WSJ editorial paints Obama as Bush's ideological heir- UPDATED with Video
By Steve Benen Wednesday Jul 02, 2008 1:00pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
(Nicole: MSNBC wasted no time parroting WSJ's editorial and getting those talking points out there.)
Given John McCain’s record, and rhetoric, Republicans are clearly worried about how voters are going to react to the argument that McCain offers the nation “Bush’s third term.”
In fact, conservatives are so worried about it, the misguided ideologues at the Wall Street Journal editorial page have decided to make a novel argument: it’s Barack Obama, not McCain, who’s actually “running for … Bush’s third term.”
Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.
Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed.
Now, I think Obama’s wrong to accept the FISA “compromise,” and have said so on many occasions. But to suggest that Obama’s position brings him into line with Bush/Cheney/McCain is foolish. Indeed, far from conceding that retroactive telecom immunity is “vital for U.S. national security,” Obama actually said the exact opposite, arguing that he still opposes the provision, and vowing to vote for its removal. The Journal used “apparently” to draw the conclusion it wanted to reach, instead of the one supported by reality.
It gets worse.
Next up for Mr. Obama’s political blessing will be Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org’s attacks in 2007 that he was “General Betray Us.” Perhaps he had a late epiphany.
If I read this on a fringe, right-wing blog, it would be easier to dismiss as nonsense, but the Journal was a respected national newspaper. The WSJ argues, seriously, that Obama is running for “Bush’s third term,” because he “will” support Bush’s Iraq policy, as evidenced by his discomfort with the “Betray Us?” ad. I’m actually feeling kind sorry for how ridiculous the Journal’s editors are making themselves appear.
Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for “everybody.”
In this reality, Bush and Obama don’t agree on trade at all; McCain and Bush do.
Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority’s ruling to ban the death penalty for rape.
Agreeing with two justices on two cases does not make Obama an acolyte of the Federalist Society.
This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” is not the assault on church-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed.
This is total nonsense. Obama’s policy bears no real resemblance to Bush’s, and Obama intends to protect the very safeguards that Bush’s faith-based initiative sought to eliminate. It’s the difference between a constitutional policy and an unconstitutional policy. Even a cursory glance at Obama’s speech makes that clear, which makes the Journal’s argument unusually intellectually dishonest.
The WSJ editorial helps demonstrate the flaw in starting with the answer and working backwards. Sensitive to McCain’s political problems, the Journal seems to have decided, “Let’s argue that Obama is running for Bush’s third term.” The editors then scrambled to come up with evidence to bolster the conclusion, ignoring inconvenient facts and details along the way.
If this sounds vaguely familiar, it’s evidence that the Bush White House has had an even greater influence on the Wall Street Journal than previously thought.
Post Script: By the way, to hear some of the unhinged corners of the right tell it, Obama is both a radical liberal and a Bush clone. Conservatives really are going to have to pick one.
Login or Register to post comments.
Must. Stop. Self. From. Cracking. Head. On. Keyboard.
I can agree with the premise. If obama keeps tacking right-ward just to get elected, THEN runs his administration totally lefty, it would be a mirror of what bush did.
Clearly, Obama doesn't have the backbone that many of us hoped he would have, but to liken him to Bush when you have McCain as an alternative is ridiculous.
The whole article smells like desperation. They better be careful, that twenty percent that still approves of bush might end up voting for Senator Obama and then he'll have all the Democrats and a bunch of Republicans too.
People can hold two opposing negative viewpoints in their heads at the same time.
Karl Rove has used this to his advantage over and over. And will continue to use it.
What the hell the poor guy has been branded as Cheney's cousin and now Bush's heir. Suppose the only thing left along these lines is for Obama to find out that Clinton is his Uncle. Oh yes, Obama has been called the Clinton's houseboy which Queen Hillary is quite comfortable with since she tried to make Secret Service Agents assigned to her baggage handlers.
mccain is moving the right of the spectrum and obama is moving toward the center.....to say obama is running a bush third term campaign is ridiculous from my perspective. the american/public culture is presently in the conservative zone after 8 yrs. of the cheney administration....i meant to say bush administration.
liberals/progressives have to understand this strategy
we need to win this election....we must continue to compare mccain with a third bush term....this strategy is going to work....we must not let fatigue set in.
obama does differ from bush, in some regards.
but, really, he is not a change candidate. the obama strategery, post primary, has been abysmal. obama's economic ideology is of the univ of chicago (like reagan, bush, clinton, bush), and from FISA to NAFTA to bush's office of faith based initiatives and other such issues, obama has moved towards bush, not the other way around. this makes obama look weak, like a run-of-the-mill politician, and like a triangulating vote-panderer.
it is gaspingly shocking that obama's campaign would attempt to move obama closer to the worst president we have ever had. i pray that this is for (dunderheaded) political reasons. but, as obama has said, people shouldn't be surprised, he is not of the left, but of the "center" (see, right).
sorry, guys. flame away.
Anyone who believes that an Obama administration would be like the bush administration is just not being honest with themselves or doesn't see the big picture. These two men are about as different as any two men could be.
The WSJ stopped being a reliable source of information years ago.
Glenn Greenwald's column is instructive today.
Spin that, Barack.
BTW, I was more than just a bit of an asshole on a post here yesterday. I was not feeling well, and some cat posted a response to a comment of mine that just set me off. Sorry for the "bad words" and the hostility.
Given Obama's failure of late to stand up for the Constitution, I don't see much of a qualitative difference between Bush, McCain or Obama.
QUESTION: How come progressive talk radio is always about Obama and his missteps? Righty radio is also talking about Obama and his missteps and I don't hear anything of late about John McCain's flip-flops (more like that Zipper ride at the local carnival) and obvious delusional advertising that goes against everything he has said he wants to do.
Seems like taking on McCain makes more sense than over-anaylzing Barack Obama. Am I wrong?
Filthy Harry @ 2:
Same old Lie. If the right-wing ideals fail, it must be because they weren't right wing ideals after all.
Hey, the wingnuts are going to stop at nothing to smear Obama...so Obama better stop giving them ammunition. He has supported the FISA "compromise" and he was stupidly saying he wanted to EXPAND faith-based nonsense. Obama is acting like a suck-up to right-wingers (also known as the mushy middle-of-the-roaders) and he deserves criticism for it. If he continues his foolish ways, he's going to lose. Hate to say it, but I think it's true.
pissed off patricia @ 9:
I'm just about finished reading Obama's "The Audacity of Hope." Pretty inspiring and informative read.
