Obama's letting the opposition define him. To all appearances, he's a douche bag.

Can you believe how Obama rebuked General Wesley Clark, AUS (Ret.)? Here's a respected general officer who slams Mad Bomber McInsane's I-was-a-POW-so-vote-for-me-for-President bullshit. Hell, Obama and his boys should have been delirious with joy about what Clark said. They should be encouraging this at every turn.

Obama's a coward. He doesn't want to campaign among, or be seen with, American Muslims. He didn't waste any time in proclaiming his love for the warmongering Israel Lobby, though.

And, yes, he's pretty cavalier about trashing civil liberties, what with his support of the FISA bullshit.

Would any of you care to explain again (in light of the events that Mr. Greenwald highlighted), why exactly you supported Obama over Clinton?

And how you manage to avoid the senation that you've been had?

I'll just revel in all the schadenfreude while I wait for your response.

It is truly the guiltiest of pleasures.

I preffered Obama because his stated position on Iraq was better than Clintin's.

His stated position on Iran was better than Clinton's.

His stated position on preffering diplomacy in general - talking to Raul Castro and all that - was preferable to Clinton's.

His clear opposition to FISA II was more clear than Clinton's.

He did lie. I have been had.

And you're an asshole.

Does anyone know if Obama has discovered his Irish ancestry yet?

Obama did a welcome flipflop on Gen. Clark. Click on sig.

"The Senator says his call Monday for supporters to avoid denigrating military service was not a reference to Wesley Clark’s comment about McCain. "I think in at least one publication it was reported that my comments yesterday about Senator McCain were in a response to General Clark. I think my staff will confirm that was in a draft of that speech that I had written two months ago."

Also says Clark does not owe McCain an apology..."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/2/02123/25613/990/545157

Mike Stark on the Obama Vote Right on FISA group.

(click on sig)

Quote:

In the past, I’ve been one of the most vocal and aggressive critics of the Democratic Congress. Almost right out of the gate, they started hedging on their campaign promises and preparing us for the inevitable let-downs that they seemed to know were coming. I was having none of it, and I blogged my little fingers off decrying their betrayals.

And not a damned thing changed. Indeed, things just kept getting worse.

I’m no genius, but I’m pretty convinced that I know enough to recognize when something isn’t working.

Doing the blogosphere’s version of the cartoon scream where that little dangly thing in the back of your mouth wiggles from side to side... well, that simply hasn’t worked.

So this time, we will have well over 10,000 people organized by the end of the week. We’re working on strategies that will leverage that organization right now. I don’t know if it will be any more effective than virtual petulance, but I – and thousands and thousands of others – think it is worth doing.

And we’d love for you to come join us.

Dear Mr. Greenwald: I agree with most of what you say. However, the question is not whether or not Obama is superior to McCain, or whether his positions are less toxic. Rather, the question is whether any of his former supporters can trust anything the man says. On staggeringly important issues, the man has fallen short of his promises. Today FISA and religious pandering, tomorrow who knows? Expanding Gitmo? Staying in Iraq? Bomb, bomb bombing Iran? Please tell me why he won't take THESE positions. Until you can, don't chide the progressive left if they abandon this hypocrite.

"I still don't like to see taxpayer dollars transfered to religious organizations." -- Jebbie

Nor do I.

I also do not like the government debasing our dollars through printing funny-money (inflation), or spending taxpayer dollars on projects that I object to. As an example, we outspend the rest of the world combined on war, weapons, and killing. I find that a horrific misappropriation of the people's blood and treasure.

I object most heartily to taxing the income of the working poor. If we stopped wasting money on the military and many other counter-productive government agencies then we would not need to tax the income of working men and women. (it can be done; happened in that way in this county long ago) The religious groups have trouble asking for a small percentage of earning for charity from the man in the pew when the secular religion called government has already taken 50 percent. He just has nothing left to give.

I also object to the idiots who believe that "we" should do this-or-that with government money to correct problems. The "best and brightest" are always wrong. Always. One size never fits all.

As an example, look at the example of corn in America. The price for corn is well over 7 dollars as I type this while the average price for the last 20 years is a little over 2 dollars. A large turkey processing outfit in Utah just announced that they were suspending operation until the price of meat goes up or the price of corn comes down. The company did not hold much hope that corn would come down since 25 percent of American corn goes into gas for cars. The government encouraged and subsidized the use of the poor family's staple for filling the tank on SUVs! I find that odious.

Another example: local governments have used the poor family's money to build sports arenas for billionaire owners all over America. The secular religion of sports gets its hands on a lot of taxpayer dollars.

Another example: the large corporations get a "trunk-load of hundred-thousand-dollar-bills" in subsidies. (phrase credit to the Boss)

So, I would be happy to see a Democratic president do what the poor had hoped that the Republicans would do 30 years ago --- give us some relief and stop spending our money on your pet projects. The Republicans are a joke; and evil joke. The Democrats will soon have the entire government in hand. What will they do?