Skip to main content

I type the title of this diary carefully.  With significant thought.  With hesitation.

I very much want to support Barack Obama.  As I have in the past.  Because the alternative Republican universe is just so much worse.

I recall supporting Ted Kennedy in 1980 against an incumbent President.  A President who would soon lose to a man who wrought tremendous destruction to America.  I still feel that I personally let a damn good Jimmy Carter down, even if he got my vote in the end, to no avail, too late, and pointless.

Hence my current trepidation.

But I wonder how much longer I can tolerate a Democrat who supports the "enemy combatant" policies of George W. Bush.

I am thinking, please give me change Barack Hussein Obama.

The very concept of "enemy combatants" undermines the entire Constitution of the United States of America as well as many long-ratified treaties:

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."

Will the President, really, continue on the path of fascism, as did our beloved George W. Bush?

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

I wonder whether I belong to the Democratic Party anymore?  Am I really a person who has moved to the extreme, not yet defined?  Not Republican, clearly, but also not a part of what I thought was my home -- the Democratic Party?

Is there truly no grounding for justice in America?

Am I alone in my anger?  Is the Democratic Party just another cog in the wheel of fascism?  Is it time to fall to my knees and lick the boots of my corporate masters?  Where is Al Gore when we need him?

I do not know what others may think, but as for me, I cannot condone Barack Obama's administration trampling on settled international law.

For those of like mind, please let your thoughts be known here and in all other diaries addressing the subject.

Remember always:  Sic semper tyrannis!  And let it not be Barack Obama.  That is our prayer!

Originally posted to XOVER on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:55 PM PST.

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

  •  Flame away. (32+ / 0-)

    Because in my confusion perhaps I should be banned from the board for awhile.

    I am not happy.

    To a Democrat, "democracy" means "free elections." To a Republican, "free markets."

    by XOVER on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:01:08 PM PST

  •  You're not alone. (32+ / 0-)

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

    But, I'm not with you.  Afghan POWs in Afghaniston don't qualify for Constitutional protections.  They'll have to settle for the Geneva Conventions.

    Gitmo is its own kettle of fish.

    That's all I shall say.

    "Go well through life"-Me (As far as I know)

    by MTmofo on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:02:00 PM PST

    •  I agree but don't know what to think (18+ / 0-)

      of Lithium Cola's twist on this tonight

      But there is an additional twist. After the Supreme Court's 2004 decision, the Bush administration stopped sending detainees to Guantánamo and instead routed them to Bagram, where they were held and interrogated without judicial scrutiny. Until now.

      This whole thing is so complex, just color me fairly stupid and trying to
      learn.

      Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.... George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796

      by begone on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:33:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  they are not (7+ / 0-)

      "Afghan POWs" . . . that's what's the problem.  And they're not getting the Geneva Conventions either.

    •  oh, this Afghan bs (4+ / 0-)

      watch thisMoyer's journal and then tell us what you think about that decision!

      "Imagine better than the best you know." Neville Goddard.

      by boatsie on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:35:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think 600 prisoners in Afghanistan... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mjshep, Overseas, MTmofo

      ..will more likely be turned over to the Afghanistan government -- when one arises that is competent to handle the task.  There may also be Pakistanis in that number whose cases will be determined by Afghanistan and Pakistan together once both governments are competent.

      There is no reason to get upset over this issue.  The twin Bush clusterfucks President Obama inherited will take some time and a lot of work to untangle.

      Patience is a virtue here.

      •  And Obama had no time to think about this? (0+ / 0-)

        He's been running for two years. He had no plans for when he entered the Oval Office? Suddenly he "discovers" that the Bush/Cheney solution is good enough? How long do we wait? I thought the world couldn't wait during Bush's term, but it can under the Dear Leader.

        Senator Clinton, if you knew then what you know now, would you have married Bill?

        by Miss Orange on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:53:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  being a candidate does not... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bene Gesserit1

          ..grant access to the inner workings of the military or intelligence communities.  His learning curve on January 20th was quite steep.  Bushies refused access to vital information during the transition, for instance.

          The Bush administration refused Congressional oversight for eight years.  They too were in the dark.  

          The remedies for their unlawful behaviors are not just to stop abuses and change direction.  They are tasked with restoring legitimate processes, which means sifting through all the various components of these illegal operations and prosecuting those who abused their authority/positions.

          President Obama is not a political hack.  He has a hell of a mess to wade through to restore legitimate processes upon which our form of governance relies.

          The neocons were not kidding when they declared their mission to be the destruction of our government.  The wreckage they left behind is more than significant.  But we have the blueprints to rebuild that which they destroyed.

          It took more than Bush's eight years to bring us to this point.  Neocons began dismantling oversight under Newt Gingrich with their Contract on America.  They slashed budgets for our regulatory agencies, such as the SEC that would have prevented Americans from getting ripped off by these massive Ponzi schemes; the FCC that would have prevented the concentration of our media into fewer corporate hands, which resulted in our media becoming mere propaganda machines for Bush/Cheney and the neocon messages -- and the list goes on.

          In answer to your question, we wait as long as it takes to get the job done right as if our future depends on it because it does.  Should President Obama strike down legitimate processes in reversing and resolving these issues, we will most certainly be faced with the same set of problems down the line in a more virulent form.  Neocons have cited President Clinton's shortcutting of processes for years as justification for their own.

