Obama Talks the Talk, But Where’s the Walk?
By NoQuarter on December 12, 2007 at 5:57 PM in Clinton, Obama, Presidential Candidates
At the Sunday rally in Manchester, NH, Oprah Winfrey stirred the crowd:
“Ain’t you tired of the old way of politics,” Winfrey asked. The crowd responded “Yes.”
Barack Obama recently said:
”We’ve had enough of … triangulation and poll-driven politics,” he said. ”That’s not what we need right now.’
Obama is rising in the polls because he’s expressing FEELINGS that people WANT to hear. People are worn down by the last seven years, and they want to believe what they’re hearing from a hopeful, fresh candidate. The problem is, it’s just talk. Here are some pithy examples of (1) Obama as the triangulator extraordinaire, and (2) Obama as a do-nothing — yes, a do-nothing.
A do-nothing? You can’t even find it listed at his Senate Web site, but Sen. Obama is the chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs for the Senate Foreign Relations committee. That subcommittee oversees “U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), relations with the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Matters relating to Greenland and the northern polar region are also the responsibility of this subcommittee.”
Shockingly — although his campaign has tried to beef up his thin international experience by citing his chairmanship of the subcommittee on European affairs — according to Congressional Quarterly, Sen. Obama has not held a single hearing since he assumed the chairmanship nearly a year ago. It’s little wonder, then, that Sen. Obama’s Senate site doesn’t list his chairmanship.
Then there’s IRAQ, and Obama’s (and Oprah’s) incessant claim– as Oprah told the Des Moines crowd on Saturday, “long before it was the popular thing to do, he stood with clarity and conviction against this war in Iraq.”
In July of `04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of `04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it. (”Meet the Press,” 2004, via MyDD, Nov. 11, 2007)
“What would I have done? I don’t know” … “There’s not much of a difference” between him and George W. Bush … “some room for disagreement in that initial decision. …” If that’s not triangulation, I don’t know what is.
What about Obama’s speeches on Iraq in the U.S. Senate? “[H]e did not give a speech devoted to Iraq for 11 months, and waited 16 months to give his first floor speech dedicated to Iraq, which happened to express his opposition to Senator John Kerry’s troop withdrawal plan. …”
What about Obama’s voting record in the U.S. Senate on Iraq? TPM Election Central painstakingly compared every single vote on Iraq by Sens. Clinton and Obama, since Obama entered the Senate. Senators Clinton and Obama voted identically, except once: On the confirmation of “General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm.” Why did Sen. Clinton vote against Gen. Casey’s confirmation?
During his nomination hearing to be Army Chief of Staff, I questioned General Casey about recent reports, both by the Department of Defense Inspector General and press accounts, that units and personnel lacked the necessary equipment. General Casey responded that was not aware of the problems cited in these reports and actually quite surprised at the reported shortcomings. In the Inspector General report’s summary, the equipment shortages were attributed to basic management failures among military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. General Casey was not aware of this investigation or its recommendations that oversight must immediately improve to ensure proper distribution of equipment; as a result units and personnel are not able to perform assign missions. — From “Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Vote on Confirmation of General George W. Casey to be Army Chief of Staff,” Feb. 8, 2007
How did Sen. Obama defend his vote for Gen. Casey?
“It is a bit unseemly that General Casey is being made the scapegoat for a war that never should have been fought and for a failed strategy dictated by the civilian leadership in the White House. The President, Vice President and other civilian officials set forth an unworkable strategy with inadequate resources and did not listen to the advice of generals on the ground. They are the ones ultimately responsible for the current situation in Iraq. I hope General Casey will get more support for his new mission, which is so important to the country. I want to see General Casey use his experience in Iraq to ensure that the civilian leadership in Washington understands the challenges faced and resources needed by today’s Army.”
That’s it. That’s the entire press release. Not a word about Gen. Casey’s failure to know about the crisis in equipment shortages or the “basic management failures” during Gen. Casey’s own time in Iraq or the Inspector General’s shocking report.
What about the senators’ trips to Iraq? In his three years in the U.S. Senate, Obama has visited Iraq once. Sen. Clinton has visited Iraq and Afghanistan three times.
We Americans all love good orators. We yearn to feel our hearts soar with optimism. We flock to the “sunny” candidates like Ronald Reagan. We want to feel better about our country but — when we’re sober and reflective — don’t we really want the candidate who’s walked the walk.
Sen. Clinton has stuck her neck out — by voting against Gen. Casey’s confirmation, by voting against the attack-dog resolution against MoveOn.org and by voting on the Iran resolution. (Yes, the last was controversial, but remember that she was the first senator to warn Pres. Bush against taking military action against Iran and that she partnered with Sen. Jim Webb’s resolution to require Congressional authorization before any military action against Iran.)
