Please stay on topic. Please don't be asses.
I know it's not the 'point' of the story, but the fact Obama voted in line with the Republicans against a child welfare facility here, doesn't really get me all that excited about him.
I know it's not the 'point' of the story, but the fact Obama voted in line with the Republicans against a child welfare facility here, doesn't really get me all that excited about him.
Strangefate | 10.09.08 - 3:52 am
In a democracy nobody gets everything they want out of a candidate except for W and McCain who are ideologically perfect. Even Ronald Reagan at the height of his popularity had to give in to O'Neill and Mitchell 40% of the time.
But the post speaks to something very admirable about Obama. It was an answer to a debate question during the 8-person Democratic debate season. He was asked what his "foreign policy experience" was. He answered something to the effect of having actually lived as a non-wealthy person in a number of different countries around the globe and had developed a sense of picking up on cultural nuance and for choosing good mentors.
There were two prime movers in getting Obama to be both more sociable and tougher with colleagues and opponents. They were Federal Judge Abner Mikva and Illinois State Senate Speaker Emil Jones. Obama knew there was something he was missing in the culture of Springfield and he sought out two old hands who could critique him. He was able to take their critiques without being defensive and used his adaptability skills to make himself more effective and to enjoy himself more in his post as legislator.
Tristero, Thanks for that great and entertaining report. I tend to think it was a calculated and controlled manoeuver. I can't really see Obama kicking anybody's ass.
Ever since I really started paying attention to him, I never really doubted that Obama was a very talented natural politician who could accomplish great things if he set out to do so. He might not be a classic fighter in the Gingrich or DeLay mold (and perhaps that's a good thing, given what that's given us), but is a master of the passive-aggressive rope-a-dope. Look at how he had McCain twisted up like a pretzel a couple of years ago over ethics legislation, and how he consistently played the Clintons in the primaries. The guy knows how to play hardball politics. He just seems not to, to those who aren't looking.
So his political skills were never an issue with me (although, personally, I do prefer a slightly more muscular and effusive brand of politics, but whatever). What is and continues to be an issue for me is to what end he will use these skills. What are his policy goals? what are his core set of principles and values? What does he believe? What does he care about? What does he want to achieve? what drives him? And whatever these are, does he have the personal courage, strength and stamina to see them through and take the risks necessary to achieve them?
All the skills in the world are meaningless if you don't use them towards good ends, and/or lack the courage and drive to see them to conclusion. Does Obama have these? FISA put a lot of doubts into those of who who thought that he did, but now wonder. The excitment of seeing him slowly trounce McCain is wonderful, but what will it all lead to next year? Will he be another Clinton? Another Carter? Does he want to take on the massive issues and special interests that confront us? Or will he try to finesse his way around them and avoid a real fight, as he appeared to do in this vote, and clearly did with FISA?
It's sometimes possible to be too "cool".
KOVIE: Really nicely written comment. A pleasure to read.
No disagreement with anything there except that progressive Americans have to get used to the idea that there won't be a progressive President of the US until there's no longer a White majority.
It's good that you can have such fantastic politicians locally.
Obama's not running for president of Panama. We have a fine one already in Torrijos so I can appreciate Obama for what he does well. Not the obvious shortcomings.
The shortcomings of Obama, Bill Clinton and Carter aren't their faults really. It's a fault of American culture nationally.
I'll use my absolute FAVORITE example of how the USA is different from the rest of the so-called "West" (to include AUS, NZ, and South Africa). The president of Peru, Alan Garcia, used to lead right-wing paramilitary death squads there during the Reagan years. Obama's stands on nearly every social, economic and foreign policy issue places him well to the right of Alan Garcia. And trust me because I live a couple of hundred miles away, Alan Garcia is no picnic.
Garcia wouldn't tolerate FISA. No death penalty. No life sentences. No incarceration of children with adults. No political prisons like Gitmo. Yes national health. Yes contraception sold over the counter. Yes gay rights. ALL OF THESE POLICIES ARE OPPOSITE TO OBAMA'S POINT OF VIEW. At least as he expresses them. He's sort of for gay rights he says but the topic makes him very queasy. Obama's a bit of a death penalty fanatic, a law-and-order zealot, a Fundamentalist Christian who plans to commingle church and state. He's totally against single payer health care. He's in favor of war and GITMO.
No illusions but he's calm and perceptive and intelligent and aware enough to change with the times, I hope.
I wonder what Obama said to Lieberman when he cornered him in the Senate last spring?
So your Plaster Saint's vote against a child welfare facility was a brilliant tactical maneuver? Bwa...hahahahahahahahahahahahahha! Jayzuz, the fucking Moonies aren't as big a bunch of deluded partisan nutjobs as you Obama cultists. Comeon, Trissy! Tell us all how "independent" you are! Hi-larious!
Wow! Thanks, tristero! I had no idea Obama's voting record was that shitty!
I mean, I knew he was just another corporate-owned empty suit. His pimping the banker bailout was proof of that. But he wouldn't even vote for child welfare? And then made dumbass excuses about it?
Cripes! If ever there was a chance I'd vote for this Chicago machine political hack, it's gone now!
Obama might be the conservatives' "Plaster Saint". I think that the rest of us have a good idea of what we're getting into with Obama: he's a gifted politician who can learn from the past without being bound to it, nobody's first choice, but a choice with great potential, should he choose to live up to it.
I note in passing that, after the altercation with Hendon, Obama started voting with Hendon more regularly.
I'll add that my preference is to have a boring politician in a boring time. Unfortunately we're not going to have a boring time over the next few years.
Obama has the potential to become the most powerful president in American history, indeed a totally transformative one.
All the autocratic tendencies and mechanisms of the Bush regime appear to be permanent features of the Presidency. None of it is being dismantled as the regime fades. Congress seems content to be a neutered advisory panel. Overseas, the nation has been transformed into an overt Empire.
That's the real legacy of the Bush regime, and all of it will be inherited intact by Obama, assuming he wins.
He will literally have a government at his disposal the like of which has never been handed to any president in history. He will have powers greater than any King.
The question that is being puzzled out right now is what he would do with such powers.
And the fact is, no one knows.
Kovie: I'm guessing another Carter. Obama'll be kept busy fighting off The Mother Of All Backlashes in 2010 and 2012, to no avail, and we can say howdy to Prez Palin in 2013.
It's still Nixonland, folks. We're just watching an amazing freak accident happening now.
Che Pasa: as soon as the Elephascists get back a House majority, and maybe a Senate majority [?] in 2010, watch Congress come roaring back to life.
Anyone remember 1994?
A different read of the moral of this story:
http://www.correntewire.com/
the_...ng_barack_obama
I think Kelso's nuts. Alan Garcia leading right-wing death squads in the 80s? The same Alan Garcia who at the time was demonized by right-wingers worldwide as a dangerous pro-Sandinista bank-nationalizing commie? (in reality he was neither right-wing nor a commie, he was just your typical uber-corrupt populist trying to do his best to stay alive in a climate of 100% a month hyperiflation).
And Torrijos is dead.
And this story is supposed to make me admire Obama?
Will Obama be another Clinton. Oh baby, in our dreams!
Monster: Re: Congress coming back a la 1994.
Ya think? I doubt it. Oh, they may try, but let's face it, Congress fukked up under Republican rule, committed a kind of political hari kari, and I don't think it can revive itself at this point. They threw it all away.
The Constitution is now a set of out of date ideas, suggestions, and thoughts. It is not the document by which the nation is governed.
We are now and have been for some time an Imperial Autocracy. That is not going to change no matter who ascends to the Purple in 2009.
Sweet Sue, et al,
Without knowing the details of the legislation, it is impossible to tell what he was voting for or against, and why. I would suspect that there were serious flaws with the bill.
To others who ask, "What will Obama do with the power?"
Why that's easy. He will institute Sharia, arm every African American with a UK 47, and invite Osama bin Laden to Ground Zero so he can chortle over his triumph.
Seriously, those of you who can't figure out what Obama will do if elected have neither listened to nor read his proposals. It would be worthwhile if you did so as they are quite clear. And quite good.
Are they perfect? No. Are they liberal? Many of them are moderate. So what? You want a lunatic like McCain whose only answer to problems is war and more war?
The pure, they are always with us.
as soon as the Elephascists get back a House majority, and maybe a Senate majority [?] in 2010, watch Congress come roaring back to life.
Huh?!? Have you looked at the electoral map? Repubs are defending the majority of seats in '10 in the senate, as in this year, and unless Dems outlaw guns and force everyone to have a gay marriage, there is a virtually 0% chance that Repubs can, or will, retake the senate then. The soonest that they can do this is '12, and more realistically, '14 or '16. So we're talking 4, 6, maybe 8 years (or longer) or Dems controlling the senate. Not saying what they'll actually DO with it, but it's not going to the GOP any time soon. This isn't just wishful thinking, but THE "The Math" (as opposed to Rove's "The Math).
As for the house, they won't retake it in '10 either. Possibly in '12, but only if Obama turns out to be an incredibly shitty and stupid president, and I seriously doubt that. Again, more like '14 or beyond, and even then, no guarantees. Dems are going to do whatever it takes to stay in control of it for decades, as they did prior to '94, even if it means lots of redistricting (which comes up in 2 years). If they play their political cards right, we're likely entering a new era of Democratic dominance that will likely last a generation, or longer. The Repubs could come back, but they've got a shitload of regrouping to do, and an internal civil war or two to go through first. And their leadership is wiped out. They're in deep shit.
Note that I'm predicting an era of DEMOCRATIC dominance, not necessarily progressive dominance. Whether that happens remains to be seen, and will depends of lots of things that are presently very much unknown.
Don't be a cynical reductivist. It's not as simple as you might think. You have to go back to well before '94 to get a sense of how American politics really works. More like '64, or '32, or '96--and beyond.
