Senator Obama: I am asking....

I see your candidacy as potentially transformational, and I'd like to get on board.  But I am seeing:  your surrogates complaining that President Clinton's actions in fighting for his wife are unseemly, unfair, underhanded.  And I am hearing: you yourself say that perhaps your supporters won't support our nominee if it isn't you in the end.  And I am thinking: the power of the institutional disadvantages we will face in November far outstrip that of Bill Clinton.  Things will be a hell of a lot less seemly, and a HELL of a lot less fair, come the fall, and then we'll be in dire need of that unity you're always talking about.

I am tired of being told by Russert and Romney and even Reid that the reason things aren't hunky-dory in this country is because people like me just aren't civil or compromising enough.  As if I were the one pushing for quixotic wars and Himalayan budget deficits, as if I were torturing U.S. citizens and poisoning the poor.  Why should I fetishize bipartisanship?  We saw this week what overeagerness to compromise gets us: bad legislation, stripped of any benefits for real-life working Americans.  Should I now confess that it's me that's the problem?  Should I be inspired to change when I see Lieberman backing McCain?    

Hillary's team is portrayed as the most vicious, streetwise group on this block, and it seems to me they are.  But we know that what's going on right now is child's play, and the real game starts later this year.  You speak with power and grace, but I want a candidate that will represent my values - values that are NOT shared by all, no matter what anyone tries to say - with ruthless passion and skill.  So I am asking: can you resist the temptation to trash me and my values?  And can you do what it takes to win?  

•  this is not child's play

  the democratic party, right now, is in a battle between the old guard and the new guard - the Clinton establishment is trying to hang on to their power with every trick they know - they are ripping the entire party apart so that Hillary gets the nomination

  Obama, on the other hand, has carried himself with nothing but dignity and respect for the want of  a new direction

  by flatoutspent on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:21:24 PM PDT

  •  I agree 100%.

    It's like watching someone fight for their very lives (Clintons) and that's just sad.

    Obama doesn't "need" this election.  He thinks the country needs this election, but he does not need it personally.

    I don't think we'll get another chance.  Clinton(s) would be a disaster and thankfully we have Obama who we can vote for, instead of having to vote against Clinton.

    by sick of it all on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:24:41 PM PDT

    •  glad he doesn't "need" it

      What a sacrafice!

      pfffft.

      by Tom P on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:44:02 AM PDT

      •  John Edwards Stands Apart

        He doesn't figure in the calculus of the supporters of the other candidates, many, many of them good people.

        Obama won't do half as well as he needs to in South Carolina. His gay-baiting campaign will live forever as 'the new southern strategy' of folks who like to call themselves 'progressives'.

        I've been moved and inspired by your dignity here, Tom P., and your by common-sense approach to politics.

        I know for a fact I won't be reading 'cigar' jokes and 'so and so is destroying the party' and attacks of that sort from you and the Edwards supporters here.

        You don't scream troll every time someone shows up to criticize Edwards, in part, because he doesn't do much worthy of criticism.

        The race is far from over. I'm looking forward to steady progress towards Feb 5th. John doesn't need to win everything. He just needs to stay in the race long enough to give all the voters a real choice.

        If John is still there at the end, there's a good chance he'll be the next President of the United States.

        The Edwards supporters here are keeping that flame alive.

        We're lucky to have you.

        Many thanks to all the Edwards folks here.

        GOTV in SC and on to Feb 5th!

        by kidneystones on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:25:48 AM PDT

        •  gay baiting campaign?

          can you give the list of specific incidents of this please?

          by TMP on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:45:11 AM PDT

          •  Unhappily, yes. And the

            veracity of my claim can be measured inversely by the complete absence of dough-nuts my accusation won me from Obama Ultras.

            The controversy broke out last fall when Obama added 'reformed homosexual' gospel preacher and singer Donnie McClurkin to his fund-raising tour in the south. LGBT activists were extremely upset. Others saw in the hire a second Dem 'southern strategy', winning votes by pandering to homo-phobic AA bigots.

            Here's Obama apologist spin trying to hose down the controversy before Donnie took the stage.

            Of course, McClurkin didn't just sing. He preached hate for thirty minutes right on cue. Community  outrage after

            Mary-Mary, a group that also 'forgives' homosexuals and lesbians the same way God forgives murderers appeared for Obama on the same tour.

            Obama has done a superb job of rebuilding his 'image' as an advocate for gay and lesbian rights. He went to the Ebeneezer St. Church lectured the AA community about the evils of intolerance.

            Course, he kept every dime of the cash Donnie and Mary-Mary raised. Call it the audacity of cynicism.

            Check the links and google if you want more. It's the seamiest chapter of the campaign. The ultras have shoved it right down the memory hole.

            Nice people.

            by kidneystones on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:20:42 AM PDT

            •  gaybaiting, racebaiting

              I would sincerely like to know if your feelings about Clinton's racebaiting vs the gaybaiting coming out the McClurkin incident. I am asking this not to provoke an argument, or setting someone up for a snark attack rather I want to learn something about your viewpoint.  

              by TMP on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:07:41 AM PDT

      •  Sounds like you're leaking, Tom P. eom

        by sick of it all on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:51:56 AM PDT

  •  Too bad

    they seem to be in about the same place on all the issues.  If they weren't then I might care more about the difference between the "old" and "new guard".

    by cjallen on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:27:35 PM PDT

    •  Not the same place

      when it comes to the war in Iraq.  Nor the coming war with Iran.  

      by Dumbo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:09:05 AM PDT

      •  He's funding the war.

