So Shoot Me

[NanceGreggs]

I realize it’s just my personal opinion, but I have a right to express it. And I am about to.

I want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. So shoot me.

I trust his judgment, and his ability to navigate what are often troubling political waters without losing sight of our ultimate destination. So call me lost.

I admire his determination, and believe it is focused not on achieving what is best for himself, or even what is best for me as an individual, but what is best for our country. So tell me I don’t see the big picture.

I support not only his ideas, but his ideals – and wholeheartedly so. I want to see those ideas implemented and those ideals adopted, not as some radical new philosophy, but as the norm. So accuse me of being naïve.

I listen to his words and I take them to heart; I find them encouraging, hopeful, and truly inspiring. So call me a hopeless optimist, unwilling to let the American Dream die without a fight. Tell me the fight is useless, or already lost – or simply isn’t worthwhile. I’m not listening.

I watch the way he moves, the way he reaches out, the way he invites dialogue and encourages participation, and I see something I haven’t seen in a very long time – someone who has a solid grasp on reality viewed through the lens of common sense, rather than a tenuous hold on undeliverable promises to be sold to the masses with political rhetoric. So say I’m just a sucker for believing that things can change, and will.

I see in him a sense of fairness, a sense of justice, a sense of purpose, and most importantly a sense of vision of what can be, and what will be – if only we have the necessary fortitude to do what must be done, and the strength to ignore the nay-sayers who say it can’t be done. So remind me that I’m just willfully blind to his flaws.

I love my country, and my fellow countrymen. And more often than not, that love requires a little faith, a little belief in what may seem unbelievable, a little show of strength even you didn’t know you had, and a little willingness to put your trust in someone other than yourself.

I’ve put my trust in Barack Obama – not because of who he is, but because of what he stands for. I refuse to parse his every statement in hopes of unearthing a contradiction he can be skewered with; I refuse to second-guess his every move on the assumption that I somehow know better than he does how to move this nation forward. Most of all, I steadfastly refuse to hand the enemy an ounce of ammunition with which to shoot down the man who stands between real democracy and a continuation of the policies of the last seven-plus years.

And I want him to be the next president of the United States. So shoot me.

[snowbear]

1. Wonderful post Nance ~~ but nope.. not gonna shoot you!

Hug you maybe.. .. but not shoot you..

[NattPang]

2. Many of us agree with you.

Feingold on FISA: Elect Obama to reverse 'terrible legislation'
Feingold conceded that public disappointment following gains for Democrats in the 2006 elections was understandable, but said that a Democratic president, "in particular, Barack Obama, should allow us to greatly change this mistake."

"Barack Obama believes in the Constitution," he continued. "He's a constitutional scholar. I believe that he will have a better chance to look at these powers that have been given to the executive branch, he'll be running the executive branch.

I think he will understand and help take the lead in fixing some of the worst provisions."

"I do think that people have a right to be disappointed," he went on, "but they also have a right to hope for change--on this issue, in particular--starting in January."
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Feingoldon_on_FISA_A_dark_hour_0709.html

[Rocky2007]

108. Spot on!!

Barack can see past what others miss -- he will do the right think down the road.

[Bobbie Jo]

3. Yeah...What she said! K&R

:kick:

[Lilith Velkor]

4. Nah, you serve a good purpose

I'll leave it at that.

[namvet73]

5. No doubt McCain win would be a disaster! Obama is the best choice! n/t

[crickets]

6. Nobody has to shoot you to disagree with your opinion.

Nobody who disagrees is shooting you.

Your fellow countrymen and Democrats who disagree with you at this moment, or who hold doubts rather than your optimism at this moment, are not shooting you. They're just disagreeing with you. They don't love their country less for doing so, far from it. They don't yearn less for hope, nor do they have a weaker grasp on reality.

Even if they still want Obama to be President, as I do, they have an ever so reasonable case for being less than pleased.

As things are in the US today, no one is ever going to shoot you for a political disagreement. If anyone ever does, it won't be me. It won't be anyone from DU. (*cough*Blackwater*cough*)

None of us is standing in the middle of Iraq, where our soldiers, as well the long suffering citizens, know all about being shot over a difference of opinions or beliefs... or just for profit.

I admire your convictions, Nance. I've always admired your writing skills, and I admire your faith in our candidate. Our disagreement has no physical hold on your world or mine. The reasons for it do.

Most of the time, I appreciate a powerful metaphor. This isn't one of those times.

I'll tell you why.

Neither I, nor the others who are disappointed in Obama and most of the rest of Congress right now, are the ones who did politically shoot you on July 9, 2008.

The target - including you and I, and our country - was no metaphor.

Peace.

[JoFerret]

7. And some of us

support gun control and oppose the death penalty.

[crickets]

8. Yes, we do.

Edit to remove "-nt"

Some of us. JFTR, gun "control" and abolishment or serious curtailment of ownership are two different things in my opinion, but that's not really the point right now. Respectfully, if you want to talk about it at a later time, I'm there.

[QC]

40. Yeah, but it's so much fun to play the martyr! n/t

[NanceGreggs]

62. Uh, it's just a phrase I grew up with ...

... "so shoot me", when expressing an opinion that seems to differ from more commonly-held opinions being expressed by those around you.

It wasn't meant literally. And I don't see those who disagree with me on anything as being out to get me.

As I said at the outset, this is my opinion. While so many here have been expressing their opinions on Obama for the past few days, I thought I'd express mine. It's that simple.

[crickets]

246. Fair enough.

I appreciate you being so gracious, Nance. There's another reason why I hold you in high regard whether we agree or not, though apparently we often do. Even though we didn't agree this time, I'd still like to get along.

Thanks.

[NanceGreggs]

247. This board is about politics ...

... not personalities. I don't take anything said here as personal.

Disagreement - even the most vehement disagreement - among fellow party members (and friends) can be the healthiest exercise we engage in every day.

It causes less sweat than weight-lifting, doesn't require membership in a pricey health club, the outlay for equipment is minimal - and it leads one to think, and recognize that someone else's perspective might have as much value as one's own.

If ONLY debating politics on DU burned calories, none of us would ever have to diet again!

[crickets]

249. Yes, I know how political boards work.

I was being polite. It does happen. The newbie lecture isn't necessary.

If ONLY debating politics on DU burned calories, none of us would ever have to diet again!

That we can agree on. :)

[NanceGreggs]

250. So sorry ...

... I didn't mean to imply that you were unfamiliar with the drill. Just stating that I don't take things personally here, and why.

And that was a classic case of how easy it is to misunderstand each other's intentions - which, unfortunately, is part of posting on a message board, where words can sometimes be misconstrued - and too often are.

[crickets]

252. Very true.

Truce and peace.

[NanceGreggs]

253. Truce unnecessary ...

... we were never at war.

Peace needed everywhere - where do we begin?

[bread_and_roses]

169. Well said (n/t)

[QueenOfCalifornia]

211. I would like

to recommend your post but can't.

You said exactly what I would have like to have said to Nance.

She has been a favorite of mine but on this point I just can not agree.

So, thank you for making some order out of my scattered thoughts.

:hi:

[shayes51]

221. I've been shoot on DU lots of times.

I was a Hillary supporter. You'll recover from your wounds.

[styersc]

9. Your post sounds like the rationalizations of an abused spouse.

Very sad.

These can be statements given to a rural deputy sherrif outside of a seedy trailer by a crying woman with a black eye.

[The Doctor.]

56. Wow. That's a real talent you have there.

I haven't seen an analogy stretched so far since Gay Marriage was likened to the fall of civilization as we know it... much to the joy of the Box Turtle.

So... will you be turning him over to the deputy, or will you, like the forlorn victim of abuse you'd have to be, vote 'yes' to this monster of a human being?

[NanceGreggs]

63. ...

:rofl:

[sniffa]

151. Ignored said something funny

:o

[NanceGreggs]

152. Very, VERY funny ...

... inadvertently, of course.

:rofl:

[Daemonaquila]

66. Now, Wait A Minute....

That's rather uncalled for. I've been disappointed in BO for the past couple weeks, but like many others I'm still rooting for him and hoping he gets it back together to be the "old" BO rather than this odd "new" BO.

But to say that she (or anyone else with those feelings) is acting like an abused spouse is plain silly. Every politician is going to upset and disappoint us... sometimes. The ones we love are the ones who do it least, and who pleasantly surprise us the most. What - we're supposed to walk away every time we want to smack someone we support over the head with a baseball bat for pulling some boner? He's got a way to go before reasonable folks should contemplate walking away.

And to what? McSame? Ralphie? Gah.

[pipi_k]

111. I think Nance made it pretty clear

that her opinions were her opinions.

Which she's entitled to, and have nothing whatsoever to do with mental or physical abuse conducted between domestic partners.

As far as I know, Nance and Barack don't exactly live together.


Besides which...in the scenario you describe, the most eloquent "rationalizations" coming from an abused spouse in a seedy trailer park are the words...

"But I loooooooooove him!!!!!!


:patriot:

[Imagevision]

117. -->"rationalizations of an abused spouse"? you really need to re-read this post

[H2O Man]

10. Nominated.

Very good.

Not only is the OP a pleasure to read, but some of the responses are a giggle, too. In particular, I think that response #9, which illustrates the dangers of taking short-cuts to logical thought, shows the value of your essay.

Keep up the good work.

[sniffa]

11. Oh, your invite to OET is definitely off the table now

:D

:kick:

[TBF]

106. I am a member at OET and I would welcome Nance.

We're not the enemy, sniffa. As far as I know everyone posting at OET is a dem, but I don't think there's any litmus test to get in. And at DU it is perfectly fine that there is. This is a place for supporting Obama and getting together for advocacy. I pay my monthly subscription fee because I can find out news faster here than anywhere else, and I've been made aware of some great resources here just by reading posts. Right now my most important focus is helping out Rick Noriega locally because he's got a real shot at knocking John Cornyn out of his Texas senate seat.

I've given $700 to Obama so far, so I believe that illustrates my support adequately. I'll admit confusion to some of his "nuances" lately, but I've chosen to question those elsewhere because this isn't the place for it. There is no way in hell I'll vote for John McCain. I have a one year old son who will NOT be sent to the Middle East as part of his "100 year war" plan. So along with stating that NanceGreggs is a kick-ass writer no matter what the subject, I'll leave y'all to it. Peace.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TBF]

131. Sure, I can only speak for myself.

On OET you'll see different views, that's the kind of site it is. Have a good evening :)

[sniffa]

143. As I said, free speech is wicked pissah!

:)

[sui generis]

219. it's not the free speech here that matters

it's the glowing support of one's peers after exercising it. Or in the case of some, the farting aimed in their zheneral die-rection.

how ya doing sniffa? eh. probably just got a reply from ignored. :shrug:

[sniffa]

241. I'm doing ok

It's Friday, and time for the weekend. :hi:

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barack the house]

12. Exactly vision is a very profound thing because when it is strong the path there is just details.

[tkmorris]

13. Nance, you have a gift for writing inspiring words

And you have done so here. However, I submit to you, that inspiring words based upon a mistaken premise are still just that, mistaken. You have told us all of these wonderful things that you believe Obama to be, and have done so in a beautifully evocative way, but there is no substance. You have not made a persuasive case WHY you feel this way, merely that you do.

That isn't enough. Not anymore.

[uberblonde]

14. Anyone who votes for a politician as a person....

Rather than the policies of that politician, is going to be sadly disappointed.

[cali]

16. I've voted for Pat Leahy the person

and Bernie Sanders the person, every bit as much as I've voted for their policy positions. I'm not a bit disappointed.

[H2O Man]

18. Right.

It can work in the opposite way, also. There are some people I would always vote against, regardless of their position on a given policy. It is possible to identify some people as untrustworthy, and to vote against them.

[blondeatlast]

47. As an Arizonan, I've been doing that my entire voting life. Sometimes it's all I can do. nt

[groovedaddy]

15. The nerves may be a little raw...but they don't call it politics for nothing!

I'll give Obama this: he recognizes the limitations of what he can do as President AND he encourages we citizens to step up to the plate and play our proper roll in the process. If we don't participate, we don't stand much of a chance of turning things around.
That process begins with supporting the candidate of your choice (we've done that) and now proceeds to forming a party platform that represents us and one that Obama will be obliged to fulfill once he's elected. This is where the bulk of our conversations should be focused right now - the Party Platform - and reaching out to our convention delegates with our ideas and requests.
Personally, I want to see our country abandon the so called "free trade" economic policies that have been designed primarily to make the rich richer. I want us to get back to the Keynesian economics of Franklin Roosevelt. It's time to take our country back and focus on the greater good of the whole.

[lame54]

23. Over the FISA bill many people "stepped up" and he brushed us aside

[TexasObserver]

17. So you're saying it's rational to vote for Obama?!

I think you're on to something here.


You know, Nance, we haven't had this good a candidate since Bobby Kennedy, and you'd think Democrats would be unified. But NOooooooo. It's same old carping by the same old carpers we hear from every four years.

[democrattotheend]

39. Agreed

Obama may not be perfect but he's the best candidate we've had in a long time. Nobody can please everyone all the time.

[calimary]

55. Something good to keep in mind. Yeah, I'm annoyed at him for the FISA vote,

but the alternative is - - - ?

He may not be perfect, but he's there, he's willing, he's pretty damned good overall, and he's OURS. So I'm supporting him. And remember, I'd rather have him deciding on a new Supreme Court justice than the alternative. And I'd rather have him staffing the Defense Department, the State Department, the Justice Department, and the National Security Council (and everything else, for that matter) than the alternative, too. Probably won't find many PNACers in strategic places with Obama doing the hiring.

PS - so don't shoot either one of us!

[TexasObserver]

115. I'm trying to imagine a candidate who agrees with me AND can get elected.

If one self identifies in the leftmost 30% of the country, one should know that the successful presidential candidate for us will likely disagree with us on some important matters. Otherwise, they will never get elected.

[ElboRuum]

69. My usual feeling on this...

...is that if you want a politician to meet you point for point... you'll have to be the one running for office.

[TexasObserver]

113. Isn't that the truth? I've never expected that of a politician.

Anyone who is with me 75% of the time is as good as I'm going to get.

