Hamilton Project, Lieberman campaign, against antiwar liberals in primarys, against Alito filibuster

[w4rma]

The Obama Illusion
Presidential ambitions from the start

• lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party
• lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman
• supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races
• criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
• voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations
• oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry
• expressed reservations about a universal health insurance plan recently enacted in Massachusetts, stating his preference for “voluntary” solutions over “government mandates.”
• voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act
• voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State
• opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens
• distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo
• refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran
• makes a big point of respectfully listening to key parts of the right wing agenda even though that agenda is well outside majority sentiment
• joins victim-blaming Republicans in pointing to poor blacks’ “cultural” issues as the cause of concentrated black poverty
• he claims that blacks have joined the American “socioeconomic mainstream” even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar
• “If the Democrats don’t show a willingness to work with the president, I think they could be punished in ‘08”

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

I knew something smelled funny about Obama in how he mysteriously got so much corporate support so quickly. This is the tip of the iceberg, imho.

[AuntPatsy]

1. If all this is true, one should be scared, it is getting to the point where you don't

know whom to trust.

[w4rma]

3. I started to distrust Obama when I noticed that he never talks about issues on the stump.

Except for non-important ones. Him and Hillary are very similar in this respect.

Politicians who avoid presenting their positions, especially when it's progressives that they are trying to woo over, are almost always on the wrong side of those issues.

[Pirate Smile]

4. I be careful about trusting people who have ulterior motives - and I'm not talking about Obama.

[Cleita]

2. If you look at both Obama and Clinton's campaign donors,

you will see that they are getting contributions from sources that none of the other Democratic candidates are getting, but that most of the Republican candidates are getting. I don't like my candidate being obligated to those donors. When I find time, I will try to make a comprehensive list of whose getting what from which sector.

[Zhade]

6. Please do. That would be very illuminating.

Even if it's only that corporations are hedging their bets with the media-anointed frontrunners, I'd like to see to whom these two are beholden.

[Cleita]

8. Immediately noticable is whom they are hedging their bets with,

Obama and Clinton. The other candidates especially the socialist ones like Kucinich aren't getting a dime or very little. That money puts those DLC candidates ahead of the herd, which is why I think we got Kerry for the last election in the end even though at first he was almost last in popularity. They are putting their money with candidates that they know aren't that popular among liberal Democrats and easier to win against.

Even if that candidate gets put into the White House, they have them in their pockets for payback. This is why you will never see meaningful health care reform or foreign diplomacy when those candidates are in office. They will follow a watered down version of the Republican mantra.

[w4rma]

10. I've noticed that, also. Thanks for mentioning that. (nt)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. Obama has a bunch of problems facing him

not the least of which made the front page this weekend in Chi-Trib. his connections to Rezko are far deeper than they like to admit. And Rezko's connections with organized crime, fraud, deceit, illegal activities are quite remarkable.

[pocoloco]

7. GORE, CLARK, can you hear us?

[Hippo_Tron]

9. I'm fairly sure that most Democrats acknowledge the idea of a "culture of poverty"

But the difference between acknowledging it and being a Republican is that Republicans use it as an excuse to say that there is ample economic opportunity for those who want to get out of poverty and clearly that is not the case.

[bling bling]

11. WOW!! You sure do get around, W4RMA.

Did you see the challenge I made to you in another thread regarding this post that you just can't seem to get enough of posting???

Would you like to explain all of these cute little bullet pointed attacks in a more detailed light, and most importantly, in a light that exposes the big picture?

For example, you use it against Obama that he supported Joe Lieberman. But isn't it a fact that Lieberman was supported by most Democrats because after all he was the INCUMBENT DEMOCRAT??? Duh. And what of when Lamont was elected in the primary. How much support did Obama give to the neo-con Lieberman once that happend.

Oh please oh please don't ignore my requests for responsibility in your criticism.

[w4rma]

12. I'm sorry, but I didn't notice any "challenge".

The original article is well sourced and the vast majority of the bullet points are irrefutable and speak for themselves.

As for his support of Lieberman, he strongly supported Lieberman in the primary (as well as many other candidates in other primaries around the country who opposed anti-war progressives) and when Lamont won he gave Lamont tepid support which signaled to others that he wanted them only give as much support to Lamont as would provide them cover against progressives.

And it's not the only progessive vs. DLCer primary that Obama did this in.

[bling bling]

13. Does Barbara Boxer oppose anti-war progressives too? Serious question.

Did she support Lieberman too when he was the incumbent Democrat? Serious question that I'd like to see YOU answer.

Because I want to know exactly what your point is. And I mean your actual *point* beyond the bullet point. I want your criticism put into context because your bullet points are alarming. When put into context, hmmmm...not so alarming.

It's about being fair and being responsible with your criticism.

[w4rma]

14. I think Boxer does not. I think Hillary does. I see Obama's tactics as exactly mirroring Hillary's.

And most everything Hillary does is done to promote the DLC agenda.

Anyway, why do you want me to answer? I'm a pretty good reseracher, but if you've already done the research I'd rather not waste my limited time on it.

[bling bling]

15. Well you might want to research the author you're so fond of citing.

He's full of crap. And he's a guy who's not afraid to post a bunch of crap who ALSO happens to hate Obama. Seriously, he's written article after article about Obama. He's ADMITTED he hates Obama on his blog. I dont' even think he's a Democrat. But he urges people to send their money to Kucinich because he's the most anti-war.