        And he's said some stuff that equivocated enough for me to judge them as essentially the same.

        by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:12:18 AM PDT

        •  Well, I wish he wouldn't fund it, too.

          I wish none of them would fund it.  But almost all of them are.

          But Barack Obama at least gets the most important point: that this war was a dumb piece of shit idea from its inception.  Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, voted for the war authorization.  She has said that if you want her to apologize for her AUMF vote, you can just go vote for somebody else.  That was a real fuck you to all of us that were eager, early last year, for her to finally break with the Bush administration on this war.  

          Her criticisms of the war are few and tepid at best, mostly amounting to criticism of the intelligence that was given her before her vote, and that Bush should have given inspectors more time to find the WMDs.

          That's bullshit.  Even if Saddam had had WMD's, that would not change the fact that it was not in our best interest to get involved in the process of remaking Iraq, not while we had so much unfinished business on our plate with Iraq, and not while Iraq posed no greater threat to us than it had anytime in the past ten years.

          Retired General William S. Odom, the NSA Chief for Ronald Reagan, has called the invasion of Iraq "The worst strategic blunder in the history of the United States."  That's brutal language.  The mistake wasn't the intelligence or the inspectors.  The war was unnecessary from any point of view.

          If we can't get it straight, that the foreign policy of the Bush administration was not just poorly carried out, but TOTALLY WRONG in conception from the beginning, then the next administration will let Bush off the hook.  We need a clean break with Bush and the neocons.

          by Dumbo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:12:37 AM PDT

        •  Edwards

          supported the war. Now he's against it.

          by christine20 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:35:42 AM PDT

          •  And voted accordingly.

            Edwards may have been wrong, but he was consistent with his voting. When he was for something, he voted yes, when he was against something he voted no.

            Obama not so much.

            by GunLovinDem on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:41:25 AM PDT

            •  It is plain stupid

              to say that voting for a war and voting for funding is one and the same. So how has Obama been incosistent?

              by marcoto on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:01:43 AM PDT

              •  My mama taught me if something is wrong.

                You stop doing it.

                by GunLovinDem on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:28:17 AM PDT

                •  so, if you diddn't want a dog

                  and your sister still decided to get one, would you try to make the best out of it or would you try to kill it?

                  This argumentation is stupid.

                  by marcoto on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:34:12 AM PDT

        •  O did not vote to attack Iran, Hill did

          by TMP on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:47:00 AM PDT

  •  No ...

    ... it's not that they're ripping the entire party apart

    They are simply schooling Obama with mildly hardball politics.

    What I need to see from him is that he can beat those tactics.

    by ryan b on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:30:34 PM PDT

    •  he needs to stick to his game plan

      as much as possible, he should ignore attacks. where there are obvious misrepresentations made, he should call them lies & move on.

      by rasbobbo on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:54:18 PM PDT

    •  Asking Obama to Lead

      When you have to ask Obama to show leadership, that says it all.  This is not the time to have a candidate blissfully unaware of the dogfight that lies ahead of us.  We've lost 2 election in a row to an idiot, and we will have to fight like hell in 2008.

      by Athena on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:44:30 AM PDT

    •  And of course

      if everyone thought as you do, the down and dirty would always win,
      and if that is the case this time then, of course, the Clintons will win.

      It's a self fulfilling prophecy. I hope not everyone thinks as you do.

      by kpardue on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:48:41 AM PDT

      •  The down and dirty do always win.

        by GunLovinDem on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:42:15 AM PDT

        •  You are either very young,

          or not in good health.

          I hope it's youth.

          by kpardue on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:11:28 AM PDT

    •  Who's getting schooled?

      I've seen the Clinton's crying and shouting. Sounds to me like what my 6 year old does when he's not winning. And after Obama wins South Carolina he's in a nice position to win even after all the dog whistle race baiting of the last couple weeks by the Clinton campaign. And what's Hillary's next move? Hoping to win a beauty contest in Florida that counts for nothing unless she can force the DNC to back down on stripping their delegates after voters in Michigan chose her because she was the ONLY candidate on the ballot. Smells like desperation.

      Oh, and I don't think Atwater-Rove style attacks should be defended by saying we need to be sure Obama can beat them- Clinton hasn't faced any more tough elections than Obama has but yet we seem to think he needs to be hazed while she's already been through that- I just can't see how Rick Lazio was all that serious of a candidate. To me it would be even worse to keep giving the GOP ammunition and an even bloodier Democrat to run against in November. I think there's plenty of real issues to debate without lying about Obama's original position against the war or his stance on choice.

      by Joe Willy on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:44:43 AM PDT

    •  how do do you fight racebaiting?

      Essentially you are saying no Black candidate can ever make through the primary until racist dog whistles stop working on Dem voters.

      by TMP on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:50:01 AM PDT

•  It ia a hard question for him to answer.

  Since you do not state what your values are.

  by humphrey on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:23:18 PM PDT

  •  ia=is

    by humphrey on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:24:16 PM PDT

  •  And values are one thing...

    the ability to get things done to work toward those values is another.

    It's clear who I think has the best chance at doing that.

    by sick of it all on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:25:44 PM PDT

  •  Well I'm against ...

    ... quixotic wars and Himalayan budget deficits, torturing U.S. citizens and poisoning the poor.

    What I'm FOR is defending, say, the separation of church and state, uncompromised science education, gender equality, etc. etc. etc. without APOLOGIZING for it.