[Egnever]

80. Hey now!

I carpped plenty last go around....This time I couldn't be more pleased with our choice.

[TexasObserver]

114. Hey Now, Hank?!

Great show, and great role!!

[DWilliamsamh]

19. Nance this is the first time you and I are slightly out of sync

I want Barack Obama to be President. I have donated and will donate again starting next month. But I AM taking a month break from financial support, though my spiritual and advocacy efforts on his behalf continue. Here's why: on THIS specific issue, the FISA bill he just voted for, he was not only wrong and in disagreement with me and what I want, but the Constitution of the United States. For what I can only think is some effort to gain the votes of people who will not vote for him in the General, he positively affirmed the destruction of one of our fundamental 200 year old rights.

My mother used to have an interesting way of framing something as unchanging and inviolate. She used to say "as long as you're black...." followed by the inflexible reality of the world. Well as long as I am Black I will forever remember that our representatives, including Barack Obama, passed what was a clear affirmation that the President of the United States shall have the lawful ability to spy on American Citizens without a warrant, and without court review. It doesn't make me feel any better about it that soon that President will be Barack Obama.

[groovedaddy]

It's an awfully big tent. Those who have an expectation of "unity"

in the Democratic party are, to put it quite simply, naive. Come on, when has this party EVER been "united?"

[DWilliamsamh]

81. Oh believe me.... I know after twenty years of paying very close attention that's a pipe dream

I never expect (very much like Nance and other realistic people) that ANY candidate will agree w/ me 100% of the time and they all piss be off at one point or another. I never take my marbles and go home, and won't this time either.

[Blue_Roses]

20. k&r

:kick:

[DaDooRonRon]

21. Yawn - sounds like an e-harmony commercial

Although you do get points for being able to say the same thing over and over and over and over again and still pretend it's all brand spanky new.

Buy pillows - the fall from grace is really gonna hurt those who don't see it coming.

See/speak/hear no evil true believers, especially.

[The Doctor.]

123. Coming from an avowed anti-Obama poster, that's quaint.

When you can tell us how to get the perfect candidate in the White House, I'm sure everyone will hang on your every word and then go for it.

But we're up against the corporations, and although I'm certain they're not in favor of Obama, even if you're right, and he's 'in their pocket', your two choices are still "McCain" and "Obama".

If you can't choose Obama, then stop working at convincing others to abandon him too.

We have a Democratic candidate we need to get into the White House, and when people like you go around giving reasons for others not to support him, you're working against him, Democrats, the American People, and the World. Just in case I have to explain it to you because you think that's some kind of hyperbole; "If McCain wins, we're ALL fucked." At least with Obama there's a chance we could fix something.

If you can't wrap your head around that, then you needn't be here.

[DaDooRonRon]

140. Oh that's easy

You could vote for him or her, for starters.

You could actually act on the "principles" you say you have.

You could build alternative parties that are not held hostage by corporate money.

Or, you could pretend that you actually do all of that and chastise those who think otherwise, tap your toes and go "I think we can I think we can" while being played for the perpetual sucker.

Which seems to be the path you've chosen.

BTW, as long as the Purple Party holds a monopoly on the farce we call democratic voting then we're ALL fucked.

It just doesn't hurt as much initially if you go Corporate Blue, but you're still knocked up in the end.

Pun intended.

Oh, and if you think actually pointing out things that a particular candidate does constitutes working against him then I think you may need to re-examine your concept of full disclosure. I assume you do cartwheels when McCain is exposed for the crazed fraud he is, so one would expect equal treatment under the law for Obama as well.

There is no "except in cases of the ones you like" phrase in the definition, although I'm sure you'd like to amend it to make it so.

[The Doctor.]

145. And what happens when people try to do that?

Seriously, I'd like to follow through on this, let's try to keep it concise.

When we want to;

-Start new parties.

-Vote our conscience.

-Put the 'best' people (integrity is discoverable) into office.


What happens? Or, more to the point, 'What keeps it from working?'.


Seriously, follow through.

[DaDooRonRon]

157. Here ya go "doc"

-Start new parties.

Never said that - I said "build alternative parties", meaning build the existing alternatives. Upon further review the initial statement may look to many as it did to you. My bad.

-Vote our conscience.

Is there a lock on your voting box? No one is stopping you. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one small step and all that. Do you have town/city races with third party candidates in them? If their views are your best "fit" are you voting for them? If so, why does this logic not extend out to state/national races? When does having to "win' trump voting for who is best?

-Put the 'best' people (integrity is discoverable) into office.

See above. Question: do you believe that "best" has a shelf life - i.e. you can only vote for "best" for X number of years, as the consequences are too dire? If so, you lack the courage of your proposed convictions and are instead looking for a quick fix which is of course no fix at all - merely a resting point until the next level of evil gets its turn.


-What happens? Or, more to the point, 'What keeps it from working?'.

Um, you do. Every time you vote for the "winner" (which is nothing more than not voting for the other guy) instead of voting for who you KNOW would be the best leader) you legitimize a corrupt system and make it harder for those of us who want actual change (not focus grouped bullshit) to get a foothold.

It's all in your hands "doc."

Seriously now - follow through.

(Please excuse the lack of a future quick response on my part - I am off to the airport and will try and get back here tomorrow if you'd like to continue)

[The Doctor.]

218. Ummm... changing the phrasing doesn't change the meaning here. Nice dodge.

I asked a question, and you decided not to answer it by, uh, suggesting "Start new parties" and "Build alternative parties" are all that much different.

Maybe English isn't a strong suit, but "Alternative" and "new" and "start" and "build" are intrisically the same in this instance.

So take my question; "When we want to; -Start new parties. What happens? Or, more to the point, 'What keeps it from working?'."

...make it a 'completely different' question :eyes: ;

"When we want to; -Build alternative parties. What happens? Or, more to the point, 'What keeps it from working?'."

And now you should be able to answer it. :silly:


As for the others, the question was "What keeps these things from working?" not; "Tell me what to do", or "How can this work?".

There's a trick to answering questions, first you have to understand the question and what it's asking.

When the question is; "What keeps voting our conscience from having an effect?", the answer is not "Just do it.". You see, the question presumes that there are people 'just doing it'... but it's 'not working'.

Right?

Stay with me big boy... I know you can do this.

I must have used too complex a structure, as it appears you didn't recognize that those were three distinct questions with a single theme. Sorry for that.
Just to avoid confusion, I'll keep the question formats simple. Trust me on this... I'm not 'arguing' with you, I'm trying to take a walk through discovery in the hopes that you're bright and earnest enough to come along.
So I'll ask each one individually to avoid confusion;

"When we want to 'build alternative parties', What are the obstacles?"

"When we want to Vote our conscience, why is that not effective?"

When we try to put the 'best' people into office, what prevents us?"

Now, I know that these questions are complex, but do your best to answer them and we'll go from there.

[DaDooRonRon]

236. Now doc, condescension never works unless you hold the high ground

You can't even find high ground with a topo map, so it's best you don't go that route, OK?

It's pretty clear you are bereft of answers, and since (per your custom) you just can't seem to come up with answers you've gone to that old favorite, "the dodge." Normally a mainstay of the right, it can (and is used) by many here when coming face to face with a mirror, but I guess when you got an empty gun ya gotta use pretend bullets.

Now, what part of "you're the problem" escapes your synapses there, ace? Work with me here - YOU legitimize a corrupt process by maintaining it. See how easy that is?

It's YOUR fault. Not mine for opting out - yours for staying in. You want it ended - get out and vote. Tell your friends. Organize at grassroots levels. Push for open debates and equal public financing for all candidates that meet a 5% threshold after same. Quite simple, unless of course you do everything in your power to de-legitimize third parties and then crow about how they'll never get anywhere. But NOBODY does that, right doc?

When I was young we had reading comprehension booklets in school - color coded. The easy ones were the primary colors, and as you progressed you got the purples and the violets and the pinks.

You strike me as a yellow.

Gotta run - it's time for my SOMA and I'd hate to miss the next episode of "how to shred the fourth amendment but still get elected."

Now where's my checkbook...

[The Doctor.]

238. Right. You can't answer, you aren't interested in discussion, so you attack me.

When someone is willing to spend time working through complex issues, identifying problems, and divising solutions with you, it might behoove you to choose enlightenment and discovery over contention and ignorance.

I'm so glad that you think your approach is so very effective, and that the best way to get past the problems that are keeping what you want from becoming reality is to ignore them. In fact, I'm sure that going around calling people like me names and telling us what to do without knowing what obstacles we face has been so effective, that the dream candidate is already in the White House.

Let me put it another way; What you want isn't happening, and you aren't willing to find out why.

Oh, I'm sure you'll just go on blaming the world for all your dissappointment.


That's the 'color' of ignorance after all.



Bye.

[lame54]

22. He fucked up on FISA...

Fire away

[The Doctor.]

70. How so? Please do explain.

I'm all ears... err... eyes.

[orleans]

87. i think he did too. i was hoping he'd stand on principle. guess not. n/t

[The Doctor.]

124. Yet no one can really explain what he did wrong except "look bad to the base".

Seriously people... get some perspective.

I'll be happy to explain further if necessary.

[JuniperLea]

130. He voted for a BushCo policy that was flawed to begin with

There was never anything impeding the spying on terrorists when you consider the three day window of opportunity to report said spying to the court... after the fact! Nothing wrong with that at all.

Voting to further bastardize the Constitution can only be a bad thing no matter how you slice it.

I'm still voting for Obama, but it pains me that I'm feeling more and more like I'm pledging my vote to the lesser of two evils. There's nothing "hope and change" about that. That is status quo.

[The Doctor.]

141. And if he voted against it, it surely wouldn't have passed, right?

That's what you guys are missing here.

I'll explain it again;

THERE WAS NOTHING Obama could have done to stop this bill's passage. Voting against it might have made his base happy, but it would have given the RW machine a nice chunck of their favorite ammo.

What did he do?


He stepped in shit to dodge a bullet. Meanwhile, if he decided to take the bullet instead, the bill still would have passed.

He's running for PRESIDENT. He has to make some bad choices that will suck either way. In this particular calculated risk, he kept a crowbar from the hands of the machine that would have used it to pry away moderates while having faith that his base would understand.

Unfortunately, too many still don't understand that a candidate can't stand on narrow principles and still have the best chance of being elected.

Just because he didn't do what he "should" have done doesn't mean he's "abandonned" any true principles.


Now, if he could have vetoed the bill, but chose to let it pass, THEN he would have abandonned his (and our) principles.

Now why didn't he just do that?

[JuniperLea]

144. No, you are missing the point.

His vote meant nothing to the outcome, so he wasted a chance to keep his integrity for nothing.

He promised change but acted on the status quo.

"Unfortunately, too many still don't understand that a candidate can't stand on narrow principles and still have the best chance of being elected." - that is utter hogwash and balderdash... bovine excrement... did you have to stand on your head with a mirror in each hand to twist that around?

:eyes:

[The Doctor.]

147. Wow. Telling me I'M missing the point while ignoring half of what I wrote.

Again; "THERE WAS NOTHING Obama could have done to stop this bill's passage. Voting against it might have made his base happy, but it would have given the RW machine a nice chunck of their favorite ammo.
What did he do?
He stepped in shit to dodge a bullet. Meanwhile, if he decided to take the bullet instead, the bill still would have passed."

Add to that the fact that you have to resort to insults rather than constructive dialogue and it's clear you're not worth discussing this with.

If you can't understand or acknowledge what someone says, let alone discuss it rationally, then maybe you should do something else as you are adding nothing to, and learning nothing from, these discussions.

[JuniperLea]

148. Good God

What a crock. Doing the wrong thing to appease the GOP is pretty disgusting. Did you read what you wrote?

I acknowledged plenty... you didn't understand it. If that somehow makes me a bad person. So be it. Boo!

[The Doctor.]

184. Ok, fine... you're a bad person.

Who said ANYTHING about "Appeasing the GOP"?!?

No dear, just in case it hasn't occured to you, the general center of the nation isn't "GOP". And those people can fall for the media's "Weak on Terrorists" narrative (brought to you by Neo-Corp™) unlike those who are truly informed who know better... these people aren't necessarily so attentive or astute with regard to politics... like, say... you are.

I said... "Unlike those who are truly informed".


They aren't "The GOP", because there's simply no way on Hell's green earth the GOP would EVER (think about it) throw their support behind obama anyway. We already know that the Media is full of shit... they (the center) are not so generally aware.

K?

[JuniperLea]

I'm not a bad person... your perception seems askew...

"...but it would have given the RW machine a nice chunck (sic) of their favorite ammo."

This reason of yours for Obama supporting Neo-Cons is nothing short of appeasement.

[The Doctor.]

201. That was TiC.

You call it support, yet you can't acknowledge that there was nothing he could have done to stop it, nor can you asknowledge that fighting it would have presented a greater liability just for the sake making you feel better about him while accomplishing nothing of substance.

I get what you're saying, you want absolute and unimpeachable integrity in your candidate. Well, that would be nice, I agree. But tell you what... if the price of exhibiting integrity for no substantial outcome is the Presidency, then my candidate can forego integrity for a single vote.... especially if it costs us nothing for him to do so.

Why can't you get that?

[JuniperLea]

202. Jesus... try reading what I've already said before you accuse me of not acknowledging or responding.

Why can't you get that when people are promised change they sort of expect things to be different?

[The Doctor.]

205. I do get that. So explain what he could have 'changed' by opposing the bill.

?

[JuniperLea]

208. He would have NOT lost integrity...

He threw his integrity out the window with this one. No amount of spin, no contortions known to humankind, can make it appear otherwise.

[The Doctor.]

212. Right, it's gone forever and he'll never be able to do anything right from here on out...

:eyes:

Please.


You're right, he would have been a lot better off giving the RW a tool to shoot down his chance of becoming President. I mean, so what if he became President... it's not like that would put him in a position to do anything. :eyes:

Look, I'm not the one who's missing a thing here.

You want a candidate that will stand up for what we believe is right at any cost... even the cost of the Presidency.
I want a candidate that will do what it takes to become President so he can do what we believe is right.