Sen. Obama failed to show up for the MoveOn or Iran votes, and in effect lied when he lamely told Wolf Blitzer that he didn’t know the Iran vote was coming up and didn’t have time to get back from campaigning in New Hampshire. (In fact, all senators were informed the day before that the Iran resolution vote was to come up the next day.)
There’s more to say, but I’ll close for now with this from “Hillary Clinton: More Than Just Talk” at Huffington Post:
In an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that Senator Obama served in the Illinois state senate just three years ago and would have less experience than any president since World War II, Senator Obama and his advisors have gone on the attack. They have criticized the role Senator Clinton has played in promoting American interests during her eight years as First Lady, seven years in the Senate, and four years as a member of the Senator Armed Services Committee.
Senator Clinton as First Lady was “America’s finest ambassador abroad,” Madeleine Albright’s office said at the time. Hillary Clinton did much more than “get picked up at the airport by a state convoy and security detail . . . . and get lunch” with an ambassador, as Senator Obama implied recently. As Newsweek reported about Senator Clinton’s diplomatic missions as First Lady, “She often travels to remote regions where no presidential motorcade would venture and where no secretary of state would have time to go.” Her 1995 speech at the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing, where she famously proclaimed “women’s rights are human rights,” remains an inspiration to leaders of the fight for women’s equality around the world. Long before others, she visited countries stricken by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria throughout the world, urging better prevention and treatment strategies, and returned to Washington to push for greater action within the US government. Her 1995 trip to India helped open the door to the transformation in relations between the world’s two largest democracies. She raised awareness on mine issues in the Balkans and led humanitarian efforts on behalf of Kosovar refugees.
As Senator, Hillary has fought to ensure our troops have the body armor they need while in combat, and she has passed laws so that returning soldiers are treated with dignity when they return home. She has placed education at the center of U.S. international assistance. She has been a leader in combating nuclear proliferation and the threat of nuclear terrorism. She has championed efforts to end the genocide in Darfur and been a leading voice in calling for action to end global warming. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she has visited our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan three times.
By contrast Senator Obama has been in the U.S. Senate under three years. His campaign has touted his experience as chairman of a subcommittee on European affairs, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, has not held a hearing since he assumed the chairmanship nearly a year ago. Senator Obama has traveled to Iraq once, 23 months ago.
We respect Senator Obama’s opposition to the war as a state senator in Illinois. But when he was actually in a position to influence policy from the U.S. Senate, he did not give a speech devoted to Iraq for 11 months, and waited 16 months to give his first floor speech dedicated to Iraq, which happened to express his opposition to Senator John Kerry’s troop withdrawal plan. … READ ALL.
People want change. But change from Obama? It’s illusory. Hillary Clinton has brought change for decades, fighting for women’s rights in the 1960s and 1970s when it was far, far tougher than it is these days. Fighting for children’s rights long before it was a common practice.
Obama is infamous for voting “present” on too many tough votes when he was in the Illinois state senate. He has skipped tough votes in the U.S. Senate. How can he possibly be that “the-buck-stops-here” tough leader we’ll need in the White House?
Terrific piece Susan. The facts speak for themselves. Obama has not stood up to face the fire. He’s got the finger in the wind.
Obama is Oprah’s protege and has been carefully coached by the billionaire of Daytine Redemption of Merchandise.
He is a product of the powerful Pritzker backed Democratic Chicago Political machine known well for its machinations.
On some issues Obama held for liberals, but to call him a liberal he palpably….SHRINKS as he did tonite in N.H. debate.
Obama speaks one way to blacks, and another to whites. Which is he? Blacks concern that he isn’t black enough as he has been conservative or dodgy on most issues.
His is a deliberate, highly organized and opportunistic entertainment event hawking hope and change while invoking ML King intonations of preacherdom to add to his gravitas with an illusory hope and change message.
Compelling Selling.
His record ain’t so compelling. A do nothing in Senate. Voted horribly for Patriot Act. Hillary against it along with the Bankruptcy bill which he voted against which offered protection to credit card users. There are quite a few similar pips.
But his oratory is giving the delusion that he is the savior of America.
Oprahbama’s entertainment event full of intoned pleas to establish Obama as the most powerful man in the land as Oprah’s cell phone gifts and goodie bags tracked his votes.
So, Oprahpalooza has finally translated to the
Presidency. We always said Oprah could be President if only she would run
“…is rising in the polls because he’s expressing FEELINGS that people WANT to hear. People are worn down by the last seven years, and they want to believe what they’re hearing…”
I believe we need to coin a new phrase for this type of wishful thinking: “Taking the Red Pill.” My apologies to “The Matrix” for this theft of concept.
