Four things that Obama does NOT believe (straight from his website)

[StefanX]

This is straight from Obama's website. It's on Obama's website TODAY.

He says that the following four things are MYTHS:

OBAMA SAYS THIS IS A MYTH: "We are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party."

OBAMA SAYS THIS IS A MYTH: "They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda."

OBAMA SAYS THIS IS A MYTH: "In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda.

OBAMA SAYS THIS IS A MYTH: "The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era."

http://obama.senate.gov/blog/050930-tone_truth_and_the_democratic_party/index.html

I repeat people, Obama says:

- the Repukes are NOT sharply partisan, they are NOT radically conservative, they are NOT take-no-prisoners.

- they did NOT beat us twice by mobilizing their base with read-meat rhetoric and with single-minded devotion.

- in order to beat them it is NOT necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda.

- when the country sees what we stand for and sees a sharp contrast, they will NOT rally to our side an usher in a new progressive era.

Do you agree with him?

[Mountainman]

1. When did he say those things? I haven't heard it or seen it.

[1corona4u]

5. Uh, the OP said they were on his website, did you miss that????

[Mountainman]

8. Uh, I went to the web site and could not find them. Most OPs supporting candidates here are full of

shit so I'm asking when did he say those things.

Uh?

[StefanX]

22. Do you know how to use CTL-F on your keyboard? Hello?!?

Click on the link, copy a piece of one of the Obama quotes, hit Ctl-F, and hit OK.

It will take you right to where he said this.

Cognitive dissonance, much? Just can't believe your guy is THIS delusional?

It's fine if you want to debate what he meant.

But for crying out loud, I gave you the link to his own website where he said these ridiculous things, and all you can came back with is you "could not find them"? As I said, Ctl-F is your friend.

You are not making Obama supporters look very intelligent if you are showing that you are incapable of reading or hitting Ctl-F.

[Mountainman]

24. I'm not supporting any candate.

[StefanX]

34. Well I AM supporting a candidate

I am supporting Edwards (because he says he will fight) and I am opposing Obama (because he says he will hope).

I thought the purpose of the primaries and of these discussion boards was to compare and contrast candidates and agendas and, you know, express a preference.

What is your conception of politics? We just all sit around and agree not to disagree?

Yeah, I know, it's just so UGLY having disagreements and all. Just like Obama says! He and you are both deluded in your understanding of politics.

[NoBorders]

57. Yep, I pretty much agree with Obama on this n/t

[StefanX]

80. Obama calls this a MYTH: "In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone"

Actually he calls it a "storyline" which is the same thing as "fiction" or a "myth")

He goes on to say "this perspective misreads the American people"

You pretty much agree with Obama on this one?

Okay! You just go on riding that wave and hoping, dude! Awesome!

[Capn Sunshine]

85. and you keep sharpening that axe

Mr under 1000 post newbie. Wonder what drove you to start posting here?
I have my own theories.

[StefanX]

89. I support Edwards.

Am I allowed to support Edwards over Obama without inciting your suspicions?

Please look up my other posts. I can't stand Hillary (not worth even talking about her because everyone sees through her as a focus-grouped Third-Way panderer who already sold out the the corporations and the insurance industry) and I think Obama's strategy of "hope" is naive and ineffectual, and his policies are too vague, and he doesn't take questions after his speeches (like Bush), and he supported Donnie McClurkin, and his HIV/AIDS policies are much weaker and less specific than Edwards's, and he attacked Paul Krugman, and he used the right-wing talking point about "trial lawyers" and about the (nonexistent) Social Security "crisis".

My general take on Obama is that his strategy of "hoping" versus "fighting" will be completely ineffectual, and he is starting to strike me as almost Lieberman-like in his emerging pattern of going out of his way to attack progressives.

I also think that Hillary and Obama are bad choices because they're getting too much money from large corporate donors, whereas Edwards is rejecting their money. You know how that works out once they get elected -- they dance with the one that brung them and tell the little people to piss off.

I am also very upset that this 3-way Dem race has been portrayed by the media as a 2-way race between Obama and Hillary. I think that there is an "Edwards media blackout" going on because the media and the corporations know that Edwards will rein them in and stop them from sucking our blood.

In the end of course we all know that Obama or Hillary or Edwards would all be way better than any of the Republicans, and I will of course support the Dem nominee. But while we're still deciding who that nominee is, I would like to be able to express my preference for Edwards over Obama without arousing your suspicions.

During primary season in a tightly contested three-way race, it is to be expected that many DUers will attack the other two candidates. You don't need to assume that because of a "low post count" there's something nefarious going on. Jeez.

I will take this opportunity to link to some of my recent posts here -- thereby getting a shameless plug in here and hopefully convincing you of my bona fides.

Obama's Delusional DKos Diary: sez Repukes NOT "partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2630389

Don't renew licenses for broadcasters implicated in the Edwards media blackout
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2611506

This is a historic opportunity. So let's blow it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2620408

Revoke their charters, don't renew their licenses, force GE to divest NBC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2629214

I don't get all this stuff about healthcare "mandates" and "signups" and "penalties"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2629476

[StefanX]

90. I support Edwards. Obama's message of "hoping" is ok, but Edwards' message of "fighting" is better

Am I allowed to support Edwards over Obama without inciting your suspicions? Things are too far gone in our country to fix things using Obama's strategy of hope. Edwards strategy of fighting is much better, I believe, and will not alienate people because Edwards actually polls better than Obama against the Republicans.