          I see many encouraging signs every day that President Obama and his administration are turning things around in every sphere.  So it's not about me giving them the benefit of the doubt.  It's about keeping my own expectations in line with what is possible given the tremendous challenges.  And that phrase tremendous challenges trivializes what our nation is truly up against.  

    •  That's all you have thought, too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pascal

      Nice simplistic refusal to question the Dear Leader. "Gitmo is its own kettle of fish"? Deep. And the Afghan "POW"s are civilians -- they are NOT POWs as the Geneva Convention defines them. Every defense Obama is making is an echo of Bush.

      But oh well, if the Dear Leader says it's okay, it's okay.

      Senator Clinton, if you knew then what you know now, would you have married Bill?

      by Miss Orange on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:50:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  principles (0+ / 0-)

    I don't know how you could support him if you can't tolerate this.

    The most mediocre of males feels himself a demigod as compared with women.

    by hhex65 on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:12:53 PM PST

    •  He ran as the anti-war alternative (7+ / 0-)

      What are we getting now?

      •  I'm pretty sure he hasn't started any wars. (5+ / 0-)

        "FORMER President Bush." You can't say that enough.

        by jem286 on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:51:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He hasn't publically committed to ending it (5+ / 0-)

          has he?

          The only reason he won the primaries was because Hillary had voted for the Iraq war, and Barack pledged to end it.  Get at it already Barack!

          •  In Iraq he most certainly has. (9+ / 0-)

            And is doing the best he can in Afghanistan - which is a more complicated and dangerous situation. He clearly has decided to utilize diplomacy to a MUCH greater extent and understands that fighting cannot be the only component of foreign policy.

            "FORMER President Bush." You can't say that enough.

            by jem286 on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:57:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I approve of his job so far... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueoasis, john de herrera

              but I'm not blind.  The polls said that most voters voted for Obama because of the economy but the mainstream media failed to report that they responded that way due to the war in Iraq.  Bush's imperialist mis-adventure won Barack the presidency and it is time that he addressed it.  It is priority number one.

            •  If he's committed to ending the Iraq war... (6+ / 0-)

              ... then why did two Guard units from MN get sent to Iraq this week?  There was quite a lot of publicity about the one unit because the town near where their HQ is located gave them a huge steak dinner and that info was on TV news for a few days.  The other unit didn't get mentioned until earlier this week, but both are going to Iraq this week (or may have already left).

              Just because there's little or no publicity about it doesn't mean the Iraq war crime isn't still being continued as though it was under the BushCo regime.

              Continuing to perpetrate the war crimes Georgie and Dickie, et alia, started is not a good way for Obama to start out his presidency.  He said he was against the Iraq war, that he'd bring the troops home.  So why did two units from my state go to Iraq this week?  Which other state had guard units leave for Iraq and not get much publicity about it?

              As for continuing BushCo regime's extralegal prisons... that's gonna get him in trouble internationally if he does the same things Bush/Cheney did.  Only the Repukes won't forgive him and let him off scot-free like they have Georgie and Dickie.  They'll start screeching impeachment and carry through with it where the Dems were too chickenshite to do so (and they're still too chickenshite to hold war crimes trials and hold Georgie and Dickie accountable after the fact, even the crimes they've already bragged about on video tape).

              (¯`*._(¯`*._(-PROSECUTE-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

              by NonnyO on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:52:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's not that simple (4+ / 0-)

                If I promised to clean the kitchen, it will probably look messier AFTER I've started than before, since I will have introduced cleaning products, a broom, a mop and a pail into the existing mess.

                "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig actually likes it"

                by jedley on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:25:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But if your occupation... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... was that of professional housecleaner, you should have that kitchen spotless and neat as a pin without even breaking a sweat in practically no time if you work efficiently and don't waste time.

                  I expected much more from a constitutional scholar than more of the same Bush policies.  And I expected accountability for the lying war criminals, even though I knew Obama never supported impeachment (which is why I didn't support him and most of the rest of the candidates in the first place, didn't decide to vote for him until Palin was nominated).  It never ever made sense to me that a constitutional scholar didn't support impeachment for what were obviously lying war criminals.  That he'd support and continue Bush policies and bad legislation like FISA (or programs like Bush's faith-based initiatives funding, another unconstitutional piece of shite) has me regretting my vote.

                  Since constitutional scholars are supposed to be experts about constitutional matters, I expected a great deal more 'law and order' and 'following the Constitution' than the others, in spite of my misgivings about his not supporting impeachment (which was my #1 issue since the first WMD lies).

                  (¯`*._(¯`*._(-PROSECUTE-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

                  by NonnyO on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 02:09:05 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't know what to tell you (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Cedwyn, joseph rainmound

                    It doesn't sound like anyone except maybe Ron Paul or Kucinich would have been satisfactory to you.
                    But then of course they're such inept politicians by comparison to Obama that even if they had been elected they wouldn't accomplish in 4 years what Obama has accomplished in a month.
                    The way I see it, the Platonic purity of ideology is like a drawing of a chair, which only becomes a chair by doing lots of unpleasant and messy things that require TIME and very specific SKILLS - cutting down a tree, milling and turning and routering and sanding and varnishing the wood, engineering the chair so that it will function properly, etc. Does that make the logger with a gas-powered chainsaw who killed a tree an environmental criminal? Does the fact that it took 3 months from the felling of the tree to the finished chair make all the people in the chain of production ineffective at their jobs?
                    In the end, you have to decide whether you want the idea of a chair at your desk, or an actual chair.