In the same article you used to pick your bullet points, the author states:

"Nevermind...{that Obama} opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent."
But Obama voted the same way as Kerry and Reid. Are they illusions too? And he omits the fact altogether that Obama voted against the Bankruptcy Bill. Is that not worth a mention considering it flies in the face of the insinuation of his earlier point that Obama is for the corporate credit card companies and against the working guy.

Obama's floor statement on the Bankruptcy Bill:

"Mr. President, this bill gives us a rare chance to ask ourselves who we're here to protect - who we're here to stand up and speak out for.
We should curb bankruptcy abuse and to demand a measure of personal responsibility from people. We all want that.

But there are also millions of middle-class families out there who are struggling to get by. They work hard, they love their children, and they're willing to do anything to give them the best possible shot in life.
And in the ten minutes since I've been talking, about thirty of them have filed for bankruptcy.

We live in a rapidly changing world with an economy that's moving just as fast. We can't always control this and we can't promise that the changes will always leave everyone better off.

But we can do better than one bankruptcy every nineteen seconds. We can do better than forcing people to choose between the cost of health care and the cost of college. We can do better than big corporations using bankruptcy laws to deny health care and benefits to their employees. And we can give people the basic tools and protections they need to believe that in America, your circumstance is no limit to the success you may achieve and the dreams you may fulfill."

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050228-floor_statement_of_senator_barack_obama_on_s256_the_bankruptcy_abuse_and_prevention_act_of_2005/index.html



I resent a bullet pointed list of misleading and even subjective points about Obama being thrown around in thread after thread as proof that he's an illusion, citing someone who has it out for all the Democratic candidates except for Kucinich and who isn't the least bit afraid to use misleading, cherry-picked, presumptuous rhetoric to underscore his hatred for Obama.

Can we not at the very least cite sources who at least don't *admit* that they hate Obama? Because you can see that people were automatically jumping on board with your posts with comments making it sound like you were already swaying them away from Obama. I think it's great that you CAN influence people here, but I think it stinks if you use misleading information from biased blogs to do it.

But of course, you are under no obligation to play fair. But I resent it, nonetheless.

[w4rma]

16. Palast? Sirota? They are both disliked by the corporatists. Paul Street wrote this article.

I doubt he's very much liked by the DLC either. Heck, Palast was blacklisted by the Bush 'mafia' in the U.S. and had to move to Britain where the BBC hired him.

Why should I not cite sources from folks who dislike Obama? Why should I only cite sources from Obama groupie approved sources? You sound like the Freepers in how they limit their sources to only those that say kind things about them.

Anyway, what you posted here didn't refute a single bullet point. It talks about some unrelated topic.

I did find your challenge just now though. I'm seriously considering taking you up on your $50 offer. Will you really pay up when I provide the same list but with more extensive details? My previous two posts (#12, #14) detail two bullet points. I'm thinking that it might not take as long as I originally thought to go down the list.

[bling bling]

18. It's a $50 bet. And yes, it's still there.

But if you don't meet the challenge, are you willing to pay me?

This is getting more exciting now.

I know that Paul Street wrote the article. I went to the link and read the article from January. I didn't say you should only cite sources from Obama groupie approved sources. What I want is less "truthiness" and more responsibility. Because anybody can play the truthiness game. At the democratic convention Joe Lieberman actually stumped for Kerry Edwards!! It was a compelling call for people to vote for Kerry and Edwards. Should I add that "The neo-conservative war-loving Lieberman supported Kerry/Edwards" to make some sort of misleading implication that by association Edwards is in bed with a neo-con. Because that's what the implication is from the cute little bullet point about Obama supporting Lieberman.

Speaking of that, you make it sound like you've already addressed and detailed that point in your previous post #12. What are you even talking about? Post #12 didn't do anything to put Obama's support of Lieberman in a bigger context. You said something about how Obama mirror's Hillary. And you didn't even answer my question about who Boxer supported. So no, you aren't done with 2 of the points and only have 13 to go! Give me a break. If that's "detailed" or even "in context" to you, forget about it.

[w4rma]

20. I would accept but you seem to want to move the goal posts to make me write a book.

I'll do some research and post it in this thread. When you decide where you want to put your goal posts, I'll decide if meeting the growing requirements of your bet is worth my time.

[bling bling]

21. How have my requirements grown? How have the goal posts moved?

Please, help me out here.

Do you seriously think that your comment in post #12 about how Obama mirrors Clinton was WITHIN the original goalposts?

What am I missing here?

[bling bling]

22. I confused your post #14 with #12.

In which case you were referring to your comment in post 12 that stated:

"As for his support of Lieberman, he strongly supported Lieberman in the primary (as well as many other candidates in other primaries around the country who opposed anti-war progressives) and when Lamont won he gave Lamont tepid support which signaled to others that he wanted them only give as much support to Lamont as would provide them cover against progressives."

OK, this statement of yours is the perfect example of what I mean by providing information in proper context.

Here are the people that Obama raised money for:

Daniel K Akaka (Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico)
Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
Robert C Byrd (West Virginia)
Maria Cantwell (Washington)
Thomas R Carper (Delaware)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
Kent Conrad (North Dakota)
Dianne Feinstein (California)
Edward M Kennedy (Massachusetts)
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)
Ned Lamont (Connecticut)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Bill Nelson (Florida)
Debbie Stabenow (Michigan)
Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island)

What does this do to the context of your original accusation about Obama and opposing anti-war progressives? To me, it makes it look less alarming.

