those that calim obama lack substance...did you look at his education proposal.
this realy is a debate about contiuing as we have allways done, on to our ruin and boldly steping into the future. the past is the past let it lay trust me it looks much better in the ground then if we dig it up.
Oh and how is obama closer to the middle then hillary...or by that are you fainly agnologing that she is a right wing hack? HE can speak the langagu that puts right winngers at ease...much like kenady and FDR could...that dosn't make him a centerest any mpre then being the "Uniter" made bush a centerest.
Going back to Orcinus' posts (linked below), does Obama look like he could articulate the required vision to re-center the country?
Hey any one else notice taht hillary is useign rovian tatics in NV. tryign to disenfranchise as many votors as possible, she did the same thing in Iowa. that sure bodes well for the democrats in the long run.
We may well be looking at the end of both parties.
Well if you want my party led by a guy that invokes Reagan as a model, you can have it. (See competing diaries at Daily Kos on the subject.)
Obama's growing problem is that many of us are looking beyond his rhetorical skills. Or in some cases just listening more closely to his rhetoric. The scrutiny hurts him because it reveals his support for policies that many democrats oppose. More importantly they raise some genuine concerns about his judgment.
In my case - and my friends feel similarly - I see a guy whose idea of a bipartisanship is a Beltway cocktail party. In conversation he can tinker with social security or dismiss unions as "special interests" because his class standing prevents him from needing either one. More dangerously his naiveté makes him think he can continue having civilized conversations with his friends after he is elected.
Will this prevent him from gaining the nomination? My cynical side says no. But my inner hope says it might. We really can't afford another 8 years of Republican policies no matter how good it makes people feel to "agree about things" or to "embrace change."
At least they let Edwards into the debates. With not even 100 delegates of the over 2000 needed to secure the nomination, every candidate other then Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards is no longer allowed to even participate in a forum on corporate television.
The primary in my state is for February 5th and I will vote for Dennis J Kucinich because he was the only one that is even close to my values, and also happens to have been right in the major decisions of the past 8 years where the other candidates have been completely wrong.
Edwards committed the unforgivable sin of voting for the unconstitutional transference of the power to make war from the Congress to the President in October 2002. The President does not have the power to declare war under the Constitution, and every person that voted to give up that power to the Executive should've been removed from office. He says now that he regrets it but under the circumstances it was a safe political move, just like most war giving declarations. Hillary won't even apologize for her yes vote.
It's incomprehensible to me how after almost five years after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, after all of the reasons concocted to do so have been rendered absolute outright fabrications and lies, that two of the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination were supporters for it in the first place.
This is the leadership we can expect from Hillary Clinton? Commit to a politically safe move that kills hundreds of thousands of people and then tout about how you'd be ready to lead on "Day One"?
I know a lot of people in the left leaning side of the blogosphere think that this is a good crop of candidates, but will they really try to clean up the mess created by Bush or will they waffle and try to sweep it under the table. If their actions are anything like the leadership they serve under in the Senate, it is very easy to see that no one in the Bush administration will ever be held accountable for their rampant criminality and their creation of a proto-police state.
This is why electing a Dem president (and a veto proof Senate majority) is only the beginning.
To get the change we want, the Democratic wing of the Democratic party will have to fight and fight hard.
Sorry to pimp my own blog, but I suggest that you look at my analysis of the video where he lauds Reagan and goes on about the excesses of the 1960s (like the Voting Rights Act, I suppose).
He lost me in the primaries at McClurkin dog whistle gay baiting, and he's moved further and further away since.
Cath have you bothered to read any of his proposals. they are filled wit hthe substance you calim he lacks, and they show that his actions will be strongly progressive...jsut as his words are, even if his words are useign conservative style language. Look at his education refomre proposal
what has hillary ever sadi or done that makes you think she isn't a DINO...give me one example. handign health care over to the HMO's? giving bipartisan cover to the iraq war? attackign the video game adn movie industry "for the children"? what in all of her "experience" shows her as a porgresive? she is DLC pure and simple.
Obama was instramental in a lot of progresive actions in IL. gettign all police interogatiosn on video tape, refom of our death penalty. he also generated bills that extended tax credits for low income families. furtehrd child care tax credits. got monitoring of traffic stops to stop racil profileing. aslo pushed through state political ethics reforme....ya I guess hes all retoric no action.
lets look at waht he did on a national level.
"Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" to put the budget on a website accessable to all. the Lugar-Obama expansion of Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction to include conventional weapons and antipersonal mines in the disarmement treaty.
the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act". worekd with fingold on "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act" and schumer on S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls. he was also the sponsor on the SCHIP expansion to include families careign for disabled veterans.
yup all of those are acts of a conservative......
lets look at waht hillary ahs done
Clinton voted for the USA Patriot Act in October 2001, and again in 2006.
Clinton voted in favor of the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized United States President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq. a vote taht she has never backed down from...in fact she was insturmental along with Liberman in gettign bipartisan cover for that.
in February 2005, Clinton noted that the insurgency had failed to disrupt the democratic elections held earlier, and that parts of the country were functioning well
Clinton called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate how hidden sex scenes showed up in the controversial video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Along with Senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, she introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act,
In September 2007 she voted in favor of a Senate resolution calling on the State Department to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps "a foreign terrorist organization", which passed 76-22
how exactly is she a liberal...where is her experience?
oh and while in congreess adn as first lady she participated in the pary breakfest adn the Fellowship..both of which should be noted by anyone worried about the growign domminist influance in DC.
wengler in IL obama was very active in limiting police power and defendign civil rights....what makes you think he would expand the police state?
