Obama slams Gore, Kerry in Iowa
By Nicole Belle Monday Dec 31, 2007 8:33amI have a LOT of issues with Ronald Reagan, but his commandment "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill Of Fellow Party Members" is one that the Democrats would do well to take to heart. Not to mention that this kind of circular firing squad is really insulting to those of us (namely, would be voters) who know that framing it this way might make Republicans feel better, but just really is not so reality-based.
Newsday (h/t Taylor Marsh)
In a speech this afternoon in central Iowa, Barack Obama seems to have widened his criticism of the politics of the past to encompass not only Hillary Clinton but John Kerry and Nobel Laureate Al Gore.
Making an argument for his electability, Obama said, "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000," according to a person at the event.
Update: A lot of commenters seem to think that Obama's statement is fine. Absolutely your prerogative to think so; however, from my point of view, it looks like Obama is playing into Republican framing:
1) Gore did not alienate half of the voters in 2000; Gore won the popular vote. The election was given to Bush by the Supreme Court. It is Republican revisionist history that it was a close election when there is evidence of election tampering and extra-constitutional decisions on the part of SCOTUS. Further, how much does it help woo Democratic votes to push a Republican meme and discredit a recent Nobel Peace Prize winner and extremely popular public figure?
2) Kerry did not alienate half of the voters in 2004. More Americans voted for Kerry in 2004 than voted for any other candidate in US history, save for (allegedly) GWB. Again, there is demonstrable evidence of election tampering. Why push the Republican meme that Kerry was just so unlikable? Kerry's problems did not stem with his electability, as evidenced by his votes, but by his unwillingness to challenge the election results.
3) It is ALWAYS a bad idea to serve up a soundbyte to your Republican opponents that reinforces THEIR campaigning. ALWAYS. See Reagan's quote above. No matter who ends up with the Democratic nod (and for every ridiculous conspiracist in the comments, C&L is not endorsing ANY candidate; we have received no compensation from a campaign or group), that quote may haunt the candidate--including if it's Barack, by painting the country as far more divided than we really are. Poll after poll show that there is a substantial approval for a progressive agenda in the country, why not stand for that without detraction?
The nature of caucusing as a primary means that candidates are vying not only for being the top vote getter but also the second choice of others, and if the polling is correct, Obama is pushing this frame to woo the center over progressives. Again, a valid political strategy, but not necessarily one that I agree with. Bill W elaborates:
While the Obama camp has earned itself quite a bit of criticism over the last week or so for running to the right of his counterparts, if the Des Moines Register's latest poll is correct, and although it has a very strong track record its conclusion that nearly 50% of Iowa's Democratic caucus-goers will be independents and republican crossovers has understandably raised some doubts, that strategy may turn out to work for team Obama.
Trying to grab the center may seem surprising for a primary, but maybe not for a caucus like Iowa's. It all depends on a multitude of factors like the weather and whose field operation is better and even then it may come down more to who people's second choice on who to caucus for when their first choice doesn't garner the needed 15% . Who would have ever guessed a couple of months ago it would be this close at this point? The Democratic Party process for the Iowa caucus is quite complicated but it does have a history for picking the eventual presidential nominee. We'll all be watching to see how it plays out this time.
Login or Register to post comments.
Trying to cater to the Broderites isn't cool
Grow Up! All of you guys on the lefty blogs are imploding, trashing Obama at every turn. This is going to make it all the more difficult for you to eat your words when you start supporting Obama as the nominee.
Besides, he's right. Is there anything wrong with what he said? No, both Gore and Kerry started off with high negatives.
It takes balls to criticize a man who would beat you like a red-headed step-child if he entered the race.
Gore is enormously popular and Obama has nothing to gain by slamming him. The knee-jerk Gore/Clinton haters ain't voting for Obama anyway.
Sorry, Nicole. He's 100% right. If we want to win this election, we can't alienate 50% of the population.
Paul @ 2:
Thank you for your concern
REAlly....H/t TAylor Marsh???
What the biggest HillShill on the net, who exaggerates EVERYTHING Obama says.
He is not perfect, but it is interesting you get that he is slaming Al Gore from that article, I get that he is just saying like it was, ther are such things as FACTS by the way!
How is that statement slamming anyone?
Josh @ 4:
There are about 30-35% of voters who are going to vote for the GOP candidate, even if they nominate Osama Bin Laden.
These are the same people who think G-Dub is doing a wonderful job.
And please explain exactly how Gore alienated 50% of the electorate? Or Kerry? The only thing they did was be Democrats.
If Obama Democrats think they can attract Republicans by being reasonable then they have not taken in the way Republicans in Congress behaved during the last session. If Obama wants to diss Gore and Kerry then don't complain when they don't go on the trail during the campaign. Obamites are getting a bit too sure of themselves. Cockiness is great, but it will not help with Republicans.
I don't see anything wrong with these comments. I voted for gore and kerry and I was disappointed in both the personalities of those candidates and how they ran their campaign. They were outsmarted and outplayed by Republicans...and they often took the hits on the floor and not fighting back. Kinda like today's Democratic Congress.
I'm glad Barack is saying he won't be like THAT type of Democrat.
Tarro @ 7:
Well If Taylor mars say it IT MUST BE TRUE.
She has been proven to be a Clinton DLC operative !
Seems to me it's smart politics for Obama to recognize that many Independents, whom he'll need to court in the General Election, are a little skittish of the Far Left and that they are already paying attention now to the candidates.
It amazes me how, at this point in every election, candidates have to broaden their base. And yet, without fail, commentators in the right or left wing choose to take umbrage at it.
Too, there is something a little ironic about complaining about a "circular firing squad" while criticizing a Dem candidate for trying to broaden his message to include sympathetic Independents.
The Democrats bashing each other and their own party is giving the republicans lots of time to conspire. Hey, having a divided opposition is what the republicans want and the Democrats seem to be doing the work for them at every turn. If the Democrats lose this year on all levels (and we find the elections weren't stolen), then I will blame them and the members across the nation who have rallied for months now that they hate the Democrats (based soley on Nancy & Harry no less!) and who have stated over and over that they see no difference in them compared to the republicans. Hey, you rallied yourself to a big loss as far as I'm concerned!
[end rant]
He did not slam one single person. Come on...he was being honest about a situation.
You are trying to make something out of nothing.
he is right on
I HATE kerry and gore!!!!
gore totally caved in 2000...and therefore is in effect partly responsible for bush killing hundreds of thousands of people.
kerry was and is a joke...a sad joke
as crappy as edwards is...he is our best bet
obama is ok, i just don't want to see his brains splattered all over pennsylvania avenue
The more he talks, the less I like him.....................
Ah I see. So it's a lie that the country was divided in 2000 and 2004?
You're grasping here I think.
How do you get from 'Barack Obama seems* to have widened his criticism of the politics of the past to encompass not only Hillary Clinton but John Kerry and Nobel Laureate Al Gore.' to 'Obama slams Gore, Kerry in Iowa'?
Maybe he wasn't criticizing them as people but the way that they handled their campaigns.
I have been struck by this site's willingness to (mis)interpret Obama's actions and statements and use them to paint him as Republican lite yet Clinton seems to get a pass. They are both closer to the center than the left but Clinton's ties to corporate America scare me just a little more.
*emphasis mine
i have to say more.....
i am sorry but i wish you guys could come to myu old home town and talk to the "real" americans i grew up with.
you could explain obamas platform and they would go "ya ..uhuh..i like that"
then you say he's african american and they say..."you mean he's a fucking n______?"