                    "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig actually likes it"

                    by jedley on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 02:54:30 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Dennis Kucinich.... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      pascal

                      ... was the ONLY Congress Critter who had enough courage to actually DO SOMETHING about impeachment; he filed one impeachment resolution against Cheney, and two impeachment resolutions against Bush (the second one was shorter).  The others just mumbled lame excuses of one sort or another into their metaphorical beards for two years when they could have just as easily used at least a year of that time to initiate and proceed with impeaching both Georgie and Dickie and having a trial in the Senate.

                      When Clinton was impeached, it only took a couple of months and I seem to remember that at the time Congress Critters could walk and chew gum at the same time, so they accomplished other things besides impeachment and Congress did not come to a halt and only handle the impeachment.  All of a sudden, to get rid of lying war criminals our cowardly chickenshite spineless Congress Critters decided they couldn't interrupt the world's longest, most boring prez campaign in our history, and they made it sound like all of DC would come to a grinding halt if they actually abided by their oath to the Constitution and impeached the lying war criminals.

                      I was ready to write in Kucinich's name until that idiot Palin was nominated.  I couldn't take a chance on her getting one old man's heartbeat away from the Oval Office, so I voted for Obama anyway.  I'm mighty tired of voting for "anybody but the Repuke" (I'll never vote for them) and wanted to vote my conscience for a change.  Short of that, I'm prepared to leave the ovals next to all prez candidates blank next election.  I'm tired of not having choices because the only ones publicized are those that media corporations and other corporations favor.  Corporations have entirely too much power in the US.

                      It was only Lamestream Media and certain bloggers who never read Kucinich's web site (his not-for-profit healthcare plan was also better than any currently proposed) who ridiculed Kucinich for being short and having big ears (never mind Obama's are just as big, if not more so) and that kind of ridicule - that of being part of followers of the schoolyard bully [Lamestream Media being the leader this time] picking on the 'different' kid - is supposed to equate to "ineptness" on Kucinich's part as you have written, but if you actually believe that then you've never actually listened to him speak.  If anyone had bothered to listen to the man they would have found out just how intelligent he is and how much common sense he has.  Did you watch him speak when he stood on the floor of the House for over three hours reading off the articles of impeachment against Bush?  He's a powerful orator, and much under-appreciated.  The man has common sense and the courage of his convictions.  It's probably in the C-SPAN archives if you're interested, and I believe it's on You-Tube in several sections.

                      Ditto Mike Gravel... the man who got the Pentagon Papers inserted into the Congressional Record.  Go to YouTube and Google Mike Gravel + Pentagon Papers and listen to him tell the story (I think the tape is something like 16 minutes long?).  Ignore the first few seconds of the tape with Goodman's yakking, then listen to Gravel tell the story of how he acquired the Pentagon Papers and his preparations for a filibuster... I've listened two or three times and I laugh myself silly every time because for a dire situation, he tells a marvelously funny tale about it all.  The man's a national hero who is ignored now, and he also has a great deal of common sense, but no one wanted to listen to him this time around.

                      We do not value the very few politicians who abide by their oaths of office to the Constitution, who have common sense, and who actually try to do what's best for the people who put them in Congress... vs. the run-of-the-mill Congress Critters who take PAC and lobbyist monies from various corporations and special interests and pass legislation according to who paid them money, or whose votes they are trying to "buy" with favorable legislation (or executive orders).

                      (¯`*._(¯`*._(-PROSECUTE-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

                      by NonnyO on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:28:42 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  And if it's a new kitchen (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    NonnyO

                    This professional housecleaner (former) takes time to go through all the shelves and even reorganize some things before finally cleaning up.

                    Have to throw out the bad crap too.

                •  Your glib metaphors about kitchens (0+ / 0-)

                  do not work here. Obama is close to killing the village in order to save it.

                  Senator Clinton, if you knew then what you know now, would you have married Bill?

                  by Miss Orange on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:55:32 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cedwyn, skohayes

                then why did two Guard units from MN get sent to Iraq this week?

                Probably to replace two Guard units that are being rotated out.  Withdrawal will take place over a period of 16 months.  The Army and Marines don't just drop everything and hop on a plane for home.  During the period of planning and executing the draw down we'll still need to replace units that rotate out.

                "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                by Triscula on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 05:02:51 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why not? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  pascal

                  The Army and Marines don't just drop everything and hop on a plane for home.

                  They dropped everything and hopped on a plane to get to Iraq, leaving family and friends behind.  It only took less than six months to get our troops into Iraq, so we should be able to bring them home in the same amount of time.

                  As far as I am concerned, to get our troops out of Iraq in a timely fashion, they should be put on troop transport planes out of Iraq and headed home with daily flights out of there until ALL of our military personnel are back on US soil.  If the US oil corporations want people to guard their f**king oil wells, let them hire private security guards with the record-setting profits they have made off of us for the last eight years.  Guarding oil wells for the private gain of US corporations is not part of the job description for the US military troops.

                  The only reason we're in Iraq now is that the politicians and US oil corporations are waiting on the Iraqi parliament to vote in favor of the US dictated amendments to the Iraqi constitution that gives the US oil corporations most of the profits from current oil wells and all the drilling rights (and therefore, profits) to future oil wells.  That "hydrocarbon law" thing that some Congress Critters have spoken of.