Dont' get me wrong, i like edwards and would be happy with him as president, but it isn't goign to happen. More over look at his personality and style. he would excel as a number 2 guy, as the aid de camp..he has a fiery attack dog quality that makes him the perfect right hand...I am the same way, great as the second, quickly reach our perter principla as the boss. he would make a far better vice president then president..in fact he may be one of the best we veer had.
...i like a lot of what kenunich stands for...but his ability to play to the racists turns me off even if he isn't persoanly racist, he can and has faked it well...thats a deal killer for me.
moonglum,
I don't think he would expand it, but if part of his unity message includes not investigating and prosecuting the criminals in the Bush administration, the people and the structures that they created will be right there for any future(likely Republican) administration to exploit.
We have seen and heard many names in the Bush administration that weren't around since the 1980s when they committed all sorts of criminal acts while plotting foreign coups and wars. Will Obama or any other Democratic candidate push the issue of making sure these criminals NEVER serve in any position of power or responsibility ever again or will they do the easy and politically expedient thing of letting them go in the name of "unity" or "reconciliation"? Seeing how most Democratic politicians operate at the national level, I would place my money very firmly on the latter.
You are losing me altogether with this crap, Jesse. I might not be the typical audience, but I went through this "transformation," "man on horseback" crap with the Kennedys and I'm not falling for it again.
The president of the United states is my employee and not my leader. I want to know what they will do, how they will do it, and in which priority.
Obama doesn't show me SHIT. My expectations for an Obama presidency are as low as my expectations for a Hillary presidency.
But I'm with R, above. Electing a Democrat, any Democrat, even a slick bullshit artist like Obama or a corporatist like Hillary is the necessary first step.
Our work is just beginning. Welcome to a lifetime of unremitting toil. There will be pie in the sky when we die.
Let's remember that we still have wonderful things in thie world like roses, and barbecue, and sipping whiskey, and enjoy life while we're making it better for all.
wengler: not sure how he or any dem will deal with the crap bush pulled. what we need is an argenteen style truth tribunal. Its somethign that ought to eb asked to all the dems.
ivan: out of curiosity how could obama show you something...I listed all of his major actions, i guess they are not enough for you, what would be...personaly leading armed insurgance in DC?
Which politition has doneenough for you..I think that will give us a lot of insight into your beleifes.
I feel like I have no good choices. Edwards is someone I like but he won't be winning the nomination. I was starting to warm to Obama until his Reagan comments which are scary and extremely stupid. And as for Hillary after the racial bullshit her campaign has pulled, if she's nominated not only will my black butt be staying at home on election day but I will leave the Democratic party. And I'm not the only black person who feels that way.
Is it too late to draft Al Gore?
I feel like I have no good choices. Edwards is someone I like but he won't be winning the nomination. I was starting to warm to Obama until his Reagan comments which are scary and extremely stupid. And as for Hillary after the racial bullshit her campaign has pulled, if she's nominated not only will my black butt be staying at home on election day but I will leave the Democratic party. And I'm not the only black person who feels that way.
Is it too late to draft Al Gore?
Moonglum:
"...have you bothered to read any of his proposals. they are filled wit hthe substance you calim he lacks, and they show that his actions will be strongly progressive...."
The problem is his soaring rhetoric is only loosely tethered to his piles of positions papers. If you look at what he has actually dug in his heels over, you get troubling incidents like picking a fight with Paul Krugman, and lecturing the blogosphere about civility.
Hey, Moonglum, I said I would vote for the guy if he is nominated. I am not required to swallow his rhetoric or become any "true believer," or even to like him.
My relationship with elected officials is a business relationship. They are there to do the people's business. If I want to be inspired and uplifted, I can go do a couple of lines with a hooker. What you do is your business. If you get your inspiration and transformation from politicians, hey, knock yourself out.
Obama's policies are short on specifics, across the board, and I suspect he is keeping it that way on purpose.
No politician has done enough for me. There is no "enough." The Democratic Party is still the best vehicle we have for effecting positive change in this country and for forming a true mass movement toward that end.
Talking a good game isn't leadership. It can be a part of leadership but it isn't the core. When I hear "We may not know one way or another till years into an Obama administration." that doesn't constitute leadership.
When a guy announces that he idolizes Regan, tours with homophobes, and plans to play nice with insurance and big pharma on health care, I suspect we are dealing with an empty suit.
Baltogeek: i am right there with you...her attempt to disenfranchise, students, minorities and lowincome voters in iowa and Nevada also lead me to sit on my hands if she is nominated.
ivan, Pacfic John you and i are mostly in agreement. just seem to me that you are ignoring his actions in IL, they are relivant...as are any politiions actions...words are irrleivant to me. He has sponsered bills and pushed for legislation on both the state and national level. he has had actions that fall in the progresive catagory...espicaly at teh stae leve lin limiting civil rights abuses by the police.
All these dainty progressives remind me of the nun who woke up in a whorehouse... she was surprised. She didn't realize that people bent that way.
