“He was not at all afraid to debate in nasty ways”
Touché! Hillary has challenged Obama to a Lincoln-Douglas style debate before the next primary. She wants to give him another chance because the moderators were so mean to him at the last debate and he’s still complaining about it. So, this debate will have no moderators.
you may be asking, what is a Lincoln-Douglas debate? Well, wiki says that it is a debate whose focus is values and morals, not policy. That’s awful nice of her to give him a handicap. You’d think he would jump at the chance to set the record straight, to prove his bona fides, to demonstrate his presidentialtudinissness.
So, what’s the word from Obama? Has he accepted? What’s that his campaign says? No more debates before May 6?
“In the next nine days we’re going to devote our attention to the voters and we will see where we are after May 6. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Lincoln-Douglas, standing, sitting, what language it is in, it does not matter.”
When danger reared it’s ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Obama turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Filed under: Presidential Election 2008, snark | Tagged: Lincoln-Douglas debate |
The Confluence 
Charles: I don’t think bread and butter issues are what she had in mind. This debate format is not one that we have seen before where she mops the floor with him. This one is going to be even trickier for Obama.
Could this guy be any more of a wimp? It won’t be long before most Americans begin to wonder what possessed him to run for President in the first place. Hillary has the momentum now, and a win in NC will only reinforce the fact that Obama win most of the AA voters, some wealthy “liberals” and no other important demographic groups.
I would love to see a debate without moderators, but I’m afraid that Barack would be so overmatched that he would end up running off the stage screaming. I think he expects to have the nomination handed to him, all wrapped up with a fancy ribbon.
Clinton not only voted for the AUMF and against the Levin amendment…without reading the NIE…she also voted for cluster bombs and Liberman/Kyl.
Now Clinton says she will “obliterate” Iran and talks as if Iran already possesses nuclear weapons. Further, Clinton wants to extend the umbrella of nuclear deterrence to any number of nations in the Middle East.
I know why I don’t support Hillary Clinton in this primary and it’s despite her excellent supporters and activists, it’s her policy positions and repeated and continued failures of judgment.
For someone whose claim to the nomination, after losing the contest for states, for delegates and the popular vote, hangs on changing the rules and having her big money backers threaten the DNC to give Hillary preferential treatment by changing the rules mid game, it’s shocking to see Clinton’s claim to superior “experience” play itself out with a threat to “obliterate” Iran
That’s what Clinton’s experience gets us, a threat to use nuclear weapons to incinerate a nation of 75 million people not simply on behalf of Israel, but perhaps on behalf of any number of other nations in the Middle East. No wonder Clinton handlers tried to walk back that phrasing. But it was too late, Clinton had used that rhetoric in public any number of times.
And Hillary Clinton says this while the Bush / Cheney Administration takes significant and serious steps towards bombing Iran. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric and Democratic failure of judgment that took our nation in the war in Iraq, a war that was supported by both Bill and Hillary Clinton well into 2004, even though they now lie about that.
What should we progressives think of a candidate that has gone back on her pledge on MI / FL, engaged in Republican-style attacks on Barack Obama, repeatedly distorted her record on Iraq and now threatens to obliterate Iran?
I know what I think.
And, yes, for those who would say that I am “attacking” Clinton and damaging her I am attacking her from the left. Attacking someone from the left does not hurt them in the general. John McCain voted for the war, for cluster bombs, for Lieberman/Kyl and has talked about “bombing Iran” as well.
Clinton attacks Obama from the right. Oftentimes Clinton’s rhetoric uses the exact same phrases as Rove or McCain.
There’s a real difference there.
It’s 2008. Clinton voted for the war in Iraq in 2002. That vote had real consequences that continue to this day.
Now Clinton’s judgment is telling us she will threaten to obliterate Iran?
The kid is trolling again.
Shorter Kid Oakland: Blah blah blah!
Lol, why not have a Lincoln Douglass debate right here and now?
You clearly don’t have anything substantive to say yet, just personal insults.
Hi Kid, it’s good to see you. Wouldn’t it be great for Obama to have the chance to ask Hillary just that directly? Wouldn’t it be great for us to hear her explanation?
I’d love to find out more about the “Umbrella of Deterrence” — maybe Obama could ask about that too.
There are a lot of tough difficult questions that should be asked. And I’d like to hear each of them answer them directly.
You’ve started it — but they should follow through.
Thanks for visiting.
Hey hey, KidOakland is here to cry us all a river. Fancy he/she could spare some time to engage us bitter folk rather than waxing poetically about how distraught he/she is.
Interesting that he/sh does not bother to deal with the topic at hand and rather recycles stale talking points that are fitting for a twelve year old. As with Obama, I see a fear to address the issues at hand (notice how he/she conveniently omits that Obama introduced legislation that was worse than Kyl/Lieberman).
I guess, since I engaged a little ol’ troll, I must pay the penance and donate to Hillary. The truth is that after Hillary resoundingly dominated Obama in PA by over 200,000 votes–22.5 times the number of total participants in all of Alaska–I keep on feeling like giving her money. I used my engagement of senor(a) drama to snarkily donate to the campaign.
XOXO
How is Hillary Clnton’s attack on Barack Obama’s church in the PA debate not an “electability” issue, if not a reason to question her moral integrity?
Clinton linked the Trinity United Church of Christ to:
a) blaming the United States for 9/11
b) Louis Farrakhan
c) Hamas
And she demonized Rev. Wright to boot, saying “that man would not be my pastor.”
I bet if you polled Republicans and Independents, you would find a fair percentage who would find that kind of attack on a house of worship distasteful.
Clinton could have simple disagreed with Rev. Wright and left it at that. She did not. Clinton deliberately engaged in attacking the TUCC in a Democratic debate bringing up Farrakhan and Hamas.
She knew full well that mentioning Farrakhan and Hamas were simply code words.
Since Obama has already “rejected and denounced” Farrakhan and stated he would not meet with Hamas and criticized Carter for doing so, all that Clinton was doing was engaging in a “code word” smear on Barack Obama.
What does Louis Farrakhan have to do with Barack Obama?
Why did Clinton bring it up in the PA debate?
KO: Why won’t Obama debate Hillary? That’s the topic.
If you want to go to another thread we can all listen to your *yawn* stale talking points over and over. We’re happy to here you cry us a river on the topic at hand.
Kid Oakland: Welcome back! It’s always nice when you drop in. You usually hit all of the pro-Obama points without sounding rude and obnoxious.
Back in the Kos days, and even til now, to be perfectly honest, her vote on the Iraq War Resolution has bugged me. I understand some of the reasons for it and not others. It was a calculated risk and it was a bad thing all around. That being said, of all of the candidates we have, I think she’s the most likely to find a solution.
As for Kyl-Lieberman, it has always been my opinion that it was an engineered wedgie. If she voted no, she looked soft on national security. If she voted yes, she turned us off our food. But in this situation, the resolution was toothless. It called for no action except to condemn Iran for sponsoring terrorism. And anyway, Cheney didn’t need an excuse to invade Iran. He has always maintained that he and Bush could invade any country they wanted without going to congress for permission. But I do find it curious that Obama was stranded out in East Bumfuck on the day the vote was held, almost as if her were tipped off. How convenient…
As for obliteration, well, I know you’re younger than me so you probably didn’t have duck and cover drills. Really, I only had a couple in first grade. Even then they were fading out of style. But I do remember the chills I got every time there was a test of the emergency broadcast system. And my dad was nuclear navy and told me all about how long we would have to stay underground in the even of a nuclear war. Um, I think we would have starved first. In any case, we lived with words like “obliterate” and “nuclear winter” and “mutually assured destruction” for some 40 years. it was called the Cold War. Deterrence was the only thing that kept us from destroying each other. So, yeah, if Iran ever attacked Israel with a nuke, we would obliterate them. And they know it. That’s what keeps everyone from playing with the matches.
