Wow... how many more about-faces can Obama supporters do?

[nonconformist]

Let's see here...

DU has been screaming for Bush's head on a pike for years. Then, Obama said he didn't support impeachment, that it should be reserved for grave offenses. Not "it's too late to impeach now"... he said it was never warranted.

Obama supporters agree with him.

DU has criticized the Clinton administration for years for their compromises with the right-wing, which led to shitty policy like DADT and welfare reform. That criticism is very valid. But Obama is running his campaign on the idea of compromise and negotiation, and embracing Republican voters. The Obama campaign is saying that's how they can win, with Republican support, and touting that as the reason they will be effective for change.

Obama supporters agree with him.

DU has always been disgusted by the inane attacks the right-wing has thrown at the Clintons for years. Cigars, blue dresses, everything horrible to ever happen to mankind the work of the great and mighty Clenis. But now...

Obama supporters agree with those attacks.

DU has been saying for years that Universal Healthcare is vital. That it won't work unless everyone is on board. They point to important programs like Social Security and Medicare, which are mandatory as far as contribution. But Obama says that mandates are a horrible thing, that people shouldn't be forced to buy something they don't want to.

Obama supporters agree with him.

DU has railed against the MSM for years... they're unprofessional, petty, trite and degrading on a personal level. Hillary releases a statement against MSNBC, telling them that suspending Shuster for his remarks isn't enough - they have to address this pattern of behavior in the network that leads to these types of remarks.

Obama supporters spin it as "she wants him fired", when it's very clear what she meant.

It's like I don't know some of you people anymore. At this point, I really wouldn't be that shocked to see a Vince Foster thread here. If your wondering why the cult word gets thrown around, maybe this is part of it.

[surfermaw]

1. Amen

I thought we were running agains the Bush White House.....

[neutron]

14. they're in a state of glaze-eyed hysteria.

I expect them to take to the streets with guns
if the dude doesn't win.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

64. "glaze-eyed hysteria" LOL! too funny

[populistdriven]

208. HRC supported by Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, and now Bush praises Bill Clinton

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4522714&mesg_id=4522714

[defendandprotect]

280. I must say...it's been real cozy between Bill Clinton and Poppy Bush in last years . . . !!!

[emilyg]

187. They're mesmerized.

[FARAFIELD]

219. he is a better candidate

And I agree with them

He is getting more votes
and I agree with them

He has more pledged delegates
and I agree with them

My mom is 72 and hasnt voted Dem since 68
but caucused for OBAMA in IDAHO
And I agree with her

thanks for the nifty catchphrase
KIRK OUT

[papau]

28. Amen - with Obama non-partisan new way we will get real welfare reform

[pathansen]

247. Yes, there will be no change

[Nitrogenica]

2. That seems like a very "black and white" framing of all those

issues.

You are twisting and spinning the words of both sides to fit your debate.

*yawn*

[nonconformist]

3. Well then, enlighten me. nt

[Nitrogenica]

9. Here's an idea. Mass mail your post.

[OzarkDem]

21. Do you realize how irrational many of you sound?

I'm sure you don't want to be seen as abandoning your core principles just for a candidate, but that is the way it appears.

[Tennessee Gal]

24. THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

"abandoning your core principles just for a candidate"

THAT'S IT! That is what I have been thinking, too, but I couldn't quite put it into words.

I have been flaggergasted at some of the things I have seen posted here by Obama supporters - especially the attacks on Bill Clinton's presidency.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

35. I feel like I'm on Free Republic. Especially shocking is the sexist comments.

n/t

[Fresh_Start]

157. they are not abandoning their principles

there principles are 'elect Obama' and be damned with other Democrats and Democratic values

[Cardboardurinal]

230. I agree...

with the argument that you are making, but I must add that I oppose Hillary Clinton, for the exact same reason. To the Clintons, winning has always been more important than the Democratic Party.

[Fresh_Start]

262. I voted for Edwards

and want a brokered convention.

Maybe we'll wind up with Edwards or Gore.

[Donnachaidh]

38. But but but -- What about the INSPIRATION!!!!!!!!

THAT'S more important than the ISSUES!! :sarcasm:

:puke:

[Beartracks]

207. That's always bugged me, too...

Why must a candidate "inspire" you? What are you supposed to be "inspired" to do? Be a better citizen? You should already be a solid citizen.

Look, if you're talking about electing a leader for your Tiger Team at work, with whom YOU will personally be working every day, then you certainly want someone who inspires you. But we're talking about President of the U.S. here. YOU don't need to be inspired; the PRESIDENT needs to be inspired.

[Qutzupalotl]

264. His $4,000 tuition credit would encourage more people

to help out in homeless shelters.

You may be a model citizen, but you can always be better. To bring out the best in people is a quality we could use now in a leader. You know, the vision thing.