Susan, as always a terric post.
As a native New Hampshirite, I have a few points to add about Obama.
Shortly after the DNC event for all the Democratic candidates, I sent each campaign a list of 10 questions. In my letter I stated I was a College Professor, and expected in depth responses. Some campaigns answered in full, some ignored my request.
Obama’s campaign sent me two 8×10 black and white pictures of Obama - one full face and the other a side view of him walking across a stage. The only written response was a short note thanking me for my interest-that’s It. I was insulted! Did the fools think that because we are a rural state that we’d be impressed by “Rock Star” status as opposed to substance? Didn’t he realize that NH people take their politics seriously, and we vote character - not for the next American Idol?
It’s interesting that Obam’s preferred venue in NH is the 10,000 seat Verizon Center. Until the year 2000, NH never had a large auditorium. Candidates rented College Field Houses or Gyms. Verizon paid for and DONATED that bulding to the city of Manchester. Previously the location had been a rather run down Zayre’s strip mall and the young folks travled to the Worcester Ma Civic Center, 2 1/2 hours away, for concerts. So the upside is that our kids stayed closer to home.
Now it seems that the Verizon Center, where Obama draws crowds of 2-4 Thousand, is his favorite site. Like anywhere else, NH people like to be entertained and enjoy a good show, and so they go to watch. However, the talk in the state centers around the fact that Obama ‘HIDES’ from people by being distant on stage, and won’t meet one on one to answer questions directly.
So sure, Obama writes well, and is terrific at making speeches - He ought to be, he went to Harvard Law, and was Editor of the Law review.
However, the citizens of NH note that while Obama has great speaking skills, he has very limited COMMUNICATION skills or substance. They also comment a lot on the fact that he probably will not LISTEN well - a quality we demand in our leaders.
As to the poll numbers. The national press has always treated NH people as ‘country bumbkins’ and are generally pretty damn rude. So, we generally tell them whatever they want to hear in order to get rid of them quickly. Once again, the MSM may find that they were pretty far off base.
Absolutely fascinating and knowledgeable comments.
Nellie, the response to your sending out a questionnaire as a professor is rather astonishing. I can imagine you felt insulted. We don’t need a far-off symbol. We need a doer. We need a decision-maker. We need a practical person who can field the volleys.
Another thing that worries me about Obama in a general election is that he has never run against a tough Republican challenger. Alan Keyes was a joke in ‘04.
Wait ’til the Republicans dig into his liberal stands on the old questionnaires that people have dug up this past week. They’ll decimate him with what he’s written and said — and now he’s denying he filled out the questionnaire?!
And some of his votes in the state senate are fodder for both sides. More about those in the coming days.
Agree with you about the communication skills. When he has to speak extemporaneously, he doesn’t do well. And he’s weak in debates. That’s another area where he’d fare badly in the general … as unappealing as they may seem to us, most of the Republican candidates could handily defeat him in general election debates.
Susan - Thanks for the kudos-coming from you that is high praise indeed.
To sum up Obama in two words - he is shallow and superficial!
They must not think so. Shaheen has made a huge blunder by trying to make his past drug use an issue.
Where does Hillary stand on this?
Obama Supports Homegrown Terrorism Bill
Jessica Lee
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama says that he will support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959). According to the automatic email responses constituents are receiving from his office, Obama appears to be straddling the fence between preserving civil liberties and being tough on terrorism.
There’s a reason why I prefer Edwards over Obama and Hillary…alas, not a very deep field of choices overall, but at this point as long as “Republican” is not attached to their name*…I’ll hold my nose and vote for the one that is put up…anything has got to be an improvement over our current circumstances.
* I should note that I’m saying this with the full recognition that there are a significant portion of the American voting public who are either crazy, insane, or just plain not paying attention to current news, who would still vote Republican.
I’d definitely go for Edwards over Obama. Sen. Clinton is my emphatic first choice but if it came to it, I’d go for Edwards. Or Dodd, who has many qualities and views I admire. I think Edwards has the grit, the brains, and he’d be decisive as president. As would Sen. Clinton.
But Obama just doesn’t have that decisive quality or — as people used to mention about the great bridge players back in the days when I played tournament bridge — that “killer instinct.” You gotta have that “killer instinct” to 1) weather a brutal general election race against any of the GOP candidates, and 2) survive the constant onslaught of criticisms when one is president, and still be decisive and take risks. Obama isn’t a risk-taker. Overall, he’s had a pretty easy life. Both Sens. Clinton and Edwards have not had easy lives but are survivors and great successes.
