-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/06/saturday-open-thread-come-on-in-2/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
www.newsweek.com/id/142465/page/1
how did this happen in a reality tv show..
this woman has pushed us a step or two back...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2156800/Big-Brother-Channel-4-releases-details-of-Alexandra-De-Gale%27s-bullying.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein
Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, describes a conversation he had with Barack Obama:
"In addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field."
What if Obama goes to Iraq and declares upon his return that he has been persuaded that the surge has made a difference, that things are going much better, and that he is now convinced victory is both possible and crucial?
Does he have the political courage to adopt a smart and sensible position on Iraq?
Of the editorial boards that opined Friday about his breaking the pledge, most of those that endorsed him during the primary were aggressive in their criticism.
The Philadelphia Inquirer’s called the decision “as disappointing as it is disingenuous,” while the Boston Globe’s wrote it “deals a body blow … to his own reputation as a reform candidate.” And The Baltimore Sun’s editorial called it “a major disappointment for those struggling to restrain the pernicious influence of special interests in American politics.”
The New York Times’ editorial board, which endorsed Clinton after allegedly leaning toward Obama, wrote that “Obama has come up short” of “his evocative vows to depart from self-interested politics.”
Obama attempted a preemptive defense of his new position by arguing that his massive base of small online donors constitute a “parallel public financing,” and that he needed to exit the program to defend himself from the independent spending of 527 groups, long a bugaboo of campaign finance reformers. Many editorial boards, though, have been outright dismissive of this argument.
The Washington Post opined that Obama’s “effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.”
And USA Today, which also did not endorse any candidates, said Obama put “expediency over principle,” was “disingenuous about his reasons for opting out of public financing” and proved he’s not a “real reformer.”
Vogel notes that the print media has provided “fawning” coverage of Obama during the campaign. They seemed enchanted by Obama to the point where they didn’t bother to see whether he was too good to be true. Now that he has turned his back on reform, that may change. Even more damning may be the reasons why he claims to have abandoned the public financing system, in essence charging the GOP with forcing him into it through what turns out to be non-existent 527 efforts and PAC/lobbyist contributions that amounts to less than 2% of the Republican totals — when Democrats raised 10% of their 2004 funds from the same sources.
If Obama can’t keep to his principles under fire, when would he ever keep to them?
Plus, for some of these editors, the issue has become personal. Obama spoke to several of these editors in meetings during the campaign and insisted that he supported the public financing system, including and especially the Washington Post. They now know he flat-out lied to them, personally, and nothing quite gets the blood boiling than that kind of betrayal.
The print media doesn’t have the same clout it once did, but it can still drive overall coverage. If they start digging into Obama, the television and radio media will pick up on it; they use print media as a source for their own coverage. One only has to look at the New York Times’ hit piece on John McCain in February to see how newspapers can grab national attention for their political efforts. If the editors decide to turn their cannons on Obama, the ride could get bumpy, and not just from Obama tossing more people under his own bus.
Many people will conclude that the print media will come back around to Obama after venting their spleen this week. Don’t be so sure. They believe in the public financing system — the Washington Post’s Watergate reporting practically invented it. If Obama wins, that system is dead. John McCain may look a lot more palatable now.
I knew this day would come. Obama has an interview with the Wall Street Journal that also highlights that he isn't an enemy of markets. Even in Penn, and OH (though the news didn't care to talk about it) he held up some free trade agreements that he thought were fine.
However, I have a problem with assuming that particular advisers presuppose particular policy. Obama has been profiled before as a person who seeks diverse and often contrary opinions. Furhter, Klien is not the person I'd go to to discuss who is "too friendly with markets." He writes a good book, but isn't a reporter of any note.
John McCain has spent the last few weeks hammering Obama on his national-security weaknesses, and Obama’s repeated clinging to the Nuremberg military tribunals as an example of why he opposes military tribunals didn’t help. He needed to show that he can take a nuanced approach to the effort on the war, and he apparently chose FISA as the moment. It’s sheer political calculus, much the same as Obama’s position on public financing, the death penalty, the Iraq war, and just about every position Obama has taken in this campaign.
It’s becoming clear that Obama has no real firm principles, only ambition.
"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
This is an insulting and pathetic attempt to distract the public from his recent flip-flops on the positions that got him the nomination. He IS young and inexperienced, not to mention nothing more a cold, calculating, ambitious politician who will say and do anything to get elected.
OBAMA is a RACE BAITER!
The Loud Silence of Feminists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/20/AR2008062002209.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Bull, that is what this is. The problem with this system, and I've been saying it for a long time, is that just because you didn't write a check to the candidate doesn't mean they didn't get your money.
Read: As long as the DNC and RNC (and 527's if you want) can take money from anyone, as much as they want this "public" financing system is a sham. As long as candidates can take PAC and lobbyist dollars the system is bunk.
Yes papers will and rightly so opine about Obama's decision. But if you want to make it about public financing then lets talk about which candidate has actually tried to do what the laws are there for: get special interests out.
Honestly those editorial boards are the few (besides dorks like I) who care about public financing. Hell only 10% of Americans check off that box on their tax returns. These papers may try to keep this alive, but they may not be able to.
s,
Fawning newspapers? Please the NY Times and many papers were so bent on having Hillary as the nominee that they hammered Obama, daily asking if he had the chops, etc. The Chicago Tribune (which endorsed Obama) has been the most critical of him. I don't and haven't bought this narrative of the media is too easy on him.
How many stories about Ayers did you read? I read ten too many. Point? The print media did their part in hammering Obama on stupid issues and that is indicative of the immature political reporting in our country, something I don't expect to change.
?!?! Er, excuse me! That’s akin to the "Pot calling the Kettle black". In case anyone has missed it, the Democratic Party has been using Identity Politics since the 1970’s, and was especially used in their own recent Presidential candidate primaries – See: Obama vs. Hillary, 2008. In fact, they have used it much longer than just the past three-PLUS decades, if the infamous “RICH” Identity is included.
(uummmmmm...I feel a new post, at my blog, is coming.)