This particular person would be inspired as president.

[DawgHouse]

84. Exactly. Well put!

[fuzzy otter pop]

144. a smear with an edwadrs icon, what a shock

way to attack with out discrediting
Hillary at the same time

good job

we are all fooled
and
nice of you to drag Wes into the mud as well

[FormerDittoHead]

145. FOUND IT! I FOUND A WAV FILE TO GO WITH YOUR POSTS!

http://free-loops.com/force-audio.php?id=1743">Bongo Beat Loop

Perfect!

:sarcasm:

Sorry, blame my teachers.

edited for blaming Mr. Ward, Miss Tobin, and Mr. Bowe for teaching me how to write.

[aquart]

178. You're deceiving yourself about those "core principles."

It is much easier to have FAITH in CHANGE than anything so difficult as "principles."

[Orsino]

139. Well, duh. Those are talking points spun in Clinton HQ.

If we followed Clinton's leadership on impeachment and health care, for instance, we'd end up in much the same place. Yet Clinton HQ would have us believe that Obama's supporters are propping up a very different agenda, one from whose every pore drips evil.

Corporatist campaigns have to engage in such ludicrous spin doctoring to try to distance themselves from each other. At this point, I don't see much difference between the two platforms, and am simply betting that Obama has not yet been so thoroughly trained to sit up and beg for corporate dollars as has Clinton.

Lists of talking points from either camp will not move me, and the chattering of fanboys and -girls even less so.

[pathansen]

250. It explains why in the debates, instead of attacking Bush, Obama always went after Clinton

[Straight Shooter]

265. He's doing it on the campaign trail now ...

Obama ties Clinton to past - starts off with 47 percent of the country against her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4528174

Barack is helpfully pointing out to everyone on the campaign trail how much the country hates Hillary. I thought that was a right wing talking point. WWRD. What Would Reagan Do, or, What Would Rove Do.

[Cha]

4. Yeah, how many red herrings can

you do?

[Red Zelda]

5. The Clinton cult members are in their death throes

The world will be better for it.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nonconformist]

8. No, I CAN CRITICIZE my candidate when it's warranted.

And I have, and I DO.

That is the difference. I didn't suddenly change my position on several things to match my candidate.

[OzarkDem]

17. Do you realize how much

that sounds like a right wing GOP post? Think about it.

[Sapphocrat]

77. You want Clinton supporters dead.

Got it.

[October]

79. Such an ugly remark.

Wow.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

118. Par for the course for that poster...

She's full of ugly, hate-filled remarks.

[golddigger]

6. K&R...Thank you nonconformist. You nailed it. n/t

[Yossariant]

10. In the short time I've been here, I haven't seen Vince Foster threads, but there have been posts.

Either this place is overrun by "freepers for Obama" or his fans are really low -- and deperate.

Good post. :thumbsup:

[OzarkDem]

23. I expect we'll be seeing those soon

We've already seen plenty of "Monica" and "cigar" and "all of Bill Hillary Clinton's crimes".

Yeah, its pretty obvious what's going on and some regular DU'ers should think twice before getting caught up in it.

[QC]

53. How long before Mena and the Ron Brown "murder" pop up?

Only a day or two, at this rate.

[Auntie Bush]

87. Some have even brought up Vince Foster as another reason not to vote

No, I mean another reason to hate Hillary. I couldn't believe I was on DU.

[Bongo Prophet]

107. Important to remember, and not judge either side by the worst of these idiot posters.

Who knows what their agenda is?
In 2004, several freepers came out and revealed themselves.
sometimes a few will get caught bragging about it elsewhere.
We have had visitors from Stormfront, a neo nazi group.
College republicans, in a long line from segretti to atwater to rove to norquist and reed...

things happen.

It can be seen as a combination of tribal identities, fratboy posing, feigned outrage and other corrosive techniques to encourage party splitting.
We need to not be dragged into the namecalling.
It is what they want.

There is an old saying from my childhood.
If you are at a protest, the guy who says Let's break these windows" or throws the first rock- has just outed himself as FBI.

[TankLV]

161. our only consolation is I HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT.

especially with all the newer posters...

we need a special ops team to peruse the other fucked up sites and find links to these trolls to expose them for what they truly are...

[Bongo Prophet]

268. A special ops team is a great idea. Geek power is a good thing.

It would be nice to have admin privs enough to scan the IPs and run traceroutes on them.
Matching IP sources and MAC addresses, comparing to times in and out - could reveal much, with regard to organized group assaults.
People working from their homes and mom's basement are a different story, but fall under your category - they tend to mess with multiple boards and often can't help but brag about that behavior. There have been a few incidents where trolls were outed this way.

