Can They List His Qualifications? (Part Deux)
By NoQuarter on February 20, 2008 at 8:49 AM in Barack Obama, Qualifications
I already showed you a video of a panel of Obama supporters who were unable — a single one of them — to name any of Obama’s legislative or other accomplishments. But even his elected supporters — members of Congress and governors (!) — cannot come up with anything. (Uh, you’d think that Obama’s campaign would send them some talking points? If they can come up with a few?) (h/t Taylor Marsh and MyDD’s “Breaking Blue”)
Then there are Congressman Bobby Scott (D-Va) and Governor James Doyle, Jr. (D-Wisc), who can’t think of a thing to say about their candidate’s qualifications — along with the concerns of Der Spiegel (”Change You Can’t Believe In“) and The Economist (“But could he deliver?”):
Then, I saw one of his supporters - a congressman from Virginia, Bobby Scott - being interviewed. The interviewer noted that the voters couldn’t name a single achievement of Mr. Obama, but surely someone in the political arena could. The congressman made a feeble effort to suggest accomplishments but finally fell back on the platitudes and slogans that are Mr. Obama’s stock and trade. The congressman said things like “he will bring us together,” and “he will get things done.” Unfortunately, neither Mr. Obama nor his supporters can tell us what happens after we’re all brought together, or how he’ll bring us together in the first place. By like token, they can tell us Mr. Obama means change but know little or nothing about what, if anything, will be changed. … via Philadelphia’s The Bulletin
Can you believe that a Congressman didn’t have a clue how to express what Obama specifically has to offer? This is not just some ordinary Obama supporter rhapsodizing about Obama’s charisma — this is an elected official! And he’s not the only one. KCK, a fine diarist and longtime activist writes in “Hillary Rodham, Chair of the Legal Services Corporation” about Wisconsin’s governor:
I don’t care who you vote for, but you should know why. I just watched the Wisconsin Governor Doyle endorse Obama on Hardball yet when asked what Obama’s accomplishments are he stuttered and fell short surprised as if the question wasn’t fair. He answered with O’s ethics legislation and community org. & said that his kids and wife are for Obama and well he finally decided to join up…
WTF?
Those last two quotes are from my piece, “The Economist: ‘But could he deliver?’ [UPDATED].” The highly respected Economist magazine dared to bring up the obvious:
“It is time for America to evaluate Obama the potential president, not Obama the phenomenon.”
Then there’s Der Spiegel:
WEST WING
By Gabor Steingart in Washington
The rise of democratic frontrunner Barack Obama signifies an alarming victory of style over substance. Not unlike the dot-com hype, his campaign promises more than he can deliver. The one thing his voters can count on is that they will ultimately be disappointed. …
Oh will they. Already, my fellow Hillary supporters, people who write diaries at Daily Kos and know that crowd intimately, are anticipating the crashing drop in respect for Obama should he become president, and fail to fulfill all that they have PROJECTED on to him. (Most of which Obama, let’s be honest, doesn’t believe in all that deeply.)
My gut take on Obama, from watching him a lot and observing him closely: He is all about the win. He eats up the crowd fervor. He gets off on it. It makes him feel powerful and omnipotent.
His campaign has told people to leave the policy stuff, for those few “wonks” who want it, to some pages on his campaign Web site. (That’s linked here in a recent article.)
But you have to do far more than ride a wave of people’s projected hopes. When you become president, the shit hits the fan, as my mom used to say.
“The one thing his voters can count on is that they will ultimately be disappointed.” Der Spiegel has it exactly right.
O I just saw that. Still agnostic on Hil v Obama but that’s a hoot.
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but!!! His ethics bill. You know, that one, lonely ethics bill that forces lobbyists to stand up while they eat or some such nonsense?
It’s obviously made such a huge impact on Washington culture…I mean, it falls trippingly off the tongues of Obama’s heavy weights. (tee hee!)
So McCain will bring up O’s Pakistani comments that sent people rioting in the streets, and O will counter with…his ethics bill. McCain will bring up his years on the Senate Armed Svcs Cmte, his fighting to get the Bush admin to change its policy toward torture and the Geneva convention (which I think McCain is genuinely concerned about), and O will counter with…his ethics bill.
I mean, it’s just too damn funny. And too damn sad.
I absolutely love buffets — if I were a bigtime lobbyist, I’d be thrilled! Snort.
Btw, it was ABC News’s Charlie Gibbs who nailed Obama on the standing-up-to-eat big gap in his supposed ethics bill. In a debate on ABC. Obama was all flummoxed.