If Edwards, Obama and Clinton all came out on the Iran issue the same way. I would certainly go for Obama or Clinton before Edwards. But they do not. Clinton voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment and as Senator Webb stated this was “tantamount to declaring war on Iran”. Obama played it safe and skipped the vote. John Edwards has taken a solid stance against the Bush administration and any push for a confrontation with Iran. Edwards is not taking any Pac Money.
Here is what Webb said about the Kyl Lieberman
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/25/sen-webb-blasts-liebermankyl-amendment-this-proposal-is-dick-cheneys-fondest-pipe-dream/
Wow Susan, excellent post! You really put a lot of work into this one. Not that you don’t put a lot of work into all your posts. But this one must’ve taken lots of work!
Quite frankly, I’m not keen on any of the Democratic candidates. Even though all of them are a good sight better than any of the GOP candidates. For example: Huckabee doesn’t believe in evolution, Giuliani Mr. 9/11-NOT, Romney Mr. Slick Opportunist, Thompson Mr. 1980s time warp, etc. If a Republican wins the 2008 ticket, we’ll be in deep trouble. They’ll continue Bushie-ness!
Just wish there were a Democratic candidate I could get excited about. But none of them do it for me. Although Dodd comes close more often than the others for me. But he probably won’t win the ticket.
as the candidates entered the race i listened to them all very closely and with an open mind. i found obama to be refreshing and intriguing initially until i started examining his positions deeper. unfortunately, from what i can tell with him, most of his policies, the one that are explained, are not as progressive as i would like. he appears to be hopelessly lost on enviornmental/energy issues, i would rank his health care proposals as being not as bold as other plans, and his answer to leaving iraq leaves me cold. he promises to leave by the end of his first term … not good enough by half.
as on old time democratic party hack i was also offended by a trip he made to oregon. he showed up in portland for a fund raising rally but did not take the time to give any interview to local progressive talk shows nor did he really interact with the state and local party. he flew in … spent two or three hours in the state and left with a big bag of money. this was during the time when his campaign was stressing the politics of inclusion. i must say it left me scratchimg my head.
in conclusion, if he gets the nomination i will, of course, vote for him while sincerely believing that the democrats could have done much better with john or dennis. i think america and the democratic party has a unique opportunity to elect a truly progressive president in 08. if the party offers up obama as the candidate, we will surely have turned our back on this opportunity.
John Edwards is committed to a living wage, equity in education, dealing with poverty, supports unions, and has apologized for his vote for the 2002 war resolution and has consistently stood firm against any type of escalation of the inflammatory rhetoric towards Iran or military confrontation. He learned from his 2002 mistake, he know he was mis-lead. I can’t stand men who can not accept responsibility for their mistakes and apologize let alone women who do the same.
Hillary has demonstrated an inability to come clean on this very serious issue her 2002 war resolution vote and then went ahead and voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment. Did you watch her reaction to being questioned about her vote..she was sarcastic, arrogant and dismissive. Reminded me of Bush.
For me Edwards is the one.
I’ve started calling him “The Imaginary Obama” because all the Obama supporters I talk to have an imaginary ideal candidate who only vaguely resembles the man.
Succinctly put, and accurate.
She didn’t give the right answer in the deabte though.
Diamonds and Pearls.
Why have either/or when the world can offer both?
As for Obama, how long is it before the pundits recycle some Superfly 70’s lingo to describe him.
He doesn’t just walk, he has this strut about him. One that makes Chris Matthews think of Men’s Cologne and it makes him dizzy like when he’s having a sugar rush…
Alan Keyes is still around to blame kids for America’s downfall after Mutt Romney discussed Education policy that would make the upper quarter of Americans who test well be able to merit
paid college…
Now if only we could steer those test funds Neil and Marvin Bush’s way like we did NCLB….
Obama and Oprah almost make spinning the truth sound and look good
During the Oprah and Obama show I found both of their efforts to convince the American public that Senator Obama will be “bold” and will not conduct “business as usual” if he becomes the Democratic candidate for President hollow, insincere and hypocritical.
We know that Senator Obama recently had an opportunity to take a solid stand against any efforts by the Bush administration to escalate a confrontation with Iran when the Kyl Lieberman amendment came up for a vote. He did not. Senator Obama was so “bold” he happened to be out of town the day of this critical vote. We also know that Senator Hillary Clinton voted for that amendment.
Several years ago Senator Obama had an opportunity to demonstrate his allegedly “bold” stances on other issues. During the nomination hearings of both John Bolton and Condi “mushroom cloud” Rice (I watched them) Senator’s Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, Dodd and Lincoln Chaffee asked hard driving “bold” questions of both Bolton and Rice. During that same hearing Senator Obama played it safe and asked softball questions. “Bold” is certainly not the way I would describe Obama’s actions. More like riding the fence and then spinning the truth.