I suggest that if any DUers with the time and skills to go for it, within legal limits of course.
We each do what is in our skills to do, and often in very loosely organized ways. Say no more. ;)

[Straight Shooter]

163. We are overrun with agents provocateur

But some of the voices are bona fide Barack supporters. I've seen long-time DU members, who were formerly civil towards everyone, use phrases like "go f*ck yourself," and "you're out of your f*cking mind," and "you have sh*t for brains," on and on and on.

What I've noticed most is the pile-on technique of Barack supporters, those who do not argue the message but come out with their tar and feathers for the one who bears the message. It tells me that they love to gather together and dream of hope and unity, but when it comes right down to it, nothing changes in their attitude towards others. Their conveyed message is, "Join us or eat sh*t and die." That's just human nature, I suppose, but I thought Democrats were supposed to be better than that.

[Bongo Prophet]

222. There are some on each side, from what I have seen, and yes, some are sincere, but...

just went over the edge.

I have been called names, by each side.
a "hater" by Clinton camp, for suggestions:

Last summer, when the Clinton camp was all about inevitability, some were touting that they could win without progressives. Marginalizing them, and putting scare quotes on 'progressive' - when one said "We don't NEED your votes" to a fellow DUer, i wrote that I thought it unwise to toss off the progressive wing, we will need their (our) votes.

After Iowa, I saw a similar thing from an Obama supporter -"we don't NEED your vote"- to a Hillary supporter. This is not smart politics, and anyone that says that after 2000 is not thinking.

Tiring of the devolution, I wrote some in each camp, sharing my concern about the escalation of rancor, and its effect on discourse, on DU, and my opinion that it could hurt their candidate if allowed to continue. that we will need to pull together, and so healing wounds was a poor use of time and resources. - I got zero responses.

Lately however, around the same time as Edwards saying the "adult wing of the democratic party", I sensed a shift - a few others started showing up and being more reasonable. Even though the influx od rude posters continued, there were also more people with real responses. Dialog got better, and we could start disagreeing without the silliness.

I think many just reacted to the same things I seeing, and decided to "be the change" and take back this place. Some do it with humor, some by posting thoughtful posts without namecalling, and changing the culture. Driving out the stupid with reason. It is a trend, and now DU admins are making some structural changes to address the same thing.

We can and should air our arguments pro and con on issues, policy and leadership stlye, but the kiddie pool era is ending.

One might say, the adults are back.
"who pissed in the pool?" ;)

So we agree that we should be better than that, regardless of where we are on the spectrum.

[Straight Shooter]

263. I wasn't visiting DU back then, even though I've been a member several years.

I shudder to think what the "inevitability" mass egomania must have been like. Ack!

I've noticed your posts since I have come back to DU, however, and they are always thoughtful and polite. You add much to the civility, such as it is at times, of this environment. Thank you. :)

edit/misspelling

[LandOLincoln]

274. Oh boy, does that take me back. Too true:

"If you are at a protest, the guy who says Let's break these windows" or throws the first rock- has just outed himself as FBI."

[Tennessee Gal]

11. You are right.

Sometimes I think I am in the twilight zone.

[kurth]

12. It's not about the party, it's about Obama

Excellent recap.

[xultar]

13. OHHH MY FUCKING GAWD.... YES! This is an orgasmic post. I have been trying

to say this for days.

I keep starting and then cancelling the post because I know that no one will even see the 180 degree turn on the shit we've discussed in the past.

You also for got to mention...

The purge of anyone in the party and now they are welcoming independents and Republicans for Obama.

When was it EVAH ok to use RW nicknames to attack a Democrat on Democratic Underground?

This place makes me vomit.

[GoldieAZ49]

18. you should purge the party to anyone that doesn't think like you

then you could hold the national primary in your bathroom

So much for the Big Tent Party, more like the small teepee party

[cbayer]

22. More like the small peepee party

[OzarkDem]

27. Yep, it just sounds sooooo

you know..

[UALRBSofL]

34. Oh, that's mature, posting Tripp

A good example of Freeperville. I see where this OP is coming from now. Thanks for pointing it out. I will do my best not to get into arguments with freepers, but, it's difficult.

[trthnd4jstc]

75. Damn, I gotta clean my panties!?

Stupid Joke

[Blue-Jay]

15. 12.

the answer is 12.

[OzarkDem]

16. Good points

all deserving of answers.

The one I really don't understand is criticism of Clinton for standing up to the right wing insults from the MSM.

Where's the outrage?

[chefgirl]

213. I would like to answer that, OzarkDem

I can't speak for everyone, AND I'm not an Obama supporter (neither am I a Clinton supporter), but speaking strictly for myself, I was extremely pissed off and put off by the way Hillary stuck her face in at MSNBC.