I can live with a lot of policy differences, but the FISA waffle gives me major heartburn.
And, yeah, you're right. he's way different from the Narcissist-in-Chief.
.
Up IS Down...
.
Tom from NJ @ 13:
If a leopard has spots its not news. A spotted zebra...now that's worth talkin about.
Anyone see the today's Wall Street Journal?
Main story on front "McCain Allies find Finace-Law (loop)Holes" It goes on to tell precisely where and how Rethuglican donors can donate 5-6 figure checks to help McCain and go right around the very law that he help to write.
And for irony to lose your breakfast over, when you turn to the second page of the story, right next to is is this headline: "Can Barack Obama Buy the Presidency?" Who wrote that article Karl f'n Rove.
These scumbag's scheme needs to be exposed and stopped now!
This is just to weird for me. Never before have I seen a political party attempt to paint its political opponents as being just as bad for America as are the members of their own party. When a political party has to do that you know they have reached the bottom in popularity.
Off topic, sorry, but....
I want to see a video that does to McCain's "rarely mentions his POW history" what that earlier Guiliani video did to Rudy and 9/11, in which he repeated 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 ad infinitum.
Somebody needs to dig up all the old footage, beginning at least in the early 1980s (old Fourth of July celebrations, etc., also), and start editing!
Kay @ 3:
The Neocons are Mentally Ill. The first thing is to get somebody that is SANE in charge of the White House. After the World is safe, we can start worrying about cleaning up the mess.
Here is a vid of Bush's third term
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXRlG_6Bk-8
So isn't the WSJ owned by Rupert Murdoch now?
But to suggest that Obama’s position brings him into line with Bush/Cheney/McCain is foolish
Really? The talk is one thing, the actions are something else.
He is a corporate employee just like Bush is. Vetted and approved by the "board of directors".
He won't change/fix campaign finance, health care, military spending, election reform, defense spending, mideast policy, faith based initiatives, climate issues, our relationship with China and India, our dependence on foreign oil, our unsustainable economy, AIDS, the war on drugs, poverty, or race based profiling and sentencing.
He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. FISA was a wakeup. There is more to come.
Remind me again how allowing King Rupert to buy the WSJ wasn't gong to affect their journalistic integrity?
Typically White & Bitter Agent Wright-is-right Huessein Provocateur @ 19:
Sure he can....apparently he's got the $$ and the machine for it.
"“What’s the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?”
Love that line.
Looks/sounds like the republicons are a wee bit desperate, eh? Obama is now a Bush 3rd term? LOL! The only people who would be dumb enough to buy that shit are mAnn Coulter lovers and Hannity fans.
The latest Rasmussen poll shows Obama up 5 points over gramps in Montana.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2...
I almost feel sorry (I said almost) for the falling on the floor, twitching, dying a slow death GOP.
BobbyG @ 11:
Gotta love Glenn...
Hell, most of CONgress is spinning this B.S. usurpation of the People's Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties.
R E M E M B E R:
THEY(sic) HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS...
... And so THEY(sic) attempt to legislate away those freedoms.
.
I wonder at what point the Repugs thought that absolute stupidity would sell.
I'll be damned if that isn't the most dead-on, poignant response. Nice going! My mind was blown for a second there. That's awesome.
BobbyG @ 16:
Be sure to also read his other book, "Dreams from My Father". It's very good and he tells you about his life as he grew up and the things that made him the kind of person he is today. This book was first published in 1995, long before he even thought of being president.
Johnny2Bad @ 18:
ZEBRA? is that a racist slur?
it's unfortunate but obama feels he has to offset the claim he is the most liberal member of the senate...liberal
is a nasty word to republicans.....so it's twofold attempting to pick up votes from constituents in the middle a growing demographic and dilute the liberal labeling......some americans all they hear is liberal which equates to negativity.....bush in 2000 gave the compassionate gop and nation then after he in office he changed....because he was being less than truthful all along.........obama is doing this before getting elected changing seeming less liberal than people want. he is doing it to win.....period
pissed off patricia @ 9:
POP i just wish that was so. believe me i do. i prayed for meaningful change. instead i am seeing just a different flavor of what we have been burdened (the good) and cursed (the bad) with for decades.
the trajectory we are on is very, very scary, and i see obama as just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, instead of real change.
again, i wish i could believe. i wish obama's "free" market rhetoric could be forgotten. i wish that the FISA, NAFTA and other such issues weren't so problematic for me.
but they are.
and it is sad.
Johnny2Bad @ 27:
You miss the point. The irony lies where Rove is asking will Obama buy the Presidency, the article right next to it is telling people exactly how, despite his own law, McCain intends to buy the Presidency.
The loop hole should be pointed out to Democrats with money, power, influence to either close it up or to play by the same game. Despite what you may hear on TV, once you get McCain donors legally writting ten and hundreds of thousand dollar checks, that financing advantage Dems currently hold will close quickly and quietly.
marko @ 25:
Oh give me a break. I smells me a RW troll on this thread.
He's either the most "liberal senator" or he's polishing Bush's golf balls? Yeah... he took a position progressives disagree with on FISA. But he's voted on a lot of positions that we agree with. But to say that he's more akin to Bush than McCain is just plain stupid at best or a flat out lie at worst.
And what's the crap about him being a corporate pawn? Is this Rove's new spin since the "Elitist Country Club Guy" attack failed? Yes corporations have donated to his campaign, but most of his money is netroots/small-contributors. Compare that to the percentage of the campaign coffers filled by large corporate investors that Bush got in 2000/2004 and McCain is getting now. But the RW will likely keep sticking their heads in the sands (or really up their collective ass to be honest).
Unfortunately, Obama himself is inviting these comparisons with comments he made about attacking Pakistan, an apparent pro-FISA stance, and of course kneeling to the cross...
Hopefully, it wasn't burning at the time.
Another Bush "accomplishment" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/03/g-8-climate-scorecard-put_n_110...
marko @ 33:
No, but the "leopard" part was a "slur" on McCain's skin cancer
...Sheesh.
it's a murdick publication, right?
just asking.
Wouldn't this be great if it gets the 25%-ers to actually vote for Obama because the prestigious WSJ said that he would give them another term of their Dear Bush Leader! Poor McCain would be left with the 4% of people who actually hit the wrong button when voting for someone else.