Obama and Oprah can spin all they want, but facts do matter to some voters.
We know Hillary voted for the 2002 war resolution. We know that she voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment allowing the Bush administration to move closer to a confrontation with Iran. We know that Hillary sarcastically laughed when she was challenged about this vote by Mike Gravel soon after the vote.
We know Hillary is a war hawk and the I-lobby owns a big piece of Hillary.
John Edwards is the only candidate not taking Pac money.
Well stated.
We all know you are for John Edwards, Kathleen. We really know.
But I do have to say that I’d feel better about your attacks on the other candidates if you backed them up with actual quotes and links, rather than your opinions.
I was writing about Obama the other day when you were then responding with cheerleading for Hillary. And may I say Susan and we all know that you are for Hillary Clinton. My statements were not attacks they were facts. Hillary Clinton voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment, Obama walked out.
I have no idea how you can claim making statements about Obama’s behaviour during the Bolton/Rice hearings as attacks. These are facts.
Your statement to me does appear to be an attack
Hillary Clinton voted for the Kyl Lieberman Amendment that is a FACT. Susan you asked for a few links to back up my opinions and statements in regard to Hillary, Obama and Edwards. Here are just a few.
#Kyl Lieberman amendment roll call
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349
#Reactions to Clintons vote
#Hillary votes for war again
#http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/hillary-clinton-votes-for_b_66174.html
#Clintons Iran vote
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html
#http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/kyllieberman_iran_amendment_passes_by_huge_margin.php
Of the Dem Presidential candidates, Hillary voted for the measure, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd opposed it, and Barack Obama missed the vote. On the GOP side, John McCain missed the vote.
#Senator Webb’s appeal before the Kyl Lieberman admendment vote
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/webb-kyl-lieb-iran/
Webb said that amendment’s attempt to categorize the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as “a foreign terrorist organization” would, for all practical purposes, “mandate” the military option against Iran. “It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them.”
He also slammed the lack of debate and examination that was accompanying the amendment, saying “this is not the way to make foreign policy”:
We haven’t had one hearing on this. I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee, I’m on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war.
#Here is Amy Goodman asking Seymour Hersh about why Hillary voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment.
“Finally, Jewish journalist Seymour Hersh recently broke the taboo against discussing the J-word in an interview with Amy Goodman, Jewish host of Democracy Now, on Oct. 3. When Goodman asked him why it is that Democratic presidential candidates feel compelled to join Republican presidential candidates in threatening an expanded Middle
Eastern war against Iran, he explained that American Jews — and Jewish money — were pushing us toward war for Israel.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/2/seymour_hersh_white_house_intensifying_plans
Here is part of that interview where Hersh speaks honestly and out loud about the I-lobby and it’s influence on Hillary. This is a great interview of Amy Goodman with Seymour Hersh (two journalist that I deeply respect)listen for yourselves.
Here is the link to when Mike Gravel questions Hillary Clinton’s yes vote on the Kyl Lieberman amendment. Gravel points out that Obama walked out. You get to see Edwards apologizing once again for his 2002 war resolution vote, and his reasons for standing against the Bush administrations and the neo-cons push for a confrontation with Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npzN3dZR6JM
THIS CLIP IS A MUST WATCH
The way Hillary responded to a legitimate challenge was disgusting and alarming.
Just checked all of the links they did not all work. But the critical ones did.
I was very curious to see what you found “disgusting and alarming” and so I watched this clip. I must say very simply that you are twisted.
There was nothing at all disgusting or alarming here. What I learned is that there is a difference of opinion, weighing the danger of Iran against the danger of George W. Bush. I think Edwards articulated himself very well.
But seriously: what did you wish Hillary to do to the first speaker? The older fat white haired one? Suddenly iron his shirt?
I submit that you are bent (prejudiced) against Hillary and are trying to spread that bias.
You make general remarks without attribution that are entirely subjective an untrue.
Name calling is hollow stuff. Back up your claims with logic, attribution and consideration for an entire look at the truth.
Sen. Obama did nothing to oppose the invasion of Iraq and its obvious threat to our longstanding role as worl superpower(the notion of which is itself a myth, only now made patently obvious).
He thinks a rubber stamp, or even silence, equals opposition.
He was courting the old school backing of the Chicago School, and even courting right wing votes in Hastert’s district.
He’s got a lot of nerve, but it’s clear that he’s not got a lot to run on, or else Oprah would not be joined to his hip right now.
That’s all you got? Where’s the game, Barack?
Where’s your years of teaching law, your practice, even your days in the Legislature?
Is it that bad a record to run from, than use?