                  It has other terms, too, but that's the one that struck me as the oddest, and Kerry used that term on the floor of the Senate when he was saying we needed to stay in Iraq to help "train" their military and police.  I guess he (and other Congress Critters) don't see the stupidity of that statement.  They're treating full-grown Iraqi citizens like backward children that we have to "train."  They don't remember that Iraq, Iran, and the Fertile Crescent were the Cradle of Civilization, that the Iraqis had a fully-functioning military and police force before the illegal invasion by the US.  It's terribly demeaning to say "we have to train them" and it's condescending as hell not to treat other adults as fully-mature adults who can train their own military and police forces (with no language barrier, even).

                  (¯`*._(¯`*._(-PROSECUTE-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

                  by NonnyO on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 06:51:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Unfortunately, (4+ / 0-)

              I haven't seen anyone come home from Iraq yet, so the jury's still out on that too.

              "[K]now that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." -Barack Obama

              by Battle4Seattle on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:01:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Ha, ha, ha, ha,...hilarious (0+ / 0-)

              He's leaving tens of thousands there permanently along with all the criminal independent contractors who don't belong there either.

              Obama used to be for single payer before he came out against it.

              by formernadervoter on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 06:43:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, he has. (0+ / 0-)

            And he won the primaries for lots of reasons, Clinton's previous position on Iraq being only one of them.

            "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

            by Triscula on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 04:59:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  He's escalated one and continued another (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Situational Lefty

          . . .  by not starting a troop drawdown immediately. So much for the anti-war president we elected.

          Senator Clinton, if you knew then what you know now, would you have married Bill?

          by Miss Orange on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:54:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, he ran (2+ / 0-)

        as the war in Afghanistan alternative. He said many times, to paraphrase, that Iraq was a mistake, and that we should really be whumping the shit out of Afghanistan.

        The choice in the election was about which imperialist war to back.

        We cannot win a war crime - Dancewater, July 27, 2008

        by unclejohn on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 02:25:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

        I don't know where people are getting that idea.  Obama never ran as an "anti-war" candidate.  He stated that he was against "dumb wars" and Iraq in particular.  So far (and it is only a month) he's lived up to his words on Iraq.  We're planning the withdrawal.

        Where were you during the campaign?

        "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

        by Triscula on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 04:58:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  wrong he wasn't anti war (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Situational Lefty

        he was against dumb wars, which means he's just going to be better than Bush at running the empire, and he IS an imperialist.

        Has he mothballed any of the 770 military bases we have worldwide?

        He won't and you know it.

        Obama= more of the same.

        What I have been saying on this site since this neoliberal free trader announced his run after getting corporate approval.

        Obama used to be for single payer before he came out against it.

        by formernadervoter on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 06:42:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Flames Should Be Reserved For The Constitutional (16+ / 0-)

    scholar we have as president who is backing the Bush state secrets and other extra-constitutional abrogation of executive power.

    Thank you for the diary.

    Best,  Terry

  •  Lighten up, Francis. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn

    Everyone chill out -- we got your back, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

    by Lurtz on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:17:02 PM PST

  •  It's been a bad month. This (6+ / 0-)

    ain't the Change we were looking for. Or voted for. By a long shot. Is Gitmo still closing or has he reversed that too?

  •  i think the administration needs to be confronted (9+ / 0-)

    on this issue, not backed away from.
    excellent article by the incomparable jane mayer in this month's new yorker on this question.

    "Michele Bachmann is like the demi glace of wingnuttia." - Chris Hayes, Countdown, 2/18/09

    by rasbobbo on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:43:18 PM PST

  •  I cannot decide what I think. (6+ / 0-)

    I don't have enough information yet to form a cogent thought about it.

    I don't feel comfortable, that much is certain.

  •  thanks for your diary (5+ / 0-)

    nice to know that we are more than sheep, more than boot-lickers. and more than those who think they'll have a place at the table when the shit hits the fan (even if that can somehow be avoided).

    working consciousness to raise consciousness

    by john de herrera on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:49:10 PM PST

  •  This is what Obama meant... (7+ / 0-)

    when he said during the campaign that you would not like some of his decisions...

    Obama - Real Leadership for a Real Change

    by dvogel001 on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:52:17 PM PST

  •  IGNORE THIS TROLL'S DIARY (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deaniac20, stanjz, jennyL
  •  So if our guys (5+ / 0-)

    are in combat in Afghanistan and they capture guys that are tring to kill them, they should be given full US constitutional rights to a trial by their peers?

    When you are in a war, and you capture enemy, they should be given a trial?
    If this started happening, and the enemy that killed their friends were just released to try to kill them...our military would probably just not take prisoners anymore.

    Maybe I am confused...if POW's are treated according to the Geneva Convention, is that wrong?

    •  That's what I don't understand. (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe I'm ignorant with respect to this situation, but I don't necessarily see what is wrong with this decision.

      "FORMER President Bush." You can't say that enough.

      by jem286 on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:58:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  All I know is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mjshep, ms scarlett leadpipe

        that one of my son's best friends was killed a few yards away from him in combat in afghanistan and he wears that young man's bracelet every day some 3 years later. There were others killed and injured in my son's unit..some are still having surgerys.
        There were most definitely people on the other end of those rocket launchers and automatic weapons that were trying to kill my son. When they captured these people, they are supposed to give them US constituitional rights to a trial? In combat?

        I do not get it.

        •  Are you against ..... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buckhorn okie, blueoasis

          .... any level of human rights for "enemy combatants"?