Get real politik here... any Democrat is better than the Romney/Huckabee/McCain Republican option. Period, case closed.
Whether it is Obama or Clinton or Edwards is the issue now. Make your voice heard through your state organization. Make your contribution to the campaigns. But all of this hand wringing and squeaking blather is bullshit. I hear Nader is looking for supporters.
To get elected in this country takes more than just a want... it takes compromise, arm twisting and yes, holding your tongue.
The fact that a Democratic candidate takes the mantel of Ronald St. Fucking Reagan in front of the Republicans is good news... he's not supporting Reagan policies, he is dick slapping the Republican and Conservative Democrats who think Ronnie's shit smelt like fruit salad.
As the old saying goes, if you ever watched sausage being made, you would never eat it again. Well, the same can be said of getting a President elected.
And don't forget he or she is going to need a Congress that supports Democratic goals.
Jesse's words hold out the hope I already had in my heart; that Obama is trying to get everyone to vote for him.
Everyone.
Unlike McCain, who talks "maverick" and yet has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate, Obama has made some progressive things happen. And you only do that when you want to.
If it means he comes in on a landslide instead of a squeaker, more power to him.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...9403/944/
436360
"every candidate other then Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards is no longer allowed to even participate in a forum on corporate television."
this is a KEY point of "democracy" in Yoo Ess of Ey that everybody keeps avoiding.
the 300 lb gorilla in the room...
ivan -
I'm not at all saying he's genuine about it. Or that you should believe it.
It could be genuine and he might believe, the best always do. That's what gives it that ring of authenticity.
But nothing says you need to buy into any of it.
I'm truly not for or against any of the big three candidates. I remain genuinely undecided. I have a preference, but it comes and goes. Till it settles down, well, I remain authentically undecided, perhaps for the first time in my political career.
Precisely for that reason, these conversations I'm having with y'all, are not about who is the better candidate. To say who is better, would be to make a grounded assessment, and I haven't made such an assessment yet. As I say, I remain authentically undecided. And this, with access as a member of the press, most likely to much more information and analysis than most of you.
So these conversations are not about who is best. They are meta-conversations. Analysis of aspects of different aspects of what the candidates are doing, how they are doing it, where they are doing it from, and what the likely implications are, in my view. Obviously, I attempt to ground my analysis as best I can; good analysis is always well-grounded, otherwise it's just some guy in a diner spouting bullshit, the very definition of an ungrounded assessment.
Pretty much everything I write is written under deadline, so some will be better than others. But what would be useful, is if y'all would start to approach these pieces with the understanding that I'm not attacking your candidates. That isn't to say I may not say things which stake out positions about your candidates, and by all means, feel free to tell me where you think I got it wrong. *laughs* But the intent of the articles has little to do with which candidate is good or bad, and everything to do with exploring aspects of language, politics, how one runs for office, and how we Americans deal with each other.
It's meta. Sometimes even meta-meta.
Jesse:
The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made.
-Jean Giraudoux
The only members of the Illinois Democratic delegation holding out for Hillary are Rahm Emanuel and Dan Lipinski. Not exactly beacons of enlightenment.
I suppose Barack should have compared his campaign to failed liberal warhorses like Humphrey/Mondale/Dukakis/Kerry. The decision to position HRC as heir to that line defies rational analysis.
Problem two is a now critical mass of Democratic politicians, organizations and fellow travelers who remember that the Clinton's only political strategy was to throw them under the bus.
Mostly the progsphere is pissed because Barack won't kiss their asses and engage their wishful group think that they represent the primary and general electorates. Too often they are what they project. A bunch of angry white cranks who can only hear their own echoes.
Amuseinc: not true. a DINO is worse teh a republican in office. she will push through all of there pet projects while giving them political cover of being bipartisan...there are too many vichy dems to have one as the president as well...more over it will continue the meme that there si no difference between dems adn republicnas further supresing public intrest in the elections...high voter apathy, which a hillary win will get us equals wins for the repulbicnas in the midterms and in the forseeable future.
What Matthew Saroff said. On point, sir.
Ivan - "slick bullshit artist like Obama," indeed.
" You are losing me altogether with this crap, Jesse. I might not be the typical audience, but I went through this "transformation," "man on horseback" crap with the Kennedys and I'm not falling for it again."
...and almost everything else you said, ivan. From my brain to your keyboard.
Let's get something straight: I'm voting for the Democratic nominee no matter who that is. Not voting in November is a reckless thing to do after everything we've been through these last 7+ years. The Democratic nominee is going to need ALL the support she or he can get. I don't care how much ass-licking Obama does to the Republicans over that shit-for-president Reagan, when the curtain in the voting booth closes, vast numbers of white people WILL NOT VOTE for him. They're going to have elect him to prove me wrong!
While we're on the subject, what can any of these candidates realistically pull off in terms of change and transformation within the boundaries of US Constitution as well as the Congress?This is why Obama's lofty speeches simply fall on my deaf ears. I've heard it ALL before, and often said better.
Finally.... they're just words. Which is why Hillary's words did not ruffle my black feathers. Last time I checked my African American history, Harriet Tubman, (just to name one), did more in terms of actually freeing slaves. But who gets the credit??? Who was rammed down my throat from the time I was in grade school (back when black history was a single week in February), as being the person responsible for freeing the slaves? And was Lincoln's main objective altruistic, humanitarian, and Negro-loving? I don't think so.