As a Jr. Senator, there was nothing he could have done to stop the bill.
As President, he can stop almost any bill, and more.

You want 'feel good' integrity.
I want substantive change.


What you're talking about has no empirical effect on you, me, or the world at large. His 'integrity', if he so chose to stand by it, would have gained us nothing of substance, and potentially cost him support from the center.


I live here in reality where I want real things to happen for the best. Keep reading the above line until you can show me you get it... whether you agree or not isn't important, what is is that you understand that he did no harm by letting this issue go. You and I may not like it, but in the balance the only thing that would have changed was to give the RW something to pry center support from him.


If you want him to become President, then you're going to have to accept that he must do some things that you don't agree with.


Why can't this get through to you?

[JuniperLea]

213. I want him to be president, but I don't have to accept jack...

Why can't this get through to you?

I think he did give the RW a tool... they are going to say, see! He's already showing his true colors. He says one thing then does the other. The RW loves that shit.

[The Doctor.]

215. No, you don't have to 'accept' it I suppose... but

would it kill you to understand it?

Look, the RW is going to hammer the 'flip-flop' thing to death. Luckily for us, that has no where near the teeth that the ads claiming that;

"Barack Obama is AGAINST listening in on terrorists. Barack Obama voted AGAINST a law that would make it easier to find them, and bring them to justice." - would.

{Likely with video of terrorists making phone calls and bombs in the basement next door to where a bunch of children are playing in a back yard.}


Look, you might not think that has an effect on the 'center', but there's a reason they're the 'center'... they could go either way, especially on national security and economic issues. He made a choice to appear strong on terror for the sake of keeping the center that will give him the landslide victory in November.

You think that what he did will cost him votes.
I think what you wanted would have cost him many more.

Apparently, Obama and I are in agreement, and since it's his campaign for the Presidency, I'm going to believe that he just might have some clue about what he's doing.

If you don't think he knows what he's doing, write the campaign.

[JuniperLea]

216. I think it's a crock! Why would I give it any credence at all? I understand what you are saying...

I understand it perfectly well, and I say it's a crock. We don't have to agree on this. We can agree to disagree.

The fact remains that a lot of people now understand that FISA is just plain wrong, that there was no reason to go beyond the three-day window of opportunity to advise the court that spying took place... TOOK PLACE... that is after the fact. How does that hinder our ability to spy on terrorists?

[The Doctor.]

227. Obviously I agree with you on FISA, but our understanding of FISA is irrelevant

to how it would be used against him.

He was in a shitty position, and he took the path of least potential damage at the expense of disappointing people.

Like I said; "He stepped in shit to dodge a bullet."

There was nothing he could have done to stop it. You realize that. So whether he stood against it or not, it was going to pass. Right? So he chose to avoid the damage from taking a stand against something he could have done nothing about.

That your feelings and sense of right are so hurt I can do nothing about. And even though I didn't like it either, it was his call to maintain his best possible chance of becoming President. Not yours, not mine... his.

I believe he made the right choice because the center isn't as well-informed as you seem to think. (Otherwise they wouldn't be in the 'center', they'd be liberals by now.)

You believe he made the wrong choice because, let's face it; it was a bad bill.

Well, I'll say it again; standing on principle would have done nothing to stop the bill and opened him up to a particularly bad, and probably effective, attack.


I think he did the right thing for the sake of becoming President. You think he did the wrong thing for reasons of principle. I don't disagree with that, I'd just rather he wins. Voting for one bad bill does not forever rob him of his ability to do right or make substantial change. To think so is just silly. It doesn't mean he will be a bad President.


The bottom line on substance is this; You think he cost himself support, I think he saved it.


C'est la chemin.

[JuniperLea]

232. His ability to stop the bill has nothing to do with it, and I don't believed he dodged a bullet

That is the bottom line for me.

His vote had no bearing on the passing of the bill. His vote was against my moral code, my ethics, and I thought he shared that with me. This was a heart crushing blow... I'd never, ever think that one could damage oneself by being true to a code of ethics... there is no good reason for this, ever.

He had plenty of backing. McCain would mean four more years and everyone with any sense at all knows this. If they have no sense, they are going to vote McCain anyway. I don't agree that this won him any favors at all. I think he lost more than he gained. Time will tell. You and I can only speculate at this point.

I think he hurt his chances of being president. He promised change, then did the opposite. This isn't good at all.

And I'm not silly, nor are my thoughts. His actions here show he is not as ethical as I thought he was, so there is no assuming he will be good president at this point. Better than McCain, sure. The dog doo on my front lawn is better than McCain. And Obama could eat puppies on the White House lawn and still be better than McCain. I believe this current action narrows that margin. It shows he isn't above playing politics... which would be real change.

[The Doctor.]

234. Unfortunately, the only reward for 'not playing politics' is

to cease being an elected official.

At some point or another, you have to engage in politics to, err... hold political office. It's the nature of the beast, and it doesn't necessarily mean Obama isn't ethical.

You choose to see it that way, and I see why you do. I just hope you can understand what I'm saying.

[JuniperLea]

235. I do understand what you are saying...

I just disagree. Politics as we have come to know it has changed. Even the Bushites have dwindled to 23% or so. I don't see how losing one's integrity whilst pandering to a crowd that may no longer exist is engaging in politics. Not much we knew before holds true now, and I don't see how sticking to old ways is going to fly in this new age.

[MadMaddie]

158. So in a game of chess do you openly leave your chess piece

King or Queen unprotected?

Think about it...the only thing that the Republicans have is that "Obama will be weak on protecting the country"! If Obama would have voted against FISA this would have left him open to the onslaught of attacks about being soft on Terrorism...blah..blah...blah..

What is not spoken about much is..
1. As others have said Obama's vote wasn't the deal breaker, it was important for the country to see him vote for the bill.
2. The bill is as pourous as the emptyness in McCains head..There is absolutley nothing that says the criminal prosecution cannot occur..only civil lawsuits can't occur.
3. Once Obama is President he will either scrap the bill or fix it.

Whether we like it or not it was a vote for self preservation and the chance to win the biggest prize of all the WH.

[rpannier]

166. Question about #3

3. Once Obama is President he will either scrap the bill or fix it.

You know this how???
I'm rather curious.
Because unless you are Mr Obama or are a member of his elite inner-circle, you really have no idea what he'll do.

[MadMaddie]

170. Obama is a man of the Constitution...people seem to forget

that....he has said in the past that the bill is flawed.

Whether I am a mind reader or it's a gut feeling if and when there is solid Democratic majority in the House and Senate the bill will be changed.

Do you ask these questions about McCain? or is it just the Democratic Nominee.....I have come to accept that I won't like every move he makes as with any candidate but he is our Demoratic candidate and our job is to get him in the WH to save this country...

But you didn't answer my first question...Do you leave your Queen and King exposed in a game of chess? Because that game plan was used by Kerry and he got his ass kicked...the useless Democratic Congress is getting it's ass kicked by a minority of Rethuglicans.....

When the Democratic Party starts fighting the Rethuglicans in an all out brawl...then we will see change. Obama smacking down Phill Grahamm today is a perfect example....

[NanceGreggs]

174. Way to go, MM!!!

Excellent response, and apt analogy!

I think that's part of the problem - too many people want Obama to rush to the other side of the board and yell, "King me!" - not realizing this is not checkers, but chess - and thinking at least eight moves ahead is paramount for a decisive win.

[MadMaddie]

248. Thank you Nance.!

Obama has been quite nimble in his actions and reactions to unfolding events...his is patient when he needs to be and he reacts when it is required....just as many Great Chess players have done.

:hi:

[rpannier]

175. If you had posited the same point about mcbush I would have asked you the same question

I would argue that a man of the Constitution would not have voted this way.
I would also argue that he will have an impossible task at reversing telecom immunity that has been granted (and even if he tries I doubt he'll succeed).

As far as your chess analogy goes, there are many ways to achieve foreign policy credentials. I was less disturbed by his Iraq comment than I was about his FISA vote.

He could have taken the mcbush tactic and just stayed away.

Mcbush did not vote and Obama should have taken that tact.
By voting for it, he sacraficed his knight, bishop and pawn to save his queen.

His vote will not derail his campaign, but his recent comments over a variety of issues are beginning to make people on the left nervous.

edited to add the word not in front of derail

[sui generis]

200. the constitution my dear

defines and protects the rights of individuals.

When a law is used to grant greater rights to a social group, multi-member entity, or legal organization to usurp the rights of an individual it's more than a bit "flawed".

It's un American. If it were "okay" then there would be many fewer of us who have a problem with it. We're not just stupid complaining whiners - we find fault with it because we believe it really does matter.

It also matters because it shows where Barack's head is - once again speaking to everyone except the individuals standing right in front of him. That's not a strategy, it's a mistake.

[JuniperLea]

204. Well said, sui generis! eom

[The Doctor.]

186. So much more bloody succinct

than anything I could have said so clearly.

[Imagevision]

220. No, you are missing the point! - He stepped in shit to dodge a bullet.

Go Doc!

[sui generis]

199. r u being sarcastic?

The base are who gonna vote for him.

As a member of the base, I would advise our appointed leader to not take us for granted. It's the one dumberest mistake that democrats always make about "the base". He better be concerned about what he's doing. If it's stupid or ill considered often enough people in his "base" are going to stop giving him a free pass. I'll be happy to explain. :P

[The Doctor.]

203. Oh, I understand what you're saying....

but the question is; "What would his opposition to the bill have gained for us? What might it cost otherwise?"

It's just a shame that so many people can't think past one layer of "It's a bad bill and that is that."

Well... it is a bad bill, but that's not where the issue ends.



{OE}- Yes, the base will vote for him, but the center will bring the landslide. Right now, the RW is desperate for an oppportunity to pry any support from the center that they can. He denied them that this round.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

214. I can explain it

He voted for a neocon piece of shit bill that grants criminal immunity to a bunch of CRIMINALS.

He said he would filibuster the FISA bill --- He did not.

He doesn't just look bad to "the base" he looks bad to people who believe that keeping a promise means something.

[The Doctor.]

230. So you're saying he could have stopped the bill?

You see, that's the crux for me.

If he really could have stopped it, then perhaps it would have been worth the RW ads about;

"Barack Obama is AGAINST listening in on terrorists. Barack Obama voted AGAINST a law that would make it easier to find them, and bring them to justice."

{Likely with video of terrorists making phone calls and bombs in the basement next door to where a bunch of children are playing in a back yard.}


If not, (and BTW, it passed 69-28), then my premise that the only damage he did was 'look bad' is solid.

He couldn't have stopped it no matter what he did, and any attempt to do so would have made him vulnerable to the RW attempts to pry away centrist support he'll need to beat McCain in a landslide.

I don't like it either, but he did what he had to do.

[forintegrity]

24. I'm With You!

You took the words right out of my mouth! Beautifully said!

I completely TRUST Obama in a way I have never trusted any other politician! All Democrats need to do the same and start being CONSTRUCTIVE about getting him in the White House.

This country CANNOT withstand another 4 years of McCain/Bush policies. America as we used to know it will no longer exist. It barely does now. Obama's Inauguration cannot come soon enough!

Obama is smart and knows what he is doing and we need to TRUST in him and stop scrutinizing his every little move.

TRUST. A big word, I know. Especially after the past 7 years. But we have to do it...We MUST do it. For the sake of this country, for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Put the FISA thing aside and TRUST. Know that it will be taken care of, on Obama's watch.

Now get back to work making Obama the next President of this great country!

TRUST...or shoot me, too!

[Jackpine Radical]

32. It's weird--I have that same feeling of trust.

I'm not a trusting type. I mean, hell, I'm a forensic psychologist. I'm in the business of being lied to.

That feeling of trust--it's weird, it's alien. I don't quite know what to make of it. At some metalevel I don't trust my feeling of trust. I think I'm going crazy.

[psychmommy]

53. i know the feeling, he is a politician.

although he doesn't always do what i think he should do. when it comes down to it his way usually works out for the best. after the primaries-he has my respect and my trust. i work with clients who've walked on the other side of the law also. i get lied to for a living, too. but, i think it also helps me to improve my judge of character.

[JohnnyLib2]

25. About strategic decisions----

I share most of your thoughts about Sen. Obama and did not have much difficulty becoming his supporter in late June. Personal appeal and leadership style are important variables; Presidents 42 and 43 are examples.

In terms of personal style of supporting a candidate, I disagree with you here:

"Most of all, I steadfastly refuse to hand the enemy an ounce of ammunition with which to shoot down the man who stands between real democracy and a continuation of the policies of the last seven-plus years."

IMO, saying and discussing only positives and reiterating the campaign themes used in advertising -- especially when talking with undecided and uneasy voters, but also with solid Republicans -- becomes a form of talking and not listening. The risk is there of being perceived as "preaching" and possibly of condescension. Again IMO, it seems more productive to DISCUSS the "ounce of ammunition" which is already coming in from other sources.

[pberq]

28. Since when is upholding the Constitution handing the enemy ammunition?

Has this country really sunk this low?

So now if someone opposes a bill that trashes the Constitution, that hurts his chances for getting a elected???? Really?

[JohnnyLib2]

33. You've offered a chance to make my point.

I agree with you on the vote yesterday and would say that if (and when) confronted by a McCain supporter. And go from there.

I was disagreeing, above, with the OP's strategy of only describing our candidate in positive terms.

[NanceGreggs]

67. There was no "strategy" involved in the OP.

I chose to express my opinion, and do so in a positive way. That doesn't mean I think that Obama - or anyone else, for that matter - is without flaw, or that I agree with him on all things, all of the time.

With all of the "he's throwing us all under the bus" posts over the last few days, I thought I'd take the opposite tack. Makes for a nice change of pace.

[JohnnyLib2]

73. I hadn't thought of the OP per se as a strategic piece; it gives your opinion

very well as usual.

My opinion is slightly different. I find it easier to "talk politics," at least locally, by leaving alone (& sometimes finding) points of agreement while working to influence (sway? manipulate?) someone's thought process toward the Democratic perspective.

[NanceGreggs]

72. I never advocated discussing only the positives ...

... nor ignoring the negatives.

