I am almost sick posting this article on Obama (very long). Please refute with facts!

[Raven]

Please help me with this. Is the author a nutcase? Are any of these things true? I don't want a flame war over this, just some sober discussion. Is that even possible anymore on this site? And please remember, I'm not a mole or a plant or a freak. I voted for Edwards in the NH Primary and went to Obama after that.

The Obama Illusion - Presidential ambitions from the start
An article by Paul Street
Long before any formal announcement (I’m writing this in early January), it was obvious that overnight sensation Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) wanted to be the U.S. ’s next chief executive. The “charismatic”
Obama was campaigning by at least November 2005, less than a year out of the Illinois state legislature. During 2006, Obama gave grave and “realistic” foreign policy speeches and made appearances on the “Tonight Show,” “Meet the Press,” “Late Night With Conan O’Brien,” the covers and/or pages of Time, Men’s Vogue, Marie Claire, Vanity Fair, and Washington Life. He appeared at the early political proving grounds of Iowa and New Hampshire . He reached across political and cultural lines—making a special point of talking to the religious right. He released a self-promotional book (deceptively titled The Audacity of Hope) that screamed presidential ambition beneath false humility and ponderous, power-worshipping prose. He received the praise, money, positive media attention, and public recognition that a serious presidential run requires. His campaign fundraising Midas touch became a factor in the mid-term Congressional elections. The significance of his ambition and ever-rising stature is enhanced by the fact that the Democrats’ presumed frontrunner, Hilary Clinton, is seen by many election experts and brokers as unelectable.
If the Democrats’ candidate in 2008 is Obama, we can be sure that the right-wing Republican noise machine will denounce the nation’s potential first non-white male president as a dangerous “leftist.” The charge will be absurd, something that will hardly stop numerous people on the portside of the narrow U.S. political spectrum from claiming Obama as a fellow “progressive.” Certain to be encouraged by Obama and his handlers, this confusion will reflect the desperation and myopia that shaky thinking and the limited choices of the U.S. electoral system regularly instill in liberals and some squishy near leftists.

-- snip --
Edited to 3-4 paragraphs to conform to DU's policy relating to copyrighted material
Lithos
DU Moderator

zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/streetpr0207.html





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[neutron]

1. You should read the NYT article on how he Screwed his District

when there were radioactive leaks in the public water system.

After the Nuke people gave him big contributions, he compromised
his safety bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=1&em&ex=1202187600&en=095184f64ec13024&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. Worse than that .. Obama lied in Iowa? Shit

Asked why Mr. Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis. The campaign did not directly address the question of why Mr. Obama had told Iowa voters that the legislation had passed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=2&em&ex=1202187600&en=095184f64ec13024&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[OzarkDem]

63. The "voluntary" argument is bogus GOP -speak

There should never be voluntary regulations where public safety and profit motive come into conflict. That's backed up with plenty of evidence.

[Fredda Weinberg]

88. Agreed. We'll never 'solve' human nature n/t

[rodeodance]

70. and he watered DOWN this nuclear leaks Bill!--and got $$ into his campaign coffers!!

[Fredda Weinberg]

85. Lied in Iowa? Don't you think that's relevant now? n/t

[ecstatic]

2. Raven! I just recommended your other "positive" post, and now this??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4495199

[Raven]

3. I know. I'm sick about this. One of the folks in my peace group sent

it to me just now. I'm sorry.

[thoughtcrime1984]

4. I doubt you are "almost sick"

Nice hit piece. I am not taking a half-hour to refute this garbage.

[SoFlaJet]

5. too long

sorry...I get turned off of posts that look like short stories-how about highlighting some of the most important stuff

[Stand and Fight]

66. Self-Delete

[Pathwalker]

6. You clearly don't know Raven, then.

She is greatly respected by most DUers.

[sharp_stick]

10. Really you know most DUers huh? n/t

[Pathwalker]

16. I know who's been around since the beginning.

If you don't know who Raven is, it says plenty about you.

[thoughtcrime1984]

27. So since I don't know Raven it says something about me?

Give me a break and get over yourself.

[Joe Fields]

77. It says that you're willing to judge a person without a frame of reference.

[Hawkowl]

92. A pox on you newbies

Get over yourself indeed.