I still don’t get it. Obama just rambles when he’s off script (and it appears that unlike Edwards he doesn’t even write his own words).
I just. don’t. get. what. the. big. deal. is. Seriously. I know folks who are voting Obama b/c they don’t like Hil (for whatever assorted reason). I know folks who are voting Obama b/c they don’t like the DLC.
These reasons make sense to me. I may not agree with them but I understand them.
But hope? Inspiration? I get that when I read MLK’s “Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution”, or the book of Job, or when I look at my daughter achieve a milestone she’s been working on.
I don’t get it from politicians, especially not ones that go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on…
…and on.
Just not my thing, I guess.
And Hillary is STILL losing.
Note to Cee…you may want to be just slightly more concerned about how McCain’s going to play this one than Obama v Hil.
I mean, I know…you may think Hil is The Enemy. She ain’t. It’s McCain.
How will your candidate deal with this?
Grannyhelen,
Cee’s all ready begun his stategy against McCain on another post. It’s to attack Cindy McCain. How that Cee does like to attack the womenfolk!
Sheah…because attacking the candidate’s spouse always works…
…sigh.
They got Elizabeth to stfu.
Unlike the republicans who only go on Lynching parties with Oreilly. Notice McCain again acting the gentleman about an attack on a woman.
Hillary … that bitch
Michell …. lynching party.
That’s an all american Hero for ya.
If Mrs. McCain wants to step into the ring now, she can expect the same gentle treatment that hillary has received for many years and michelle is beginning to receive. As a drug stealing ex-addict and daughter of mafia connected family in Phoenix, she can expect all the kid gloves treatment she is entitled to. 0.
Granny,
You may think Obama is the enemy. I have never said that about Hillary.
I’m also not concerned about this man being unprepared.
Your candidate is another matter. She’s not ready for day one when she hadn’t even prepared to run in Texas and Pennsylvania.
It’s just the rock star bull.
Here’s what I just shared with a friend via e-mail:
When I sat through my precinct caucus in 2004, I heard these people say that they were voting for John Kerry because “he is electable.” Beyond that, they had NOTHING to say… they’d picked up on the MSM meme about his “electability,” and were so fearful of four more of Bush that they were like terrified sheep. It disgusted me. (But I’d already watched Kerry/Gephardt eviscerate Dean before Iowa, and I was angry and bitter. I’m not saying Dean would have made a great president, but I couldn’t believe how they viciously marginalized him. The Dems are very good at shooting themselves in the foot. And I’m very tired of it.)
Last night, I watched my DVR’d show on the Seattle PBS station — it’s their local public affairs weekly show. They had Kathy Allen on. She’s a very longtime Democratic consultant in Washington state. She talked about how she went to her caucus in Seattle, and was completely shut out by all the young people for Obama.
She said they told her that she was yesterday’s news, and Hillary was the old way. A woman like Kathy Allen with all of her knowledge and experience. And she’s wonderfully articulate and very pleasant … I’d love to have watched her try at that caucus. I bet she used every winning argument she could think of. But it was hopeless, she said.
They’ll learn. Too late. And it was terribly insulting to Kathy Allen, who’s worked her heart out for all the state’s Democratic candidates, to be dismissed by those young punks like that. Yet she spoke about it graciously on the KCTS show. So it goes.
The usual qualification to be a winner is to win.
The major fear about Obama is that he is not in debt to The Lobby. The one that Walt and Meirsheim wrote so eloquently about.
Even though his mentor was Lieberman, The Lobby views Obama as dangerous.
Even though he abased himself before AIPAC just as much as Hillary. The lobby is not sure that his election will be “good for Israel.”
Carter spoke out about “Israeli apartheid”, Ghandi’s grandson made a modest complaint about the treatment of the Palestinians. Ghandi was fired, Carter is now a non-person.
As one of only two black senators elected since 1982, and as the only one to do it without The Lobby’s support, Obama will be slimed by the BOSWASH media axis, the editorial page editors, the talking head show bookers, the small circulation political rags, they did it to Ron Paul earlier in the season, did it to Kucinich and they will try to do it to Obama.
As we are seeing on the TV schedules now, it is suddenly all VietNam memories, all FEAR FEAR FEAR.
Fear the half black man, fear change, fear uncertainty.
Noticed yesterday that the students of an all black college in Texas walked 7.5 miles to the only polling station in their district to cast their votes early. Seems they didn’t want to be disenfranchised again this election.