However, this was a one-off piece, weighed very heavily to the side of positivity in an attempt to balance the negativity that has been rampant here of late.

So I focused on the positive and left out the negative - just as many here have done the exact opposite over the past few days.

[JohnnyLib2]

74. OK, got it.

[bertman]

26. One of the moderators might shoot you if you keep recycling these numbnuts posts.

Oh, I forgot. Nevermind.

[The Doctor.]

57. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Don't take it for granite!

[Laurab]

167. Yeah, supporting the nominee, and being POSITIVE

about him are such awful things, aren't they? I see a lot of "numbnuts" posts, but the OP sure isn't one of them.

K&R

[pberq]

27. So shoot ME - if you support trashing the Constitution

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/8/223738/2158/684/548514

Bush Committed 30 Felonies, 4th Amendment Eviscerated Tomorrow, According to Law Professor
by EmperorHadrian
Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 08:10:53 PM PDT

I was just watching Countdown with Keith Olbermann and Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University law school, was on. They were talking about the fact that tomorrow, the senate will pass the FISA "compromise". Turley said that warrantless wiretapping is a felony under federal law. He pointed to a recent court decision a couple of days ago, which was made during one of the telecom lawsuits, in which a federal judge said outright "obviously the president committed an illegal act". Turley elaborated, "that illegal act is defined as a felony, so what the democrats are doing is trying to conceal a crime". Turley went further, saying, "no one wants to have a confrontation over the fact that the president committed a felony, not once, but at least thirty times." Once the congress has decreed that the president can draw his sword, who will set a limit on him? Who will stand against him?

And now, by congressional fiat, the congress assaults the constitution, while under the auspices of a democratic majority.

Turley continued on this, and the sad state that the legacy of our founding fathers is now in: "the founders would have found this incomprehensible; it expands presidential power to the point of including what is now defined as a federal crime." Democrats, according to Turley, have learned from Bush, that "because the telecoms are losing in court, because the administration is losing in court, they are simply going to change the rules."

And,

This is like one of those stories where someone is assaulted on the street, and one hundred witnesses do nothing, and in this case, the fourth amendment is going to be eviscerated tomorrow, and one hundred people are just going to watch it happen, because its just not their problem... coming out of the marrow of the fourth amendment, and it is going to hurt.

And of course the former constitutional law professor, and the most progressive democratic presidential candidate in decades, is supporting this crime.

I think we forget that the constitutionality of FISA itself is dubious at best. The law itself probably violates several constitutional mandates (including the fourth amendment). Throughout FISA's history, the FISA court has only rejected less than 1% of all warrant requests. And now FISA is the great constitutional standard. It shows how degraded the constitution has become in the last forty years of republican misrule. The constitutional crime today is the constitutional standard tomorrow.

(more at link. . .)

[Zuiderelle]

29. DP, FISA, Gun Control. But we trust him anyway.

I hope it works.

[Major Hogwash]

179. Obama is not for gun control. Care to try again?

I don't think you should argue about subjects you have no clue about.

[Zuiderelle]

192. My post was a list of "subjects" not positions.

The fact that he is NOT for gun control is the issue. But thanks for misunderstanding me and telling me I'm clueless.

[Major Hogwash]

194. Obama is not for double penetration.

Now who is misunderstanding who?

[Zuiderelle]

197. You're a real card. Obama - Pro-Death Penalty; Anti-Gun Control; Pro-FISA

Better?

[Major Hogwash]

225. Too fucking bad. Vote for McCain if you want. I could care less

what some numbskull says about Obama on the internet.

Bush sacrificed over 4100 men in Iraq in the last 5 years, but people like you will bitch, whine, and moan enough abut Obama until you're able to make McCain look like a viable alternative.

[Major Hogwash]

226. Oh, and one other thing,

McCain's a fuckin' piece of dawg shit.

Ya gotta problem with that?

[sui generis]

237. you're too much. every loser (of an argument)

who can't get over someone disagreeing them on Obama finishes with "Fine go ahead and vote for McCain".

You lost all credibility with that one. Come on! Can't you be constructive? Major Hogwash I promote you to Admiral.

[Zuiderelle]

244. We have a duty as Americans to hold our representatives to higher standards.

Obama has my vote, but I refuse to roll over and not criticize things that are flat out wrong. I never did it for Bill Clinton, and I won't do it for Obama. It's shameful to see how many are willing to do so now.

[windoe]

30. Change involves destruction and construction

Some things must fall apart in order to make room or be replaced by other things. This is the way I look at it and am not bothered at all by people who are motivated to break down all the corruption and are crying out for justice. This is part of what has to happen. The constructive part of this change is the support, trust and recognition of everyone around us who are working for this change!!

It is time we recognize that we are all on the same team here, and that we are on 2 sides of the same coin of change. :)

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jackpine Radical]

35. I think there are some unspoken fears that are better left unspoken.

Every utterance puts energy into the atmosphere, gives more currency to the fear. Kind of like the beginning bicyclist who focuses his attention on the trees and lamp posts, then finds himself steering into the trees and lamp posts. You're talking about an obvious concern. Don't give it energy.

[JohnnyLib2]

36. Must disagree.

In my experience, it's being said by supporters and opponents alike. Seems to me it makes more sense for Obama to address that anxiety directly and give (us) supporters something to work with now. I thought M. Obama spoke to that point eloquently earlier this year, but only once.

[tomreedtoon]

37. It's not fear. It's a freaking FACT.

And pretending it isn't in the air...and that there are several people who WANT it to happen, one of them a formerly respected African-American preacher and activist...is not just whistling past the graveyard. It's whistling past Buchenwald.

[Jackpine Radical]

49. I'm not pretending anything.

It's just that obsessing about certain things is of no help.

[tomreedtoon]

177. It's not obsessing. It's steeling yourself for the inevitability.

And preparing for the McCain takeover.

[Rhythm]

34. In other words--you refuse to question.

So shoot you? No. But respect your stance? Agree with you? Again...no.

It's your right to choose to throw in with the cynical and the jaded--the ones who believe that we must excuse any and every act committed in the name of "winning" the game of politics. I prefer sticking with the renegade idealists; the ones have been, are, and always will be the only source of REAL change. I do not accept the hysterical rationalization that we must excuse our leaders for catering to the fearful and the blind, because "the ends justifies the means." I reject that mindset wholly, and without regret or shame. You say that you've been called naive? I bet there are quite a few people reading this who think I'm naive too. But it isn't naivete that I speak from; it's conviction, and the firm belief that our duty as voters is to do more than just support. It is also our duty to take notice, to guide, and to occasionally blister the ears of our leaders when they step out of line. We seem to have the "support" part down, but the rest of it has fallen by the wayside, a victim of the politics of fear.

Vote for Barack Obama? Yes I am. What choice do I have? But I am intensely disappointed with him and with my fellow Democrats, many of whom are too frightened of bruising Obama's feelings to do the right thing and write him a stern letter of protest over this mess. I understand the desire to avoid criticizing him in public, but defending his actions? Rationalizing and excusing them? To other Democrats? That isn't necessary. If we had all stood together and said with one loud voice, "This is not acceptable," then we wouldn't be here today arguing about this. Obama is willing to listen, but it seems that the rank and file of the Democratic party is too cowed and fearful to speak up.

I don't place the blame for our current state of affairs on people like Obama and Pelosi. If our leaders are failing to heed our values and Democratic principles, we have only ourselves to blame, because we have stopped insisting that they should. They haven't failed us; we've failed them.

[The Doctor.]

65. No, but somebody has to support the candidate.

:eyes:

Unfortunately, you seemed to have missed something fundamental; "It's your right to choose to throw in with the cynical and the jaded--the ones who believe that we must excuse any and every act committed in the name of "winning" the game of politics."

What's 'cynical' is saying; "He's just another politician"
What's 'cynical' is thinking that you've already been sold out before he's committed one act of substance you disagree with.
What's 'jaded' is having already made up your mind that he'll do no good.
What's 'jaded' is saying you'll vote for him only because you 'have no choice'.

It seems you have your adjectives backwards.

What's 'hopeful' is believing that the candidate is taking calculated steps to gain office in order to make real change.
What's 'hopeful' is encouraging people to get behind the candidate rather than tear him down.


-The ones with the hope are the ones trying to build him up and support him in order to improve our chances of having a Democrat in the White House.

-The ones who are 'cynical' and 'jaded' are casting his every sneeze in the worst possible light and encouraging doubt over his fitness for the Presidency.

You are one of the above two.


How ironic it is that you can say; "If we had all stood together and said with one loud voice", and then turn around cut apart those who are raising their voices in support of the only Democratic candidate for President.

I would have loved a Kucinich candidacy, but the corporate media would not allow it. They purposefully robbed people of the information they would have needed to form the 'one loud voice' you speak of. Obama is contending with that media right now, and by playing into their message, you too are curtailing that 'one loud voice' you believed was appropriate for another purpose... to tell the candidate what to say and do during his campaign. If you want 'one loud voice' to mean anything at all, don't use your voice to hinder Obama now (and yes; casting doubt on his fitness for the Presidency only hurts), but use your voice to support him, and then, with 'one loud voice', we'll tell hime what he needs to do after he is in The White House.

Is that in any way unreasonable?

[Daemonaquila]

68. I wish I could K&R this response

I only disagree that we need to hang on until he's elected. Some pressure now is needed. But there's a difference between being the loyal opposition, and walking away because of a disappointment. The loyal opposition's critique can hopefully help realign his direction - but that's really different than tearing down, or throwing up our hands and saying "Why, oh why, did I believe in him?!? How could he betray me this way?!?!? I can never trust him again."

[NanceGreggs]

76. Now THAT would make an excellent OP!

Hope you'll consider posting it as such!

:yourock:

[The Doctor.]

82. Oi...

I have a half-dozen in my head right now just from reading this thread alone.

If I get the chance between beating the children, paying the rotweillers on the phone, and keeping the house from collapsing, then I'll get on it!

Thanks Nance!

You always make my day.

[Shoelace]

85. I agree with Nance, so am tracking your journal because

that was an excellent op with which I agree 100%. Plus, I did look through your journal and found some other great posts. Also, jumping from the sublime to the nearly ridiculous, where do you get all those great emoticons?

[The Doctor.]

88. Lol! Yeah, I love 'em...

I was lucky enough to stumble upon a site that just has scads of them. So I painstakingly copied each url to my photobucket account and made them mine, mine, MINE!!!

Let's see if I can find the site....

Here's one;
http://www.clicksmilies.com/

Hmmm... that's not the really good one though.


Well, if nothing else, I suppose you can always borrow what you like. It's how I nabbed a bunch myself; I'd see a good one, open 'properties' on it, copy the url, and paste it to my Photobucket account.


I'm glad you found something interesting in my scatterbrained journal. It's always nice to hear, especially on days I need to power on a little.

So thanks! And feel free to help yourself to my smilies!

-Dr. E

[Shoelace]

191. wow, that was the nicest thing to happen today!

must have been that Saturn/Mars thingy - dunno but today I was in downtime.
You made my day by answering my post with so much info on smilies which the world could use so much of. Opps, just ended that sentence with a prep.
It's late and I just did battle with a person who believes that we should clearcut all forests to prevent fires "save taxpayer dollars"!
I think that I learned a helluva lot more about logging forests than he did.

Anyway, thanks again and will continue to follow your journal for updates on your ops. You possess a clear understanding and a lucid account of what transpires in the world of politics. I so hope it's contagious here on this venue.

[Rhythm]

102. Did you actually read what I wrote?

Portraying any comments that aren't sparkly-rainbowy as "casting doubt on his fitness for the Presidency" is neither accurate, nor fair. I cast no aspersions on Obama's fitness for the office. I did criticize *us* for failing to do our whole duty as Democratic voters. I find it sad that the first real response to what I wrote is full of exactly the kind of behavior and words that I find so repugnant; the knee-jerk defense to any perceived criticism, real or imagined. For example:

What's 'cynical' is saying; "He's just another politician"
What's 'cynical' is thinking that you've already been sold out before he's committed one act of substance you disagree with.

What's 'jaded' is having already made up your mind that he'll do no good.
What's 'jaded' is saying you'll vote for him only because you 'have no choice'.

It seems you have your adjectives backwards.

I'm trying to make sense out of the above paragraph, but I'm having trouble drawing parallels from my post to your response. Let's see.

"He's just another politician" Did I say this? Did I even imply it? The only comment I made that was aimed at Barack Obama was that I was disappointed with him. The bulk of my post was a lament that We The People of the Democratic Party are failing to live up to our side of the political bargain, because we are allowing fear and resentment left over from the primary election and Bush's failed "presidency" to smother our sense of civic duty.

What's 'cynical' is thinking that you've already been sold out before he's committed one act of substance you disagree with. What on earth would give you the extremely mistaken impression that you have the right to define which acts are "of substance" and which are not? But even beyond that--I don't feel "sold out" by Barack Obama. I have been sold out by my fellow Democrats--the ones who do not question, who do not object, who do not call our leaders to task on decisions that nearly all of us agree are wrong, and who sharply criticize those of us who DO. I'm rather tired of being framed as "disloyal" or "subversive to the party" for daring to raise my voice when one of our leaders does something undeniably wrong. And I am not the only one.

What's 'jaded' is having already made up your mind that he'll do no good. Again, where on earth did this come from? Truly, I am flabbergasted that you managed to glean this out of what I posted. I am sure that if Obama wins, he'll do plenty of good. I have never said otherwise. But he didn't do "good" this time. I take my politicians one issue at a time. I don't skip over or rationalize the inconvenient truths, and the things I'd rather not see.

It seems you have your adjectives backwards. You seem to have pulled yours out of thin air.

What's 'hopeful' is believing that the candidate is taking calculated steps to gain office in order to make real change.
What's 'hopeful' is encouraging people to get behind the candidate rather than tear him down.

-The ones with the hope are the ones trying to build him up and support him in order to improve our chances of having a Democrat in the White House.

-The ones who are 'cynical' and 'jaded' are casting his every sneeze in the worst possible light and encouraging doubt over his fitness for the Presidency.

You are one of the above two.