The difference here, as I see it, is that it was done in an effort to influence the outcome of an election in whatever small way she could. I feel like she took advantage of a mistake, made by one of their reporters, and hit the manufactured outrage button a bit too fast.
Chelsea is a grown woman, and as such, is fair game when she puts herself out there in a public way to campaign for her mother.

The Clintons were, and rightly so, vigilant in protecting Chelsea from the press when she was a child. Those days are done now, and Hillary had NO right attempting to insinuate herself into the policy making of a major news organization, especially in the middle of a Presidential race. Its no different than the way George Bush operates.

She had every right to complain, but nothing more. She has every right to complain to other news organizations as well...problem is, Ive never seen her do what she's done with MSNBC. If she had made it a practice previous to this incident I don't think I would have been so put off by the way she handled it.

Schuster's comment was completely inappropriate for a professional journalist, but not because Chelsea is the daughter of an ex President or potential President. It was wrong on its face, and I think being suspended is probably the right price for him to pay.

I really have NO dog in the Clinton/Obama war, but wrong is wrong. Schuster was wrong..so was Hillary.

-chef- (a despondent Edwards supporter)

[KoKo]

234. Check out TPM and some other sites....see how they rally round MSNBC...

See the vile posts in the comments section. It's shocking.

[neutron]

19. this Clinton "Cultist" was first an Obama supporter

got grossed out by the hyper nutty supporters, then
checked his background and it didn't look so good.
checked Clinton's background and found she has worked
her ass off for scores of worthy causes, and has
effectively gotten legislation through.
Obama has little on his record, and some rather bad
blemishes.

[Bongo Prophet]

269. Alas, dear neutron has left the building. He and Nimrod had to go home.

The air just got a little more clear.

[Straight Shooter]

20. Thank you. It's like watching repeats of the head-twist scene in The Exorcist. n/t

[SaveOurDemocracy]

120. LOL ... yup. I'll pass on the pea soup. ;o) n/t

[Strelnikov_]

25. I am an Obama supporter

A) I don't necessarily agree w/ Obama on impeachment.

B) The "campaign on the idea of compromise and negotiation" is a tactic. He will be as amenable to Reich policies as Reagan was to liberal policies.

C) I agree with the "inane attacks the right-wing has thrown at the Clinton's"? Since when?

D) I agree with Obama that health insurance plans all of the candidates are running up the flagpole should not be mandatory as a campaign plank, as it will be a loser in the general. I feel that single payer, administered through the Federal Government just like SSDI and Medicare, is the only viable plan. Until there is the electoral mandate, we are limited to tweaking the existing system.

E) What Shuster said was unacceptable. However, I see it as more evidence of the 'dumbing down' of Journalism, the lack of professionalism, the migration to shock infotainment, versus some type of bias toward the Clinton's. If she has a chance to break some media balls over this, I say you go girl.


Satisfied?

[OzarkDem]

29. Re health care

Its been demonstrated time and again that Obama's plan, like other similar ones before it will do great harm to the system and make real reform more difficult, delay it for years and will be more expensive.

There also isn't one shred of evidence that the universal form of health care will hurt anyone's chances of getting elected.

So why do you reject rational arguments and evidence to the contrary? Have you considered that you just might be getting duped by right wing talking points?

[BlackVelvet04]

41. Oh God....

another one: B) The "campaign on the idea of compromise and negotiation" is a tactic. He will be as amenable to Reich policies as Reagan was to liberal policies.

In other words he's a liar.

[Strelnikov_]

50. Guess you were not satisfied

So be it.

You see it as lying. I see it as an inspired tactic. We are in disagreement.

I want to win the general.

[nonconformist]

52. So, you think he's tricking them into voting for him?

That he's developed himself as a centrist, aligned himself with gay-curing fundies and voted "present" for a woman's right to choose just to... mislead them?

What about the Republicans he's said he'd put in his cabinet? Will he just mislead them, too?

[Strelnikov_]

57. He is carving out Obama Republicans the same way Reagan Democrats were culled

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Again, it is a tactic. Again, I want to win in November.

Listen to his speeches. He states he is reaching out to willing Republicans to "join our coalition".

As for the "aligned himself with gay-curing fundies and voted "present" for a woman's right to choose" statement, I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

As for the "Republicans he's said he'd put in his cabinet?" Clinton had a moderate Republican in his cabinet. May also want to look at FDR's Secretary of War. These are politicians, they know the score.

[nonconformist]

58. Google "McClurkin"

And Obama voted "present" 130 times in the state senate. Some of them were about trying juveniles as adults and gun control, but about 10 of them had to do with abortion rights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402980.html

[Strelnikov_]

59. Whatever

Heard about these 'controversies'. Still don't know what the fuck you are talking about with the 'aligned' or the hard-on for voting 'present' which is SOP in Illinois politics.