But hey, I’m never going to convince you. I do wonder why you dropped in today however. It seems like you guys are getting a wee bit antzy. Given your guys delegate count I would think you could just chill until August. It seems a little strange that you would come over here to say unkind things about Hillary. We don’t go over to DailyKos and do that to your guy. Oh, that’s right, we’re in exile. Well, we aren’t blaming you for that. You might take note, however, that this site does not engage in character assassination. We don’t speculate on Rezko except in passing. We don’t dwell on Rev. Wright’s damaging videos. Not my business. And we don’t call Obama a liar or a fraud or a dirty politician. It’s just not our way. We just have a bit of snarky fun at his expense. You should be happy about that.
So, welcome again, Kid. But don’t expect to make any converts around here.
I love Hillary Clinton. Look at how she does this. Obama can’t debate, and he doesn’t want to talk about issues – he’d rather talk about how it’s all mean nasty Hillary’s fault we aren’t talking about issues. So what does the woman do? This move shows the woman has some real problem solving skills.
For no apparent reason.
Am I being too harsh? Keep in mind, I have to donate each “engagement” ;).
Calling me a troll is pretty weak.
If that’s the choice the readers of this website want to make, that’s your choice and reflects on you, not me.
If this website chooses to mock me and distort my positions, how am I a troll for showing up and responding?
Like most Obama activists, I talk to Clinton supporters all the time. I talked to plenty of folks supporting Clinton in Pennsylvania last weekend.
Aside from a woman who told me to “shove it” and hung up (par for the course doing any calling…but still pretty funny) I had great conversations with Clinton supporters.
I may disagree with Clinton supporters, but I certainly don’t demonize them.
I do disagree with Senator Clinton on substantive issues.
I also think that tearing down Barack Obama using right-wing coded attacks…or tearing down fellow progressive bloggers for that matter…is a huge mistake.
Kid, She was asked a question about why she said she wouldn’t stay in the church and she has a right to any feelings she wants to hold. I think she was being generous to him.
Rev. Wright attacked her and her husband directly. And tapped the episode for profit. That church doesn’t deserve any respect or protection from her.
And frankly, I’m pissed that we voters weren’t allowed to know the details of those sermons until so late in the process.
There are apparently plenty of people at all networks and newspapers who knew about those tapes. But, for some reason, Obama was protected and we didn’t hear about them until it was nearly too late to matter.
If there is any chance those tapes could make a difference in November, Democratic voters had a right to know about them before their primary dates. But we were treated like babies — not to be trusted to make a decision on our own.
And again — let Obama ask Hillary about what she said if he wants. She’s giving him the opportunity with this Debate invitation.
And by the way, this isn’t an Open Thread. Unless you want to talk about the Debate, we’re WAY off topic.
RD, it would definately be a debate on bread and butter issues. She just suggested the Lincoln-Douglas style, w/out a moderator.
LOL, what do think Obama’s been doing to Hill for over a year, KO?
Seriously. I know you think you’re being all fresh and edgy, K-O, but I assure you we’ve all heard rhetoric, well, exactly like yours, many, many times before.
For the most part, it’s why we’re all here – folks like you who are so certain they’re right that they’re not going to bother doing a lot of listening to anyone else. Besides, aren’t you supposed to be hanging out at Daily Kos preaching to the converted?
What part of “Obama can’t win” do you not understand? I could spend a lot of time drawing pie charts and working out electoral math to prove my point in crystal clarity, but why bother? Nothing matters to you and your moral-high-horse compatriots except beating the Clintons. Why don’t you just come out and admit it? Too bad there are quite a few rather relevant facts impeding your progress at the moment, which is probably why a few of you have come out of the woodwork recently.
p.s. RD, what do you think about this? Obamites have their own threads, should we respond to their, er, comments here – or would you rather we handle the palaver purveyed by the Obamanation differently somehow?
katiebird, on April 26th, 2008 at 7:07 pm Said:
Hi Kid, it’s good to see you. Wouldn’t it be great for Obama to have the chance to ask Hillary just that directly? Wouldn’t it be great for us to hear her explanation?
Exactly!
Melanie, the irony is astounding. But before I engage in a serious debate, I’d like to have an answer to the question of why Obama won’t debate. They say they want to talk to voters, yet more and more people are watching the debates. They complained about the moderators and they would not be present. They want this to be about the issues and given a format, they balk. They compare Obama to Lincoln, but when given their chance they balk. I want an answer to the topic at hand, not some lame talking points. If I wanted lame talking points I’d watch cable news.
Katiebird
Isn’t that the point…that a Lincoln / Douglas debate is like an open thread?
I don’t have a firm position on whether Obama should choose to debate or not. One plus side is that he more he does so, the more he will get preparation for debating McCain in the fall, Clinton certainly has no issue with using Republican attacks.
Now, Obama tries to actually answer the questions posed to him in a debate. That’s his debating style. When Clinton was asked about affirmative action in PA she just blew off the question with a very articulate, canned non-answer.
Obama pauses and thinks and directly answers each question. That can make him seem like a weak debater, especially in a format like the ABC debate where the moderators and Clinton were both using rapacious gotcha attacks.
Farrakhan!? Hamas? Flag pins?
There’s not much to say in response to those questions.
Personally, I would be fine with a Lincoln/Douglas style debate.
Riverdaughter,
Thanks for the welcome! I don’t expect to make converts, at least not among the comment makers here.
I think most of us bloggers know that the “silent majority”…the readers…and the real judge and jury of the blogs.
Eleanor: Do you know your name is actually Alia Anor? Just thought I’d bring that up. I read it in a book on eleanor of acquitaine.
Anyway, I’ve done the separate thread thing already. Sometimes it’s successful, others not. There are certain topics they don’t care to address, as I suspected (and if anyone from Clinton’s campaign is reading, you probably already know where their weakness is. No, no, don’t thank me. just send cash. Euros only)
Actually, I don’t mind Kid Oakland. I admire his curiosity. He’s probably been lurking for awhile and just had to get it out of his system. That’s not a bad thing, IMHO. I’d let him stick around. He’s much better than some of the other Obamaphiles.
KO, no offense but you completely lack objectivity. Just please, get a grip. She’s not the devil incarnate.
I have to say, Obama’s chickening out seems to be a hot topic. Obama folks appear to be spreading through the internets to change the subject on this issue. That appears to be the intent. I’d be less sarcastic to KO if he addressed the issue instead of trying to change the subject.
And its all in good fun on my part. I am happy to have some fun poked at my expense when its warranted.
KO, speaking of Republican talking points…how do you feel about the Harry and Louise mailers? They really upset me. Health care is my number one priority (other than getting out of Iraq, of course). I think those mailers and TV ads have destroyed any chance we had for health care for everyone.
All I know is that Hillary humiliated Barack Obama in Pennsylvania and now Obama is scared to debate her. It’s alright.
Eleanor
I don’t get it, why the need to rip me and DailyKos?
I’m certainly not ripping this blog. The comment makers and content and layout are all impressive. This is a very successful Democratic blog.
I respect riverdaughter for responding to my questions about the “obliteration” line and the vote for the AUMF in an honest, nuanced manner.
Most Clinton supporters I talk to think, at core, that HRC will be a more effective President. That’s a strong argument, but I don’t think it holds up when we look at:
a) her vote for the war and support of the war even into 2004 when Kerry needed all the help he could get
b) the way she has run her campaign both in terms of dollars and rhetoric and use of resources (neglecting caucus states and then putting them down)
c) her use of Republican rhetoric to attack Barack Obama and groups like MoveOn
d) Clinton’s aggressive rhetoric and votes re: Iran
As a progressive, I want both Obama and Clinton to emerge from 2008 as effective Democrats who engage and push progressive policy whenever and wherever possible.
On a host of fronts: transparency, technology, foreign policy, ethics reform, energy and the environment, the 50 State strategy and growing the Democratic Party, Barack Obama stands out.
I think on health care, education, senior issues and fiscal responsibility that Obama and Clinton’s policy views are extremely close.
Certainly, a President Obama would need an engaged and active Senator Clinton to move these measures.
I think what Obama gets, that Clinton does not, is that we need to expand our majorities and bring new voters into the process to pass anything. We pass health care reform with votes from Montana and Missouri and Nebraska and Wisconsin.
We can’t put those voters and states down. But Clinton has.
In using Republican arguments to attack Barack Obama, Clinton is hurting our party in the short and long term.