Purity/Bunnies '08! That's who I'm voting for! Purity Now!
And it's AK-47. Or does Merry Olde England now make its own knockoff? Are they that hard up these days?
And do you really think that he'll give even Alan Keyes a gun? Can it at least just be a toy gun for him to cuddle with every night and whisper sweet nothings to, in-between his Thorazine-free rants?
Tristero,
I'm much happier now with the handy tip of taking Obama at his word. He's filibustering on FISA, he's standing up to Wall Street, and he's using public campaign funds. Hooray!
Well, to be fair, nothing he's said or done suggests that he won't make good on his promise to allow faith-based groups to "help set our national agenda."
Y'know, criticism of Obama -- who will win big, as we all know -- is not praise for McCain. And criticism for Obama from the left has been well earned yet in short supply. Progressives have zero leverage with him, having allowed him to skate into the role of nominee and, soon, president while constantly throwing our constituencies under the bus.
Wanting Obama to act like a Democrat once in a while doeth not a purist make.
The College Issue - Case study - Barack Obama - Good Teacher? Good President?
Former students comment on Obama.
"Dan Johnson-Weinberger, who lobbies for progressive causes in Illinois, agreed that his former professor isn’t likely to emerge as an ideological liberal if he indeed makes it to the White House. “Based on what I saw in the classroom, my guess is an Obama administration could be summarized in two words,” he said. 'Ruthless pragmatism.'"
One reason that Obama entered the race: "he grasped the structural path to victory."
This is a man considered one of the most liberal members of the Illinois Senate. His students had a very difficult time reading him even though they consistently gave him high marks as a teacher.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/2...=1&
ref=magazine
vastleft,
Thanks for your comments. I can easily see where you would think that. However, to respond:
1. We have no knowledge if he misunderstood the legislation or not because we have no real knowledge of what it was. If you care to dig up the vote and the bill, then this point can be discussed. As it is, we don't know enough to know whether Obama was wrong or right. I can easily imagine many reasons to vote against a child welfare bill, if it's a lousy bill.
2. There is no evidence that he tried to subvert the rules. For all we know, changing your vote is normally allowed in the Illinois legislature. It's possible he didn't understand the bill. It's also possible he did, but decided after Hendon confronted him to change his vote merely for political reasons, to curry favor with Hendon. If the latter, it worked, once Obama started talking in a way Hendon could grasp.
3. Yes, he waited, and waited, and waited to react to a problem. But it was a specific kind of problem: a personal attack. Refusing to take politics personally is a plus in my book. So is reacting slowly. Very slowly? Yes. There are very few crises, eg Katrina, that require rapid response and good leaders know how to minimize them. I'm sick of hotheads who demand immediate action.
4. Given the situation and personality, the comment seems called for. Of course, Obama wasn't going to kick anyone around, but Hendon was a self-described street guy who viscerally loathed Obama. Obama was, after five years, finally speaking a language - note, a language - he could understand. It worked. No one was hurt, Obama got the respect he wanted, and he got a supporter for president.
As mentioned, I see your point. I just don't agree that those are the important aspects of the story. But I doubt I can convince you and don't think you can change my mind, either. As mentioned, Obama is a complex politician and this story does not lend itself to simple understandings.
Meh, Obama's initial actions seem childish, but the end result is that a former adversary now supports him. If that doesn't prove Obama's ability to reach out, I don't know what does.
Give him a break, guys! Partisan political hacks like tristero, desperately trying to spin their corporate candidate into some kind of pwoggie savior, have precious little to work with. He's doing the best he can so his team will win the big big game. Cut him some slack, m'kay?
vastleft,
The point of this post is to highlight that a vote for Obama is much more than a vote against McCain. It is a positive vote for a terrifically talented and subtle politician.
Saying good things about our own guys is something that we seem congenitally incapable of doing. That is bad mental health as well as rotten politics.
I said you have only two choices, McCain or Obama. That is a far cry from saying criticizing Obama is praising McCain.
If progressives have no leverage over Obama, it is for the simple reason that progressives have not yet learned to package donations properly. Glenn, Jane, and others are working on that. But it is a simple fact of American politics: control the money, control the politician. Sad an immoral that may be, but that is reality and progressives will have to play by those rules.
I don't like the faith-based nonsense either and I think it's important enough to make a major issue out of. But it only becomes an issue if Obama is elected. You assume he will "win big." We should be so lucky if he wins. I see the polls as *barely* tilting towards Obama once you factor in racism and margins of error. If Obama wins, and actually is inaugurated - I have my doubts - THEN you will see me complain bitterly about the faith-based stuff.
Obama is acting like a Democrat. He simply is not acting like Wellstone. Guess what? Wellstone never had a chance to become president. Would I prefer Wellstone if he were alive? Or Feingold, who is? Yes, but neither of them had/have a chance.
MarkE,
American politics is very ugly and rife with unpleasant compromises. But the choice is simple: Obama or McCain. And the right choice is obvious: Obama. Not because McCain is so awful, but because Obama is that good.
Agreed, Obama is not a liberal. But he has much to recommend him. This story is one example, for me.
"Don't be a cynical reductivist."
I will be whatever I feel like being, Kovie. I didn't get any memo saying you had been appointed boss of me.
As for the election, I'm voting for McKinney, because I can't stand that two-faced [only two?] misogynistic son of a bitch Obama.
If there be a heaven, and if I'm allowed in, I will either live in the splendid isolation of one of Asimov's Solarians, or I will have only female companions. I am sick unto death of my fellow males.
tristero:
"Not because McCain is so awful?"
Huh?
I sure as hell wouldn't want someone as unstable, erratic and -- yes -- awful as McCain to inherit the almost absolute powers that have been accreted to the Imperial Presidency by the Bush regime.
Obama is a very skilled politician, for sure, but that doesn't make him "good" -- or "bad" for that matter. Given the choice before us, Obama is the only rational pick. McCain is simply out of the question because he is so awful.
But how Obama would actually approach and use the powers of an Imperial Autocracy with a completely compliant (if not completely irrelevant) Congress is anybody's guess.
I don't think he knows.
Monster from the id,
You're not voting for McKinney. You're voting for McCain.
But hold onto your illusions.
Che Pasa,
It helps to read his policy proposals.
tristero:
What makes you think so, given Obama's record?
That's right, Monster from the Id! You see, tristero is in charge of casting every ones vote for them! Didn't you know that? So if tristero says your voting for McCain, you don't have any choice in the matter.
See how powerful pwoggies are? They can apportion votes any way they like! And remember, when you choose raspberry you're really choosing strawberry! War is Peace! Ignorance is Strenth! Vote for Obama!
Tristero: I live in a solidly red state. My voting for McKinney will not give an otherwise blue state to McCain.
Since I'll get a corporate-owned Senator who will do what Big Business and the War Lobby want no matter which one wins, I may as well wish a plague on both their houses.
But please feel free to hang on to YOUR illusions that your Plastic Jesus is something different.
My gut tells me to vote for Obama.
Don't you DARE look at Obama's record, Che! Pwoggies like tristero know that what a candidated DOES means nothing! NOTHING AT ALL! It's what the candidates SAYS that matters!
So DO NOT look at Obama's voting record! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Vote Obama or we'll all be killed in our sleep!
Kovie, the reason I think the Elephascists will retake the House in 2010 is the overweening arrogance of Obama and his supporters in Whole Foods Nation and Dudebro Nation. I think the rest of the country will have had a bitter bellyful of those people by then.
Cynthia McKinney is STEALING VOTES from the Plaster Saint! Remember - when you chose waffles you're really choosing pancakes! Why oh why can't you see the rock solid logic behind this?
Alan: I prefer Apple Strudel Pop-Tarts, myself. 
So the legend grows and gets embellishments, but what has Obama actually accomplished to warrant this continual hagiography? WHAT HAS HE DONE TO WARRANT THIS?
I can see this excitement happening over a very bright light and very young, dedicated public servant but Obama's nearly fifty.
When I ask his passionate supporters to name a few of his remarkable accomplishments, they can't come up with much beyond him being "electable", or taking popular positions, or just that he's black. Sorry, but there has to be more and there just isn't.
I prefer Apple Strudel Pop-Tarts, myself.
Purist!
There's nothing wrong politicially -- and there can be a lot right -- with "ruthless pragmatism."
And that's where Obama is, as the story tristero highlighted here demonstrates, and as so many of Obama's actions on the campaign trail have highlighted.
I would not put any faith in his policy proposals for the simple fact that he is inheriting nearly absolute rule of an empire that is facing simultaneous military and economic collapse.
What do you do?
Well, you don't cling to silly promises made during a campaign if doing so isn't "realistic."
That's just fundamental. Besides, Obama has already demonstrated to anyone who has been paying attention that he is perfectly capable of changing his mind and backing away from previous promises and ditching those who don't fit into his vision.
Monster from the id,
You're not voting for McKinney. You're voting for McCain.
But hold onto your illusions.
tristero | Homepage | 10.09.08 - 8:54 am | #
This is really rich. You have to admire the sheer chutzpah of a shameless Donkey partisan and Obama-nut having the audacity to be condescending to people who have every reason to be skeptical of Obama based on his, you know, fucking track record so far, on what he's actually saying, and the ghouls and war-mongers he has chosen to surround himself with.
Hey tristero,
you hold on to your illusions. Because facts and reality apparently have no effect on you people. Proposals are cheap. Talk is cheap. Obama's actions, track-record so far, and the people he chooses to surround himself with are far more solid indications on how Obama intends to run his Presidency than abstract proposals and policy positions that are already centre-right, and have no hope of getting any more "populist" or progressive because of the utter lack of any kind of progressive left in America that can actually exert pressure on Obama and the Democratic party to force them to enact progressive policies. And much of the blame for that lies on shamless "lesser of two evils" Donky partisan shills like you, who continue to propagandize for corporatist Imperial managers and laughably call them "progressives".
hv--What's the matter with you? Don't you WANT your flying unicorn pony that poops chocolate? We're all gonna get one when the Obamessiah enters the White House, you know! 