"we need to send all thiose people back to africa"!!!
i don't think you guys realize the HEAVY HARDCORE racism in this country
to even consider obama as a democratic candidate insure one of 2 outcomes...
1. the dems lose to huckabee
2. obama is assassinated...and a muslim is convicted of his murder
which do you want?
This is an example of the uniquely human ability to find patterns or justification or reason in anything if we look hard enough. It's a pretty unexciting and uninteresting sentences lifted from the middle of a campaign speech, lacking anything new, and certainly lacking context.
myiq2xu @ 3:
Just how is the above quote slamming Gore? I voted for Gore and think he would have been a fantastic President, would have saved us a lot of heartache. The fact is that the extremely divisive nature of politics in this country has undermined the entire electoral process. It is true the the Republicans are primarily responsible for that atmosphere but, as Democrats, we have to rise above this or we justify their behavior.
Barak can say whatever he wants. The fact remains that he is un-electable in 2008.
myiq2xu @ 8:
Nah, he's too moderate.
After watching the cover up of Bhutto's death by the Pakistani government and knowing that George Bush loves Musharraf, I see the Democratic candidate in 2008 being gunned down no matter who it is. The fascists want to stay in power, people! They won't give up without bloodshed. Sad.
some slam....sounds more like you wanna do the slammin'.
Nice crappy headline.
First of all this wasn't and "attack" and he wasn't speaking negatively. It was factual. Gore lived with the fallout from Clinton and Kerry was just not a likable person.
This was not a comment "slamming" Gore and Kerry. Liberal bloggers have to stop drinking the Edwards Kool-Aid.
I, too, am tired of the Obama-trashing at progressive blogs. Every time Obama makes a comment that is at all at odds with what "progressives are supposed to think," the bloggers jump all over him. We who read and appreciate progressive blogs do have different opinions, you know. And you blame "the Villagers" for thinking with one mind...
There's no way Edwards can win. 50% of the country say they won't vote for Clinton. And yes, Gore and Kerry ran TERRIBLE campaigns in 2000 and 2004, and had high negatives.
Obama is our best hope in 2008.
Looks like he's had his fill of the koolaid and is ready to join the rest of them in the stupidity. Congrats bambam, you're a big boy now. Not that you impress any of US, but I'm sure the money people you're trying to make happy were tickled pink.
I think he's probably doing his best to end up the choice for VP knowing that he hasn't got a prayer for the presidency.
Because it's much better to go into the next election with the red state half the country not willing to vote for a black person.
sounds like he doesn't care about anyone except winning.
All that was wrong with Kerry was he was stiff as a board: he was a great military hero who spoke out about the atrocities of Vietnam. And AL gore was stiff too and he came from a politician father.
Johnny Foreigner @ 18:
It is not just this site, but most of the major blogs. I hope they know what they are doing by h/ting the likes of Taylor Marsh et al.
They may be undoing all of the great things they have done for the progressive movement. They have a right to say what they want but they really need to more open about people like Taylor Marsh and her ilk and who they really work for!!!!
Paul @ 2:
There's everything wrong with he said. Gore won in 2000 and was deprived of the WH by Republican corruption and EVERYBODY knows that. Kerry make some mistakes, but no more than Obama has made, and there's very substantial evidence that Kerry won in 2004--first time in history John Zogby's prediction failed and then all the corruption in OH showed up.
The biggest negative on the Democratic side is that they haven't hung together. The Democratic Party hurt Al Gore in 2000 because, even though Clinton was the most popular president in decades (Monica debacle notwithstanding) the party refused to run on Clinton's record and they forced Al to put that putz Lieberman on the ticket. The Party thought Lieberman was "moral" because he was an orthodox Jew. Had nothing to do with Al Gore's electability.
Actually, the big problems Gore had in 2000 all stemmed from his advisor (Donna Brazile) making him imitate Republicans whenever a controversy arose, now Obama's out there aping Republicans--that's what's wrong.
The Democrats are not in control of the country because they always eat their own instead of hanging tough together, i.e. Jimmy Carter. I've said all along, Obama is more Republican-lite than Hillary.
Pay attention to politics if you're going to vote.
Shared Humanity @ 21:
So, how is criticizing your own party to sell out to the Republicans "rising above it?"
Ruthless People @ 30:
So, from this statement, I must assume that you consider his choice to be black a political liability. If only someone had mentored him as a young man, he could have instead chosen to be English or Scottish, even Irish would have been an improvement. (Don't get me started about the Italians!)
But now, having made this very personal choice, he should have the decency to step down and withdraw from the race.
JTM @ 342:
JTM, I would advise you to go to the Raw Story link and see that he was not talking about entering the race solely. Further, it's your prerogative to choose not to see this as a slam. I did, and I wasn't the only one, so I don't think I'm coming out of left field on this.
The material point, which you ignore--willfully or not--is that Obama is pushing Republican framing. I object to this. You don't. So be it. But don't make this personal about digging myself in a hole. I stand by my statement and leave the thread for others to debate.
I am an AFRICAN AMERICAN (preferably BLACK) female and OBAMA and his crowd lost me months ago - when I heard him compliment REAGAN. I don't know where he was during the REAGAN era, but I was trying to take care of my elderly parents and everything REAGAN (admirer of OBAMA) did was contrary to that. If this person (OBAMA) is what he says he is - I DON'T BELIEVE. I am sure he would have been against King, Jr - just as Reagan and his crowd was. To my FELLOW Blacks, beware - listen to what he says and have said over the years, Blacks sold other Blacks into slavery also. Just listen and don't be swayed to easily - do your home work. I HEARD THIS MAN (OBAMA) PRAISE REAGAN.
Weekend Edition
November 4 / 5, 2006
The Democrats Rising Star
The Obama Myth
By LEE SUSTAR
In Latin America, they've got a name for the kind of politics that Sen. Barack Obama represents: neoliberalism with a human face. It's an attempt to revive an unpopular free-market, pro-business agenda behind the leadership of someone whose personal history suggests an affinity with the exploited and oppressed.
Obama, who was elected senator from Illinois in 2004 and is now perhaps the most prominent African American politician in the U.S., is angling to play a similar role in the U.S. as he weighs a possible run for the presidency in 2008. Consider the junior senator from Illinois' own words in his new book The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Early on, the reader learns that Obama shrugged off his college radicalism during the Ronald Reagan administration. "My friends and I stopped thinking and slipped into cant: the point at which the denunciations of capitalism or American imperialism came too easily," writes the man who declared on the eve of the 2004 elections that he would be willing to support the bombing of Iran.
Elsewhere, Obama offers a caricature of the left's views in order to assert his own supposed realism. "I would find myself in the curious position of defending aspects of Reagan's worldview," he writes. "I couldn't be persuaded that U.S. multinationals and international terms of trade were single-handedly responsible for poverty around the world; nobody forced corrupt leaders in Third World countries to steal from their people."
Obama's career, however, like that of any successful mainstream politician, is characterized by cold ambition and ruthless opportunism--qualities on full display when Obama challenged incumbent U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush in the 2000 election.