I would say that bloggers who use right wing arguments to attack Obama are doing the same thing.
“We can’t put those voters and states down. But Clinton has.”
But Axlerod says we won’t win working class voters? That isn’t a put down to them? He has written them off to McCain. That is worse than writing off red caucus states.
I would love to know who encouraged Barry to run for president.
KidO: I guess we could go to instant replay to see how previous debates repeatedly attacked Clinton. Yeah, we all thought it was unfair too. The difference is that we know the media is not our friend and we had confidence in Hillary that she wouldn’t let it get to her, And we were right, She does that whole bene gesserit thing with fear. it passes through her and she watches it leave. Pretty cool, actually.
And yeah, the whole first hour of the last debate was pretty bogus but both candidates got pinged this time. But *we* know that one of the reasons you guys are still in a snit about the gotcha questions is because she trounced him in the second hour. too bad it’s recorded for posterity. Yep, that video will serve as a cautionary tale for future candidates.
But I think you forget what your classy candidate did the next day. He made several derogatory gestures while referring to Hillary in a speech. I guess he had to recover his dignity among friendlies and put her down in sort of a cowardly manner rather than to her face.
Sorry, KidO. I really do feel badly for you. I know what my candidate is all about. I know her strengths and weaknesses. I know she has flaws, that sometimes she can seem a bit imperious. She hasn’t always voted the way I like. She was too careful in the senate when she should have lead. But I have to look at the whole of the person. And in the whole, I see an intelligent, thoughtful person, who makes decisions based on some set of principles she has developed over her life. She’s developing into the leader I want as president through the primary process. She is tireless and feisty. We’re not ignorant of the realities of the numbers or the tough road ahead. But we are having the time of our lives supporting her because we believe in her. It’s very exciting to be a Clintonista.
You, on the other hand, have to come up with new and more ingenious ways to protect yourself from acknowledging your candidate’s weaknesses. But it must be getting harder and harder to do. We have a completely different understanding of Obama than you do. Maybe we use different criteria to pick our leaders. Maybe we’re not into purity tests. Maybe we don’t think you have to virulently hate your opponent and have to be constantly trying to destroy character to make a point. We’re not anti-Obama, or at least we didn’t start out that way. We are pro-Clinton. And until you guys come up with a list of qualities for Obama that aren’t a negative after-image of Clinton, we will not be persuaded. It will make no impact on us.
Why won’t Obama debate Hillary one-on-one?
I’ll save the evisceration of the stale *yawn* talking points until I get an answer the question at hand.
Folks, seriously. The only reason Obama doesn’t get laughed off all debate stages is because moderators let him change the subject. Don’t let his supporters change the subject on you.
RD, you go, Girl!
KO, Obama didn’t even vote on the Iran bill, and Dick Durbin did. I don’t think Dick Durbin is a neocon. Obama gets no points for votes he doesn’t show up for, and waits until after the fact to come out against. I think Hill voted for AUMF because she did not want to politicize foreign policy as was done in the 90’s by the Repub’s re:Bosnia. I think she stated and expected that the President would carry through with what was allowed under AUMF, which was to allow inspectors to finish their job. Hillary has not “put down” states, she just maintained the obvious, that we must win the big electoral states to win the WH. Have you read the UPenn endorsement? They conducted it like a job interview. They come to the same conclusion I did. That Hillary has a better grasp on the levers of power because of her experience. She is the only one I trust on health care because she gets that we need a broad coalition to pass it, and that we need to cover everyone.
It was very brave of HRC to make this offer. She doesn’t know what debating without moderators with Sen Ob would be like. I don’t think she is thinking that she would mop the floor w/him, etc. She is just acting with bravery and maturity.
First, tabbycat, I wouldn’t call them the “Harry and Louise mailers” but, that being said, I’d rather we weren’t having this debate at all…ie. that the mailers had never been used.
Number one, because I don’t think that the mailers are all that effective and Hillary Clinton may be the one candidate who CAN succeed in making a mailer an issue in a campaign. (In the pre-web era, mailers just never became an issue, they were under the radar.) I also think the mailers hurt Obama with Edwards supporters and the Edwards themselves.
Number two, both Clinton and Obama support an affordable national health insurance program run by the government that anyone can join. Barring single payer, that’s the core reform we all want to make. Both Clinton and Obama will create aggressive new rules preventing health insurance companies from rejecting applicants. Both Clinton and Obama’s plans would massively expand coverage, improve care and reduce expenses without causing anyone to lose anything they already have that they like.
Further, Obama’s chief health care adviser, David Cutler, has already explicitly stated that he is not opposed to universal mandates if the graduated mandate in the Obama plan, children and young adults first, does not attain greater than 98% coverage in the entire population through cost reductions.
Clinton’s plan is NOT perfect. Clinton has mandates for citizens but fewer “tough new rules” for small business. Clinton is on the record saying that she will “encourage” small businesses to provide coverage with incentives and cost savings. (ie. the exact same rhetoric Obama uses to encourage adults to purchase coverage)
Obama and Edwards both had more shared responsibility in their plans. Obama’s plan is significantly less expensive because of that shared responsibility ie. business kicks in more of the costs through shared responsibility.
And, yes, I think Obama and Cutler have a good point that, politically, imposing the mandate on the citizens and not on business is not fair and will be harder to pass. Further, Clinton proposes to give people a financial break through the tax system, but that’s not going to help people facing a cash flow issue today.
That’s not to agree with the mailers, but to say that universal mandates is one of those “nice sounding” things that will be pretty quickly attacked for making it illegal not to buy insurance.
It is not exactly progressive to say, “Okay, we’re going to solve health care by making everybody buy insurance from a big company.”
I think all of us Democrats are massively invested in people adopting and buying into the idea of a national, government-run insurance program and having that program work and come into widespread use.
Both Clinton and Obama are for that as a core part of health care reform.
Bottom line, we shouldn’t be attacking each other over health care.
Five: It’s a risk alright but I think she knows exactly what she’s doing. It would be an untested format but if she has a goal in mind, and I’m sure she does, the bigger risk is for Obama.
Okay some responses:
1. The war vote is tiresome. He wasn’t there to vote for it. Moreover, he admitted in 2006 that he probably would have voted for it.
2. Now you question how she runs her campaign. Okay she just beat him Pennsylvania despite being outspent 3:1. Spare me the nonsense about he beat back a 25 point lead. The bottom line is he lost a state and did so in 90 counties. We need that state in the fall and it won’t come back to us with him as the nominee. That’s been the same with the other major states outside of Illinois.
2a. Oh, and those caucus states, – they actually don’t matter. Okay? Maybe if Dean had actually put the work in to build the 50 state strategy — remember it was supposed to take until about 2020 or so — but not this election. Now you want to talk border states I will listen. Yes, he “outcampaigned” her in Virginia, but she did great in Oklahoma and Tenn.
3. Her use of Republican rhetoric (counting to 20 here since Riverdaughter said to play nice). Okay, let’s review some things: his Harry and Louise ads, his suggestion that people examine Bill’s sex life since he left the White House, his campaign’s frequent race-baiting (Clyburn and Jesse Jackson), his attacks on the Clinton presidency (lumping it with Bush).
Yes, I say “his” attacks. After his bogus response to losing the debate in Philly, I refuse to let him hide behind those are just my surrogates.
As for Move-On — well they wrote themselves off with this election. How ironic they did it for a guy who could only vote “present” when the Senate censured them. (Wait, wasn’t she only one of twenty or so to oppose that censure measure. Damn, she must have been plotting with the Republicans to fake out Move-On.)
4. Her use of the word obliterate as a campaign killer. Right. This is why Dems always lose national elections. I know. I’m one of many in Bay Area who opposed our attacks on Afghanistan. I still believe I was right. But I’m growing to understand that we needed to do something in Afghanistan.
Remember, our present political reality is that Iran is aggressively seeking a nuclear confrontation in the middle East. It’s president is a hard core fascist who doesn’t mind engaging in genocidal attacks on folks within or outside of his country.
You have to stand up to bullies and building new alliances is a good way to start. But bottom line the bully has to know that you will fight back. If not, they will roll over you.