In a new ad, Obama claims credit for three pieces of legislation. In one case, the claim is reasonable. The other two are bogus.
Obama says that "I... cut taxes for working families," citing Illinois Public Act: PA 91-0700, the Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit of 2000. Given the collaborative nature of any legislation, Obama's claim that "I cut taxes" is pretentious at best. As it happens, though, Obama was only a minor player with respect to the Earned Income Tax Credit Act. In fact, he was not one of the bill's chief sponsors. He signed on as one of 37 co-sponsors on April 15, 2000, shortly before the act was signed into law on May 11.
In the ad, Obama also claims that "I…extended health care for wounded troops who had been neglected." Wow, that's quite an accomplishment for a single Senator. The ad cites Public Law 110-181, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. Funny thing, though: Obama didn't show up to vote on that bill in the Senate. So it's hard to see how Obama can take credit for having personally "extended health care for wounded troops."
Resume padding.
But hey, what's really important is that the Republicans will say I have a funny name and that I'm black?
That incident earlier this week in which campaign aides didn't allow two Muslim women wearing the full, official headscarf to sit behind Barack Obama at a rally, allegedly for fear that they might show up in photos and video and solidify any Muslim associations which voters may harbor about the candidate, was a one day flap for the most teflon candidate in history. But it is grows more interesting as the facts emerge. According to this piece, one of the ejected women, Hebba Aref, was an official of the Muslim Students Association at U-Mich Dearborn, in charge of proselytizing. The MSA has been linked to the Sunni Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimeem, a terrorist group. Shimaa Abdelfadeel, the other alleged victim, had been chairman of SAFE, a University of Michigan, Ann Arbor group that hosted the 2002 Divestment Conference against Israel. She is the author of vehement anti-Israel propaganda. Interesting coincidence that these two women were ejected from the picture simultaneously, by two different campaign aides in two different parts of the building.
Was this a set-up? Predictably enough the entire universe of Arab/Muslim grievance organizations, CAIR, ADC, MPAC, ISNA, et al, has continued to milk the story despite profuse apologies from the campaign. What do they want him to do? You'd think they would be more interested in how far he is willing to embrace their agenda (pretty far, if his views on rights for Gitmo detainees mean anything), than whether the visuals flatter their organizations. Although, the appearance of closeness probably helps those organizations with their constituents.
It's worth wondering just how far the Muslim lobby is going to push Barack Obama to tow their lines, and whether he will bend to their demands, or push back. Both sides have more to lose than to gain in this game. He has a long history, in Chicago, of friendly and obliging associations with these organizations. If they are publicly testing to see just how far they can go, sooner or later Obama will be forced to snap back, to avoid seeming like a patsy. Let the drama continue.
1: I think all the readers of JJ know about the slime that Hillary introduced. In fact we know where she got it (read: Rep. southern strategy).
2: Please don't waste our time. As a son of the south I know firsthand how Republicans have and most likely will continue to use fear of the "other" to get votes. The target may change from year to year but the strategy is the same. Always based in xenophobia, racism, or even sexism (look at Ann Richards TX).
Do you honestly think a party with such a recent and long election history can lecture anyone? Hey, guess what, the Rep copycat didn't win. Apparently Dems could see a little more clearly that the Republicans on this issue.
3: Lastly, while I find identiy politics limiting, to equate them with the likes of the Republican southern strategy is logically dishonest. ID Politics speak to peoples issues, the Republican strategies have spoken to their irrational fears.
We all know the playbook, but hey maybe Obama will be wrong and maybe the Fox News and other conservative spin masters will stop short of the inevitable. But as long as folks are peddling in anti-Muslim Manchurian candidate slurs and angry black woman hysteria I think he has a point.
First, some facts: 1) Obama lost "most of the contests over the last three months of the primary". 2) Feb. '08, $50 million was raised...March '08, $40 million was raised...April '08, $32 million was raised. 3) Hillary is expecting Obama to help her with her $20-30 million debt.
May '08, $22 million was raised.
perhaps you were thinking of joe or ezra klein.
The Republicans have been running on racism. He is dead on with that analysis. It is not race-baiting it is the truth about what they are trying to do.
You're right, I jumped the gun. Funny I've read Naomi and that article didn't sound like her at first.
Apologies all around.
-Cheers
If Barack loses the election because voters don't accept his politricking, but they accept that of the crook who calls himself a reformer, then we'll get McCain who would be without a doubt the dumbest president in history.
If we thought 8 years of Bush was hell, then it's only going to get hotter.
Who would've thought even a month ago that offshore drilling would become the premiere issue of this election?
NO fan of Obama
The Republicans have been running on racism. He is dead on with that analysis. It is not race-baiting it is the truth about what they are trying to do.
Sat Jun 21, 08:07:00 AM 2008
I agree.
As I told ms. martin down below,
it doesn't matter how many monkey dolls there are, Obama knows that he could only say something like that, maybe TWICE in this campaign. He could never, and I mean NEVER would be allowed to do what Hillary did (with regards to ' sexism) towards the end of the campaign.
So, he's trying to 're-introduce' himself, and he's trying to do pre-emptive innoculation. He decided to take this as one of his two times.
rhonda is right. This what we ALWAYS expected from the GOP. This is no surprise.
I know I'm just weary, because I never thought I'd have had to fight that battle TWICE - once against the GOP and another AGAINST ANOTHER DEMOCRAT.
That's why I'm weary. We'd be well rested and ready for battle if we'd had not to deal with the racebaiting of Camp Billary.
Oh, 'be principled'. 'Even if you lose, it would be on principle'.
ARE THEY INSANE?
We're not talking about 3 or 5 million. We're talking about the difference of beginning at 100 million.
I'm for finance reform as much as anyone. But, folks are crazy to think that any sane person would give up that kind of advantage. Makes no logical kind of sense.
I just bought this issue. It talks about how Michelle grew up in a one bedroom apartment and how she's become the mother and woman she is. Most of the quotes come from long-time friends and all support the fact that she would be a fantastic First Lady. On the one hand, it IS a puff piece. On the other hand, this is what America reads and it's important to reach people where they are. I thought it was a very 'humanizing' article.