Rush, a former leading member of the Black Panther Party, had once been a rising star in Democratic politics and was a key operative in Bill Clinton's efforts to turn out the Black vote in the 1992 elections. But after a disastrous failed challenge to incumbent Richard M. Daley in the 1999 Chicago mayoral elections, Rush was damaged goods. Obama, by then a law professor at the University of Chicago and an Illinois state senator, moved in for the kill. While his campaign platform generally resembled Rush's own liberal positions, Obama positioned himself as a can-do pragmatist who could deliver more than Rush, the old radical. "Part of what we are talking about is a transition from a politics of protest to a politics of progress," Obama said then. Rush ultimately crushed Obama by a 2-to-1 margin. But Obama had raised his political profile, picking up several major endorsements, including that of the Chicago Tribune...
Read the entire article @:
http://www.counterpunch.org/sustar11042006.html
every democratic candidate likely has and definitely would praise reagan in a heartbeat, were they being interviewed...
they're all politicians....
Each and every one was probably at the funeral, paying their respects...
but we've got to pick one. and to suggest that this is disqualifying behavior is to suggest that no democrat is qualified...
centavo @ 22:
People keep saying this, but practically every news story I read about Obama quotes some long-time Republican voter saying something like "normally I wouldn't vote for a Democrat, but that Obama guy seems pretty good". So it seems to me that Obama is very electable -- he can rely on the Democratic voters as well as some Republicans. Compare with, say, Hillary, who can rely on most Democratic voters but almost no Republicans.
Nicole Belle @ 361:
Nicole is not only correct 100%, but she is not even as critical of Obama as those who write for www.blackagendareport.com and www.counterpunch.org/ are in giving boldly honest critiques of Mr. Barack Obama and the fraud he is. Go to www.counterpunch.org/ and put "Barack Obama" into their search section and read who Barack Obama really is. After reading those articles, what Nicole Belle offered about Obama is quite tame, in comparison.
I agree with everything Nicole Belle has said about Mr. Obama and I can offer articles and other citations to show what a fraud and phony this U.S. Senator from Illinois is.
frenchfries @ 336:
Clinton? Um, I don't think you've listened to any of Edwards' speeches have you? To say "he doesn't agree with her" is the very nicest way I could put that. You don't accept the VP nod from someone that you view as "part of the problem"! Good thing Edwards will win anyway.
Heck, he could barely stand that jerk and liar Kerry (with good reason we now know).
But poor Obama. He's a business conservative centrist. There's nothing wrong with that, but these shameful desperate tactics are not good (though, again, I'm more disturbed that he just stabbed the unions in the back after supposedly working for their endorsement). If he keeps this up he'll never be a supreme court justice. Or maybe he'll still get the justice job but just continue to get angrier and angrier... hmm... reminds me of someone...
In a perfect world, Barack would be a moderate Republican along with Hillary, and Edwards, Kucinich, and (the new) Gore would be Democrats. Wait, some of that is already true!
Hpw can anyone who rises in the Chicago political machine like Obama claim to be the Mother Teresa of politics? He is dividing families since he thinks anyone born before 1960 unless of course they back him and tour with him are too stuck in the past to be able to handle the present and the future. Obama is more talk than action unless you count being" present" as a vote.
Callimaco @ 369:
It is about time that this fraud of Barack Obama is exposed once and for all. This idiot trashes people like Bobby Rush of the Black Panther Party and also slams people like Ted Kennedy while endorsing the likes of Joe Lieberman.
Barack Obama is a fraud and not one to be given the presidency of the United States. Even Hillary Clinton is more trustworthy than Barack "Fraud" Obama.
mr xxx
you are merely an anarchist...they're all frauds, they're all crooks, etc etc...
who do you suggest doesn't fit this bill? clinton?
you think all these arguments you make about obama, can't be made about clinton? about edwards?
so what, are we to hope that bloomberg runs? or nader?
or do you hope that the repubs win yet again, and push the country closer to anarchy.....
johnsturgeon @ 362:
If you were being intellectually honest you would have cited the FULL RS quote:
(my emphases)
Think real hard, johnsturgeon, who was the candidate in 2000 and 2004 respectively? Does he need use their names for you to know to whom he was referring?
I used the Raw Story link not to refer back to me (thanks so much for the benefit of the doubt), but to give a compilation of other blogs rather than link them individually. I have no editorial control at RS, Kos or Digby, so their use of language should tell you that I'm not alone in seeing this as a criticism of Kerry and Gore. And as I told JTM above, you appear to completely miss the point that Obama is pushing Republican framing, which I believe (and will not apologize for) is a mistake.
You're free to disagree with the way that I saw this. But I offer no apology or retraction.
lopaloo102 @ 365:
The thing you can't seem to bear, loopaloo, is that many of us have picked one and it's not Obama. Several people here have answered you with some very decent facts as to why Obama is not their first choice. You, instead, responded to an Edwards supporter by repeating inflammatory, unfounded talking points. I'm beginning to think you're a tool and you are not helping to make a case for your candidate.
to Nicolle
i remember a post where somebody suggested Gore didn't chose Lieberman, but the party did....so obama might have been speaking in a similar fashion-- referring to the party machine, not the particular candidates.
Why shouldn't Nicole bring this continual behavior pattern of Barack Obama out in the open? Obama should not get any free passes.
Barack Obama did similar things when he ran against Bobby Rush and has been muddling around the center for a long time now while exploiting the civil rights movement of the 1960s, while, at the same time allowing big corporations and corporate lawyers a free hand to dismantle most of the gains made in the 1960s. Obama now has a proven pattern of attacking fellow Democrats and their stands on honorable issues in order to attract the center-right crowd. His embrace of a very hostile anti-gay preacher McClurkin was an attempt to woo very conservative black voters in South Carolina. Obama thinks nothing of divide and conquer any less than George W. Bush or Joe Lieberman does.
[Deleted. Off topic]
lopaloo102 @ 376:
Not the party, but (elements within) the DLC, which Gore belonged to.
I really think we can get someone in the white house who is a true progressive, like Edwards.
Obama supported lieberman, will not take nuclear war with iran off the table, and thinks that nuclear energy needs to be part of the solution to climate change. His second largest single source of campaign funds is Exelon, who is a nuclear industry leader. The guy is a hippocrit and not the progressive we need in the whitehouse. People so easily look past the fact that Edwards is self made from humble beginnings - people accuse him of not having a history of populism yet he has been a favorite of the unions for years. Friends of the Earth has endorsed him too, citing his commitment to renewables investment instead of new nuclear investment.
Nonfactor @ 370:
Apparently some people can't have it said enough times. We're not endorsing any candidate. I have no agenda other than a progressive one. I object to Obama pushing Republican framing, and so stay with me here, this is a post about the TACTICS used, not the CANDIDATE as a whole.
Further, I'm not running for anything. I blog on a political opinion blog, so I'm actually supposed to give my...you know...political opinion. I stand by the statement that Democratic contenders should not actually give their Republican counterpoints the soundbytes that undermine the Democratic party.
in your own words....
John Edwards did similar things when running against Kerry in 04, and has been muddling around the center for a long time now while exploiting the civil rights movement of the 1960s, while, at the same time allowing big corporations and corporate lawyers a free hand to dismantle most of the gains made in the 1960s...all this notwithstanding the more left-leaning qualities of his rhetoric.
Edwards now has a proven pattern of attacking fellow Democrats and their stands on honorable issues in order to attract the center-right crowd (iraq vote). He has not embraced any anonymous nutjobs either in an effort to woo voters or an honest mistake. Edwards thinks nothing of divide and conquer any less than George W. Bush or Joe Lieberman does.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E3D7163FF932A35750C0A...
