You might want to go look at your candidate's voting record before going all "change" on this particular fellow, there is a change and it's primarily about skin color and smooth rhetoric. Problem is, the record doesn't match it. I'll make a further note that you may not like, anyone who takes and anti-stance on a part of the Bill of Rights is an authoritarian and acting in direct refutation to the basic law of the US - and that's your guy. Don't get me wrong, he's a distinct improvement over anything the Republicans have to offer, but he's cut from the same cloth as Hillary and their authoritarianism is real similar.
If you want a smooth approach to same old business done the same old way, what you're getting is Hillary smoothed over. If you think you're backing some sort of meaningful change in the way business is done in DC; you're engaging in wishful thinking. But then, a white guy with pretty hair doesn't look much different, does he? I won't vote gender, I won't vote race, I won't vote religion, I won't vote smooth talk, I will vote my political agenda and that is I'm real tired of a quarter century of the same plutocratic authoritarian bullshit. If that statement resonates, go take a real look. Take a look at the years of Chicago machine politics and the US Senate votes. Read the Bill of Rights and try to put is squarely in your mind that the US government does not grant a single one of those, they are superior to the US government - each and every one of them.
I've wasted bytes on this, you're not interested in paying attention to the actual record or the actual statements broken down into their content rather than their tone, so just ignore it and then don 't get mad when your heads get pissed on. I'll be darned if I'll sit here and give you the research, do it yourselves. I've left Obama pretty much alone up to this point, but I've reached a boiling point with this "candidate of change" spin. If you're ticked off at Congress for its behavior this last year, maybe you ought to stop and think about it.
I'll say this, for all her triangulating and corporate whoring and experience nonsense Hillary is more honest. Now that sucks. I'll give Edwards credit for spending 3 years on the causes he's espousing now as some kind of make-up for his Senate record and his life previous to it as some credit, but the other two leading candidates can't claim 30 seconds of break in their string since entry into elected life.
13 comments:
The one thing that I see as a positive about Obam is that he has attracted the young and unengaged electorate in a way that hasn't been seen in years. It's up to them, and I would hope the better-informed to help, to educate themselves. That remains to be seen.
In terms of his, or Clinton's, or even Biden's before he dropped out, worthiness to be POTUS, they lost that for me when it became clear that they can't, and won't even do their jobs as senators. Why would I want to promote any of them to president?
I don't think we can ever know how Edwards would be if he were currently a senator. For now, I take him at face value. I can also credit him with at least some of the inspiration to become more directly involved in the political system, which I did by, among other things, becoming a PCP in Multnomah County.
Thanks for the posting and for your work.
Well thanks for taking the pretty much thankless task of PCP, I know that one.
It's been a damn long time since the Democrats brought in youth and I'd hate to see them disappointed by an image. I suppose that's what makes me angriest.
Edwards has a history in the senate and his voting record exemplifies his candidacy. Obama, has a history also, It goes all the way to Lieberman, his mentor. Follow his voting record and it mirrors Lieberman, they were in Lock-step.If you like Lieberman and his republican outlook be sure to vote for Obama.
Hillary is nothing more than Buba and if the bill of rights is foreign to you vote Hillary.
The entire constitution has been severely trashed [ for our own good, says the huskers] since Ronald Reagan, this includes all dimmo presidents, also.
Right now the swift-boaters, that would be the Bob Perry gang, is to be afraid of no matter which dimmo gets the nod.
If you thought the Bush's theft of the presidency was bad wait till this one gets going. Big money is the play, no matter who is running.
simply casting aspersions against Obama with no actual proofs is not very cool, Chuck, and you know it. saying Lieberman is his mentor is also baseless. your case seems to be he's from Illinois, therefore he's dirty. that's very productive. the waste of time here is mine, because when people start writing accusations without any supportive material, they have switched the input to "off" and have no desire to hear anything contrary. i know Obama's shortcomings, i know he (with virtually every other Dem in the Senate) did not help Lamont, i know he hasn't laid down in front of the tanks to stop the war. but i also know his entire history that preceeds his political career, and i know that as a politician he's done the right thing far more often than not. if the intense enthusiasm pisses you off, too bad. that's understandable after the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Reagan years, the pathetic candidates we've fielded and the sudden realization that we may have one of those extraordinary candidates before us.
i think so. for all his faults, i see in Obama, not a prince or an angel from god, but a terrific human being who has the skills we need right now. he is, by far, the best person to lead this country after what we've been thru. and baseless aspersions don't change that.