    And I'm in favor of being a bloody pugilist, in political terms, to make those things happen like now.
     

    by ryan b on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:28:24 PM PDT

    •  Me too.

      Everything you said, and as far as tactics, I kind of like some bloody pugilism from my candidate.  As long as it doesn't become racist or self-serving to the detriment of the party.

      The problem with the Clintons though is that they DON'T fight for us!  They fight Obama rather fiercely.  But where the fuck were they in 2002 when Bush wanted to start a war with Iraq?  They jumped on board, both of them, because they figured it was better to not get in the way of a freight train like that, that they needed to keep Hillary "strong" on foreign policy.  So we got this godawful war in Iraq.  

      That's NOT fighting.  That's spinelessness.

      And in case any of us thought that that was just one bad call, she couldn't be dumb enough to do that again, Hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman last October.

      And that's just the tip of a big iceberg.  How many times over the past seven years have the Clintons stood up against Bush for something that was dear to the base?  Try to think of one.

      I'm much more open to the argument that maybe Obama and/or Edwards are spineless too in one way or another.  That's a better argument to make than that Hillary is a big fighter, because she's not.

      by Dumbo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:15:06 AM PDT

      •  Agreed!

        But Hillary IS a fighter, in the sense that she knows how to fight.

        I just want someone who's on the right side of those issues to (a) promote them unapologetically, and (b) be as ruthless and unapologetic as Hillary is capable of being when the time comes.

        Because that will be necessary in the fall.

        Basically I want Russ Feingold.  Since he's not in it, I want Obama (who has an even bigger upside than my man RF) to keep on keeping on being inspiring, but also to start showing some muscle, and not just with snide comments.  

        by ryan b on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:35:31 AM PDT

        •  When did she ever fight Republicans?

          She disappeared from the public eye after 1994.

          She won in 2000 because Rick Lazio was inept and a weak candidate.

          She had even worse opposition in 2006.

          She jumped on the war bandwagon in 2002 and 2003 - "I AM THE SENATOR FROM NEW YOR I WILL NOT PUT MY PEOPLE AT RISK!"

          For that matter, where the hell has Bill been the last 8 years?

          They'll fight for power.  If that means fighting against liberals, they're even happier to do that than fighting Republicans.

          by DelRPCV on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:21:54 AM PDT

    •  Hey good diary.

      It expresses what a lot of us feel here. Thanks for putting it into words well.

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:15:21 AM PDT

      •  YW, and thank you as well

        Probably seems like a vanity diary but it's really concerning me.

        by ryan b on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:40:54 AM PDT

•  Obama needs to bite the head off a chicken

  or something.  That might convince people.

  by auntiebembem on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:24:52 PM PDT

  •  Not around here it won't! :) eom

    by sick of it all on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:26:48 PM PDT

    •  Well if it were a Republican chicken or

      bat, I could be convinced.

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:19:36 AM PDT

      •  Dang! So Ozzy didn't really do it? :( eom

        by sick of it all on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:40:43 AM PDT

  •  No, but it would

    get a gig in the carnival.

    by kpardue on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:51:11 AM PDT

•  He's fighting a creation unlike anything seen in

  primary politics before: the first viable female presidential candidate, a celebrity in the party, aided by a popular ex-president husband who is willing to stick his neck out as an attack dog.

  And he's hanging in there, without so much as breaking a sweat.

  He's tough enough.

  by chicago DEM on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:29:00 PM PDT

  •  Rethugs in the fall will be far worse.

    That's the whole point in the diary.

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:20:32 AM PDT

    •  that's the point of the diary

      but I disagree. What could they throw at him exactly?

      An even more popular FPOTUS serving as attack dog? Reagan is dead, so I guess that's not going to happen.

      The naive and inexperienced line will not work that well after he beats Hillary. Race baiting may work as a backstabbing attack from fellow Democrats, but coming from Republicans, Obama could easily call them out for it and make them look small. His past drug use? Give me a break. Rezko? No meat there and thanks to the Clintons for bringing it up now.

      Unless you can give me examples, I don't see how the GE could get any dirtier than the Democratic primaries.

      by marcoto on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:13:47 AM PDT

      •  Here are your examples.

        Have fun. Don't stop after one page. The gold is in a variety of places. In fact, I've done some research and the RW sites are overflowing with Obama smears, overflowing, so don't delude yourself. They've used the stuff in their media-- the Net, talk radio, Fox TV, but not yet in the mainstream-- holding their fire there until needed.

        The thing is, while the charges are lies or exaggerations, or ridiculous, when they are filtered into the establishment media they will be refined with subtlety, and it will be an avalanche of crap. Worse or as bad as what's done to Hillary, worse I think because the racist aspects will be particularly fierce both overt and subtle.

        by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:09:06 PM PDT

•  People who exercise power ruthlessly do so to

  benefit themselves. People who use their power on behalf of others do so judiciously. You may be expecting something that doesn't seem to exist in human nature.

  by peraspera on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:30:03 PM PDT

•  Obama knows

  that about 70% of americans do not like how bushco ran things. They are pissed. They want change in how our govt is operating. If the right guy comes along that can mobilize that anger toward change, he can get a very compliant congress that will work with him to allow him to continue his life long mission to put into action the best progressive agenda that is achievable. That means he will not be trashing your values as he has a demonstrated progressive legislative record in his 11 years in public office.

  Does he have the fire in the belly to win this thing? I believe so. Like on the bb court he is not an emotional political player...more of a slow burn. I think he would do very well vs an aging McCain or the robotic Romney.