I saw on another blog this morning a somewhat intelligent blogger asking why “Axis of Evil” Frum gets so much air time. The relevant question is not that but who continues to book him on the various shows. Who whom is a very old question. Before you continue to repeat the media memes ask yourself, who put that voice on the air, to whom flow the benefits of the sliming.
It is not the oil companies that are keeping the USA in Iraq, if it were the oil companies, they would be building refineries, improving delivery networks, doing all the profit generating things necessary for that windfall of reserves that are supposedly under Iraq’s unexplored desert. Instead it is the Chinese oil companies, the Iranian oil companies and now the Russian energy companies that are angling for the contracts to build the refineries, rebuild the pipelines.
Remember Lebanon last year? After decades of humiliation and disruption, Lebanon was becoming stable, toursists were flocking to the Riviera of the Eastern Med, infrastructure was being built up.
Lebanon was becoming a working and profitable nation.
Then that little war and everything that was infrastructure was destroyed first. Hezbullah not so easily destroyed; but Beirut was clusterbombed, bridges were destroyed in the north of the nation. Those bridges and beaches and infrastructure had nothing to do with the military situation in the south of Lebanon, but the destruction of lebanon took out a growing economic competitor. Same same with Iraq, even with 10 years of sanctions and bombings and misery, Iraq was rebuilding. Now not so much, what was a competitor is now a ghetto.
I would also point out that every president disappoints. Two parties but hundreds of interest groups. Some interest groups will always be disappointed. Do you think the fundamentalist christians have not been disappointed for 40 years on abortion and Roe V Wade? The greens disappointed all through the last 40 years.
Obama told AIPAC that “nothing” was of the table as it related to Iran. He’s threatened to unilaterally attack a Muslim nation.
I have no idea why you think Obama is a threat to AIPAC, but it certainly doesn’t exist in either his kowtowing rhetoric or his bellicose rhetoric.
Perhaps you need to go read the entire speech that Obama gave that group. I think you have a mistake impression of what he said.
Oh, and Hillary told them it’s time for diplomacy with Iran. Funny how that part of her speech never gets quoted.
I know what he said, and what Hillary said.
My point was that AIPAC and TheLobby see Obama as “unreliable” because they have no ownership hold over him. Check out his campaing staff and his financing, 500,000 individual contributors for Obama, lot of little people giving, not a whole lot of TheLobby represented among Obama’s staff. Not a whole lot of neocons either.
He pandered and it did him damn little good.
Hillary said one thing and voted for another.
You take the words, I take the actions.
And it should be noted that the USA did yesterday what Obama said he would do with regards to Pakistan. The USA supposedly had accurate intelligence and took unilateral action to kill a taliban leader in Pakistan. Amazing, just what old O said he would do.
Great - Obama and George Bush have identical foreign policy inclinations. That’s one of my problems with him. And you are sadly mistake if you think he isn’t going to go way right on Israeli/Palestinians issues. He has no room to manuever. The right will eat him alive as proof he’s really a Muslim.
Once he’s in there isn’t much they can do, just as there wasn’t much we could do to stop the Iraq fiasco.
Yeah I am not thrilled that Obama is a believer in empire power. Not thrilled that the USA ignores anyone’s sovereignty when it pleases them and the ignored can’t strike back.
Cowards and bullies never did float my boat.
I think your last line says more about what you have chosen to believe than about anything that relates to the real world.
I am so sick of that, that he gets contributions from small donors, that is BS. Spend a little time looking at his donor list http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=tsxpe&txtState=(all%20states)&txtCand=obama&txt2008=Y&Order=N and you will see what complete total and utter BS that is. It’s where I first discovered his contributions from the insider list of Exelon. I’m really quite sick of hearing about it. The majority of his donors have contributed 2300.00 and more at one time. I don’t really understand how that works, maybe 2300.00 is for the primary and 2300.00 for the general. In no way does his donor list support that he has the majority of small donors, in no way whatsoever. He has an awful lot of supporters that are unemployed or list no employment, who are these people? People that I know who are unemployed can’t pay their mortgages let alone donate 2300.00 to someone. I think at the very least he needs to go back and correct some of this. For someone who wants transparency and ethics in government, his donor list would be a good place to start.
One thing to keep in mind is that contributions to a candidate that do not reach $250 in the aggregate do not have to be reported to the FEC, so if someone is giving $50 here and $50 there, you aren’t going to see those on a public list of donors.
Until the sum of the contributions goes over 250. You get to donate 2300 for the primaries, and 2300 for the general. you can do it 2300 at a time or $50 46 times but it still has a max and it still gets reported. 500,000 individual contributors is a lot of voters. A lot of folks with “skin in the game.”