June 14, 2007
A Knife in Our Hearts
Obama's Siren Song
By GLEN FORD
Barack Obama is the antithesis of Black Power, a man who promises with every word he speaks, with every nuance of phrase and body language, and through his voting record as a U.S. Senator, that he personifies the definitive end of Black organized struggle in the United States - a unilateral surrender to white racism. This is his appeal to the white masses: that they will no longer be challenged to confront history, or to relinquish privilege in the present...
One of his first votes was to transfer most class action suits to federal courts, where multi-billion-dollar companies found guilty of race, gender or general employee abuse are fined the equivalent of the millionaire CEO's latest weekend at the casinos in Monaco. In the process of taking class action suits out of state courts, where the penalties to offending corporations have historically been much harsher, Obama voted against an amendment to put a cap of 30 percent on credit card debt charges. A fraction of that multi-billion dollar gift to the most unproductive sector of the economy wound up in his campaign coffers...
The alienated man from Kansas, Hawaii, Indonesia and Harvard has not skipped a beat in his pursuit of Power Approval. He stood down while only California Senator Barbara Boxer stood up to challenge the theft of Black voting rights in the 2004 election. He coddled American Manifest Destiny queen Condoleezza Rice and Bush Supreme Court nominees, while doing nothing - absolutely nothing - to materially aid Katrina victims. He has stuck like Crazy Glue to positions on the Iraq war and health care that are practically indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton's - and in no way threaten the military-industrial complex or health care-insurance industries. Obama vows to add 100,000 more troops to the U.S. aggression and occupation force, to be deployed...wherever his masters want them to go.ObamaLaughingInOurFaces
We at Black Agenda Report are not immune to the illness. While our team was operating out of Black Commentator, in 2003, Bruce Dixon and I discovered that Obama was listed as a member of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the corporate-funded rightwing of the party, created by white southern Democrats (Bill Clinton, Al Gore) for the purpose of blunting Black and labor influence in the party's affairs. Obama was at the time a national nobody, not ranked as a front-runner in the Illinois senatorial primary. We called him on his alleged affiliation with the DLC, which was posted for all to see. He claimed to know nothing about it - a transparent lie. But we gave the "brother" a pass, and engaged him in a dialogue.
Read the entire article @:
http://www.counterpunch.org/ford06132007.html
This post/article is dedicated to both Nicole Belle and all of her critics here at Crooks and Liars!!!
Nicole Belle @ 382:
No need to explain any further Nicole.
Nicole--I have a friendly suggestion. Perhaps, C&L could get Glen Ford or Bruce Dixon from www.blackagendareport.com/ to guest blog once in a while, regarding, the Obama campaign since they have been following his career as journalists for so long now. Both Ford and Dixon know an awful lot about Obama and much more than those whom have been criticizing your very astute criticism of Obama here today.
If you do not get either Dixon or Ford to guest blog here, at C&L, perhaps, you could link to their articles at www.blackagendareport.com/ and/or www.counterpunch.org/
derrick @ 383:
Great.
Soundz like the sequel to "Brother From Another Planet"
We're doomed.
Paul in LA @ 347:
That's incorrect. The bills to reverse the habeus changes, for instance, will probably pass the House in a few months, and will pass both Houses next year.
Yeah. I'll probably win the lottery next year too.
A year into Democratic control of Congress, and you're talking about "probably" restoring habeus corpus "in a few months." Pretty unbelievable. Obviously a high priority on the list of these corporatist fucks. These are the same bastards who fall all over themselves to authorize the unPatriotic Act every goddamn time. Besides, one Republican just has to whisper the word "filibuster" on the habeus bill and Harry Reid will wet himself while apologizing for even allowing it to come up.
Pilot @ 276:
Either you are being facetious or you have a very bad memory. Besides, keep the DLC garbage out of here....
Many of us Liberals view Bill Clinton as one of the worst Democratic Presidents ever. Look at Clinton's record and it is evident that he was more corporate friendly than most Republicans. Gore is better served spreading the message and Kerry is just more of the same.
Republicans admit their greed and run their platform as such....Democrats just outright lie to you. Why is Kucinich and Ron Paul so popular as compared to any other candidates?
I disagree with this. The problems Obama was concerning himself with were not related to how the Democrats dealt with an extremely close election. He was talking about the problems that led to those elections being close anyway. Democrats have manacled themselves for years by ceding 150 electoral votes to the Republicans out of hand. That's no way to win, and its part of the reason Bush was able to squeak through in 2000 and 2004. Howard Dean understood this and that's why the party shook the dust off of its offices and challenged the Republicans in places like Texas and Georgia.
Looking back at 2000, the worst problem the Democrats have is the number of people who blame Ralph Nader voters for Gore's loss. If you want to woo those people back to the party, don't for the love of God spend eight years blaming them over and over for everything George W. Bush has done. Incorporate Nader's agenda into the Democratic platform and make sure people hear about it.
In 2004, Kerry missed a chance to realign the entire country when Bush stupidly put gay marriage on the table a month before the election. All of the Republicans' major constituencies may not have been strongly in favour of gays being married, but they were definitely opposed to a federal ban. Even evangelical Christians could have been mobilized against Bush on that score. To make his amendment stick, Bush would have had to ban churches from conducting marriages unless the government approved of the union, and barred them from deviating from what the federal government decreed to be "Christian values".
Kerry would have won in a landslide if he had framed the marriage issue the way he should have, but he and Edwards both played up to the "wishy-washy liberal" stereotype and ducked the vote. To this day I don't think many Democrats understand that this is the biggest reason they lost. If Obama is thinking about framing issues in a way that will make even traditional Republican voters think about voting Democratic, then he's showing that he's getting there.
just have to pile on some more on this issue.
whether or not Obama's statement is "fine" is still not the main complaint that, let's say, 'truth fans' want to make here. an non-Obama supporter would have the same basic complaint, which is the nasty, unsupported headline you couple with the post. "Obama slams Gore, Kerry in Iowa". that headline is your problem, because Obama did not in fact "slam" either Gore or Kerry. he made a factually correct statement that for whatever reasons, the public became nearly 50/50 polarized around the candidates, and Obama's main point is that he can forge a larger coalition. the press hated/hates Gore, and poisoned people against him with false narratives and ridiculous bullshit. the press decided that Bush was the Decider and that John Kerry was a communist and helped savage his war record and paint him as weak and indecisive. that is in fact what happened. there's no accusation in there, I don't think either of these things were Gore or Kerry's fault and I see no reason to read such a conclusion into what Obama is saying. unless, of course, you want to make a point about a pre-conceived idea you have and warping the quote way beyond its original meaning would help do so. ah, there we go!
it is really, really annoying to keep reading people putting words in this guy's mouth, I've never seen anything quite like it. Obama is simply not allowed to make a case for himself.
Splitting Image @ 393:
eloquently said. u got your point across without dropping f-bombs. i could learn a thing or two from you:)
derrick @ 389:
Nicole is just doing her job. Its an interesting post and not hyperbolic to suggest he's dissing Gore and Kerry.
Besides, this is post #390-something.
It makes for great conversation. Fun Fun Fun.
derrick @ 389:
I agree. This is becoming a trend, whether she is conscious of it or not. This posts reminds me a great deal of this one, "Why Is Barack Obama Buying Into White House Framing on Iran?" This was also a total misconstruing of his words... making a non-story into a story.
derrick @ 389:
C&L is a political blog. They present facts and their opinions of those facts. They comment on all kinds of "tactics" that all manner of Democrats and Republicans use in any number of issues. It seems we, as onlookers to the political process, are allowed to express our opinions of that political process. Nicole is no different. She's not a candidate for political office. She is also not a journalist that is required to only write the facts (although, I'm not sure there are any of those left). And I fail to see why she should be required to state who she supports any more than anyone else commenting here should be required to give information that they don't care to give. Give it a rest.
derrick @ 395:
Yeah. Thanks for proving the premise of the original post. Well done.