Now you get to define what "hopeful" is, too. How convenient. Let's see. Firstly, I reject your premise. I do not believe that Obama is voting against what he knows and believes to be Right merely for the sake of winning. But even if he *is*, that is not a sane excuse for undermining one of the core Amendments of our Constitution. Some things are more important than any one person, and the Constitution is one of those things. All that Obama managed to accomplish was to gamble with OUR civil liberties--and yes, it's a gamble because there is NO guarantee that Obama is going to win. If he loses, then Barack Obama just helped to hand the Republican party *at least* four more years of a weakened Constitution. I don't think he's going to lose, but that is not the point. He had NO RIGHT--none of them did--to gamble with our Constitutional rights. That is not the kind of behavior that any sane person should be defending, and if the Republicans had been the ones to do it, we'd all be screaming for blood right now.

I'm fine with a candidate moving toward the center on other issues, but our Constitutional freedoms are sacrosanct. It is shocking and dismaying to realize just how many people here don't give a damn. They want to WIN, and like the Republicans, they are willing to step on whatever stands in the way, right or wrong, because we can "fix it" after the election, right? Right? Yet another gamble. But I don't blame Obama solely for this, or even mostly--I blame us. As I said in my previous post, "If our leaders are failing to heed our values and Democratic principles, we have only ourselves to blame, because we have stopped insisting that they should."

Oh--and thank you so much for the thinly-veiled, yet utterly predictable accusation of disloyalty and subversiveness. It's a lovely little false dilemma. You see, I am NEITHER of the two. I don't give him a free pass on everything he does in the name of "winning", and I am most certainly NOT "encouraging doubt over his fitness for the Presidency." I'm a citizen who values my Constitutional rights over ANY party or politician, and I do not believe that Obama is a liar--as apparently, you do. Before you get all full of OUTrage over that statement, let me say--by implying that Obama "said" one thing (with his vote) but "believes" another, YOU are proclaiming that he's dishonest at worst, or manipulative and conniving at best. I'd bet the farm that if you ask Obama, he'll tell you that he voted for what he believes is right, and he'd probably be offended that people like you seem desperate to portray it otherwise.

How ironic it is that you can say; "If we had all stood together and said with one loud voice", and then turn around cut apart those who are raising their voices in support of the only Democratic candidate for President.

It isn't the least bit ironic, because I was speaking about our failure as Democrats to instill or maintain any kind of accountability in our elected party members. As I said in my previous post (really, DID you actually read it??) "But it isn't naivete that I speak from; it's conviction, and the firm belief that our duty as voters is to do more than just support. It is also our duty to take notice, to guide, and to occasionally blister the ears of our leaders when they step out of line. We seem to have the "support" part down, but the rest of it has fallen by the wayside, a victim of the politics of fear."

I would have loved a Kucinich candidacy, but the corporate media would not allow it. They purposefully robbed people of the information they would have needed to form the 'one loud voice' you speak of. Obama is contending with that media right now, and by playing into their message, you too are curtailing that 'one loud voice' you believed was appropriate for another purpose... to tell the candidate what to say and do during his campaign.

So let me get this straight.
"It's the media's fault that Kucinich dropped out."
Okay, I can accept that. Moving on.
"The media kept us from being able to use our loud voice."
Shakier, but not worth arguing over. Accepted, and moving on.
"Obama is fighting the media that smothered our voice, so anyone who has a problem with him should shut the hell up."
Now wait just a damned minute. How does that make any sense at all? You cannot sensibly claim on one hand that the corporate media is evil for smothering our "one loud voice", and then claim that by USING my voice, I am somehow a tool of the corporate media. If the media is trying to silence us, the last thing I want to do is help them along by being silent! Do you really think that made even a smidgen of sense?

If you want 'one loud voice' to mean anything at all, don't use your voice to hinder Obama now (and yes; casting doubt on his fitness for the Presidency only hurts), but use your voice to support him, and then, with 'one loud voice', we'll tell hime what he needs to do after he is in The White House.

Nice try. I suggested writing to Obama--a private, personal, NON-PUBLIC way of letting him know that his FISA vote was wrong, wrong, wrong. Of course, it would have helped us more if we'd have written to him BEFORE he voted, but that would require a backbone. *sigh*

Back to my point: writing to Obama to call him to task is not "hindering" him. When did our democracy become so twisted and corrupted that people actually *believe* that it's wrong to call a leader to task for his or her mistakes? That telling our leaders how we feel about their actions is a "hindrance" and should be avoided? And the ridiculous assumption that Obama will somehow behave like a pet dog on a leash *after* he gets into the White House is absurd. Nobody tells a President "what he needs to do" after he's already in office. That simply does not happen. Presidents act upon the reasonable assumption that they were chosen because the voters trust their judgment. There is no guarantee--none--that Obama did not vote how he truly believes. If he's the man of integrity that everyone believes he is, I'd say the opposite is true: he voted for what he believes to be right. That's what people with integrity do. They don't manipulate the system in order to win. That alone (if it were true, and I don't believe it is) would be a mark of a man without much integrity at all.

Is that in any way unreasonable?

The vast majority of what you wrote is not only unreasonable; it's also a concoction of fiction, wishful thinking, and nonsense. My post was a response to someone who seemed to want to glorify the fact that she has no intention of questioning or calling-to-account a potential President of this country. I mean, seriously--that kind of behavior is everyone's choice, but it's not something any of us would have boasted about, been proud of, or received NUMEROUS accolades for, just a few short years ago. Sorry if I had to be the little black rain cloud. Apparently I made the mistake of thinking that "constructive criticism" applies to more than just what color tie Obama should wear to the Convention. *sigh*

[The Doctor.]

119. Yes, I did. I'm afraid I'm no match for your selective cognition.

See whatever you wish to see, think whatever you wish to think, don't let the empirical word sway you at all.

I can't help you understand that which you do not want to.

[SharonRB]

38. Brava, Nance!

I agree. Well spoken, as usual.

[Bluerthanblue]

41. shoot me too! Thanks Nance-

you say it so well-

:hi:


peace~
blu

[Diamonique]

42. I'm with you Nance!

k&r

[Bake]

43. Pretty words, but I don't trust ANY politician that unconditionally

Especially when they show by their ACTIONS (like, you know, VOTES on things like FISA) that they're not to be trusted unconditionally. People trusted Bush Jr., too, and look what it got them.

Bake

[World Citizen]

44. so, it sounds like what you are saying is....

You believe that it is possible to lose this election, and that the most important pursuit we have today is NOT to lose this election.

If we believe that to be the most important task before us, then we must ask, what is the best course to take so that we CAN we this election.

Some people, because of their convictions, feel that we must demonstrate to the world that we mistrust out candidate.

Some people, because of how clearly they see the existing disaster and because they believe polls, think we have already won this election.

Some people, because of how clearly they see the existing disaster think that... it's as if there is a giant comet heading directly for the planet and there exists only one single device that has a chance of diverting the coming disaster.

Some people want to argue that maybe we shouldn't use the device... because the company that built it probably used slave labor in the construction.
Ideally, they are right. We have to oppose slave labor, right? Except, if the disaster occurs, we wont be able to stand up for ANYTHING.

[blondeatlast]

50. WOW--you put this election in perfect context. I'm in awe.

As a parent that's pretty much how I see things. My generation fucked up, but I gotta save my kid.

Very well put. FWIW, I think President Obama will exceed my admittedly low expectations.

[Kaylee]

165. Thank you.

:applause:

[Skidmore]

45. Me, too.

I trust him.

I just donated again. Our $25 every two months is not much but it is our downpayment on the future.

I stand with Obama.

[elkston]

46. Wonderful post, Nance! n/t

[Straight Shooter]

48. You trust him.

You watch the way he moves, and that's one of your reasons for trusting him. You "see" in him fairness, a sense of justice, a sense of purpose, and a vision of what can be. I agree with the above poster, you've written a very nice e-harmony tribute.

After listening to Turley, a genuine Constitutional scholar, I wonder, what will it take for the pedestal on which Obama stands to crack?

[Overseas]

51. Thank you. And I appreciate the way you phrase your threads.

So then I know when I'll be seeing another poetic essay or great humorous critique from you. They've been great.

[peacetalksforall]

52. He's lucky to have you.

I'm behind in my reading, but NO ONE has convinced me that what he did several weeks ago in announcing that he would probably vote for Cheney and Bush on immunity and then not doing what I felt needed to be done to preserve our rights makes we wonder where he gets off doing what he did if he is A Constitutional Scholar.

Every day in every way I see us more solidly owned by the wrong corporations and we should not be owned by any corporations.

Any candidate who doesn't put on the brakes and stop this is misusing passion.

I really regret having to say this. Where do I garner the strength and the logic to think like all of you passionate supporters?

Strong words coming from me and I'm sorry to say this after your exquisitely phrased message to us - but we are a killing, plundering, thieving, lying country and who is going to stop this?

I despise milquetoast actions and words by our leaders when we are in dire straits.

[DarienComp]

54. I'm loving all these snarky responses.

They go a long way toward proving your point, Nance.

[TCJ70]

58. *bang* Done....Just kidding!

Go OBAMA!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

59. My dear Nance...

K&R, through my tears...

I trust him too...

:hug:

[Shoelace]

60. Amen Nance! Since JC isn't running, I'll take the imperfect Obama

and work my ass off to get him elected. If we want the perfect candidate, we could jump off a cliff, go to "Heaven" and meet him/her there. This is the real world with a plethora of warts, pimples and wounds made far deeper by those who won't or can't see the goodness, the abilities in anybody.
I see a man who knows his enemies well, who knows how to step over the land mines until such time that he is able to remove said land mines.

FISA, schmisa! I await the moment, days, months after he's elected to start to see him cancel Bush's Executive orders, to start to heal a very sick patient - America. It's a dangerous business when the doctor knows that the healing will take time, and the attacks against the pathogens must be done in such a way as to not get infected himself.

I trust that he knows exactly how to do all of this and much, much more!!:toast:

[grantcart]

61. This message will be lost on those that don't quite realize that we have in fact

a general election approaching and should we lose that the loss to the country will be hard to quantify.

[JohnnyLib2]

79. You post many reasonable comments BUT

it is just plain irritating to come to a forum for Democrats and be underestimated in this way. We all have different backgounds, of course.
My age and years as a liberal mean that I've "survived" the Nixon years and way too many Bush years. I do understand the disaster that a McCain presidency would be. I suspect I'm not alone in my reaction here. :banghead:

[LWolf]

64. No thanks.

I can disagree without hate or violence. I won't take up arms against you.

I will disagree.

[DrZeeLit]

71. Read Gail Collins this morning (7/10) NYT. Good job. p.s. I want what you're having, Nance

[mloutre]

75. Great post as always. Thanks again, Nance!

[Egnever]

77. Bang!

That was my love gun going off!

[Myrina]

78. Thank you

:)

[depakid]

83. "I steadfastly refuse to hand the enemy an ounce of ammunition"

If only his campaign advisers and consultants felt the same, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

[fascisthunter]

84. Well, you have a pretty picture of the Guy

not me... so shoot me

[AtomicKitten]

86. ditto

:thumbsup:

[World Citizen]

89. World survival is at stake!

Is that over the top? I dont think so. Ever since they shot JFK and got away with it, they have been planning and scheming to get themselves into the position they are finally in now. If you think this is about 4 more bad years, you are naive. Do you think McCain is more than a puppet for the cabal? We are up against the most powerful, most formidable enemy ever assembled.

At the moment I don't have time to show off what a commited idealist I am. I don't have time to craft clever academic scenarios and pithy retorts. I have ordered my priorities and to me its clear that not working to get OB elected, translates into not working to save the planet!

[vaberella]

90. I agree with your statement.

[saracat]

91. I am voting for Barack Obama but with no enthusiasm. I have no reason to trust his judgment or

anything else. There is simply no information to judge him on. The FISA vote was just WRONG and I am no "purist". I want him to be the next President only because he isn't John McCain. I have the right to that opinion. I also have the right to not "like" many of his recent and not so recent statements. My vote is only because he has a D after his name. I can do no more but I feel it is unfair to demand that I feel "enthusiastic" or even good about it which is what some have been demanding.

It is also wrong to brand me as less of a Democrat because he was not my primary choice. He was also not the original primary choice of three quarters of DU. But he is the presumptive nominee so he gets my vote.

And as for those who insist because I post elsewhere of dissatisfaction with issues that I am a PUMA or support Mccain, you are indeed wrong.I will continue to post whatever I want regarding issues or Obama's stances or anything else and it has no reflection on my vote.I , too have a right to my opinion, and choose to exercise it elsewhere. I do not choose to be in violation of DU rules. If Obama is not held responsible for his church members opinions , I , too am not responsible for the opinions of any sites opinions of Obama. Unlike many , I do not have to agree with everyone I encounter.

We can be more united by those issues on which we agree than those we don't and I am certainly hopeful that we can all agree to preserve the Constitution.

[NanceGreggs]

94. I am simply expressing ...

... my own opinion of the candidate. I am not demanding that anyone share that opinion, or my enthusiasm. I have never branded anyone as "less of a Democrat" or a PUMA adherent.

Just for the record.

[saracat]

95. I know you have not Nance. I am just espressing my opinion of those who do.

You have expressed you enthusiasm for Obama which is great . I am merely expressing the fact that while I will vote for him I cannot contain that level of enthusiasm and I have been condemned and in many cases had sone attempt to deny my my right to express my disagreement withsome of the presumptive nominees statements. I would like for us to win but I would also like for us to be able to express our Democratic principles.

And just for the record, though I expect some to express disbelief, I actually handed out Obama stickers and wores a button the other day( admittedly with other Democratic buttons and I did encourge voters to vote for him along with other democratic candidates. But that does not mean I have to "love' the candidate" or approve of everything he says.

[NanceGreggs]

97. Thanks, saracat!

I thought you had misinterpreted what I had posted to mean that I was being accusatory, and I wanted to set the record straight.

But I hear ya, and this has been working both ways - unfortunately for us all.

People like you get accused of "not supporting the candidate" if you express disagreement with a position he takes. People like me get accused of "not caring about the Constitution" if we agree with a position he takes.

It's getting more and more difficult (for all of us) to remember that we're supposed to be on the same side here.