Please look up my other posts. I can't stand Hillary (not worth even talking about her because everyone sees through her as a focus-grouped Third-Way panderer who already sold out the the corporations and the insurance industry) and I think Obama's strategy of "hope" is naive and ineffectual, and his policies are too vague, and he doesn't take questions after his speeches (like Bush), and he supported Donnie McClurkin, and his HIV/AIDS policies are much weaker and less specific than Edwards's, and he attacked Paul Krugman, and he used the right-wing talking point about "trial lawyers" and about the (nonexistent) Social Security "crisis".

My general take on Obama is that his strategy of "hoping" versus "fighting" will be completely ineffectual, and he is starting to strike me as almost Lieberman-like in his emerging pattern of going out of his way to attack progressives.

I also think that Hillary and Obama are bad choices because they're getting too much money from large corporate donors, whereas Edwards is rejecting their money. You know how that works out once they get elected -- they dance with the one that brung them and tell the little people to piss off.

I am also very upset that this 3-way Dem race has been portrayed by the media as a 2-way race between Obama and Hillary. I think that there is an "Edwards media blackout" going on because the media and the corporations know that Edwards will rein them in and stop them from sucking our blood.

In the end of course we all know that Obama or Hillary or Edwards would all be way better than any of the Republicans, and I will of course support the Dem nominee. But while we're still deciding who that nominee is, I would like to be able to express my preference for Edwards over Obama without arousing your suspicions.

During primary season in a tightly contested three-way race, it is to be expected that many DUers will attack the other two candidates. You don't need to assume that because of a "low post count" there's something nefarious going on. Jeez.

I will take this opportunity to link to some of my recent posts here -- thereby getting a shameless plug in here and hopefully convincing you of my bona fides.

Obama's Delusional DKos Diary: sez Repukes NOT "partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2630389

Don't renew licenses for broadcasters implicated in the Edwards media blackout
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2611506

This is a historic opportunity. So let's blow it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2620408

Revoke their charters, don't renew their licenses, force GE to divest NBC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2629214

I don't get all this stuff about healthcare "mandates" and "signups" and "penalties"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2629476

[Rockholm]

97. He's been here since 2004.

Maybe he doesn't spend all day posting on DU.

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. I just did that on the first quote. I got "passage not found".

So maybe you could provide a better link?
EDIT:
Oops. never mind. I'd included the quotation marks on my search.

[goodgd_yall]

30. He didn't say exactly what the OP states

You have to read Obama's open letter to extract what the OP is saying.

[JuniperLea]

45. It's right there on Obama's website...

Follow the link... plain as day. Oh, and Obama says "we" don't think Bush is mean-spirited either... just so you know.

[bowens43]

9. Did you read it on his website?

he does not say what the OP implies. The original poster is using swiftboat tactics to mislead you . Did you miss that?

[StefanX]

31. I am not swiftboating. I am quoting Obama's website

There is a link to the webpage in the OP (original post).

The words which Obama used are all in QUOTES. My words are NOT in quotes.

Now you're gonna say that me quoting a candidate's website is "swiftboating"?

Jeez, you're really making Obama supporters look intelligent. Someone quotes Obama's own campaign website, quoting Obama's carefully crafted message, vetted by him and his strategists, and you call that "swiftboating"?

Would you care to address the substance of what Obama said? (Not what I said, I am merely quoting him and saying he's naive).

I will ask you once again: Do you agree with what Obama said here? I think it is a fair question, and if you can't answer it, that says something.

[StefanX]

52. The link is in the post. It's on his website. Hello?!? Are you the surfer riding the wave?

nt

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Obama believes that hope can conquer the politics of fear.

or words to that effect.

[sam sarrha]

11. poor sucker really doesnt know who he is up against.. and they support him, rove and gingrich

:rofl:

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. I'm starting to look at this thing with morbid fascination, wondering

what will happen to Obama when he goes against these people. Can "good" triumph over "evil"?

[DURHAM D]

62. One would "hope"... n/t

[wilt the stilt]

17. They will make hope

a weapon against him by making him look naive

[The_Casual_Observer]

27. It's going to have to be done with great care to make it work. Obama

is wise to use the word "hope". It's an Oprah kind of thing, who in their right mind would argue against hope?

[wilt the stilt]

46. they will say

hope is for dreamers and experience demands strategy and if he gets pegged with the inexperience tag he is done. That combined with the 10% that won't vote for a black. he will be a loser

[The_Casual_Observer]

48. If they run McCain it could cut both ways. For him to enter a discussion

about hope would make him out to be a sour old geezer, the press would be all about the dawning of a new day.

[we can do it]

96. I Hope People Get A Clue

[JuniperLea]

3. Nope.

I don't like that he voted for the new bankruptcy laws either. This couldn't be a coincidence... the laws changing just before a large quantity of people being on the brink of losing their homes.

Those four statements you quoted sum up our recent history. To say they are myths is unconscionable.