Sounds like you should vote for Clinton.

[nonconformist]

60. Because I support the GLBT community and a woman's right to choose?

Damn straight, that's part of the reason I'm voting for Clinton.

And this is what I mean in my OP... you can't bring yourself to criticize him, even when it's VERY warranted.

[Strelnikov_]

62. Sure I can, when there is something substantive to criticize

The 'aligned' and 'voted present' are non-issues.

Obama's vote for the energy bill was a mistake, but I understand why he did it, as he represents Illinois, a major ethanol producer.

Obama did not vote on the IRGC resolution, that was a mistake.

But, hey, vote for Clinton, who voted for the Iraq war, voted for a poorly thought out resolution that could lead to war with Iran, and who has 50% negatives out of the box.


Again, I want to win this election.

And on edit: Are you really claiming Obama is anti-gay and anti-choice?

[nonconformist]

65. No, I'm claiming he's wishy-washy on taking a stance on some controversial issues.

And the McClurkin issue is definitely worthy of criticism.

I criticize Hillary for her IWR vote, just as I criticized John Edwards and John Kerry's vote for it, too.

[Strelnikov_]

66. In your opinion n/t

[nonconformist]

67. So, you DON'T think the McClurkin issue is worthy of criticism?

Interesting.

[Strelnikov_]

68. Not really n/t

[nonconformist]

70. Unbelievable. nt

[Strelnikov_]

72. Yes, the histrionics are n/t

[nonconformist]

76. Ok.

So, just so I have this straight -

McClurkin is a anti-gay fundie singer who thinks that being gay is a "curse" and that gays can be "cured" by coming to the Lord, and he's vocal about it.

Seeing that he expounds liberal and progressive values, Obama invites him to a big event for his campaign.

GLBT (and other Democratic, gay friendly) organizations find out about this, and contact Obama. Some even talk to him on the phone, directly. He's asked by a LOT of people to not do this, to not associate himself with the likes of McClurkin.

He does it anyway.

And you don't feel that warrants ANY criticism?

[Strelnikov_]

81. Not really

But let me expand.

Yes, he should have dropped McClurkin.

Thing is, after months and months of histrionics over this issue, which to me pales in comparison to the moronic vote HRC made, I now have a bit of a tin ear regarding the McClurkin issue.

There is such a thing as overplaying a hand.

[NMMNG]

106. Wait a minute

Thing is, after months and months of histrionics over this issue, which to me pales in comparison to the moronic vote HRC made, I now have a bit of a tin ear regarding the McClurkin issue.


A few posts ago you didn't know what the hell it was all about. Now all of the sudden you're so weary of the "months of histrionics" that you can't bother to care about LGBT rights?

[Strelnikov_]

110. I was questioning the "aligned himself with gay-curing fundies" statement

And, yes, I am weary of the months of histrionics over this issue. How that extrapolates out to "can't bother to care about LGBT rights" is beyond me.

[NMMNG]

117. Your use of "histrionics" is telling

And the fact that you have a tin ear about it says a great deal. Do you have a clue what the "Ex-Gay" movement is all about?

[Strelnikov_]

121. "Your use of "histrionics" is telling" How so?

In that I am weary of HRC supporters beating us over the head about the Obama campaign making a poor choice in entertainer?

a·lign (-ln)
v. a·ligned, a·lign·ing, a·ligns
v.tr.
1. To arrange in a line or so as to be parallel: align the tops of a row of pictures; aligned the car with the curb.
2. To adjust (parts of a mechanism, for example) to produce a proper relationship or orientation: aligning the wheels of a truck.
3. To ally (oneself, for example) with one side of an argument or cause: aligned themselves with the free traders.

In that I am not going to let a statement that Obama has embraced the concept that you can 'pray it out', that it is a 'curse', pass? So yes, I DO fucking have an idea of the magnitude of nut McClurkin is, and that is exactly why I am calling out the accusation that Obama has 'aligned' with him.

Further:

The Obama campaign responded to criticism in a press release, saying, "I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as president of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."<1> For events held Sunday, 28 October 2007, Obama added Reverend Andy Sidden, an openly gay pastor.<2>

Aligned?

1. ^ a b Ireland, Doug. (25 October 2007) Obama's Anti-Gay Gamble Gay City News. Accessed 30 October 2007.
2. ^ Hamby, Peter. (27 October 2007) Obama's gospel concerts raise hornet's nest of a dilemma CNN. Accessed 30 October 2007.

[NMMNG]

123. Use of "histrionics" is often used to demean and belittle LGBTs

Much in the same way it's used with women. In other words, "your concerns are paltry, vapid and overwrought".