And mine TOO. You usually only find the ones who think it's OK.....are Obama supporters. It's amazing how they rationalize there way through his attacks, but manages to whine, complain and twist anything someone else says to claim a bad thing on Obama.
Hey...he's paying alot of people......where else do you get spending 21 million dollars every quarter OF A PRIMARY CAMPAIGN - no less. Candidates USED to spend that in an entire election cylce. But you have to pay good money to get all these people to push you.
[Give it a rest. You don't get to say what is owed around here. If you want something blogged to your own personal specifications, you are the only guy that's going to do that. In other words, please start your own. And I promise I won't visit your site and be as rude as you've been here. I may consider requiring an apology from you if you'd like to post here again-Sitemonitor]
Mr X,
Nicolle started this post by chastising Obama for attacking other Democrats and using republican framing. Fine.
But nearly all of your posts do exactly and only that-- attack Obama, mimicing and/or utilizing republican framing, at least in part...
from the articles you posted...
"...he personifies the definitive end of Black organized struggle in the United States - a unilateral surrender to white racism. This is his appeal to the white masses: that they will no longer be challenged to confront history, or to relinquish privilege in the present."
"Obama is the NOT-Black candidate, who just looks Black, and will absolve white folks - like a priest behind a screen - of historical, present, and future sins."
the article also portrays him as a sort of drifting meandering fellow, who stumbled upon this opportunity to fool the masses, as he wandered from here to there, trying to find himself...
those are all things i've heard right from glen beck, limbaugh, et al..
goddam it Nicole, its obvious your gonna vote Hilary and your a democrat.
But here you are, bad mouthing a member of the party you support for bagging a member of the party they support.
Is hypocrisy just naturally in the blood of Americans or is it something you learn?
Splitting Image @ 393:
Right. So if we going to do it , let's do it big time!
Hey, I've got an idea...Let's nominate a black one-term senator from a northern state named "Obama".
That should be good enough to "cede" 200 electoral votes...EASY.
Now that's some real foot shootin!
Josh @ 4:
The 50% of the country that hates John Kerry and Al Gore won't vote Democratic anyway. Actually, there's only 20% of the country that isn't voting Democratic and they're the crazy christians--Barack's crowd if his speeches can be believed.
<strongI was for Kennedy when I was 12, I will be 60 this year and a life long Dem in about the reddest state in the world (SC) , I love Gore , but in 2000 he stunk but I voted for him , o4' Kerry stunk , I voted for him, Our Dem Congress stinks ... I'm tired of voting" anyone but Republican ".. I'm a white southerner and am proud to get ready to vote FOR Obama
This country is tired of Wimps from both parties (Reid and Pelousy) not just (Huckleberry and Giglani)
OBAMA IS RIGHT AND I'M PROUD TO SUPPORT HIM
He's not talking about Kerry or Gore, but about HRC, who has the fifty percent negatives that may make Iowa and NH Dems think twice about electability. In fact the comment hardly makes sense when applied to Kerry and Gore--two of the most hapless campaigners since, well, Dukakis, whose strategy appeared to be to avoid offending anyone, which led both of them to run rigid, consultant-driven campaigns that avoided any sharp breaks with the past or positive vision of the future [commenter #3--were you even in the country in 2000?].
Which is, I'm sorry to say, where Obama appears to be heading: lots of soft rhetoric and oblique attacks on his rivals (he's never had to run against real opposition, so he's just learning the ropes) but not much more.
The new progressive blog memes, if they don't like what you say;
"You are repeating wingnut talking points"
"You are a sell out to the ReTHUGlicans"
It is getting really old and silly. I agree some use wingnut talking points, but come on, do you really think Obama who with Edwards (among the frontrunners) are the most progressive candidates, would use wingnut talking points?
Geezzzzz
misleading caption. "Slams"? where the hell is the "slam" part.
Those were two fucking awful campaigns, thank you Mr. Shrum.
And Kerry and Gore got what they chose. Shity campagins.
myiq2xu @ 3:
Really? So, it was OK that Al Gore let the Supreme Court nominate Monkey Boy & threw away a presidential election? And John Kerry lost to that idiot? And it would be better to say nothing & act like there ISN'T a problem with Democrats getting elected, or doing what they were elected to do,...
Josh @ 4:
Explain how the Democrats are alienating 50% of the population if they don't criticize John Kerry and Al Gore? That's just an illogical statement. Do you want a president who has to constantly trash the Democrats to keep a good rating? That's just another way of saying that if we don't sell out to the Republicans, we can't get elected. So, we'll have a Lieberman clone in the WH?
If Democrats can't get elected being Democrats, then this country is lost.
Hmmmm.
Let's see... Taylor Marsh's credibility.... ZERO - known Hillary operative.
Accuracy of comment.... 100%
Unfortunate that it came out as negative as it did, but he's right.
The Newsday.com is so lacking in information regarding the speech that it appears to be a typical MSM slam, if you will, on Obama, designed to get Dems' knickers in a bunch, which it has, apparently, here. What was it you were saying about not speaking ill of a fellow Dem? I don't see the "slam," let alone on any specific people.
Actually, the reason half of the country didn't want to vote for Democrats had nothing to do with Gore and Kerry, it had to do with all the sleazy maneuvers of the Republicans that got people like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News in the media so that Americans were misinformed and brainwashed.
It had to do with the Reagan/Bush I years when public education was trashed and Americans became ignorant.
It had to do with the impeachment of Bill Clinton over a non-political issue, engineered by Republicans and supported by 13 Democrats.
This country is in a critical condition because of Republican sleaze and corruption. If the Democrats don't start standing together and promoting truly democratic ideas, there's not hope for the country. Trashing the campaign techniques of fellow Democrats does not support that agenda.
"I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000,"
morphs into
‘Barack Obama seems to have widened his criticism of the politics of the past to encompass not only Hillary Clinton but John Kerry and Nobel Laureate Al Gore.’
morphs into
Obama slams Gore, Kerry in Iowa
Isn't this the kind of crap progressives call the right wing propaganda machine out on all the time?
I call SHENANIGANS!
His original statement seems to carry a lot of truth for me. It seems to me that a lot of people voted for Bush in '04 not because they thought that he was the best man but because they had been convinced that Democrats were weak on national security. In '00 they just did a great PR job in making Bush look dynamic and Gore look wooden, which in this era of celebrity politics is the kiss of death.
Hence his assertion that people didn't want to vote for Democrats rings true to me.
Half the country not wanting to vote democratic? Didn't Gore win the popular vote by about 500,000 ballots? WTF is Obama talking about here? Would not Gore have taken Florida if a recount had be allowed? Was Ohio stolen? That jury is still out.
I'm not convinced Obama was slamming Gore and Kerry. I just think he's off base with that remark.
johnsturgeon @ 401:
Nicole owes NOBODY an "apology." She posts here on a private blog and you can decide whether or not to come here. Nicole is very insightful and politically astute I may add. Perhaps, you owe Ms. Nicole Belle an apology for your knee-jerk bluster and refusal to see the truth in this case. Nicole brought out a very salient point and most reasoned people would agree with Nicole on this larger issue. Barack Obama indeed has descended into right-wing tactics by criticizing fellow Democratic candidates and two who are not even running in 2008, I might add.