This may be out there on the limb but; if all the donations @100 represents 90% of his donors, as reported by CNN ths am, can this be gamed? There was info as to the validity of internet donations and no possibility of forensic accounting. Sorry; I see a boiler room operation where 100.00 donations are made from a central pile…accounting free.
Maybe it’s just a plot for a novel but there is “safety in numbers”. when it is all below the radar.
Gaming it is easier if the donations are in FRNs, harder if they are by check and very hard if they are by credit card payments. Ron Paul pulled 6 million dollars in a one day money bomb, the average contribution was in the $50 range and they were all done on credit cards. The data was available in real time and reported to the Feds well before the required date. Online does allow some direct withdrawal from bank accounts, but most of it is done just the same way as swiping a credit card at BestBuy. All the info is available.
In short form, if you do it by credit card it is not below the radar no matter how small the amount. The political candidates do not, generally, use PayPal as an intermediary, the campaigns all have their own credit card processing capability.
If you think that his money came from little supporters, you must be thinking of atheletic supporters.
He has taken more money from energy bundlers, Wall Street, and pharma. And do you want to know WHY?
1. Energy … they don’t want no freaking change in energy … the Bush/Cheney energy bill? Obama is the only remaining candidate to vote for it. You should see how much payola he took back to Illinois …. McCain didn’t vote for it or Hillary … but who bitched and bitched about those “private meetings?” Obamaboy who still voted FOR IT ….
2. Wall Street …. they don’t want to be investigated and punished for the subprime mess. They own the real estate. Don’t think they’ve lost any where near what mom and pop has … like their homes …
3. Pharma …. who the heck do you think benefits if there is no universal health care?
You don’t need to go into any protracted song and dance to know that come the end of the day, Obama doesn’t stand for anything that benefits taxpayers …. well, at least taxpayers who make less than about Half a Million a year.
Wake up and smell the stink on him before you vote against your own interests … unless of course you fall into those three categories above. And I don’t mean WORKING for those industries, I mean being on TOP.
Hmmmm, let’s try this for Obama:
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elective office he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first term in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
Can Hillary’s supporters now name her accompishments? I’ll even take accomplishment prior to being Senator
Steve, by the way, you forgot to mention he pressed the wrong button six times when it comes to vote in IL senate.
steve signing on to a bill is not authoring it as you well know. i will grant you obama has been a busy little freshman but to give him credit for passing this legislation, sole credit, is a bit like him forgetting to cite his sources. it just isnt the full story nor the full truth.
incidentially, i am still concerned about the hesitancy he has shown to push for real reform and real results … such as his proposals for health care, economic stimulus and government ethics/lobbying. it seems to me most his proposals fall far short of dealing with the perceived problems … another concern i have is he appears to cave rather easily when confronted by the conservatives. he gives too damn much away too quickly IMHO. a good example of this would be his retreat from working with jack murtha on iraq … he made a big splash about joining murtha and then did nothing as the heat was turned on by the hawks.
oh and your claim he has written 890 bills is rather comical … sorry buddy … no senators writes legislation today … it just isnt done nor is it advisable or prudent.
Yup. Probably the lobbyists wrote it for him. Just like Planned Parenthood, who he blames for instructing him how to vote on “live birth abortion” — which he voted No and Present on on two occasions. How lame — admitting that a lobbying group HAD TOTAL SWAY over how he voted.
(btw, the U.S. Senate, in 2002 — including John Edwards and Hillary Clinton — voted unanimously on the “live birth abortion.” Yeah, I know it’s extremely rare, but it’s a no-brainer issue in the case of an infant born viable as the result of a late-term abortion. If that had ever happened to me as a woman, I’d have accepted the responsibility for that or made sure the infant got proper medical care and was adopted. Now, I know Obama has lots of excuses — besides saying that Planned Parenthood TOLD him how to vote and he followed their orders, he has some issues with how the legislation was written — but the GOP will LOVE this one, and it’ll be another issue they’ll exploit against him. They couldn’t do that to Hillary or John Edwards.)
admitting that a lobbying group HAD TOTAL SWAY over how he voted.
intellectually lazy…as KR said part of a larger narrative. Mix that in with what Brad Freidman and others have documented and next November will look like Obama suppoters and what left of the D’s inroads to “independents” are playing a loosing game of Jumanji.
I hear the drum beats now, come election time it will be louder than Taiko drums and just as correographed.
And what has all of that done? What measurable difference has it made? How has it affected my life, or the lives of others?