[cali]

15. for the hundredth time: He did NOT, NOT, NOT vote for the Bankruptcy

laws. It's disgraceful to spread LIES. And it pisses me off more than anything else.

Obama voted against the new bankruptcy legislation, unlike another candidate who voted for similar legislation, a few years ago.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

[TwilightZone]

42. Never mind....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Do I agree? Yes, for the most part.

[sam sarrha]

4. that is all the info i need to write him off as delusional.. or just a nut case

[bowens43]

6. Wow. Way to pull things out of context

and to twist them until they're no longer recognizable.

[StefanX]

47. Here's the context. Here's Obama's website. It's pretty much the same as the OP

...but if you want a little more context to make sure I'm not twisting his words, then fine.

Here's the three whole consecutive paragraphs from Obama's website where those quotes are from. Nothing cut, nothing skipped. The man himself:

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

Please note that Obama's saying all those things above are just a STORYLINE -- they're MYTHS. He's saying these are things which we (progressives, DU) believe, but Obama doesn't. (Typical of Obama, dissing progressives. Very Lieberman of him.)

OK, continuing with the next paragraph:

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

So, Obama thinks Bush is NOT mean-spirited and NOT prejudiced Obama wrote this in 2005 I believe, it would be interesting to know if it was pre or post Katrina! Yeah, Bush kills black people in New Orleans, but Bush is NOT prejudiced! That's a good one, Obama!

He's saying America is NOT an imperialist brute. He's basically trying to downplay all the atrocities committed by BushCo.

OK, next paragraph:

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

He's saying Supreme Justice John Roberts is NOT an ideologue bent on overturning ever vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. He's saying Bush should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

It's also cute how Obama uses the word "hope" here! People "hope" Roberts won't swing the court too sharply to the right. How quaint, the audacity of "hope"!

===

So I am NOT taking stuff out of context. I am NOT twisting Obama's words.

And I would like to ask you a simple question and I really want an answer:

Do you agree with what Obama is saying?

[fishwax]

79. wow, your logic is pretty unreliable

So, Obama thinks Bush is NOT mean-spirited and NOT prejudiced ...

Your own quotes show quite clearly that Obama didn't say this; rather, he was offering his reading of how Americans feel. Ditto for pretty much every other claim you've attributed to him in that post.

[StefanX]

82. Well, Obama's wrong again, because most Americans DO feel Bush is mean-spirited and prejudiced

Particularly the ones Obama should be appealing to, like, you know, his base or his constiuency or whatever.

When's the last time you heard a Republican sticking up for a Democrat?

When's the last time you heard a Republican say "Most Americans think Clinton did NOT have sex with that woman"?

When's the last time you heard a Republican say "Most Americans think Gore did NOT lie about inventing the internet"?

While you are desperately splitting hairs trying to find a way to parse Obama's statements to make the sound less naive, the fact is, Obama is saying nice things about Bush.

And my point is, why should he bother doing this?

Aside from whether Obama meant Bush is NOT mean-spirited and prejudiced or meant Americans don't THINK Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, would you mind explaining to me why it's Obama's job to stick up for George Bush?

Like I said, the Republicans never say nice things about the Dems. And I don't think Obama should say nice things about Bush. If Obama is too timid to attack the most hated President in history, whose party Obama is running against, the Obama should find something else to talk about.

I think Obama is incredibly naive and misguided trying to say nice things about Bush.

[fishwax]

88. again, your logic fails

If your position is now that he is naively misreading the American people, you could have just said that earlier instead of distorting what he actually said for the sake of making a splash, but oh well. As for your claims in the latest post ...

Well, Obama's wrong again, because most Americans DO feel Bush is mean-spirited and prejudiced

Do you have any evidence to support that, or is it just wishful thinking? Because I suspect that, on the whole, the American people, as Obama said, are recognizing that Bush is incompetent, but most in America (unlike most here, including myself) don't think that he's mean-spirited and prejudice. (It's still a case worth making, though, because I think more Americans would be open to believing it now than a few years ago.)

Particularly the ones Obama should be appealing to, like, you know, his base or his constiuency or whatever.

Seems to me that Obama is appealing pretty effectively to those people, seeing as he did real well in the caucus "or whatever."

When's the last time you heard a Republican sticking up for a Democrat?

When's the last time you heard a Republican say "Most Americans think Clinton did NOT have sex with that woman"?

When's the last time you heard a Republican say "Most Americans think Gore did NOT lie about inventing the internet"?

Not ever, that I can remember--of course, none of that is really relevant to what Obama actually said.

While you are desperately splitting hairs trying to find a way to parse Obama's statements to make the sound less naive, the fact is, Obama is saying nice things about Bush.

That's rich. You get called on your third-grade logic and then accuse me of desperation and splitting hairs :rofl:

Aside from whether Obama meant Bush is NOT mean-spirited and prejudiced or meant Americans don't THINK Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, would you mind explaining to me why it's Obama's job to stick up for George Bush?

Like I said, the Republicans never say nice things about the Dems. And I don't think Obama should say nice things about Bush. If Obama is too timid to attack the most hated President in history, whose party Obama is running against, the Obama should find something else to talk about.

I think Obama is incredibly naive and misguided trying to say nice things about Bush.