T.A. is right. The comparisons to Hillary and Lieberman are specious.
On Iraq alone Obama stands in contrast to both Lieberman and Clinton. Not only did he reject BushCo's rationale for invading but he predicted with greater accuracy than almost anyone what would result if Bush went ahead with the plan to invade Iraq.
By stark contrast, Lieberman echoed Cheney's bullshit rosy scenarios. And both he and Hillary remain unrepentant for their votes to abdicate their Constitutional obligations and give BushCo a blank check.
I said "Chicago machine politics" not corruption. Those accusations have been made, I didn't since so far they're baseless. Machine politics is accurate. I said check his voting record and his statements, nothing baseless there.
I still assert, based on both speeches and record that finding a political agenda difference between Hillary and Obama comes down more to rhetorical skill than concrete differences. That's one reason for the anemic stupid "attacks" between the two.
Match the Illinois "present" votes with the issues. Match the Senate votes and absences with issues. I give Obama Illinois on the War, obviously the US Senate wasn't available to him at the time.
TA, which concrete parts of Obama's record or "progressive" agenda did you bring with you? Which ones have you brought to your enthusiastic backing? What I find repeatedly from Obama backers is the rhetorical "new", "youthful", "exciting", etc., not policy agendas.
Giving Obama the Iraq War based on his not having been in the Senate at the time is a dodge.
If all he'd done was oppose it from the relative safety of not having to actually vote yea or nay then that would be one thing. That describes lots of politicians and wanna-be politicians.
He didn't merely oppose it, he predicted what would end up happening with uncanny accuracy.
How many pundits or politicians predicted with the accuracy he did?
More to the point, did either Hillary or Lieberman accurately predict what would end up happening? Did either even come close to it?
My record is perfect, I spent a lot of time and effort on web time opposing it, but at no political cost. I p-o'd some email list friends and neighbors - that can be prersonal - but politically a free pass. Obama's Illinois' stance is an indicator of how he'd have voted in the US Senate, but not a predicter anymore than the "present" votes in Illinois are more than indicators in another direction, but not predicters.
I don't make too much out of free passes, if I follow Kevin's logic to its end, then I need to make a big deal out of Merkley's HR2 vote vs the free pass of a floor speech. I look at it, askance, but I don't see it as a disqualifier.
I wasn't clear about Merkley, neither vote nor speech were binding legislation.
I think the Bill of Rights is alien to the majority in all three branches of the federal government. Nothing new here, but true enough to bear repeating. I see nothing in any of the leading candidates of either party this time out to make me feel secure that we won't continue to see the erosion of ideals and priciples in the next administration, regardless of who wins. By a matter of degree, the Republicans are worse, but only by degree. Starting with the Supreme Court intervening in state election laws in 2000, most of the Bill of Rights have been violated with intention by the executive and judicial branches and--even since 2006--with the consent of the legislature. "Impeachment is off the table," my ass.
Chuck, you are getting closer to being a Ron Paul guy than you know.
Not in this lifetime am I a Libertarian, Steve. "I got mine, screw you"; isn't where I'm at. I know, and so do you, that the playing field ain't level and capital is not only favored over labor - it's become the only game.
There will be a general election after the primaries and maybe by then the media will have to ask Obama or Hillary how they feel about the Washington DC gun case and our wide open borders and trade deals like NAFTA and the rise of China as a military threat. Issuses might just put a damper on all this enthusiasm when a pissed off American public looks for somebody to represent us.
Post a Comment