"But that does not mean I have to 'love the candidate' or approve of everything he says."

I think that's EXACTLY the point some people here are missing. We're supposed to be electing a Democratic president, not deciding whether to marry a suitor. Unfortunately, some here feel a need to threaten divorce before the wedding has even taken place.

[saracat]

99. What I think some are having trouble with is that for many this is a

"defacto" "arranged marriage". We have not met the groom or fallen in love with him. Some of us are marrying him just out of "family obligation".And this can be tough to do.

Someone once said that Democrats have to "fall in love" with their candidates and the GOP just vote for them. This appears to be the case.

I did not fall "in love" with Obama. I admit I don't even "like him". He was originally third and ended up not even on my list of primary considerations But he has a "D" after his name.The nominee will get my vote but I won't "bear his children".LOL!

But as with any relationship, I will reserve the right to complain when he has been, in my opinion, WRONG. And I fully assume that what I think about those issues probably won't matter to him or the campaign no matter how furious is my keyboard. But I will have exercised my right to disagree!

:)

[NanceGreggs]

103. I understand.

Had a certain other candidate wound up as the nominee, I, too, would have had to marry out of obligation rather than true love!

:hi:

[saracat]

110. Thank you Nance! I am glad to see some sanity on DU

and to see that civility has not entirely died! :hi: :patriot:

[chefgirl]

92. I support the candidate

Until his FISA vote, I supported 'him' entirely. Now, unfortunately, I've been relegated to simply supporting the Democratic candidate.

I will vote for Obama because I do realize how important it is to have a Democratic President, and the resulting cascade effect, in the country, that will follow his election.

I always read your posts, Nance, and always go away with a smile. So, I thank you for that.

I have to ask you, though, what would it have cost Obama to stand up for the constitution and do what was 'right', especially in voting on a bill that would eviscerate one of our most deeply held constitutional principles and most important rights???
The bill was almost certain to pass, with or without his vote, so ....why????

He has created serious doubt in me with that vote.

-chef-

[defendandprotect]

93. You support the fourth amendment ??? Or FISA immunity ???

[Sunnyshine]

96. K&R - Taking aim at the target of a Democratic majority in 2009!

:yourock:

[Two Americas]

98. that is fine

You are a fan, and are motivated to support him based on his personal qualities.

That is not the only form of supporting a candidate, however, and while I don't think anyone is going to "shoot" you for your approach, people will object to the implication that the way you define support is the way that everyone should.

Trust and admiration of the person is the basis for your political decision. People can not share those sentiments with you, and still be loyal Democrats, still contribute constructively to the election of the candidate, and they should not be challenged on their loyalty.

Under the guise of portraying yourself as the persecuted one, for your innocent support of the candidate, you get in a few digs at those who do not agree with you. People are not "shooting" you, nor if your support for the candidate were strong should you feel persecuted, when they express their doubts and reservations about things that any of our politicians say or do.

Your personal emotional need to express your admiration of a politician is your personal need. That does not mean that it has any profound significance, nor that it makes those who do not share this need wrong or not in support of the party or the candidate.

[NanceGreggs]

121. Oh, puleeze!!!

Firstly, "just shoot me" is an expression from back on the block, e.g. "I like ketchup on my hot dogs instead of mustard - so shoot me." It wasn't a literal reference, and reading the entire OP, it would seem, would make that clear.

"... people will object to the implication that the way you define support is the way that everyone should." Could you please point out where I implied, or even inferred, that everyone should support a candidate based on my definition?

"Under the guise of portraying yourself as the persecuted one," never said I was persecuted.

"... you get in a few digs at those who do not agree with you.' Where?

"Your personal emotional need to express your admiration of a politician is your personal need." The OP has nothing to do with any personal need. Just thought it might be nice, as a change of pace, to say something positive about Obama amidst all of the negativity we've been bombarded with over the past few days.

The great irony here is that everyone keeps carrying on about their right to criticize, disagree with, make their anger known over, and express their outrage about the candidate.

Shouldn't people who think he's a great candidate have an equal right to express their opinion, as well?

[sui generis]

239. where?

:rofl:

The irony Nance is that you associate criticism with anger and outrage. There is no change of pace. The Koolaid Krowd has and always will brook no discord.

And yes, after that post, you are playing Mizz Martyr.

The is the weirdest I have ever seen DU. Irrational. Polarized, by polarizing statements. I expect better. I hear you and know when a posting of my own has gone awry, and that I'm going down with all of its generous mischaracterizations, but I'm starting to doubt your innocence.

Please tell me you don't despise your fellow democrats if they happen to disagree with you. You do realize that a post is an invitation to discuss. Everything else is masturbation.

[jgraz]

100. We've lost 7 out of 10 presidential elections and you still trust the Democrats' judgment?

Not only that, we've lost 7 out of 10 elections to some of the most appalling human beings in the history of the republic.

Are you sure you're not already shooting yourself?

[NanceGreggs]

109. I said I trust Obama's judgment.

I wasn't talking about the party at large, or anyone else in it.

[Major Hogwash]

180. Well, go vote for the other guy, see what it gets ya, another term for Bush.

Then you can tell me later how you knew all along that Obama would win.

[Hamlette]

101. here's a great story about Obama:

Throughout the primary season I was angry that no gay reporter or gay person asked either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama a question about same sex immigration, the issue I care about most.

As a result, I decided to take things into my own hands. I would find a way to personally lobby the Democratic nominee how important this issue is for me and tens of thousands of others in the gay community. That opportunity arose tonight in Atlanta at an Obama fundraiser.

I attended the Obama VIP reception which entailed a photo with Barack and maybe the possibility of 10 seconds chat time while the photo was being taken. I consulted Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality for her suggestion as to what the best 10 second bite would be. She suggested to be as emotional as possible and gave me, “I have to choose between the love of my life and my country because I am gay. Please support immigration rights for gay and lesbian families.”

I practiced this line over and over. However, when my moment came, I flubbed my lines. I don’t know exactly what I said, but I did manage to get out gay and immigration --- and then I choked up. It was a real emotional choke up, not an act, and not the script. However, I said enough for Obama to know what I was talking about. He put his arm around me and in a very comforting way said, “I know, I know.”

It was apparent that he knew this issue well. He took some time to explain that same sex immigration is going to be a very difficult one because it combines two of the most controversial issues Congress faces, gay rights and immigration. (I heard this from Barney Frank two years ago as well.) Obama also said that to tackle it we were going to have to establish a vehicle to recognize gay couples. I think we both said “civil unions” simultaneously -- me as a question, he as a statement.

more at link

http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2008/07/obama-on-same-s.html

I love that he knew all about this fairly obscure issue (at least obscure to us straight non immigrants) and took the time to explain to this guy why Congress hasn't acted.

I don't think I've said this yet today...so I will now: I STILL hate Jesse Helms, even though he's dead.

[NanceGreggs]

125. That IS a great story!

Thanks for sharing it.

[Flying Dream Blues]

104. Great post! nt

[shireen]

105. I want Obama to be the next president too

because the other alternative would be a disaster.

but i won't stop criticizing him, will not put blind faith in him, will not assume he knows what's best. Last i heard, this is a democracy and all points of view should be heard.

Besides, criticizing Sen. Obama is not the same as not supporting him. He's not perfect, thank goodness!

[Rocky2007]

107. WOW!! Thank you Nance

Being 71 at this point in my life I have seen any number of elections and voted in each and every one.

Never have I seen such a candidate as we are seeing in Barack Obama. Others have been good: even VERY good. Obama is offering something special and I thank him for doing that.

[Cowpunk]

118. What's Not to Love?

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

-Barack Obama spokesman Bill Burton, October 24, 2007.

"Aye"

-Barack Obama, July 9, 2008

There I go, parsing words again.

So shoot me.

[Straight Shooter]

154. Let them count the ways ...

Welcome to DU :hi:

[HousePainter]

159. Did I miss the filibuster ?

You know, the one he said he'd support.

[Cowpunk]

168. We All Did

There was no filibuster because 72 senators, including Obama, voted for cloture.

[jmondine]

120. The only way I'd shoot you...

is with my camcorder.

[Duder]

122. Rock steady!

Good to see that you recognize there's a campaign to get Obama in the WH going on right now.:applause:

[skepticscott]

126. You say you trust Barack Obama because of what he stands for..

But how do you tell the difference between what he says he stands for and what he really stands for? It's an important distinction. What is Obama's track record for keeping his promises? What is his record for being able and willing to do the things he says he's going to do, even when they aren't popular or politically advantageous? Saying that you "trust" someone because you want what they say to be true or because you want their vision of things to be the way they actually turn out or because they make you feel good in a way you can't quite explain is not at all the same as trusting them because of what they've done in the past. It's more like an act of faith, and that's a pretty shaky reed to base awarding the office of president on.

[Duder]

128. Well here ya go then...

[JuniperLea]

134. When "hope and change" start looking like status quo...

The smart thing to do is look at things long and hard.

I'm voting for him, but I let his campaign office know what a crock I think this vote is. His vote didn't change the outcome... I would think it would have suited his purpose better to retain his integrity instead of throwing away a vote.

[Joe Fields]

127. I see this kind of misplaced adulation every four years.

And every four years there is buyer's remorse. I don't believe in ANY politician anymore, and for good reason. I think Obama just gave all of us a taste of what we can expect.

I read a remark from a poster the other day who said, "You know, by the time the elections roll around, the only ones who will be supporting the Bush administration will be the Democrats in congress."

But, having said that, no, Nance, I sure don't want to shoot you. I just happen to disagree with you on a few issues.

[WyldRogue]

129. So no matter what....

.... I am supposed to 'cow-tow' the line for Obama and NOT hold him accountable for his brash decision to vote for the one thing that his Party base was against whole-heartedly?

So if he turns out to be a 'devil' in disguise, no matter what, I am supposed to vote for him because he has a 'D' next to his name??

Honey, it takes more than a letter next to the name and a few soft words to earn/gain my support. It is the ACTION(s) of my preferred candidate that gets me in-line and ready to fight beside him all the way to the WH. However, if he chose to cast aside my concerns and decides to not be MY voice, then that does sting me down to the core. He MAY still have my vote but he has lost my faith in doing what is right. And those of you 'skirting' around that fact are looking like the 20-Something Percent that believes * has done an outstanding job.

If I can't hold my candidate accountable NOW, how can I hold him accountable when he's in the highest office in the Unites States?

So please, don't anyone dare lecture me on MY opinion about honesty, honor, and doing what is right. This 'cave-in' vote was not right by ANY of those people up on the Hill and shame on the rest of you for not standing up for yourselves when you know that they all blatantly stabbed each and every one of us in the back with the passage of this FISA bill.

And I guess shame on me for expecting MY Candidate/Senator/Representative to stand up for me when I needed them to the most...

[NanceGreggs]

135. Could you kindly point out ...

... where in this OP I have said that you, or anyone else, should kow-tow to Obama, or not hold him accountable? And where have I lectured you, or anyone else?

I expressed my opinion about the candidate, and stated from the outset that it was just that, my opinion. Last time I checked, I was still allowed to have one - same as you.

"However, if he chose to cast aside my concerns and decides to not be MY voice, then that does sting me down to the core." Fine, feel "stung", if you must; you have a right to feel however you please. But you also might want to consider the fact that no one is running to be your personal president, and that your voice isn't the only one to be heard - nor does it take precedence over everyone else's.

"And those of you 'skirting' around that fact are looking like the 20-Something Percent that believes * has done an outstanding job." Funny how you don't want anyone "lecturing" you when you disagree with them - but those who disagree with you are labeled as being the same kind of mindless idiots who still support Bush.

But, hey, thanks for dropping by.

[WyldRogue]

136. ;)

Quote=NanceGreggs "But, hey, thanks for dropping by."

No problem. Hope things start turning to our favor soon...

[rasputin1952]

132. OK....but I'll only shoot you a K&R...well maybe a hug too...

To be honest, i can think of better candidates, men and women that have vision and drive there are hundreds of millions of us, and quite a few could do a pretty good job...and even a shaved goat could do better than McCain....(let's not even think about that rock in the Oval Office, son of a bitch is satan's footstool anyway).

However, the point of this post is to say that Obama has run a pretty damn good campaign, a few bumps, but what they hell, this is politics. What I see today is far different than what i saw just a couple of months ago. I see assurance, intelligence, knowledge, empathy, passion, vision...and above all dignity, the man has character.

There is terror on the RW aspect of the aisle, they know this man has long coattails; and bush is just plain bare-assed naked. Obama can't do it alone, but he can lead, and when we jump in #'s of both Houses, I hope we really do start to get this nation back on track, back to where we should be; a nation of justice, dignity, honor. A Nation that can once again show the world that we can deal with whatever comes along, and do things that others can only dream of.

Obama is the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party...he's got my vote.

Oh by the way, here's that hug I said I'd shoot your way...:hug:

[Ken Burch]

133. Good post, Nancy. And no, I won't shoot you.

Even if I wanted to, like a lot of progressives I don't have a gun.

I want Obama to be president too. The critical threads I've started were solely in the interest of strengthening his chance of winning. We're on the same side.

[bjobotts]

137. Try not to be so critical. My Obama right or wrong huh?

Isn't that exactly what the 27%ers did with Bush. I prefer to have my eyes wide open on anyone with the power to destroy my livelihood.

[NanceGreggs]

138. I have my eyes open ...

... and I like what I see.

If you don't, you have the right to that opinion. Do I still have a right to mine?

I'm still trying to find the part of the OP where I said, "Obama, right or wrong." Maybe you can help me with that ...

[NC_Nurse]

139. Nice. I agree. Shoot me too.

[katandmoon]

142. Is anybody stopping you or anyone else

From supporting Obama or wanting him to be president?

No.

IMO this kind of false persecution complex-driven commentary (Obama IS, after all, the presumptive nominee -- seriously, what more do you want?) sounds weak and is unbecoming.

[NanceGreggs]

146. Uh, there's no persecution here ...

As I have explained over and over, "so shoot me" is an expression from back on the block. It is not to be taken literally.

I thought that due to so many movies and TV shows being set in NYC, with attendant "local dialog", it was pretty well-known - apparently, it's not. My mistake.