Now if Obama didn't want to be aligned with McClurkin and his "Ex-Gay" hatefulness perhaps he should have not put him on stage with a microphone to spew homophobic bile as part of his campaign fund-raiser. Once he did so, especially after being warned about what McClurkin was and being asked to remove him from the event, he lost all right to claim he had nothing to do with McClurkin or his rhetoric. He's tied to it until he clearly separates himself from it, which he has yet to do.

[Strelnikov_]

124. "Is often used" to also describe campaign tactics.

"He's tied to it until he clearly separates himself from it."

The Obama campaign responded to criticism in a press release, saying, "I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as president of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."<1> For events held Sunday, 28 October 2007, Obama added Reverend Andy Sidden, an openly gay pastor.<2>

Now what?

[NMMNG]

125. That's a feeble pile of bullshit

1. Andy Sidden is a white preacher who did a little prayer before the concert. It was a token effort that meant squat. Obama rejected two black gay pastors in favor of Siddens. Don't make me explain the whole concept to you. Do some research into the dynamics of it and you'll figure it out. I'll assume you're a bright person.

2. "I disagree with his views" (But I'm still going to take all the money and votes they got me) is not an apology for putting the bigot on stage, nor is it a denouncement of the bigotry he spewed and helped foster that night.

3. "I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights." (just after they stood against it) just helps perpetuate the false notion that the AA and LGBT community are completely separate (he has also made statements that perpetuate the stereotype that the "Faith Community" and LGBTs are separate groups). There are black LGBTs, LGBTs of faith and even black LGBTs of faith. Obamas statements as well as his use of McClurkin (and failure to officially denounce and apologize for him) not only ignore these people and demoralize them but fuel the flames of bigotry even more. This is just the kind of hateful crap we do not need from a presidential candidate.

[Strelnikov_]

128. Thought so n/t

[TankLV]

167. Plus - bama has a disturbing history of DOING one thing, then SAYING the opposite when called out on

it.

This has happened TOO MANY TIMES TO COUNT.

PERIOD.

And the obamababies just don't get it...

and that poster is prime example number one...

[NMMNG]

217. Doing one thing, saying the opposite

Speaking in code, giving half-assed excuses, bowing to the enemy over us etc. He has proven time and time again he'd be an ineffective advocate for LGBTs.


And they don't get it because it doesn't affect them so they don't care to get it. Plus getting it would cause way too much cognitive dissonance.

[TankLV]

168. Plus - bama has a disturbing history of DOING one thing, then SAYING the opposite when called out on

it.

This has happened TOO MANY TIMES TO COUNT.

PERIOD.

And the obamababies just don't get it...

and that poster is prime example number one...

[rch35]

202. Use of "histrionics" is often used for a whole shitpot of other things to.

Just like many other words.

For example, the word "shitpot".

It can be used in many ways, and often is for each different one.

Shitpot could mean just that, as in "Hey everyone, who left the shitpot door open?"

It could also be used in less literal ways.

Example : "Wow, Greg, you made a whole shitpot of spaghetti." In this example, the word is used in a phrase that means "a lot"

Or if something is a mess you could say, "Will someone clean up this shitpot over here?", or you could say "Wow, this ridiculous war is just making a complete shitpot of Iraq, and the economy."

Enjoy!

[bettyellen]

154. LOL- It's all about the image-how to play the hand- not the substance or truth

sheesh. it's a fucking shell game for some people, nothing more.

[TankLV]

165. CAUGHT 'EM! Another fucking obama LIAR! Good job!!!

[TankLV]

164. that's what we mean - at least WE know who are TRUE friends are...

that poster is one who is definitely NOT...

[Sapphocrat]

78. So you don't care about gay people.

Got it.

[Strelnikov_]

80. Not really

Regarding you 'getting it' that is.

[Sapphocrat]

90. No, I got it.

You're coming through loud and clear.

[Strelnikov_]

95. And what exactly is coming through loud and clear?

That I don't think the 'McClurkin' incident, while a mistake, is not a defining issue.

Is that what is coming through loud and clear?

[Sapphocrat]

104. You don't think the McClurkin issue is worthy of criticism.

You dismiss our criticism as "histronics."

Your "overplayed hand" remark is the same thing as "faux outrage" / "play the gay card" / any number of tired old euphemistic terms that really mean "fuck off, gays."

You don't care about the deeply damaging and often fatal consequences of the "ex-gay" movement.

You don't care what we think, and you don't care why.

If you did, you would ASK why this is a real issue to us. But you don't -- you think you know everything there is to know about it in order to dismiss our very real anger and pain, and it's just tough noogies if we don't like it.

I've heard your song a thousand times. You're just a different singer.

And before you reach for "Some of my best friends are gay" / "My daughter is gay" / "My son is gay and he doesn't care about McClurkin" / whatever is supposed to pass for your "qualification" to tell us we're full of shit, save it for somebody who hasn't heard it all before.