37 TimV
He’s either the most “liberal senator” or he’s polishing Bush’s golf balls?
__________________________________________________________________
And let us pray, only polishing boosh's golf balls.
pissed off patricia @ 32:
We have that book as well. My wife is now reading it.
Mickxotic @ 10:
And it's gotten predictably worse since Herr Murdoch bought it.
Whatever makes the repug base feel better before they're taken behind the barn and shot.
Nice example of why the WSJ is doing so poorly these days.
Typically White & Bitter Agent Wright-is-right Huessein Provocateur @ 36:
I got yer point. Was making one of my own. Its all about the money on both sides.
Zenrage @ 14:
I think you missed my point. I'm saying that bush ran for president as a uniter. Then elected went sharply RIGHT. If Obama runs as a uniter, moving to rightward to the center to do so, then when elected moves sharply to the left he'd be a mirror of bush.
Personally I'd prefer to see obama run very left, and govern very left. But I'll settle for him lying to the conservatives if thats what it takes to get elected. Shame tho.
TimV @ 37:
I have been posting on this blog since 2004. I am no troll, I am a follower of Chomsky and Zinn, but by definition no one can be elected President without corporate approval. No one.
How do normal voters learn about candidates?
Through the mainstream media.
Who owns the mainstream media?
Corporations, the same corporations that are defense contractors.
Who frames the debate and the campaign?
The mainstream media.
Who owns congress?
The corporations.
Who will Obama have to work with and compromise with?
Congress, so by definition he will be trying to craft policy for the "hens" with representatives of the "fox"
And you didn't take on the beef of my post. You just got nasty.
pissed off patricia @ 32:
Uh, huh.
Hey, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.
while this article is a far stretch into Repub fantasy land, it is SUPER disappointing that Obama flipped on FISA. I was going to donate to his campaign, now im just going to buy me some new shoes instead. I'm just glad he saved me the feeling of regret.
Everyone is hoping he will vote against the FISA bill. I do too. But I am not going to ditch all I believe in and run away over this one issue. I promise you that Senator Obama is not going to be in favor of torturing people, starting a war based on lies and all the other crimes of the present administration. He has a family and two little girls. What father in his right mind would want his children go grow up in the sort of country the bush administration has created so far? I'm sure no father who visits C&L would.
Remember the right has forever been saying that Senator Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate, and all along we argued that it wasn't true, because we knew it wasn't. So now some are angry that he isn't the most liberal senator?
We need to learn to give and take if we are going to make any progress. The time spent fighting over whether he's liberal, too liberal, not enough liberal is time wasted, time wasted in neutral gear. Nine out of ten people know deep down in their hearts that Senator Obama would make a hell of a lot better president than the one we have now or McCain. Whether they will admit it or not is a different story.
marko @ 50:
Yep. Re: Trollitudiness..."marko" is relative old timer here.
obama will provide CHANGE once he is elected
what is the CHANGE.. government by the people for the people....not an executive branch that judges it's own judgements.......this administration ignores the legislative branch behind the shield of war/terror.
this administration (NEOCONS) is involved in trying to get mccain elected. this is a money machine behind this administration and the mideast conflict...they don't want to stop. the shareholders are having a pig feast at the expense of the american public. mccain said 100 yrs. and obama said start troop draw down as soon as he can.....which decision does the military industrial complex want......if obama stays true to only the liberals in this conservative culture he won't win.
not with cheney threatening the iran attack
How does that Snorg girl's finger taste?
Johnny2Bad @ 51:
Have you read the book? After you read it, we'll talk about it.
This should be recognizable to all of us by now, its a strategy we've seen trotted out every year since 1999.
The (Rove) Campaign Strategy:
1. Identify own candidate's greatest weaknesses
2. Accuse (or better yet, have someone else accuse) opponent of the same weaknesses
3. Watch media (including, but unfortunately not only Murdoch) accept patently absurd allegations as fact
4. Watch media completely ignore those weaknesses in your own candidate
I suspect the reason why this works is a sort of Gresham's Law of soundbites - you don't need evidence to make an accusation, but you need it to refute it.
The effect works even better when coupled with a disposition to assume innocence for some, and guilt for others. Senator McCain can ride on his (largely undeserved) public image of being an "honest maverick," while Senator Obama is still struggling to establish a public image (meaning for many, if not most Americans, the old stereotypes - black lawyer/politician, etc. - hold sway).
I'm just surprised no one has accused Senator Obama's sister of being a thespian.
This is really good news.
Because we know Obama isn't going to continue Bush's policies, but if the Media has chosen to try and convince Conservatives that Obama might actually be someone they can support... all the better for us.
This should come as no surprise to anyone, now that Rupert Murdoch is in control of the WSJ. Couple that with his ownership of Fox "News" and the New York Post and anyone can see that Karl Rove, Roger Ailes and their BFF Rush Limbaugh are responsible for this coordinated effort to manipulate the election.
When Obama wins in November, his first order of business should be to throw Murdoch out of the country!
pissed off patricia @ 53:
Ok...I get the "better than McCain" meme....but it might have been helpful if Obama had said this much earlier in the campaign:
"No, no. Look, Senator Clinton is somebody who I've worked with in the past. We agree on 95%, maybe 99% of issues."
Might have saved us a lot of trouble.
This reminds me of that thing little kids say when they are having a spat with another little kid. I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
I can see McCain's campaign and the WSJ saying that. Senator Obama says McCain will be a bush third term so McCain and the WSJ bounces it off McCain and tries to make it stick to Senator Obama.
marko @ 50:
I have been posting on this blog since 2004. I am no troll, I am a follower of Chomsky and Zinn, but by definition no one can be elected President without corporate approval. No one.
How do normal voters learn about candidates?
Through the mainstream media.
Who owns the mainstream media?
Corporations, the same corporations that are defense contractors.
Who frames the debate and the campaign?
The mainstream media.
Who owns congress?
The corporations.
Who will Obama have to work with and compromise with?
Congress, so by definition he will be trying to craft policy for the "hens" with representatives of the "fox"
And you didn't take on the beef of my post. You just got nasty.
My sincerest apologies on the troll insult. I didn't pay attention to your handle when I replied. I know how truly offensive it can be.
That said I take great disagreement with the idea that because Obama does not represent at 100% radical change from the "establishment" he is therefor going to be EXACTLY the same, bringing about no change whatsoever.