          "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself." - Bakunin

          by gerbilmark on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:12:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You may support the war in Afghanistan (3+ / 0-)

          and I used to support it a little, but the fact remains that it's their country, and they are fighting back against a foreign occupier. That doesn't make saints, that doesn't make them right, but it certainly makes them legitimate soldiers.

          On top of that, there is the fact that so many of the people currently in Gitmo, such as all of the Chinese muslims known as the "wiggers" or something, have no reason to be there, and wouldn't have been wrongly kidnapped and incarcerated if there had been due process and rights had been respected.

          A "centrist" is someone who's neither on the left, nor on the left.

          by nicta on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 02:24:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Er...no (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ms scarlett leadpipe, skohayes

            but the fact remains that it's their country, and they are fighting back against a foreign occupier. That doesn't make saints, that doesn't make them right, but it certainly makes them legitimate soldiers.

             

            The Taliban are trying to reassert themselves in Afghanistan.  That organization isn't Afghani, it was funded and created in Pakistan.  Afghanistan isn't "fighting back against a foreign occupier", the Taliban WERE essentially the foreign occupiers.  

            "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

            by Triscula on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 05:16:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  absolutely correct (0+ / 0-)

            and I'd add:
            U.S. presence in Afghan is illegal.

            Get the fuck out.

            Obama used to be for single payer before he came out against it.

            by formernadervoter on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 06:48:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I get it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn

          My take is that we're better than those animals. You wanna go around killing people, even killers, randomly? Go join a terrorist organization. But if you want to join a do-right, moral organization that gives everyone, even the criminally insane, a fair shake - join America.

          Your son fought to defend just these very principles and we are NOT going to drop them just because some unethical, animalistic fool feels comfortable losing his.

          What if one of those people at the other end of a rocket launcher had Down's syndrome or was otherwise mentally impaired, trained only to shoot a gun? Or what if they were a child?

          Grandted we're hardly perfect - but there is a reason. Don't lose sight of the moral high ground just because the flood is rising.

      •  Then you support Gitmo (0+ / 0-)

        You've fallen through the Looking-Glass. Maybe you should have voted for McCain. At least he was honest about his intention to keep Gitmo open, although he promised he'd stop torturing people. Obama has now left himself an out. Do you realize what I'm saying? McCain would have been better.

        Senator Clinton, if you knew then what you know now, would you have married Bill?

        by Miss Orange on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 08:07:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  What about .... (3+ / 0-)

      .... "Geneva" rights,  or are you a Kossack against those as well?

      "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself." - Bakunin

      by gerbilmark on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:08:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately so far (5+ / 0-)

        Gitmo complies with the Geneva Conventions, per the new DOD, and the prisoners in Bagram have no Constitutional rights as of today.  

        Similarly, the administration has signed off on state secrets, the definition of "enemy combatant", extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation techniques in some cases, plus no prosecutions for torture (per Panetta).

        The President wants to "look forward" and not review the practices of the Bush administration, the Afghan/Pakistan war has escalated and no one's come home from Iraq,

        So . . .

        "[K]now that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." -Barack Obama

        by Battle4Seattle on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:09:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're absolutely right!!!! (6+ / 0-)

          I'm stunned by all of the things you have mentioned. And this persistent backing away from investigating the Bush administration when 62% of the American public want an investigation is very disturbing as well.

          He says he wants to end the Iraq war but I'm not convinced. It looks like the plan is to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. The escalation of the Afghanistan war is another red flag. Counter insurgency experts have concluded that in order to succeed in Afghanistan, the US would have to commit to spending another 10 to 17 years there.

          The cost of the war in Iraq is already estimated at $3 trillion or more. How much more would the US have to borrow from foreign countries (which would further increase our $11 trillion national debt) to remain in Afghanistan for 10 to 17 more years.

          I want to know exactly what the plan is for Afghanistan, how much it's going to cost and where the money is coming from to pay for it. After all, we are a broke nation. We have no savings. We're struggling with a major economic crisis. So how can we afford to spend trillions on war when people in the US are losing their jobs, their homes, their healthcare insurance, and retirement savings, while banks are failing, the stock market is crashing, and the auto industry is going down the tubes.

          I voted for Barack Obama and I'm going to ask questions whenever I have concerns about his policy decisions.  

          •  Your only mistake was thinking Obama=change (0+ / 0-)

            was a con job that was; of course I saw through in the summer of 2004

            Obama used to be for single payer before he came out against it.

            by formernadervoter on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 06:49:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for additional details, e.g. the dollar. (0+ / 0-)

            figures.  Unfortunately, I've read projections of closer to 30 years in Afghanistan.  I guess it depends on what the president's end game is which is unknown at present.  

            It's positive that you plan to hold the president accountable.  No matter how one votes, one needs to hold their representatives accountable.

            "[K]now that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." -Barack Obama

            by Battle4Seattle on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 02:42:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Bush talking points (0+ / 0-)

      To a letter. The Afghan so-called POWs are civilians, many of whom have been captured just for plotting or on suspicion. Same for Gitmo.

      Do you have any opposition to Gitmo whatsoever?

      Senator Clinton, if you knew then what you know now, would you have married Bill?

      by Miss Orange on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 08:05:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am for looking at (0+ / 0-)

        a reasonable middle ground..probably on a case by case basis..if a prisoner was captured in combat shooting at our people or afghan army people..they are a POW with Geneva convention rights with some type of review periodically.
        If they are arrested on suspicion of plotting ect..some kind of due process is in order.