Sat Jun 21, 04:24:00 AM 2008
Michelle's story IS very American. Beginning from humble roots, work hard, get a good education, and then keep your nose to the grindstone, and the success.
Clinton had to wait till after he was elected before his U-turn.
Barack is ruffling feathers/causing folks betrayal pain as early as June.
I was wondering how long into the general election campaign it would be before Barack's centrism/man of the system really pissed people off.
It didn't take long at all.
Editorial boards are pissed at Barack because he won't partake in a system that's supposed to about reform.
Talk about hypocrisy.
Newspapers stopped being credible decades ago. Mike Barnicle is sitting on television spouting bullshit as an "expert." He was fired from the Boston Globe for fabricating sources and plagiarism. He was hired by the New York Daily News months later and is now back in Boston newsprint writing shit for the Herald.
If newspaper editors want to pontificate about reform, they need to look in the mirror.
I'm glad I don't take politics personally.
Musings Over Morning Coffee
Background information regarding Obama's involvement with "Public Law 110-181, 1/28/08" as stated in his general election ad.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/21/11914/2500/451/539570
Yawnnnn. What else do you have Anon 7:38? This one doesn't work for me.
And, from one of my favorite blogs, Baldilocks notes:
The Demonization Begins
"Most people couldn't care less about your name and your color, Senator Obama. They fear being lead by you because you have no substantive legislative record, you're a chronic liar and, after explicitly stating that you choose your friends carefully, you have repeatedly and systematically made friends with people who hate this country."
Craig is labeling it as politricks - ummm - know hope - I hope this isn't the change we've been waiting for.
I hope people keep donating.
Head bowed walking away.
Michelle Obama's Chicago designer
makes a bid for national recognition
Aren't there a lot of up and coming fashion designers in Chicago that are black?
I owe Field Negro an apology for my statements regarding him criticizing the Obama campaign for not having enough minorities.
I know what McCain will do as president. He's only got one weapon and I don't like the one he's got.
I still have hope that Barack will be able to bring everyone to the table in order to begin bringing about change.
But he's got to get elected first.
And that will require that he move to the center and piss off his supporters from the left.
That won't ever change. Presidents cannot be (s)elected in this nation if they only run on left-of-center platforms.
Sometimes it gets uglier before it gets better.
I hope you're right. I still think his willingness to go there reflects on his character.
I liked him better when he wasn't a reflection of his handlers. There was more light there.
I know what McCain will do as president. He's only got one weapon and I don't like the one he's got.
I don't know exactly what Barack will do as president. He's got a lot of weapons to choose from.
I know what McCain will do as president. He's only got one weapon and I don't like the one he's got."
So now we're back to the lesser of two evils?
;-)
::
Absolutely not.
I don't think Barack is evil.
(From - No Mas, Senator)
Starting to look like the Dem's old race card tricks have run out of interest...so to speak of a dead issue and/or beating a dead horse.
Diane Watson is still feeling the pain over Billary's loss. However, if you expected Stephanie Tubbs-Jones to say something, she didn't, apparently.
The great seal of Obama-land.
Somehow, I can't feel this; this does seem a bit arrogant at most, if not wishful thinking at least.
Back to folding clothes and watching I, Claudius.
Exactly.
I just don't get it. But that's me.
Especially since that's not what Barack is doing. Nor is that the way it works.
I suppose I have a different sociocultural view of race in American than you do.
If we thought 8 years of Bush was hell, then it's only going to get hotter.
In yesterday's conversation with me in the Friday open thread, bigassbelle wrote:
At this point, I hope and pray that this country goes to hell and fast. Right now we're like live frogs in hot water, the fire's burning, we're going to die, but we don't know it because it just gets a little toastier, a little warmer, just a bit, every day.
I want the fire on high. I want 50% unemployment in this country, $12/gallon gas, 50 million people to lose their homes. Bring it on, wake up this sleeping nation of sheep. (7:18 PM)
Apparently things getting much worse is one of the full range of goals guiding people's actions right now, in relation to the election
I am absolutely NOT saying anyone questioning, criticizing and/or against Obama shares this goal -- just that this comment yesterday showed me that this particular goal is a part of the full range of goals guiding people's responses and actions right now.
I was going to post this without further comment, but it seems irresponsible for me to bring this up without naming where I stand:
I myself am strongly opposed to the goal that bigassbelle names. And, I am being very careful in how I say this, choosing bland words and holding back my deepest response.
I'm glad he is not the "dreamer" some folks thought. He promises to bring a gun to the knife fight. Good.
I suspect he is as liberal as this country will vote for. He may be conservative on other issues. That makes him a complex human being - like most of us are.
Andrew Sullivan, who I read occasionally, sees Obama as Machiavellian. I don't agree, or think that's necessary, but it is an acknowledgment of his intelligence. The Clinton(s) didn't see this. My guess is McCain and the Repubs don't either.
I like that. Running for President isn't for Boy Scouts.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/21/165639/847/121/539916
oh garbage. if you poll people on the issues without assigning "liberal" or "conservative" to them, the american people are liberal as hell.
the right wingers have demonized the word liberal in this country, tainting it with weakness and socialism and all manner of unamerican crap. it's all lies.
the american people are liberal. we have a government which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the richest of the multinational corporations.
that is the problem. it isn't even about all of our petty little concerns, it's about enriching big business. every one of them, democrat, republican, doesn't matter which side they're on, that's all window dressing for us.
every one of them are beholden to corporate interests. the american people don't have a government. our government is a corporatocracy. end of story.
ergo my suggestion that things need to go to hell and fast in order to wake people up.
doesn't matter to me, i'm out of here in the next 2-3 years, depending upon how far my sweet papa lasts. i cannot bear living in this wretched country any longer than i have to.
I never expected so many to just turn on Obama at-essentially-the drop of a hat.
...I usually gloss over these stories, but this one is pulitzer prize reporting.