  Clinton is his toughest opponent in this campaign.

  by Hawkjt on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:30:56 PM PDT

  •  The problem is that

    dislike for BushCo does not necessarily equate to a willingness to vote Dem.

    We can hope it does...but there's no solid proof.

    I live in a deeply blue section of a very blue state, and I've been seeing a lot of GOP candidate bumper stickers.

    by kredwyn on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:31:57 AM PDT

•  Bipartisanship

  It should never befetishized.  But it is the keys to the casle.  The framers designed the system that way for a reason.

  The battle narratives that this community likes to indulge in are a dead end.  They place us squarely on the battlefield set out for us by the GOP and can lead only to our marginalization.  In order to win, we must change the paradigm.  We must drain them of their support.

  It seems to me that Obama is the only candidate out there that displays an understanding of this. I wouldn't worry about his ability or willingness to engage.  Look at the position he's put himself into while the blogsphere shouted the same concerns as yours from the sidelines every step of the way.

  by snout on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:31:13 PM PDT

  •  we must change the paradigm

    That is what I mean by "transformational."  But what is not transformational is basically blaming the hippies for the problems we face.  Oh, if only we loonies would agree to just speak more nicely to the warmongers (Joe L., say) then all would be better.

    What WOULD be transformational would be for Obama to change the entire playing field by representing our values as the mainstream.  Thus far, the rhetoric, while expertly delivered, feels depressingly familiar.

    by ryan b on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:36:31 PM PDT

    •  That's not what Obama is trying to say

      when he talks about generational change.

      Hillary Clinton is 60 years old.  Barack Obama is 46.  I am 22.  Most people in my generation don't seem to have as much of a problem with equality for women and racial minorities as preceding generations (though I won't deny that there is still a lot of, perhaps more covert, sexism and racism).  To us, the social movements and struggles of the 1960s are something that we learn about in history class.  It is in the past; done.  While inequality still exists, it is not acceptable in the way it once was.  There is little contention between us over these issues; we are not part of the barrier holding people back.  It is mostly people in the older parts of the population which are resistant to such change.

      Barack Obama says that he'll not fight the battles of the 1960s.  They're over.  And this is no capitulation- we already won those battles.  While, again, there are older people who still oppose equal rights, the hearts and minds of the younger generations have been increasingly won by the 1960s voices for progress.  We aren't excited as the boomers are by references to the 60s, we largely don't care.  That was nearly half a century ago.  We care about the present and the future.  We care about the economy, that there are good jobs for our generation.  We care about global warming and resource depletion, because that is the future we will live most of our lives in.  We don't care about the distant past.  And Barack Obama is playing to that.

      by cjallen on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:39:01 PM PDT

      •  I hate to say it....

        .... but this:

        To us, the social movements and struggles of the 1960s are something that we learn about in history class.  It is in the past; done.  

        is incredibly naive.  We have only to look at disparities in employment, health care, and on and on and on to know that the above is simply false.

        Talk about playing on Republican ground!  "Oh, yeah, well now everyone's equal, so get over it."  Ye gods.

        by ryan b on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:42:49 PM PDT

        •  Yes,

          as I said:

          While inequality still exists, it is not acceptable in the way it once was.

          For us, it's not a debateable issue.  There are still some nuts here and there, and as I also said before, a lot of covert or subconscious racism and sexism (and homophobia), but it is not generally controversial among us.

          by cjallen on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:47:10 PM PDT

          •  Perhaps we're talking past each other ...

            ... but I'm not sure what you mean by "us."  Obama is 46;  I am 32.  There are millions upon millions of Americans younger than either of us (or of you) who are vicious racists, sexists and homophobes, and pop and youth culture are SOAKED in racism, sexism, and homophobia (Fox's newest reality show: Battle of the Bods).

            To take a simple but crushing example:  Read "Lies my teacher told me."

            by ryan b on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:01:25 AM PDT

            •  I know what you mean,

              but I don't think it's true.  I think the "vicious racists, sexists, and homophobes" are there (if anyone doesn't believe that they exist, just watch 'Borat'), but not so numerous.  I think it is generally perceived as unacceptable in my generation to be like that, though.  Remember, you're still a GenXer, and I'm a "millenial".  There are differences.  I think the covert and subconcious racism, sexism, and homophobia are big problems in my generation, but the vicious stuff I just don't see all that much.

              by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:07:46 AM PDT

              •  Obama is older than me ...

                ... which was the original point of the generational change, I believe.

                But be that as it may:  

                subconcious racism, sexism, and homophobia are big problems in my generation, but the vicious stuff I just don't see all that much.

                I'm sure you don't mean that "subconscious" and "vicious" are mutually exclusive.

                by ryan b on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:17:23 AM PDT

                •  No, I mean more overt vicious stuff.

                  And I might have seen that directed towards African Americans perhaps once in my life.  Towards Hispanics its more common.  And Asians somewhat.  There's plenty of misogyny and homophobia in my generation.  I think what I've been trying to say is that few people among my peers, although they may say or do racist/sexist/homophobic things, actually feel that we should deny rights to people because of race, gender, or sexuality.

                  by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:21:20 AM PDT

                  •  Wow.

                    No, I mean more overt vicious stuff. And I might have seen that directed towards African Americans perhaps once in my life.

                    No offense, but did you even happen to catch the news during Hurricane Katrina? (And that's only one example.)

                    by AZnomad on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:35:43 AM PDT

                    •  I mean in

                      MY life.  In my personal experience.

                      by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:38:37 AM PDT

                      •  Hurricane Katrina

                        didn't happen during your life? You said you're 22, so you were 19 or 20 when it happened?