How many of the Senators that Obama supported were incumbents? Regardless of who they were opposing, do you think it's fair to not include that information when you are making an insinuation about Obama and pro-war Democrats?

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. So, Edwards, who voted for the war, NCLB, Permant Normal Trade Relations with China, and

the Bankruptcy Reform Act hasn't promoted the DLC agenda? :shrug:

[w4rma]

35. Edwards calls for repeal of NAFTA

During a stop in Iowa last week Presidential candidate John Edwards suggested that repealing the North American Free Trade Agreement would be a great benefit for workers in the United States. Edwards made the comment during a stop in Indianola, Iowa. He also said that negotiation rights need to be strengthened and called for the implementation of “card-check neutrality.
04/22/2007 - 1:23pm
http://www.laborradio.org/node/5761

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. I don't suppose that he ever sponsered legislation to do that when he was a Senator?

Was he so happy with NAFTA from 1999-2005 that he never took any action to repeal it when he was a Senator?

It would appear that Mr. Edwards' rhetoric does not match Senator Edwards' record.

[w4rma]

39. How would he? He left the Senate 3 years ago to become the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee.

I don't suppose Hillary Clinton would even consider this stance, would she, since it is her former big-business employer that profits the most from this type of anti-regular American BS.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. What about the six years that he served in the Senate before leaving?

Or was NAFTA ok during that period?

[rinsd]

49. Prove Obama strongly supported Lieberman in the primary

"As for his support of Lieberman, he strongly supported Lieberman in the primary"

Obama gave him $4200 in early 2005 and gave him an endorsement at a state Democratic dinner on March 31st when Lamont was barely on the radar.

Did Obama campaign for Lieberman? Did he send out mass emails? Did he go on TV to talk about Joementum? Did he raise money for Lieberman?

The day after the primary he put $5K in Lamont's coffers and two weeks before the general election he sent out a mass email endorsement.

Now bitter little shits like Sirota thought Obama could do so much more. They recognize Obama's star power and since they were fucking clueless how to run a post-primary campaign they needed him. So when Obama didn't come home bringing the calvary laying the blameat the feet of a badly run campaign was just too much. It was all Obama's fault.

Could it be that Obama didn't feel like doing more for a campaign that staffed people that attacked him? Sirota bitterly attacked Obama in the months leading up to the primary election. Obama is then supposed to bust his ass for the Lamont campaign?

[madfloridian]

17. Lieberman lost the primary and became independent.

They knew he would do that. They only gave Lamont nominal support, just to shut up the Democrats who voted Joe out in the primary.

[bling bling]

19. Sigh. n/t

[mnhtnbb]

50. I recommend that every Dem read Obama's "The Audacity of Hope"

and read it with a critical eye.

I didn't know much about Obama so I bought the book. It was an eye-opener.


He is laudatory of Ronald Reagan for his involvement in ending the Cold War. He makes no mention of the bloated military budget taking down the Soviet Union.

He says "Bush won two elections". There is no mention of election fraud in either Florida or Ohio. He tells stories about first meeting Bush; he definitely was taken in by Bush's "folksy" charm.

He refers to the "bankruptcy of socialism".

He claims the press is only "distracted" not bought.

His discussion of 9/11 says nothing about questions disputing the "official"
story of how it happened.

I found enough in it to give me pause about Obama, especially since he's running a campaign on personality as opposed to policy.

[ripple]

95. LOL- your own thread wasn't good enough?

Now you feel the need to cut and paste your out-of-context assertions and unrealistic and therefore, unfulfilled expectations on every Obama thread?

Too rich.

:rofl:

[w4rma]

23. Some additional commentary on the bullet points in the OP as asked for.

The Obama Illusion
Presidential ambitions from the start

• lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party
  
  
  • Obama was recently hailed as a “Hamiltonian” believer in “limited government” and “free trade” by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for having “a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS.”
    
    The Hamiltonian Project appears to be more 'free'-trade fluff from the Robert Rubin crowd.
    More here: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11433
    
    
• lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman
  
  
  • he strongly supported Lieberman in the primary (as well as many other candidates in other primaries around the country who opposed anti-war progressives) and when Lamont won he gave Lamont tepid support which signaled to others that he wanted them only give as much support to Lamont as would provide them cover against progressives.
    
    I see Obama's tactics as exactly mirroring Hillary's. And most everything Hillary does is done to promote the DLC agenda.
    
    Lieberman lost the primary and became independent. They knew he would do that. They only gave Lamont nominal support, just to shut up the Democrats who voted Joe out in the primary. (I agree with madfloridian on this.)
    
    
• supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races
  
  
  • The Lamont/Lieberman race is not the only progessive vs. DLCer primary that Obama backed the opposition to the anti-war progressive in.
    
    
• criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
  
  
  • I think this one speaks for itself.
    
    
• voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations
  
  
  • Jeeze, the guy is a supporter of the BS "tort reform" movement, too?
    
    
• oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry
  
  
  • Sounds like something Obama would say, to me.
    
    
• expressed reservations about a universal health insurance plan recently enacted in Massachusetts, stating his preference for “voluntary” solutions over “government mandates.”
  
  
  • This sounds like something he would say to me also.
    
    
• voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act
  
  
  • To be fair, most Democrats probably did, but it sure shows that he's *still* not willing and ready to take a stand on important progressive issues when it counts. Obama is certainly not a or Feingold or Wellstone who fights for our Bill of Rights.
    