Thanks, Charles. That means a lot coming from you. I’m taking a break to run to the store. Be back later, taters
Hillary asks for a debate where Obama is free to chose the subject and the question.
Here is his answer
Kid Oakland,
You should also state that she said if Iran used nuclear weapons on another country. She would use the same on them. Thus, there would have been a first strike. By the way, I’m sure aware that Obama’ feels his wealth of foreign policy experience he got while he was living in Indonesia in elementary school has prepared him to handle such issues.
I do not see it like many others do here. Yeah, Obama did not do well in the ABC debate. Life is not fair but I will strongly disagree with the idea that the questions were somehow good or valid questions.
Maybe he just does not see the point. It seems to me that the nominations is his to lose, why should he? Thats the real question for me. Honestly, I have no idea what it would solve/reveal. I do not have a real strong opinion either way. I just do not think he is obligated to because she challenged.
This is a bit off topic but others have brought it up. Why is it so awful that Clinton voted for the war? I am not going to put words into anybody’s mouth but a lot of people supported it, at the time. I do not particularly blame them either, Bush/Rumsfield hubris and incompetence lost it for us. Most people rightfully expected more from them. It took a while for the breadth of their mistakes to become clear.
As for Iran, I wish we could collectively tone down the rhetoric. I understand the whole implied use of force should they attack Israel thing. So does Iran. They also know how busy we are in other areas. Verbally repeating threats just makes us (America) look like assholes.
KO, thank you for your response on health care. I agree that it hurt him with the Edwards people especially. It just kills me that it is 2008 and we still don’t have health care available to all. If Obama wins, I hope you are one of his supporters who will push for it. I know some that don’t seem to care. That is my number one issue with Obama.
I know you don’t approve of some of Hillary’s “attacks” but you are a pretty smart guy and I’m sure you can see that what some Obama surrogates have said about the Clintons is pretty low.
I do appreciate the fact that you do care what we Clinton supporters think and disagree with us respectfully.
Charles
I live in a state with a large and active Iranian-American population.
I would propose that instead of talking about the “obliteration” of Iran we should instead be engaging with Iran on a host of levels, including working with the Iranian-American community to encourage the development of goodwill and diplomatic understanding between the United States and the people of Iran.
Your advocacy of nuclear deterrence as a kind of panacea is disturbing.
Barack Obama is for working towards the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons entirely, a position shared by policy experts on the left and the right. U.S. conventional deterrence is more powerful than than nuclear deterrence (which is a much more level playing field) and more sane. What’s more powerful is an egaged and active U.S. diplomacy, especially when it marshalls goodwill from around the world.
Nuclear weapons do “obliterate.” It is, however, extremely poor judgment to speak so casually of obliterating a nation of 75 million people.
The outcome we all want is peace and stability that leads to prosperity, democracy and diplomatic relationships based on mutually-beneficial outcomes.
Demonizing Iran is not the answer. Working to build international alliances that work off our strengths, including our military strength, should be our focus.
Further, KO you are wrong about the public re:mandates. Hillary as already changed public opinion on that. Kaiser did a poll and found over 60% of the public now agrees with mandates. An early poll they conducted had less than 50% agreeing with mandates. Further, her plan caps the amount of income anyone has to spend on health insurance, and provides for more generous subsidies for the poor for health care. She learned from the past, and that is why small business is not forced to participate, and we are talking about very small businesses who often really can not afford insurance for their employees. Hillary is right on health care. If you are going to reform the system you must do it in totality, and the public is ready for it. It’s true, her position is more risky than Obama’s but I think that’s an example of her abilities as a leader.
Anyone who still believes Clinton voted “for war” or that Obama would be any better than her should educate themselves first. Her position was that of Hans Blix. And throughout her speech, she spoke out against pre-emptive strikes.
KO: I don’t get it: he’s already “won,” right? No need to pester us then, especially with lies or half-truths. Especially if you want readers here to vote for him in November (assuming, the party wants to commit suicide and gives him the nom; check out SUSA: even before the media and GOP even has Obama in their cross-hairs, MA looks great for McCain! And let’s not forget NJ, OH, PA, FL, MI, etc.).
No more feeding the trolls for me.
Melanie
Very small businesses are exempted in all the Democratic candidate’s plans.
What Clinton hasn’t done is explicitly defined how small to moderate to even large businesses will share responsibility for health care. Clinton attains universality on the basis of her political ability to sell and pass a universal mandate…and it will be more expensive even WITH the mandate because of how she exempts business from shared responsibility.
Clinton would be a more persuasive advocate for passing her plan if:
1) her plan had a better name and sales pitch. It’s called the American Health Choices Plan but it’s centered on individual mandates….that’s a problem.
2) if Clinton had done anything in this campaign on the truly 50 State level she will need to bring people together on to pass her Health Care plan.
Let’s face it, you need votes from Nebraska and Louisiana and Iowa and Maine to pass health care reform. You can’t pass health care with “Big States”.
There’s a reason that Democratic candidates and a majority of elected Super Delegates want Obama on the top of the ticket. He is running to help elect people all over. He’s not tied to the 50+1 politics of the past.
Clinton’s “Big State” argument is precisely why she shouldn’t be that standard bearer for passing health care reform.
You need votes from all 50 states to pass big policy proposals.
Finally, Clinton is clearly stuck trying to win Ohio and Florida. That’s her only path to the nomination. She is not competitive in Colorado or Virginia or even Iowa and Minnesota against McCain.
Of course, those are precisely the states whose Senators and Congresspeople we will need to pass Health Care reform.
I’d love to have a Clinton-Douglas debate, but Hillary Clinton is probably one of the few politicians who could actually match Lincoln or Douglas. The rest need tele-prompters and hired expertise to come up with their policy talking points, which are posted on web sites but not deeply understood.
Bu$h could always show up with his four talking points written by Karl on 4×6 cards. If someone felt he wasn’t ready for prime time, there is always the transmitter taped to the back solution.
If the country is fortunate, we’ll be in a dialog with Hillary for the next eight years.
It’s the older voters who have turned out for the primaries (not caucuses) and who are the most reliable voters. That gives an edge to Hillary or McCain in the General Election.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/25/MNF910BGH4.DTL&hw=older+voters&sn=001&sc=1000
Kid Oakland:
There is no way, absolutely none, a Democrat can lose OH, FL, and PA and win the General, none whatsoever.
As for the absolutely guffaw inducing “50 State strategy” for the GE, read BTD’s post:
So Much For the 50 State Strategy
And she demonized Rev. Wright to boot, saying “that man would not be my pastor.”
I bet if you polled Republicans and Independents, you would find a fair percentage who would find that kind of attack on a house of worship distasteful.
You think a poll is going to come out in favor of a guy who said “god damn America”? WTF!
As for Republican rhetoric.. well.. he’s been running those Harry and Louise ads and using GOP talking points on Social Security after we already fought off their attempts to privatize it, he’s been telling everyone who’d listen since the campaign started as have his surrogates that Sen. Clinton would say and do anything to get elected, and he sure seems to believe the Democratic party is as much to blame for the current state of affairs as the GOP, like the Clinton 90’s was no different than Bush. Ridiculous.
After Obama’s humiliating loss in Pennsylvania, Hillary throws him a lifeline, and what you know, he throws it right back.
Kid, you’re not answering the questions, and you know it. This isn’t a debate where you can “score points.” Why can’t you just answer? Why is it all right for Obama to use Republican talking points on Social Security, the Clinton Administration, etc, when you’re all up in arms about using Republican talking points? Why do you repeat misinformation on FL and MI and then talk about “writing off states”? You know Clinton didn’t break any promises there. You know it’s a) political suicide and b) ridiculous and unprincipled to refuse to allow those states to participate in the process. You know the DNC is violating many of its own rules in this ridiculous power play.
What ABOUT caucuses? You talk about criticizing her from teh left, about principles. No matter who wins them, caucuses are grossly undemocratic. Fine, winning them helped Obama–but is that enough? That makes them fine left wing exercises in democracy, then? People who object to them on pronciple and because of abuses are what, whiners who wnat to change the great and glorious rules?