You didn’t make waves for a reason, but it’s evident someone needs to come in who can take the steps to get us back on course at home and abroad…
maybe that’s why Colin Powell is your advisor.
You fumbled the European Affairs Committee BIG TIME and it’s starving NATO to wither on the vine in war torn Afghanistan where you could have already made some leadership statements…
imitating NEOCONS doesn’t win you win a thing.
Haartz
the Israel Factor…interesting
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtm
l?itemNo=757692
Ranking the Presidential candidates..”the Israel Factor”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml
Hillary falling between Rudy and Bloomberg……..gee, does that make her a centrist?
Every single bloody one of them panders to Israel/AIPAC to one degree or another. Hillary is one of the worst. As I have noted a few times before, she lost me forever during her senatorial campaign when she responded to “expressions of concern” by “Jewish groups” by making a P.R. event out of returning contributions from Muslim supporters.
The best thing any American president could do for Israel would be to tell them to evacuate their illegal colonies, get back inside the green line, demonstrate that they have given up their expansionist ambitions by declaring the green line to be their border, and pay reparations to the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and the Golan Syrians.
How interesting that Kucinich is nowhere to be seen on that page.
Was Ron Paul missing too?
I think so.
WOW! Thank you for this - I have been deeply concerned about Isreal influence on AMERICAN government.
You really think Democrats are stupid enough to believe this crap.
Here’s the facts. Obama spoke out against the war, when most of America thought it was a good idea.
Print the speech. I know you won’t, because you hate Obama, don’t know why.
Everything he said in that speech came true.
Meanwhile, Edwards thought going into Iraq was a great idea, as did Hillary.
Now of course the polls have shown the war is un-poular, so Edwards flip-flopped.
Sorry. I can read. And Obama is my Senator. He has done more for working people and minorities then Edwards could ever dream of.
You could read up and learn. But you won’t. You hate Obama, and that is your problem.
You will be left behind and prove you are only important in your own mind.
How do lying sleaze like you sleep?
Fuck off asshole. You don’t get to insult Susan on my blog.
LJ
Can people have different opinions here or not?
I had not read the last line. Yeah calling Susan a “lying sleaze” is way over the top. I do want to participate on blogs where all topics are on the table (and have certainly not found that to be the case everythere) and people do not attack each other personally when they respectfully share different opinions.
Good thing I read down - I was just about to write a comment to “Ken” myself. Thanks Larry - you speak for many of us.
Nellie, would you e-mail me? Thank you. susanunpc at gmail dot com
On Iraq: Did you read what Obama was saying about Iraq in 2004? It’s in my piece. Those are quotes from Chicago newspapers and other media.
On your statement here: “He has done more for working people and minorities then Edwards could ever dream of.”
Do tell. I mean it. Do tell me exactly what that is that he’s done. With links and proof, like I provided.
(And, thanks, Larry. There are ways to critique a post, and then there are below-the-belt attacks without an iota of proof .)
Susan, the thing is that when it comes to Iraq I don’t see a significant difference between Obama and Hillary.
When it comes to Iran, I don’t see a significant difference between Obama and Hillary. Hillary votes the wrong way, and Obama, as is his cowardly wont, ducks the issue.
If foreign policy were not such a hugely important thing in this election, I might feel less negatively inclined toward Hillary, but foreign policy is the number one issue as far as I am concerned and neither one of them is even remotely acceptable to me in that regard.
Totally agree. Pre-Kyl-LIEberman, Obama and Hil’s voting records in the Senate, barring the Iraq vote, were exactly the same! I wasn’t impressed then and I’m still not impressed with either of them. Uncomfortable!
The bottom line is that the top three Democratic candidates all consider military force a primary tool of foreign policy. Obama seems in addition to continue with the Bush notion that you can trick them into loving the U.S. by implementing a variety of costly, elaborate, and deeply patronizing P.R. campaigns.
Edwards might be marginally better than the other two, but all in all it is a dismal collection of options.
See what I mean susan? Ken could have just have easily said something like, ‘ well i disagree.. here is why ect.ect..I really like Obama’
Which is fine..Obama is a fellow Dem, nobody hates him we just have individual preference.
It’s so tempting just to insult Ken here and start a blog war with him, but i doubt the troll returns for awhile..
It would really be better to do a face to face with Ken.. Needs to learn some manners.
Got your back susan..
Ken - you are so far out in left field you’re not even in the ballpark anymore. Disagree if you like, but comments like yours deserve the permanent “banning” button.
I don’t always agree with Susan but so what. I’ve met her and I can attest to the fact… she’s fab.
I often disagree with Susan, and she with me, but she always has my respect, even at the times she annoys me.