    
• voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State
  
  
  • Probably for the same reason that Richardson had to have so much pressure applied to him to pry his support from Attorney General Gonzalez--primary author of the Patriot Act
    
    
• opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens
  
  
  • As I said earlier, Obama is certainly not a or Feingold or Wellstone who fights for our Bill of Rights.
    
    
• distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo
  
  
• refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran
  
  
  • To be fair, very few other Democrats have either.
    
    
• makes a big point of respectfully listening to key parts of the right wing agenda even though that agenda is well outside majority sentiment
  
  
  • "The Hamilton Project hosted a policy seminar on a proposal from Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation to..."
    http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm
    
    Not the best example, but an easily found one and a valid one that shows some of his pattern for folks.
    
    
• joins victim-blaming Republicans in pointing to poor blacks’ “cultural” issues as the cause of concentrated black poverty
  
  
  • When the candidate is avoiding the important issues, this is the pablum that replaces it, I suppose.
    
    
• he claims that blacks have joined the American “socioeconomic mainstream” even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar
  
  
  • People in America are not doing well, right now. But Obama refuses to touch economic subjects (or any other important issue) at all.
    
    
• “If the Democrats don’t show a willingness to work with the president, I think they could be punished in ‘08”
  
  
  • Some of Obama's more blunt and revealing cum-ba-ya talk.
    
    
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

[AuntPatsy]

25. Hmmmmmm...I dont like that last bullet point, how exactly does he want

them to work with the prez considering the prez refuses to work with anything the dems present, he should address that very real fact.

[bling bling]

27. HERE'S MY RESPONSE...SO FAR....

MY COMMENTS ARE IN ALL CAPS.

• lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party

OBAMA’S SPEECH TO THE HAMILTON PROJECT PEOPLE CAN BE FOUND HERE. IT’S A PDF FORMAT SO I CAN’T COPY AND PASTE SPECIFIC SENTENCES OR STATEMENTS FROM IT: http://www.brook.edu/comm/events/20060405obama.pdf

YOU CAN READ ABOUT THE HAMILTON PROJECT HERE. I’M NOT GOING TO RESEARCH IT AND SUMMARIZE IT’S PURPOSE INTO A QUICK BULLET POINT. PEOPLE CAN READ IT FOR THEMSELVES IF THEY’RE REALLY THAT INTERESTED IN KNOWING ABOUT THIS ISSUE. I ONLY HAVE SO MUCH TIME AND I HAVE A LOT MORE TO DO HERE. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

• lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman

THIS POINT WAS ADDRESSED IN CONTEXT PREVIOUSLY.
o he strongly supported Lieberman in the primary (as well as many other candidates in other primaries around the country who opposed anti-war progressives) and when Lamont won he gave Lamont tepid support which signaled to others that he wanted them only give as much support to Lamont as would provide them cover against progressives.

o I see Obama's tactics as exactly mirroring Hillary's. And most everything Hillary does is done to promote the DLC agenda.

I STILL FAIL TO SEE HOW THIS ADDITIONAL COMMENT DOES ANYTHING TO TRY AND PROVIDE AN UNBIASED ANALYSIS *OR* PUT ANYTHING INTO CONTEXT. IT’S AN OPINION WITHOUT EXAMPLES CITED OR LINKS TO BACK UP THE STATEMENT. SORRY IF THAT’S CHANGING THE GOAL POSTS. I HIGHLY DISAGREE THAT IT IS.

Leberman lost the primary and became independent. They knew he would do that. They only gave Lamont nominal support, just to shut up the Democrats who voted Joe out in the primary.

THIS IS THE SAME, EXACT, VERBATIM SENTENCE THAT MADFLORIDIAN JUST POSTED. I DON’T GET IT. DID YOU BOTH JUST HAPPEN TO SAY THIS? OR ARE YOU COPYING SOMEONE ELSE'S WORDS? OR ARE YOU JUST COPYING EACH OTHERS WORDS? VERY CONFUSED.

• supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races
o The Lamont/Lieberman race is not the only progessive vs. DLCer primary that Obama backed the opposition to the anti-war progressive in.

THIS WAS ADDRESSED IN A PREVIOUS POST.

• criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
o I think this one speaks for itself.

IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF IN TERMS OF BEING MISLEADING. OBAMA *DID* JOIN THE FILIBUSTER. DOES THAT NOT DESERVE A MENTION? DO YOU SEE HOW A CRITICISM LIKE THAT IS MISLEADING? HERE’S SOME CONTEXT….

“Mr. Obama said Judge Alito "is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values."
But Mr. Obama joined some Democrats, including Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Charles Schumer of New York, in expressing his unhappiness with the filibuster bid.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said he, too, would support the filibuster attempt but agreed that it was not particularly wise. “
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/013006dnnatalito.7ab7690.html

AND WITH THIS I’M GOING TO TAKE A BREAK HERE. IF YOU DON’T AGREE ON THIS POINT THAT WHAT I’M PROVIDING IS CONTEXT *CONTRARY* TO WHAT YOU’RE PROVIDING THEN I’M INDEED WASTING MY TIME. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID WOULD HAPPEN OVER 3 HOURS AGO WHEN I MADE THIS BET AND IT’S WHY I WANTED *YOU* TO DO THE RESEARCH. BUT IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT YOU HAVEN’T DONE ANY RESEARCH. YOU’VE BASICALLY PARAPHRASED YOUR ORIGINAL BULLET POINTS. BASED ON MY CHALLENGE TO YOU, AND IN LIGHT OF THE TYPE OF INFORMATION I'M PROVIDING HOW COULD YOU HONESTLY SAY THAT SUCH SIMPLISTIC CRITICISM IN YOUR BULLET POINT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF WITHOUT EVEN OFFERING THE CONTEXT THAT OBAMA *DID INDEED* JOIN THE FILIBUSTER?