The one pronciple here seems to be “ipso facto, if Barack does it, it’s left-wing. If it helps barack, it’s left wing, ebven if in teh next breath we’re against it and think it’s fascist if we can pin it on Clinton.” But you know that’s not true, and all this twisting and fudging and double standards and trying to create this much disconnect between two candidates who are pretty similar in terms of records is really questionable. If you don’t like Republican framed attacks or Democrats attacking each other but Obama is your hero, you might want to examine why you turn such a consistent blind eye to everything he does that you’re so strongly against. If your argument is on Iran, that’s probably where your argument is the strongest, all of these other areas where Obama is just as or more guilty but is let off teh hook completelyaren’t working.
As for why I rip Daily Kos, I watched in real time as Hillary was trashed viciously on that site for anything and everything, plenty of it not reality-based.. photoshops mocking her are posted routinely, when it comes to Hillary, personal insults and character assassination are part of normal dialogue there. Kos doesn’t think she’s a Democrat now (?). When I was there defending her I was repeatedly told to go crawl back under the rock from whence I came, called names, and told to go take my meds or that I was crazy, that sort of thing. I also watched people work hard at that site to push that phony narrative that the Clintons are racist and race baiting, which the worst smear imaginable – it’s just poison – the repercussions will play out for I don’t know how long. just utterly irresponsible, divisive, destructive, and poisonous as it was possible to be. What did Kos do? Claim on the front page several times that the Clinton campaign intentionally darkened a video of Obama.
Flat out, he lost Fl and MI, but he was given the opportunity for a do over, and HE DECIDED THAT HE’D RATHER DISENFRANCHISE TWO STATES THAN TAKE A CHANCE ON HIS OWN MEDIOCRE POLITICAL CAREER.
Defend that, for god’s sake. That the left wing New Politics way? If the c— from hell, queen of the sanctimonious women’s studies set who emerged dripping from the primordial ooze even dreamed of trying to pull off the worst, sleaziesytcoup in party history, you and the other bloggers would be calling for her head on a platter in language so strong I can’t even imagine it. But ho hum, if it helps barack, then two of the largest states in the union will have to accept that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and disenfranchisement is democracy, and all because we’ve got a rule (while we violate 17 others) that only tiny unrepresntative states shall be allowed to have a say in the earliest statges. Really? That’s what we stand on in our left wing principled critiques?
We don’t think small population, mostly white states aren’t overreresented enough in the process, and we’re determined that high population states will be excluded even more?
And if he’s running to elect people all over, tell that to John Lewis and everyone else who’s been threatened by the Obama machine with primaries if they don’t get onboarrd the Hope Train. If threatening some of the best Reps we have for utterly self serving reasons, alienating all of the voters we need to have a prayer of winning and sending out your surrogates like Kerry to promise he’ll dump health care altogether before he’ll lift a finger to pass your opponent’s plan is ‘helping elect people all over’ and ‘party building’ guess I don’t truly understand the concept, I get it all confused with vanity crusades and Messianic cults.
I know that the current context of this is Clinton vs. Obama but I really think the media is playing a lot of this up. I do not watch cable news but I do watch Stuart/Colbert daily and I really get the impression that cable news is being sensational about this whole process.
Like somebody brought up the whole “finger” thing. I have seen it and the accusation sounds pretty crazy. They harp on this kind of stuff all day long. Davidson is right that we will need each other if we want to win in November.
If Obama is afraid to debate one on one against a 60 year old woman, how is he going to face the world’s dictators like Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad? He doesn’t seem comfortable all by himself and only seem confident in front of fawning crowds or court-like handlers.
Ryan, If you’ve seen the longer video clip of the finger incident from The Swamp, you’ll see it was no accident because it was followed by some equally offensive gestures later. And when you see the other gestures and the reaction of the crowd, then it becomes clear that it was no itchy cheek. It was the finger. In this case, context counts,
Oh, dear, Kid, it looks like the natives are getting restless. Maybe this is a good time to beat a hasty retreat. You’ve done your best. Tale a break.
I haven’t, is there anywhere I can see the whole video?
By the way, equating “facing” dictators with debating or not is a stretch.
KO, you’re right. Sen. Obama did not vote on Kyl-Lieberman. He he missed the vote because he was busy campaigning in New Hampshire. Sen. Obama has missed a lot of votes, frankly, and that bothers me. But that wasn’t your point.
You mentioned Kyl-Lieberman.
ABC’s Jake Tapper also reported that on April 24, 2007, “Obama had cosponsored the [binding] Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007,which, like Kyl-Lieberman, would have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/the-obama-disse.html
See http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1400 for the text of the bill. Quote:
“The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).”
Marc Ambinder has more at http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/the_politics_of_liebermankyl_p_1.php.
On the AUMF, Sen. Obama has admitted himself he didn’t know how he would have voted. Now, Sen. Obama said he was against the war and he gave a speech in 2002 when he was running for re-relection to the Illinois State Senate seat. I applaud that.
But Sen. Obama has taken no political risk in pressing his anti-war view. Not even when he had the nation’s attention at the 2004 convention. I don’t care if Sen. Kerry would have been embarassed. Sen. Obama had a huge chance here and he chose not to take it.
I cheered this, when running for the Senate in 2004,
“All of the candidates expressed unease over Bush’s $87 billion spending plan to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. But Obama was alone in declaring that he would have voted against it had he had the chance.”
http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:ReNwoxyKLmQJ:www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0401230014jan23,1,3629478.story%3Fcoll%3Dchi-news-hed+%22reconstruction+request+for+Iraq+and+Afghanistan+had+he+been+in+Congress.%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=th
But when Sen. Obama had the chance to vote no on warfunding, he did the opposite. Twice.
Sen. Obama could’ve voted no—there was no risk that the funding wouldn’t happen. But he didn’t. I’d like to know why not. I have other questions, too, and that’s why I’d like to see more debates.
As far as the umbrella of deterrence…you know what deterrence is, right? I’m not being facetious. Basically, we say to Iran if it launches a _nuclear_ attack on Israel or any of our allies in the region, retribution will be swift.
The idea is to deter the Iranians from doing anything stupid because they value their own lives more than they hate Israel (or any nation that joins the umbrella).
Deterrence requires engagement, because you have to be able to look at your adversary and explain that there will be consequences for their actions. So there must be dialogue, economic incentives, trade opportunities, and all the other tools used in diplomacy.
And they are used with everyone interested in signing onto this agreement. We can even force preconditions, such as the recognition of Israel’s right to exist or giving the Palestinians their homeland. Or that israel can give up tis nuclear arsenal because we’ve got them covered (okay this is a longshot, but I can hope.)
It is a hardass stance. But the region will not be charmed into peace. I wish another country would step up here, but I don’t see that happening. Regardless, the idea of an umbrella of deterrence hasn’t been tried and it’s worth looking at. Hell, it’s such a fucking mess, we have to look at everything.
This is also an interesting response to those who think we should launch a pre-emptive war against Iran using conventional weapons. This includes some Republicans who are banging their chests and rattling their sabres.
By dissing another debate doesn’t this action appear that he is going against his “unity” message? He must know he is in trouble with segments of the voters; what better way to smooth some of that over then by appearing with Hillary and putting some gloss on that impression. His handlers are advising otherwise since he appears to be ahead and does not do well in a one on one match-up. Is this the same guy who said he will go anyplace at anytime to talk with our enemies? Isn’t this the opportunity to display this approach? What I see is petulance and entitlement. There seems to be 21% still undecided in Indiana which is a large number in itself. I would think he would be more than willing to attempt to woo over those voters rather than this petulant attitude that I am too good to do this again.
Eleanor, I don’t get it, why the need to rip me and DailyKos?
I’m certainly not ripping this blog (snippity)
Most Clinton supporters I talk to think, at core, that HRC will be a more effective President. That’s a strong argument, but I don’t think it holds up (laundry list of standard Obama rhetoric)
Mostly because your arguments seem to consist nearly entirely of behaviors that we HRC supporters have come to know intimately: claiming it’s not fair for HIllary to bring up the Wright issue even though Obama has been calling various Hillary supporters racist in an unwarranted and unconscionable manner; Obama supporters think it’s just fine that Obama went on public television to talk about how he’d theoretically have voted against the war, and you all think that’s the same thing as Hillary actually answering to voters on the Senate floor in reaction to her actual vote; your lack of acknowledgement that HRC’s voting record is nearly identical to Obama’s, etc.