[sharp_stick]

30. Really why don't you tell me about me?

You seem to know so much about everybody now, that something now isn't it.

[thoughtcrime1984]

23. Sorry, I don't

This just smacks as a hit piece, intended as such or not. I have only been on DU for 13 months, so I don't know that many folks. I noticed David Brooks from the NYT mentioned in the story, which made me cringe, he seems very pro-Hil.

[ursi]

7. manipulative as Hillary! use snopes.com

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. ...

:eyes:

[thoughtcrime1984]

24. !!!!!

:eyes:

[Duppers]

83. You, Obama4ourfuture, cannot judge someone you do not know!

Yours is an ad hominem attack. Please take the time to address the info and not attack the person. Besides, if you read, she asked that it be refuted.

[davsand]

84. Raven is one of the good folks.

I'm as staunch of an Obama supporter as you can ask for, but I'll get on anybody that goes after Raven the way you just did. You need to sit down and cool off, junior.

This is absolute crap. This kind of thing makes DU a shithole and it makes our candidate look bad on here by extension.

Yeah, I'm another old fart on here--you gonna give me a raft of shit too?



Laura

[thoughtcrime1984]

99. Please read

I have followed up on this thread and did a little research. I apologize to Raven for jumping on her, the other arguments on here swept me into being disagreeable in this thread, which was wrong. I am still learning the "culture" here on DU, and also who has been here, who is respected, etc. I do not wish to be an labeled as a troublemaker here, and would like to converse with knowledgeable Dems in a civilized fashion. And no, I am not going to give you a "raft of shit". I apologize to the others upthread who take offense as well, and hopefully I do not wear the scarlet letter on DU. Peace.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. There Is So Little Light Between Him And Hillary On The Issues

There is so little light betwen him and Hillary on the issues that it has come down to personality and that is why they and many of their supporters hate one another...

[Fredda Weinberg]

13. No ... there's something here. I did not know this before ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=2&em&ex=1202187600&en=095184f64ec13024&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. He Caved To The Energy Lobby

OK... He's not a saint, my friend...Neither is Hillary...

I think what gets under your skin and mine is we are willing to acknowledge the flaws in our candidate while Obama's supporters think he is divine...

That is the genesis of all the acrimony...

That and the media's finger on the scale...

[Fredda Weinberg]

38. I'm sorry for Iowans ... they didn't know this either.

But the future is an open book and we're modifying the content. The time I spent @ DU is worth as much as the $$$ I sent HRC 8 years ago. Early Money Is Lke Yeast indeed ... my loaf is still rising.

[thoughtcrime1984]

29. NYT- Hillary rag

It's pretty obvious we're going to be on opposite sides of the Obama-Hillary fissure. I doubt anyone is really changing any minds around here, anyway. Great place to find arguments, though....

[Fredda Weinberg]

35. Why? I think Obama for our future too ... but not this year.

And this is more than being on opposite sides. If your candidate lied on the campaign trail, the source is irrelevant. Bless you for your effort and in the future, I'm sure we'll be standing arm in arm by the barricade ... I'll be the one saying hello to the cops and their horses.

[Raven]

22. well, you are a breath of fresh air! I mean that. I guess what I did

after JE dropped out was to make my choice and then my own reality. It is disappointing and, at my age, I should know better. Both of these candidates have really let the peace community down but there are other things in that article that really disturb me. I should have just passed it on to Will rather than posting it here.

[Laurab]

69. Raven, unfortunately I think that would be your best bet.

Pass it on to Will. There are so many lies and half-truths in the responses, and that's probably all you're going to get now that DU is kind of a war zone. Hillary people will tell you one thing, Obama people another.

I'm an Obama person, and it looks like a hit piece to me, but I am almost certain Will be able to answer your question far better than anyone has so far, and most likely, he will be able to ease your fears.

[roesch]

51. read between the lines, please

Look mandated health care will not work, in our culture we need a mix of public and private; Obama seems best able to bring this about. Read the NTY article closely to discover while the bill on nuclear plants was watered down, it did bring pressure and disclosure to the industry and is better than the no bill we have here in Wisconsin.
This article is claim and blame, but hey you could read the article in this week's nation on how Hillary's feminist rhetoric does not match her actions( that is obvious) and conclude the same thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. I Do Read Between The Lines

Hillary and Barack are third way, triangulatuing, centrist liberals who have made Faustian bargagains to get where they are and will make more Faustian bargains to get further...But third way, triangulating, centrist liberals are preferable to the reactionary Republicans...

