to ademitting that the origianl position was laid out as little more than one's party's move in a boardgame.  Ahh, the old DemSen Gambit.  

    And to think: all this time I thought the Democrats were serious.

    •  When they took the Iran clause out of their bills (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GOTV, TomP

      I knew we were in trouble.

      IMO no one gets to even be a candidate unless they have sworn allegiance to the welfare of the corporate state and the security of Israel.

      Nancy Pelosi took the clause out of the House blll on the eve of the AIPAC conference to which she was giving the closing speech.

      Jim Webb withdrew his amendment from the Senate bill after several days of the gun 'incident'.

      S. 759
      To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

      S. Con. Res. 13
      Title: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.

      H. Con. Res. 33
      Title: Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.

  •  allowing bad reporting to resonate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivycakes

    i'm not sure it serves much purpose to reinforce bad reporting rife with innacurate paraphrases in order to make a point.

    certainly Obama needs to improve his performance in unscripted situations.

    in general, i'm not sure about Obama yet, but that USA Today article strikes me as problematic. an awful lot of it is paraphrasing, and i'm not sure how the opening lines line up with the direct quotes that come later, like:

    "If the president vetoes this, the American people have to continue to put pressure on their representatives so that at some point we may be able to get a veto-proof majority for moving this war in a different direction," the senator said

    if he's just acknowleding that this vote isn't veto-proof, he's not "caving." he's stating something we all know. he tends to, in his speeches and op-eds, and books, seek to articulate points of view with which he doesn't necessarily agree, which leaves room for sloppy reporters to get the gist wrong.

    i wasn't at this event, of course, but i don't think the article is very clear.

    •  Your comment... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      "certainly Obama needs to improve his performance in unscripted situations." is right on the mark...except I think it's not so much a matter of performance as it is a lack of gut feeling.  He intellectualizes everything...dancing with words...until I can't tell whether he's for, against, or just playing footsie.  To me it's a form of fence straddling.

  •  Love ya Markos, but DELETE this diary! (0+ / 0-)

    Obama did NOT say that. The AP reporter misqouted him
    (or lied.) See the entire CNN transcript. (Sorry, I don't know how to post the link.) You, of all people, should know to research before qouting the AP. Jesus!
    Im an Edwards supporter, but you owe Obama, and your readers a Big Fat apology on this one. Hey, still love ya.

  •  WTF (0+ / 0-)

    Obama can not predict what will happen tomorrow or over the next month or so in Iraq.  350 people were killed in one day, yesterday.  

    He should be supporting the Dems or their leadership in the House and Senate instead of agreeing with Rove and Bush.

    What kind of President would he make when he ignore US history and the powers and oversight authority that Congress has.  

    He also better start listening to his base or like McCain and Hillary, he'll lose it real fast.

  •  Hillary is smiling (0+ / 0-)

    $30 million in the bank and Obama is toast. She's having a real good weekend... Why would we want a President with no courage? We've had a coward for the last six years (pre-emptive war, torture, fear-mongering, etc...). Good going Barack.

  •  HAHAHAHAHA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Junior Bug

    https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/mygrassroots/?page_id=Mjc3NzQ

    by floridadude on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:50:35 PM PDT

  •  Maybe Obama is more worried about these.... (0+ / 0-)

    folks and their need to keep the contracts rolling in.

    Stock charts of some (Offense) Contractors over last five years:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Lockheed Martin
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

    Boeing
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

    Northrop Grumman
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

    BAE SYSTEMS
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

    Raytheon
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

    General Dynamics
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

    General Electric
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

    Honeywell
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

    Halliburton
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

    United Tech
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

    HealthNet
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

    L-3 Communications Holdings
    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

  •  Guess Obama (0+ / 0-)

    isn't hiring Markos for a consultant.

    And this is what we can expect as a result.

  •  If, heaven forbid, he wins the primary (0+ / 0-)

    I hope he's willing to play chicken with his Republican opponent.  Nice smiles and repeated denunciations of your own party don't win debates, Barack.

  •  No he didn't, kos. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivycakes, Akonitum

    I watched that interview.  I took him to mean that no one stands up to Bush and when they do, Bush has his way anyway.  His statement reflected the inability of Dems to stand up against Bush and Bush's absolute fascist-like grip over Congress.