Instead of laundry lists that I could dig up on thomas.gov, why don’t you tell me why I should care about any of this?
In other words: does this illustrate more than being able to sign a bill into law? Even Bush can master that one.
And what has Mrs. Clinton done that has made a measureable difference in your life?
But my post was in response to whether Mr. Obama did anything in the US Senate.
No, that wasn’t your point at all. Your point was to show what a good boy he was. How many people froze in those slums in Chicago? How much money did Rezko make on the backs of those people? How much went into the Obama campaign(s)? How much of that ACTUALLY went back and WHERE DID IT GO IF IT WENT TO CHARITY …. other than TRINITY CHURCH?
So sluggo, don’t tell us how wonderful he is and when we call you on it and disprove your contention, come back with ” but but but but Hillary? ” You are such a laughable sack of shit.
Sponsoring a bill that doesn’t become law doesn’t count as an accomplishment. Can you tell us anything that he’s actually gotten passed into law? Because writing a bill and introducing it doesn’t mean much other than an indication of what it is you’d like to do.
Go ahead - tell us what he’s gotten passed into law.
He named a post office. So there.
Umm, did you even bother to read my post?:
How many committee meetings regarding Afghanistan? Hold any at all yet? Even when it was pointed out? I’m waiting for your answer.
Paste and link war.
Come on now - Obama has only been in the US Senate since 2005, after being elected in 2004. If you are counting his years in the Illinois State Senate, that’s something else altogether.
His first term in the Senate is his only term, and it is only entering its 4th year.
Go to Thomas.gov and look Hillary’s record up yourself; you might learn something.
So are you a Clinton supporter that buys the line that Obama has done nothing while in government?
Or is that not your issue? Because it appears to be the Clinton campaigns issue and it is certainly what the video above is all about.
I listed several bill Obama helped write (his name attached) that BECAME LAW.
Do YOU know of any significant bills Clinton helped write that became law (and not things like honoring Mrs So and so for her service to the country or whatever)?
Ah, Steve,
You made the same mistake I did. I didn’t fact check either. LOL!
I want to see the records for those years he refuses to release. I want to see the original authors. He’s a total phoney.
I used to read this website. Haven’t been here for a while.
I will never understand your outright hostility towards Obama.
Clinton is losing. Get over it. Seems to me if your candidate doesn’t make it you’re going to engage in scorched earth politics. As far as the plagiarism charges? Weak. The Clinton team is flailing around.
It’s pretty pathetic. The closer Hillary Clinton comes to losing the nomination the more desperate she becomes. The more desperate she becomes the more vicious her response will be. The uglier she gets the less popular she becomes. It’s a catch 22.
I have a feeling it’s going to get even uglier.
Hey, BG, how ya doing?
Edith,
Stuart Levine, Rezko’s partner in crime, has a major drug problem, in fact, Rezko’s defense has aksed this information be admitted to cast doubt on Levine’s credibilty as a witness. All the various forms of cocaine, for one, wow, crystal meth, crack, that’s highly addictive stuff.
Does this extend to the whole IL Rezko crowd, btw?
Ok Simon; this is wierd.
And adds a very odd twist.
I remember way back in pre-history, Richard Nixon lost his bid for the presidency, then he lost his bid for the governorship of CA, then he did his famous “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore” speech. Then he defeated Humphrey for the presidency in 68. Nixon always felt he was entitled to the presidency because he had suffered 8 years of ridicule and snubs from the Eisenhower crew and the Rockerfeller crew.
We call those Character Building Experiences.
My Bad, I will use the proper wording in the future.
But it will be beautiful like a shiny pony if you leave again and don’t return again for a while.
The campaign of Obama/Patrick is just so thrilling as pushed by the MSM; oh wait, now that McCain is in and Hillary appears out; time to go after that Hope and Unity and Words.
I know the fight for the nomination is not “over” over, but barring any real attempt or effort by the media to focus on and scrutinize Obama in the next 2 weeks, we have to face the unpleasant truth that we may not be able to stop the momentum, or the gradual defection of superdelegates.
The last major primary is PA in late April; the convention is not until August. If there is still no candidate with enough delegates to take the nomination, but Obama has a lead and the momentum, there is plenty of time for buyer’s remorse over troubling developments to convince superdelegates that they have to go with the candidate who is most electable. I would venture to guess that people who voted for Obama in the early going, even through Super Tuesday, are not going to scream too loudly if there is a cascade of information that reveals him to be dead in the water in November if he gets the nomination only by the votes of the superdelegates.