                        Poor African Americans left for dead by their own government. Floating face down, nameless and forgotten, in their own streets in their own neighborhoods.

                        You still have a lot to learn.

                        by AZnomad on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:43:53 AM PDT

                        •  asdf

                          In my personal experience.

                          I live in the NW, I've never been there.  I only saw Katrina on TV.  I was outraged, and still am at the response, but I don't consider it to have been part of my personal experience.  I mean I have only very rarely experienced it in my own interactions with people.

                          Stop getting so upset by me.  I'm not saying racism doesn't exist.  I'm not saying old people should but out of the process.  Perhaps I'm just inarticulate.  Or, I should say I must be, since I've had to explain myself so much.

                          by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:53:20 AM PDT

                          •  As you grow older...

                            you'll realize that your personal experience does, (or should), include outrages not witnessed first hand in your own backyard.

                            I don't live in Darfur, yet I'm outraged by it. It's part of my personal experience as an entity on this earth at this time, regardless of my age.

                            by AZnomad on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:03:43 AM PDT

                            •  Geez give him/her a break

                              by jazzyjay on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:46:54 AM PDT

                    •  Young people

                      didn't create the situation there and would work to fix it. Please, quit trying to score cheap points here and actually listen to what it is being said. There's a huge difference between saying "I" don't see race and understanding that the effects of racism are still present and need to be addressed. There's a difference between saying young people want to move past race and saying they don't give a damn about the people they know are still suffering the effects.

                      by Joe Willy on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:54:10 AM PDT

                  •  I know, I get it...

                    ... it's just that those rights ARE being denied, and not just because some crotchety old racists in their 30's are still, you know, hanging around ;)

                    A lot more of that stuff than we like to think is still happening because we mistakenly believe that the "battles" are "over; done."

                    by ryan b on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:38:01 AM PDT

                    •  We're in complete agreement.

                      As I've now said elsewhere, Barack isn't even my first choice.  This is just how I understand his argument.
                      But where people's rights are violated, I don't think many people my age would agree with it.  The biggest problem, I think, is that trumped-up stories about affirmative action and right-wing talk of "entitlement" has made a lot of people stop listening to stories about rights being violated.  They don't think it happens anymore, and think people are just whining.  But the majority of us wouldn't support it.

                      Well, I guess we'll have to wait thirty years to see what happens when my generation controls things.  I believe that we'll see this kind of discrimination as unacceptable, and that there will be a largely bipartisan rejeciton of it.

                      by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:43:42 AM PDT

                      •  We agree...

                        .... that openly profession of racism/sexism will continue to decline, almost irrevocably.  Ironically this is one thing that I think, on balance, is very positively affected by pop culture, because through simple exposure to different kinds of people, fear is lessened.

                        And of course the ol' Melting Pot is getting ... er, meltier?

                        BUT:  one thing that does concern me is that your generation is much more respectful, even makes themselves subservient to, authority in all its guises, than mine and certainly our parents' (solid polling backs this up).  As such, I am concerned that enormous institutionalized sexism and racism will persist for many decades.  I fear we will fact many more Katrinas, where we observers say "oh, that's just wrong", but no one, you know, DOES anything about it.

                        by ryan b on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:56:39 AM PDT

              •  Agree, I have a

                16 year old, she is really beyond these ID limitations. She is more wordly, open, accepting friends in every racial  and orientation group. Though AA and urban her favorite music is rock.

                by jazzyjay on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:44:29 AM PDT

          •  The comments above demonstrate one thing

            I think the diarest is saying, specifically of Hawkjt and snout.  

            1. 'Fight for progressive values' vs. 'bipartinship'.  

            If the last year should have tought us anything, it is that having 70% voter support doesn't mean squat for moving Rethug legislators.  The Rethugs constitutes strongly and viscerally oppose much of the progressive agenda.  I don't expect the corporations, plutocrats, war-profiteers, tax-raiders, theocrats and fascists to suddenly see the light and stop using the same institutional barriers they have used successfully over the last year.  Thus, at some point these 2 will come into conflict. Look at US history, it always has (see Democrat vs. Whigs, Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Civil Rights movement.)  You will NEVER 'change the paradigm' (or whatever new age b/s words you want to use).  It is firmly rooted in human nature.  What you CAN do is change the NUMBERS of democrats in Congress after this election and 2010.  

            The diariest seems to be asking which of the 2 Obama will choose at that time.  I for one believe he will choose fighting, after the Rethugs slap the hand of bipartinship away, rather than merely wishing and losing re-election.  But, I realize why others might believe differently.

            2. The GE.  

            The idea that the Rethugs and GE will not be tougher is naive at best.  Obama has a sympathetic media now.  They will heel to their corporate masters (and Faux News will be relevant and a player) and become hostile to Obama as they always are to Deomcrats in the GE campaign.  

            The RNC and rightwing 'independent groups' will be flooded by money from Scaiffe and the like, largely enrasing any money advantage if not reversing it.  They always do.  

            The right will not be stopped by squimishness over claims of racism or losing the black vote from attack and whisper campaigns that will make the Clinton attacks look bucolic.  And it will include racism and election/voting chicanery.  Remember Willie Horton?  Remember McCain's black baby?  Remember how they moved voting machines from Democratic to Rethug precincts in Ohio (which is probably why Kerry lost the state)?