[w4rma]

34. Alito filibuster won't work, Obama says: Says Dems would do better

WASHINGTON -- To better oppose Supreme Court nominees, Democrats need to convince the public "their values are at stake" rather than use stalling tactics, said Sen. Barack Obama, who opposes Samuel Alito's confirmation.

The Illinois Democrat predicted Sunday that an effort to try to block a final vote on Alito would fail today. That would clear the way for Senate approval Tuesday of the federal appeals court judge picked to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," Obama said.

"There is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers," he said.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060130/ai_n16031876

Obama pulled similar, the American people oppose our values, BS right before Bush stepped up his veto promotion against Iraq troop funding.

[AuntPatsy]

37. He is still learning the ropes I think playing with the big boys in WD,

thankfully the election is still some time away, I think our candidates need to show more of themselves in that they can handle playing with such high stakes, I think people underestimate just how hard it is to be part of washington these days, it is simply not as easy as most assume to go your own way....one must learn how to play the game sad as that sounds.

[w4rma]

40. Obama isn't ready yet. He may never be ready. (nt)

[loyalsister]

46. lol

hmmmmm Why is it that citizens posting on blogs believe they are qualified to give advice but he is not ready?
Is it possible that he believed that petulance was not the way to go?
From time to time maybe we should just reject the candidate without getting on this silly highhorse?

[bling bling]

38. W4RMA: "Against Alito filibuster......"

Yet Obama SUPPORTED the Alito filibuster.

Obama's quotes refer to procedures. Your headline in the OP was misleading. After requesting further clarification of the bullet points, with particular consideration for the context or the bigger picture, you merely noted that the Alito accusation speaks for itself. That was misleading once again.

This time, you've used an article with more information, and I appreciate that.

Obama's statement that the "Alito filibuster won't work" and then explaining what he thought would work better is debatable in terms of the procedure used to oppose SC nominees. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. (BTW, how did the Alito filibuster work out? Did Alito get confirmed?) But that wasn't your intention. Your intention was to be as vague and misleading as possible to the point that you actually made it look like Obama didn't join the filibuster.

And I take issue with it. Just as I take issue with a whole lot of the bullet points. I only stopped at the Alito point because it became quickly obvious to me that you hadn't really done further research, you were merely elaborating using your opinion and it would be a waste of my time to continue on through the list researching, citing links, and pointing out the bigger picture for each one like I'd requested in the first place.

[w4rma]

41. No. He voted for the filibuster as the bare minium to *say* he supported it, but he didn't support

it in any other way. In fact he condemned it as a failure right before the vote, which only served to draw away votes that might have been otherwise in favor of the filibuster. Obama is a slippery sucker.

[bling bling]

42. Alright. I get it, I get it.

He supported Lamont's campaign, but the only thing that gets bullet pointed is that he supported neocon Lieberman. No mention that this was only when Lieberman was the incumbent Democrat and that most Dems support the incumbent. Even Boxer supported Liberman.

He fundraised for Democrats including many incumbent Dems (including Kennedy) but the only thing that gets bullet pointed is how he campaigned for people who were running against anti-war progressives.

He voted for the filibuster. But the only thing that gets bullet pointed was that 'Obama didn't support the filibuster.'

I get it alright.

You don't seem to have much interest in really understanding the bigger picture where Obama is concerned. You're on a mission to make him look as shady as possible. In fact, I kind of even believe you've convinced yourself that Obama really is sheisty and you seriously don't get that what you're passing along is misleading, out-of-context information. I'm going to just give you the benefit of the doubt there.

[w4rma]

43. Yes, I really do believe Obama is sheisty. I don't trust politicians that won't talk about their

positions on issues. The only reason not to is because they want to trick naive voters into thinking that they agree on important issues.

I also don't trust politicians who get passes on the issues from big media, owned by major Republicans. Obama rarely gets anything but glowy cutsy nice things said about him in big media (except when they "accidentally slip up" and replace Obama with Osama or say his middle name to middle America).

[bling bling]

44. On second thought. I retract giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Having seen more evidence of your method of operation around here on other threads, I no longer give your motives for the anti-Obama crap the benefit of doubt. You're on a smear campaign. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hmmmmm. Yet ANOTHER Edwards supporter who sure can dish it out but can't ever seem to take it. Imagine that.

[rinsd]

97. But you trust campaign rhetoric over voting record?

Someone's getting conned alright.:eyes:

Not to say Edwards wouldn't be a great candidate but he is much farther from what you have portrayed him as.

[zulchzulu]

78. Sign up for a Civics 101 class at your local community college

They will mention this thing in Congress called....votes. Yunno, one vote per Congress person.

Then in Chapter two, they might illustrate how votes need to be passed to stuff to pass. It's kind of easy if you know how to comprehend simple concepts.

[wyldwolf]

24. now, you're not going to moan and whine when a similar list is posted about Edwards, are you?

[AuntPatsy]

26. lol

[w4rma]

33. An Obama/Hillary supporter already did. So, they pushed me to find more information about Obama. nt

[wyldwolf]

47. What is an Obama/Hillary supporter?

[Alexander]

55. Someone who supports Obama for POTUS and Hillary for VP?

Kind of like how I'm a Gore/Feingold supporter.