Will he be another Clinton? Another Carter?
I want a president with Carter's vision and humanity and Clinton's political skills. And a willing Democratic Congress.
Che Pasa--what about all those GOP moles that will be left behind in the bureaucracy? If the Obamessiah fires them all, the right-wing legal foundations will take their cases and bury the Administration in lawsuits.
Absolute power? "Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!"
It's not enough to vote for the guy who agrees with you %100 of the time, I'm willing to support a guy I'm only %70 happy with if I think the guy has the political skills to get the %50 of the %70 done then to vote for the %100 guy, see him lose and spend another 4 years bitching about how nothing ever gets done the way I want it done.
Keerist! The one thing that makes me nuts about libs is this whole "purity" thing. Grow the hell up! No candidate is EVER going to agree with you 100%. Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy have no chance of ever being elected Preznit in this country.
I agree that we don't know what an Obama presidency will bring, but it has to be far preferable to McPalin.
Just ponder the presidency of an erratic, hot-tempered, war-mongering McCain, and even worse, the wing-nut from hell presidency of Sarah Palin, then go in there and vote for Obama, fercrissakes. How difficult is that?
Lori--We don't get wars because of who the president happens to be. The people who actually own the country decide they need a war for whatever reasons, and they tell their kept media to gin up a fever for it, and then tell their kept politicians to make it happen, whether they are the kept Demopublican politicians or the kept Republicrat politicians.
But the choice is simple: Obama or McCain. And the right choice is obvious: Obama. Not because McCain is so awful, but because Obama is that good.
tristero | Homepage | 10.09.08 - 8:44 am | #
This is exactly wrong. To quote George Will, you couldn't have said it with more elegant inprecision.
The only reason to vote for Obama is because the choice of McCain and Palin are too God awful to even contemplate. But don't kid yourselves about what Obama really is, and how much change you can really expect. To repeat what I said here:
It's one thing to grudingly vote for the Donkey party as "the lesser of two evils" - and I'm not convinced of that at all, as I've indicated from the articles I've linked above - but it's an entirely thing altogether to proclaim their great Hope-and-Change Messiah from their murderous Donkey party as some great progressive second-coming. Unless "progressive" has lost all meaning now and is simply corporatist aggressive empire with promises of slaughter of more brown people all over the world... but with gay-marriage and abortion!
Monster,
So Al Gore would've invaded Iraq? Bullshit.
You just don't get it, do you Monster from the Id? If Obama is just .0002% LESS evil than McCain, them you have to vote for Obama. Not only that, but any vote you cast for ANY OTHER CANDIDATE than Saint Obama is a vote for McCain! It's that way because, well, Democrats own your votes and because nutball donkey partisans SAY it's so!
It really is interesting and peculiar. Here we have a candidate, Obama, who has perhaps the most impressive political skills of any American politician since Roosevelt. He even knocked Hillary Clinton - Hillary Clinton! - out of the running for president. He has given McCain so much rope he is hanging himself over and over. Obama has shown himself over and over again to be sensible, calm, organized and knowledgeable.
And this makes him intolerable. It makes it impossible to say something positive about him without being accused of being a corporate political hack, an Obamabot in love with a plastic Jesus, an apologist for American Empire, and personally responsible for the death of Che.
The fact is that Obama is a terrific politician and a decent man whose views are such that he actually has a chance of getting elected.
And this scares so many commenters here. I wonder why.
"So Al Gore would've invaded Iraq? Bullshit."
And you know this how? Do you have access to some parallel reality where Gore became president?
Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq? Bwa...hahahahahahhahahaha! What kind of dumbshit democrat wingnuttery is that? Who do you think his running mate was?
Gore would have done whatever his Beltway friends TOLD him to do. The fact that he grew a spine ONLY AFTER he was out of office is a clearer indication of this than even his dismal voting record.
Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq? Grow the fuck up!
Sounds more like gospel writing to me.
I'm voting for the guy I think has the best chance of doing a little bit of what I want done because I recognize that not only will there never be a candidate I agree %100 on, but the majority of the electorate is not going to agree with ME %100 of the time either. Ever presidential vote is a coalition vote, and skittish moderates need to be won over. Hot headed politics and angry answers of I"M RIGHT AND YOU"RE WRONG isn't going to persuade anyone.
Monster from the id,
By all means vote for McKinney in a red state. It will simply make the percentage by which McCain wins one vote higher.
Tristero is lobbying for the St. Luke position in Obamajesus' administration.
"Obama is a terrific politician and a decent man"
Tristero, there is no such thing as a truly decent human being. There are only us 6 billion or so talking apes, most of whom behave ourselves most of the time, but only because we fear the consequences of misbehavior. In a way, that's not our fault, since we were [mis]shaped by the utterly amoral and pitiless biosphere in which we evolved.
Your Kool-Aid mustache is showing.
"jaw-droppingly intelligent politicking"?
Are you shitting me? If a Republican did this- physically threatened and assaulted a legislative colleague- you would be howling about violent fascism. I hate the GOP and everything they stand for but let's not let our side become a den of hypocrisy.
I want a sticker that says "non-perfect, undecent voter for Obama"
It so describes me.
Monster from the id,
I'm a pretty cynical guy, but you beat me hands down.
"Let's not let our side become a den of hypocrisy"--Nikkos
Too late.
"Flawed Person for Obama"
Even better. Pithy, short, suite me to a tea.
Nikkos,
I suggest you read the WaPo article again. That's not what happened.
Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
Remember, Monster, partisan do-nothing pwoggies like Tristero are in charge of who you vote for. Don't ever forget that! And any criticism of Holy Obama and the Party of Lesser Evil is cynical purism. Or something.
The fact is that Obama is a terrific politician and a decent man whose views are such that he actually has a chance of getting elected.
And this scares so many commenters here. I wonder why.
tristero | Homepage | 10.09.08 - 9:31 am
I don't understand it at all, TRISTERO. I can't vote and I can't even contribute because my country is on the US bank/war-on-narcoterrorism/war-on-terriers blacklist. I would have probably given to Kucinich and Paul had I been able to.
But for US living outside the USA, especially in South America, we need a change in government in the USA. McCain last May suggested he would like to quarter troops in Colombia for a ground war in Venezuela and quarter troops in Peru for ground wars in Ecuador and Bolivia.
Screw that. I take peoples' points about ideological purity and all. But Obama seems like what you said, a fantastic American politician. I think I agree with him (in American terms) on 70% of the issues. That's not bad. Republicans love their ideological purity. I don't care about that stuff. I'd like a calm thoughtful guy in the White House.
Gringos are never going to put up a progressive candidate, so what's wrong with a great politician who's pretty good on the issues and can start uniting the world a little or at least start to make us pause a little before hating America.
There was a good American populist in the race, Dennis Kucinich. There was a good American libertarian in the race, Ron Paul. I liked them best. I like Obama just fine. It's no surprise he's polling 93-7 in the rest of the developed world.
Oh and Phone banking sucks. Sucks big time.
I tried to do it for my senate candidate and failed miserably. Freaked out after 20 mintues and left.
Will try door to doo canvassing this weekend.
But -- but --
That doesn't sound like he's thinking with his gut. That doesn't sound like he's thinking with his gut at all.
I need to drink a beer with a President who thinks with his gut.
Alan--I work nights and sleep days, so I gotta go to bed now. I'll dream of my flying unicorn pony.
Wow, all this time I thought I was going to vote for Obama since he appears to be an intelligent and competent politician coming on the heels of 7+ years of ignorance and incompetence (as well as the remaining candidate that best represents my interests), but now I found out I'm a cult member with impossibly idealistic expectations for a coming utopia.
And all this time, I thought every word out of the candidates' mouths was the unvarnished truth, and yet I find out that, in campaigns, politicians exaggerate their own strengths and abilities in order to get elected.
What a naif I've been. Thankfully, this thread has helped me see the light... I'm voting for the inanimate carbon rod. That way, no matter who actually wins the election, I can maintain a smug sense of superiority and remain clear of any reponsibility for what the future holds. It's as if a weight has been lifted...
What a naif I've been. Thankfully, this thread has helped me see the light... I'm voting for the inanimate carbon rod. That way, no matter who actually wins the election, I can maintain a smug sense of superiority and remain clear of any reponsibility for what the future holds. It's as if a weight has been lifted...
Mustard is Evil
Nicely put. I like good snark. I do hope you're also being snarky about mustard, because, um, I like mustard. mayonaise is for losers.
Mustard of the Id, vote for whatever. I will be voting for Obama.
Monster from the Id @ 9:35:
Tristero, there is no such thing as a truly decent human being. [snip] Your Kool-Aid mustache is showing.
Classic projection from right-winger who has no idea what human life is for.
Geez, I thought Progressives lived in the reality-based world. Yeah, Cynthia and Ralph would make great progressive Presidents. Just like if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
I think the obamabot accusations come from the fact that this post just glosses over Obama's vote against a child welfare facility. For whatever reason, as Tristero says. We don't know the particulars of that vote.
What I would suggest is that maybe Tristero could have found out the particulars before posting this glowing bit of hagiography. His vote may actually be worthy of criticism, but we don't know, do we? So although it is unfair to criticize Obama without knowing the particulars, it is knob-polishing to just gloss over it and tell people to look it up themselves, because the truth might knock a whole in your Parable of the Shoves and the Pushes.
HOLE.
bad fingers, disobey, under control of obamabots.