As my young friends say, "Don't hate the playa, hate the game."

[kurth]

11. KEY PHRASE: secret identity as a corporate “player”

Real change for ya

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Do You Really Think There Are Fundamental Differences Between Them

They are both Third Way liberals...

[TwilightGardener]

12. I guess his "most progressive record" in the Senate rating means nothing

in the face of twisted, stream-of-consciousness garbage like this? Why even bother posting that screed here?

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. K&R

[sharp_stick]

15. Pleast try to make this readable

No line breaks, lines crossed out. I honestly have no idea what this says because my eyes hurt trying to get more than a few lines into it.

[sam sarrha]

33. here is the link>>> dont be a snit like the rest.. take a bite.. someone else can expose the next

lie..

if someone doesn't stand up for him.. it may be true.. and you cant disprove it.. i always hear the same righteous indignation, but no beef, or Tofu if you are a Vegan

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

[jonnyblitz]

34. here is a link to the article posted on Zmag website

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

[Yossariant]

39. I second this post! The OP needs paragraphs, at least.

[bluerum]

18. Rambling piece of mind numbing gibberish. Unsubstantiated accusations

and opinion. Not to be considered a serious contribution to any historical record.

And I am neutral on both the big O and Clinton.

I have seen so much of this right wing slime oozing onto DU lately that I am starting to wonder how deeply infiltrated we are.

[hfojvt]

19. you should cut it down to four paragraphs and a link

I think it's now outdated anyway. Why talk about what Obama might promise, when Obama is currently offering his own platform?

[bidenista]

21. fascinating article, and an eye-opener

Could you edit the OP to get rid of the strike-thru text in the second half, and maybe give it a more descriptive title?

:P

[KoKo]

43. Yes...it would be an excellent read ...if it was reposted with a link...

I got through most of it...down to where the lines go through text. It's ruined by not being legibly posted.

Can you let this go to archives and repost?

Thanks for this...lots of information about Obama together in one place. :thumbsup:

[mikekohr]

25. I'm From Illinois, this is a load

Senator Obama's record is solidly Democratic and progressive. He is a friend of labor and working people and his voting record is clearly left of center. He has a reputation in Illinois as a pragmatist, a reformer and a uniter that attracts praise and respect from all across the political spectrum. The above post would seem to infer that the Senator's entire life is a hoax, that he is some sort of "Manchurian Candidate." I'm not going into the details of the lead post, but it appears to be slanted and biased, quoting out of context, with a clear agenda rather than objective reporting.

mike kohr

[Raven]

31. Thanks Mike. This was what I was hoping for...someone from

his home state who has seen Obama in action.

[KoKo]

46. The article gives links which can be read to see if you agree or disagree.

His vote on Nuclear leaks is up on US Govt.org. I didn't see anything that was false information although the writer had come to a conclusion, he allows us to see what made him come to the conclusion that there's much about Obama that wouldn't be appealing to true Progressives. Not everyone on DU is Progressive so they wouldn't really care about what this article is pointing out.

:shrug:

[mikekohr]

53. Obama's Stance On Nuclear Energy

is both pragmatic and principled. In Illinois we have a substantial amount of our electrical power produced by nuclear fuel.

My power is generated by the coal burning power plant at Hennepin, Illinois, which is 15 miles distant from my house. I can see its plume of smoke as I look out my window. This plume adds carbon to the air, and pumps heavy metals like mercury into the atmosphere, which is deposited as far away as northern Canada. There it winds up in the fat deposits of fish, animals and the Native People of that nation. This post is powered by that energy.

But back to the topic, Senator Obama recognizes both the reality of our dependence on nuclear power and our states responsibility to deal with the waste of that power. He has opposed the transfer of that waste to poor, rural, areas like Yucca Mountain in Nevada. That's not so popular a stance here in Illinois. But it is principled, moral and correct.

[hfojvt]

28. Plus, it is not that he is not making some points

However, as he himself points out, if Obama was a radical leftist, he would not advance very far in the primaries.

