Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Obama's wins are only coming from crossovers who won't vote for him in the General?
So it's all just a, a, a . . . a vast right-wing conspiracy . . . again? Is Hillary stuck in the 90's much?
I do see one interesting and by now familiar theme in the numbers posted by setme!. The Democratic loser (usually Hillary) is still pulling more votes than all the Republicans combined. Not to mention what you get when you add in Obama's majority. Sorta looks like a vast Democratic resurgence.
Czarina: "I don't denigrate HRC supporters or call them stupid, shrill, naive, etc. I see no point in doing that."
Czarina (in the same post): "how can anyone think you're anything other than a self-righteous snob? ... Gah, your pen is poison."
Nice!
What I do have a problem with is someone whose support of one candidate enables them to make ridiculous blanket statements about people who support another candidate that are unsupported by fact. I assure you, I'm not sniffing magic peace dust and it's pure speculation on your part to predict that Obama will be another McGovern or Carter. Obama does have real policies and according to a lot of the stuff I've read (Salon, Slate, NYT, the Atlantic, mainly), they're not all that different from HRC's.
So if his policies are not all that different from Clinton, then why do you support him over her? Surely it can't be the policy differences, yet when criticized, Obama supporters always yell "stick to the policy," apparently knowing full well there is little there to debate. Interesting.
Why are you supporting him, if his policies are the same as Clinton's, if not because the magic peace dust?
I agree that we should all not denigrate one another or each others nominee for the Dem. candidate.
But, I'll take it one step further:
we shouldn't be "looking to the ENEMY in November" either.
making out your political opposition as some kind of monster or spawn of the devil only plays into that "campaign of fear" mentality.
just sayin'
Maybe you do need to snort some of the magic peace dust!
You don't have to vote for him. If he gets elected and he does an awful job you'll be right, so at least you have that going for you!
Do you think Carter was a snake oil salesman, too? I always thought he was naive and love dovey; the Obama you describe in your post is anything but lovey dovey. He's a shrewd politician, calculated, and a little evil. And since it's obviously impossible to bring American's together, what does it matter if Obama doesn't accomplish it? Isn't it good that he's actually a Washington insider who is ambitious to be president? Don't you think that will mean he will do whatever it takes to get his policies pushed through? And since his policies are very similiar to Clinton's, how can that be bad?
I'm sorry, I guess we can just agree to disagree. The magic peace dust makes me magnaminous to my "enemies" I suppose.
People, we are talking about politicians. They are a certain breed, even the best of them. They may be terrifically idealistic but this idealism coexists with the harsh reality that people with money and power will try, and in many cases succeed, to manipulate them. That's just life. For your own sanity and integrity, it's probably best not to be too carried away in your enthusiasm for any one politician, or you will find yourself having to rationalize their less savory votes and their occasionally egregious policy mistakes and their out-and-out corruptions.
That said, I think our country is desperate right now for even a highly imperfect Democratic presidency. I'm with all those who say that no matter who the Democratic candidate is, it's important for us to vote for that person and try to end this prolonged Republican nightmare we've been living under.
An early poster provided a link to this terrific Ken Silverstein article from Harpers. Silverstein, by the way, is one of the most experienced, smartest, and rational reporters in Washington, D.C. I'm reposting this link as a person who voted for Obama here in Maryland but did so with a fairly lukewarm attitude. I think he is very smart and has more genuinely progressive plans and views than Clinton but is, like all major politicians today, beholden to corporate masters. So in my mind it remains to be seen whether his genuine progressive/reformist impulses can weather the reality of our pay-to-play political culture.
Those who really do hold highly idealistic views of Obama will be offended by the article. Those who understand and accept the big-money-driven reality of politics may actually admire Obama for being extremely savvy and smooth, for linking the ideals of young progressives with the horsetrading/kickbacking requirements of our American corporate oligarchy in an almost seamless way. In any case, it's a very, very good read:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
why do you support Obama? Try to keep it short on platitudes and long on concrete facts and things
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but how's this:
He's a Constitutional Law Scholar.
He's shown a willingness to listen to and propose new ideas.
He hires knowledgeable professors to advise him.
He began his career working for the less fortunate.
He is clearly a Progressive.
He is an excellent Orator and since much of a President's job is communicating ideas to the public, this is important.
He is clearly inspiring.
He is proposing a break from Bush's policies. His opponant, should he win the nomination, promises more of the same.
Does Clinton offer many of these same features? Yes. I'll be voting for whichever is the nominee in the Fall. Why did I pick him in the Primary? Edwards was out and Obama is a better speaker and is a Constitutional Law Scholar. It was a close choice.
The problem is, you're letting fear rule your thinking. You're shouting "wake up people", but wake up to what? Vote for Hillary? McCain? Or is it just a general yell of "we're all doooooomed" which really serves no purpose other than perhaps a cathartic one for you?
It's "Wake up, people! Obama is a cynical politician like the rest of 'em, his message is a fraud that he himself most likely doesn't believe [and if he does believe it, then we REALLY don't need someone like that as president], what he promises most certainly won't come true, and he's just stroking your liberalism to get you to vote for him with sweet nothings he knows you love. He doesn't really care about the policy, and he hasn't bothered to really learn it. He would be a worse president than Clinton." That's my message.
And even if Obama falls short of what I suggested, much less what you suggested, it still doesn't equal Carter, who himself was a much better President than is generally acknowledged. It doesn't have to end the same way, 30 years separate the Carter presidency from now. We've had a long time to see just how bad Reagan and the Bushs have been.
I know that, but Carter was dumped in favor of Reagan a mere 6 years after Watergate. That is a catastrophic failure for the Democrats, that after SUCH a massive scandal, the resignation of a Republican president, they managed to lose the presidency after just one term. Bush's misdeeds are on the same level as Nixon's, for sure, but if the Carter experience teaches us anything, it's that that doesn't really matter.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