However, I'm very troubled by the NYT's decision to publish the name of the interrogator (whose name I shall not repeat). I think that was a bad decision...if and when Bush decides to martyr KSM, generations of Al-Qaeda devotees gonna be chasing after that dude.
Time 4 me 2 start drinking...
-Cheers
Say five Hail Cheneys and all will be forgiven.
Seriously...there's gonna be some pissed off people in DC/Langley come Monday.
And where Libby/Rove have been castrated by liberal (sorry, Belle) media, the NYT has just put someone's life in danger to a far greater extent than Valerie Plame.
And I bet that no one says anything.
That brought a real smile to my face and thought you all might enjoy that image, too. There really is hope out there, people, and Obama's presence on the national stage is helping a lot of White people learn to get over themselves, look around, and start to listen and learn from the experiences of those they used to unthinkingly ignore or discount.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Folks.is.CRAZY.
that is a story to put a smile on the face.
of course the Hulk couldn't destroy 5th Avenue...what blasphemy (sarcasm dripping here).
been reading Sullivan too. It's Been interesting.
I never expected so many to just turn on Obama at-essentially-the drop of a hat.
d,
I'm still here. :)
This is just pathetic . . . . Most people couldn't care less about Obama's name and color. They fear being led by him because he has no substantive legislative record, he's a chronic liar and, after explicitly stating that he chooses his friends carefully, he has repeatedly and systematically made friends with people who hate this country.
...and holding on for dear life, I'm certain.
-Coby
Barack Obama told supporters in Jacksonville that Republicans would launch racist attacks against him in the upcoming election. Without noting a single supporting piece of evidence, Obama cast any opposition to him as bigotry, and in doing so, recalled just a touch of Joe McCarthy’s tactics:
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.
“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.
“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
The ironic part of this argument is that it ignores the tactics his fellow Democrats used in the primary, while also overlooking John McCain’s efforts to distance himself from the same tactics. It was, after all, staffers on the Hillary Clinton campaign that sent the photo of Obama in African garb to the Drudge Report. It was Bill Clinton who suggested that Obama’s victory in South Carolina was no more significant than Jesse Jackson’s in 1988. It was Hillary who explicitly went after the white, working-class vote in the later primaries that bruised Obama so badly.
John McCain, meanwhile, was a lot more outspoken in criticizing his own supporters for relying on crypto-ethnic references. He immediately and publicly disowned, without any prompting, Bill Cunningham in Ohio after the radio host enphasized Obama’s middle name (Hussein) in his introductory remarks. McCain also fired one staffer for e-mailing a Jeremiah Wright video after explicitly saying that his campaign would have no comment on Wright or Trinity United. Meanwhile, Hillary could only offer a tepid “as far as I know” repudiation of the rumor that Obama is/was a Muslim.
Just as with his untrue statements on Republican financing and 527s, Obama seems content to issue lies and smears in order to inflame the electorate. There is more than a little hint of McCarthyism in this tactic. Joe McCarthy waved pieces of paper around and claimed to have lists of Communists in government that he never substantiated. Obama likes to accuse Republicans of racism without any proof, either, while apparently discounting the real race-card playing in his own party.
If he has proof that the Republican Party and/or John McCain plan racist attacks on him, let him show it. If he doesn’t, then Obama is guilty of his own racial pandering and should apologize.
...and holding on for dear life, I'm certain.
Nope...Just chugging along.
Read the whole thing:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/tony-rezko-and-obamas-shifting-positions-on-iraq/
"ms.martin, I find your comment about running from blackness to leave the good behind self-defeating
You've misquoted me. I didn't say "to leave the good behind".
This is what I said:
"The problem I have with running from blackness to appease those in our society who are afraid of it is that you leave behind the good black and compound the struggles of those who remain unknown."
The result of running from blackness to make someone else comfortable is to further the demonization of being black and therefore lending credence to sterotypes, judgments and suspicions and thus making the struggle harder for the unknown blacks who live a good life and strive for even better. And, is the epitome of self defeat.
Really, what have you gained if you've sold your soul for the prize? And as I've asked before, what do you do when you get where your going if you've misrepresented your self to get people to go with you?
I don't feel defeated by myself for I have always had a strong sense of who I am and my capabilities even when faced with the doubt forever in the minds of some (because of my color) and have even enjoyed showing them otherwise.
More importantly, I realize I am an individual and while I am responsible for doing all I can to help any man, I am not responsible for his actions and do not have to justify or deny them as Obama felt he had to do in his speech, I am me and he is he even though we share a race and the toll that must be paid for that race.
Michelle Obama's makeover--The media is transforming Michelle Obama from a classy, accomplished woman into a cookie-baking robo-wife
I disagree man...I'm pretty liberal and the NYT really went too far by publishing that dude's name. I'd rather be Salmon Rushdie [sic] than that dude. My bet is that that story will be absorbing much of the MSM attention next week and don't be surprised if Brian Williams leads with it tomorrow morning on MTP.
BTW, I haven't had a chance to read the Obama-doubting-keep-him-accountable-to-the-AA-community comments....All I got to say his:
Let's get *O* in the White House and worry bout some of this shyt later. I didnt make reservations to see ancient ass McCain take the oath on 1/20/09.
Apparently you did read, hence your comments about keeping him acccountable.
You're free to work to get him in the whitehouse if you so choose and if that's where you want him, however, please don't foolishly discredit my concerns or tell me to get over my position and get him there - my vote is my vote.
If he doesn't show up and vote no on this bill, I won't give him another dime, I won't stump for him at the dinner table, nothing, nada, zilch, zippo, bupkis.
Honestly, i didn't read the comments. I scanned the verbiage and sensed the vibe...May I be honest? I may have had a couple of drinks, but i don't feel "no ways tired," nor foolish.
Since I did not read your comments, I will not generalize on your character or declare you "foolish." However, I will share with you a few similes that best describe my sentiments for Obama-doubters at this stage of the game:
Obama doubters are LIKE....
NAACP Protestors in 1985, outside of movie theatres showing THE Color Purple, attacking it for it's depiction of black men.