I certainly would not argue that Obama is the first choice for progressives, only that he is the lesser of evils of the two remaining. Our first choice was Kucinich, but that was the impossible dream. Edwards was much more likely to be viable and hitting many of the right progressive notes. The M$M took him out. Disappeared him, always made sure to mention how rich he is and thus incidentally what a phony he is.

Here's the key, mentioned in the article. Obama threw the DLC under the bus in order to advance his prospects. Clinton has not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. He Needs To Be Seen As A Consensus Figure

He needs to be seen as a consensus figure and because of who he is folks want him to be successful...That allows him to stake out positions that other Democrats would get pilloried for...

I will give you three examples...

He refused to take a picture with Gavin Newsom... In the grand scheme of things it's a small matter... I think a fair inference can be drawn that he didn't want to be associated with a mayor whose claim to fame was marrying gay folks...

The McClurkin brouhaha...In the grand scheme of things it's a small matter, again...But I think a fair inference can be drawn that he was sending a signal to conservative African American voters whose votes he desperately needs...

My favorite... If you look at his rhetoric on the Israel and its neighbors dispute he's clearly as pro-Israel as Hillary... I'm not saying that's a bad thing...It just is...

Hillary plays games...Barack plays games...I think what rankles Hillary's supporters is that he never gets called for it but Hillary always does...

[Sapphocrat]

71. Amen, DSB.

Excellent post.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. Raven

that's unreadable. No line breaks, the strikeout through the last portion, and no link to an original article that's more readable.

[Longhorn]

36. Here's a link:

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

[Raven]

40. Thanks! I've never been able to do those things right. I'm sorry

to have inconvenienced everyone...can I blame it on my age?:)

[KoKo]

47. Ahh...thanks! The article is very readable there...very interesting..

I hope Raven will repost with the link. Lots of interesting information with links that folks can check out on there own if they wish to.

[Tennessee Gal]

37. Here is a link.

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

[AZBlue]

41. If you support Obama, why post something with such obvious fallacies and Clinton-esque memes?

This is very hard to read because of its set-up (no line spaces, stream of thought writing style, strike-through on half the article, etc), but one of the things that stand out nonetheless is that David Brooks is quoted liberally throughout the article. 'Nuff said. Brooks is GOP and therefore supports Clinton. I also notice that Obama is damned for voting for the exact same things that Clinton did (perfect example: second vote on Patriot Act). Anyone could put together a book of opinions against Obama or against Clinton - where are the facts.

Again, I must ask why you'd even post such drivel? (and I'd say the exact same thing about a similarly constructed post against Clinton)

[Raven]

49. Well, I'll tell you why. Because this has been circulated

to a number of peace groups that I'm affiliated with whose members have been leaning toward Obama. These people have pretty well been thrown overboard...first dennis then john edwards. Many of them read this stuff and may decide to sit it out in November. That really worries me because this election cannot be sat out.

Now, I had this very irrational thought that if I brought this here I might get some good information...instead I get complaints from people who don't want to read such a long article, accusations that I'm an Obama hit man, people telling me it is garbage but not telling me why, and whatever else.

I'll put my creds up against anybody else's on this Board. I'll challenge anyone here to match my hours canvassing, tabling, getting signatures, defeating Republicans. I certainly can't compete with the fatheads here who plant their fat asses behind a keyboard and verbally masterbate.

Give me some Goddamn facts!

[AZBlue]

50. I did give a few.

There's google for the rest? I'm actually about to leave to go to the Obama office today so I can call other states so I don't have time to do all the research. Hopefully others will be able to give you a little more. I do apologize for questioning your motives, I understand now. Try posting this in the BO forum - you should be able to get more factual answers without all the rhetoric or HRC-favorable comments. I'll also mention this to other BO supporters and see what they have to say.

[mtnsnake]

56. Hear! Hear!

Give me some Goddamn facts!

Good luck, Raven, getting facts from these people. Around here, facts are like needles in a haystack of innuendo.