        It is not a black and white situation. It is easy to be against everything Bush did,but when you get into the actual details of each case, it might look a big different. I am against Gitmo but in Afghanistan, with combat still raging, some allowances have to be made for not just turning combatants back to have them kill our guys...

        It is a complicated issue and I think it is hard to generalize without the facts of each case.

  •  Is the Democratic Party just another cog.. (7+ / 1-)

    in the wheel of fascism?  

    Yes.  They've been supporting the wars, the torture, the surveillance for as long as we can remember.  Happy you're making your way to the dark side.

  •  I think we're missing part of the story (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, blueoasis

    I don't think that Obama really supports the enemy combatant theory, and I think there must be really good reasons why Obama, in practice, is taking such an absurd position.

    Maybe he had to take that position to get the stimulus bill through Congress, or maybe he's pretending to take that position because he wants to provoke a federal court decision that will kill the enemy combatant theory.

    Or maybe there's some reason why he really has to continue with his predecessor's argument, even if he hates the argument.

    Another possibility is that Obama has seen intelligence that strongly affects how he sees this issue. I think it would be good to try to figure out how to ask Clinton, who's probably seen a lot of the same intelligence, whether he thinks credible intelligence has affected the way Obama sees the question.

    Regardless: I was never an O head.

    I voted for Obama in the primary, but I was a primary swing voter up till the moment when I voted for him.

    I know beyond question that Obama is a flawed, cocky human being who is not quite as smart, as good or as skilled at speech writing as he thinks he is.

    But I also know that he's a bright, decent, well-meaning guy who's in a terrible situation and stands between us and utter destruction.

    I think we have an obligation to criticize him and oppose him when we think he's wrong on policy arguments, but also, generally, to support him with everything we have, up to our last dying breath.

    If we truly abandon him because we get mad at him over one policy dispute, or a handful of disputes, then we're like a bunch of warrior kings who run away and let Frodo go in to to face Mordred on his own.

    Whatever mistakes Obama makes, either accidentally or through obstinate folly, he does not deserve the journey through hell that he is starting to go through, and we do not deserve what will happen if he loses out to Mordred.

    •  Obama is now the president (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jon Says

      why is he going to voluntarily limit his own powers?  Of those who supported him in '08, who is going to vote/mobilize against him in 2012 if he continues the Bush policy?

      •  Will we have elections in 2012? (0+ / 0-)

        If Obama runs the country well enough that we have national elections in 2012, and most of us have food and shelter, then, in my opinion, that means he will have been a huge success, and I will definitely vote for him.

        Maybe he will lose, because the actions needed to keep civilization as we know it going for 4 more years are likely to be controversial, but his real victory will come from knowing that he kept civilization going for 4 more years.

    •  his reasons don't matter. (7+ / 0-)

      Even if we had some way of knowing what he personally thinks about torture, what he thinks, "deep down, in his heart" are totally irrelevant.

      The only thing that matters is the actions he undertakes in his official capacity. And those actions have been to shield the government from scrutiny and hinder us from getting at the truth about the Bush years--torture, arbitrary detention, etc.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:44:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think I know the problem. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sillycilla

    After reading so many of these Obama disappointed me so now I must hate him diaries , I think I figured it out.

    People are having a hard time knowing the difference between a Republican Position VS a Democratic Position VS The United States of Americas Position.

    There is a difference. While Republicans and Democrats may differ on how we accomplish what our nation needs to accomplish in certain areas , they agree on the fact that we need to hold certain positions on certain issues.

    Like: our allies, our enemies and our global policies in the world. This is where members of each party flip a switch. They assume betrayal of the party when a President reiterates Americas position on these issues as opposed to a Democratic or Republican position.

    It's Americas position and it's not subject to party. It's subject to Americas Constitution.

    "I don't know it all, but I know that what I do know , I know enough of it to know that I know , I know it. Ya know ?" ~ Being In The Know

    by WeBetterWinThisTime on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:00:52 AM PST

  •  Headlining ..... (0+ / 0-)

    .... on BBC radio this morning.

    http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7903005.stm

    "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself." - Bakunin

    by gerbilmark on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:04:21 AM PST

  •  WHY CAN'T OBAMA HAVE DONE (9+ / 0-)

    EVERYTHING THAT I THOUGHT HE SHOULD HAVE DONE BY NOW???

    HE'S NO BETTER THAN BUSH BECAUSE HE HASN'T!!!!

    HE HASN'T CHANGED ANYTHING!!!!  WHY DID I VOTE FOR HIM?!??!?!

    HE MUST BE CONTROLLED BY THE FORCES OF THE STATUS QUO!!!!

    I guess, since we didn't have DailyKos back then, we didn't hear nearly as much skepticism about everything that Clinton or Carter did in their first 30 days (Yes, it's only been a month and a $780 billion stimulus package, Guantanamo Bay closure executive order, and SCHIP signature ago!).

  •  You are not alone in your doubts (5+ / 0-)

    An Afghanistan adventure frightens the fuck out of me - especially for Obama's sake and all that may indeed be possible with his vision for America.  A widening war in the region is anathema.

    "We do not torture." - George Bush (spoken officially on numerous occasions both domestic and abroad)

    by Flippant to the Last on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:26:35 AM PST

  •  Give it time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, thevoice

    I'm not terribly pleased with the direction Obama appears to be heading with this war on terror, spying, and warrantless wiretapping, but I trust that Obama will do try the right thing. He may be laying the legal groundwork and that may make things look unpalatable. Perhaps, I'm being over generous. I don't know, but I'm willing to give President Obama and his administration to put the proper protections in place and follow the rule of law.