Obama doubters are LIKE...
Crabs in a barrel, trying to yank the crab-on-top back to the bottom.
After all is said and done, The Color Purple is regarded as one of the best pictures of all times among AAs...and the crab with the big *O* is going to climb out the barrel....no matter what the other crabs may say or do.
You wrote:
"Really, what have you gained if you've sold your soul for the prize? And as I've asked before, what do you do when you get where your going if you've misrepresented your self to get people to go with you?'
Bravo.
Obama has misrepresented himself as a 'post-racial' candidate. He is attempting to demonize those who oppose him. He is using race to distract the media and the electorate and deflect any legitimate criticism as 'racism.'
Obama has painted himself into quite a few corners these days and recent facts and past statements are running contrary to the narrative he formulated to win the nomination:
Iraq, campaign financing, domestic energy production, free trade...just to name a few.
So now, confronted with the facts and his own contradictions, what does he do? He pre-emptively tries to distract and deflect any and all criticism as 'racism'. He is willing to stir up and perpetuate ignorance and stereotypes for his own political gain.
I would say that Obama Doubters choose to judge Obama on the content of his character and not the color of his skin.
He has revealed himself to in fact be a 'blank slate', possessing no core conviction other than the belief that he 'is the one we've been waiting for.' A calculating, opportunistic, self-important politician who has yet to present a concrete, cohesive policy position on the most important issues facing this nation or present a solid record public service that has done more for the 'greater good' than for his own personal and political success.
To all those who have made public FISA-Obama-drama declarations in the past 24-36 hours on the internets: Speaking only for myself: I get it! You are feeling extremely upset and betrayed! How could he. The drama. The heartbreak. The pathos. Oh the humanity. Such betrayal. It was supposed to be about Change. And not The Change, which would mean hot flashes and irritability, but Change in a soul-stirring "things will go exactly the way I think they should go at all times starting right now" kind of way.
The main complaint I have about this particular drama (FISA-Obama-drama) is, I think that people engaged in it need to get together and pick a theme song. Something is lacking without a theme song, IMO. Please, for the children's sake, please pick one. Thank you.
I'm with you, Rikyrah. Al Giodarno over at The Field has an interesting take on this (in the comment section of his June 20 post on Community Organizing), and considers it a distraction from the task at hand. Lenore comments: "So there's politics, if that's what you call it; and then there's community organizing, which I guess you'd call process. If the goal is a liberal or progressive agenda, politics is key, and it's a betrayal to support the conservative candidate or a bill that leaves past evils unpunished (in civil court only, by the way). But if the goal is to revive the popular democracy that some of us believe is the thing that matters most, these are wrong but, as Al says, sidebars. Important in their way, but in the big picture they're blips. If nurturing democracy is our goal, the question is how to best serve that goal, not how to force a particular conclusion."
The goal of community organizing is to always move the agenda forward, and not to get held back and distracted by issues one cannot, at this time, in this way, affect. There has been much disappointment here at the thought that Obama might be a "politician" after all; it is perhaps more relevant to distinguish between the goals of politics and the goals of community organizing. it is community organizing on a massive scale which has brought about this incredible activist base, and decisions are made within that context. For an articulate treatment of this perspective, read Al's post on Obama as community organizer here: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/uncen...
It offers another perspective through which to view the events of the past two days.
"100 years of war in Iraq" is concrete, cohesive policy...
Offshore-drilling along the Florida coast will do more "for the greater good than for [McCain's] own personal and political success."
I trust *O*'s judgment....I remain undisappointed and quite proud.
The only thing that 's got me somewhat disappointed tonight is that KSM went to an HBCU (NCA&T;).
I have learned to expect nothing more than ordinariness from our political class. But Obama should never have advertised himself as being something different than what he actually is.
@webb,
Interesting how you chose not to defend Obama but attack McCain with discredited smears.
You trust O's judgment about what exactly?
It is beyond doubt now that the surge has been hugely successful. Violence is down enormously, Anbar and Basra and Sadr City have been pacified, Prime Minister Maliki has led successful attempts to pacify Shiites as well as Sunnis, and the Iraqi parliament has passed almost all of the "benchmark" legislation demanded by the Democratic Congress. Obama has not visited Iraq since January 2006 and did not seek a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus when he was in Washington.
$4 gasoline has undermined Obama's judgment that alternative forms of energy can painlessly supply our needs. Public opinion has switched sharply and now favors drilling offshore and, by inference, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats are scrambling to argue that drilling wouldn't make any difference.
Proud?
Reality is running contrary to the narrative Obama constructed in order to win the nomination. He has painted himself into a corner with outdated policy positions and contradictions but it doesn't matter because anyone who criticizes him as inexperienced or lacking the judgment necessary to be POTUS will be called a 'racist' not only by surrogates and supporters but by Obama himself.
Crab like mentality is your defense against very real concerns about his character?
That's weak!
That is EXACTLY what my girlfriend and I were just discussing before I turned the computer back on.
Exactly. Wow.
'There are things that he should be held accountable for and then there's maintaining the full scope of reality.'
Who determines what the full scope of reality is?
Would that be their reality or yours?
You asked: Who determines what the full scope of reality is?
Would that be their reality or yours?
About what the full scope of reality is -- I do feel, viscerally, that excluding the reality of some people/groups is a very very common form of "quiet violence" inside this society. In this society the more system-power someone/some group has, the more their reality is supposedly legitimate. It's incredibly ugly the way it works.
My own reality is privileged in some ways and totally and completely discounted in others (to the point where there is no actual language for some core aspects of how I perceive and experience the world).
For me the resonance with what heartsandflowers wrote is the distinction between things he can be held accountable for, and everything else.
I myself feel he can be held accountable for where he is actually coming from and not what people just project into him.
I personally feel responsible for understanding the situation as best I can based on external information outside what I have desired him to be. I have needed to be as rigorous with myself as possible on this point and it's been (and remains) a big deal to me to push myself on it.