Give it a break pal! You, pal, owe Nicole Belle and C&L an apology, for your lack of insight and reasoned approach in favor of knee jerk attacks, regarding the issues of the day.
Again, Nicole needs to apologize to NOBODY, but be PRAISED for her important political insight!!!
Thanks again Nicole!
And of course "personifies" is the wrong word, but you get my meaning.
Clinton and edwards will kick republicans ass, obama sucks up to them. He is no democrat. He is no liberal. He sounds like lieberman, who by the way was his mentor. Obama is a repugblican whore. A sell out.
Nonfactor @ 405:
She didn't claim neutrality on this issue. She said it was her opinion. And it is possible to be undecided about which candidate you're supporting and still not like something another candidate said.
And if you don't approve of what she's done here, why are you still here? I go to some blogs and leave within a minute because I'm not interested in their topics or am outraged by their current opinion.
My reply post for some reason was connected to the one I tried to quote. So here it is again:
[FIFY-Sitemonitor]
Nicole owes NOBODY an “apology.” She posts here on a private blog and you can decide whether or not to come here. Nicole is very insightful and politically astute I may add. Perhaps, you owe Ms. Nicole Belle an apology for your knee-jerk bluster and refusal to see the truth in this case. Nicole brought out a very salient point and most reasoned people would agree with Nicole on this larger issue. Barack Obama indeed has descended into right-wing tactics by criticizing fellow Democratic candidates and two who are not even running in 2008, I might add.
Give it a break pal! You, pal, owe Nicole Belle and C&L an apology, for your lack of insight and reasoned approach in favor of knee jerk attacks, regarding the issues of the day.
Again, Nicole needs to apologize to NOBODY, but be PRAISED for her important political insight!!!
Thanks again Nicole!
And for you Barack Obama stooges rifled with the gullibility of a child, give it a rest already! If you like Obama, I am sure you like Bush and Cheney and Lieberman, as well.
derrick @ 404:
First, if you think the comments here are at any candidates "expense" you're putting way to much importance on this or any other blog's comment section. We are the .01%
Second, its not a democracy here. Its Amato's world. Don't like it? There are other choices.
Third, (and most importantly.) Take a deep breath.
[Here. I'm going to help you find the door. I'm done with your personal attacks on a co-worker-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Asked and answered and off topic-Sitemonitor]
i hope those slamming barack hussein obama with such glee will at least get behind the man when he gets the nomination...
Nonfactor @ 414:
Because he was a pain in the ass?
You obama supporters are ignorant or better yet plain stupid. HOW MANY REPUGBLICAN CANDIDATES WANT TO MOVE TO THE CENTER. They will not budge. Yet obama remains a coward that votes present when a tough decision has to be made. He will take us into defeat not just with the repugs but also with our foes around the world.
His foreign experience visiting london. Don't they drink alot of tea there. I guess thats why he thinks all hillary did was drink tea.
She probably drinks tequila while obama drinks milk. GOD HELP US IF HE GETS THE NOMINATION.
WE ARE SAFER WITH ANYONE BUT OBAMA.
lopaloo102 @ 416:
Cue the crickets.
oh, say it ain't so johnny :-)
Johnny2Bad @ 412:
1) blogs are either influential or they aren't. can't have it both ways, my friend. and we both know that these days, the msm are as likely to take their cues from blogs as they are anywhere else.
2)this is john's world but i would think that john wouldn't want to live in a world that puts out disinformation and causes its faithful readers to look more skeptically upon what it reports.
3)i just exhaled and it feels damn good.
C&L merely quoted the words of Barack Obama on this one...Is that not considered empirical data or what? So, I guess, according to some critics of Nicole Belle, even the words from a political candidate's mouth these days are not rooted in fact. I would expect such assertions out of the mouths of Bushites and company, but supporters of Obama trying to use the Rovian game of doublespeak is beyond belief.
And you Obama supporters deny that your guy resembles a right-winger in the tactics he employs on the campaign trail? Give it a rest already!
Nicole, I guess, cannot, according to the many buffoons posting here use the exact words of Barack Obama, lest she is shilling for other candidates.
Okay....
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
lopaloo102 @ 416:
And this from the guy who so gleefully repeated repub and National Enquirer talking points about Edwards.
lopaloo102 @ 420:
Oh, Yeah. I'm a lucky guy.
Take care all. This was fun and all. I hope everyone has a Happy New Year 2008! Again, thanks to Nicole and all the hard-working sitemonitors for making it a fun day here on C&L. See around soon! Have a very nice evening!
derrick @ 421:
1. I don't want it both ways.
2. On that point, what you "think" doesn't really matter.
3. See, Johnny knows best.
Mr. XXXX @ 422:
Yes, it would indeed seem that we have a case of Barack O'Reilly on our hands here, what with all the complaints that effectually amount to claims that quoting the man isn't fair. If I wanted to hear complaints like that I'd tune in FOX News rather than MSNBC at 8PM weeknights.
[We're done with this line of posting. Please stop it-Sitemonitor]
goddamnit, won't you morons let me retire from american politics?
here's why obama's our best candidate.
gore sucked in 2000 because, even though he demonstrably won the election, he banged the gavel and wouldn't allow a recount, as documented in "fahereneit/911".
kerry sucked in 2004 because, even though he won he election, he wouldn't challenge the results in ohio.
so, in 2008, we're left with obama, edwards and clinton.
obviously, hillary's an idiot who gets taken for a ride at the sight of a sack of campaign cash, and edwards is a sissy who voted for the invasion and occupation of iraq because at the time he thought it would make him seem more "presidential."
here's what obama said in chicago in 2002, while a lot of americans were hiding under their beds and sipping bushco kool-aid.
Johnny2Bad @ 428:
i'm not going to get in a debate over semantics. i've laid out what i've had to say for the day. seems i'm not the only one who feels this way. it's been cathartic. it's been real. i'm off to bed.
and nicole, anything i've said in my posts are not meant in any way personal. i think these primaries are tight and i'm a little sensitive to people throwing their weight against the candidate i like in a questionable way and not applying it equally to the democratic candidates across the board.
g'night.
ROM Spaceknight @ 431:
Kool-aid is right. And you seem to be drinking Obama's.
"Idiot"? "Sissy"?
Wow! What deft political insight!!
That does it. I'm voting Obama!!!
Uh...Not.
[I guess you don't want to post here any more. It's a lot easier to just stop-Sitemonitor]
i'm very much in favor of "speaking ill of your fellow democrats", if your fellow democrats are completely full of shit.
Johnny2Bad @ 433:
i only respect you if you're voting for kucinich.
Wow at the comments resulting from the post.
lopaloo102 @ 416:
I'm beyond caring about personality cults. I will support any candidate who represents a truly progressive platform: a reinstatement of civil liberties and due process, real universal healthcare, total opposition to Republican warmongering, real accountability for the criminals in the Bush Regime, etc.
Neither Clinton nor Obama has expressed any interest in these things, so I won't be "getting behind" either of them. I'm no doubt just a member of the "looney left" to these Corporatists. They apparently don't want or need the votes of people like me. Once again, I wish them lots of luck in pursuing what many here seem to think is "a winning strategy" . . .
As far as I'm concerned this trumps any reservations I might have had:
DES MOINES, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich on Tuesday asked his supporters to make rival Barack Obama their second choice if he doesn't meet a cutoff point for voting in Iowa's caucuses.