But, he gets props because he was the President and therefore in position to do the deed. That's what presidents can do. I don't think Hillary's words were meant to diminish MLK. Why in the fuck would she do something like that knowing FULL WELL that with Barack as her chief competitor she needs all the black votes she can get.
Like most stories coming from the politcal world, this is a media driven story. And I'm tired of the media creating news so they can report it. I WILL NO LONGER manipulated that way.
Obama doesn't have to worry about me. He will get my vote. BUT SO WILL HILLARY! Or Edwards. And I will pull the lever ENTHUSIASTICALLY.
Democrats and Liberals better get focused about a sense of purpose here. It's our job to make them accountable to our needs. We also need to stop giving Republicans so much AMMO to work with in November. We're at critical mass here. Grow up for goodness sakes. There is no Santa Claus!
Aquarius40 and ivan. I assuem you despise the clintons as well then?
mimi: how is DLC hillary better then a republican. in fact by giving a corperate neocon agenda political cover a DINO is worse then a republican. at least if a republican wins the public ire will be directed acordingly. I for one will be sittign on my hands if hillary is the canadate. a lot of dems will and most indipendents. We will see soem of the lowest voter turnout in years and that favors the republicnas.
mimi, Please help me understand.
It didn't bother you that the Clintons through Robert Johnson attacked Obama by accusing him for being some sort of drug dealer?
So it doesn't bother you that Hillary claims to be a feminist and work for the interests of women but has that kind of female exploiting asshole as a surrogate to her campaign and that appearently when old Hill talks about feminism she seems to mean white women only?
The blatant pandering to the worst images that others have of blacks - which started not with the MLK/LBJ fracas but with Shaheen's drug dealing comments - in this country didn't piss you the fuck off?!
You said "It's our job to make them accountable to our needs."
How can you have confidence the someone who is so low to try that kind of crap would respond to the needs of the black community?
How do you do that when you allow people to spit in your face and then give them exactly what they want?
I admit I've always had problems with Hillary Clinton. She and Bill have always seemed too willing to take a page from the GOP playbook when it suited them even when it was completely against the principles they say they represented.
What the last few weeks have done for me is move me from the "I'll hold my nose and vote for her" column to the "There is no way in fucking hell I'm voting for that bitch" column.
I have a sense of purpose and it's not to be anybodys bitch. Republican or Democrat.
I don't think Obama's statements about Reagan are as sinister as some here do. He was talking about an overall impact on the discourse and direction of the country. Like him or hate him, Reagan had the impact that Obama refers to-he changed the terms and the style of the debate (for the worse, I think, but he changed them nonetheless).
To take Obama's reference to the excesses of the 60's and 70's as referring to the Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, etc. is nuts.
I hear a reference to Watergate, oil shocks, and massive protests-in other words, things that made Americans feel shitty about their country. This makes sense in the context of how he was saying Reagan changed the tenor of the debate. I happen to think that Americans were right to feel shitty about their country back then-Vietnam, the coup in Chile, Watergate, and COINTELPRO are just a few reasons why. It's also clear to me that Reagan played on that feeling to get into office and make things worse.
What I hear Obama saying, though, is that he's trying to use Reagan's electoral approach of appealing to Americans' sense that things can be better-not that Reagan's policies were something to emulate.
This seems to be something of a rorschach test: I'm an Obama supporter, so I see it that way; Matthew Saroff, I assume you aren't, so you put a less friendly gloss on it. But for the life of me, I just don't see (again, maybe it's supporter's blinders) how you can interpret those remarks coming from a former civil rights lawyer and community organizer as a repudiation of the voting and civil rights acts.
You can rip the Democratic Candidates up and down, all you want... just pull that lever for a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress in November or we are surely going to enjoy at least 4 more years of a Bush-like America.
Haven't you people had enough of Bush and the Republicans?
This Saturday here in Nevada, I'll be caucusing
for John Edwards. I think that in a primary, one should vote for the candidate who comes closest to his/her core beliefs, and as an unrepentant lefty,
Edwards is that candidate for me.
He's a long shot at this point, but I think Hill and
Barack need to be aware that they can lose votes by tacking too far right. The nuclear energy issue is big here as well.
Of course, like the other sensible folks in this thread, I'll be lining up behind the Dem candidate in the general. Whichever one is chosen will be a genius compared to W.
When Obama offers a new political paradigm that calls for collaboration rather than conflict he is delivering a message that many are not willing to accept...especially progressive democrats who have nothing but contempt for hate-mongering right-wing Republicans. I feel that Obama is asking liberals like myself to trust him...to believe that we can put some of the negative shit behind us. To be honest, I would prefer someone with the fighting spirit of the late RFK...Obama may be our best choice at this time.
Once there is a nominee, I will STFU, and I will support the Democratic candidate whoever it is, because the alternative is unthinkable.
The day after the election I will be right back to work for the policies that I want, but I will be tougher on a Democratic president -- any Democratic president -- because we expect more from them, and we will demand it.
Jeffrey Feldman over at the Frameshop has a great post on the Nevada Debate, Obama and Likeability.
Obama is Likeable
I think there is a tendency among the political cognoscenti to over-analyze and over-parse these sorts of things. Obama is a very smart politician, brilliant in fact. And he knows exactly what he is doing.