[jonnyblitz]

42. I am sure this guy would trash Hillary also. He is critiquing obama

from a very leftish perspective. Hillary would get similar treatment I am sure. We only have two choices to vote for in the DEM party. :shrug:

[pdxmom]

44. Read some of Paul Street's other pieces. He has hated Obama since

the 2004 keynote address at the convention. Most of his writing is overblown opinion (in my opinion, of course) and a spin on many issues. One easy example is “he posted a long article on the liberal blog Daily Kos criticizing attacks against lawmakers who voted for right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.” If you read the blog, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165 you can see that this is a lazy summary about what Obama wrote, and he also neglects to mention that Obama voted against Roberts. He actually leaves the impression with his wording that Obama supported Roberts, in my opinion.

Read over other pieces of Street's writing on various topics and you can then decide for yourself how much credence to give his opinions.

[ProgressIn2008]

48. The tort reform vote

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/politics/11class.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1108184400&en=d3e9f67c62969d2e&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

Handing President Bush a significant victory, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a measure on Thursday that would sharply limit the ability of people to file class-action lawsuits against companies.

The measure, adopted 72 to 26, now heads to the House of Representatives, where Republican leaders say it will be approved next week and sent to the White House for Mr. Bush's signature.

The measure would prohibit state courts from hearing many kinds of cases they now consider, transferring them to federal courts. Experts say many cases will wind up not being brought because federal judges have been constrained by a series of legal precedents from considering large class actions that involve varying laws of different states.

Mr. Bush issued a statement praising the vote, his first legislative victory of his second term.

[KoKo]

54. Here's some info on Obama's vote on Roberts from Jerralyn at Talk Left...

Obama Initially Considered Voting to Confirm Chief Justice Roberts
By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:02:39 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Interesting note on Barack Obama in a Washington Post article on his Chief of Staff Pete Rouse today:

It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

Of course, other Democrats actually voted for Roberts, including Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:6hsLMLPF010J:www.talkleft.com/story/2007/8/27/13239/5301+Obama+votes+for+Chief+Justice+Roberts&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[Auntie Bush]

55. I'm reading...I'll post later if and when I can.

It's hard to believe all those comments.

Why is the last few paragraphs crossed off? Just wondering! Don't have time now to check.

[Armstead]

57. I don't like that aspect of Obama but comparatively...

he's still less enmeshed in stale thinking and cronyism than The Clintons and the DLC.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. Hi Raven, I see the problem progressive face as this:

Neither candidate would be the first choice of progressives.

My candidate was Kucinich, then when he dropped out, I was leaning Edwards (I liked Edwards issues this time around, I was contrasting and attempting to reconcile his current campaign issues with his past voting record and his past campaigns, both in the primaries and for VP. I know what his strong supporters say, that Edwards has changed for the better, and I tend to agree. I certainly want to believe that.

But the problem is that we are left with Obama and Clinton. Between those two choices, for me, the choice is clear. i have to support Obama. I'm not supporting him because he's my natural first choice, I'm supporting him because he's my natural last choice.

Another DUer put it well I think; Obama is like a roulette wheel, and Hillary is like a gun to our head. For a number of reasons I'm hoping Obama will turn out closer to his roots than some of his current actions suggest. On the other hand, I know what Clinton will do, and it's the same thing she's always done, from her roots to the present.

I am quite confident that progressive won't end up worse off for Obama than with Hillary. And I'm hoping we will end up substantially better. I also believe that Obama has a better chance to beat McCain than Hill does.

Here's an interesting article by David Sirota
http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/the-democrats-class-war.html

And and another interesting article by David Swanson (of after downing street org) This pretty well sums up my feelings.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0802/S00055.htm

Don't despair. It's just another election where progressives have to vote and act strategically instead of voting for who we really want.

[KoKo]

61. Those are two incredibly powerful articles... Thanks for the links...

Gotta say the Swanson article scared me so bad....I almost want to send five bucks to Hillary. What a choice we Progressives don't have with Edwards and Kucinich out of the race. We have to vote for what is hoped to be the "lesser of two evils," ..and then hope we can change the lesser evil into something better.

[Emit]

79. Vote in the primaries on Tuesday for the corporate mediocrity with the charismatic and vacuous plati

"...Vote in the primaries on Tuesday for the corporate mediocrity with the charismatic and vacuous platitudes. It's important." (from the Swanson piece)

lol, I'm in the same boat, John Q. Citizen -- was a Kucinich turned Edwards turned Obama supporter in my early caucus.