Because -- I've been trying to understand why I have such an interest in this political race. I'm generally not into electoral politics like this. I have had gut feelings that I didn't understand. Trying to understand led me to seek out information on where Senator Obama is coming from, what he's about. The three main sources of information that have informed me most so far are:
1. His two books (and also a biography on him, but mostly his books)
2. His actions in the campaign thus far that I have seen
3. Published interviews with him and various pieces of other information (for example recent experiences I have had in interaction with a member of his campaign staff)
I'm not saying these are the best sources of information, just the ones I looked at hardest to answer my own questions.
One of the biggest breakthroughs in my own comprehension was reading Audacity of Hope. It showed me something crucial about how he thinks. In some ways it's alien to me, and in some ways it felt really uncomfortable. But it was crucial information for my own understanding of what he is and isn't.
When I first started attending to this campaign I had various ideas about who he might be, and some of them turned out to be dead wrong. What I did was go searching for information to give me some sense of what is really going on.
For me, focusing on external information has helped a lot in my own sense of expectations. It is what differentiates my own expectations versus who and what he is. It's still in process.
I have no idea if I actually answered your question and certainly I rambled way past what you asked. But that's more or less what I can say in reply right now at least.
I guessed my question would be better answered if you could tell me what you think people are projecting on him as opposed to what he has done or said.
Obama said that Hillary Clinton is worthy of your respect. Now I know that's politics.
We really don't know just how liberal or moderate the probable next President of the United States actually is. Secondly, the idea that he admits he has been blowing smoke on some topics (such as NAFTA) and has backed away from his own "overheated" rhetoric on other topics, ("undivided" Jerusalem, "unconditional" pledge to meet with foreign leaders) does not inspire confidence that we can discern the "true" Obama by listening to his words. And of course, we can't discern the "true" Obama by studying his resume and track record because if you blink once you miss it.
You know how most politicians say one thing and do another? Well, Barack is different. He gave Hillary Clinton quite a dressing down during the primaries in the Rust Belt for having once supported NAFTA, a treaty Barack called "devastating." Obama said he'd use the threat of withdrawal from the treaty as a "hammer" to wring concessions out of Canada and Mexico. And sure, his top economics aide told a Canadian consulate official on the QT that Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric was "more about political posturing than a clear articulation of policy plans."
But that only shows how hard it is for Obama to find aides who are as farseeing and honest as he is. Well, yes, the candidate did acknowledge to Fortune magazine last week that he now views NAFTA more favorably and wouldn't seek to renegotiate its terms. And yes, he did say, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." But, oh, the way he employs the passive voice! It's not that he pandered to or misled the voters. No, the rhetoric got overheated. Who else, I ask you, can so smoothly deploy the passive voice?
Barack Obama is so uplifting. He has said, "We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich friends and high-priced lobbyists (note: don't you hate those low priced lobbyists?) but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American." Yes, yes, yes. When he released a list of earmarks he had requested over the past three years in the U.S. Senate, he was being open and honest about the favors he has done. Some might say that $740 million is hardly worth mentioning in the context of the huge federal budget. And if $1 million went to the hospital that happens to employ Mrs. Obama, well, that's because she looks incredible in a black-and-white print sundress.
Obama has called us to something higher than politics as usual. "The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players," he intoned. After clinching the Democratic nomination, Obama's first big appointment was Jim Johnson to head his vice presidential search committee. Johnson has such wonderful experience under his belt, with ties to Walter Mondale, John Kerry, Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, the Trilateral Commission, and it turns out, Countrywide Financial. Well, yes, Countrywide was one of the mortgage lenders Obama had condemned earlier this year for "pumping up the subprime lending market. ... They get a $19 million bonus while people are at risk of losing their home. What's wrong with this picture?" And it didn't look exactly kosher that Johnson had reportedly received up to $7 million at below-market rates as a special friend of the company's CEO, Angelo Mozilo.
But Obama's response showed just how above this sort of thing he truly is. He zeroed in on the nature of the problem as soon as Johnson's shady deal came to light: "There's a game that can be played. Everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire a vetter to vet the vetters." How true. It's a shame really that Johnson resigned, not wanting to become a distraction, because he was so tangential anyway.
Obama is the kind of leader who can bring us together. He may have the most one-sided, partisan voting record in the Senate, but that just shows how ready he is for a fresh start. He will take on the "special interests," like the farmers. He voted for the largest farm bill in history ($307 billion). Take that!
Obama is going to set a new tone in politics. Yes, he did promise to abjure private financing of his presidential campaign if the Republican nominee would do the same, but as everyone can see, things have changed. Public finance would provide only $85 million, whereas Obama has raised more than three times that already. As the candidate explained so upliftingly, "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections" but "this is our moment and our country is depending on us."
I've been reading a lot of blogs and between Al Giordano's and Lisa Vasquez -
http://blackwomenblowthetrumpet.blogspot.com/
- I have been sorting through my perspective on a LOT of things.
*****************************
Ms. Martin,
I was not speaking of specifics per se, just that people have had an emotional response to Obama and now for some he's 'letting them down' or 'pissing them off'.
1. Messiah complex - there is no savior.
2. Assuming his agenda is 'liberal' or 'progressive' and not defining what that means - or assuming it means something specific. It is something different for everyone, so without one specific set of ifs, ands or buts who considers themselves being heard and who doesn't?
3. No understanding of how the government operates and expecting outcomes specific to a set of circumstances falling into place.
4. Thinking 'change' means wiping the slate clean or starting over from scratch. I think the entire system is flawed and was broken back when the Founding Fathers: stole people and enslaved them, used the income to fund their own war of independence from another 'oppressor' and actively enacted laws that kept slavery in place in violation of ignored laws opposing it.
I know people are attached to the Constitution but they intentionally discounted people from participating and benefitting from it's laws. So people today hold it up as this pillar when it has rarely been used in its entirety in the first place.
5. Free market vs. Capitalism vs. Regulation vs. De-regulation vs. 'No Big Gov't vs. Corporate Welfare, Earmarks and Kickbacks. Union-busting vs. NAFTA
Living Wage vs. Minimum Wage.