Obama and the other candidates know that the core of the Democratic party is going to vote for whomever the nominee is. That's a given. This isn't 2000 where a bunch of dilettantes voted for Nader because "there was no difference between Bush and Gore."
Obama knows that to take the White House the nominee needs to appeal to the big mushy apolitical middle. The low-information voters who are swayed by this sort of bullshit. The people who voted for Bush because "he was a uniter not a divider" and a "reformer with results". Yeah right. We all know these kinds of people. They are the ones who like to grump about partisanship and have a "pox on both their houses" view of politics. Lots of my relatives are like this. That they are clueless goes without saying. The question is, who best to appeal to them on the road to the White House and what is the best message to sell.
In that respect, I think Obama is frankly brilliant. He's almost running more of a general election campaign in the primary. But that does avoid the inevitable need to tilt right after tilting left in the primary and it will avoid the awkward stuff like "I was against the Iraq funding bill before I was for it.." stuff.
As for the Reagan stuff. I also think you are missing the point. The 70s really were a period of growing government encroachment with little aspects of our lives. And it's often the little things that people notice. The 55 mph speed limit was a perfect example. I grew up in the west and let me tell you driving across Montana at 55 is enough to make anyone seeth. I was in HS in 1980 and I really do remember the sense of disgruntlement with government that was prevalent at the time. With the price of gas and inflation, with unemployment, with the Olympic boycott. And little crap like the 55 mph speed limit and mandated metric system.
In any event, I'll be happy with any of the 3 leading Dem candidates. Although to date Obama has impressed me the most with his message. And I'll voting for him on the "coolness factor" as much as anything. I travel overseas a lot and of the three candidates I thing he would be by far the "coolest" president to have when faced with those smarmy superior Euro-tourist types who have been laughing and glaring at us for Bush all these years.
Obama as civil rights lawyer? This statement intrigued me and I've been trying to learn more. The Sun-Times did some research on his "civil rights lawyer" days and found the following:
In three years working full-time and eight "of counsel" (i.e., when he wasn't being a state senator) for Miner Barnhill & Galland, he did no trial work, and never made an appearance in a state court. He appeared in some ten federal cases (half district court and half Seventh Circuit) and contributed to about thirty other cases in some way. Among his cases were a successful suit on behalf of ACORN to compel the governor to enforce the motor-voter law, and a successful defense of an arbitration award on behalf of a whistleblower who had been awarded punitive damages.
That's pretty good for three years as an associate (I'm assuming he didn't do all that much as "of counsel") but it's not exactly a career as a civil rights lawyer. Just a taste, really. It beats the hell out of what most Harvard Law grads do for their first three years out of school, of course.
Marek:
In other words, Obama was a civil rights lawyer. He worked as such for three years as an associate with a civil rights firm assisting with or handling, from what you've posted, a decent number of cases. Then for eight years, he was "of counsel" to the same firm doing whatever "of counsels" at this firm do-it's an oblique term and can mean very much or very little. He was a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School teaching courses on voting rights and constitutional law from 1993 to 2004 (though I don't know how many semesters he taught during that time), which has to count as time as a civil rights lawyer.
is that enough to call it a career? I don't know or care. It's certainly enough to say he was a civil rights lawyer, just as I would say that someone who spent that same amount of time working at a corporate law firm and lecturing at a law school on securities law had been a corporate lawyer.
At any rate, it's enough for me to give him some benefit of the doubt on the question of whether he was implying some objection to the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. Stoopid:
I didn't say that he couldn't be called a civil rights lawyer. I was curious about the claim, which is on his website without much detail, and wanted to share what I found. Obama did some good work in the area of civil rights law for a few years, and wasn't in a leadership role. He didn't really litigate as such. Nothing wrong with that. I worked as a letter carrier for a little while, it wouldn't be untrue for me to talk about my time as a letter carrier if I thought people cared.
I do disagree that his time as a lecturer "has" to count towards his time as a civil rights lawyer. Actually working to advance civil rights through the law makes you a civil rights lawyer IMO, though I suppose one could argue that just having a bar card makes you a lawyer in a meaningful way (I wouldn't argue that). If he taught torts is he a tort lawyer too?
But I certainly don't have any issue with giving him the benefit of the doubt on the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. It appears he knows quite a lot about that area of the law.
I'm watching all this from Canada, where we got our vote via a Royal fiat ... & am just amazed that ANYONE would even contemplate sitting out the 2008 Election in the USA.
It may be trite & corny but I'll point it out anyway: a whole bunch of nice people DIED so you can cast a ballot. They're also dying in other countries right now, trying like hell to get what you've already got.
To me, not voting in November means you have forfeited any right to bitch thereafter if your party loses, OR if the winner does stuff you hate - because you threw away one of the most precious things you own: your suffrage.
Why's your turnout so consistently abysmal? Get outta town with "analysis" based on Cable TeeVee or booze & drugs - our turnout sometimes comes close to DOUBLING yours & we have those up here too. I know your registration is a rat's-nest, & so's your electoral college system ... ever heard of Electoral Reform? Maybe you should try some sometime. It's obvious you need it.
If you're going to sit on your hands you may as well KEEP your thumbs up your ass for good. Just imagine how PROUD you'll be of President Huckabee. Does mandatory prayer in schools sound good to you? How about ANOTHER big tax cut for big business?