    "You know what's more refreshing than having a President who speaks in complete sentences? A President who behaves like a responsible adult."

    by londubh on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:30:47 AM PST

    •  Also we need to hear them (4+ / 0-)

      clarify their stance on the Geneva Convention. If they follow the Geneva Convention and allow full access to the ICRC that would be a step in the right direction.

      So this what we need to hear from the Obama administration. Are they going to follow the Geneva Convention as we are constitutionally bound to do. Unless of course we decide to withdraw from that treaty.

      "You know what's more refreshing than having a President who speaks in complete sentences? A President who behaves like a responsible adult."

      by londubh on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:19:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My uid speaks for me. I'm a sceptic. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "When they ask how I died, tell them: still angry." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:47:26 AM PST

  •  30 days (5+ / 0-)

    I remember during the campaign, people saying that stones would be thrown if Obama didn't get it all done in 30 days. And here we are.  President Obama has a plate fuller than any president since Lincoln, and has minefields we can't even imagine.  He has to walk very carefully to avoid getting us all blown up--or blown down. He didn't expect to have the economy tank. He has moles all over the place.  Who knows what is going on in the CIA, the FBI, the military brass, and wherever else.  He is not making the decisions I want him to make on everything. I want him to go in and kick ass and throw out anyone I disagree with.  But he takes the long view. We saw that in the campaign against Hillary and the one against McCain.

    I suspect for one thing that he will have a different looking cabinet before the end of his term.  There are those who are good at transitions and cleaning up messes, and then those who are good at governing.  They tend not to be the same people. Decisions he makes in the short term are not necessarily going to be long term.
    Give him a year.  See what else he does (and he has already done a lot)

    I know we expect super power, and sometimes he almost seems to have it.  But he doesn't.  Give him a break.

    The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air.

    by Leftleaner on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:50:12 AM PST

  •  You're letting NEDRA PICKLER play you. (5+ / 0-)

    She knows that if she frames her story as "hey look!  Obama = Bush!" your ability to see and think clearly will erode.

    Here's my suggestion.

    Make a list of what's really essential to you.
    No torture.
    No gratuitous wars.
    No systematic effort to deceive the public
    or reinterpret established law that safeguards civil liberties.

    etc.

    Really zero rigorously on defining what matters to you.

    I'm not freaked out when NEDRA PICKLER or DICK CHENEY whispers in our ears that Obama resembles Bush.

    Of course he does.
    They both wear pants.
    They both work/worked at the W.H.
    They've both been CinC during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    They've both had to make decisions about how to manage enemy combatant prisoners at Bagram.

    The real issue is ... how are they different and do those differences sufficiently meet your needs?

    Is Obama torturing prisoners?
    Is Obama creating insane novel legal theories in support of deadly shenanigans?
    Is Obama respectful of international law and normal ways of safeguarding the human rights of prisoners?

    I don't know the answers but I sure as hell don't trust the PICKLER-CHENEY-BACHMAN-KEYES axis of STUPID-AND-EVIL feed me answers.

    "I don't dislike all Republicans--just the disingenuous idiot liars."

    by chicago jeff on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:51:21 AM PST

    •  Yes yes and yes (0+ / 0-)

      Is Obama torturing prisoners?

      He has left himself loopholes for rendition and enhanced interrogation. Why?

      Is Obama creating insane novel legal theories in support of deadly shenanigans?
      Haven't really heard his theories -- so much for transparency.

      Is Obama respectful of international law and normal ways of safeguarding the human rights of prisoners?
      See above. Torture, rendition. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

      Senator Clinton, if you knew then what you know now, would you have married Bill?

      by Miss Orange on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 08:13:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chris Floyd explains the reasons to be skeptical (3+ / 0-)

    … of the new Administration's policies clearly and well.
    http://www.chris-floyd.com/

    The Dutch children's chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the children of the world a happy holiday season!

    by lotlizard on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:11:48 AM PST

  •  I think Obama has to fase out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jennyL

    the Bush ideologies slowly, and not too fast, or he risks alienating many moderate, and giving off the appearance of being "soft" on terror. C'mon, he signed an order to close Guantanamo when he got to office. Once the American people see that the policy is not pro-terrorist as his opponents would paint it, then he'll get going on this "enemy combatant" stuff. Stop being so CONCERNED. Support your President.

  •  Throw 'Bama from the train n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dnta, jennyL
  •  Support Congress's efforts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    to investigate.  As John Nichols of "The Nation" said of the President's position:

    "I will take a look at Senator Leahy's proposal," the president said, "but my general orientation is to say, 'Let's get it right moving forward.'"

    Mr. Nichols went on:

    If Obama was teaching a Constitutional law course, he would have taken a different line. Unfortunately, he has decided to play politics with the matter of executive accountability.

    Leahy should not wait for an O.K. from the White House.

    The establishment of a truth commission -- first advanced by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich as a compromise short of the impeachment that George Bush and Dick Cheney so richly deserved -- is the least that Congress can do to begin taping together a shredded Constitution.

    http://www.alternet.org/...

    Congress might have blown their first chance, holding impeachment hearings, but they have another bite at the apple.  In fact, they could still hold impeachment hearings to strip President Bush, and perhaps other members of his administration, of the right to run for public office.  Also, perhaps, we could strip them of their pensions, healthcare, etc.  