Obama didn't say nice things about bush (at least, not in what you posted). Rather, the text you quote is attempting to make a case for the kind of message that will appeal to the American people, thus ensuring an end to eight disastrous years of republican rule. He's arguing that the message which appeals to those of us on the left (that bush is mean-spirited, that the war represents U.S. imperialism run amok, etc.) are not as likely to win the day in a general election. I think that intent is pretty clear. :shrug:

Now, whether or not that approach is the right one or not is debatable. But attacking that approach doesn't require distorting what he actually said.

[StefanX]

95. Your distinction between Obama's opinion, and his reading of Americans' opinion, is valid

I stand corrected.

Obama did NOT say that he disagreed with the four points in the OP. He said that Americans disagreed with the four points in the OP.

But I still think he's wrong.

Yes I was being a bit slick by conflating Obama's opinions with his reading of Americans' opinions.

But if you read Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" then you will agree that this conflation is valid.

The gist is that Obama disagrees (excuse me, Obama thinks Americans disagree) with the following statement:

"In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone."

And I'm sorry, but that's just messed up.

So I apologize for conflating Obama's opinions and his reading of Americans' opinions, but given the realities of framing as explained by Lakoff I think that conflation was valid and does not constitute a material "distortion".

As you said in your final sentence: "whether or not {Obama's} approach is the right one or not is debatable". Indeed, that approach is "debatable" -- I think that approach is downright ineffective. Do you agree with that part of my argument?

[fishwax]

100. I agree with that part of your argument, generally

I think that Dems need more backbone; I think we need to be unafraid to get in the trenches and brawl with the repubs, because I think the repubs have clearly shown they're willing to employ whatever tactics against us that they think will work. And I agree with you in the sense that whoever wins our nomination will have a brawl on their hands, and will have to be willing to brawl.

On the whole, though, I think this is a substantially different issue/argument (and, imo, a more effective one) than the OP. :) :hi:

[readmoreoften]

68. Sorry, this is utterly in context, it perfectly matches his current rhetoric, and it's scary. /nt

[HeraldSquare212]

7. Yes.

Because if you read the entire essay, he's saying that the voters in the Rep Party are not that way, and it's the voters that he wants to go after. He's not denying that the Rep Party has used those tactics, etc.

[jackson_dem]

10. Compare that to the REAL JFK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAGyT-z9SlA&eurl=http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011671.php

[SteppingRazor]

12. Here's what he actually said. I think you're oversimplifying it.

"According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee."

The link is in the OP, so you can read the whole thing for yourself. I don't necessarily agree with everything Obama said here, but he did not say it's a "myth" that there is no partisan, radically conservative party. He just said that the average American doesn't see it that way.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. I think he's right. Most Americans don't see things the same way as lefty bloggers. nt

[sandnsea]

37. Well he's talking about adult discourse

and I learned a long time ago that it rarely exists online.

[Elidor]

54. Thanks

All this time I've thought he was speaking about the GOP rather than its voters. It's an important distinction, and he needs to make it much more clear when he speaks.

[StefanX]

56. Obama uses the word "storyline". I changed that to "myth" which is the same thing.

Either way, these are things which Obama does NOT believe.

He says it's just a storyline (ie, a myth) to say that Republicans are "take-no-prisoners", "sharply partisan", "radically conservative".

He says it's just a storyline (ie, a myth) to say that they "beat us twice by energizing their base with red-meat rhetoric and single-minded discipline and devotion to their agenda".

He says it's just a storyline (ie, a myth) to say that the country will "rally to our side" and "usher in a new progressive era" "once they finally know what we stand for".

He says it's just a storyline (ie, a myth) to say that it's necessary for the "Dems to get some backbone".

I say, the man is seriously deluded and the Republicans are going to eat him for lunch.

[SteppingRazor]

60. Again, you're misrepresenting the actual quote.

What he says is that, regardless of what may or may not be the truth of the Republican Party, here's what your typical non-political junkie believes. And he's right. Most people completely shut down the minute they sense partisan bickering.

[readmoreoften]

69. Whether he called it a "story" or a "myth" he still doesn't think Republicans are adversarial.

And that's fucking delusional.

[SteppingRazor]

70. That's not what he said.

He didn't say Republicans aren't adversarial, he said most Americans don't see them that way.

[Capn Sunshine]

87. DU is the LAST place to try to explain this

what do we expect.

[redqueen]

13. Un. Frickin. Real.

:banghead:

[KittyWampus]

32. what's unreal? The opening poster is full of shit? or are you happy to just accept that crap

because you don't like Obama?

[redqueen]

39. The OP isn't "full of shit" ... only mischaracterized...

And I never said I don't like Obama, so I don't know where the fuck you get off lying about me like that.

As for what my actual thoughts are, since I *think* that's what you meant to ask... I don't think this guy understands how easily those poor, misguided U.S-ians who don't believe all those "myths" will be turned against him as easily as they've been misled on every other fucking subject regarding politics.

[Der Blaue Engel]

14. I was about to come to Obama's defense

and tell you that you were quoting a letter that was over two years old written in response to some liberaler-than-thou posts on Kos, and that you were mischaracterizing his comments...and then I read the whole thing.

If he still believes what he says in this letter (and I assume that if he did not, he would remove it or post an update), he is not someone I want in the White House. This saddens me. :(

[goldcanyonaz]

16. We don't like to read, cuz, we're ridin the wave...

Better get on the train before you're run over.