[Strelnikov_]

108. Ah, your calling me a homophobe

Got it.

[Sapphocrat]

109. Ah, you're playing the victim card. Got it.

I said you don't care about gay people. I didn't say you were lurking in alleys waiting to crush our skulls with a baseball bat.

I will however, call you a gay-baiter who's enjoying yourself far too much at my expense.

Now I'm going to play the Ignore feature. Got it?

[Strelnikov_]

112. I'm a Gay-Baiter, whatever that is. Got it. n/t

[nvme]

181. did you watch the debate ?

nice parrotting of talking points. 130 present votes out of 4000 overall votes put b4 the legislature? then mentionion Clinton's Iraq occupation vote? (2 trillion $$$ fiasco). Then lets not forget to mention Kyle Lieberman Iran resolution vote for allowing the chimp wiggle room to maybe do some more harm with Iran. Obama's biggest cluster-fuck was the mc clurkin (whatever the closet queens name is)that is a nasty slap to the gay community. I dropped back all support for him there. I only cheer him from a distance with that one almost fatal flaw.

[zulchzulu]

102. Hillary and Bill support homophobic behavior

Bill Clinton SIGNED the homophobic wet dream "Defense of Marriage Act" that even Hillary has admitted she would only change "some parts".

Some homophobes who are not only on Hillary's web site, but one is even getting paid $10,000 a month:

There's Rev. Harold Mayberry:

I'm comfortable in what I believe in. I'm not rejecting people. As God loves, we love. I don't reject thieves, I reject thievery.

He's talking about homosexuality as thievery. Oh, but wait! He's on Hillary's web site: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2857.

Then there's Darrell Jackson, who made this statement regarding his opposition to same-sex marriage and has renegotiated a nice $10,000 contract with the Clinton team:

Now, we know how we feel on this issue, and I've allowed my position to be known more than anybody else. I stand here
as someone who is a pastor to a congregation of a whole lot of people, and I've said it to them and I'll say it to anyone else.
My personal moral position is what I believe and what I subscribe to. I don't have to come here and try to legislate it...There
is little doubt in this body what will ultimately happen with that issue. That is a forgone conclusion.

http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/sj05/20050413.htm

He's also on the Hillary web site endorsing her: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1339

Then there's Clinton's South Carolina co-chairs, John Matthews and Linda Short. Both voted for the bill in South Carolina to ban same-sex marriage.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Gay_rights_in_SC_contd.html

[TankLV]

170. Oh for chrissakes - you know that's bullshit and need to STOP it NOW.

WE all KNOW BY HEART the history of "defense of marriage" acts.

I suppose you think "don't ask don't tell" was all Clinton's fault and his main push, too.

That YOU don't know shit is all to aparent.

We're tired of explaining it all to you...

and, since you're evidently hard of comprehending - this thread is referring to people like YOU...

[NMMNG]

238. DOMA/DADT is like a knee-jerk reaction for them

They have no knowledge of the history behind it, but they just blurt it out every time because they think it will harm Clinton. :eyes:

[rch35]

199. You should read Team of Rivals.

Written about Lincolns cabinet, when he was President, it is about how Abraham Lincolns cabinet was filled with people he disagreed with, and a good amount he agreed with. It was key to the brilliance of his Presidency.

What better way to know what the enemy is thinking than sitting over breakfast everyday having them tell you?

[BigBearJohn]

69. Thank you for your stand. I admire you.

[Fovea]

26. It is because we hope for better from Obama

than we know Hillary will give to us.

For every post of outrage regarding the treatment the Clintons were given there have been dozens more regarding NAFTA, 'welfare reform', and all the third way crap they foisted on us.

If we are progressives voting for Obama, it is possibly because we know the alternate that is left for us besides McCain. Yeah, Obama also wants to reach across the aisle for a little wide stance love, I know that. THat is why he's now number two and rising, isn't it? Because the corporations trust him, and the the knuckle-draggers hate him less than HRC.

Sure, there are differences between Hillary and McCain.
HRC is only possibly going to invade Iran, and only likely to stay in Iraq.

I am already getting ass raped into destitution by my healthcare costs, and that won't apparently change regardless of which of the corporation approve candidates I vote for.

I am a very lukewarm Obama supporter. But I have pretty much decided I cannot hold my nose for more Iraq and more testosterone smelling foreign policy, even if it is wearing a dress. So I guess have no alternative but to vote for Obama or not vote.

Maybe not voting is the wiser solution for me. I am so pissed off at my party right now, I might do something rash.

[rug]

31. He may get out of Iraq only to go into Iran.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

I'm not feeling the hope.

[OzarkDem]

32. You've rejected your principles

by accepting a POV of Obama's that is contrary to what we've stood for. On many of these issues, its not a matter of a leap of faith to a long held principle.