    I'm sure VP Cheney, for one, would sorely miss his subsidized healthcare benefits.

    "[K]now that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." -Barack Obama

    by Battle4Seattle on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:24:55 AM PST

  •  Three simultaneous ....... (0+ / 0-)

    .... USA "prisoner" stories on BBC UK 10 o'clock news!

    "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself." - Bakunin

    by gerbilmark on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 02:03:48 AM PST

  •  Geez, kids grow up! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Triscula, A Man Called Gloom

    The man has been in office 32 days.  Is this a concerted attempt to errode support from the left.  It appears you've been watching way to much msm.

    Is the dog (msm)waging the Tail (daily Kos) or is The tail (daily Kos) waging the Dog (Msm). hummmm just a thought.

  •  Quoting John Wilkes Booth... (0+ / 0-)

    as he murdered our President isn't cool.  I'm sure there's a better way to express your disillusionment then to legitimize a quote from that man.  I'm a little uncomfortable with a criticism of the first black president that quotes Lincoln's assassin.  Maybe I'm just being sensitive.

  •  Concern troll diary. (0+ / 0-)

    Nice attempt to preempt the label, though.

    Yearn for the horizon.

    by Troubadour on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 04:06:08 AM PST

  •  I think this is wrong. (0+ / 0-)

    We need to write to the Obama administration to express out disappointment.

    "Liberals are never so happy as when they are unhappy."--LBJ

    by Micheline on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 04:09:42 AM PST

  •  Jumpin jeebus on a pogo stick (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Triscula

    the guy has been in charge for a frickin month. He has done more good in that time than fuckin Bush (that's what I call him, anyway) did in 8 years.

    Rome wasn't built in a day, and fixing our problems won't happen overnight. The concern some folks show just overwhelms me sometimes. Give the guy at least a year to see where he takes us.

    As per Afghanistan, that place is a real mess, and it will take quite some time to turn things around, but ask yourself this - What is the alternative in Afghanistan? Do you really want to see the Taliban back in control there? Is that the kind of world you want for the women and children over there? Not me, I can tell you that for sure.

    "Remember back when W and the Republicans f'ed up the entire world?"

    by A Man Called Gloom on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 04:28:55 AM PST

    •  What is the alternative to Afghanistan? (0+ / 0-)

      Get out!

      We've been there as long as we've been in Iraq.

      The mission should've been to clear out al Qaeda training camps and capture Osama bin Ladin. These are the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. At least that's a finite goal. And with all of our military superiority we haven't even accomplished that.

      Now we're talking about destroying opium poppies, taking out the Taliban, stabilizing the government, rebuilding the country's infrastructure, providing humanitarian relief, and we're killing more and more Afghan civilians along the way. The mission is meandering into a long term occupation that will cost trillions of dollars and who knows how many innocent lives.

      Look at our economy and ask yourself, "How can we afford these wars? Where is the money coming from? Are we going to borrow even more money from abroad only to make our already massive deficit larger? Do we understand how much these wars are hurting our economy and played a role in bringing our economy down?"

      We need to get the hell out!

  •  Let me see. He's been in office and he hasn't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Triscula

    reversed Bush's policies immediately so now you can no longer support him.

    Please add to your "whine" list that Obama has not done the following things:

    1.  cured cancer or aids
    1.  solved world hunger
    1.  solved world drought
    1.  brought peace to Darfur
    1.  peace to the world
    1.  given me $1 million while bailing out automakers and banks.
    1.  universal healthcare
    1.  given me this weeks lotto numbers (the powerball is over $128 million this week and I need the money)

    Now those are items in which you should be mad with the President about.

  •  Somebody's got to be Frederick Douglass (0+ / 0-)

    Obama has awakened hope for real change. He is, however, a politician who needs to act with caution and make plenty of compromises. In this he is like Lincoln, and we need to be like Frederick Douglass and the abolitionists who never stopped pressuring Lincoln from what the left

    Frederick Douglass had great hopes for Lincoln in 1861. In his writings and speeches Douglass demanded immediate emancipation. Lincoln hesitated. Douglass kept on demanding. Lincoln came up with an Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 but Douglass found flawed. He kept on demanding.

    Douglass would spend the four years of the war challenging the policies of Lincoln in hopes of pushing him towards a definitive immediate emancipation policy.

    Yes, Obama is wrong on a lot of issues, just like Abe Lincoln was, but he is a lot more Lincoln than he is James Buchanan. We have the right to expect the best from Obama and we need to keep on demanding it.

    http://www.library.rochester.edu/...

    The past is not dead. It's just been exported to other countries.

    by Valatius on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 05:20:57 AM PST

  •  I never voted for the guy (0+ / 0-)

    First two sentences out of his mouth at the 2004 DNC and it was obviously to anyone who wasn't bowled over by his star power that this guy was a corporate sell out.

    What took you so long?

    Obama used to be for single payer before he came out against it.

    by formernadervoter on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 06:37:54 AM PST

  •  OH NO... (0+ / 0-)

    He doesn't walk on water.  Jesus Christ.  If you think he was completely "progressive" you weren't paying attention during the campaign.

    If you didn't think he could possibly change his mind on things after seeing classified data related to it, you're completely naive.

    •  Yeah, because "classified data" has to be true... (0+ / 0-)

      Kinda like all that "Intelligence" about WMDs that got us into Iraq.

      Apparently you learned nothing from the last eight years.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site