            The Rethugs know they can not win either house of Congress and the Presidency is their only hope.  So they will not stop at anything - even inciting assassins - to win it.  Why do you think Barak has the biggest secret service detail?  You think Democrats were sending the death threats?

            Barak will not only have to fight hard, he will need to fight SMART.  And he will need the Clinton machine as a real allie for that. Though I support Obama, I must be honest and say this too worries me.

            And BTW, so stop calling them racists and saying you won't support her if she wins and other things that will alienate them and can't be taken back. You can call their attacks misleading (or even use 'lie', though I wish you'd stop throwing it around like it was nothing) or the like, or call thier surrogates (but not Bill) names.  That they will accept as politics as usual.

            by chrismorgan on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:34:28 AM PDT

            •  What the hell?

              I don't think you are responding to me.  I haven't said anything like what you say I have.  I agree with a lot of what you've said.

              by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:37:40 AM PDT

              •  I said "specifically of Hawkjt and snout". Those

                2 are the comments to which I was referring.  I'm sorry if it was confusing.  I appended it to the last of the sub-comments under those cause rather than 'butt in line'.

                by chrismorgan on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:34:46 AM PDT

        •  Yeah, like stodgy old Constitution

            To us, the social movements and struggles of the 1960s are something that we learn about in history class.  It is in the past; done. (cjallen)

          We have only to look at disparities in employment, health care, and on and on and on to know that the above is simply false. (ryan b)

          One of the struggles of the 1960s/70s was about the Constitution, witness the Nixon power abuses like politicizing the CIA and the FBI (heard that one recently?) How about Nixon's henchmen trashing the 4th amendment by wiretapping their opponents, from which the FISA Act  was born but is now being abused by Bush? Historical memory is invaluable to remind us that racism, misogyny, slavery, tyranny are perennial threats, always here with us, always in need of fending off, like a jungle growing over the path signified by our Constitution, that crusty old piece of parchment from way back there in the past, currently being shredded by Bush/Cheney with acquiescence of some Democrats committed to "bipartisanship." These are all matters of principle and really not suitable for compromise that gives away the store. They are suitable for passionate fighters of fearless intellect as our Founding Fathers were when they fought back tyranny.

          A conditioning over the last few decades has been grinding down the edges of dissent and forcing a conformity to the "center" or "bipartisan unity" so that people like Russ Feingold who most resemble our Founding Fathers can be counted on one hand. This is one reason Bush has been able to gain as much power as he has. It was handed to him. After he's gone how are we going to get it back from the executive branch?

          by wardlow on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:00:39 AM PDT

        •  Naive?

          I'm sure at one time there were people who thought American could never get past it's racism against Irish immigrants. Besides, is it naive to speak reality which is that most younger people really do see a colorblind society even as they understand that there are old institutional and societal issues or racism and sexism that still exist? Frankly, I think young people are farther ahead of the curve and that's not naive, it's a damn good thing. In fact, I'd say young people are also willing to see how GLTB issues deserve to be among those we discuss when sexism and racism come up. I don't think that's naive, I think it's the dream of equality we all want to see become reality.

          by Joe Willy on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:51:18 AM PDT

      •  Move aside you old people.

        We don't care that you fought the tough battles for civil rights and women's rights. Those are in past. Old battles. Discrimination based on race and gender doesn't exist anymore. Those fights are over. So go eat your prunes, play shuffleboard, and move away from the voting booth. Your time is past. So STFU and let us 20-somethings have the candidate we demand. We're Millennials dammit! We're special and unique! We will not be denied!

        by AZnomad on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:09:07 AM PDT

        •  You ignored what I said.

          And Barack isn't even my first choice.

          by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:09:59 AM PDT

          •  Did my post mention Barack?

            Don't think so... but maybe I'm senile.

            by AZnomad on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:15:15 AM PDT

            •  asdf

              So STFU and let us 20-somethings have the candidate we demand. We're Millennials dammit! We're special and unique! We will not be denied!

              Meanwhile my candidate is mostly supported by older folks.  I hardly know anyone my age that supports him.  It seems almost all of the young people around me support Barack.

              by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:18:06 AM PDT

              •  My problem with your post(s)

                is that you're making sweeping generalizations based on age and generation. It isn't bad enough that race and gender are again becoming divisive, but now people like yourself are increasingly injecting age into the debate. Older people are the problem and the hinderance to transfomational change.

                Frankly that's offensive.

                Even I see it and I'm younger than ANY of the candidates.

                by AZnomad on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:28:42 AM PDT

                •  Whatever.

                  I could care less about age.  I vote on economic issues, all else being roughly equal.  That's why I support Edwards, and basically see Hillary and Barack as being the same.  And I agree with my parents more on political issues than with my peers.  Age isn't a big thing with me, believe it or not.  If anything, I like and get along with older people more than those closer to my age.

                  by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:34:57 AM PDT

                  •  Then perhaps you'll think it through a bit more

                    before posting a comment like that in the future. A comment filled with discrimination and stereotypes based on age.

                    by AZnomad on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:38:16 AM PDT

    •  He's not "blaming hippies"

      He's simply refusing to allow the debate to be drawn along the lines of hippies vs straights (for lack of a better demarcation) anymore.  

      Blame doesn't enter into it.

      You want personalvindication for all of those battles.  Obama's not going to give it to you.  He understands that the need to have a vindication moment (and the desire to see the other side castigated) is the enemy.  It kep us on the sameold battleground  One where victory is virtually impossible.

      Time to redraw the lines.

      by snout on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:55:48 PM PDT

      •  Ha!