Wanna tell me it can't happen? Folks who thought they knew all about it once said exactly that about Reagan, & Shrub too for that matter - then they sat on their thumbs, at exactly the wrong time.
Abracadabra!
Voting is mandatory in some places.
Nobody bitches about it much.
They laugh at the goobers that pay the fine NOT to vote.
My 2 bits' worth.
Take it or leave it.
This seems to be something of a rorschach test: I'm an Obama supporter, so I see it that way; Matthew Saroff, I assume you aren't, so you put a less friendly gloss on it. But for the life of me, I just don't see (again, maybe it's supporter's blinders) how you can interpret those remarks coming from a former civil rights lawyer and community organizer as a repudiation of the voting and civil rights acts.-Mr. Stoopid
Mr. Stoopid - you ain't stoopid at all. Personally, I just get a strong whiff of some "folks" searching about for justification for what they're going to do when that voting booth curtain closes.
__________________________
Mostly the progsphere is pissed because Barack won't kiss their asses and engage their wishful group think that they represent the primary and general electorates. Too often they are what they project. A bunch of angry white cranks who can only hear their own echoes. - ~
BANG! ZOOM! No more need be said.
___________________________
I have a sense of purpose and it's not to be anybodys bitch. Republican or Democrat. - baltogeek
Bravo baltogeek! This is the stance that I see more and more Black folks taking in this country and it's about time.
____________________________
...The Democratic nominee is going to need ALL the support she or he can get. I don't care how much ass-licking Obama does to the Republicans over that shit-for-president Reagan, when the curtain in the voting booth closes, vast numbers of white people WILL NOT VOTE for him. They're going to have to elect him to prove me wrong! - mimi
Things that get said in the sitting rooms in Black folks homes...
baltogeek,
Then we'll have another Republican president. And you will have done your part, no matter how finely you justify it.
Again, when are you people going to realize that this is politics? Who was it that said upthread that if you ever saw how a sausage was made, you wouldn't eat it? Didn't Obama have some homophobic person travelling with him that he has yet to disavow? And frankly, I HATE RONALD REAGAN!!! I lay at his feet everything that has gone wrong in the black community in the last 20+ years, including the climate that made an asshole like Bob Johnson rich, and able to pollute the minds of a whole generation. Reagan rolled back poverty programs, and created this staunch conservative, bible-thumping environment that we have to live through now and has our courts screwed up. In a different world, black kids wouldn't have been glued to the tv and BET, they would have had outlets in their community. But you know, how about just a little accountability here? Black parents could have always turned the fucking tv off. Guess what? They still can.
Every last one of these political candidates has some pariah lurking in their campaign camp. Why?? Because when you are battling it out, you simply can't thumb your nose at people. Do you have any idea how many black people see Johnson as a 'doing-good' Negro who made it? And in a society where so many blacks are still struggling to acquire the American Dream, Bob Johnson is viewed as a role model. This is just how disjointed everything is.
Personally, I see where this Obama thing is going. If he doesn't get the nomination and WIN, a lot of black people are setting themselves up for bitter disappointment. And even if he does win, if the TRANSFORMATION that everyone's looking for doesn't come into fruition. Personally, I don't see those Reagan comments as a good sign. Sorry, until I see it with my own eyes, I simply don't believe the corporate interests will allow ANYONE to really change things. Maybe the appearance of change, sleight of hand, shuffle of the old card Monty deck, but nothing difinitive or meaningful.
Which is why I have come to believe that change HAS to happen on the local level first. And with a vengeance. And why this Presidential Primary Season is just another dog and pony reality tv show that holds very little interest for me.
We should be impeaching a president and vice president instead.
And moonglum,
You're too much a Hillary-hater to see the forest for the trees. If you believe she's no different, then vote Republican. No one's going to know what you really do in that voting booth once the curtain is drawn anyway. Even if Obama is on the ballot.
Things that get said in the sitting rooms in Black folks homes...
Geez, I don't know about that drbopperthp. Actually, every black person I personally know is going ga-ga over Obama. I'm not going batshit over anybody this Primary Season. And so it's my stance and mine alone that I say, prove me WRONG. Hey, he hasn't even got the nomination yet.
My jaw dropped reading some of the descriptions of pre-Reagan America. None of that was true in my urban world. Socially, things were on the upswing for blacks. All the hope that Obama is posturing in rhetoric was a living, breathing thing before Reagan gutted the spine out of just about all of our hopes. Within the span of just a few years, a crack epidemic virtually stole the soul of the black community. Not to mention AIDS. All these kids you see now, are the progeny of the Reagan agenda. He killed shit before it even had the chance to get started and then we've had to suffer through all of the disgruntled attitudes of white Americans who felt that we had had more than our fair share when it wasn't even close. And Reagan did what? Restored what to America? Please, don't even try to run that by me again. Let's just say, we occupy very different worlds.
There's a lot of truth to Edwards' statement about 2 Americas. Just reading the comments explains it.
But blacks need to realize something, we don't have the numbers to be the deciding factor in a Obama presidency. This is another reason I'm not in la-la land over him. Focusing on his blackness is the best way for him to LOSE it all. The racial nonsense that's being stirred up between him and Hillary is already aiding and abetting the Swiftboat cause. Hey, if y'all keep it up, Swiftboaters can simply relax. If Hillary gets the nom, there'll be a collective bunch of tight jaws in the black community who will not vote cause no way they gonna be anybody's bitch. How slick is that? If Obama gets the nom, there'll be a lot of uneasy feelings and quiet racist stirrings. And who knows what in the privacy of the voting booth.