[JANdad]

153. And all this time I assumed you lived in the United States...

Doh! My Bad. And here I thought that you shared our pain but nope...you got it good with that socialized medicine thingy and other progressive perks...WOW!

[NanceGreggs]

155. Yes, born and raised in NY ...

... moved to Toronto many years ago.

However, don't be so quick to assume I don't share anyone's pain. My entire family is still in the States, including my son (who was born in NY before I moved here), who went back to the US in the 'nineties for business reasons.

Always amazes me when people assume that my attitude is: "I got mine, so why should I care?" Just because I don't reside in the US doesn't make me a fuckin' Republican.

[DaDooRonRon]

196. That is hilarious!!!!

All this my party right or wrong drivel and the OP doesn't even live in the States!!

:rofl:

Oh man, this is too rich for words.

I swear I see the ghost of P.T. Barnum in my monitor laughing his ass off and going "told ya! told ya!"

[JeffR]

240. Nearly 7 million Americans live and work out of the United States.

Democrats Abroad is sending 22 delegates to the Convention this year, putting us on a par with Montana's representation there.

Some of us march in the streets to demand an end to the occupation of Iraq, to ensure that Iraq War Resisters are granted asylum, and lobby the governments of our host countries to the same end.

Some of us donate to the Democratic Party, the Obama campaign, sign petitions, write letters to our representatives, call their Washington offices over crucial votes. BTW, there are no 800 numbers available for us to reach those offices.

Some of us worry like hell about friends and relatives back home. And, oh, yes, a lot of us still know where home is, no matter how long we've been away from it. We'd love to return to an America that at least somewhat resembles the one we remember, before pResident Whistle-ass was appointed for the express purpose of fucking it all up.

When you're finished rolling on the floor, maybe you can grow the fuck up.

[NanceGreggs]

243. Uh, you DO know that one does not abandon ...

... their citizenship when they move outside of the States?

You do KNOW that citizens, regardless of where they reside, maintain their registration in their party of choice, as well as their voting rights?

You do KNOW that MILLIONS of Americans live in countries other than the US, and are STILL Americans who care about their country?

Actually, given your post, I would have to assume that YOU DON'T KNOW much of anything.

I guess it's going to come as a real blow to military personnel, diplomats, business people working in foreign nations, organizations like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders, missionaries, agricultural consultants in Africa, emergency personnel working in disaster-struck areas around the world, and our troops stationed in the Middle East and elsewhere that once they step off US soil, they no longer qualify as "Americans", and are perceived as having severed all ties with their country.

I have never said this on DU before, but I think THIS situation warrants it: You, madam, are a fucking idiot.

[katandmoon]

183. I was referring to the whole martyr complex tone of your post

[NanceGreggs]

187. Stating my opinion of Obama ...

... means I have a "martyr complex"?

Yeah, okay, whatever you say ...

:eyes:

[jenmito]

150. "Sounds weak and unbecoming"? No way...

but you sound mean and petty.

[katandmoon]

185. Just tired of unnecessary grandstanding

[jenmito]

149. My thoughts exactly-only written better. K&R!

:hi:

[gsplfnk]

156. OK, consider yourself shot.

I for one will not take it from a man or a woman of any ethnic combination of origin that we should sit passively as you are, as Obama is, as we give away the basic edict of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Right to privacy. It's a biggy, Nance, baby.

Obama did not just do us all a great disservice by approving the FISA "compromise" bill. What he really did was to buy into the secret service agency protecting the current high office holder from criminal prosecution for his obvious criminal acts. He sold our rights down the river, but only to protect our Criminal in Chief. Or maybe he just wants to be assured of unencumbered executive priviledge to all your priovate information should he make it to the White House?

And you're happy with that, right, Nance, baby?

Dear Nance. I know you model your shtick on the late great Molly Ivins. I'm here to tell you that she would not be amused with your good-natured apologia for the presumed Democratic nominee, given all that is at steak right now. Dig? She would be horrified and disheartened with you.

Did you learn nothing from her?

c.

[NanceGreggs]

164. (a) I am not your "baby".

(b) I don't "model" my writing on Molly Ivins' style, nor do I consider myself in her class.

(c) Obama did not "sell" anyone's rights down the river, despite the fact that you want to be a drama queen by insisting he has.

(d) As long as you insist that this should be personal, I would point out that it is privilege not "priviledge, "private" not priovate, and stake not "steak".

(e) I have absolutely no idea what "a man or a woman of any ethnic combination of origin" means.

[omega minimo]

160. You always know JUST what to say

[jeff30997]

161. NEVER!!!

Or in a tiny corridor where I would be sure to miss you mayby...

[Scurrilous]

162. K & R

:thumbsup:

[saltpoint]

163. I like your wish that he become our next president and

I think it will come true.

Kick.

[spag68]

171. You have an opinion

so do I, and I would be more worried that the criminal traitors will shoot Obama as opposed to one of us , even a famous writer-blogger like you.

[concerned canadian]

172. excellent OP

I always look forward to reading your thoughts. Although i'm a Canadian citizen, I was once married to an American, lived

in various states in the USA for several years and have always felt a deep connection with America, maybe it was because i

grew up so geographically close to America (Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, across the river from Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan),

had aunts and cousins who lived in Detroit (solid Democrats)....and of course those cool American tv programs like Ed Sullivan

Show, I Love Lucy (i cried when Lucy and Desi split up in real life), Alfred Hitchcock Presents,American Bandstand....the music

in my formative years, Otis Redding, Motown, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, the Doors....i could go on and on about what i loved

about America; MLK, the Kennedys, WOODSTOCK, but i also grew up to dislike strongly the same things about America that most

liberal or democratic progressives have fought against; phony wars, racism, bigotry. Not that Canada and other countries don't

have their share of racists and bigots, but maybe because so much was expected from America (like an older brother i once admired

and looked up to) that the disappointment in the policies of the right wingers was almost crushing.

Then along came Obama, and i found myself actually praying for him, for America, that he win the nomination and the

presidency. I fell in love with America all over again because of this very fine, principled and i believe honest

man.

So thanks, Nance, for your valued opinion. (BTW, hope you didn't get caught in that thunderstorm yesterday!)

,

[NanceGreggs]

190. Hey, thanks!!!

Yes, I was quite amazed when I moved to TO at how much Canadians were immersed in American TV, music, etc.

Of course, it finally dawned on me (duh!) that Torontonians had access to both Canadian and US (Buffalo) TV and radio stations, whereas I (having grown up on Long Island) knew virtually nothing about Canada.

For years I was telling my friends in NY about shows like SCTV - and got a blank stare in reply.

All of that has changed now, of course, thanks to cable syndication and satellite stations. My friends in the States now tell ME about great Canadian shows that I should catch!

The Soo has always been part of a family joke. My aunt in Brooklyn (who fancied herself a world traveler and very sophisticated as a result thereof) used to talk about how lovely Sault Ste. Marie was - except she pronounced it Sawlt Sayntee Marry, and insisted that this was the way "the natives" said the name.

:hi:

[ccharles000]

173. Great.

[bread_and_roses]

176. Well, I don't have "faith" in any candidate. Faith obstructs analysis

It especially precludes any power analysis, which is what it is all about. Obama, like any candidate is a human being with human faults/weakness/misjudgements.

I want to see him elected and I'll be working to make that happen because - among other reasons - I think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that he has the rhetorical gifts and presence to motivate people to demand change. But without that demand arising from a multitude, he will have no power to effect any real change. It won't matter that I might "believe" that he is genuinely a progressive, with a progressive agenda. Without power from the support of millions and millions of people for that agenda, he won't be able to effect any real change. Which is all the more reason to keep up the pressure on him from below.

Because I am very sure that those in power, with power, will never cease their pressure for an instant, nor fail to punish any deviation from their agenda, nor ever, ever, surrender one iota of their power unless we - peacefully - make it impossible to do otherwise.

I think that unless we strenuously and constantly and loudly demand our agenda, we leave Obama out there facing all the power of money and clout alone - expected to somehow magically "fix" things without the back-up of millions of voices to whom he can point and say, "see, there are too many of us to ignore." When we abandon our agenda, we abandon our candidate to those who will push their own agenda, relentlessly, and with all the weight of power and privlege.

[NanceGreggs]

178. Having faith in someone ...

... does not in any way preclude speaking up, or replace the necessary role of participation.

[sui generis]

224. I agree on this point

I'm glad to see that "participation" is deemed necessary, faith or not, since I was recently told my views were probably "opposite" (of what?) by someone here recently. I presume that any questioning the candidate's choices means "opposite" to whoever that was.

:evilgrin:

[World Citizen]

181. Nance... or anyone... can you tell me if...

there is a blog that is interested in getting people to work together to get Obama elected.

Somewhere where I can meet people and possibly exchange ideas about what we can do to help defeat the disaster that is eminent?

Somewhere where they realize that the alternative is so devastating, that defeating it MUST take precedence over every other pursuit?

Somewhere where they realize that fourth amendment rights violations have been on an incline for the past 45 years and that a bill passed by congress will have little effect on that practice.

Somewhere where posts are not motivated by bruised egos lamenting that "their" candidate didn't make it.

Somehow I had gotten the impression that this was such a place, but now realize how mistaken that impression was.

[NanceGreggs]

182. There is such a place ...

... and it's right here!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6482045

[Political Tiger]

188. I agree 100%

And I really enjoy your posts!

[NanceGreggs]

189. Thanks!

And I am really enjoying that photo! WOW!!!

[sui generis]

193. I used to think you were more impartial

I understand the need for optimism, but I also want reality Nance.

Speaking for "my people", nobody who invites us to trust them has EVER truly asked us what WE think is best for us, and that includes Obama. Trust goes a bit further when I can trust that they know what they're talking about. That did not happen with FISA, and the best I can say is I didn't like the play, Mrs. Lincoln.

So we have conflicting messages from Obama telling US to get over calling our marriages "civil unions", while saying he is NOT AGAINST (that's comforting) California marriages.

Nance, when he took that right turn on FISA, a lawyer, without being able to answer whether grandfathering those companies also relieves them of "investigations" (i.e. any list) started three yeaars ago but not complete (that could be their entire subscriber list), he took a step away from me, and from all of us as well. He made what he thought was a strategic character decision based on a poor understanding of the bill, and worse, on a poor understanding of its consequences. I want more than strategy, I want substance and I assure you the two are not the same thing, since you can use either one to cover for the absence of the other.

I by god want him to be better. You like the way he moves, and I see that you seem hypnotized and enamored of him like many. I hate the way he talks. The cajoling tones when someone disagrees with him, the rising inflection when he's "mocking" somebody; these are all subtle signs to me of someone who is only skin deep, who only lets us in that deep, of a person who has not learned more constructive vocal dynamics.

Maybe as a trained musician (my early college years at the Juilliard) I "hear" the music in someone's voice when they speak; I hear immaturity in his notes. I hear someone who doesn't use voice to crack the whip, to unite, to reason, but to mock, and mocking is not an adult or presidential activity. I've never seen "the way he moves"; but that's not really a qualification for president.

I don't want rousing gospel theatric speeches from my candidate. We have enough of that down here in the babble belt that it sings to me: "I am shamelessly manipulating you" and I can't hear past that. I want charisma in our candidate, but I don't want him to be any particular culture's idea of charismatic, whether that is gospel, evangelical, or "charismatic" (church version), any more than I want him to appeal only to white haired white guys. As a speaker of several languages myself, I know that in a business meeting it actually limits you to speak to everyone in their own language, and can even be annoying. I want Obama to speak to me in the language of all Americans: speak to our individuality, speak to our "hopes" yes, but also speak to our intelligence. Speak to the things that unite us, and DO NOT EVER take us for granted.

There may be plenty of NanceGreggses to shore you up and not ask questions, but there are many many more of us who are impervious to overstated optimism or even to outright browbeating.

Time will tell. Obama is nothing and represents nothing without our input, without us actively telling his campaign what we think is important, what we believe his missteps to be so that he has that information to consider. I believe, no, I know I have a right to voice discontent with his vision and his deeds if they are short sighted, in fact I have the duty to do so if I believe myself to be a democrat and to have a voice in this party.

[Major Hogwash]

195. Bush would have done whatever he wanted to, so Obama's FISA vote doesn't mean shit.

Are we supposed to believe that if Obama would have voted against the FISA bill, that somehow Bush would start following the law?

Why?

He hasn't since he has been in office!!!

[sui generis]

198. Obamas vote most certainly means "shit"

There are two kinds of people on DU - people who say what they wish the world was, and people who look at it for themselves.

Clearly, if his vote "didn't mean shit" then why are so many people upset about it? All the browbeating in the world won't change the fact of that.

[Major Hogwash]

222. There aren't "many people upset about it",

Just a few whiners here at DU and a few negative members posting at Kos.

Add all of those assholes up and you get about what, 30 at most.

Obama's vote on FISA was not a deal breaker at all.

[sui generis]

229. what the fuck?

all of those assholes and you. deal breaker? what in the holy living shit are you talking about?

Sorry - the only asshole here is the one I just replied to.

Grow a brain, you'll make a better democrat.

[Major Hogwash]

245. Count all of 'em, there's only 30 or so,

You're probably one of 'em.

"Grow a brain" - coming from someone like you that's a laugh.

[JuniperLea]

207. I have never seen anyone make that claim!

Bush would follow no law he didn't create regardless of votes and you know that! The point is integrity, and you know that too!

[JuniperLea]

206. Swoon!

All the best ones are... well, you know;)

As a recovering Fundy, I could not agree more about the gospel theatrics. I gave him a pass on a lot of things that are now coming back to light.

This spin on why he voted for FISA is so convoluted. I don't want to do contortions like this to support my candidate. I have no choice but to vote for him. No choice... yet again... I'm forced to vote against the GOP's candidate.

[NanceGreggs]

210. When it comes to Obama v McCain ...

... no, I am not the least bit impartial; I am as biased as you can get.

Firstly, I am a bit curious as to the statement: "He made what he thought was a strategic character decision based on a poor understanding of the bill, and worse, on a poor understanding of its consequences."