Sure, Monster. Just so long as you remember that YOU are not allowed to vote for whoever you want. Smug, snearing little pwoggie democrats have decided THEY own your vote and THEY'LL decide who gets it.
Monster of the Id,
Lori: So Al Gore would've invaded Iraq? Bullshit.
Monster: And you know this how? Do you have access to some parallel reality where Gore became president?
What is YOUR evidence that Gore was ever a part of the Neocon Middle East nation building plan?
You've made some good points Monster, but I repeat, it is complete BS to suggest Gore would've invaded Iraq.
Tristero, please see my response in the Update here.
What is YOUR evidence that Gore was ever a part of the Neocon Middle East nation building plan?
Vice President Leiberman
And it's demented do-nothing democrat dreaming to suggest Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. The plain fact is, we'll never fucking know. Get used to it.
This is a concentrated effort. I've noticed it lately listening to my late night talk program. It's right wing hive.
VastLeft,
I tried, but I didn't see any update, just a comment.
t
Yeah, Lieberman was really into staying in Iraq for a hundred years back then.
Smug, snearing little pwoggie democrats have decided THEY own your vote and THEY'LL decide who gets it.
Project much, Alan? No wonder progressive ideas don't get traction in America, when idiots like you advocate them. Here's a hint: political change doesn't happen by standing on a street corner and screaming "I'm right, you're wrong!"
Are you effing kidding me? His big show of anger is over being called out for trying to change his bad vote to make himself look better to liberals?
He is even more of a two-faced hypocrite than I thought. You may praise this as political skill, but he may have just lost my 'hold my nose and vote for Obama' vote.
Well, one could say that the only way to get progressive policies is to organize donations better.
Another way to get Obama's immediate attention would be to threaten his presidential chances before the actual election by, you know, holding his feet to the fire now. Because after we've all voted for him because McCain is such a Beast Rabban, he knows he can count on our vote no matter what he does. Especially after he voted for the FISA bill, instead of filibustering it, like he promised back when he actually was trying to get progressive votes, before progressives were left with no choice.
Yes, that's some brill proliticking.
joe, they all voted for Bush twice. It's right wing troll hive.
Tristero, it might be a caching thing.
There is an update section at the bottom of the original post. If you have a Correntewire account, you might try logging-in. Sometimes non-logged-in users see an older cache.
Yeah, and I guess he could have told us he would break apart AIPAC into a million pieces once elected.
He could still promise to break apart the MSM into a million pieces like Dean said once elected.
Here's my take on the Obama tale. The explanation that he "misunderstood the legislation" is obviously complete nonsense. Obama wanted to tweak Hendon but didn't want it to reflect on his record.
It is impossible to know whether Obama cynically and passive-aggressively killed a worthwhile bill or whether Obama simply recognized that the bill was bad, wanted to vote against it anyway, and saw a good time to score points against Hendon.
Regardless, we can take away from the story the fact that Obama wanted to vote one way and have his constituents think that he voted another. That, to me, is hard to defend under any scenario, but it only makes Obama a fairly typical politician.
palin = coulter
I'm with Tristero.
I'm a progressive; I know I won't get the constitutional purity from Obama for which I long.
But Obama has run the best Presidential campaign of my lifetime, and out of the squabbling tatters of a demoralized and exhausted Democratic Party he has built a Democratic machine to make it stick.
So what I expect is a lot of effective, pragmatic political compromises that may well infuriate me but that will add up to actual effective governance of a nation that doesn't unanimously agree with my ideas. Some of his programs will work. Some will suck. Some will be great.
And I expect that, given the problems we face, and our recent history of misgovernance and malfeasance in high places, that effective, evenhanded governance will seem like deliverance to many Americans, and will come to seem better than Republicanism to most Americans.
Monster,
So Al Gore would've invaded Iraq? Bullshit.
Lori | 10.09.08 - 9:28 am | #
Here we go again with this bullshit. Sorry, but I call bullshit on your bullshit.
I posted a response to this already on this blog somewhere but I think I'll reproduce it again as it is apparent just how deluded you smug American liberals are about your murderous Donkey party.
This whole "but.. but.. Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq!!!" from American liberals really irritates me.. because that kind of certainty has no basis in reality, facts, history or logic.
1. Who was Gore's running mate in 2000? Oh right.. this guy.
2. Wasn't it it was that corporatist Democrat and imperialist murderer Bill Clinton who was responsible for the murderous sanctions against Iraq that helped kill millions of Iraqis and crippled the country and its civilian population just in time for their partners in crime, the Republicans, to finish the job? Oh, right.
3. To quote from this article by Adolph Reed again:
Lesser evilists assert as indisputable fact that Gore, or even Kerry, wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Perhaps Gore wouldn't have, but I can't say that's a sure thing. (And who was his running mate, by the way?) Moreover, we don't know what other military adventurism that he - like Clinton - would have undertaken to make clear that he wouldn't be seen as a wimpy Democrat. As to Kerry, even though like all the other Dem presidential aspirants who voted for it, except Edwards, he claimed later that he thought he was voting for something else, he did vote to invade Iraq, didn't he? And, moreover, during his campaign didn't he say that, even if he'd known then what he knew in 2004, he'd still have voted for it? No, I'm not at all convinced that the right wouldn't have been able to hound either Gore into invading Iraq or Kerry into continuing the war indefinitely. Sure, neither Dem would have done it as stupidly and venally as Bush, but that's no comfort to the Iraqis, is it? Nor does it suggest a break from the military interventionism - old school imperialism - that's defined our foreign policy increasingly since Reagan. Obama is on record as being prepared to expand the war into Pakistan and maybe Iran, now apparently even generically anywhere in "Mesopotamia" (NYT, 7/14/0, after he does the Randolph Scott move and "talks" to his targets a couple of times. He's also made pretty clear that AIPAC has his ear, which does it for the Middle East, and I wouldn't be shocked if his administration were to continue, or even step up, underwriting covert operations against Venezuela, Cuba (he's already several times linked each of those two governments with North Korea and Iran) and maybe Ecuador or Bolivia.
This is where I don't give two shits for the liberals' criticism of Bush's foreign policy: they don't mind imperialism; they just want a more efficiently and rationally managed one. As Paul Street argues in BAR, as well as in his forthcoming book Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics, an Obama presidency would further legitimize the imperialist orientation of US foreign policy by inscribing it as liberalism or the "new kind" of progressivism. You know, the black is white, night is day kind. And, as he has shown most recently in his June 30 speech he will similarly sanitize the galloping militarization of the society that proceeds under the guise of "supporting the troops." (How many of you have noticed being called on by flight attendants to give a round of applause to the military personnel on board a flight - it may be only a matter of time before pretending to be absorbed in reading will no longer work, and those who don't cheer them on will be handcuffed - or the scores of other little, and not so little, everyday gestures that give soldiers priority over the rest of us, in the mode of returners from the Eastern Front? Actually, befitting neoliberalism, these gestures are for the image of soldiers, what they get instead of medical care and income support for the maimed.) All in all, I'd rather have an inefficient imperialism, one that imposes some cost on the US for its interventions. Clinton, like Bush père and Reagan, was able to pull it off with "surgical" (i.e., broadly devastating and terroristic to the objects, relatively painless for the subjects) actions and had the good sense both to select targets that couldn't really fight back and to avoid the hubris of occupation. To that extent, no one complained; this was the new Pax Americana that in principle could have gone on indefinitely, with successive US governments creating and lighting up demon regimes abroad as needed.
Sorry, but I don't buy this bullshit about Gore not invading Iraq at all. It isn't as certain as you American liberals convince yourself it is. Unless you do the much harder work of actually changing the rotten context you are operating in, i.e., a murderous aggressive empire, you are operating on the right-wing's turf, and are held hostage to their narratives, and their definition of success/failure.
There is a long history of the American right hounding American liberals into doing their bidding, and sometimes, resulting in policies and behaviour that might actually have been worse than if the American right itself was in charge. For example, LBJ was hounded by the American right into escalating the war in Vietnam because of the American right and their "who lost China to the commies" meme. He was terrified of the Democratic party and himself being blamed for being the first to lose an American war.
Similarly, given the (false) narrative pushed by the right-wing since the Vietnam era about the Democratic party being "weak on national security" compared to the GOP, it is very plausable that if the Democrats had been in office after 9/11, they would have faced the wrath of the American right and the Republican party and would have been blamed for allowing 9/11 to happen, and it is very likely Gore would have been hounded into invading Iraq, or even doing something a lot more worse and irrational. There is no evidence that Gore wouldn't have buckled under right-wing pressure, especially with that war-mongering Joe "what do you mean Israel isn't America's 51st state?" Lieberman by his side. Gore's entire campaign and the selection of a ghoul like Joe Lieberman were pretty good indications enough of how easily he would bend under right-wing pressure and narratives.
Again, the point is that unless you do the much harder work of changing the rotten context you are operating in instead of simply electing some "lessor of two evils" politician, you are operating on the right-wing's turf, and you should never underestimate the potential for vicious, irrational behaviour from politicians/groups operating from a position of weakness.
Palin=Coulter-adam's apple.
We're all Manicheans now.
If you criticize Obama for his many rejections of progressive values, you're a "purist." If you're uninspired by this tale of Obama waiting five years to grapple with a problem, and then resorting to physical intimidation, you're a "purist."
Wait a minute, we can't all be Manicheans, some of us have to be something else....
I posted a response to this already on this blog somewhere but I think I'll reproduce it again as it is apparent just how deluded you smug American liberals are about your murderous Donkey party.
I'm curious, hv, what you seek to gain with this -- well, smug -- tone. I'm also moderately curious to know where you are writing from.