Yes. Every candidate in modern times gets and needs corporate backing or at least the backing of the financially elite. That's been a fact with us since the Industrial Era... maybe even farther if you consider the fact that when this country started only men who owned land could vote. But unlike most modern candidates, the Obama campaign is the first to build a majority of its coffers with non-corporate/big-organization money. He's taking both and will use it to his advantage. That's playing the game to his advantage.
Most important for the article and the start of this thread, Obama is less beholden (purely as a % of his coffers) to corporations than Bush was or McCain is. So to say he will be closer to Bush than McCain because he receives corporate money is naive.
Now, while I don't agree with Obama on several issues (including FISA), I agree with a lot of other key issues. And I think a moderated change (e.g. not radical, over-night shift, but a slow strong wind of change) is the only way to get this country back on track. Just because we're not to our destination yet does not mean we've failed.
pissed off patricia @ 57:
Haven't read it.... I was just referencing the "long before he even thought of being president" part of your post. I got a feeling that he (and most politicians) were dreaming of being POTUS long before they could write. Its just the way they're all put together.
Mugsy @ 58:
there are plenty of conservatives not happy with bush
this is a linguistic strategy to dilute/distract the mccain/bush comparison..and third term strategy by dems.
this is for people whomight feel guilty/squimish voting for mccain since they are being forwarned it would be another bush term....it's not easy for people to hear that voted for bush that this war was for oil and thousands have been killed/become refugees
karl @ 55:
couple points of serious contention:
1) the notion that we are in a "conservative culture" is a misreading of the land. and it buys in to the right wing talking points. you are playing by their rules. issue after issue the country is more progressive. hence the need for the GOP to stoke of the "culture war"
2) iraq IS crucial. it is. totally. but there are many other issues that obama is hedging on. that are equally as crucial.
3) trading a neocon (bush) for a neoliberal (possibly obama) is not pure good. it is ripe with potential problems. and continues us down the exact same path that has put us where we are.
4) the friedman/UofC economic ideology has been a pox on america, and obama needs to reject it.
this is why it is CRUCIAL for the left/libs/progs to keep the pressure on and resist being cheerleaders. obama needs to know that of he moves to the right he will loose support--or he will continue to move to the right.
i write this in complete sincerity, and mean no insult to you or others. please take this as an honest assessment from a diehard liberal indep,.
FEREEEE ADVICE:
it's the start of a long weekend. a holiday even. stop geting all worked up over this and go party.
that is all.
TimV @ 62:
My sincerest apologies on the troll insult. I didn't pay attention to your handle when I replied. I know how truly offensive it can be.
That said I take great disagreement with the idea that because Obama does not represent at 100% radical change from the "establishment" he is therefor going to be EXACTLY the same, bringing about no change whatsoever.
Yes. Every candidate in modern times gets and needs corporate backing or at least the backing of the financially elite. That's been a fact with us since the Industrial Era... maybe even farther if you consider the fact that when this country started only men who owned land could vote. But unlike most modern candidates, the Obama campaign is the first to build a majority of its coffers with non-corporate/big-organization money. He's taking both and will use it to his advantage. That's playing the game to his advantage.
Most important for the article and the start of this thread, Obama is less beholden (purely as a % of his coffers) to corporations than Bush was or McCain is. So to say he will be closer to Bush than McCain because he receives corporate money is naive.
Now, while I don't agree with Obama on several issues (including FISA), I agree with a lot of other key issues. And I think a moderated change (e.g. not radical, over-night shift, but a slow strong wind of change) is the only way to get this country back on track. Just because we're not to our destination yet does not mean we've failed.
Thank you!
This is my main thesis. What first attracted us to Obama. He started speaking our language. He caught our ears and the ears or regular folks by saying the right things.
I want him to go farther, push the envelope, the more he pushes the more he will win. That's my thesis. The more he pushes away for the so called "center" the more people he will catch, not visa versa.
Afternoon folks, howz everybody doing this fine weekend? All I have to say about this topic is, WTF.
Obviously they think the majority of this country is stupid enough to buy this crap. Unfortunately , there is a portion of this country that is. I think that it's not necessarily stupidity( part of it is) but hatred. Call it anything you want, but that's the bottom line.
I wonder if you'll see the WSJ next run a piece on how McCain is the most liberal senator representing the greatest change from the Bush Administration. I mean they can find quotes of him being for choice (before he was against it), pro campaign finance reform (before he was against it), pro immigration (before he was against it), pro international cooperation (before he was against it), and pro environment (before he was against it). Selective editing does wonders.
Plus I'm still confused as to what purpose painting Obama as Bush III would do? I can't see this driving votes McCain's way. I mean, think about the reverse...would the logical switch I mentioned in the McCain scenario really get middle-of-the-road liberals to vote more for Obama? But then again, I'm running on too little coffee today so my brain is at 25% capacity.
Ok...is it just me...or did the WSJ stop being a reputable news source the second Rupert took over?
This link says it all, from Arianna!!! Wow this is the shit!!!
Johnny2Bad @ 63:
That's why I suggested that you read the book because in his young life, becoming president was not something he had the luxury to think about. There were other things going on, a lot of them.
marko @ 67:
Okay. I think I see your viewpoint now and I can see why you feel like Obama may not represent true change. On the flip, side I can also see why Obama is doing this. It's a tricky campaign strategy for him to dance as he's got solid leads in all the dark blue states right now, but it's going to be the smaller pink/purple states that are going to determine the election for him. So by picking a few issues that more moderate Bush supporters like, he can deflect the inevitable attacks later about being lax on National Security ("I voted for the FISA bill") and faith ("I've courted development on the Faith Based initiatives"). It's basically a subtle way of taking the base right out from underneath McCain and thus winning in the pickup truck driving, gun toting, flag waving center states.
Now, while I think it is a risky but brilliant political move, it does feel a little slimy if that's not the position he really believes in.
However, keep in mind his solid stance on things that we all do believe in: e.g.- nationalized health care, the Iraq war, revamped/refunded education initiatives, etc.
WOOT! We're (Democrats) are going to win!
Look, Democrats (both Liberal and Progressive) understand what Obama is about and we're going to vote for him and we're not buying what the WSJ is selling.
The sheep of the Republican party (that 30 percent or less) that blindly follow Bush will see this as "Hey, that's the guy for us!" Because if they don't then they've failed as human beings (after failing as Americans).