Shirin - I mistakenly “responded” to your comment. Obviously, it was meant for the Calamitous Ken… but we’re both right.
Yeah, and Ken was quite out of line.
See Ken rushing back here with his refs in hand.
I double dare you to go to Washington Post online and access politics and menu down to Congress Votes.
There you will find Obama’s votes for Patriot Act, and his vote against Caps of interest for credit card users in Bankruptcy act along with some other beauts.
Whenever inconvenient[Kyl/Lieberman] he absented himself. He has been partcularly sneaky and dodgy re: all absent votes so as to not face confrontational issues.
He has backtracked on healthcare many times. look at record in Illinois Senate which he’s hidden if you can find his may “present” votes.
Oprah’s boy is primed for her prime time and the disgusting Oprahbama intrusion into a caucus that should remain neutral among its own was disturbing hubris.
Oprah and Colin Powell are our two leading Republicans that want their fellow in The White House. He soft balled Condi at hearings, and his highly trained oratory has deluded and swayed the hungry.
We always said if Oprah ran, she could be President.
What part of I don’t give a damn about Obama one way or the other has not been clear to you so far?
your disgusting troll rant should bump you from this website. ken you sound like a bum.
No to Obama.
No to Hillary.
A reluctant maybe to Edwards.
Biden? Anyone? Hello? If we’re REALLY talking about “walking the walk” it’s Biden-time!
ummmmm - noooooooo! A big fat NO WAYQ
ummmmm - noooooooo! A big fat NO WAY to Mr. Joe “we’re the imperial ruler, so let’s divide Iraq in three parts along nonexistent ethno-sectarian lines” Biden.
What part of “that’s not sovereignty, let alone democracy, for Iraq, that’s pure imperialism” is not clear in his ignorance-based position on Iraq?
No. Feingold and Hagel!
Yes!!
Seriously though, dig up some Hagel speeches on foreign policy. They are excellent. Feingold, it goes without saying.
Since Sen. Clinton keeps emphasing her experience so much & yet she is only in her second term, I assume she is taking credit for many of the initiatives of her husband’s administration. The Community Reinvestment Act, in my opinion, was the flash point, the beginning of the subprime mortgage mess. Anyone with a lick of common sense should of known granting billions? trillions? of dollars of loans to people without income verification, 10-20% down, or a responsible credit history could not escape economic disaster; especially while simultaneously outsourcing so many of the types of jobs needed to make paying back a mortgage possible. I’m with Leslie on this one, I just can’t get excited by any of the canidates. I’ve stated previously, I’m reluctant to support dynastic canidates i.e. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Enough is enough. Sen Obama? maybe. Rep Paul? maybe. Edwards? maybe…Sen Dodd?
I’m sitting here watching the Twilight Zone marathan and they just showed one of those foreclosure commercials.
The victims of this have been turned into permanent members of the American underclass. Just because of greed or worse?
It’s like the carpetbagers are leaving town now that they have given everyone a home to forclose on. 50 % of the county I live in is financed this way and it will hurt badly…
Other than a lot of women going ga-ga over him, Obama is so devoid of Content that he’d need remedial instruction to come up to Shallow.
“You can get awful famous in this country in seven days.” - Gary Hart
“Obama is so devoid of Content that he’d need remedial instruction to come up to Shallow.”
LOL! Well said. He lost me forever when he declared that the real reason “they hate us” in the Muslim world is that they hear about us from “our enemies” and not “us”, and that the solution was to establish “America Houses” throughout the Muslim world, where “we” would provide internet cafes (he doesn’t realize, apparently, that internet cafes in most of the Muslim world are kind of like Starbucks in the US - there is at a least one on every block) and that “we” would also teach them English. Well, teaching them English is a great idea! After all, that would allow them to understand “our” bullshit in the original as opposed to in translation.
Are you serious? LOL!!
Yup! He laid all that out in a “major foreign policy speech” a few months ago. Basically, he thinks bombs are a perfectly good foreign policy tool, and he has figured out why “they hate us”. It’s not because of what we do, it’s because of what “bad guys” are telling them about us, therefore, WE have to be the ones to tell them, and for sure they will believe whatever we say.
This is along the same lines as the people who insist that Palestinian kids hate Israel (and unfortunately by extension, more and more of them misguidedly hate Jews) only because their parents and teachers and - shudder, shiver, shake - HAMAS - teach them to hate Israel. The underlying assumption is that they would JUST LOOOOOOOVE Israel, and have a very positive view of Israel, Israelis, and Jews if only their parents and teachers could be forced somehow to teach them what a wonderful, beneficial country Israel is for them. These people do not want to understand that it is not their parents, not their teachers, not Hamas, but the horror of their everyday contact with Israelis and Israeli policy that teaches Palestinian kids to hate Israel - and, by extension, Jews.