[Cronus Protagonist]

19. I dislike Obama as much as anyone else, but the word "myth" doesn't appear on the linked page

I read the speech/article and what Obama said was, and I quote, "I think this perspective misreads the American people.", which is much worse than Obama merely thinking these things are myths. He is so naiive, and almost tooth grindingly myopic, at best, and at worst, what Obama is saying is that those of us who do believe these things are not the American people, but some other group of un-American partisan hacks.

You know what, FUCK YOU OBAMA.

There, I feel better now.

:P

[KittyWampus]

35. "I dislike Obama as much as anyone else"? It's not a common phenomenon. And if you think most GOP'er

are the rapid partisans and not prospective liberals who've been bamboozled by NeoConservative/Libertarian propaganda, then you must not get out much and interact with real people.

[Cronus Protagonist]

38. Thanks doc.

Nice projection.

[StefanX]

58. You're right, he doesn't use the word "myth" -- he uses the equivalent word "storyline"

Either way, these are things which Obama does NOT believe.

He says it's just a storyline (ie, a myth) to say that Republicans are "take-no-prisoners", "sharply partisan", "radically conservative".

He says it's just a storyline (ie, a myth) to say that they "beat us twice by energizing their base with red-meat rhetoric and single-minded discipline and devotion to their agenda".

He says it's just a storyline (ie, a myth) to say that the country will "rally to our side" and "usher in a new progressive era" "once they finally know what we stand for".

He says it's just a storyline (ie, a myth) to say that it's necessary for the "Dems to get some backbone".

And I say: Obama, you are certifiably insane.

[Cronus Protagonist]

61. There are true stories, you know, but I don't think we disagree on substance

Clearly He discounts those of us who have spent the last seven years fighting the fascist GOP machine in the US of A as less than the Americans who are clearly ill or uninformed about what's really going on in this country.

[fishwax]

81. storyline and myth aren't equivalent n/t

[StefanX]

83. They ARE equivalent when the next para says: "this perspective misreads the American people"

He's saying this is just a storyline, and he believes this storyline or perspective misreads the American people.

So "storyline" = fiction = myth = "this perspective misreads the American people".

No matter how you slice it, he's saying the Republicans aren't so nasty as the "storyline" makes them out to be.

And catch this quote: "In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone."

Sound good, but that's part of the STORYLINE, the PERSPECTIVE THAT MISREADS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

This clearly means that Obama thinks "In order to beat them, it is NOT necessary for Democrats to get some backbone."

Sorry, but Obama is clearly delusional.

But, you know, he's charming, and he's a hoper not a fighter, and he's the rider and we're the wave, so all he has to do is turn on his super-duper charm and the corporations (who already OWN Obama) and the Republicans will just melt away before his smile.

[fishwax]

91. actually, they are not equivalent at all--it's odd that you seem unable to make your case w/o

relying on distortion.

Storyline and myth are not the same thing, even when he disagrees with the storyline.

No matter how you slice it, he's saying the Republicans aren't so nasty as the "storyline" makes them out to be.

No, he's saying that most Americans don't consider republicans as nasty as the "storyline" makes them out to be. Those are two different assertions, no matter how much you'd like to conflate them.

[StefanX]

94. You're technically correct that Obama is about others' opinions, not his own

But I still think that Obama should not be making this sort of argument.

You are technically correct in saying that I conflated Obama's own opinions with his reading of Americans' opinions. Obama is talking about his reading of Americans' opinions, not about his own opinions. But I think your correction here is really a minor point.

Because Obama, by bringing this up, (either way: as his own opinion or as his reading of Americans' opinions), is simply focusing on the wrong issue and framing it the wrong way. And this kind of tone-deafness about how to frame things is a pattern many people have been noticing with Obama -- a pattern of (intentionally? unintentionally?) repeating right-wing talking points and right-wing framing. If you are familiar with Lakoff's (sp?) book "Don't Think of an Elephant" you will agree how counterproductive this is.

Let's look at another item which Obama regards as a "storyline" and a "misreading", from the same page and included in the OP:

"In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone."

Whether Obama is saying HE disagrees with this or most AMERICANS disagree with this (or feel it's just a "storyline" or a "misreading"), the point is, Obama is not SUPPORTING this idea.

I would prefer it if Obama said "Many people feel that in order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone -- and I agree." Now, THAT would be inspiring.

But instead, Obama is doing the opposite. He brings up this really great idea about the Dems needing more backbone, and then he negates it. Again, the issue of whether he's labeling this idea as his own, or as an idea shared by many Americans, or by progressives (which is the only issue you've really been addressing here) is really tangential to the MAIN issue, which is: if Obama brings up this idea (no matter WHOSE it is, his or Americans'), he should SUPPORT it, not tear it down!

So you've made your point about me conflating Obama's opinion and his reading of Americans' opinions.

Would you care to address my point about Obama's lukewarm support for the idea of Dems having a backbone, or any of the other ideas he rejects / rebuts / disagrees with in that list of four in the original post? Because that is the main point here.

[fishwax]

98. you may consider it a "minor" point, but intentionally and repeatedly ignoring it undermines your

argument in a major way.