So... We Win! Thank you WSJ and MSNBC for getting those talking points out there for us.
Samson- @ 65:
i'm politely going to disagree with you on my reading of the public..there is a progressive movement but the public is still in conservative "no fear" mentality/mode...i'm certainly not playing into their hands.
there are many other crucial issues but many will be secondary to iraq since it will approach a crossroads should we stay or should we go
right now it's not even talked about much....nothing is pure good moving along...milton's philosophy/models have been a problem for most of america....clinton bought into it...
keeping the pressure may be good but i still believe this is a strategy to win....we just need to agree on our disagreements.obama has made some mistakes i recognize that. he is a human being that is running against the NEOCON think tanks/k-street/oil and military industrial complex.....i understand idealism but i'm presently interested in realism.
Samson- @ 8:
Not flaming, I agree mostly. I've been saying that Obama is center right as is most of the Democratic party. If he were moving to the center, he would be moving left, but as he's moving right, he's moving towards the far right of the spectrum. Random thought here, could that be the reason Dems have been coming in even for the past few election cycles as they are vying for the same space republicks already hold and as we all know, most of the gopers won't budge parties. How about running an actual centrist or gasp a liberal for once?
And on topic, wasn't the WSJ bought by murdoch? Nuff said.
ThunderMonkey @ 74:
Ditto'd back at #58. Full agreement. This is GOOD news.
Thanks, Samson-Says, for pointing out "the notion that we are in a “conservative culture” is a misreading of the land. and it buys in to the right wing talking points. you are playing by their rules. issue after issue the country is more progressive. hence the need for the GOP to stoke of the 'culture war.'"
And someone else said that the "normal people" in this country get their news from TV. If that means a bare majority, ok (see the Pew results here http://www.pewinternet.org/report_display.asp?r=252 ). It says "A record-breaking 46% of Americans have used the internet, email or cell phone text messaging to get news about the campaign, share their views and mobilize others. And Barack Obama's backers have an edge in the online political environment." Personally, I'm amongst the 46% and don't consider myself abnormal!
liberalAGNOSTICFRONThussein @ 70:
That's a rhetorical question, right?
Rupert and his gang just makes up stuff if the facts do not fit their agenda. I swore I would never buy or read another journal the day he was given rights to the WSJ. Nothing owned buy Rupert is credible.
Maybe they should put the WSJ on the rack next to the National Inquirer at the grocery store.
How does anything in the revised FISA bill upgrade the current FISA Law? We're being fed a pile of bull$$it here. We have a great FISA law which clearly states that the President is NOT above the existing laws which supports Judge Walker's case today. Why is a "NEW" FISA bill being introduced? Simple Answer: To get Bush's butt off the grill as well as his cronies who aided and abetted him in his criminal activities. That's why.
The people need to come down on congress very hard on this one. This is the kiss of death to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Legal System. If these charlatans parading as representatives of the people are permitted to strip us of our inherent rights and freedoms, then this country is sunk.
I cannot believe that Obama is flipflopping on this. It really doesn't feel realistic since he was so clearly against it and used it on the stump. Something else is up here and I fear that's it's the same old game made new again but now against Obama: blackmail by Bush and his cadre of criminals. That's the only explanation for Obama not representing the majority of his constituents especially in a campaign cycle. It makes zero sense whatsoever.
pissed off patricia @ 72:
Not to beat a dead horse but in 1995 (when the book was published)...This guy was 100% all about being POTUS and it consumes him now. Not an inherently terrible (or good) thing...but its what consumes these candidates.
Dr. Acula @ 79:
Most newspaper monopolies in this country are extremely reichwing in their ownership which is precisely why the WSJ and others are slipping into total irrelevancy. Besides, why should people PAY FOR PROPAGANDA?? We can hear the truth on the BBC channels and read the unvarnished version on the web. To hell with our print media. They've made their choices to become propaganda megaphones so it's justice that they will be soon speaking strictly to the choir: Other propagandists and GOP brainless fascists.
Ahh. McCain/Bush/Murdoch's media in action.
I guess it is apparent, if you happen to be a blithering halfwit with schizophrenia.
Everyone's cancelling their newspaper subscriptions AND dropping their land phones as a form of protest to what the telecoms have done to us. They've violated our privacy rights and sold us down the river. It's time to tell them where to go by cancelling your land phone. Most people have a duplication of service anyway so it also makes fiscal sense.
It's time for the people to make their heft apparant by boycotting those reichwing organizations totally - their goods, services, advertisers, etc. It's a clear way to make the sting of the people felt. Boycott anything owned by a Republican. We create sanctions based on lines in the sand which we arbitrarily draw for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is a political ideology so it's time for all of us to take boycotting Republican/Fascist-owned businesses and put them out of business.
marko @ 71:
"You got to dance with them what brung you."
Great line but, Not. Gonna. Happen.
He's off to ballroom class with the "Mushy Middle"
Kind of an easy dance to learn....Every step is to the right.
Thanks to Bush this country has moved so far right that the true "centrists" would be considered to be left. That's fact.
Part of the reason for Obama's instant success is the fact that the majority of americans are left (even those who claim to be center are left) since the right has shifted so radically to the right that they've gone off the charts.
I guess this is why people claim that Obama is a centrist. Might be right since the right has fallen into the abyss of darkness from which there is no return.
osiris @ 88:
What a completely absurd notion...I simply don't know where to start on that one.
Anyone?
I don't think even a full force media campaign can pull off this frame. Forget that vast policy differences. Obama has human characteristics. Bush does not.
"But to suggest that Obama’s position brings him into line with Bush/Cheney/McCain is foolish."
they look foolish? Hahahaha...I can see that someone is foolish alright, and it isn't the WSJ.
To me, foolishness was thinking that more government was somehow capable of fixing the social and economic problems government creates by intervening.
Face it liberals, government fails when it intervenes in the economy, and in so doing, causes the economy to fail, as we are witnessing.
Obama is a fraud. Did you people honestly think that to get to the Presidency, you can be moral and good? Our government has been lost ever since the Berlin wall came down and the fall of communism. Ever since the fall of communism, our government has had no purpose for existing in its current form.
We need what Benjamin Franklin suggested. A volunteer government composed of moral men and women who want nothing but the best for the country and not themselves only like paid politicians are like.