[Alexander]

54. Will we be treated to your whining if the list is about Hillary?

I shouldn't even ask. We will regardless. :eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

28. 3000+ of our soliders are dead,

billions in our treasury have been burned, our credibility is shot, we are babysitting a tinderbox waiting to collapse completely into flames,

all because of the political cowardice of people like John Edwards.

It doesn't make Obama seem so bad...

[AtomicKitten]

30. I'll put my money on Obama any time.

He was against the war from the get-go and that matters.

[zulchzulu]

31. So you don't like the Hamilton Project because...

You have fantastic cut-and-paste skills and I've seen this same screed of half-truths, limp innuendos and outright lies about Obama that you've posted on other threads.

Just for laughs, tell me specifically what you have a problem with the Hamilton Project. I'll check and see if you cut and pasted from some Googled link, so make it "original".

I doubt you have the brains to tell me...

[w4rma]

32. The Hamilton Project looks like a PR group to sell more 'free'-trade to Americans.

It's run by the exact same people that sold America on the 'free'-trade BS to begin with.

[zulchzulu]

51. As an Edwards supporter, you have no problems with his vote on China trade relations?

Edwards has been very inconsistent when it comes to free vs. fair trade. Here are some details:

HR 4444: Voted Yes to give permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China without including labor and environmental protections
(http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00251)

After voting for the bill, Edwards said: “there are people who may be hurt by this.”

Check out these examples just in North Carolina alone:

http://www.outsourceoutrage.com/facts/nc.html
http://greenvilleonline.com/news/business/2003/07/30/2003073011279.htm

As for Obama, he voted against CAFTA and wants to renegotiate the terms of NAFTA, which is identical to what Edwards has recently surmised.
http://obama.senate.gov/press/061023-senator_obamas_office_responds_to_misleading_harpers_magazine_story/index.html

[w4rma]

52. I just know that Edwards is for repealing NAFTA and the other two aren't. (nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. Do Edwards' past actions lead a reasonable person to conclude that

he actually is sincere in wanting to repeal NAFTA?

[w4rma]

60. He's the only top tier candidate talking about poverty and its causes, so yes. (nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

90. Talk, talk, talk. When it really mattered, did he back up his talk with action?

Joe Lieberman had a more liberal voting record than Edwards in Edward's last three years in the Senate:

http://www.adaction.org/ADATodayVR2004.pdf

http://www.adaction.org/2003senatevr.htm

http://www.adaction.org/2002VotingRecord.pdf

[zulchzulu]

57. Will the real John Edwards please stand up on his NAFTA views...

I guess he recently said he wants to repeal NAFTA, but it sure flies in the face of what he said in 2004:

"'I believe that Nafta should exist,'' Mr. Edwards told editors and reporters of The New York Times at a meeting yesterday in New York, as he sought endorsements heading into next Tuesday's primary. ''I think Nafta is important -- it is an important part of our global economy, an important part of our trade relations.''

''It's important to be straight with people about the jobs issue -- about trade and jobs,'' said Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina. ''The kind of trade policy I'm talking about -- not an extreme trade policy, but the kind of trade policy I'm talking about -- is not going to save all those jobs. And I think people deserve to know that.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE3DF143CF937A15751C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Edwards appears to change his opinions well after he has any real say in what happens in Washington. Recent admissions by Durbin on how the intelligence was skewed when he and Edwards were on the Senate Intelligence Committee didn't stop Edwards with joining up with Joe Lieberman with the flawed IWR. And Edwards voted for the China trade deal, which sucked a lot more jobs out of the US than NAFTA ever did.

You can try to game Obama with half-truths and blogs favoring boutique non-viable Presidential vanity campaigns, but when it comes back to you that Edwards has a track record that goes against his recent political makeover, you should take notice.

[w4rma]

61. zulchzulu, aren't you a 'free' trader? It fits that you are supporting another 'free' trader. (nt)

[zulchzulu]

66. I'm for fair trade, but understand the complexities that free trade is integrated now

Free trade is good if it has important guidelines and terms to equal trade. That's why Obama is for renegotiating NAFTA and perhaps trashing it if the countries involved don't go along with environmental, labor and other standards.

I'm not an isolationist or a protectionist, only because that would be a monumentally economic disaster at this point and a near impossibility due to the nature of immense multi-national interests that would never allow it. I am for trade tariffs and other controls to level the trading field.

And since you want to talk about how I'm an evil "free trader", any comments on Edwards' voting for HR 4444 to allow China to freely trade without ANY stipulations...

[w4rma]

68. Don't lie about Obama. He's never said anything about renegotiating NAFTA unlike Edwards.

And Obama supported the same Chinese free trader bill that Edwards voted for. And Obama still supports it.

[zulchzulu]

72. Two things... the truth indeed hurts...

Obama was not in the Senate when HR 4444 passed and secondly, Obama's site mentions this about NAFTA:

"Obama has a strong pro-labor voting record. Obama voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement and has said that NAFTA should be renegotiated. Obama has cosponsored many important bills to help workers, including: an increase in the minimum wage, and the Employee Free Choice Act. He also championed efforts in the Senate to help air traffic controllers engaged in a labor dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration."

http://obama.senate.gov/press/061023-senator_obamas_office_responds_to_misleading_harpers_magazine_story/index.html

The link was in an earlier post in this thread, but you failed to take notice.

[w4rma]

81. Obama Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm

Obama neglected to mention this free trade bill he supported and voted for.