How many times do I have to say this: I will be voting for the Democratic nominee. As the good Canadian pointed out: to do otherwise is unthinkable.
Tough shit if I'm raining on your Obama parade. He and his supporters are going to have to weather a shitload more from the otherside so sharpen your knives. Trust me, you'll be happy to have me in your camp when things get rough.
I don't see Obama as a good candidate. I haven't since the convention where he took a jab at Edwards because his speech (the second-best of the day in rhetorical quality, first for substance) pointed out the division created by the elites. To be frank, Edwards is a better president for black people in this country than Obama could ever be. The latter would have us find common ground with people for whom murder is a political tool. The policy that can have the most immediate good in the U.S. with fewest strings attached is Universal Health Care. Edwards' plan is best, Obama's is so bad he resorted to right-wing talking points and personal attacks when Krugman pointed out a flaw. As president, he MUST piss off at least one constituency, and choosing to not anger the insurance companies is a very clear indication that he will choose to piss on the common man. (They are one of the most isolated of our elites; their downfall would be a boon to just about every other industry in the game, much like keeping the internet free hurts only a few of the telcoms and helps a bunch of other rich organizations.) Obama's support among blacks is, thankfully, not always a given. His cowardice is a limit on his progressive bona fides, and we can see it.
Personally, his rhetoric has always grated on me, even when he wasn't elected. I've always thought it was complete garbage. I was almost glad when he started using right-wing talking points (such as with Democrats and faith -- hm, I recall Steve blogging on that) and choosing establishment policies as his platform. If he had created substantive progressive policies as his platform, I would have had to back him no matter how grating he was.
Some of you clearly can't read. I am not an Obama supporter. It's in the post. I accidentally double posted the stupid thing and some of you still got it wrong.
Just because I'm black does not mean I am advocating for Obama. Just because I'm angry at the way he's been treated doesn't mean I am voting for Obama.
Mimi and the others (except for the Canadian fool my response to your dumb ass is below), I respect your opinion and we will just have to disagree on this one.
Maybe this is the generational gap rearing it's ugly head because all of my friends who are pretty much 33 and under feel the same way.
I simply cannot bring myself to vote for someone who seems to be running on the "Bend over nigger and smile while you take it" platform.
I have voted in every election since I was 18. I consider it a great responsibility. The fact that I am even considering staying away from the polls is a measure of how pissed off I am.
And as for the Canuck who has the nerve to lecture me about who died for my rights. Fuck you. I know who did. I can go through my own family's history and see not just who lived or died but who was bought and sold for my freedoms. I can go to their graves and see how many of them didn't make it to the age I am now. If I need to know about sacrifices made I don't have to read it in a book bitch I can talk to my grandparents, mother, father, aunts and uncles and know.
I live that struggle every damn day. It runs through my viens so don't make presumptions.
If Obama gets the nom, there'll be a lot of uneasy feelings and quiet racist stirrings. And who knows what in the privacy of the voting booth. - mimi
You just made the point I was alluding to for me mimi. Thanks, you saved me two paragraphs of explanation.
Amuseinc | we have had 20 + years of the lesser of evils choice. I cant' do it again...i wont, and many others will not. yes I will happly see president huck as opposed to president hillary, at least the dems would have a shot at retainign congress in the midterms. with president hillary continueing the worst of bushes policieys, well the publics ire would be targeted at teh dems as the nation continued its path to ruin.
Mimi, what the hell ahs hillary done to show that she is not a DINO..half of her supportsers claim she has the best chance of winning because she is a conservateve dem. Please enlighten me what has she done. wait i know, sittign on the board of walmart right...or being a member of the second largets dominist group in DC (the felloship, second only to the moonies there..actualy influance wise they may have passed the moonnies).
face it bills years, even before teh republican take over tracked this country further to the right..how is hillary any diferent? 4 more years of gifts ot corperations, 4 more years of attacks on the middle class, adn in the middle of that a republican take over of at least the house....sign me up for that crap.
drbopperthp: thsoe that will sit on there hands due to racism will sit on there hands due to sexism. they are irrleivant.
look I would love for this nation to have a female president, as long as she is progresive. I dont' care abotu the sex, race, religion of the canadate as long as they due what is best for the nation. Her actions as a seneter, her husbands actions as president, there advisors actions, all show that this is not true for hillary.
Look there is a reason that the meme "there is no difrence between parties" took off on the left durnign the clinton years. It still holds true.
Uh...Moonglum?
Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Supreme Court, Supreme Court. Also...Supreme Court.
President Huckabee? Mike "amend the constitution to fit my narrow ass definition of god's word" Huckabee? Over Hillary Clinton? It's nearly impossible to take you seriously. I do not prefer Hillary Clinton-at all, but I'd vote for Britney Spears if she was the Democratic nominee before I'd contribute to ushering in the reign of President Huckabee. Or President Romney. Or McCain.