Corporations are so far out of any sort of control, it's staggering. They are using their record profit bubbles being created out of speculation, no bidding, and unaccountability to manipulate\distort the system and the media. They have been blatently breaking the laws, on record, and getting away with it with impunity.
Who is going to stop them? John Kennedy was easily setup and killed, and half his family were also killed when there weren't nearly half the mega-monoplies we have today. Lone nuts seem to coincedently come out of the woodwork at the "perfect" moment in time, to completely and radically swing the course of history, don't they. Against some of the biggest supporters of the PEOPLE this planet ever had. Single nuts, or just a mere handfull, with cheap mail order junk guns, or even boxcutters actually defeat the most high tech, highest costing security available ANYWHERE, so perfectly, it's almost twilight zone reading material.
The Federal Reserve Sytem (private international bankers) TOOK OVER our monitary system through decite and lies in secret, on Jekyle Island, prints tons more of the worthless monoply money than necessary, manipulates the rates, and then the mega corporations manipulate the rest. Wars make it SO damn EASY to justify ANYTHING they do, LEGAL OR NOT. That is the present day system. Now again, who is going to change it? Even JFK in his grave, is saying, WTF!
Spare me the change is comming. I waited for change in the 60's. It was buried very very fast and neatly, with beautifull ceremonies to watch. This whole bs system is based on too many "perfectly" timed coincidences, and pure lies.
I'm confused. After Obama's speech on race a few months back, the punditry blew a gasket about how he "threw his grandmother under a bus".
Now they're throwing Bush under a bus.
These guys are Republicans. Why is it bad for Obama to be Bush Term III (leaving aside the absurdity of the argument)?
These people are tying themselves in logical knots. They will be human pretzels by election day.
Sleazy, sleazy, sleazy. Those little Nazi fuck-wads at the WSJ editorial page probably haven't had so much fun since back when they drove Vince Foster to suicide.
karl @ 75:
when it comes to healthcare, corporate corruption, social security, the environment, iraq, etc. the country actually leans left. This is why the admin and the right need distracting issues and to play the fear card. Yes, for some issues the country leans right, but for other issues, and imho the majority of issues, the country leans either left or moderate. I think by stating that the country leans right (conservative) you are allowing the right to not only frame the issues, but the entire country.
And, yes, Clinton did buy into neoliberalism, and we have seen to terrible legacy of that influence. Just as we see in the IMF/WB. This must be rejected in total.
Am I being idealistic? Had gore’s and kerry’s campaigns been successful I would say that I am being idealistic. But, as we have seen, that strategy, and what obama appears to be doing, is not a winner. I actually think I am more realistic than most, but I am biased :-)
arianna huffington was pretty spot on, i thought, in her obama critique
and naomi klein helped shed light on obama's neoliberal leanings.
but, as we both do, we think for ourselves and try to come to the best decision we can.
osiris @ 90:
thanks.... you get it....it's fluid..bush is an extremist
it's brawn over brains right now...there's consequences
for that on-going behavior/philosophy what did r. paul
call it? oh yeah......blowback...cause and effect....if obama doesn't stay close to his enemy if you will and court the centrists/indep./moderates
a large/fast growing demographic he won't win. if we demand absolute
liberal idealism now he can't court independents.......the change will happen in office not before...we will not be offered the CHANGE on a silver platter.....the NEOCONS/k-street/wallstreet/oil will see to that.
osiris @ 84:
Hiya Doc and Osiris!
Yeah kinda was a rhetorical, but also I just wanted to see who was gonna defend the WSJ and a legitimate unbiased source for news...whoa..I would have trouble saying that without laughing.
I agree that our mainstream printed media is generally run by reichwing groups. I stopped reading newspapers years ago, before I even realized how biased they were...I just thought the printed newspaper was/is obsolete.
There are about 100 posts on this thread by now, mostly from truly rabid Obama supporters, and not one post has managed to refute a single point made in that WSJ article. Plenty of attacks on the WSJ as a news source, Rupert Murdoch, media in general, etc. But so far no one has been able to disprove or refute what the WSJ said Obama has done.
Not a good sign, folks.
Anyone who thought a vote for Obama was a "None of the Above" vote really got it wrong.
We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it.
Kind of approves of new FISA bill! Didn't diss two Supreme Court decisions! Didn't rip off Petraeus's head and shit down his throat! Sadly for the WSJ, their "proofs" for Obama being Bush III instead of McCain all go double and then some for McCain.
osiris @ 90:
they would be considered to be left, but, in actuality they are of the right. that is a fact too.
Lonny @ 24:
Yes, it is now Fox News in print format. That telltale spin...
Just more slime from the Murdock Street Journal
Farfetched? No matter who wins the Presidency - Obama or McCain - we'll still be in Iraq at the end of their first term. No difference whatsoever.
McCain or Obama? Really who cares? Both will follow Bush's lead.
maybe some of you are correct. this process (the campaigning) is NOT
linear but that is how we are told to think. this situation is fluid. obama is moving from left to center maybe even right of center. some are saying he should stay in the left of the spectrum you may correct....that adjustment may be later in the campaign. i realize the (R) seems to dictating he's move(s)..i'm hoping that's for now. it's the spin heads that try to tell us where he is and why.....i just don't believe anyone can be absolute.....including me.
onerb @ 106:
they may have no choice of course........we can see that bush is trying to make it very difficult to get out of mideast.maybe it will take obama one term to get out.....and mccain will be six feet under and never see it happen
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE the WSJ's portrayal of Obama as the second coming of shrub!!! I hope the MSM picks up with this and runs with it for a while. I want to smack Obama in the head with this so that he will get his act together and start acting like a damn Democrat again instead of a wimpy moderate Republican. He has gone WAY too far to the right in trying to be everything to everybody.
This is right out of the Lee Atwater Playbook. "Take your adversary's main strengths, and make it a liability. Then associate your candidate with the same strength. The net result is that your adversary will not want to mention it any more". Is this not what the swiftboaters did against Kerry? The man was a highly decorated combat veteran, yet they completely fabricated stories, which made his service negative. Every bit of it was lies. Karl Rove came up with the tactic - the man who was a protegee of Atwater. Rove has a lot to answer for. A thousand painful deaths are not enough for that scum.
Todd @ 105:
Op Eds were the first to go..
onerb @ 106:
Sorry, but you are just speculating and do not have any more insight than anyone else.