[zulchzulu]

91. Let's compare Oman to China

Obama voted for the free trade bill with Oman. I've sent an email asking why. But let's compare his vote for Oman with Edwards' vote for China.

Oman has a little over 2.5 million people and less than the size of Missouri...

...or...

China has a population of 1,313,973,700 and counting...

[Zodiak]

96. From the perspective of a lurker

you could have gone without the "I doubt you have the brains" line.

When one resorts to such tactics, one is not convincing anyone of anything.

[rinsd]

48. He did not strongly support Lieberman. That is a pile of dung.

He endorsed Lieberman at a March 31st 2006 dinner for Democrats in the state and gave him a donation about 6 months prior to that. That was the extent of his "politically influential"( at the time Lieberman was some 50pts ahead of Lamont who was barely on the radar) and "financially rewarding" ($4200 given in Feb and March of 2005)assistance.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446

2 weeks before the election he sent out a mass e-mail urging financial support, volunteers and votes for Lamont. He also gave Lamont $5K after he won the nomination.

http://nedlamont.com/blog/1976/barack-obama-writes-emails

http://obama.senate.gov/press/061023-senator_obamas_office_responds_to_misleading_harpers_magazine_story/index.html

I am so sick of bitter douchebags like David Sirota muddying the waters on that. Poor Sirota pissed because his golden boy election image got ruined when he was exposed for the political neopyhte he really was.

[w4rma]

53. Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman

By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
…
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
…
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

Then once Lamont won the primary, Obama only gave tepid support to the man who wanted to beat his mentor in the Senate, Lieberman. Even Hillary gave Lieberman similar support to Lamont that Obama did. Edwards, however was out there campaigning for Lamont.

[zulchzulu]

58. Lieberman AND Edwards sponsored the IWR... any comments?

Considering that Edwards was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee that Dick Durbin said they all knew the intelligence was skewed at best, why did Edwards join hands with Joe Lieberman to sponsor the IWR?

As for Obama's "support" for Lieberman when he was a Democrat, so were many other Democrats, including Barbara Boxer and other progressives. When Lieberman lost and had to run as an Independant, Obama did not support him. Period.

[w4rma]

59. Kerry and Hillary voted for the IWR. You didn't have any problem with the IWR back in 2004.

Back when you supported Kerry over Dean for the nomination.

[bling bling]

62. Maybe because he believed what Edwards was saying at the time.

Guess he's learned his lesson. Unlike you.

[w4rma]

63. He supported Kerry in the primary in 2004. Read please.

I remember excuse after excuse from that poster about Kerry's vote on the IWR and why Dean's opposition to the IWR wasn't important.

[bling bling]

67. Well, back then Edwards was standing by his vote too.

Good thing the OTHER poster learned his lesson about who to trust...

[w4rma]

70. I think it's interesting that the Obama groupies quit defending Obama on his support of Lieberman

in the Senate primary.

I guess you decided it is a lost cause since Obama backed Lieberman, then gave fake support to Lamont while Edwards was campaigning for Lamont.

[zulchzulu]

73. "Obama groupies"...Oh, I see where your lovely mind takes you now

It's duly noted.



:rofl:

[w4rma]

83. I see you're back on Obama's issueless campaign material. (nt)

[bling bling]

74. I think it's interesting that Edwards co-sponsored the IWR.

As to your charge, maybe I decided it's a lost cause, or maybe I've already addressed that issue with you in your own thread here and got no response from you.

But don't bother responding now. Because I've grown tired of going in circles with you over that dumb argument and we both know I'm right and you're wrong.

[w4rma]

84. I think it's interesting that Obama supported his mentor Lieberman over Lamont in the primary. (nt)

[zulchzulu]

89. It's equally interesting that Obama supported Lamont in the election

Granted, Lamont sucked as a candidate and couldn't beat Lieberman...but hey, why not blame Obama for Lamont losing while you're at it...it appears that would be your logic...

:rofl:

[ripple]

92. It's also interesting that most other Senate Dems did the same. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

98. how many people died because Obama gave a speech for Lieberman? None.

How many people died because Edwards co-sponsored and voted for the IWR? Thousands and counting in a pointless war.

[zulchzulu]

76. So did Edwards vote for the IWR? A simple yes or no... n/t

[w4rma]

82. Yes, just like Kerry. Did Obama support Lieberman over Lamont in the primary? A simple yes or no… nt

[zulchzulu]

86. Obama and MANY others endorsed Lieberman when he ran as a Democrat in 06

Here's the list:

Former President Bill Clinton
U.S. Senator Chris Dodd
U.S. Senator and Minority Leader Harry Reid
CA Senator Barbara Boxe
DE Senator Joe Biden
HA Senator Daniel Inouye
CO Senator Ken Salazar
NY Senator Hillary Clinton
IL Senator Barack Obama
IN Senator Evan Bayh
NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg
DE Senator Tom Carper
CA Senator Diane Feinstein
OR Senator Mark Pryor
OR Senator Ron Wyden
NE Senator Ben Nelson
CT Representative Rosa DeLauro
CT Representative John Larson
CT Lt. Governor Kevin Sullivan
CT Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz
CT State Comptroller Nancy Wyman
CT State Treasurer Denise Nappier
Former Democratic Party Chair John Olson
All of Connecticut's State Democratic Legislators
All Democratic CT candidates for U.S. Congress
Both Democratic CT candidates for Governor

There's even more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Endorsements_for_Joe_Lieberman_in_the_2006_Connecticut_Senate_Race

[zulchzulu]

64. Any comment on Edwards knowing secret intel and still sponsoring IWR with Lieberman?

I know it's hard...