        That sounds reasonable, but this:

        You want personalvindication for all of those battles

        is off the mark (and I think you're taking 'hippies' too literally).

        What I'm saying is: right now being 'progressive' or 'liberal' or 'not in favor of executing the innocent' is considered a problem for a politician, and that leads to weak policy that hurts the underserved.

        It's well and good to talk about 'redrawing the lines.'  But we do not share the other side's values.  We are NOT in agreement.  I am NOT about to negotiate with people who want my wife declared a second-class citizen because she is (a) an immigrant and (b) not white.

        They are not my friends.  I don't need them "castigated", I need them defeated.

        by ryan b on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:09:57 AM PDT

        •  That's where we differ

          We don't need "them" defeated.  We need their ideas defeated.

          I think it ultimately comes down to Lakoff's ideas about biconceptualism.  Most people who have been voting GOP for years harbor both liberal and conservative instincts.  But while the GOP was busy identifying and exploiting their conservative instincts, we failed to counter.

          Obama's great talent is his ability to speak to the liberal instincts in these people using the language they respond to.  He does not accept their values.  He gets them to realize they already share ours.  

          by snout on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:19:51 AM PDT

          •  Pat Robertson and Tom Delay....

            .... need defeating.  Believe me.

            by ryan b on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:27:48 AM PDT

            •  No

              They need to be marginalized.

              Drain their support and let them foam at the mouth impotently.  Divide and conquer my friend.

              by snout on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:39:55 AM PDT

              •  No they need to be prosecuted. They are criminals

                I say this not out of revenge or anger, but fact.

                These guys are taking your tax money under the faith based programs. Pat Robertson got $500,000 for the PTL Club a couple years ago from the govt. To help the poor? Ha, to put into funding Republicans. It's a huge scandal. There is plenty more. Marginalizing is not enough, they will come right back in power the next time ten times worse as they did with W. Bush. Next time won't be as nice as Bush was, garaunteed. No, they need to be audited, investigated and prosecuted and destroyed, if you still plan to live in some kind of democracy the rest of your life.

                by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:03:26 AM PDT

          •  Paul Hackett was able to do it

            without pissing on liberals:

            With succinct coherence, Hackett said: "I'm pro-choice, I'm pro-gayrights, I'm pro-gun-rights. Call me nuts, but I think they're all based on the same principle and that is we don't need government dictating to us how we live our private lives."

            Asked to define being pro-gayrights, Hackett said anybody who tries to deny homosexuals the same rights, including marriage, as every other citizen is un-American. Are you saying, he was asked, that the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted in November 2004 to constitutionally deny same-sex marriages are un-American?

            "If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American. They've got to accept that. It's absolutely un-American."

            And that was in a much more conservative electorate than Obama has to contend with.

            Can you imagine if a candidate said that?  And won over Republicans and Independents?  Hackett did.

            by zephron on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:29:49 AM PDT

            •  Thing is...

              he wasn't looking for compromise and accommodation.

              He was who he was...and he was running just like that. If you were okay with that, groovy. If not, that's okay too.

              But he didn't come up and call for unity with a call for accommodation.

              Instead he turned around and called POTUS an asshole.

              Met him during that special election...very nice guy. And a very real fighter.

              by kredwyn on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:40:15 AM PDT

            •  Obama's playing on a bigger stage

              And he doesn't "piss on" liberals.  That's some serious hyperbole.

              by snout on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:41:20 AM PDT

              •  Labor unions = special interests.

                He said it.

                by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:44:59 AM PDT

                •  meh

                  Tempest in a teapot.

                  by snout on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:46:27 AM PDT

                  •  I'm from a

                    4th generation union family; it's easier for me to count the number of family members who aren't members or employees of unions than those that are.  To me, that is pretty inexcusable.  I don't think you can be a good Democrat and still say it.  It's something that DLC types used to say back in the 80s.  However, being from a public employee family as well, I find the privatization that Clinton/Gore did in the 90s to be very upsetting.  And so the AFSCME/AFT endorsements are all the more a betrayal, as they should oppose people who support shit like that.

                    by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:58:05 AM PDT

                    •  I've spent most of my life in unions

                      I didn't have any problem with what he said. Not in the context of 527's.  

                      by snout on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:11:20 AM PDT

                •  Wow.

                  Cjallen wins.  I wasn't even going there, but this is true.

                  Not that I won't be backing BO if he wins the nom!

                  by ryan b on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:50:40 AM PDT

                  •  Sorry but that's not a quote from Obama

                    He said that the Edwards 527's are special interests. And since part of the funding of Edwards' 527's came from unions (and part came from other shady sources), his supporters here deliberately changed it into: unions are special interests. Cheap shot, really. Obama has supported unions all his life, this is well documented and will stand up to any attempts to rewrite history and cast Obama as a Reaganite.

                    So no, Cjallen loses.

                    by marcoto on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:19:44 AM PDT

  •  This FISA thing...and the S-CHIP vote

    bi-partisanship quite often looks like "What's mine is mine. And what's yours is mine. Any problems?" on the part of the Republicans.