I actually agree that the faith of Democrats in their party is often misguided. But not all Democrats are deluded. And I don't see where non-Americans get off lecturing us on this point. Again, I don't know where you are writing from, but I fail to recall any foreign leaders making any principled stands against the Bush administration over the past 8 years. Hell, other than Putin or Chavez, I don't recall ANY stands being made, principled or otherwise. Perhaps you would be well served getting your own house in order and leading by example rather than with condescending blog comments.
I don't think policy should be forefront in this election. The crux is the goopers put up two people unfit for the jobs they aspire to win. I would dismiss McCain as physically AND mentally unfit, Palin as embarrassingly unqualified. It doesn't matter what ones policy platform is, when they are incompetent.
VastLeft,
Ok, I was able to read it. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. (And I will do you the courtesy of replying on your site when my sign up comes through. Sorry.)
As you mention, Hullabaloo has never been an Obamabot site. In fact, I think I am the only one of us who has ever posted an all-positive post on Obama, and I've done so only a few times.
My reasons for doing so are simple. First of all, there many things I like about Obama. Secondly, I think the blogs I read tend to focus on dissing McCain rather than explaining Obama. Third, I know it will create an interesting conversation which often help me understand the issues in play better. This one certainly has.
That said, I also find it very sad that it is nearly impossible to say anything good, ever, about the Democratic presidential candidate without having folks accuse me of being a toadying hack.* The same thing happened when I praised John Kerry as a very impressive man who would make a great president.
The assumption seems to be that unless a candidate is near perfect, it is better to diss the other guy than be perceived as naive by praising our guy. This strikes me as a strange assumption. It also strikes me as strange that any expression of approval for, say, Obama, has to be hedged by reminding everyone of things we don't like. For a variety of reasons, I think that's silly.
In your reply, you mention that there were many fanatical Obama bloggers during the primary. Okay, but neither this site, nor I personally, was among them. I like him and there are things I really like about him. But if, in this post, I refuse to criticize him, it is mistaken to assume that I won't. That wasn't the point here.
My only interest here was to point to a fascinating glimpse of Obama before he was a national figure which revealed a lot about how complex and skilled a politician he is. I agree with you that you can look at it the way you do, but I don't think one is obligated to see it that way and I do see it differently, as an impressive example of his political skills.
Let's discuss the so-called violence for a second. If you re-read that description, which comes, apparently, from Hendon, it truly is unclear the extent to which Obama was serious. If later they pushed each other around, well, I look at that within the context of each man's temperament and values. I see your point, but I'm not sure it's accurate. It sounds to me like Obama felt he needed to speak Hendon's language for a moment, he did, and it worked.
But no problem if you disagree. Look, there's an amazing book about Lincoln which concludes that he was a racist who set back African-American civil rights for over a hundred years. The author makes a pretty good case and I see the point. I don't happen to agree, but I see where he's coming from. I think that is true here.
*As if I have any personal stake whatsoever in Obama winning! I have no interest in politics or professional commentary. I simply want to beat the rightwing back to the margins of American discourse, where they belong and my only reason for doing that is they drive me crazy.
If you criticize Obama for his many rejections of progressive values, you're a "purist."
No, if you criticize Obama for his many rejections of progressive values, you're a rational, thoughful, and informed progressive.
But if you spend months on end snarking, nit-picking, and echoing GOP talking points, while creating a bizarro-fantasy universe for yourself where America would have been saved if only the Clintons had been put back in charge because they are NOT cynical, ambitious politicians who pander and waffle and reject progressive values, then you are a tedious and useless fool.
Saying that everyone who doesn't want to vote for Obama is invested in purity and that is bad is simply not fair, given the way the two-party system works in this country. I have not cast a meaningful vote in a presidential election after many years of voting because of the way our system is structured in terms of the electoral college. This is a national election, carried out on a local level. Because all the blue states are a given, meaning no push from the left, plus the strucutre of liberalism, which relentlessly pushes everything towards a middling position, I get nada in terms of forwarding my policy agenda by voting dems. So for me, it's not about purity, but it is about driving Obama to the left. Liberalism requires "purity" if you're going to get your policy positions forwarded -- this is the lesson years of Bush and the right-wingers should have taught the left.
So I'll vote for McKinney. That doesn't mean I'm a diabolical monster intent on getting McCain elected. Maybe it'll mean that the Greens can have a voice in my conservative, machine run, blue state -- and push this whole thing to the left. That makes me "ruthlessly pragmatic," not McSane.
My god, lotta new concern trolls out today.
Anonymous,
"So I'll vote for McKinney. That doesn't mean I'm a diabolical monster intent on getting McCain elected."
Never said it did. It just means you don't understand squat about American politics.
Jeebus tristero, did you ever bring out the wing-nut patrol? Whether they're far right or far left or a combination, I'm not sure. But as cynical as I can be at times, the "EVERYBODY SUCKS" meme is something I can't stomach. What they don't seem to take into account, is that people in government are just people. Some are evil, and some are trying to do what is best for this country. (Btw, I worked on Capitol Hill for 10 years, and I knew both.) The challenge for rational people is to figure out which is which before you go into the voting booth.
Tristero, do you have any better suggestions for how to drive the Democratic Party to the left OTHER than the threat of withholding a vote? It isn't like there are a whole lot of options.
I prefer Democrats getting more involved in supporting progressive primary challenges to voting for third-party candidates in the general. But if you can't even maintain a credible threat of voting for a third-party then you end up with what we got with Obama: a pledge to filibuster FISA during the primary followed by a backtrack once he sewed up the nomination. If you refuse to punish that then get ready for more.
My partner and I are voting for Obama. He's all hyped like it was his idea all along now.
The fact that people think "a president needs to react faster in a crisis" is the direct result of the lack of what Obama demonstrates in this story.
Many of these crises we have facing us today are the result of inaction and ineptitude of people who should know better. They shouldn't be in the jobs they are, if they don't, the quintessential peter-principle.
Case in point: Would Irag have been NEARLY the mess it was had the US not assisted Saddam in his war efforts against Iran?
Keerist! The one thing that makes me nuts about libs is this whole "purity" thing. Grow the hell up! No candidate is EVER going to agree with you 100%. Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy have no chance of ever being elected Preznit in this country.
...
Lori | 10.09.08 - 9:21 am | #
Can you please STFU about the whole "purists" thing? That's a convenient accusation to throw at people who have every good reason to be skeptical of Obama's "progressive" credentials, and of whether or not he's able, or even willing, to make real, substantial change.
As Chris Floyd summarizes so well in his comment here,, after the last 8 years of Bush and the Republican party's utter incompetetence, criminality, constitutional breaches, and unprecedented extremism, is it being a "purist" to expect your great Hope-and-Change-Messiah and your Donkey party to actually you know.. try and hold Bush and the Republicans accountable for these egregious crimes and unprecedented extremism, to articulate a forceful repudation of the Bush administration's policies instead of simply offering a "better managed" version of those same policies, and to offer a clear alternative?
To quote Chris Floyd from that comment:
The Obama campaign has been a massive, historical failure in terms of offering anything like a genuine alternative to the dysfunctional and destructive system we have now.
Is this a matter of "purity" or a matter of recognizing that the level of criminality and extremism of Bush and the Republican party during the last 8 years demands a forceful and uncompromising response from Obama and the Democratic party?
But instead we get blathering from your Hope-and-Change-Messiah about "unity" and "post-partisanship" and how the real problem isn't the unprecedented extremism and criminality of the Republican party and the American right but rather the problem is "partisanship" and how "unity" and "reaching out" to the Republicans will solve all problems.
I call complete and utter bullshit on that. There are some things that go way beyond "compromise" and politics, and it isn't being "purist" to point that out.
Space,
"Tristero, do you have any better suggestions for how to drive the Democratic Party to the left OTHER than the threat of withholding a vote? It isn't like there are a whole lot of options. "
There is only one option, and witholding the vote isn't it. That option is to package the cash. When a significant amount of cash comes packaged from progressives, you will get progressive politicians. Until then, the best you can hope for are moderates who are sane.
Glenn, Jane, and many others understand this and have started initiatives like Accountability Now. That is the only way to get liberal ideas implemented.
Witholding your vote won't work. A vote against Obama is a vote for McCain. It really is that simple. But a donation bundled with other progressive donations - ie not given directly, but through a progressive funnel - is a donation that will give us progressive politicians responsive to us.
I have been saying this for years and years, btw.
Sometimes that is just how I feel about some of these politicians. I just want to say to them, " Come on mother f@#*er I'm going to kick yoyur ass!"
hv,
Please read this blog, in particular my posts. Do you think I disagree with you? Regarding that statement you quote in bold, Obama cannot change a thing until he is elected, inaugurated, and Bush is back at his seament pond. Regarding bringing the criminals to justice, of course I agree with you. But the problem is how to do that. You don't get elected demanding the arrest of the current president, at least not in America in 2008. Your perspective is spot on, but you seem utterly unaware of the reality of American politics.
hv,
Okay, we get it. You don't participate in the process because EVERYBODY SUCKS! There is no hope. We are doomed.
So why the hell are you wasting your time ranting? Go do something useful. For your mental health, I would suggest you pack your U-haul and leave. How can you stand to live in a country where EVERYBODY SUCKS?
P.S. Take Monster with you.
hv+ has a point about the purist mentality, but I don't know who the 'wingers are talking about when they mention this "messiah" garbage. That kind of talk only comes from the fantasy addicted 'wingers, sorry hv+.
That Achille's Heel of the right is they believe their own hype, including crap like there's anyone who supports Obama who seriously believes he's any kind of "messiah".
Vote however you like. My partner and I will be voting for Obama and not Palin.
Our votes wont really matter in this deeply red state and I thought about voting McKinney because of that. (He wouldn't understand a protest vote.) But we're still going to vote for Obama just to say we did. We've solemnly discussed this with each other. Wont vote for him twice if he doesn't do what we expect. But really. With things collapsing economically after 30 years of GOP, how can he succeed? But he has our vote.