  •  That's not true - I heard the interview twice (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    feline, TomP, Akonitum

    and if you read the transcript, it doesn't cross over to me as if Kos has represented correctly what Obama said.

    http://i.a.cnn.net/...

    Although it a rush transcript, it's at least more accurate than what Kos said. I don't see anything that indicates Obama "caved" in to Bush.

    Strange.

    "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

    by mimi on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 05:53:21 PM PDT

  •  Lost my vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    Well that's it, Edwards all the way.

    "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords..."

    by pawlr on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:25:22 PM PDT

  •  Kos: reckless, brainless (0+ / 0-)

    Obama did nothing of the sort.

    I'm supposed to believe that Obama "surrendered" because that's how some blogger interprets a carefully cropped quote?

    Great Oracle of Kos, do tell: How did you become so wise about politics, negotiation and power?

    I'm so sick of this kind of kneejerk, hotheaded blogorrhea, I could spew.

  •  Liebermanesque n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Elizabeth Edwards is my hero

    by StealthAmerica on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:21:12 PM PDT

  •  Isn't this the rumsfeld/cheney argument? (0+ / 0-)

    Talking about strategic problems in a public forum cannot be criticized, otherwise we'd all be supporting the terrorists and this timetable issue wouldn't even exist for Obama to talk about.

    This shouldn't be about trying to out-strategize the other side, this should be about making the best decisions for the american people, and I think we can agree that discussing all possible outcomes is a vital step towards that goal.

    So what if he said the troops are going to be funded. Everyone knows that. Even if they were ordered to leave tomorrow they'd need funding. Even without a timetable there can be other restrictions. They can certainly be more creative and firm about dictating how the money has to be spent in a way that brings this war to an end.

    We're supposed to be about openness and candor. Don't criticize people for saying what they think is obvious.

    Besides, the junior senator from Illinois does not speak for the entire United States Congress.

  •  Call the Bully's Bluff (0+ / 0-)

    "The only thing bullies respect is power."

    PKinTexas, is it really that important to gain the respect of a bully?

    Bullies, by virtue of being bullies, are incapable of respect.

    The only way to deal with a bully is to call his bluff.

    The "support the troops" meme is a bluff.

    Kucinich called it, Feingold called it, the rest of Congress caved.

  •  Is Obama's Support Very Wide But Weak? (0+ / 0-)

    I like Barack, though I agree that this latest statement is a mistake that hurts the effort to end the war and makes Barack seem like a principled man who is not very courageous or strong.  I understand his position however.  As a minority candidate, he, like Hillary (who also speaks for a constituency facing challenges - though they are the majority), ultimately has a challenge in standing firm while not stepping into the role of protest candidate.

    That is not to say that people should or should not back him based on this mistake.  It's up to you and whether you support him or not generally.

    I have not yet selected a candidate to support, so I feel like I can look at this with a bit of distance.  What I have suspected, and feared, for some time, is that Obama has hugely wide but thin (or weak) support.  Because he is not known for substantial accomplishments (even though he may in fact be no less accomplished than others), and because he has reached out beyond the party base for his support, he is courting a wide but weak constituency. Much of the constituency knows very little about him, but finds his "charisma" appealing - his superstar image.  This is all manufactured, though done quite well. Judging from the response here, my concern is that that constituency will abandon him in the blink of an eye, whenever they think it makes sense to do so.  He is a "different" candidate.  That appeals to constituencies who want something "different".  On the other hand, he does not want to court too hard the bases of the party that would otherwise be his strengths, because he doesn't want to become the perceived candidate of a "narrow" constituency.  That would just be a label, but it has a powerful effect which his current strategy seeks to avoid or minimize.

    Strategically, as one of the first "cross-over" African American candidates for President, he is in a stratified element which can create many considerable and conplex challenges for him - and which would create such challenges for anyone who was similar to him - no matter what he says or does.  He is authentic as a progressive voice, there is no doubt about that, but there will be an ongoing and careful set of boundaries he has to navigate.  I don't think Barack enjoys or embraces all of those boundaries enthusiastically.  He may be a little ahead (or out) of his time in that context.  We will see.  He still has a solid shot, since this position will mostly be noticed by the progressive base, not the general public, and the general public may see his position as one balancing his own moral concerns about the war with practicalities.  