Why the Federal Reserve wields so much power with no oversight.
Why we feel entitled to our lifestyle without accepting responsibility of the actions required to support it.
ex. people who support a vegan lifestyle and oppose animal abuse [and make it into a moral and/or political issue and have an air of superiority about "doing the right thing"] but don't consider the lives of the migrant workers who toil to make fruits/veggies available.
6. FISA rules being followed, being broken, the illusion that citizens are not to spied upon, but historically how the gov't has always spied on people; see MLK, Malcolm X, Black Panthers, Anti-War groups, Hoover. I've heard certain words are coded and get flagged and that we are in fact being monitored all the time.
7. How much power we abdicate.
Do I think an Obama presidency will be good? Yes. Will MY needs be met? That is yet to be determined. It comes down to exacting a value to my support. Black people have been giving it away for NOTHING in return but a hope and a sense of fairness.
AIPAC doesn't care about what's 'fair' they want certain actions to be taken even though a larger group of people want something different. But you see who gets catered to? We have to be like that. And it would be great for some balance while we're at it.
So that was long but this is off the top of my head.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5215668&page;=1
Apparantly, these members don't understand that Obama has a general election campaign to run and he must move to the middle and not focus on the few dissatisfied women who support McCain.
According to Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Obama then said, "However, I need to make a decision in the next few months as to how I manage that since I'm running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it."
Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words -- "Get over it." She found them dismissive, off-putting.
"Don't use that terminology," Watson told Obama.
Clarke did not react the same way.
Watson must be looking for a primary challenge
s: hahahaha!! obama a "hard left liberal"? please. he's a center right politician.
michelle: what people aren't getting about FISA is this:
George Bush swore on a Bible to uphold and defend the Constitution. Then he wiped his ass with it.
The FISA betrayal is not about drama or emotion or any of that, it's about the foundation of this country, the Constitution of the United States. The one the Republicans have run roughshod over for the last eight years.
It's not a political issue, it's not a talking point, it's the fucking foundation of this country. To blow it off ~ especially while parroting the worst of the right wing terrorist talking points ~ is a fucking outrage.
Tell me how a constitutional law professor could even think of doing that?
Here, I'll tell you: corporatocracy. End of democracy.
Obama is flat out wrong on this issue and his position demonstrates not the sort of practical pragmatism that is the stock-in-trade of politicians but a sort of craven cowardice and fear that is generally displayed by politicians with far less talent than he possesses. Getting elected president of the United States is a process of straining for symmetry, that is, trying to bring irregular halves together by occupying the middle. There is not, unfortunately, a middle position on the protections we are afforded under the 4th Amendment. Obama either believes the government can act unlawfully against American citizens or he does not.
You think Barack has sold his soul. I see no evidence of that. Clearly we have different thresholds a pol must cross before coming to that conclusion.
That's all.
::
Whoever wrote that Barack didn't cite a single example of a race-based attack when talking to the Floridians at that fundraiser is lying. They are also lying to say that he's suggesting that any criticism against his policies is racist.
Barack called out Floyd Brown, independent slimethrower, who has already created and aired two ads painting Barack as a scary Black Muslim terrorist. One of the ads ran in North Carolina, the other ran in South Dakota.
The "Barack lied about never being a Muslim" ad has nothing to do with policy issues. It includes lies that have already been debunked. It has everything to do with exactly what Barack said in Florida. It is about making the voter scared of him for reasons that have nothing to do with his policies or his politics.
::
d.,
I haven't lost my enthusiasm for Barack's candidacy because I never had any doubt that he was capable of playing tough politics in order to win. Chicago politics ain't never been no tea party. Ambition is the central ingredient for any politician running for President.
He's so inexperienced, he's so naive, folks say.
Uh huh.
The man is a shrewd, calculating, intelligent and talented politician who knows what's up.
Whether he's ultimately elected or not, I haven't seen a bigger political talent in my lifetime.
::
Say it again. It amazes me how much his opponents are doing their best to paint him as a radical.
It won't work.
Anybody who's paying attention knows Barack is not that liberal.
His opponents are talking to those who aren't paying attention and to them only.
I'm no fan of David Brooks and I reject some of his more dismissive and sarcastic language in his recent column, but he basically put out a warning to Barack's opposition.
If they keep underestimating them, they will be run over.
But I have supported him in large part because of his stand on foreign policy ~ that we must do things differently, that democrats are the better party to "keep us safe" (so fucking tired of that phrase).
With his support of FISA, he did a 180 degree turn back to the tired old destructive republican narrative that we can only be strong on security if we trash the Constitution.
As ptcruiser said: "Obama either believes the government can act unlawfully against American citizens or he does not."
which is it? and one of the most disappointing results of his statement is the sudden appeasement being promulgated by former staunch advocates of the defeat of this bill. it seems that the thing is just to elect Obama, no matter what, no matter what he does, says, anything. just elect him!!
bullshit. if we don't hold our candidates' feet to the fire ~ all of our candidates ~ we have nothing.
The article is just one reflection of what happens when leftists get their way. Leftists are actually communists/socialists -- though most deny it, or don’t even realize it -- who believe that the government is suppose to help them and others, by forcefully taking from others.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! - Marx
Look at some of their other issues, e.g. 1) ‘man-made’ Global Warming. At one time -- on earth -- oceans were covered in an ice-sheet that was one-mile deep…the entire planet earth was covered in ice. Mankind wasn’t around, so how did the ice go away? And, that was just one Ice Age. 2) Environment – “save the trees”…by letting forest fires destroy the forests, instead of allowing loggers into the forests. “no drilling for oil”…lets fund terrorism instead. “Bush caused Katrina”…of course, the environmentalists got a pass on the damage caused by Katrina, even though it was them who had stopped anyone from touching the Mississippi River and the marsh areas around New Orleans. 3) World Peace – “no more wars”…that’s a good one. Leftists think that they can stop the enemy by talking to them, or by threatening them with court systems.
From the above link: Alice Walker believed so strongly that children enslaved their mothers she disowned her own daughter…saw motherhood a form of servitude…etc.