Whether Obama is saying HE disagrees with this or most AMERICANS disagree with this (or feel it's just a "storyline" or a "misreading"), the point is, Obama is not SUPPORTING this idea.

Well, maybe and maybe not--we don't really know enough just from these quotes to know for sure. He's offered a "storyline" and then suggested that buying into that storyline as a political strategy is a bad idea because it misreads the American people. That doesn't mean, first of all, that he believes any of the claims in the paragraph are strictly false, but rather that stridently trumpeting them as truth will not be effective, because it misreads the American people--i.e., the American people, as a whole, aren't going to get behind that kind of message.

Further, that Obama rejects the storyline as ineffective (or even false) doesn't necessarily mean that he rejects each individual component specifically. So there isn't really anything in there that says he doesn't think Dems need backbone. My suspicion (and I'm neither Obama nor even an Obama supporter, so I can't feign to speak for him) is that he thinks that democrats do have backbone, and by including that in his list he's taking issue with the oft-made argument from those on the left that (for example) approving the Roberts nomination is proof that dems don't have backbone.

So you've made your point about me conflating Obama's opinion and his reading of Americans' opinions.

Would you care to address my point about Obama's lukewarm support for the idea of Dems having a backbone, or any of the other ideas he rejects / rebuts / disagrees with in that list of four in the original post? Because that is the main point here.

Of course, even here you're still conflating Obama's opinion with his reading of Americans' opinions. And you're also relying on other logical leaps, such as equating his ambivalence about embracing the "dems need more backbone" chant as a political strategy with "lukewarm support for the idea of Dems having a backbone" at all. Surely you can see that these aren't equivalent.

So what point am I supposed to address again? If you could make a point without relying on distortions or misrepresentations, then I might address it. Heck, since I'm not yet in the Obama camp, I might even agree with the point. For instance: I would prefer it if Obama said "Many people feel that in order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone -- and I agree." Now, THAT would be inspiring. I agree; that would be great to hear him say.

[Mountainman]

20. This is from his web site, "whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling

poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough."

That means Dems don't need backbone?

[Dawgs]

21. I agree with him.

[terisan]

25. I am bothered by the Roberts defense and the Senators who voted for Roberts.

I believe the Dems should have filibustered and left the seat empty if necessary and figured out a way to change the conversation when the right wing media flipped.

[goodgd_yall]

26. It's troubling

but he's talking about reading the American people. And I think he's correct to think that they will not go for the progressive POV. (He didn't exactly say that, but it seems to be the jist of what he's saying.) You can see this as being a realist, pandering, or ambition. I do think he sincerely wants to serve the country, but I'm troubled by his "let's make nice" rhetoric. He's convinced he can get things done by working and compromising with Republicans and conservative Democrats. I wouldn't mind the soft-pedalling of Republican power to get elected as long as he kicked ass as a liberal/progressive when in office, but I don't think that's what he's up to.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

28. Here's my take on that:

Copied from a post I made last night about this same thing:

Don't get me wrong, the only "reaching across" I want to do to Republicans is to punch them in the jaw. However, Obama's "bi-partisan" or "post-partisan" whatever you want to call it message looks like it's resonating. And that's a good thing. Because you see, as infuriating as this is, when Democrats attack Republican or conservative leadership or policies, it's interpreted as an attack on Republican or conservative voters themselves. It is. Numerous examples, from John Kerry's "botched joke" to MoveOn's Betray Us ad kerfluffle demostrate this.

Yet conservatives can always attack Democrats and liberals with seeming impunity. Why? Because many years ago they created an easily attacked proxy, a Strawliberal if you will. The Strawliberal is pretentious, overeducated, cheese eating, effete, snobby, intellectual, pot smoking, criminal coddling, troop hating, etc. etc. (Not that there's anything wrong with most of those things! ) Strawliberal became a convenient scapegoat for the conservatives to project the resentments of ordinary Americans upon. Strawliberal bears little to no resemblence to most Democratic voters, or the American public in general, which overwhelmingly supports progressive policies. This is why they get away with the insulting characterization, while we can't reciprocate.

For our part, we liberals have been unable to create an equivalent Strawconservative. It may be because we are just too darned reasonable. Admittedly, it's tricky for a Democrat to speak of reaching out to Republicans, because of the way they turn it against us. But it's consistent with our value of tolerance and cooperation, and thus far Obama seems to be getting away with it. He's attracting a wide breadth of support, without appearing to compromise his core progressive values.

You contrast him with JFK, and that's fair enough because that comparison has certainly been made quite a bit. For my part, I am hoping he is more similar to FDR. Roosevelt ran in 1932 as a business-friendly moderate during a very difficult economic time in America. He won and went on to revolutionize the role of government in terms of creating economic opportunity and a social safety net. We need another New Deal and Obama may be the person to bring it about, if my intuition about him is right.

Just my $.02

[Texas_Kat]

29. Its always astonished me

that the most partisan of Democratic partisans (all of us here at DU) are so supportive of this 'why can't we just get along" guy.

I expect every Obama supporter to stop bashing Democrats who actually work with Republicans and will never expect anyone to use names like "blue dog' Democrats or vichy dems again --ever.