Then you make these “judgment” arguments that are basically character assassinations.
It isn’t my intention to “rip” anybody, necessarily. But what you personally might think of as a list of logical reasons to think Hillary is the devil simply isn’t how I, or most other people here, are thinking about this dynamic. Frankly, I feel like a lot of Obama supporters talk down to we Hillary folks, with this assumption that somehow we just don’t *understand* how horrible she is! Why, she’s so morally repugnant! And on and on and on….You strongly imply we’re idiots, Republicans, corporatists, etc. for supporting her, and then wonder why we don’t fall all over ourselves thanking you for your enlightenment (I’m actually projecting a bit here, this isn’t just your comments I’m talking about, but those of several other commenters here and Obamites in general).
I dunno. Support Obama for whatever reason you like, but don’t think you can come in here and start calling us all morally suspect for supporting Hillary and then wonder why you’re not making a bunch of conversions.
Personally, I will never give one cent to Obama; I won’t campaign for him; and I won’t vote for him, unless and until there’s a satisfactory resolution of the Michigan/Florida issue. Even then, I might not, because frankly I don’t like the guy. Hey, seems reason enough for folks not to vote for Hillary.
Make no mistake: I’m a seventh generation Democrat, and my forebears were among the first elected Democrats to hold office in this country. I know many people think that means I have an obligation to support whichever person the Dems nominate, but I personally happen to think depriving taxpaying American citizens of their right to vote is a pretty big no-no. We’ve come to expect cheating and rule-bending from Republicans, but it’s (much) harder to take when it’s coming out of the Party that frankly ought to know (much) better.
Before you regale me with a bunch of rhetoric on The Rules, save your breath. I already know what most of the Obama arguments are, and I think they’re baloney. Obama invalidated any claim to moral superiority he may once have held by not allowing the re-votes. He’s scared of the voters, plain and simple. He ought to be ashamed of himself for allowing his supporters to promote these ridiculous legalistic defenses for his disenfranchisement, and for acting for all the world like whatever his campaign can’t gain for itself fairly they have the right to try to take by force.
(Oh, and as far as Daily Kos? I wouldn’t know what’s been happening lately, other than rumors here. But I haven’t been there myself since 2006, having being soundly lectured by a bunch of folks in solidly blue states for supporting less ideologically-pure candidates than they did. Even when said candidates were my own legitimately-nominated Democratic options in various races and I have pretty much no other options, other than write-ins. Regardless of these facts: I live in a state that’s rife with Republicans, we’re lucky to get whatever legislative gains we can manage; and most of the folks doing the lecturing had what I’d estimate to be zero campaign experience, with even less in areas where the population is actively hostile to much of the ideology put out by the national Democratic organization.
Oh, and after I got tired of reading how there’s no point in helping promote Democrats in Southern states, how all the hope is out west – regardless of the fact that fully 40% of African Americans in the country live in the South, and I think the Party is actively abandoning some moral obligations it frankly owes to the citizens of this great nation.)
KO, your candidate is immature and totally unprepared for this election and completely unsuited to be President.
Obama’s New Campaign Strategy: Laughing at Voters
Obama just can’t stop himself
I know you already shut off conversation with me with your “right wing talk-points” label (which is a guaranteed conversation stopper) but I just wanted to share this thought.
His campaign is imploding due to his behavior. It’s not your fault, I’m sure you’ve done the best you could.
Hi Eleanor. I remember the grief we got for helping Harold Ford. I think he’d be no worse than Claire or Webb, huh?
riverdaughter
I went to a BBQ! lol. It had nothing to do with running from this debate, which I’ve enjoyed.
I have nothing against Clinton voters, supporters, bloggers and activists. I enjoy debating, it’s good for both sides. If Obama chooses to debate, I’ll cheer him on. It’s his choice.
I think, at the end of the day, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are two enormously important people to the Democratic party and we should all keep that in mind.
Right now, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico all favor Senator Clinton on some level.
North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana favor Obama.
Givenn that, my understanding is that Senator Clinton does not have a good shot at persuading the enormous percentage of the remaining Super Delegates that she needs.
Michigan and Florida are states where no campaigning took place and no pledged delegates will result from their primaries w/o action of the delegates elected to the convention by the states that followed the rules. I am for a solution that seats delegates from MI and FL as full voting members AND acknowledges that they broke the rules in some fashion.
Regarding the rules…
Clinton herself has mentioned numerous times that she will go after Obama’s pledged delegates. That’s a dangerous strategy for HRC since it allows Obama to go after her pledged delegates, and, since Super Tuesday, it is Clinton’s negatives which have grown the most. (Obama is up, too, though) and Clinton’s delegates who have flipped, not Obama’.s.
Charles,
I don’t think your argument that we should rely on nuclear deterrence as a panacea holds water. Speaking of straw men, you’ve made me out to be someone who does not support deterrence at all. Not true.
Obama, without making it a major policy statement, has come out in support of working towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. He’s not alone. There are Republican and Democratic strategists who have well thought reasons to pursue this course.
Read my essay, tikkun olam: to repair the world to see links and further elaboration of Obama’s philosophy running through numerous policy positions including the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons.
As far as the personal attacks directed at me in this post and elsewhere on this blog: if they are funny, like anyone else, I laugh. If they are more serious or grave…I’d say this, I have close friends who support Clinton, I have relatives who support Clinton, I talk to Clinton supporters all the time.
We are in this together. That’s why I support Obama. I am persuaded that he gets that. That philosophy is a core part of my politics, a start point.
We are electing a president to serve 2009-2013.
For me, Obama is the candidate we need. It won’t be easy. Already, it hasn’t been.
Very little that is personally destructive has been launched against HRC from our side. The same can’t be said for Barack from HRC and WJC.
In this thread are references to innuendo. I reject that. What someone said to Marc Ambinder sitting on a couch last September has nothing to do with this campaign. Bill Clinton has mentioned Punjab-gate more times than anyone else….combined!
What has Barack Obama said about HRC? That she is a formidable opponent who he will be friends with her after this is all said and done. It is very hard to find direct quotes from Obama that are the equivalent to the scorched earth tactics deployed by Clinton. It was Clinton who revisited Farrakhan, Hamas and saying that Wright blamed the United States for 9/11 in the PA debate. It was Bill Clinton saying that Obama had played the race card and that he had proof only to retract that the next day. Barack Obama refused to attack Clinton on Bosnia in that debate. He defended her.
I’ve always said that I will vote and do GOTV for Hillary if she is the nominee. I LIKE that she is a woman and that she is extremely sharp. I understand that despite all the reasons I disagree with her, she is yet very close to Obama on most domestic policy positions….though Obama is clearly more innovative and oriented towards reform and progressive stances on openness and transparency in government. Obama brings more people in to our party that Hillary does.
We are breaking new ground in this campaign. That is always tough and “hard work.”
The only thing I would ask folks here to think about is that I have one thing most of you do not have: I have direct experience of the Obama campaign from the pov of someone who’s been inside as a volunteer and activist.
The pro-woman, pro-empowerment attitude of the Obama campaign is remarkable. The diversity of participation is astounding. The openness to new talent to and leadership development is singular.
The racial and economic diversity is unlike anything I’ve experienced in Democratic politics since working for Jackson in 1988.
We will have to, in one way or another, come together at the end of this process. I will not go easy on HRC and WJC until that time. That’s my right.
But I’ll be damned if I attack fellow bloggers, fellow activists and fellow progressives whomever they support. Let’s save the vitriol for candidates, that’s their job.
We are in this together. That’s why I support Barack Obama.
“The pro-woman, pro-empowerment attitude of the Obama campaign is remarkable”
This is a joke, right?
Well kid, if you really believe the following:
>.But I’ll be damned if I attack fellow bloggers, fellow activists and fellow progressives whomever they support. Let’s save the vitriol for candidates, that’s their job.<<
Then why are still associating yourself with daily kos? Honestly. The time for people of conscience to walk off that site passed a longtime ago.