European officials are increasingly concerned that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration.
In a Post-ABC News poll last month, nearly nine in 10 whites said they would be comfortable with a black president. While fewer whites, about two-thirds, said they would be "entirely comfortable" with it, that was more than double the percentage of all adults who said they would be so at ease with someone entering office for the first time at age 72, which McCain (R-Ariz.) would do should he prevail in November.
But the "liberal media" isn't discussing McCain's age and its effect on his electability with the same vim and vigor that it's discussing Barack's race.
Even though every single poll in the last two weeks tells us age is a bigger issue for voters.
::
For all of our discussions of the Constitution and FISA, has anyone expressed any outrage about the politics behind the way this bill came up for the vote the way this bill came pu for the vote?
On a related note, one would think the Supreme Court would want to uphold the Constitution, no?
What's the Supreme Court going to do when it decides to review this bill?
And what else is attacked to this bill? Isn't there something attached to this bill that extends unemployment benefits? Or did I hear that wrong?
Think the unemployment benefits are attached to the war supplemental.
they are enormous donors to political campaigns, the telecoms.
the fisa bill has been fought back by activist democratic citizens several times now.
the democratic sellouts in congress keep allowing it to come up. over and over.
they want this bill to pass. want it.
the democrats could, if they wanted to, do precisely on this bill what the republicans do over and over:
play obstructionist politics and filibuster the motherfucker. but no, that would require some bit of spine and there doesn't seem to be a fucking backbone in the whole lot of them (feingold, dodd and a few others excluded).
they want it. they want it for their "people" ~ the corporations.
Right now for me, it's the energy of the people who are upset at him because of his statement and actions/lack of actions re: the House vote on FISA.
For some -- NOT ALL but some -- there's this personal sense of dramatic psychological betrayal in how they make their public declarations about how they feel and what they are now going to do. Some of which I have seen on this site, though not as much as elsewhere.
I understand disagreeing with him and wanting to hold him to task and don't have any problem with comments and people coming cleanly from that space.
But the intensely personal-drama feel of some people's responses is really repellent to me. When I was sorting through what I felt going on I realized that it felt to me like relationship or "family drama" of the sort that is extremely self-referential for the people who are so upset.
I'm not entirely how best to name *what* some people are projecting on him around the FISA-Obama-drama; it may be a various things depending on the person, since IMO it really is pretty self-referential to whatever the individuals internal "issues" are.
(again -- I am NOT talking about the comments and people who are politically disagreeing in a clean sort of way, it's the ones with all the angst and personal drama energy I'm talking about).
My girlfriend sees some of this drama as coming from rigid ungrounded ideologies that get projected outward. I see some evidence of that too but not sure precisely how it gets so linked into the personal-drama feel of things.
There's a fair amount of what I am repelled by on the dailykos, which I never read before this election season and may have to stop reading again.
And, some of the comments from bigassbelle on this thread and Friday's open thread to me illustrate a vivid and particularly extreme version of what I am talking about. In this case the FISA statement seemed to serve as the catalyst for an individual to feel so deeply and personally betrayed and freaked out that she wrote that she prays for suffering on people in a country -- The U.S. -- we later find out she plans to leave. Praying for others to hurt while you plan to scape the pain, because you are so internally self-referentially upset ... I will not say the words that I have for this kind of thing. I do also see some evidence of a rigid ideology in these and other of her comments as well, which is along the lines my girlfriend is thinking.
The whole thing but in particular for me right now these parts:
4. Thinking 'change' means wiping the slate clean or starting over from scratch. I think the entire system is flawed and was broken back when the Founding Fathers: stole people and enslaved them, used the income to fund their own war of independence from another 'oppressor' and actively enacted laws that kept slavery in place in violation of ignored laws opposing it.
I know people are attached to the Constitution but they intentionally discounted people from participating and benefitting from it's laws. So people today hold it up as this pillar when it has rarely been used in its entirety in the first place.
........
Why we feel entitled to our lifestyle without accepting responsibility of the actions required to support it.
ex. people who support a vegan lifestyle and oppose animal abuse [and make it into a moral and/or political issue and have an air of superiority about "doing the right thing"] but don't consider the lives of the migrant workers who toil to make fruits/veggies available.
.......
6. FISA rules being followed, being broken, the illusion that citizens are not to spied upon, but historically how the gov't has always spied on people; see MLK, Malcolm X, Black Panthers, Anti-War groups, Hoover. I've heard certain words are coded and get flagged and that we are in fact being monitored all the time.
And really the whole thing.
I know it was a reply to Ms Martin but I will say: thank you so much for this comment, thank you.
go read the constitution and the bill of rights. it's apparent you have no idea what those documents mean or what went into the making of them.
then you'll know what i'm so "personally" upset about. good grief, you're making this into some kind of personal psychological issue?
there's a term for that: projection.
Very well said.
' Black people have been giving it away for NOTHING in return but a hope and a sense of fairness.
Black people have been giving it away for NOTHING in return but a hope and a sense of fairness.'
So true. This is why the Father's Day speech bothered me, I didn't think it was fair and I was very disappointed and feeling like more of the same.
I feel the same way you do about the other issues and think the variables make it difficult to please everyone.
Michelle
I understand, your frustration is about the uproar over FISA - I agree with Hearts on this. Though I do believe the driving force is that many corporations are involved and the litigation would be voluminous and I'm sure they is much more to this story than the general public is privy to.
"On a related note, one would think the Supreme Court would want to uphold the Constitution, no?"
Good luck getting this in front of the Supreme Court, let alone a federal judge. Since the whole damn program is secret, how the hell can you establish standing in litigation? How can you prove that you were injured, if you can't prove that spying happened to you? If you can't prove that you were injured, you have no standing. If you can't prove standing, you have no case that a federal court will hear. With telco immunity, everyone is going to get tossed out on their asses, and you're never going to be able to prove a damn thing.
I'm no expert on things of this nature, but I do know that courts won't strike down a law unless someone can prove an injury typically.