[earth mom]

59. Yep, Yep, & Yep. Anyone paying attention the past few years KNOWS all this.

Obama is best buddies with Lieberman. That should tell you ALL you need to know. :puke:

[Laurab]

68. I don't know that - I DO know that Lieberman was APPOINTED

Obama's mentor when he joined the senate. If they're "best buddies" why hasn't LIEberman endorsed Obama? "Best buddies" would normally do that. Why would you try to fool Raven with a lie like that?

[earth mom]

72. The article says that Obama "chose" Lieberman to be his mentor.

Did you even read it? Perhaps LIEberman hasn't endorsed Obama because then the cat-that Obama is really a rethug-would be out of the bag now wouldn't it?

From the article:

Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont.

Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races (see Alexander Cockburn, “Obama’s Game,” the Nation, April 24, 2006). Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

Never mind that Obama “dismissively” referred—in a “tone laced with contempt”—to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as “something of a gadfly.”

Or that he chose the neoconservative Lieberman to be his “assigned” mentor in the U.S. Senate.

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

[Laurab]

73. Yes I read the hit piece on Obama.

"The article says" - indeed. I found tons of articles that say he was assigned.

If you do a search, it's very difficult to find a clear answer, except that new senators are assigned a mentor. Obama and Lieberman are not close, and as for Lamont:

"Lamont Gets Lift From Obama"...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/10/26/lamont_gets_lift_from_obama_lieberman_campaigns_with_landrieu/


We can choose to believe what we want to believe from all of the different sources out there. You obviously don't like Obama, so prefer to believe what you've posted. I have read numerous times that Lieberman was assigned to Obama, and never before did I read that he was chosen.

You really should stop spreading lies, or stretching the truth, which is what you're doing. Lieberman is no longer a Dem, and he and Obama are NOT "best buddies", and Obama campaigned for Lamont when it mattered.

[earth mom]

74. Denial much?

:eyes:

[Laurab]

87. No, rarely. You?

:eyes: :eyes:

[earth mom]

93. Better check your blind devotion to your celebrity hero. Or do you buy every thing Oprah sells you?

:eyes:

[Laurab]

97. Really? I've never watched Oprah in my life.

And I have no "blind devotion" to any candidate. I did actual research on all the candidates, and I made my choice that old fashioned way. I don't have to explain that to you, of course, but your assumption about how I chose my candidate are mistaken, and insulting.

I'm done responding to you, and I would use the eye-rolling thing, but really I've been out of grade school for 40 something years now, so I don't want to do it again. I prefer talking to people who have half a brain, and I can't say I see that in you.

[earth mom]

98. You think calling people liars is adult behavior?

You replied to my post in the first place in order to harass me and call me names. And you call yourself an adult?

If you don't like what I say, use the ignore button. But I'm NOT going to stop pointing out Obama's lies/deception, corporate a$$ ki$$ing and petty behavior.

I prefer TRUTH to the cult of celebrity aka Obama's campaign.

[noamnety]

80. During the primaries, Obama campaigned for Lieberman over Lamont

He got on board and endorsed the democrat once the primaries were over, a week or so before the election, but when they were both in the primaries, his choice - the one he went around speaking on behalf of, was Lieberman.

"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://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/


Lieberman claims Obama "chose" him, not that he was assigned randomly. from the march 31 2006 Hartford Courant: "Lieberman told the crowd that Obama had chosen Lieberman as his mentor."

[Laurab]

86. Yes, I know - so did many Dem. Senators

Normally party loyalty requests, if not demands, that they back the incumbent. Many people were unhappy with many senators at the time.

Lieberman can "claim" anything - I have never seen a fact to back it up, and I surely don't trust Lieberman.

[noamnety]

89. They didn't all travel to Connecticut to campaign for Lieberman.

But Obama did.

This is one instance where I actually believe Lieberman - I doubt he would state that Obama picked him as a mentor, knowing Obama would likely find out about it, you know? I suspect the truth is that Obama requested him, and based on that request, that's who was appointed to be his mentor. I think it's far more likely that Obama's campaign is parsing words there, than that Lieberman just made up it up out of the blue knowing that Obama would know it was a flat out lie.