If Obama is going to join Bush in shitting on the Fourth Amendment I have no problem with that line of attack.
MacDaKnife @ 110:
very good entry.......kerry was unfairly smeared....i thought it was disguisting.....kerry didn't automatically respond because he was in shock that they would fabricate something like that. i believe that he thought if he defended himself it would make him look guilty. obama knows rove's dirty tactics and hopefully will have a different strategy than kerry did. when dealing with rove/NEOCON linguistic strategy you must consider every counter move.
candideinnc @ 109:
You can whine about Obama's "move to the right" but he's making bigger inroads into red states than the repugs ever dreamed. He's got them on the run and should stay on the offensive (for now). As long as McBush has to keep working at convincing his own base, there's no chance he'll win. If BO doesn't win, then it hardly matters whether he chose a strategy that satisfied your druthers.
My prediction is this: The United Corporations of America will have a new President next January.
I guess the Rovian apparatchik is losing no time in spreading the lies. Just like them to take anything bad (even if it's their guy Bush) and hang it around the opponent's neck.
This is a big worry. I appreciate all the factchecking on the MSM that blogs like C&L do...too bad the reputable blogs get lumped in with the scurrilous ones.
POP is so prescient, she knows what's in the hearts of 90% of us who don't drink the Obama kool-aid and thinks we should read books written by Obama about himself to know his true wondrous nature. Have you read: Why Courage Matters: The Way to a Braver Life, Faith of My Fathers or Worth Fighting For: A Memoir? Something tells me, and I'm just guessing here as I haven't read them, that John Sidney McCain comes off as a damn fine American with all the qualities you would want in a president in those little treatises.
I do not know that Obama would be better than Bush. Different doesn't necessarily equate with better. I happen to think he would be horrendous and in the long run, in terms of moving forward progressively, Bush would have helped that (see mid-term elections) - a disastrous Obama term will set us back another couple of decades at a minimum. For those who think his SCOTUS nominees would be better, I suggest you look back at his opinions re: Roberts and Alito. A lawyer who studied (and even taught a bit of) Constitutional Law who can allow this FISA bill through is not someone I want picking the next justices, either.
I know it won't happen but I keep hoping that the delegates will come to their senses and start over in August.
it
s rupert murdoch's wall street journal
you expected the truth or something ???
rupert murdoch is morally incapable of telling the truth
Exotic Blue Lensman @ 115:
The successes in the red states did not occur when Obama was making his right turn on separation of church and state, FISA, vacillation on universal health care, etc. happened. The red states started turning blue not because of Obama, but because of Bush. You can whimper, "Oh golly goshins, he is better than McCain." I am not convinced, and neither are any progressives who have examined his speeches. You can put all the lipstick on this pig you want. It still ain't pretty.
MSNBC.com has a story up reporting that Obama is claiming that his trip to Iraq can change his mind on his troop withdrawal plan. Everyone knows that I have been arguing that he's free to compromise on those edge issues like FISA and campaign finance reform. But if he moves on Iraq, health care, economy, education, energy/environment......then I join everyone else who might vote for him, but I'll no longer actively support.
I hope he's just saying this as a set up to say he's willing to compromise, but when he goes over there and comes back, he argues that now more than ever he feels that we need to withdraw.
Well...I guess if we have to have a third Bush term, I'd rather it be Obama than McCain.
FISA. Patriot Act, 2nd vote. NAFTA. 'Faith based'. Sounds like Bush to me.
I used to stand up for Obama. But by moving to the center he's pretty much told all of us that fought for him through the primary to fuck off.
He's starting to sound a lot like Harold Ford to me. I'm not going to fight any battles for a guy like that. I hope he's realizing what the effects of his center move are going to be.
candideinnc @ 120:
You've assisted in making my point. The goal isn't to convince you and other progressives that Obama is everything you want him to be. The goal is to win the election and secondarily, aid in the election of an overwhelming democratic majority to congress. To put it another way, Kucinich ain't ever gonna be prez no matter how badly you'd like him to be.
Samson- @ 8:
GOD YES.
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who's seeing this
Shoeless @ 122:
Why? A third Republican term of this shit makes the Democrats strong. a third Democrat term of this shit makes Democrats unable to win an election for another decade.
mrplow @ 124:
Hum, if you think that Obama was not center right before, I guess you were not paying attention or you don't know what the left is supposed to look like.
He has always been a moderate conservative.
There are no progressive mainstream candidates in this country, period. Kucinich has no shot in hell, so he does not count.
The only choices allowed to us by the powers that be this election cycle where:
- Insane reactionary conservative: McCain
- A bit more reasonable conservative: Hillary
- Moderate conservative: Obama
marko @ 25:
yes your exactly right , but it dont matter now we let them stick us with pigs with twigs in thier mouths , kucinich 08
Exotic Blue Lensman @ 125:
Au contraire. I made no such point. The fact remains that Obama either is a wolf in sheep's clothing and truly is Bush-lite, or he lacks the courage of his convictions and is unwilling to stand up for liberal/progressive values. I think Kerry turned off voters trying the approach of everything to everybody. When voters don't trust the candidate to speak their mind, they don't vote for them.
Incidentally, Kucinich isn't a realist, but Glenn Greenwald is. His take on Obama is right on target. I recommend you read his columns from this week.
Steve,
Obama wants to wiretap us with no oversight.
The genie is out of the bottle.
Obama offers more of the same - big promises, little difference.
It doesn't matter who you vote for; the government always wins.
The Dude @ 128:
Right on, Dude. The prevailing logic here seems to be - because Obama is not Kucinich, he's the equivalent of McCain.
Merle @ 127:
Not sure I'm seeing where you are going with this, so in order to make the Democratic Party stronger, we need to elect McCain?
But if Obama were to win this election, then the next, then another Democrat were to win the third election after that, it would weaken the Democratic Party.
Is this what your trying to say?