    Middle ground appears to be locates somewhere on their turf...

    by kredwyn on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:35:48 AM PDT

•  good diary

  by NY Writer on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:33:26 PM PDT

•  thank you for pointing out that Obama is just

  another politican
  that he is contributing in a big way to the politics of division - within his own party!- that everyone is laying solely at the feet of Bill and Hill
  and that is he can't deal eith these minor league primary attacks of Bill Clinton
  how in the world is he going to deal with what might come from the "vast right wing conspiracy" - and it will be coming you can be assured of that
  and for showing that the country is made of people with different beleifs and that at some point you have to stop talking about hope and actually make a controversial decision and push through legislation! is he prepared to do that? or will everything be a kumbaya compromise and the progressive platform will be watered down to republican talking points
  so thanks for that

  by Palladio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:36:03 PM PDT

  •  See my post below

    He has passed legislation in the face of enormous opposition that helped bring true justice to the powerless. As Charles Peters notes in this article, Obama fought and fought and WON, but did so through cajolery and persuasion borne of the rightness of his cause, not through invective, and certainly not through capitulation.

    by sakitume on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:46:36 PM PDT

    •  That is not the issue.

      Passing legislation with Repubs is not the issue.

      Defeating them in an election where they will play 3000x's dirtier than Hillary does is the issue. Either he can do it, or he can't. But to act frustrated with the Clintons isn't going to bring home the win.

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:26:44 AM PDT

•  Wait just 1 more minute ...

  and he'll log on personally here at DKOS and answer your questions for you.

  There are a few diarists who would be happy to channel him for you?

  by Brahman Colorado on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:40:43 PM PDT

•  Obama is not overeager to compromise

  What Obama does is listen to people with respect -- which is different than caving.

  A conservative who worked with him at the Harvard Law Review noted that he was rarely swayed by her team's opinions, but that he always, genuinely listened.

  He is, in fact, the anti-triangulator. He listens to the concerns of those that oppose his progressive agenda, then tries, often successfully, to bring them on board with him. Quite the opposite of capitulating.

  He does this for truly just ends. I urge you to read Judge Him By His Laws, an article Charles Peters wrote for the Washington Post. It demonstrates how hard Obama worked to achieve justice for the voiceless and the invisible, and how he won.

  by sakitume on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:41:08 PM PDT

  •  He does not demand ....

    ... that others listen to ME with respect.  I have no doubt that he is a wildly successful and powerful motivator in a collegial environment.

    What I want to see is for him to wield a (political) cudgel on my behalf when circumstances demand it.

    And hell, I'm not even voiceless OR invisible. He'll need to be much, much more aggressive to get the truly unlucky any kind of consideration at the national level.

    by ryan b on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:46:42 PM PDT

    •  Read the article

      First, the Illinois legislature is not a collegial environment. It's brutal. But Obama got stuff done. Again, read the article -- he was up against the governor, the police, and the Cook County district attorney, and he still won for a truly just cause, at long odds of doing so.

      Did he not also decry a "dumb war, a rash war," when it was unpopular to do so?

      He is hardly trying to sideline progressive voices. I opposed the war; and while I did not know in 2002 who he was, I am glad in retrospect that he stood with me. Every voice was appreciated.

      by sakitume on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:50:47 PM PDT

      •  He gets all credit ...

        ... on the war, to be sure.

        Again, it's about my (our) positions being papered-over for a "we're all one" message.  That is fine as far as it goes, but we need to understand that a rising tide does not lift all boats, we are not all in it together, the other side (there IS another side) would rather see us rot, etc etc.

        I am all in favor of a progressive version of Reagan, and I see in Obama someone who could be that.  But that means speaking progressive language, not Liebergibberish.

        And I have read (Obama has been a known rockstar in our household for many years).  But I do absolutely consider everything he's ever faced, including this primary, as 100% "collegial" in comparison to what he will face in the fall if he gets the nom.

        by ryan b on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:24:26 AM PDT

•  You sound just like my husband.

  We've recently taken sides.  He's going to stick with Edwards but I've decided to "roll the dice" with Obama.  He keeps challenging me to lay out Obama's plans in detail, so I've been coming back to dKos to help my argument.  Neither of us love Hillary but we respect her ability to fight.

  I don't think any of our candidates has trashed anyone's values, though, do you?  What do you mean by that?

  by k2winters on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:43:49 PM PDT

  •  We considering that he's your husband ...

    ... I will, with greatest respect, take that as a complement :)

    I certainly don't feel that my values have been per se 'trashed' by Obama yet.  

    I more feel they've been - to date - kind of papered-over, but that in the general the pressure to trash them will grow and grow.

    What I mean is:  I don't see anyone on the Rep. side of the fence  who isn't screaming from the rooftops about being pro forced pregnancy, pro crazy adventure wars, pro death penalty unscrupulously applied, etc etc.  (save Paul, who is his own special brand of whacked)

    I feel a figure as (again) potentially transformational as Obama could speak as eloquently to our (gasp!) partisan concerns with equal fervor and MUCH greater eloquence.  Change the rules, as it were.

    What I hear instead is the 'we are one people' message, which is pleasant and true at the most basic level, but in practical terms really isn't.

    Because the other side is saying "you're not REAL Americans." And Obama is saying "yes we are, you should let us into the club (and please ignore my crunchier friend.  He's my ride, so ...)"  

    And I'm really not crunchy at all, when it comes down to it.

    Honestly, I'd rather hear that WE are the real Americans and those on the other side better get on board.

    by ryan b on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:54:57 PM PDT

•  Your CONCERN is very touching.

  I'm glad you didn't HIDE it.

  by xynz on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:33:52 AM PDT

  •  Yes, yes, I know ....

    ... anyone who has anything not 1000% positive to say is a troll.  Guilty as charged, I guess.

    You're very CLEVER and SUBTLE about it, though.  Props!

    by ryan b on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:57:44 AM PDT