Kucinich, an Ohio congressman at the back of the pack of Democratic hopefuls, seemed to concede a loss in the caucuses. He said his recommendation was for "Iowa only."
"Senator Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday, where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters," Kucinich said in a statement.
Candidates in Thursday night's caucuses must reach a level of support in each of the state's 1,781 precincts — typically 15 percent of those who attend. Candidates who fail to meet that aren't considered viable, and their supporters can move to another candidate or go home.
"I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice ... because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade," Kucinich said. "But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice."
Obama thanked Kucinich for the recommendation.
"I have a lot of respect for Congressman Kucinich, and I'm honored that he has done this because we both believe deeply in the need for fundamental change," the Illinois senator said in a statement.
He said he and Kucinich have fought for some of the same priorities, including ending the war in Iraq, reforming Washington and creating a better life for working families.
can we please, for once, not play into the stereotype of nitpicky democrats?
let's stay united long enough to get one member of our team elected. frankly, any one of the dems would be a bazillion times better than what we've had to suffer through for the last 7 years. at this point, i almost don't even care which one of them gets the presidency, as long as one of them does. after inauguration, we can pick them to bits and push the issues that matter most. till then, anyone but a republican!
and remember, 2008 is bound to be a great year. by november bush's reign of terror will be over and we'll have some real, tangible sense of hope for the future of our nation. let's stay focussed & positive.
in the meantime, who's planning a party for bush's last day?!?! i predict dancing in the streets & a ticker tape parade through times square. who's with me?
Question Blog @ 15:
I don't think this should ever deter us from nominating any candidate. JFK, RFK, MLK -- they were all killed before their time but look at the legacies they left behind in the process.
That said, I agree that Edwards is the best nominee for the Democratic party right now -- despite Obama's talk about hope it is Edwards' economic message of hope (and democracy) that we need. It really is "the economy, stupid." This is not a time for vagueries and half-measures; we need bold leadership that is willing to reject the frames of the conservative movement and address issues like trade, energy, regulation, social safety net, etc, that have been lying unaddressed for so long.
Obama suffers from his own words because he chooses them so poorly. He just doesn't not argue his case well and it drives me crazy. It seems he wants to make it clear that he's not controlled by the far liberal left by bashing the very base of the party, group by group. He can make his argument without doing this.
Edwards has made the best argument for bringing people together, it's about families, jobs and our very democratic process, it shouldn't be controlled by corporations, the people should have a voice without having to have a lobbyist. This cuts across party lines.
LET'S GET REAL...we don't have time to beat up on Obama or reason. We need a leader who can and will pull from the center, the independents and the Republicans. If he comes through with a 35% vote on Thursday then we all must rally for him...we need a candidate and we need one soon to focus this race. There is only Republican who will give him trouble in a national campaign and that man is Sen. John McCain. Anyone else he can beat handedly. Let's not quibble...do you think in this world we can afford another gun happy cowboy? I don't! LET'S GET REAL!
DrWolfy @ 43:
My suspicion, not knowing anything of Taylor Marsh.
......I didn't take it as a slam either, Of course how Obama a black man who has certain characteristics others don't will rally the 50% he is talking about is beyond me. He has the same letter by his name that Gore and Kerry did and had MUCH less of a political resume than either previous Senator not to mention less accomplishment to hang his hat on. It may have been wise to choose a different tack since Obama has more things going against him than either previous aspiring presidential candidate (how much of our populace is gonna understand the nuance of his present votes?, have I mentioned that SOME people think him a Muslim?) so it's a painful reminder they'll be coming hard after him. I hope he can stand up to the forthcoming onslaught if he is to get through the process. I am a supporter of Obama so I hope he rises above the muck.
I see nothing wrong with Obama's comment. Obama was more accurate than he was for having slamed anyone. Gore didn't show the fire that we see now and Kerry showed us just how spineless a Dem can be against a very unpopular President.
My vote is still going to go to either Edwards or Dennis Kucinich regardless.
Sometimes criticizing your own party is merely a sign that you see things clearly. There are a lot of independents out there who view the political machinations of the major parties with suspicion at best, derision at worst, and welcome a sign that a candidate won't hew to group identification all the way off the edge of a cliff.
I see this as more of a "let's not try this 50% + 1 vote" stuff anymore. Heck, even Dean wanted us to change our direction (think: the "50 state" strategy)
Don't worry about Obama being a DINO; DINO's don't want us out of Iraq, they don't want a government role in health care, and they certainly don't want to raise the cap on payroll taxes. Obama is a solid progressive; he merely wants for us to NOT go at it alone in striving for progressive goals.
Cantor de Mambo @ 48:
.............. for your amusement you should take a look at her site, the best i can say is she is WILLING to be upfront about her biases. That def counts for sumpin in the blogosphere as opposed to what other bloggers (Digby and Kos) are trying to get across and who they tacitly support.
Boy, this post is way off track. The denial of democrats about the party's spinelessness and complicity in the horrors of the administration since 2000 from completely indolent campaigns in 2000 and with more, now national, dirt on Dribblya in 2004 to the toothless ignorance of their majority mandate to clean house of these fascist gangsters for over a year now, is exactly the reason for its infighting to the point of effeteness. It is time for the left arm to do more than make the body look symmetrical. Time to eliminate the rats and fix the holes they snuck in through with someone at least as honest and brave as Kucinich. You know, the funny little guy the rest sneer and laugh at because they can't address his much more relevant, citizen, planet, solution oriented issues.
I sure hope this is resolved soon, because otherwise I'm going to have to click off many progressive blogs for a few months. When you start thinking that Obama is a closet Republican, you've gone absolutely fucking nuts. Is it because it's too tough to figure out who the GOP nominee might be? The general election's in about 10 months, pendejos!
When 30% of Americans happily Swim In the Shallow End of The Gene Pool , it doesn't behouve the 70% reasonable people to swim in to try to rescue them , lets just try to convince as much of the 70% we can that we are agents of change for the better and a vote for us is not a vote for the status quo
When milquetoast wins there is milquetoast rule, and milquetoast change.
Obama was actually criticizing Hillary and how polarizing she is. Gore lost because individuals did not like Bill Clinton and Bush had the US Supreme Republican Court on his side. Gore also lost because he chose to go with the few and alienate Clinton. Kerry promised to fight, but did cowered under the swiftboating and did not look into the voter fraud and illegal actions taken by the Republicans against the poor, minorities, and young people.
Crooks and Liars - Nicole you disappoint me. Where is he bashing Gore and and Kerry specifically? What is this - Faux Noise?
All these Obama lovers must remember he has not done a thing in the senate to prove this gumption he now claims. He waits until something is lost before he votes the opposite. That's real brave. He has no imagination. He was a druggie, black, and this is still the USA. Most older voters are not going to vote for a black, angry, druggie. And older voters are the people that vote. Young people don't vote on a scale to make a difference. And what the GOP would do to that guy would make Kerrys "swift boat" ads look soft. America is still mostly bigots. That is where the bigots went-to the republican party. So when he claims this shield of 50% were automatically against Kerry and Gore and not him he has forgotten history. Gore got the most votes. And I believe Kerry really got Ohio but was a victim of fraud.
Nicole, I don't much care which candidate you're in favor of, just please stop stretching this sort of thing to silly conclusions. I like C&L but am being steadily driven ever further away by such nonsense claims. We need truth and reality, now more than ever.