Get a grip. Justice Stevens is about 42 million years old-healthy, but decidedly in the twilight; Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a no-joke history of cancer; David Souter has ALWAYS hated being on the court. On the other hand, Alito and Roberts are relative whippersnappers-they'll be around for decades; Scalia has some miles behind him, but many to go and much to accomplish; and Thomas is too damned ornery and just plain too damn crazy to die or retire any time soon; Kennedy's loving his role on the court and will stick it out as long as humanly possible. The next president is likely to have the opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court as well as the rest of the federal judiciary for decades to come. This isn't *just* about Roe v. Wade-it's about executive privilege, habeas corpus, torture, voting rights, the right to a jury untainted by racist selection processes-and that's just a sampling from the current term.
As I said-I'm all for Obama and I'd prefer not to have to vote for Clinton, but let's get real about what another Republican President would mean.
Mr. Stoopid: first with huck at least the gernal publics ire would be apropriatly directed, and a dem controlled congress (with corpratest as opposed to domininist republicans) could stop the worst of his appointments.
with hillary would would get some moderats on the court, who admitiedly would look liberal compared to alto, and roberts...and her domininist ties make me very nervous.
Can you recall a time-EVER-when the general public's ire was appropriately directed?
That analysis casts the general public as quite a bit smarter than I'm willing (after putting Bush [back] in office in '04, 70% believing Saddam had something to do with 9/11, and the continued popularity of Sean Hannity) to give it credit for.
fair enough. I a mjsut saying that putting some one in power that proves the verious lies true (no diference between parties, voteing for the lesser of two evils, ect) is a very large mistake. We need to be fighting agenst the DINO's and the DLC, not enableing it. that needs to be the top priority..everything is at stake at this one.
oh and mimi, still wating. what progressive or liberal actions has hillary taken? out side of sleeping with bill what is her great load of experience.
age != compitance.
Mimi,
You have pretty much covered all of my thoughts on the subject. Thank you!
Personally, I am going to vote for Hillary in the primary. I know that I may take some heat for that, but I can honestly say that, with her, I know exactly what I am going to get with her.
That said, I will be more than happy to vote for Obama or Edwards if they were to win the nomination. As you said, this country can not afford another republican administration. We are beyond critical mass as is.
The only democrat I can honestly say I would have had to hold my nose and vote for was Joe Leiberman, when he ran back in 2004. And as hard as it would have been for me to do, if he had won the nomination.
drbopperthp: thsoe that will sit on there hands due to racism will sit on there hands due to sexism. they are irrleivant. - moonglum
Uh - what?!?
If I was making any point, at all (sigh), it was that "those" won't be sitting on their hands, they'll be using them to pull the lever when that curtain closes and it won't be for who you would like to think it would. That makes them more than relevant, that makes them dangerous.
moonglum -
You have lost perspective.
People who hate are as dangerous as any other kind of true-believing fanatic. Eric Hoffer wrote The True Believer which would seem to apply to where you currently rant from.
That you would be willing to see Huck in the White House over Hillary Clinton, tells me you are as dangerous to our Democracy as the Nader people were in 2000.
Pull your head out of your ass.
And no, sorry, but this isn't coming from a place where my meds are off. It's coming from me telling you, that this was your one shot at running over a topic with Hillary hate. We got it. You hate Clinton. You don't get to attempt to dominate the thread and bash down the argument of everyone who disagrees with you.
GNB is a safe place for other people to express their opinion about candidates, even if they like HRC.
Time to give it a rest.
If you have a question about this, you're welcome to email me.
baltogeek:
Me, a bitch?
Why, thank you.
You left out RABID.
Which is what I get when I hear anyone eligible spewing off about the potential benefits of warming their pinkies with their arse come November, down your way. MAYBE you get another election with candidates you feel good about next time. Maybe not. Maybe you only get ONE name on the ballot next time - & a visit from the friendly Blackwater lads & their Happiness Squad, with the prospect of a one-way trip to Camp Jollytown, if you don't have your voters' chit handy when they come to your door.
Or maybe you get another World War.
After 7+ years of BushCo, voting is one of the few human rights you've still GOT - & you're wondering whether it's worth it to exercise that right?
You are not on Planet America ... this is Earth, a place with a whole LOT of people that want to enjoy the same liberties you do. What you & your country do - or don't do - affects me & my country, very directly. Right now, OUR right-wing leader is being held in check by virtue of holding a minority government. But there's an election on its way here too - & his Liberal opponent is a doofus of the highest order (think Dukakis on Ludes). Another GOP White House plus a Harper majority here equals major ugliness. If enough Americans all get cold hands for the Democrats, that worst-case scenario becomes MY reality. For YEARS.
A lot of MY relatives were wearing their fucking entrails for aprons for that vote of yours, while America dithered about whether or not Hitler was really bad enough to declare war on - & a certain Prescott Bush was making his family's fortune, c/o the Reichsbank.
Not a lecture - just the truth.
A GOP voter who hand-sits is a de facto Dem vote. A Dem voter who hand-sits is a de facto GOP vote. Both parties know this can work for them, & use this as part of their election strategy ... & it's not for the fun of it.
The GOP refuses to roll over & give up, no matter how bleak their prospects look.
The Dems need to learn from them.
I'd much rather have you hate my guts & vote, than think I'm a nice Canadian & "respectfully" decline to do so.
Because I'm not that confident you'll get that opportunity again, if the bad guys chalk up one more home run.
Commenting by HaloScan