And if the shit does not hit the fan in time to make a difference, the question thus becomes: how do we – we, the Democratic party – win in November? Will it take HRC swallowing her pride and agreeing to be Obama’s VP so as to create a coalition of support that is less likely to sit out or defect to the GOP? Does he have to have a moment of truth when he realizes that the only way he is getting to the WH is as her VP? I have to think that the two of them putting country before all else may be the only way to salvage any chance we have to take the WH in November.
I also think that people who are stamping their feet and threatening to vote for McCain, or writing in a candidate, or just not voting need to take a deep breath or two and think – really think – about what is at stake.
This - and so much more - is what’s at stake. We have to get a Democrat elected to the WH in November, even if we have to hold our noses and grit our teeth. We have to get good Democrats elected to as many seats in the Congress as we can, because even a Democratic president is going to need a Democratic Congress committed to making the kind of progress on issues that matter – and if we have a GOP president, it will be even more important. We need good Democrats to be elected to state and local offices, too.
I don’t think Obama is the right guy for the job, I worry that he cannot win in November, and I hope Hillary can stop the bleeding; the ramifications of not having a Democrat in the WH are beyond huge.
Sorry this is so long, but I think people have to somehow look at what is at stake and stop acting like babies if they don’t get their way.
And they really, really need to stop the childish gloating - it’s really not attractive.
Here is what I’m gonna do:
I will vote for Obama if he is our candidate. But, I will not campaign for him, nor will I give him money.
I will campaign for and give money to Emily’s List candidates. I will campaign for and give money to Al Franken, because he is a progressive from my neighboring state (I have the blessed luxury to be represented by Dave Obey, Russ Feingold and, to a lesser extent, Herb Kohl). I will give money to other progressive congress-seekers who are in tough battles.
And, I will sleep well at night.
Sorry. I’ll never vote for Barack Obama. The pandering to sexists and homophobes goes against everything I believe in. I won’t cast a ballot in support of this major crock of B.S. Nope. 4 more years of Bush policies with McCain? Oh well. Perhaps people on the left should have considered that before they decided to coronate him and throw Hillary Clinton under the bus. We’ll all just live with the consequences. The left needs to learn a lesson from this.
>>> Oh well. Perhaps people on the left should have considered that before they decided to coronate (sic) him and throw Hillary Clinton under the bus. We’ll all just live with the consequences. The left needs to learn a lesson from this.
Particularly everyone on the left with a uterus and/or children under 16. McCain will be the candidate of those who would keep them (and us) Poor and Stupid. And pregnant.
Swoon for this self-deluded loon, and you TRULY will Get The Government You Deserve.
POSTSCRIPT:
A vote for Hillary or Obama is a direct Vote AGainst Interests for me. As soon as McCain ramps up to thump Iran, my old ass goes back UP the gangway on a Contractor-Operated, Government-Owned ship, and I go back to making $542.40/day + Hazard Pay, largely shielded from US Taxation (Oddly, the same as the Base for a Blackwater operator) hauling rolling stock and bang-bang for your kids to bleed in and on.
So, I am kissing $84K (the spiff above my present stipend) goodbye to vote for The Ice Queen.
And, I LIKE her!
The Republicans will ride Obama like one of those electric hobbyhorses they used to have in front of Kroger’s. They’ll smack him around, spill cola on his mane and pee in the saddle, and, when they’re done with him, he’ll look and smell SO bad he won’t be able to find a gig writing bail bonds in East St. Louis.
Yeah, you vote for that fool if it makes you feel good.
Hope your children like hockey, Molson and can speak Conversational Candian.
See I don’t think all those things will happen if McCain wins. I do think he will work with a Democratic Congress to do what is right. Has he pandered to the right early on for the nom? Yes. Is he a conservative Republican? Yes. Is he the worst of the conservative Republicans? Not by a long shot.
I do think he will put nation before party, which is exactly the opposite of Bush/Cheney.
Please hold your breath. I want to watch. Never ever voting for him. Deal with it. Sorry to burst your phoney unity plea.
I will vote for Obama because he is green, he recycles everything, including speeches.
LOL, snark I imagine.
Obama is indeed the green candidate. 4 and 6 are the features peddled to the credulous; 5,8,9 are the bugs.
And you can call me “childish” if you want, Anne, I’ve been called far worse by Obama supporters. But the rhetoric from Obama side of the blogosphere went way too far, way over the line of decency. They (Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein, Aravosis, Kos, etc) treated Clinton the way Limbaugh or Coulter treats her. It is unforgivable.