After the Potomoc states, this was Obama’s nomination to lose. Not that he had actually really won anything of significance but at least he could claim some basis for it. Then, by god, he went out and flushed it away by managing to alienate most of the Democratic party. He foolishly believes that there will be some mythical center that don’t look like the women, Latinos, and working class dems that he ticked off during the election.
He went down this rabbit hole with the “aid and comfort” of most left leaning blogs, notably DKOS, which became cesspools of misogynistic and unhinged attacks on his opponents. At the time, many HRC supporters warned him of the cost. But his campaign didn’t care.
Ah, but now irony strikes. In his upcoming interview with Chris Wallace he apparently distances himself from the left, liberal label.
What a weasel. Did you ever imagine, in your lifetime, the Dems might nominate someone who can’t even carry the base of women and working class whites?
If the Dems nominate him they deserve to lose.
PS She’ll kill him in any debate- and he knows it- chicken livered know nothing that he is. I venture that he doesn’t even know what his positions are on his web site.
Anyone want to bet some money on that?
“Very little that is personally destructive has been launched against HRC from our side.”
Bwahahahahaha! Oh, that’s so funny. That’s really, really funny.
No, katiebird.
Just based on my experience day in and day out. I’d be happy to introduce you to the women who ran the Obama office in Oakland if you come to visit someday. Just as I’d be fine to talk and discuss with anyone here if we have occasion to meet someday.
I’ve gone to the last two YearlyKos conventions. I’m a friendly guy…even if riverdaughter doesn’t like my sunglasses!
Dailykos is a fine blog.
With 150,000K+ potential participants, there will always be trolls and comments worthy of hide rating, but the level of discussion on dailykos is a good as ever. Do I hide rate misogynist comments when I see them? You betcha. They have no place on any blog. Have I been very frustrated with dkos before? Yes. I sympathize with folks who feel it’s out of balance.
But this blog is a fine blog, too.
I have ZERO interest in blog battles. I post everywhere. Imo, everyone should. It is completely normal and acceptable that in a hotly contested primary that people will sort themselves by their candidate a bit. That’s par for the course.
Fwiw, I am fine with people having a laugh at me and slagging me…that’s par for the course too.
But don’t think because you’ve ripped on me and slagged me here that you’ve won the argument or that your candidate will win.
That depends on factors outside of all of our control.
It is very hard to find direct quotes from Obama that are the equivalent to the scorched earth tactics deployed by Clinton.
Leaving aside alleged “scorched earth,” that makes everything said by his campaign spokespeople out of bounds then? So it’s OK if Axelrod, Plouffe, Burton, et al say she’ll say or do anything to get elected? KO, the Obama campaign has been attacking Hillary’s integrity and character since last year, again and again, it’s been catalogued extensively by Riverdaughter and others.
How can you ignore this like it doesn’t matter? It does.
Hi Kid,
I didn’t mean to imply there aren’t women at various levels of Obama’s campaign, 2 of my 4 sisters support him (so does one of my brothers) — so I know he’s got the support of women.
It’s still a horribly misogynistic campaign. I don’t expect you to see it. My Obama supporting sisters and brother don’t either.
Also, I want to be clear — I’m not laughing at you at all. I did wonder if that one line was a joke. So I asked. But, you won’t ever see me laughing at anyone. Honestly. (and I just looked over all my comments: no laughter. no insults directed at you)
PS are you still interested in the High Fructose Corn Syrup issue?
I suppose all that race-baiting crap slung at the Clintons by the Obama campaign and its surrogates doesn’t count as the politics of personal destruction. No matter that members of the “reality based community” (remember that term) see it differently. Just as Orange State is a fine blog, despite (or maybe because of) the rampant misogyny, hate-filled rants, threats, etc., that appear on it every single day. It’s such a fine blog that many of us who had been regular visitors had to decamp to other blogs, like this one, in order to escape the abuse.
And then, of course, many of the enablers and offenders from dkos, lacking targets for their abuse after the Hillary supporters escaped, felt compelled to pursue them to their new cyber-haunts. Just to, you know, enlighten the benighted, undereducated people who still bitterly cling to their right to vote for the candidate they prefer.
Sorry, I had to de-lurk to respond. The arrogance displayed by KO is simply astounding. [re-lurking]
I’m sorry if I’ve hammered on the issue too much. I’ve been frustrated because in my own passionately political family we aren’t talking about Presidential politics because of the heartbreak caused by us being split almost in half (5 siblings support Hillary & 3 support Obama — originally we all supported Edwards)
So, I guess I’ve been asking questions that I can’t ask them. I’ll leave it alone now, though.
{{Xeno}} Thanks for that.
Xeno,
I don’t think I’m arrogant. And I don’t call other folks arrogant. I’m from Minnesota, okay? I routinely down rate folks who slam people on dkos. I write to the FP’s and point this stuff out, too.
I am just not a big fan of blog battles. I have long experience with this stuff. It’s a dead end. Every blog should do what it does well, and it will grow.
katiebird
I am still very interested in High Fructose Corn Syrup. Someone very close to me is an insulin-dependent Diabetic. Having learned everything I could about it, it just frustrates me that we put so much sugar into our food and stress our bodies with so much corporate food for no reason.
I think the deal that Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee worked to get sugar sodas our of our schools was a good thing. While everyone’s mileage may vary, I still find this website a good place to check my head once in awhile.
Fwiw, katiebird, we disagree about this nomination process…I’m on the other side of most folks here. That’s fine. There are people that I care about very much who disagree with me on this nomination process.
That’s part of the deal. I appreciate your thoughts. I’m definitely not here to put anyone down.
[…] his tail and fled. Yes, brave Obama turned about And gallantly he chickened out. – Riverdaughter […]
That’s part of the deal. I appreciate your thoughts. I’m definitely not here to put anyone down.
Um, except you already have. By saying we’re slagging you off when we’re simply expressing our opinions as you expressed yours (and implying we’re all morally questionable because of our support for Hillary.)
But, you know, hats off to you for coming over here and seeing what we so-called corporatist Republicans are up to. It’s more than most Obama supporters are willing to do, since their outrage prevents them from forming coherent sentences whenever anyone says a bad word about The Precious.
Hi Eleanor. I remember the grief we got for helping Harold Ford. I think he’d be no worse than Claire or Webb, huh?
Well, I’m still certainly not saying Ford was the ideal candidate. But I get mighty tired of lectures from people in Massachusetts about how we folks down South continually compromise our ideals, etc.
Let a few of them come down here and lobby the state legislature on behalf of, say, stopping the anti-choice ballot amendment that would offer no exceptions in the case of rape or incest – which passed our full Senate last year, Dems included – and they’d likely be singing a different tune.
Different tactics work in different regions, and especially I’m not gonna sit down and take sermons from folks that don’t have one whit of campaign experience when a bunch of us are working our asses off down here taking whatever crumbs we can get.
Oh, and hi to you too tabby. I had seen you in an earlier thread…good to run into you again.
When does brave Obama go toe-to-toe with the vicious chicken of Bristol? Inquiring minds need to know!
Second question is: can he stand up to a French taunting?
James
He can’t even stand up to American taunting. :>
(On a more somber note, that’s why he reminds me of W so much. We cannot afford another arrogant, unprepared upper class twit. Honestly, we just can’t.)
KO: I never said I didn’t like your sunglasses. They were just a distinctive feature.
Look, if you like Obama, we’re not going to stop you. Go ahead, like him all you want. No skin off our nose.
If the tide is turning in Hillary’s direction, it hardly helps *your* candidate to come to our little corner of the blogosphere and do a haka. We’re not the size, nor do we aspire to be, a DailyKos. We’re just doing our part to help people make the right choice.
But you’re not doing Obama any favors by repeating the same crap that the American Spectator spewed for years about Clinton. Surely, SURELY, you don’t think that’s going to work with US, do you? We read David Brock’s book.