So much for the good advice he’s getting.
name another candidate who had courage enough and was empathetic enough to declare “palestinians have suffered the most.” as obama has done.
hillary would never say that.
she attended a new york city rally to celebrated israel’s leveling of beirut, standing shoulder to shoulder with benjamin netanyahu.
name another candidate who had courage enough and was empathetic enough to declare “palestinians have suffered the most.” as obama has done.
I discovered that today after starting to read up on hhim.
After he said it he was forced to dance around the comment and blame the Palestinian leadership for their misery. Screw that.
If you have access to him, tell him to never back down on a statement like that.
You’re not talking to a Hillary fan. I believe that I stated on this blog that I would be holding my nose to vote for her. Now I might not do that.
I’m quite pissed off after having watched Hardball to hear them STILL talking about Obama and drugs.
I don’t believe for one minute that the suggestion that Obama sold drugs wasn’t a Clinton campaign dirty trick.
After all that she and Bill endured…shame on them!
don’t let the perfect be the enemy of good. i’m amazed a leading candidate would express this kind of sentiment to begin with. he took a big risk in doing so in this post 9/11 anti-muslim hysteria.
Oh, please! Obama was a great friend to the Palestinians until he realized that supporting them could hurt his presidential ambitions. He has smoothly transitioned from sitting next to Edward Sa`id at Palestinian events to taking the all-expenses-paid Israel junket.
The only presidential candidate with the courage to do what is right and stick to his convictions and not sell out is Kucinich, and he hasn’t got a prayer largely BECAUSE he has the courage to do what is right and stick to his convictions and not sell out.
good luck waiting for your perfect candidate.
Edwards’ vote was a McAwful move. No get support of the DNC, without war votes, rookie.
See what happened to Dean speaking out against the idea of going to Iraq…
Howard made mistakes of his own, true, but he was still painted in a corner. He and Clark opposed one another when they would have best paired to oppose the other picks.
Dean over saturated efforts in Iowa as well.
Edwards gave Kerry his Iowa votes(practically a no-show) in order to distance John from the pack, so the party machinery could kick in.
Then Edwards would weigh back in at South Carolina, provided Sharpton could split the Clark base.
Al got help from direct mailer Roger Stone, a long time GOP swinger. Sharpton clung to support just enough to limit other’s gains, he was slated to drop out of the race and endorse Clark until a late cash arrival from Stone.
Clark was taken out by further a Matt Drudge smear that was never officially attributed to anyone, and witnesses at the place Drudge said the rumor was spoken(five other journalists) denied any such conversation. Drudge appears to have counted himself as one of six journalists, a reach in its own right.
Clark was already getting out. The press had hooks for him and he didn’t have the money or inclination to go full bore with the DLC boredom message, politics as usual, etc. He’s hgelp others but it wouldn’t be his own campaign.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/02/13/drudge/index.html
Conason dissected the Drudge smear.
Most likely the rumor started with another reporter/political operative who was at New Hampshire in the Primary, and was telling inappropriate jokes(including swinger references) and calling himself a “Clark supporter.”
My old posts at the campaign site are gone, perhaps Nexis would show them. Google is not bringing the terms on nine pages… a lot of the on the ground supporters blogged the Primaries live that day.
This ’supporter’ basically put out a bad example at the polls, it could very well be that he was who Drudge was talking with on the Kerry smear, as his ‘Clark supporter’ since that was his initial claim, then it became “Gen.Clark said…” at a later time as the story built up steam. Along with the help of press apparatchik Jeff Gannon of GOPUSA, the infamous White House stay-over fake marine, fake name, call boy….
The two people Drudge tried to attribute his lie to denied it outright. He in fact issued retractions.
It could be a classic case of ratf*ck*ng. Put in moles to create bad PR, then get a press flack to shape a story for false controversy. Get called on it,you got nothing, other than have brought down a very good campaign with the help of press enablers.
That was last year, the only thing left is to try and destroy Democrat support regionally so they can hold enough ground to become obstructionist to the coming Democratic President.
The media may even go so far as to shape narrative using the press and coup us again with Diebold. They’re already giving GOP polling fronts headlines showing Republicans with a large lead in the state even over every Democrat…
America is numbing itself down to having been dumbed down. Nobody really even challenges the various scandals and lies and demands of the fourth pillar any more.
It’s like battered housewife syndrome, only Grover would still call it Date Rape bipartisanship…
GOP adheres to its victims narrative, yet they’re supposed to be so damned strong!
Although your handle ‘ mr. murder’ has always been a little disturbing to me, I really think you post some awesome insightful stuff here.