And frankly, I don’t think a Barack Obama presidency moves the Democratic party in a direction I want it to go—he will move the party AWAY from progressive values. It will be all about Barack, a weak candidate who continually tries to “compromise” with the extreme right.
I’d rather take the loss.
Chris – I’m not an Obama supporter; far from it. And I agree that the treatment Clinton receives at the hands of both the mainstream and much of the lefty blogosphere is and has been beyond the pale. They are paying for that ultra-partisanship, though, in the loss of traffic to their sites – and ultimately, they have lost a measure of credibility they may never get back.
My concerns about Obama, purely from an ideological perspective, have always been that he starts from a position of compromise, thus guaranteeing that issues that matter to liberals get watered down right from the get-go. One of the things I always liked about Edwards was that he seemed willing to draw a line and make them come to us, instead of allowing them to decide where the line was. I fear a Jimmy Carter-style presidency where the little that gets done pleases no one, so I hear – and share – your concerns.
The one hope that I still have left is that while the president can set the agenda, he or she will generally require the Congress to make it happen – and a Congress whose Democrats lean to the left have the power to turn weak proposals into strong ones, and this is why it is more important than ever that we have a Congress that is decidedly left of center.
People have to vote their conscience and their heart – I respect that; what bothers me is the attitude of “if we don’t get our way, we’ll show you – we’ll vote Republican! that’ll teach you!” What is it we would learn from that? It just seems so cutting-off-one’s-nose-to-spite-one’s face.
We need a better system for choosing a nominee, we need to get rid of the caucus system altogether as well as open primaries – Democrats should be choosing the nominee, not non-party members who see an opportunity to game the system. A primary is a primary is a primary should be the rule – with delegates awarded under the same rules in every state.
And we need to do something about the media’s interference in the process. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I feel like where we are right now is as much the result of the media’s role as it is any votes that have been cast. I don’t know what to do or how to do it, but these people need a serious comeuppance; they are out of control.
what bothers me is the attitude of “if we don’t get our way, we’ll show you – we’ll vote Republican! that’ll teach you!”
Ann, I understand what you are saying. But with all due respect, that isn’t what I hear Hillary’s supporters saying. What I feel, and many are expressing, is that it would set back the demcoratic party big time if someone who uses race-baiting, misogyny, and Clinton-hatred to win an election. Think about that - what is that signaling to the country and to the republican party if we allow that to happen. How will we ever again put ourselves up as the party of inclusion, the party that respects and fights for minorities? How can we do that when one of our own has used it to win an election?
Quite frankly, that is what stinks to me. I cannot vote for a democrat who would do that. I consider them a democrat in name only. When you add to that the compromising, the pretty talk to the republicans, the refusal to hold them responsible for the mess they have made - it becomes even more impossible. Face it, Obama is not a progressive. He will not move the government to the left one iota. In fact, from what I’ve seen of him, he would copy the pandering democrats in the Congress in shooting us in our collective feet. Add to that the fact that he doesn’t seem to understand the most basic facts of what the job of President entails or how to govern, and it leads one to the uncomfortable conclusion that if he were to win he would set back the Democratic Party far worse than the past 30 years have done. We might never recover from it. This is why I will not vote for him. The long-term damage he will do to the party will far outweigh the short-term advantage of him winning the presidency (which, by the way, is not a forgone conclusion. I continue to believe that by the time the RW get through with him, he’ll be toast).
Free passes to wall street.
No oversight of energy
Health care business as usual …
Yeah. I think I’ll just stick with McCain. At least he doesn’t pretend to be a DEMOCRAT and he loves his country ….
Chris,
I’m with you. Obama can’t win without women’s votes and I will not vote for someone who bases the appeal of his campaign on misogyny. He could have told his supporters to clean up their act and behave like Democrats who believe in equality of the sexes - he did not do it. He, himself, much to my absolute shock has engaged in open, nortorious and hostile misogyny. Tea with the ambassador? The claws come out? Periodically down and needs to boost her appeal? Likeable enough? That’s the kind of rhetoric GOP assholes used against Ann Richards in Texas and thought they were oh-so-clever when they did. I expect higher standards from Dem candidates than that kind of nasty, demeaning low life rhetoric. Nope. I will not endorse a campaign that proposes seeing women as second class citizens. If I was confident he would appoint pro-choice judges, I might see him as a tad better than McCain. But I’m not and I don’t.