[awaysidetraveler]

60. A Refutation. This article is bogus.

Whenever I come across an article that has widespread misconceptions, I drop it like a hot rock.
I'm not going to pick apart all of the article, because I recognize many of the lies within it.
Once an article is discredited on several main points, I take it to be the poster's job to prove the points within
the remainder of the article.

Fair enough?

"Never mind that Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act. Or that he voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State. Or that he 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. Or that he shamefully distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo . Or that he refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran."

A) Obama voted to re-authorize an amended, toothless Patriot Act that does not violate first amendment rights.
B) Obama had no authority to stop an appointment of Condaleeza Rice by Bush.
C) This is on the Feingold-Obama ammendment. I can find absolutely no evidence of anything indecent here.
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060630-obama_feingold/
D) I can find no evidence that Obama has done anything but support Dick Durbin's criticism of torture practices.
There's ample evidence of Obama's anti-torture policy.
E) I can find no evidence that Obama "refuses to forswear" the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran
from any credible source.

This article is bogus.

[Raven]

62. Thank you! n/t

[noamnety]

64. a couple (actually all) of your points jumped out at me immediately.

A. "Obama voted to re-authorize an amended, toothless Patriot Act that does not violate first amendment rights." <-- The ACLU disagrees with your assessment, calling the reauthorization "cosmetic Changes" that "Fail to Protect American Liberty and Privacy." http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/24417prs20060307.html

B. "Obama had no authority to stop an appointment of Condaleeza Rice by Bush." <-- the complaint is not that he failed to stop Bush's appointment. It's that he actually voted FOR her.

(Do you think senators should vote for the majority position automatically so they can be on the "winning" side, rather than voting for what's right?)

C. You're linking to a completely different Feingold resolution than what the quoted article in the OP is discussing. They are talking about this: "(Obama) 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." You linked to something about lobbying reform.

D. "I can find no evidence that Obama has done anything but support Dick Durbin's criticism of torture practices." <-- I don't think you looked very hard. I googled Obama, Durbin, distancing:

Obama's man took grave exception to my use of the phrase "distancing himself" to describe what his boss had done when Illinois's senior senator, Dick Durbin, got into trouble for likening conditions at Guantánamo to those in a Nazi or Stalin-era camp. This was one of Durbin's finer moments, and he duly paid the penalty by having to eat crow on the Senate floor.

His fellow senator, Obama, did not support him in any way. Obama said, "We have a tendency to demonize and jump on and make mockery of each other across the aisle, and that is particularly pronounced when we make mistakes. Each and every one of us is going to make a mistake once in a while...and what we hope is that our track record of service, the scope of how we've operated and interacted with people, will override whatever particular mistake we make." That's three uses of the word "mistake." This isn't distancing?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/cockburn

E. "I can find no evidence that Obama "refuses to forswear" the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran
from any credible source."

From the same article:

Obama recently declared that when it comes to the US posture on Iran, all options, including military ones, should be on the table.

Perhaps his forswearing of using first-strike nuclear weapons would be clearer if he would actually say "I am forswearing some options" instead of claiming they are ALL on the table. Particularly when he has other statements out there like this: ""Launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."

[WildEyedLiberal]

65. Well I didn't read it because of the poor formatting, but this sentence....

.... "Yes, the brutalized black slaves of racist antebellum America were looking forward to the glorious white-imperialist rape of Southeast Asia when their faith in “better days” would find glorious realization in the napalming of Vietnamese children, the images of which shocked Martin Luther King, Jr. into denouncing the Vietnam war in strident and forceful terms"... tells me all I need to know about the article and the author.

Hysterical, over-emotional shrieking use of language - check

Race-baiting - check

Gratuitous use of the word "imperialist" - check

Conclusion: foaming at the mouth so-far-left-he's-almost-far-right extremist hit piece. Not worth a minute of anyone's time.

[CRH]

67. The author has presented his sources, it is for you to decide if his interpretation is valid.

The author of this article has cited article after article, bill after bill, and Obama's relative position, which allows you to investigate and evaluate the points he is making. Everything he has stated is his perspective of documented votes, speeches, and history. Yours might be a different perspective derived from the same facts.