You know I bought the Green fucking horsehit about the Dems and the Republicans being two sides of the same coin in 2000.
I will never believe your BS again. And I can't believe after eight years of this nightmare administration that you still buy it.
I am appalled that you consider physical violence good politicking. I can't wait until President Obama takes a Senator or Prime Minister out into the hallway and threatens to kick his ass that should go over well. WTF, people? If you replace Obama's name with Bush's is it good politicking? Just wondering how far you are willing to let physical violence become the way to rule our country.
Julene,
Read the story again. That's not what happened.
Actually, bundling money won't do a damn thing either unless there is a reasonable belief that that money will be withheld. And as long as we have choices like Obama or McCain, there is no threat. Obama and the rest of the centrist Democrats listen and obey money that might reasonably be expected to be withheld or sent to Republicans at some point. But just bundling and funneling money only accomplishes one thing - invitations.
This election might teach the Republican party an important lesson - that they can't expect to win on just the Pentecostal vote anymore. If they had come up with a candidate who wasn't certifiable, who wasn't a grumpy old man, who was a fiscal conservative not beholden to the worst elements of the evangelical right, and who had openly repudiated the Bush presidency, I seriously doubt Obama would be above 30% right now. Obama isn't winning by some brilliant strategy, he winning by the same do-nothing say-nothing strategy of the DNC. The only difference is that McCain is so bad and the economy is going up in flames. Obama is winning by default. He is winning because he showed up, and to pretend otherwise is naive. I'll take a win by default, but this isn't a display of Obama's awesome political genius.
You know I bought the Green fucking horsehit about the Dems and the Republicans being two sides of the same coin in 2000.
You know, you don't have to believe that the two parties are exactly the same to vote for a third party. You don't even have to believe that the third-party candidate would be effective if they won (e.g. McKinney or Nader). The purpose is to send a message that your vote can't be taken for granted.
I'll be the first to say that not voting for Obama, if it will lead to a McCain win, would be stupid. But if you are in a solidly blue or red state, or if Obama is on his way to a landslide victory, have no shame about telling the Dems that you are not enthused with Obama's failings.
Of course Accountability Now is a better tool for effecting change. But voting for progressive third-party candidates in non-competitive general elections is a way of helping future progressive candidates or potential candidates. They can point to a progressive voting history in the community and argue to donors that their candidacy will be viable.
But Republicans could not possibly nominate any man who repudiated the Bush Presidency, nor one who was an actual fiscal conservative, nor one who failed to bow to the worst elements of the religious right. All such persons have been driven out of the party.
Ummm, did it give you a thrill up your leg...?
Space,
"Tristero, do you have any better suggestions for how to drive the Democratic Party to the left OTHER than the threat of withholding a vote? It isn't like there are a whole lot of options. "
There is only one option, and witholding the vote isn't it. That option is to package the cash. When a significant amount of cash comes packaged from progressives, you will get progressive politicians. Until then, the best you can hope for are moderates who are sane.
Glenn, Jane, and many others understand this and have started initiatives like Accountability Now. That is the only way to get liberal ideas implemented.
Witholding your vote won't work. A vote against Obama is a vote for McCain. It really is that simple. But a donation bundled with other progressive donations - ie not given directly, but through a progressive funnel - is a donation that will give us progressive politicians responsive to us.
I have been saying this for years and years, btw.
tristero | Homepage | 10.09.08 - 11:05 am | #
I don't know if you actually believe this horseshit, tristero but let's get realistic here. To quote from that article by Adolph Reed again:
Second, the escrow account established by progressive Obama supporters to hold him accountable has, according to the New York Times (July 13, 2008 ) raised $101,375 from 675 people in nearly a month. By contrast, the campaign's chief fundraiser, Penny Pritzker of the Chicago real estate magnate and philanthropic family, a week earlier scheduled "more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person"(NYT, July 4, 2008 ). I guess our side had better get cracking with those bake sales on Democracy Now!
Witholding your vote is the only way to put pressure on your Donkey party. That's what the religious right have used with the Republican party and with great success, might I add, because the Republican party know they mean business. They really will withold their vote, unlike you American liberals, who can always be counted on to pull the lever for the "lesser evil", regardless of how contemptuously your Donkey party treats you "progressives" and regardless of how further and farther the Democratic party moves to the right.
The fact that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (ok, if not Dennis Kucinich then someone else who held 95% of his positions) were not the respective nominees of the major parties is, itself, an indication of the corruption of our political system.
From a purely ideological standpoint, the natural response to the failed Bush/DLC/neoconservative policies of the past 8+ years should have been an election between a populist/libertarian/isolationist candidate (Paul) and a populist/socialist/soft-foreign-power candidate (perhaps an Edwards-Kucinich hybrid).
We didn't get that. I wonder why.
hv,
I agree with your comparison between the Religious Right and the Progressives.
But you still haven't answered my question. Where are you writing from and where are all these non-American liberals who are holding their governments' feet to the fire?
Gee, someone who is in control of his emotions like a proper Vulcan. What a concept!
This sounds like the way FDR operated. I love it.
I'd kind of preferred that this story end with Hendon losing his seat to a young, upstart, Obama-backed primary challenger leaving Hendon jobless and friendless. However, I'll take what I can get.
It also illuminates what is infuriating about Obama: his ability to sit around and take punches without engaging in nuclear retaliation. The proof is in the pudding: he seems to know how to win elections, but I wish his opponents would feel a bit more cowed and threatened by him, instead of viewing him as a punching bag.
hv,
"They really will withold their vote, unlike you American liberals, who can always be counted on to pull the lever for the "lesser evil", regardless of how contemptuously your Donkey party treats you "progressives" and regardless of how further and farther the Democratic party moves to the right."
That's exactly right. I'm a liberal and I will always pull the lever for the lesser evil.
The point of this post, however, is that Obama is not a lesser evil, but actually a terrific politician.
Tristero,
"very sad that it is nearly impossible to say anything good, ever, about the Democratic presidential candidate without having folks accuse me of being a toadying hack."
It's also very sad that it is nearly impossible to note an endless stream of progressive-disempowering and -disregarding rhetoric and actions from our party's leader without having folks accuse me of being one or more of the following:
* A purist
* Insane
* A racist
* A closet Republican
* Someone who hates winning/hope/change/young people
Before we officially agree to disagree, please answer this: If you replaced "Barack Obama" with "John McCain" in this story, would you have written something like this?
"Though I disagree with John McCain on almost every issue, this anecdote about how he voted mistakenly after misunderstanding a piece of legislation (or subsequently lied about his reason for the vote) and then threatened to kick a colleague's ass and subsequently engaged in a physical confrontation with him, I see that he has a brilliant and subtle side that I had heretofore failed to appreciate. That it took five years before he took this impressive action is further evidence of his sophisticated cool."
Why you, you INSANE PURIST! You must be a repubthuguglaican concern troll in the pay of Karl rove! Why do you hate changing young people by winning with hope? Why oh whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
Dear Sweet Jesus you people are pathetic...
The point of this post, however, is that Obama is not a lesser evil, but actually a terrific politician.
As much as I wish that were true, the story doesn't prove that. To me, a "great politician" is someone who is able to achieve their political goals. Bonus points if their goals are worthy.
What did we learn (or relearn) from this story?
1. Obama is so averse to confrontation that he will accept abuse long after any self-respecting person would stand up for themselves.
2. Obama is so averse to confrontation that he may even avoid doing his job if it means avoiding confrontation: '"There were a lot of days when he called and said, 'Sorry Kim, but I just don't feel like taking it today,' " Lightford said.'
3. At the end of the day, it was Hendon who achieved his policy objectives, not Obama: "Hendon stopped teasing Obama; Obama started voting with Hendon more regularly." Obama got teased less often elevated his personal profile. Hendon served his constituents.
This reminds me of the FISA capitulation. The Blue Dogs got what they wanted (immunity). Obama got what he wanted (the support of Reid and Pelosi). And the rest of us got BOHICA.
Obviously, Obama has tremendous skills. But he strikes me as more of a facilitator and a mediator than an advocate or "terrific politician". Perhaps he would have made a great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Many, including even John McCain, appear to embrace the need for "change".
However, for some, the question as to whether or not the change needed extends so deeply as to disqualify both major party candidates from being considered as agents for change, is off-limits.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that the most genuine faith in America is the people's (innate?) need to have faith in their political leaders.
In observing this, I'm not downplaying the impracticality of systemic change. Many the world over find themselves participating in "democracies" that are designed to benefit the desires of the few over the needs of the many.
However, is there any other democracy wherein the population is less cynical about its elected officials than in the USA?
For better or worse, Americans seem to have higher expectations of their politicians than in other countries.
However, is there any other democracy wherein the population is less cynical about its elected officials than in the USA?
I think people are properly cynical about their elected officials. But they are insufficiently cynical about the political system.
You are correct to compare it to faith. Americans act as if our political system is the most perfect embodiment of democratic principles, rather than the Democracy 1.0 that it actually is.
having a senator "threatening to kick his ass" is now, "jaw-droppingly intelligent politicking"?
And you dare to carry on about Palin getting her supporters to call Obama a terrorist?
We're in the twilight zone aren't we?
Please, the entire incident is appalling, either he didn't bother to understand the legislation or it was a calculated move to finally come to terms with another legislator. Rather manipulative if it is the latter and pretty incompetent if it is the former. Either choice is pretty bad. Let us all agree, he is a pol, not more not less.
Monster from the ID, you must really love Nancy Pelosi too. She's a woman. Women are always better than men, right? And I hear Sarah Palin is a woman too btw.
-------------------------------
"As for the election, I'm voting for McKinney, because I can't stand that two-faced [only two?] misogynistic son of a bitch Obama.