Be careful what you wish for, Obamaramas ..... you may have to live with it.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

33. "I think this perspective misreads the American people."

he is telling you what the American people think about those "myths", not what he thinks about those myths. That's a big difference. Here is the following paragraph to the phrases you listed (and rearranged to fit your MO), and yes, I agree with it:

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.


Obviously, he isn't talking about DU members here, he's referring to the "average" American. if you're going to twist what he says don't post a link to the source material - it just shows how you have either misunderstood the text or have deliberately misrepresented it.

[IronLionZion]

36. Yup, and I agree with him. Obama's stock just went up in my book.

he has a good sense of the American people and that's obviously why he did well in Iowa. DU is not a microcosm of America, we're not even a microcosm of the Democratic party. Americans just aren't as political as we are.

I'm glad you posted this piece from his site. Thank you for giving the link to the entire piece. It was a good read and I enjoy learning these things about our candidates so I can make an informed decision. I haven't yet chosen a candidate now that Biden has dropped out.

Thanks! :hi:

[Occam Bandage]

40. I note you ignored this point

"Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response."

But that would get in the way of your distortion, wouldn't it?

[rAVES]

41. THe US will never survive unless it has a president that HATES a good chunk of the country...

[StefanX]

50. Yeah, and the chunk that Obama HATES is the progressives. He disses us enough.

OBAMA SAYS THIS IS A MYTH: "It is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda."

Obama doesn't like Dems with backbone. He says so right here himself.

So you're right -- if Obama is President, he will hate a good chunk of the country. He'll hate the Progressives, the Dems with backbone.

[rAVES]

55. Don't be ridicules.. its very unbecoming... n/t

[redqueen]

64. "Obama doesn't like Dems with backbone. He says so right here himself"

Okay now THAT is some straight-up bullshit!

:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

43. What would he gain by saying the opposite?

Would he make a bunch of us feel good? What good is that? If we are to win, we have to do what it takes to win despite not having someone coddle us. The side that needs coddling is the side more likely to lose, all other things being equal.

[Zorra]

84. Some of us find it very important that our leaders exhibit honesty and integrity.

Especially since we have just experienced 7 years of lies, deceit, and corruption.

[JuniperLea]

44. Notice how he tells us how we think too...

We don't think Bush is mean-spirited... no, sure we don't. "Please don't let me die... whine whine whine..." No, he's not mean-spirited at all. :eyes:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

49. he said the average american does not think that, and that is very likely true n/t

[JuniperLea]

53. I'm happy his crystal ball is working that well...

Because just about 90% of the people I talk to think Bush is evil incarnate and hasn't a sympathetic bone in his body. The "average American" isn't going out to Obama's meet and greets either, so I'd like to know where he's finding them.

[redqueen]

66. Where do you live?

Cause I think he's probably dead-on.

I just think he's underestimating how quickly those well-meaning clueless masses will turn on him once the spin machine is fully engaged.

[JuniperLea]

73. Los Angeles...

And day after day I'm discovering more and more Republicans who voted for Bush TWICE who think he's evil and just plain wrong. The vast majority of those R's vow to vote for a Democrat this time around.

[rucky]

51. Okay, I read the whole thing...

and the conclusions you choose to draw from that one paragraph actually proves his central point, which is - simply put: just because somebody's not right there with you doesn't mean they're against you.

Nobody will take the net-roots seriously as long as they're willing to throw someone like Dick Durbin under the same bus as Josh Bolten.

I still have progressive ideals, but Obama's right about most Americans being sick of partisanism. If that weren't the truth, then impeachment would be on the table, Kucinich would be the frontrunner, Wexler would have his million signatures, and Bush would have no funding for his war. We're not winning by fighting head-on. We're not getting any of the mainstream speaking our language, so why not take a different tack?

[RaleighNCDUer]

63. Shhhhh. Let's not mention that this is a quote from 2 1/2 years ago,

relating to the confirmation of Justice Roberts. (which he voted against, BTW)

Has the mood of the country changed since then?

Have the past two years of attempting to compromise, and work across the aisle changed his outlook since then?

Can you spell D I S I N G E N U O U S?

[readmoreoften]

65. Oh Please. People rip Edwards for things that happened 6 years ago. Two years is nothing.

This is hardly disingenuous and as far as I can tell it is still EXACTLY Obama's take on things.

[itsrobert]

67. Get a screenshot before it's scrubbed

SOP for Obama campaign.

[Adelante]

71. Do you know how often Edwards has scrubbed his site(s)?

Try not to be hypocritical when you criticize candidates, please.

[greguganus]

72. How does "storyline" mean "myth"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/story%20line

1. plot (def. 2).
2. a detailed description of the plot of a motion picture, TV series, etc., for use by writers, producers, prospective investors, or the like: The story line runs to 125 pages.
Also, sto·ry·line.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/story%20line

Thesaurus of the word storyline: basis, conclusion, core, crux, essence, fiber, final decision, fundamentals, key point, last word, main idea, main thing, meat and potatoes, name of the game, net, nitty-gritty, nuts and bolts, point, profit, reality, sum and substance, what it's all about, whole story

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/storyline (merriam webster)

Main Entry:
story line
Function:
noun
Date:
1941

: the plot of a story or drama

[redqueen]

74. When you're reading through spin-colored lenses?

:shrug:

[ClericJohnPreston]

77. THANK YOU OP

FOR THE "SMOKING GUN".