Hey Benen,
Obama opened HIMSELF up to this kind of editorial...not the other way around. If he didn't want such a hit-piece being written about him, he shouldn't have now said that he supports the compromise bill. Frankly, I'm glad WSJ wrote this piece--Obama deserves it this time and maybe it will get him to wake up. Rhetoric doesn't matter on something like this and when Obama supports a bill that gives telcos immunity--then it is accurate to say that, in this case, he is identical to bush.
yours,
archmunster
I had an Obama lawn sign and contributed to his campaign. But I'm getting underwhelmed. If I had to vote today, I'm leaning for Ralph Nader. Even Bob Barr is a better choice than Obama. Personally, I'd like to see Feingold and Dodd running. All of those guys care enough about my liberties to protect them. Obama is blowing smoke up my arse with the same sort of vacuuous "Uniter, Not A Divider" platitude b.s. I heard eight years ago. That's why Obama and Bush are similar. And both seem to be equally stoopid. Sure, Obama looks like a Harvard MBA, but he runs to the right -- which he mistakenly thinks is the same thing as the "center" -- at the very moment that all available evidence indicates the real center is moving to leftward to progressive liberal positions. Pitiful.
NAFTA he wants to open dialogue regarding labor/environment what clinton wanted to do but was talked out it......so it's said.. obama made the mistake of talking like it was going be a unitary strategy with protectionism thrown in there...showing off to unions he was mistaken
FISA i don't like this either bush didn't need to change FISA his was able to wiretap if needed.....there has to much more to this story which brings on the speculation......(obama vote against immunity)...no matter what he does here he gets beat up.
the faith based initiative...i don't know what to say accept i don't agree another strategy.......bush promised these people but didn't deliver.
you can call it moving toward bush if you want but there is a speed bump in the way and that's mcBush who is way closer to bush than obama.
obama figures he has his left base...now heading centrist/independent
no blue states no red states just the united states..we're not going to get everything we want....especially not now...i feel many americans will come our way once were in office much easier to swallow then what bush did his following(deception) unless you are upper class the tax carrot........this was the bitter/religion comment that's all they have.....he wants to give them more than bush did but he needs to gain their perceived trust...bush screwed lower-middle and middle class republicans and obama knows this...they can have their religion and guns especially these rural areas i personally don't give a shit..but they to understand that we need to address healthcare,S.S.,environment and so on....once you talk with these people you find they want the same things....beyond guns and religion but it's all they everything else has been taken away....bush did absolutely nothing for these people
again will have to agree to disagree...sorry about the run ons.
Shoeless @ 133:
I think the point is that the mess left by the GOP is so huge that there is no way any new elected administration can clean it up in 1 term.
The GOP are the masters of framing and passing the hot potato.
Therefore if a Dem was to be elected, the GOP will make sure that most people think that the mess is due to the Dems not the previous GOP administration. The GOP is banking on the fruit fly-like memory of the American voter, and the inability of the Dems to frame anything or get their message out. The GOP controls the media... Pravda and the ministry of truth have nothing of these assholes.
The question is, can we suffer a 3rd GOP term in a row?
The Dude @ 137:
one word answer........nope
Three utterly strange pretzel stretches in one day is a bit much. Residual gaseous Clark rumblings still belch from the beasts gut, then the dainty Hannity pirouette before Walrus man and now this.TV World is really starting to get feverish and we still have 5 more problem pregnant months of this.
Obama was never the creature shaped by these overly hopeful projection processions. He'll do. The perfect is enemy to the good and the unseemly and quixotic one upmanship school of unattainables is a dry hump.
I see this one upmanship in Cambridge all the time from usually tragically hip guys with a snootful of Chomsky and a delightful obliviousness to the parochial concerns of Meathead Nation.
Sometimes it is very hard to tell how conservative or liberal anyone is as much of it is like the Rice Christians of the 19th century colonization of China. Much of America has been too focused on chasing status toys and refining narcissism to have a handle on eyeglaze like FISA.
But 5 buck gas sends them into fits and the utter erosion of life quality with an obvious culprit in W edges them toward despair. It will only get worse and the oligarchic imposition of the Corporate is about to have its own huge problems as trillions of its imaginary dollars vaporise.
So while we can rail away about why Obama isn't everything to all of us always and is a creature of a corporate world, I suggest putting at least some time into watching for signs of corporate retreat from macro factors beyond this white knuckle election cycle such as peak oil and unfavorable planetary realignments such as the EU and Mercorsur (sic) in South America.
The Multinationals have already overreached and the financial core is in mid meltdown.
Memo to Hillary:
Girl, time to un-suspend your campaign.
You are welcome back. Any time.
All is forgiven.
We trusted Obama.
But he lied to us.
Your dropping out of the race permitted Phony Barack to show us the Real Obama.
"Our Pal Barack" said one thing out of one side of his mouth (FISA) to appeal to us dirty stinking hippie liberals to defeat you;
But "Candidate Obama" now says a completely different thing out of the other side of his mouth (FISA) to appeal to mouth-breathing redneck hillbillies to defeat the Maverick.
Seen. It. Be. Fore.
vanessa the undressa @ 140:
how would hillary vote on FISA....personally i like hillary
how would she speak about her war vote which i personally believe her but way too difficult for public to understand..
what about the clinton library
license for illegal immigrants
actually i'm for hillary to be v.p. although i know that gets plenty of negativity........hillary far from perfect.....personally i feel should move right or toward the center as i prefer to call it
vanessa the undressa @ 140:
Stop it. No one believes you.
Stupidest thing I've seen on television in a long time.
Who is A.B. Stoddard and why is she lying so much?
How is it journalism to look at Obama and McCain, compare Obama to Bush, and never mention McCain?
Just plain stupidity.
The right is incredibly desperate. They know they are not going to win. This is really grasping.
I turned it off; inane crap.
they're trying to establish insecurity within obama's base. why....because he is attempting to attract independents....people that are disenchanted
with the bush dictatorship......we need to be patient and smart. mccain doesn't have his base for sure.....they want us to be in the same situation
mccain is like bush no no obama is like bush get a grip people
obama is going to try and empower everybody that is change instead of divide and conquer...we have to give to get
archmunster @ 134:
That's even more of a stretch the the WSJ (which I've already declared inane, above.) Really, you think that? Truly?
Wow ....... it constantly amazes me how utterly shite the "news" (and TV in general) is in the US.
No wonder most people are driven by such ignorance !
Just burn the "news" stations people.
Umm...this just in. Boy, Obama sure is starting to look like a tool. The backtracking and move to the middle isn't what we need on certain issues. I am deeply disappointed in Obama and it looks like I'll have to find a third party candidate once again.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11517.html
Johnny2Bad @ 92:
It's a fabulous idea. To a greater extent, I have toyed with starting a boycott everything American website. Money makes the world go 'round, especially America. America is all about money, first, last and always.
Login or Register to post comments.