How much weight you give his interpretation to individual points will depend largely on how you view corporate neo liberal globalization, imperial intervention in other nations' politics and economies, free vs fair trade policies, advancing the rights of corporations beyond those of the citizens, among other attributes or faults of the corporatocracy you live within.

There isn't much difference between neo conservative and neo liberal globalization for the third world countries that experience the usury. The only distinction is the later is more polite in the use of hegemonic economic power as a club, and sometimes the prodding projection and/or use of, military force, to secure an advantageous economic environment for global corporations and first world economies. The primary purpose of either form of globalization, is the control of cheap labor and privatized resources while extending as few rights and accepting as little regulation, as possible. If you believe the US has the moral authority for either form of imperial marauding, then this author must seem extreme.

The domestic effects of either form of free trade globalization, are a declining blue collar workforce, declining manufacturing base, less union influence, privatization of public resources, utilities, airwaves, a larger service sector, the consolidation of family businesses and markets into corporate box store markets, stagnating wages, burdens of taxation gradually shifting to local governments, an increased import economy imbalance, and greater class disparity, to name a few.

The author simply illustrates that Obama's politics are no different than the DLC politics of the Clintons', and it is hard to distinguish through vote comparisons, stated policy beliefs, and corporate sponsors.

Though this article was written some time ago, surprisingly little has changed since then, as the campaign wrapped in the banner of new path to change, has indeed become a force and captured the fantasies of progressives and liberals that something new is really happening, when nothing new really is.

If you are anti-war you must weigh the above usurious hegemonic economic platforms against the likelihood of resulting human rights and the pursuit of peace. Then realize that both the democratic candidates must split hairs to try to find differences within each others policies and votes, and therefore must rely on the relative personality disorders of each other, or experience, or race, or gender, to create distinction. Thus the rancor in the DU Primaries forum, while coke battles pepsi and both rot your teeth.

edit; removed a word

[followthemoney]

75. I absolutely love your response. A pleasure. nt

[demo dutch]

76. Watch the denials begin!

[Bronco_Buster]

78. Obama's presidential ambitions are no surprise

He's a handsome, well-spoken, charismatic politician. He went from law school into private practice into politics. Of course he has presidential amibtions.

Go back and take a look at his voting record, and all the abstains/no-votes, that's usually a good sign that someone is going to make a move. The fewer stands they take, the easier it is for them later on down the road.

It's super smart politics on his part. If you really look at all of his appearances and speeches, they are 20% criticize Bush, 70% generic, and 10% policy/ideas.

With the modern video clip generation, that's a winning combo.

[BlackVelvet04]

81. Well, I think it's pretty obvious he has had presidential ambitions

from the start. That's why he did a preemptive strike with a book telling "all"....but it wasn't really all.

[DuaneBidoux]

82. Why not link. I went and read it all--even if it is all true this author is far left.

When a progressive says that every child should be provided a decent life I say that is unrealistic. As Obama said, a child can be provided a decent shot at life--no one can ever do it for someone. One's life is one's own and we can provide the best environment that can be provided and some will never achieve a "decent" life.

And I have absolutely no problem telling a soldier that I am grateful for his sacrifice for our country even if his sacrifice was wasted by an incompetent and corrupt leader.

Many of the things this guy complains about will be done by 95% of the current Dems, and the simple reality is that noone, unfortunately, can get elected anymore without playing the "corporate" game.

[goodgd_yall]

90. What's wrong with it?

One person's opinion. No, I would definitely not say he's a nutcase. I don't understand what you're concerned about, if concerned you truly are.

[Enrique]

91. the article demonstrates that Obama is pretty much a centrist

is that a shock to anyone?

[cooolandrew]

94. If we ran Jesus himself they woudl be coming after us.Barack is fired up and ready.

[noamnety]

96. Obama is not Jesus.

He's a candidate running for office, and *newsflash* it's the public's JOB to look at his votes, his positions on issues, his past practices, and critique those, for better or for worse.

It is NOT the public's JOB to treat him like a messiah or to believe that questioning his actions is a form of sacrilege.

[mmonk]

95. If negative claims make you squeamish,

maybe you shouldn't read all the ones which will come out unless something really strikes you serious of which, investigate.