If there be a heaven, and if I'm allowed in, I will either live in the splendid isolation of one of Asimov's Solarians, or I will have only female companions. I am sick unto death of my fellow males."
--------------------------------
You're a low grade sexist pig.
And you dare to carry on about Palin getting her supporters to call Obama a terrorist?
Okay, now who has lost the grip on reality?
Physical confrontations in legislatures -- short of pounding your adversary with a cane -- are fairly common, if not admirable.
Accusing your opponent of being a terrorist sympathizer, if not inciting mob violence against him, is quite a different beast altogether.
Why does tristero think Obama is a good politician? This is a year where my cat could have run and been elected as a Democrat -- with far wider margins than Obama. I don't know how McCain could possibly have any worse luck. I seriously wonder if he is even trying to win any more. Obama has failed to get anywhere significant against surely the most pro-Democratic election in decades. Not that competance matters at all unless Obama is on our side and he isn't.
I guess its useless to reply to these Obambots but the idea that people are refusing to vote Obama because he's "less than 100% in agreement" is ridiculous. I would say the guy is actually less than 0% in agreement with my politics. OK? Obama is a net negative. Probably a little worse than McCain at this point. He's like -60% and McCain is -55% perhaps. But I'm not voting McCain as the lesser of two evils because both are bad.
I've asked here before: what issues does Obama vote progressive on?
What is the best reason to vote Obama?
I'm getting no replies here folks. At what point do you quit digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole in the ground?
"because McCain is such a Beast Rabban, he knows he can count on our vote no matter what"
Well that's just it isn't it? McCain isn't that bad at all. He was being talked about as a VP to Kerry in 2004. He's to the left of Obama on some issues. The right wingers hate him.
Obama is a terrible candidate playing the same losing DLC tactics that always lose and he got lucky by running during the most awful political climate imaginable for the Republicans who were in any case fielding a candidate their base hates.
Even so until the financial meltdown he was looking vulnerable.
As a politician he's incredibly weak. His natural impulse is to get ahead by sucking up to whoever is in power. He is more dangerous to progressive values than McCain as McCain would be unable to push through cuts to social security and medicare.
Obama is in no sense progressive and has gone out of his way to demonstrate he is time and time again.
The real irony of tristero's applause for the "get angry and show you're not a wimp" story as he supposes it to be, is that he advises everyone here to be the Democrats total doormat wimps and NEVER to make any play for respect from them.
Tristero:
"That's exactly right. I'm a liberal and I will always pull the lever for the lesser evil."
translation:
"I am a doormat. I will never be anything but a wimp and deserve no respect at all."
And once again I will point out that if Obamabots like tristero really meant it about holding feet to the fire they would be happy to have people complaining about Obama around because their existence makes their own position more realistic. As in.
"Obama you better shape up or we will break from you Dems and go with the progressives who are voting Green or Nader. We respect their position a lot and you can't rely on our vote."
Reminder of what worm-tristero actually said:
"I will always pull the lever for the lesser evil."
Which position sounds more like the ballsy respect winning tactic that tristero is lauding Obama for engaging in in this diary?
Tristero, VastLeft:
Yes, unlogged-in users get a cached view. Check back, and the comment will appear.
DavidByron:
Yes, Obama gets too much praise for beating McCain in a year when McCain has virtually nothing going for him.
But I think I speak for most people here when I say that anyone who would support McCain over Obama is either a hardcore Republican or completely ignorant about politics.
Oh, I forgot the third option: Temper-tantrum throwing PUMAs.
"I know it's not the 'point' of the story, but the fact Obama voted in line with the Republicans against a child welfare facility here, doesn't really get me all that excited about him.
Strangefate'
I know-- that's the point I got out of the story, that Hendon was CORRECT, and Obama was being a hypocritical jerk. He voted no to help defeat the CHILD WELFARE bill, then tried to change his vote to look like the good guy.
"A president who patiently builds friendships and coalitions, even with natural political enemies?"
Scratching my head here.
How in the hell was Hendon,the guy making the most emotional speech of his life, in support of preserving funding for a child welfare facility, Obama's natural political enemy?
The contortions of logic to embellish the legend of the One get more laughable every day.
Well, this is pwoggie wingnut territory. You have to expect this kind of batshit insane "reasoning" on a blog full of democrat shill-wannabes.
"although, personally, I do prefer a slightly more muscular and effusive brand of politics, but whatever")
I would like to see President Obama carrying about 15 or 20 more pounds. He's a bit skinny for a President.
Hopefully, after the campaign is over he can put on a little fat.
He will literally have a government at his disposal the like of which has never been handed to any president in history.
And if he could get hold of some money, there's no telling what he could do. But the Bush/Cheney regime won't leave him a cent.
Another thing I don't get from this crazy post. Why is Obama said to have benefited from this exchange? The end result was Obama voting more with Henson not Henson voting more with Obama, right?
Obama comes off as a cowardly unprincipled anti-progressive capitulist with a violent streak.
Wuuuh?
But as above I really don't give a crap whether Obama is an able politician (he isn't) or not since he isn't on my side AT ALL. Not "less than 100%" but less than 0%.
In fact with US foreign policy as evil as it is I'd prefer -- we should all prefer -- an incompetent emperor to a competent one. Incompetence means less people dead. Compare Bush's 1-2 million dead to Clinton's 10-15 million.
Tristero, you doth protest a whole hell of a lot too much. Do you really think deciding to vote for Obama over McCain requires that much explanation and defending? And you can only end up over-stating yourself into a corner, sooner or later.
As the comments and replies roll on, it gets like the Python "parrot sketch".
I've asked here before: what issues does Obama vote progressive on?
David Byron
You mean, inspite of all the lobbying by the Progressive Party, and their frequent and consistent elucidation of their aims and policy demands, and the demonstrations of progressive political power and unity, he still won't vote their way?
This "progressive" you speak of? It exists only in our own heads! It is not, in any sense of the term, a political force which can effect change. According to a poster above, progressive means a certain aproach (purity?) to the Consitution. Mostly "progressive" means, as the Eagles sang, "everything, all the time". Progressivism is, at this time, a completely inchoate and ineffective political force. But Obama is supposed to respond to it?
There had better be some hard thinking about what "progressive" is supposed to mean politically, or it will mean nothing, and will get nothing done.
Odd. A candidate can't be the lesser of two evils and a "terrific politician" at the same time?
Hm.
Who'd a thunk.
Clinton's 10-15 million.
DB
I knew I should have given in and gotten the internet sooner. Looks like I missed a major war. 10-15 million dead? I should have payed attention.
David--you forgot to call me a racist as well because I won't vote for Plastic Jesus, but then I guess that's because you're not one of the Oborg. They use "racist" the way Joe McCarthy and his minions used "Communist". 
And you're not one of the Oborg, so YOU'RE A BAD MAN! YOU'RE A VERY BAD MAN! His Assholiness Plastic Jeebus will turn you into a giant jack-in-the-box if you don't REE-pent, sinner! Come to Plastic Jeebus or go to the cornfield; it's not too late!!!
[Hey, you brought up the Twilight Zone.]
***************************
The "secrets" of Plastic Jeebus's success are two:
[1] The Elephascists just screwed up THAT badly.
[2] For the first time in my adult life--I'm 45--the Corporate Media are fawning over the Dem prez candidate instead of the GOP one. It turns out that Karl Rove--and Lee Atwater before him--were never as clever as many, including myself, thought they were. Their "secret" was that the owners of the Corporate Media wanted a GOP prez, so they ordered their talking heads and typing hands--whose paychecks they sign--to bias the reporting in favor of the GOP prez candidate.
Why has the Corporate Media switched sides? I can think of two reasons, both of which may be true:
[1] The GOP has screwed up so badly that even the elite, or at least a major faction of it, is worrying now.
[2] A treacherous, neocon Democratic prez might could do for the elite what no GOP prez could do--turn Social Security over to the jackals of Wall Street. Dubya tried it, at the height of his power and popularity, with his party controlling all three branches of the government--and got it broken off in his ass.
A Democratic majority would be reluctant to go against Obama, though--especially since if he's elected, why can't he and his Oborg just continue the successful tactic of calling everyone who disagrees with them a racist? Obama's biggest contributors are Wall Street firms. Wall Street OWNS his bony ass.
2] A treacherous, neocon Democratic prez might could do for the elite what no GOP prez could do--turn Social Security over to the jackals of Wall Street.
Monster from the Id
Exactly.
See, this is the sort of Republican minded shit we get here instead of thoughtful debate.
Mooser:
"I knew I should have given in and gotten the internet sooner. Looks like I missed a major war. 10-15 million dead? I should have payed attention."
What is the difference between that sort of crap and crowds of thugs rallying to Palin?
Yes pal, you probably missed a lot of wars. And yes, you should have paid more attention.
Does any other ignorant smart ass want to express surprise and disbelief at those numbers?
How is this attitude any different from Rethugs defending Bush by saying no Iraqis died in the war except maybe a thousand or so? Its the same attitude on both sides.
Monster from the ID says,
"Why has the Corporate Media switched sides?"
In addition to your two fine points I would say that Obama is a much better PR guy wrt US imperialism. The common wisdom is that the US needs to regain it's "rightful place" by getting back to the point where everyone pretended its imperialist wars were good. Obama is the perfect poster boy for megadeath with a smile. McCain will just look nasty old white guy and not help at all.
Note that actual policies don't matter (Obama is to McCain's right) since they are dictated by others essentially anyhow.
Frankly I don' see how the genie goes back in the bottle now but I do think Americans can go back to think the world loves them because of their extreme narcissism makes them want to believe it so very very much.
Gore would have invaded Iraq then backed up and invaded again. Oh wait -- that's exactly what the US did do isn't it?
Bush v Gore debate 2 in 2000:
"MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?
GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges."
Oops. Linky for above:
http://www.debates.org/pages/
tra...trans2000a.html
For insight into the complicated, talented, politician Barack Obama is….to me, this is jaw-droppingly intelligent politicking…tristero 12:30:00 AM
So Obama votes against a child welfare facility you it makes you swoon?
That probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard. When he selected the second biggest war whore in the senate to be his VP, it must have given you a boner. When he lied to your face numerous occasions, it must have caused that boner to grow. When he talks about a military surge in Afghanistan, it must make it try to erupt. He really is The Precious to you.
hv,
Okay, we get it. You don't participate in the process because EVERYBODY SUCKS! There is no hope. We are doomed.
So why the hell are you wasting your time ranting? Go do something useful. For your mental health, I would suggest you pack your U-haul and leave. How can you stand to live in a country where EVERYBODY SUCKS?
P.S. Take Monster with you.
Lori | 10.09.08 - 11:10 am | #
First, I'm not from your mass-murdering mafia country. If I was, I would certainly think twice about participating in the machinery of empire an which is so harmful and destructive to most of the world. America is most certainly the enemy of most of the world, especially what is referred to as the Global South, i.e., the non-white, non-Western, non-European, 3rd world. America is the most certainly the enemy of most of the Middle-East, with the exception of Israel and the corrupt Arab ruling elites who take their orders from Washington rather than from their own people. With its bloody history of covert-ops, coups, and foreign interventions, and its forceful imposition of destructive, greedy neo-liberal economic policies, America is most certainly the enemy of Latin America. You do realize how much much you are despised in Latin America, don't you? And for good reason. And now, with America's murderous gaze turning towards Africa and with the death, destruction and humanitarian disaster it has caused in Somalia, you can be sure to add Africa as yet one more continent and region of the world that will grow to despise you Americans.
By the way, I'll bet most of you wonderful American "liberals", "progressives" and Donkey partisans here have no clue whatsoever about what is going in Somalia, or of America's involvement in that war, or that it is American's 3rd front in the Terror War. What does that say about the kind of murderous, sociopathic political "democratic" system you have - which you continue to legitimize with your "lesser of two evils" Kabuki theatre - where you can condemn an entire country and hundreds of thousands to one of the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe just because you fucking can, and yet be completely oblivious to it? As if whatever narrow concerns America might have had over a few possible extremists in Somalia justifies destabalizing the government and wrecking havock on the entire country, and causing a humantarian disaster. Meanwhile, hypocritical smug, white American liberals blather on about Darfur without the slightest bit of shame or irony.
The only reason I'm only bothering to post on this blog is try to make you Americans who live in your safe, secure, comfortable, insulated American and Western existence understand the perspective of people who live outside that Anglo-American and Western sphere, and to make you see we don't buy your "lesser of two evils" bullshit. We aren't suffering from any illusions about possibilities for change in what is essential an American bipartisan goal of using military force to dominate the Middle-East and the world for American and Israeli interests just because Obama and your Donkey party are now substituting for the Republican party, which gets to have a time-out for a while and go in the corner without any of your American war-criminals and murderous thugs held acccountable for what the death and destruction they've wrought these last 8 years. And when they're done with their time-out, they'll be back to wreck more death and destruction on the planet. It's all part of the magical wonderful circle of life, don't you know. What a fucking farce. If you insist on remaining wilfully ignorant, blind and tone-deaf about how absurd this Kabuki theatre of "patriotism", propaganda, deep racism, and self-delusion that legitimizes American imperialism and mass-murder of people in the 3rd world, i.e, the American political system, looks to people outside your insulated American existence, that's your problem. But then don't be surprised when your utter inability to comprehend how destructive and harmful your murderous empire of a country is to most people in the world, whether it's your Donkey party running things or whether it's the Republicans, and your lack of desire to actually make real, substantial change, results in people in the Middle-East and the rest of the 3rd world having no choice then but to resort to violence and terrorism as a means of resistance.
Secondly, even if I was from your country, as Monster from the Id is, I would still have every right to challenge your bullshit and be strongly critical of my country, as many real progressives in America are. You sound like a pathetic wingnut with your "America: love it or leave it" nonsense. Americans can be strongly critical of their country, and even their fellow countrymen, and you would have no fucking right to tell them to leave. Maybe they actually recognize the urgency and necessity for real substantial change, unlike yourself.
Thirdly, I'm not "ranting". I've offered some substantive arguments in response to your silly bullshit about "purists" and how "gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq", which you haven't bothered to refute except with that silly temper-tantrum above.
And finally, no, not all Americans suck. Americans like you suck. Certainly the Republican party and the American right are racist, malevolent, murderous thugs, but a certain portion of smug, white American liberals like you and their Donkey party are also malevolent because they help put a cloak of legitimacy to illegitimate, murderous American imperialism. People who are so oblivious about your Donkey party's role as the "good cop" to the GOP's "bad cop" in the mafia enterprise known as US foreign policy that you can blather on about how "Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq", and really believe it with full certainty. And smug, white American liberals with a deep ingrained racism that allows them to so easily sweep aside, and to make excuses for, America's relentless campaign of terror and vicious military aggression in the 3rd world, and the role of their beloved Donkey party in those activities. And smug, white American liberals who are so corrupt and morally bankrupt that as long as they get a few token gifts like "abortion", or for some, unconditional support for Israel, they are perfectly willing to be bribed into the Democratic party fold despite glaring evidence of the Donkey's party complicity and even active role in everything they pretend to be so against when it's the Republican party in charge.
Okay, I don't know what color you all are, but you are all acting like Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men".
Gore would have never invaded Iraq because THE TOWERS WOULD HAVE NEVER COME DOWN. Please remember that Rice and Bush had received several different kinds of warnings. Both willfully ignored them.
As President, Gore would have been right on it instead of vacationing in Crawford. Chances are that preventions would have been in place. Gore has no ties to the Saudis or the Bin Ladens as the Bush family has. He would have had no interest in colluding with them for any reason.
Lieberman was not Gore's first or second pick. There's no indication that Gore would have taken special AIPAC instructions from the man.
We are all thinking so small that we forget how absolutely different a Gore administration would have been from the current nightmare. Do you realize that if Gore had had eight years of the Presidency, Obama would not have a chance right now? Gore would have been too successful and the travesties of Bush would never have happened.
911
War on Iraq
Fema Failure with Katrina
Bank Debacle
Ten Trillion Dollar Deficit.
None of these would have occurred under Gore.
~
Hey,
what the fuck is up with this censoring bullshit? Why did you delete my last comment? Can't handle the truth about you American liberals???
Keerist! The one thing that makes me nuts about libs is this whole "purity" thing. Grow the hell up! No candidate is EVER going to agree with you 100%. Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy have no chance of ever being elected Preznit in this country.
You know what I hate? Partisan cheerleaders who think accusations of 'purity' against critics substitutes for an actual defense of their candidate. It's that very mindset that makes the left a joke in this country. They're so 'pragmatic' that Democrats can rely on them to cast a vote in their favor no matter what. So they never, ever have to pander to the left in any way or form. Thus the left defeats itself, by allowing people -- like tristero in this thread -- to convince them that quietly accepting a lesser evil is the wise course and that voting in line with your beliefs is the foolish vain thing to do.
Politicians don't need to listen to people who are going to vote for them regardless. Why would they? Might as well pander to undecided morons or even the hard to sway right. The left? Hell, they've already neutered themselves politically. Their respect for their own beliefs is clearly paper thin; they’re willing to take whatever crumbs they can get. So why not take them for granted?
A Dennis Kucinich will never stand a chance in a general election partially because so many of the very people who support the things he does, are too cowardly to actually stand by their convictions and fight for someone who espouses them. Instead they talk themselves into an Obama or Clinton, and tell themselves it's a sign of how practical and savvy they are, instead of just how craven.
I'll vote for Obama now that you guys stuck us with him but I refuse to accept that I ought to be excited about it.
(My argument isn't that Kucinich or whoever would win. It's that if lefists stuck by their convictions and gave their time and money mainly to people who support the same things they do, the rest of the Democratic Party would have to take notice. If they wanted any of that support or cash, they'd have to pander to the left. Right now, they know they don't. So they never will.)
David--Thanks, I hadn't thought of the "Better PR man for plutocratic imperialism" angle, but you're right.
Some folks think Obama will bring the troops home. I wonder if they still believe in Santa Claus as well.
What impresses me about you is how productive you are at keyboarding. And how completely full of shit you are. My god, do you ever stop and read what you write? You will stop at nothing to suck your boys dick. Do you not have a single shred of humility in your body? You are a whore no different then the great whore Limbaugh. Some day you will wake (I hope) up and realize what a great waste this period of your life has been. Man, you are really creepy.
David--Thanks, I hadn't thought of the "Better PR man for plutocratic imperialism" angle, but you're right. Monster from the Id | 10.09.08 - 8:41 pm | #
To quote Dennis Perrin:
LEHRER: Duly noted, Senator. Let's start with you, then. You're the new Commander in Chief. It's a scary world out there. How do you handle it?
OBAMA: With bombs, Jim. Cluster bombs, cruise missiles, white phosphorus -- whatever will do the job. The difference between Sen. McCain and myself is that when I call for expanded war, I sound reasonable, like the guy who has dozens of bodies stuffed in his crawlspace, but is able to explain away the stench while questioned by police. Sen. McCain lacks that kind of steadiness. If it was his house, he'd lose his temper and blow his cover. America needs a leader who can deny the corpses buried in the walls, and turn that rotting smell into freedom's potpourri.
hv:
hv--I have noticed some of my comments missing, but now they're coming back.
I don't think anyone's censoring us; I think it's just Hell-O-Scam fucking up, as usual. :P
Oh hey -- hv, very nice long comment up there
13 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