I won’t vote for McCain either. I’ll take the loss, thank you very much, and I’ll help run against McCain in 2012. And if Obama gets the nomination, I’m going to do everything I can to encourage women to refuse to vote for him.
And just to be totally clear - I don’t feel this way because I want my candidate to win. I feel this way because I think Obama is an extraordinarily inferior and hateful candidate. I think he’s a bad guy who will do bad things to the Democratic party. I didn’t oppose Edwards, Dodd, Biden or Richardson - in fact, I liked all of ‘em and was comfortable with any of them winding up in the White House. I oppose Obama and do not want to see him in the White House - especially as a Democrat. Women have too much territory to cover to waste eight years on a misogynist like Obama.
Well, you can think of it as wasting 8 years with Obama, or you could think of it as making sure that women’s reproductive freedom is not eliminated altogether with a Republican president - that would not seem to be territory we want taken from us, which a McCain SC nomination will most certainly do - the anti-choice people cannot wait for that day.
Look, I see the same things you do - I see the condescension that Obama exhibits toward women - or at least toward Hillary - but there is no way this man is taking office and implementing programs and pushing legislation that will return women to the Dark Ages. For one, he will need their votes if he wants to get re-elected, and there’s no way that happens if he shows himself to be dismissive of women and their rights.
I’m not buyin’ it, Ann. His rhetoric against women is so hateful, and when I combine that with his present votes on choice issues, his lie about his reason for voting present, his admiration of anti-choice organizing capabilities, and his sucking up to the right - I see the guy who is going to appoint the judge that overturns Roe V Wade.
On women’s issues, I strongly suspect Obama will be worse than McCain. Republicans have something to lose if Roe v Wade is overturned - they lose a huge fundraising base. I see no similar restraints Obama.
I’m 53. I’m second wave. I recognize what’s happening here and I’m not going along with it. The Democrats, and young Democrats in particular, need to learn that this is not an acceptable way to run a campaign.
Lorelynn, I’m a year older than you are; I’m not some kid who has no idea what’s at stake, for women or anyone else.
Regardless of who is president, we need a rock-solid Democratic Congress - and I don’t mean the kind that thought the Gang of 14 was a great idea. The last thing we need if Obama is president is a wishy-washy Democratic majority that will fall in line behind Mr. Unity. I want to kick some serious ass - the hell with compromise!
I share many of your fears - and plenty of your anger. I think we have all been counting the days until we could get rid of George Bush, and it pisses me off that I feel like we have been manipulated into the position we are now in (see “kick some serious ass,” above)
I am keeping my fingers crossed that between the new 527’s being formed to help HRC, and the time between the last of the big primaries and the convention, the glow will fade, the truth will out, and the right decision will be reached.
Rest assured, I’m voting for Congress and encouraging everyone I know to do so as well. I’m just not going to participate in electing a Democratic president who finds a sleeper candidate to overturn Roe as Bush Sr. did to protect Roe with David Souter. And that’s what I think it going to happen. He’s going to find some black judge with tremendous credentials, and that judget will vote with Roberts/Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Kennedy to overturn Roe
I won’t do it.
I’m a freelance employee - I need universal healthcare. I won’t vote for a Democrat who ends my hope of getting universal healthcare in my lifetime. If McCain wins, we can go back and fight for universal healthcare in 2012. We won’t even begin to be able to think about doing it until 2016 if Barry is elected. And he may well have poisoned the well for the forseeable future.
I see no upside for any thinking Democrat in helping Obama take office. I only see downside - a moron on foreign policy, a misogynist and a corporate/Republican suck up who won’t attempt for universality.
I’m a UHC voter. You’ve given me a lot to think about.
Thanks for a insightful exchange, Lorelynn and Anne. I agree with votermom as well. I have been pondering these views you both expressed so well. Hell of a bank shot for the stakes involved.
John McCain won’t successfully overturn Roe v. Wade on any more than George Bush successfully banned same sex marriage.
As for SCOTUS, Obama tripped over his own feet trying to get to Roberts to shake his hand.
If women are concerned — as you suggest — about their reproductive rights, then they should be supporting the candidate who has done the most for these rights …. Senator Hilton. My take on the young “women” supporting Senator Obama is that they have no sense or value for what Hillary and the women of my generation went through so that they could take these rights for granted. Maybe it wouldn’t hurt them to have to sweat it out as we used to!
That’s why I am voting Clinton, either if on the ballot or as a write in.
If you would rather take the loss, then you are a loser.
I’m willing to lose the battle to win the war. That’s true. It’s a much bigger picture than that and there is far more at stake. I’d rather saddle the rig