When were you made privy to what he "thought", and what he based his decision on? How do you know what his understanding of the bill is, or whether it was "poor" or not?

When I spoke about liking the "way he moves", I was talking about his political moves -- e.g. the way he turned the Wright 'scandal' to his ultimate advantage -- NOT the way he does the Samba.

What I find amusing is how you rail about what you perceive to be the basis of my support for Obama as being the result of my being "hypnotized and enamored", rather than being based on more critical thinking.

But, at the same time, you go on about disliking his "mocking tone", his "cajoling tone", and his "gospel theatric speeches", as though these are the kinds of things one should be seriously taking into account. And heaven forfend even considering the idea that other people - like, millions of people - don't hear him in that way at all. But I suppose we should all just defer to your better judgment on that.

You have every right to criticize the candidate, and voice your disagreement with his positions. However, you might want to keep in mind that you are just one of millions of voices, and a lot of those voices are expressing their wants and needs as well - which won't necessarily be consistent with your own, and in fact may be completely opposite to yours.

He's not running as your personal president, to do your bidding, or to give more weight to your opinion than anyone else's.

As I have stated several times in this thread, this OP was deliberately glaring in its optimism and positivity - submitted as a counter to the many, many posts here of late that have focused on nothing but the negatives.

So, no, I am not impartial here. I want Obama to be the next president - and given the alternative, there is no need to mull over the two choices in order to come to a decision.

[sui generis]

217. wow. Nance up until this moment

I actually used to like you more but your reply shows me you've started to buy into your own glory and hype. I certainly had a warmer sense of you when you were humble, or at least constructive.

Now for some real deconstruction.

1. His understanding of the bill, as with every other person who voted on it was execrable.

He can't answer the questions I posed, and neither can you or I'm certain you would have. Butcha dint.

I'm glad you "find things amusing" oh highhors-ed one, and I would like to add, faw faw faw. I didn't rail about anything and my comments here were intended to be constructive and intended amicably. I apologize for misreading the comment about "the way he moves" - it was not intentional.

3. Heavend forfend nothing. You are glaze eyed. This is nothing to do about McCain vs. Obama. I thought you were smarter (actually I know you are), but I was talking about what I hear and see. It was sharing, not criticizing, but you were so unconstructive in your retort (not the same a response), minimizing me as MERELY ONE IN MILLIONS, that you've lost credibility with me. I hope that comment was only skin deep because the alternative reading, as the saying goes, is ugly to the bone. Of course this one in millions probably doesn't have anything of note to say to you, so read or ignore me as you see fit.

He is running as my personal president lady. You would do well to remember that. I don't HAVE to vote for him. And there are significantly more than "one in a million" people who understand that themselves. If there's nothing us anonymous unheard poor stupid people hate while we're sitting here being all anonymous and shit, it's being taken for granted by our own while some high priestess of the blog tells us we're negligible and don't matter anyway. Good grief Nance, I didn't expect THAT of all things coming from you! If he says and does enough SHIT to piss me off or turn me off, then you're right, he's not my president! I won't vote for him, although that scenario is unlikely. I'm not playing alternatives. But before you misconstrue, I DO BELIEVE that certain of us do influence him. I would NEVER vote for McCain, and I WANT to vote for Obama. Keep that in mind.

I do believe that Obama DOES NOT listen to the people who never say anything contrary, because that hon, would be a waste of his time. Therefore I doubt he listens to you or any other Follower of Obama. I'm glad you think that YOUR optimistic dookie doesn't smell, or that anyone who isn't belting out Annie broadway tunes ("Tomorrow, tomorrow, la la la, a day away" is a horrible negative person, but you are just one in millions yourself. Optimism gone nasty.

Now, I hope it was just a bad day. I actually enjoy your posts most of the time and am surprised at your antipathy.

-Peace

[NanceGreggs]

231. Your comments were intended to be constructive?

Where was the 'constructive' part of talking about how you don't like his "preacher tone, his cajoling tone, his mocking tone"?

Again, I DO find it amusing that you call me the "high-horsed one", while stating that you "know" what he based his FISA position on, and you "know" he didn't understand it. And no, I didn't answer your questions on the specifics of the FISA bill, because I am not a lawyer and don't hold myself out as someone who understands the details of that bill, nor any other.

I realize we have been inundated with "legal scholars" here of late, who "know" how it reads, and "know" what its every minute consequence. Of course, the fact that we have warring "scholars" saying diametrically opposed things might lead one to believe that they don't actually know what they all purport to know.

I didn't "minimize" you by saying you are one of millions - I was pointing out an obvious fact. You are ONE of millions of voters, and your opinion as to how Obama should speak, act, vote, or conduct his campaign is NOT the only opinion out there. You DO accept that fact, don't you? Or do you honestly believe that every opinion held by every voter is exactly the same as yours on every issue? And if not, why is YOUR opinion more valid than everyone else's?

Oh, that's right, because Obama is running as your "personal president". The rest of the voters don't matter - it is your personal agenda he is duty bound to adhere to; your personal edicts that he must abide by.

If you chose to read my statement that you are just "one of many" to mean you are negligible, have no right to voice your opinion and be heard, you have obviously missed the point entirely. (Perhaps I am not the one sitting on that high horse after all.)

Obama, in case you haven't noticed, is running for the presidency of the country - that means ALL Americans, not just Democrats, not just progressives, and not just you or I.

Therefore, I accept the fact that while I have a right to voice my opinion (and I DO believe he listens), I have NO RIGHT to expect that after hearing the voices of the many, he is somehow obligated to do MY bidding simply because I spoke up. I recognize that there are OTHERS whose opinions on many issues differ from my own - I also recognize that in such situations, the MAJORITY opinion must take precedence over my PERSONAL desires.

So vote for him or not, as you see fit. You've said you are not "playing the alternatives". Well, considering what the alternative is, it's really a damned shame it doesn't figure into your thinking.

"This is nothing to do with McCain vs. Obama"??? I beg to differ; it has everything to do with it. The direction of a nation and the welfare of its citizens are at stake here. And at this juncture, I believe those considerations to be of far more importance than anything else.

[sui generis]

233. I think we're reading each other wrong

I'm going to start over.

I'm on the same side as you.

I don't like to be told to suck it up and follow suit.

I don't like to be threatened with "the alternative" as a form of benevolent brow beating (when it's benevolent). I re-read your comments. You got my dander up lady.

I do ride a high horse myself. I am not a pretend lawyer. And I'm not pretend humble. I won't bore you with the "friends in high places" speech since you've indicated you don't care what anyone thinks. We do have some very very surprising ears. That is all on that topic, other than, yes my puny voice is heard as much as that must surely pain some here.

I have simple questions that require simple answers. When the "constitutional lawyer" can't answer them I'm guessing he can't answer them. Occams razor. I just wish he had taken the extra few minutes himself to inform himself well enough to answer those questions.

This was nothing about "personal desires" Nance. Stop! I am vested in Obama winning. Maybe my experience of being a student scrutinized for every nuance of expression by my peers and some very famous names in the classical music world leads me to think that criticism of performance is not because they hate you. It's because they want you to succeed, and that is where my "criticism" is coming from. You are an intelligent woman and I know you understand this part of what I'm saying. Criticism of Obama's choices is allowed if we're interested in what he thinks he represents about us.

I don't get that from your less carefully nuanced criticisms, but I'll chalk both of us up to talking past each other today. Here's a clue, oh positive optimistic one. Did I say anything right or that you can agree with or am I just a total contrarian?

Again, I really do enjoy your posts. I don't want to bicker.

I haven't read all of them, so I don't know if you personally support my family's form of marriage and our right to call it marriage, but I most certainly hope you didn't mean anything in that direction when you reiterated that Obama has to be a president for ALL Americans. SOME Americans think I shouldn't exist, and Lip Service to those Americans is not leadership. If Obama has to sell me out to become president he is going to have to keep me sold out to stay president, and that goes for many issues. If he's going to have to give law anti-constitutional lawbreakers a free pass to get elected, that's not leadership. He can do better. That's where I have more faith than you.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on Obama. When I say he is my "personal president" I'm saying I don't vote with the herd. I vote with whomever is going to represent the things that matter to me the most. Maybe I should have clarified, he's my personal choice for president. And yes he does have to listen because if he makes a habit of not listening then he's not MY president. I have real family values, my family matters to me more than anything in the world. Anything. I know I would run over the baby in the road before I drove off the cliff in that moral choice. Fortunately there are more colors in the rainbow than black and white. I've made my choice, and I assure you it's a choice. I'm not rolling dice, sacrificing what I want for my family for some "higher ideal" or blindly giving my vote to ANYONE, and I don't care if they walk on water and raise the dead twice a day before breakfast. Does that explain me better? Cautiously optimistic.

Friends?

[NanceGreggs]

242. Of course we're still friends!

I don't take anything said to me on this board as personal - even when people GET personal. This is political discussion, and I understand that hackles get raised due to disagreement on issues and policies; that shouldn't equate to personal dislike of those voicing opinions that may differ from our own.

I agree that we seem to have been talking at cross-purposes here. Just as you misconstrued my "you're one of many" comment, so I have misconstrued much of what you were trying to say. (Guess there's enough blame for BOTH of us to share?)

I do disagree with your comment that I don't care what anyone thinks; I do care about pretty much what everyone thinks (which is sometimes my undoing.) However, I have to accept that differing opinions can sometimes be equally valid, in which case the majority opinion - although it may be diametrically opposed to my own - must be given greater weight than that of one individual.

You've mentioned your "family's form of marriage" without being specific. I am assuming you are in a same-sex marriage(?) My position on this point is unequivocal. Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, and I never fail to be astounded that anyone would argue otherwise. I strongly believe in the recognition of gay marriage, along with full and equal rights for gays re adoption, sharing of spousal benefits, etc.

I know I have absolutely no right to beg your patience on that issue - after all, I'm not the one who's been anxiously awaiting my rights for decades. However, given the ignorance of many of our fellow citizens, it IS going to take more time and more patience - but every gain towards that end, though falling far short of the ultimate goal, should be viewed as a necessary part of the foundation upon which true equality can (and WILL) ultimately be built.

One note on the FISA thing: I am a court reporter, and have more than a passing familiarity with the concept of "warring experts". I have followed the various debates on this issue, here and elsewhere, and have listened to those on every side (and as you know, there seem to be a MILLION sides to this). Links to appraisals by Constitutional lawyers and scholars, links to the comments of "well-known" progressives, links to "tried-and-true" patriots who know whereof they speak - and yet all of the comments, appraisals and editorials say something different, each from the other.

Given that I have neither the necessary educational background nor inherent skills to decipher this bill and understand its every consequence, I have to put my faith in someone outside of myself - and I put that faith in Obama. It is by no means "blind faith", but as I said in my OP, sometimes a little faith is necessary - not unlike putting your faith in the lawyer who is trying your case, or the surgeon who is taking out your appendix. So far, Obama has not disappointed me - and if and when he does, I may take a completely different attitude. But that day is not yet here.

I want this man in the Oval Office. My personal admiration for him makes that choice an enthusiastic one, rather than merely a vote for the (D) over the (R). But had another candidate been the nominee - one with whom I may have disagreed strongly on many issues - they would have had my vote nonetheless, even if I viewed it as a vote not for them but a vote against the alternative. After the last eight years, the "alternative" is simply not an option.

I sincerely apologize for being abrupt and seemingly dismissive; it was not my intent. But that does not excuse my failure to read between the lines and listen before reacting to what I thought I heard, instead of what was actually being said.

(I also apologize for this long-winded response. If I haven't put you to sleep by now, you are either more patient than I could ever hope to be, or you are a hopeless insomniac!)

Peace be with you and yours.

[knixphan]

209. shoot me too.

[Imagevision]

223. Obama stepped in shit to dodge a bullet /nt.

[sui generis]

228. Okay without being negative

I would say that 20.20 hindsight realistically says that we also have to ask, was stepping in shit the only choice he had?

He had the pulpit, McCain was absent, and he could have been a leader on this one.

At the very least he could have qualified his vote with a better statement than "the issues around civil rights has been solved to my satisfaction".

If it was leadership it was patronizing. I don't want him to patronize. Some people here think that it's perfectly acceptable to be told what to think or negative to disagree, or that we should stop using our own brains and just have faith, and I agree a little bit, and up to a reasonable point.

But to go further and give him a free pass does not serve the democratic party or our candidate well AT ALL. And I don't care what "some people" think about that. I think realism IS positive.

It has substance.

[johnaries]

251. Bang!

LOL! Blanks!
:rofl:

Excellent post as usual, Nance!

[1Hippiechick]

254. Hate I didn't see it soon enought to recommend. Add me to the top of the list of your fans, and PM

me with others when you post, please. So sorry that I didn't see this early on. You posts are such a breath of fresh air on this so-called messageboard. I'm a newb, but have started spending more time on other boards. Something is wrong with this one - it's like it's in a self-destruct mode or something. Exchange of ideas? Ha! It's a "post-and-be-attacked" board. It's easy to look back through other posts where ppl don't even stay on topic - a side issue--usually off-topic-- pops up and the back-and-forth questioning becomes insults and then implodes.

I hope you will keep posting your marvelous pieces. I haven't had a chance to look at your journal yet.

Although the intent is to promote dialog may I suggest that you not respond to negative comments? That may "go against your grain" but it is certainly a tactic I would try. It seems to me that some of the detractors are not interested in promoting O - they are interested in promoting themselves.

Thanks, again, for a great post.

[Divine Discontent]

255. This is how I saw and felt about John Edwards...

and my feelings about Sen. Obama are not quite the same - but inwardly, I have a sincere belief in him as being just what this country needs at this particular time. Where Edwards was the loud and clear voice for the poor and homeless vets, the steelworker who just lost his home, and the nurse burnt out from an overcrowded ER, Senator Obama seems to be the voice of all the people - and that is why I believe he will make a great president. I hope he asks Senator Edwards to be a major cog in the US govt if Obama is elected (I will move far away if he isn't), and that Edwards accepts whatever is asked of him!

Great post, Nance! And I do NOT agree with the battered wife post, LOL...


more at: www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[Political Heretic]

256. Thank you Nance!