Shared Humanity @ 35:
Not for me. Have you ever lived in the south or the midwest? Should a gay person step down? Should an atheist step down? How about a white polarizing female? Unfortunately, neither of these have a choice about who they are and they can run if they won't too, it's a free country, but do we want to win or fell good about nominating an minority that half the country will not support.
Question Blog @ 19:
Are you suggesting we shouldn't back Obama 'cause he might get whacked? If so, we've gone so far as to leave 'racism' behind and are now cowering in fear of what some ignorant, marginal hick with a shotgun might do after a few stiff drinks and a Glenn Beck marathon.
And how is Hillary supposed to conquer where you seem to think Obama will fail? The folks who see halos around candidates who are busy trying to out-Jesus one another really aren't going to be changing their minds, either.
We need to forward the candidate who we believe will do the best job of running the country and restoring America's principles, as well as its dignity and reputation abroad. If that's a black man, so be it. If that's a woman, so be it. Let disagreement be on sound criticism of policy, not the intellectual chicken feed we keep hearing about Obama's childhood schooling, Hillary's laugh, or Edwards' hair.
The one thing I don't want to hear, should a Republican win 2008, is second-guessing which candidate we should have run with. It is clear what the people want, and that's tossing out the gang of thieves in D.C., and holding them accountable so we only have to flush once.
My hope is Edwards gets the nomination. He can beat the GOP nomination. Because they are really poor candidates. Hillary and Obama would have a really difficult time. Hilary would solidify the GOP and Obama will never win. People will say they will vote for him but when alone in the booth they will not. Same as when Jackson ran.
Glad to know that so many Americans are racist. God bless America.
The last thing anyone should emulate is Ronald Reagan's "thous shalt not speak ill of a fellow republican". It puts party squarely over country. It's part of the facist streak that runs through conservatism. It's an ingredient in the "kool-aid" they drink, where they take pride in not being able to see beyond their own preconceived ideology regardless of the damage it wreaks.
No, Reagan's "commandment" is a blight on our political and cultural landscape. We cannot take on destructive conservative traits like this one. As hard as it is being the good guys, we cannot sell out our own country simply to make things easier on ourselves. That's what conservatism has done.
Ruthless People @ 62:
Btw - I don't mean unfortunately that's who they are, I mean unfortunately that half the country would not support them and if Obama wants to talk about liabilities....like Edwards being a trial lawyer or Kerry or Gore...then he and his supporters need to face the reality of his perceived liabilities because the Rovians will not be kind in the generals.
Now the MSM will pick up how Obama got "The Blogosphere" all worked up "over his recent 'slam' on Kerry and Gore." Democratic ratfuck of Obama, a success! Nice.
superchamp @ 66:
Well said.
I'm gonna' check out the exact quote by Obama, in context, and if this has been accurately reported by Marsh then Obama has just lost my vote.
I was willing to overlook the crap he went on about regarding Social Security. But this would be too much.
grumbles @ 16:
The more he talks, the more I think that his getting the nomination would mean we're better off with a Republican in the White House than him. Better a President to fight against than a President who won't fight, at least in terms of election results from 2010 forward. I'd be happy to trade four years of Obama "compromise" followed by Republican resurgence for four more years of a Republican President obstructing a Democratic Congress followed by Republican irrelevency. If not for Supreme Court appointments I would not hesitate for a second to support the Republican nominee--assuming it not to be Giuliani among the plausible possibilities--in '08 over Obama.
Justin @ 439:
Exactly! Never give in to those bastards. NO ONE will ever intimidate me by hinting at harm to an "uppity"... anyone. Forget them. We need the best man or woman for the job period, and we aren't afraid to hire whoever that might be!
But I don't think Obama is the leader we need. I do find it strange that in this field, the only one seriously reaching out to the oppressed is a rich white man from the south! The irony of it all...
So far Hillary and Obama have copied Edwards' healthcare plans (that he was first with) and his stances on several other issues. What happens if they get elected, and can follow his lead anymore? More of the same crap we've had for years, that's what.
Sorry Obama, you had your chance to show leadership on the issues, and you had your chance to show leadership in human conflict (the gay preacher thing, which managed to somehow alienate gays, blacks, white, AND clergy!). You failed at both. Don't ruin the rest of your reputation by turning negative now!
Obama sounds like that Bill Cosby idot.They both point fingers at other people.Clean up your own houses before both of you speak.What we do not need is a Cosbycrat.
KayInMaine @ 24:
There's no reason for them to gun down anyone - they've done okay just stealing the last few elections. Anyone who really thinks their vote actually means anything anymore is sadly deluded. The folks with all the money control pretty much everything in our policital system and they're working their way toward controlling just about everything else in our lives as well.
Obama shows big lead with indies and crossover repugs. We are no longer going to have a real democratic party. These same indies helped get bush in the white house in the first place. I find it amazing that the anti-war people that think obama is their savior are supporting the most right of the candidates. Many of these independants and repugs that are for your savior supported bush's war. Don't you realize that in the general election these people can very likely switch back to the repugblican party. I can see why these people support obama. HE IS REPEATING THE SAME REPUBLICAN POINTS THAT SMEARED THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES IN THE PAST. NEWS FLASH OBAMA IS A REPUBLICAN PROSTITUTE WHO WILL SELL US OUT.
Educate yourself on the REAL Hillary Clinton. You Clintonista "trolls" never stop pushing the most corrupt politician in the country every chance you get. She really has you fooled doesn't she? But we in New York know the REAL Hillary Clinton.
She caters to corporations, lobbyists, foreign money and the list could go on. But hey, if you want to be in bed with the devil go for it. We citizens aren't buying her "change" platform. She only started saying that by copying Sen. Obama, before that it was "Experience" but hey, when that didn't work because people wanted her to DETAIL what so-called experience she has, that cut too close to all her dirty dealings for her comfort so she copied Sen. Obama's message.
We in New York know the REAL Hillary Clinton and it is not pretty picture. A couple of programs she refused to help in New York actually had to appeal to Sen. Obama for emergency funding and you know what? They got it and Sen. Obama did not use it against her, yet she would choose to slam Sen. Obama for what he stated in Kindergarten? And continuing to insinuate via her surrogates that he is Muslin? Yet Sen. Obama did not go personal on her. He only attacks her on the ISSUES yet she chose to say they are personal attacks. Her record speaks for herself. She sides with the CREDIT CARD companies on Bankruptcy even for those who needed to file for bankruptcy due to long term illness, she praises Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who if you bother to do your research at all, called black Americans "human weeds". The list could go on, but anyone who makes the uninformed, silly remark that she would have "Bill Clinton to help her" votes for her on a silly premise. If she needs the help of a former President, then she isn't capable of doing the job herself alone.
But hey, don't let that stop you. We citizens know EXACTLY all about the Clintons and you can't hide the truth forever.
I'm sorry but as much as I like Obama, I think he's kidding himself if he thinks he's going to appeal to the Republican voter. Most Repubs I've heard from can't even get past the fact that his name sounds funny, let alone even begin to accept the idea of a black man in the White House. If Obama gets the nomination you're going to see and hear some ugly stuff from these people...
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 442:
So....Kucincih endorsement has no relevance as far as you're concerned even though Kucinich thinks Obama would offer the best leadership going forward to get us out of the cesspool Bush has overseen?
I notice on one has dumped on Kucinich in fact the Obama critics have gone out of their way
to pretend it never happen. Hmm I wonder why that is?
Login or Register to post comments.