    It is doubtful that this position alone will cost him the nomination if he can pull it off otherwise.

    I think, if Barack's campaign runs into trouble, and it might not, you'll see him reach out more vigorously to the party base, he will likely change his message, and he could ultimately become a stronger Democratic candidate on a subsequent run - assuming other things don't arise to make running for president less attractive at a future date.  These times are challenging and treacherous for any candidate.  For someone who seeks to be "different", and who seeks to elevate himself or the discussion above the typical fractures of party, state, and ethnicity, like Obama, even winning the Presidency could be treacherous in these times.

    This is an interestng debate.  I think it confirms, to some degree, that the enthusiasm for Obama may wane or fade as the rigors of the campaign take their toll.  Then hopefully, Obama will rise to the occasion.  I have profound reasons to believe Obama is a good man who will ultimately and always provide the public with service of the utmost integrity and intelligence.  But, these times may require someone more seasoned and able to call upon greater depths of support from the powerful bases of the party, to support them even when they make well-meaning mistakes.  Obama could call upon such a constituency, but, unfortunately, the required message must be quite subtle and takes some time to put into place for it to succeed and not alienate others in the broader election.  This is a strategic challenge, which Obama still could rise to meet.  However, Barack had a relatively privileged youth, despite suggestions to the contrary.  This makes him both attractive, and yet it also makes him hard to connect to the various bases of the party.

    Some might read this as an endorsement of Hillary.  I'm not there - at this time.  I like Edwards position on the war better than HC's, and Barack of course was against the war from the beginning.  But, what matters the most is, who will get us out of this war in a reasonable manner and in a manner that allows him or her to accomplish other things with their presidency?  I would like to hope that all of these candidates have it in them to be a successful candidate and, ultimately, President.

    In the interim period, I am still hoping for Al Gore to come into the race, though of course I'm not expecting it with any confidence.  In the current context, I think only Al can energize the nation on a range of issues beyond the war, while still having the inherent credibility to solve the unbelievably complex challenges that have been created by this Administration - to our constitutional order as well as to the international order that all nations require, to some degree, to function.

  •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

    It's just another chance for Edwards to surge forwards.

    Bender: Do you really know what I'm going to do before I do it? God: Yes. Bender: What if I do something else? God: Then I don't know that.

    by LnGrrrR on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 06:47:40 AM PDT

  •  Obama Surrenders to Bush? (0+ / 0-)

    With all due respect to Kos, all I can say about this is that it's nonsense. Obama is just stating the obvious - that this is not a fight that will be won today or tomorrow, but only when we regain the White House. Kos calls it surrender. I call it recognizing and dealing with hard political reality.

  •  We need to finally stand up for the truth (0+ / 0-)

    Obama is out. Clinton is out. I think we should finally stand up for what is right. Who else voted for the war? I see too many here standing up for Edwards when we should be hanging him out to dry as well. He voted for Iraq as well as the other 2. Get smart and lets all get together and vote for Governor Richardson. He worked closely with President Clinton and was NOT in the Congress that sent boys into Iraq. He has been working hard as the Governor of New Mexico. This guy should pull alot of moderates and Republican swing voters in 2008, seeing as he worked for President Clinton.
    STAND UP FOR THE TRUTH! VOTE THE SAME! DON'T FALL FOR THE EDWARDS SMILE!

  •  Kos, you are wrong and you know it. (0+ / 0-)

    Kos, you are an extreme case.  Barack Obama has not caved in to President Bush, nor has he softened his position on Iraq.  Your problem is that if any politician slightly disagrees with you, then you compare them to Republicans.  Also, if a poster on your site slightly disagrees with you, you troll-rate them.

    Barack Obama doesn't have to take orders from you.

  •  My lurking ends, here, with this Kos post (0+ / 0-)

    This post is ridiculous and ends any regard I may have had for opinions expressed by Kos. Not that it matters,I won't come back to this site. And I hope anyone recognizing the motivation here does the same.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site