An expression we Trial Attorneys use to distinguish the evidence that proves our case.

THIS IS A CYNICAL AND I UNDERLINE THE TERM CYNICAL, ATTEMPT BY OBAMA TO ISSUE A PEREMPTIVE MANIPULATIVE STRIKE AGAINST EDWARDS AND REALITY.

IT IS AS ROVIAN A PLOT AS I'VE EVER SEEN A DEM USE.

HE KNOWS HIS WEAKNESS AND IS NOW TRYING TO MISLABEL YOUR OWN REALITY AND CALL IT UNREALITY.

WELCOME BACK TO THE BUSHCO MATRIX WHERE WAR IS PEACE AND POVERTY IS PROVIDENCE.

OBAMA = 1984

[StefanX]

75. "Storyline" = "myth". Obama goes on to say "I think this perspective misreads the American people"

Thanks for the dictionary quotes, but you might find it easier to figure out what Obama meant by, you know, actually reading the page.

But your dictionary definition actually hurts your argument as well. The dictionary definition you give (and Obama's website) refer to a "story(line)" as FICTION.

Do you get it now?

Obama is saying that the notion that Republicans are "sharply partisan", "radically conservative," "take no prisoners" is a STORYLINE or FICTION or a MYTH.

Obama is saying that the notion that "In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone" is a STORYLINE or FICTION or a MYTH.

Thanks for backing up my point with your dictionary definition. Enjoy riding that wave, dude.

[Flabbergasted]

78. Which does not mean he believes it's a myth.

Overall I read the article and I think your OP is rediculous.

That's all I have to say about it.

[StefanX]

86. "Storyline" = myth = "this perspective misreads the American people"

Call it what you will, a "storyline" (Obama's word) or a "myth" (my word) or "this perspective misreads the American people" (Obama's words)...

Whatever you call it, Obama is saying here that he DISAGREES with the following four statements:

OBAMA SAYS THIS IS A STORYLINE / A PERSPECTIVE THAT MISREADS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:
"We are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party."

OBAMA SAYS THIS IS A STORYLINE / A PERSPECTIVE THAT MISREADS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:
"They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda."

OBAMA SAYS THIS IS A STORYLINE / A PERSPECTIVE THAT MISREADS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:
"In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda."

OBAMA SAYS THIS IS A STORYLINE / A PERSPECTIVE THAT MISREADS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:
"The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era."

Obama DISAGREES with those statements.

Go back and read this one in particular:
"In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone."

Obama says this is just a "storyline" and it is "a perspective which misreads the American people."

Those are Obama's words, not mine.

If the OP is "ridiculous," it's "ridiculous" the same way the Michael Moore's 9/11 movie was "ridiculous" for showing FOOTAGE of Bush in the classroom, frozen, reading My Pet Goat.

I am QUOTING OBAMA. And you say it's "ridiculous". Just like the freepers thought it was riduculous for Michael Moore to show FOOTAGE of their Dear Leader during a crisis.

It might be interesting if you would answer my question. And my question is quite simple:

Do you agree with Obama?

When Obama says that the notion that "In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone." is just a "storyline" or "a perspective that misreads the American people" I want to know: DO YOU AGREE WITH OBAMA?

Please answer the question and stop calling the OP "ridiculous."

This is a serious issue. There is a concern here that people are just getting into Obama's great speeches (where he doesn't take questions from the audience by the way). There is a concern here that he's being too vague when he talks about "hope" or "you're the wave and I'm the rider."

There is a concern that Obama's actually policies have been too vaguely specified, and he might turn against us because, after all, like Hillary he's been bought and paid for by corporations (unlike Edwards, who is NOT accepting large corporate donations).

I am seriously worried about Obama's policies, and I am seriously worried that he does not know how to deal with the Republicans.

Can you address these points with some counterpoints of your own, or are you just going to call the OP "ridiculous"?

I'm trying to get specifics from Obama and from you. And I'm getting nowhere.

[Flabbergasted]

93. You obviously were looking for an attack and you found one....

Well done.

However your "storyline" leaves out the bulk of the letter and Obama makes some pretty good points. I'm not crazy about the idea of bipartisanship since it seems to have been stripped from the Republican vernacular however here is what Obama says on the subject in this very article:

"In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design."

And yes your OP is rediculous.

[Flabbergasted]

92. delete

[reggie the dog]

76. the whole quote from his site

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts w

[Barack_America]

99. So, he should instead promote war between the parties??

Yeah, that'll win the independents. :eyes:

It's amazing how so many people who follow politics, have NO IDEA what politics are all about.

[krkaufman]

101. Dude or dudette, you're either misreading some of the statement ...

... or are misleading the readers here. Or you are simply mistaking a differing perspective on how to accomplish the goal of Democrats regaining the House, Senate and White House -- as the statement is dated from September 2005 -- as a rejection of all contrary viewpoints.

Given that Democrats did, indeed, regain both the House and Senate in the 2006 election, perhaps some credit should be given to Obama's suggested approach. Or at least consideration that it may have played a part.

[Mithreal]

102. Obama isn't Progressive but this post was technically 'bad'