And the superdelegates can do whatever they damn well please. That’s what they’re there for, to break ties, which is what we have. If Obama wants to be a legitimate candidate and be seen as viable to us, it isn’t incumbent on us to adjust OUR attitude, it’s up to YOU to convince him to get right with us. He might start by asking the DC to waive the RULZ on MI and FL since he obstructed their only chances for a revote. That would make him not look like he was trying to win on a 48 state strategy. He oculd stop calling the rest of us racists just because we don’t think he’s ready to be president. His campaign could stop calling Clinton a liar, dishonest, deceiving, etc. He could stop doing immature stuff at rallies, like stupid, insulting hand gestures. His campaign and the media could stop calling us stupid, uneducated old women. He could tell Keith Olbermann to stop his gob about offing his opponent. You know, simple things like that. Oh, and maybe he could try winning a significant state or a swing state instead of a fucking caucus in East Bumfuck, Alaska.
Your candidate looks like an immature brat to the rest of us and we’ve had eight years of immature bratiness. If the superdelegates look at his total wins and say, um, no thanks, we want the grown up, good! We’ll take it. And you and the rest of the Big Boyz can cry into your pinot for all we care. Get over yourselves.
KO says: We are in this together.
I says: no, we’re actually not.
I read what you, Kid Oakland (assume it’s the same person), wrote awhile back about how you’d just realized you guys need us Hillary supporters because we’re good strong workers with lots of experience.
Well, you made a tactical error. It’s generally better to wait until the candidate actually LOSES before you demonstrate you’re ungracious in victory.
Obama has not shown Hillary the respect she is entitled to. He isn’t respectful toward women, and he doesn’t understand us, and he won’t represent us.
And he has not shown working class whites any respect, either. He doesn’t understand us, and he doesn’t care, because he views us as what is wrong with America.
You know what they say: if he treats you this bad while you’re just dating, can you just imagine what he’d be like once you’re married.
Oh, and some of us read the Daily Kos. So we read how you guys think you can realign the party and toss out the Hillary supporters, the women and working class and all the other losers you think you’re better off without.
If we’re disposable trash, why come here? You think we’ll vote for your boy anyway just because he wears the name Democrat, even though in my view he has trashed what the word used to stand for?
I have come to like and admire Hillary far more than I ever thought I would, but I did not get this screaming-mad-angry on behalf of Hillary. I got active because Obama offended me that badly.
He offended me because this should have been an election where the Dems campaigned on Bill Clinton’s record, regardless of which candidate won. Clinton did some really good things and he was remembered well. Real life got really better for everyday people under Clinton.
But instead, I hear the Clinton legacy being trashed and rewritten – by so-called “Democrats”? WTF?
That’s what got me involved. It made me really mad to hear Obama, Rev. Wright, and all those others rewriting history to make Bill Clinton into a bad President, destroying the party and its chances for a little bit of cheap-shot personal advantage.
The presence of Obama obsessives here is no surprise. Their totalitarian streak can’t tolerate the existence of any redoubt of opposition, much as Stalin couldn’t tolerate Trotsky even as he was exiled in Mexico City, of all places. When I pointed out on DK that Clinton supporters, to my knowledge, didn’t make themselves unwanted guests in pro-Obama webspace, the answer was entirely predicatble: then what are we doing at Daily Kos, which is a pro-Obama website? They were wrong “de jure,” in that Markos debated and then decided against an official endorsement on behalf of his little operation, but it’s hard to question the “de facto” side of things.
Kid Oakland, how is having Republican energy advisors “clearly more innovative and oriented towards reform and progressive stances”.
Republican energy policy tends to the dirty energy choices. Fossil fuels, ‘clean coal’ nuclear, and we are now discovering: ethanol has serious drawbacks.
Obama’s $150 billion would go where his 2 ethanol lobbyists Daschle and Dole, and Exelon’s CEO want to apply it. That is because these energy advisors work for this sordid looking Republican outfit that appears to have been set up recently to advise Obama:
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/
Clinton’s $150 billion is sensibly divided between all the Socolow/Pacal 12 wedges for dealing with Climate Change/clean energy.
Her energy plan includes all Al Gores ideas, which are the progressive ideas, like the electranet, carbon accounting to the SEC and European policy ideas that have worked, like Germany’s feed in tariffs.
Click to access poweringamericasfuture.pdf
The Center For American Progress’s Gene Sperling advises her.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/14/221425/110
I’ve told you this before, and given you links before, yet you still just keep saying that Obama is the more “reform oriented and progressive”.
The facts simply don’t bear it out.
( I know you have read my comments, because you fixed your links to Grist as I suggested.)
Ethanol, ‘clean coal’ and nukes are Bush policy, extended. Ethanol is becoming the resource curse, in terms of political affiliations, that oil was for the South.
We only have one shot. Both plan to spend $150 billion. Do you want to fritter that away on these water-dependent power sources, when we are already beginning to have Climate Change crop failures from drought? Rice riots are not just for other countries.
In 50 years we will have very serious problems if we don’t switch the economy to clean sources of energy, solar and wind and geothermal and electric vehicles running on that power. The Ogalla aquifer is already failing. Crops are going to be needed for food. Water is going to be needed for drinking.
rriverdaughter, please go rescue my linkladen missive again, thks
To add to Dotcommodity’s list, here’s a good one – Obama thinks that Republicans have better ideas on government regulation than Democrats.
Today on Fox News Sunday, he said, and I quote:
I mean, the EPA has been doing a bang-up job under Dubya, haven’t you low information voters noticed?
otherlisa? Are you saying Obama thinks we’ve got too much regulation? Seriously?
Interesting how KO is outraged that anyone would call him a troll, when he hangs out and supports DailyKOS, where people are gang-trolled and autobanned for having any other opinion besides the notion that Obama is “the one”.
Talk about hypocrisy.
“Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin! ”
–Sir Robin’s Song
jacilyn: WOW, what.you.said
roflmao@rd: “maybe he could try winning a significant state or a swing state instead of a fucking caucus in East Bumfuck, Alaska.” You tell him, you old uneducated woman, you!
dotcommodity
Your links don’t bear out your argument.
Your comment ieaves the impression that Daschle and Dole wrote Obama’s energy policy. (false.)
And that Obama is for extending Bush energy policy. (false.)
And that Al Gore would endorse Clinton’s energy plan. (unproven.)
Both Obama and Clinton have 100% Cap and Auction; Obama just got their first. Obama got out front on aggressive efforts at conservation and investment before Clinton as well.
Obama and Clinton both have energy plans that are massive improvements over the status quo. However, from the point of view of progressives, it’s also clear that Clinton AND Obama will both have start points that countenance nuclear and biofuels, and your gristmill link shows exactly that.
Clinton does currently have an energy plan that we could rally behind, I am a not going to dispute that. We are going to have our work cut out for us in Congress on this, period; we all know that. But Clniton the politician is no environmental angel:
Glen Hurowitz:
“Your comment ieaves the impression that Daschle and Dole wrote Obama’s energy policy.”
They are both ethanol lobbyists.
They are both listed on the Bipartisanpolicycenter masthead, that advises him.
His $150 billion plan devotes about a third each to ethanol, “clean coal ” and nuclear, and little else that requires dollars, just efficiency and things the RPS we tried to pass last year, and cfls we did pass, etc. While numbers are not listed, the lack of mention of anything else tells me that each would get about $50 billion, extending what Bush has done for those three.
“And that Obama is for extending Bush energy policy. (false.)”
non oil energy: what Bush calls “clean” is same as Obama:
Nuclear: Bush plan put $90 billion on the table for nuclear.
Ethanol: Bush DOE spends for ethanol subsidies.
Clean coal: Bush DOE spent billions on “futuregen” (clean coal)
Bush DOE like Obama does not specify or subsidise solar and wind etc.
“And that Al Gore would endorse Clinton’s energy plan. (unproven.)”
…yep, but hers contains all his ideas, Obamas does not.
“Both Obama and Clinton have 100% Cap and Auction”
Yes, as every Dem does, (+Clinton put that 100% auction amendment on in comittee, only she is on the Boxer comittee, not Obama (+it was voted off by Inohofe))
yes, both also want to get to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, and extend PTCs as do all Dems.
But the methods for getting there differ.
I think I will diary it, with the details and the links. Its too hard to write here. I will enclose a link when I’ve diaried it.
[…] his tail and fled. Yes, brave Obama turned about And gallantly he chickened out. – From Riverdaughter’s […]