As for Dean, he initially supported the IWR but didn't have to have the actual ability to vote for or against it. That's in the past. I like Dean a lot now.

What's interesting in your trying to trash Obama with his support of Lieberman (as well as Boxer and others), you fail to want to talk about how Edwards co-sponsored the IWR WITH Lieberman... it's pretty transparent and pathetic.

[w4rma]

65. Kerry and Hillary had the same knowledge. Don't try to BS anyone into thinking he didn't.

Btw, Durbin backtracked on his statement on saying the intelligence committee knew for sure that the intelligence was faked.

[zulchzulu]

69. Durbin knew the intel was skewed and voted AGAINST the IWR

Point to me where Durbin backtracked on his statement about how the Senate Intelligence Committee knew the intelligence was weak...got a link?

[w4rma]

71. Durbin’s office statement: GOP Propaganda Machine Gets it Wrong Again

GOP PROPAGANDA MACHINE GETS IT WRONG AGAIN

Right-wing publications of dubious integrity – conservative blogs such as Power Line and the ultra-conservative Washington Times – are trying to erroneously portray Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) as waiting years to voice his concern over misleading statements by Bush administration officials regarding the invasion of Iraq.

Background:

What Senator Durbin has said repeatedly is that the unclassified summary of the prewar intelligence findings (publicly released in 2002) contained a troubling assessment of Iraq’s WMD. What the public was told and what Senators on the Intelligence Committee were told in closed session were not inconsistent. The difference, of course, is that the Committee had extensive intelligence, as embodied in the top secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), that the public did not have. The Senator came to the view that the threat described was troubling, but it did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S (and that’s why he offered a floor amendment saying that the use of force was only appropriate if there was “an imminent threat.”)

Durbin has been both outspoken and consistent about his approach to Iraq. He took extraordinary measures to make his position known and to persuade the Bush Administration to change course.

Here are Sen. Durbin’s four key actions on Iraq: (1) he wanted to know what the coordinated Intelligence Community view was on Iraq WMD so he formally request the Administration prepare the NIE; (2) he asked for an unclassified version of the NIE at the same time so the American people would also know what the intelligence community thought; (3) he offered an amendment on the Senate floor that war should only be authorized if the threat was “imminent” -- the key assessment; (4) and he voted against going to war because the evidence wasn’t sufficiently compelling to justify such an extreme measure.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/files/gop_propaganda_machine3.doc
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x807213

[zulchzulu]

75. I'm assuming you didn't read the article...

"What Senator Durbin has said repeatedly is that the unclassified summary of the prewar intelligence findings (publicly released in 2002) contained a troubling assessment of Iraq’s WMD. What the public was told and what Senators on the Intelligence Committee were told in closed session were not inconsistent. The difference, of course, is that the Committee had extensive intelligence, as embodied in the top secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), that the public did not have. The Senator came to the view that the threat described was troubling, but it did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S (and that’s why he offered a floor amendment saying that the use of force was only appropriate if there was “an imminent threat.”)"

That's Durbin retracting his statement?

[w4rma]

79. Obama has voted for every single pro-Iraq War bill that has been presented to him in the Senate.

I posted the wrong article. The basics of the article I was looking for is that Durbin backtracked and said that he felt he that the information presented to him didn't add up, but it was his judgement that Bush was lying. The committee didn't know for sure whether Bush was lying or not. That was the position Durbin backtracked to.

[bling bling]

80. Edwards gung-ho war votes and co-sponsorship of IWR has put Senators in an awful position.

Too bad Edwards quit the Senate or he could be there to take the action he demands of everyone else.

[w4rma]

85. Obama's support for Lieberman over Lamont gave the pro-war supporters more help to keep the war

going and going and going.

[zulchzulu]

87. Pro-war supporters like Edwards co-sponsored the IWR to start in the first place

The truth hurts...

[zulchzulu]

88. The supplementals also support Katrina victims...they must be bad too

Are you going to tell me honestly that the co-sponsor of the IWR (who worked with Lieberman) would NOT vote for supplementals to support the troops and set timelines and benchmarks? I'm talking about someone who is IN the action, not inconsequentially barking orders from the sidelines...

[bling bling]

77. Durbin Amendment No. 4865

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 4865 )
Vote Number: 236 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 04:48 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4865 to S.Amdt. 4856 to S.J.Res. 45

Statement of Purpose: To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

Vote Counts: YEAs 30
NAYs 70

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Allen (R-VA), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Nay .......

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

[rinsd]

94. Check out the date on that article, that's 6 months before the primary

Did you even bother to read my post?

"Then once Lamont won the primary, Obama only gave tepid support to the man who wanted to beat his mentor in the Senate, Lieberman."

He sent him $5K. And now to the matter of the email. Lamont's campaign made up a number and got embarrased when reporters asked the Obama campaign about it. Obama sent out and email to only 225 or so grassroots people. However, that email was posted on Lamont's site, Kos and a dozen other websites for thousands to see.

So in other words you talking point is still BS.

"Edwards, however was out there campaigning for Lamont."

Well he had the free time didn't he? And what better way to build a base and push away that dirty DLC laundry than to draw some of the lemmings from Lamont's base.

[ripple]

93. Street has been bashing on Obama for a while now

It seems Obama isn't black enough or radical enough for him. *YAWN*