Its a rejection of that principle altogether and adoption of some nebuluous feel good talk from Obama. Think about what you're giving up what you're rejecting.

[Fovea]

39. I accept nothing.

Nothing Obama or Clinton has said makes me feel like I have future that will reach the end of the decade.

I cannot sustain what the last few years healthcare costs are doing to me.
My candidate quit.

I think I should now concentrate on what time I have left.
I have no hope.

[nonconformist]

56. ....

:hug:

[Dhalgren]

92. God! Hang in there, rp. You have a lot of people pulling for you.

I know that is small comfort, but it's there. :hi: :hug:

[Tennessee Gal]

30. k & r

[KittyWampus]

33. About #2. Who in their RIGHT MINDS would not want GOP voters. It's the voters not the pols, silly

now back to #1. Impeachment. I am not really in favor NOW. But do think subpoenas not being honored should have results.

#3. When did the bulk of O supporters pile on the "blue dress" wave? haven't seen it and think you're making it up.

#4. Obama is for Universal Health Care and his plan is a STEP in that direction. Hillary's plan is for Universal Health INSURANCE and she falsely claims its Universal Health Care. Not cricket.

#5. I am glad Clinton spoke up about that pimp comment but believe she is milking it beyond reason. Her comments do read as though she MIGHT be saying she wants him fired. But that may not be what she meant.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[nonconformist]

46. Well first, voters expect something for their vote.

He's a centrist, and he's actively pandering to Republican voters on a platform of moderation and negotiation. Do you think that means his Republican voters had an epiphany, and now support liberal, progressive, Democratic causes? No, they see him as a centrist who will work with the right wing. And all the while, he's taking solid Democratic voting blocks for granted. But voters aside, he has said he'd put Republicans in his cabinet. I know he's floated the Governator for something.

As far as impeachment, that is my point. He's not saying he's not in favor of it NOW, he said he doesn't think anything Bush did was grave enough to warrant it.

#3 - There have been TONS of these right-wing attacks here. Maybe not all participate, but they're very prevalent and I also haven't seen any Obama supports condemn them. Maybe a few have. I do know that the "she's just a WIFE" meme has reared it's ugly head here, which I find enormously offensive, and a serious throw-back to the 90's.

Obama's health care plan sucks. Hillary's isn't single payer, which would be ideal, but it's far superior to his. Since neither are perfect, and both involve insurance companies, I take great exception to hers being trashed because of the mandate clause, because if it's to be anything even remotely close to universal, that's required.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[incapsulated]

36. Yep, and....

It's not just here either. It's pervasive.

There is a lot I disagree with Hillary on and I'm not changing my mind about it because I think she is the best we have running, now.

This place seems overrun with freepers, I swear, and I would chalk it up to trolls if it weren't for the join date of some of the most offensive posts, shit you would only have read on freeperville only a few short months ago.

I just get angry and start attacking myself and then I said what am I wasting my time for, fuck this place.

[Donnachaidh]

37. Weathervane Central

yup -- learning how to flip flop like the rest.

[Barack_America]

40. None of the stuff you listed applies to me...

But I'm so sick of defending myself against this stuff, that I'm not going to bother addressing this point-by-point.

Sorry.

[TankLV]

173. umm - because this thread refers to people like YOU...

and there really is no defense for your despicable behaviour...

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[anamandujano]

44. Well thought out, thank you.

rec.

[totodeinhere]

45. Clinton supports most of the things that you use to slam Obama.

Clinton also doesn't support impeachment, so that's a wash. As far as compromise with the other side goes, Clinton also says that she will work with the other side.

As far as attacks the right-wing has thrown at the Clintons for years go, I don't know of any Obama supporter who supports those tactics.

On the subject of universal health care, just about any objective expert on the subject will tell you that Obama's plan will insure just as many people as Hillary's does, and in fact, Hillary's plan is not
universal health care either. Only a single payer plan would approach universal coverage, and neither Obama nor Clinton supports that.

[nonconformist]

47. The point is, I can criticize her on the points I don't agree with.

She said that there wasn't enough support in Congress for impeachment. I wish she would have come out as an ardent supporter for impeachment a long time ago. It's unfortunate that she hasn't. But I don't think she ever said that it wasn't warranted, but if she did, I'd criticize her for it. Not suddenly change MY position.

And you are wrong about their health care plans.

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[totodeinhere]

48. You are posting Krugman's opinion as if it were a fact.

That was an opinion article.

[nonconformist]

49. You said any objective expert.

Krugman got experts to look at it, and that was their finding.

Show me experts saying that they'll cover the same amount of people.

[totodeinhere]

51. What Tom Daschle said.

Tom Daschle: Well, I think Barack would say very emphatically that there is no difference when it comes to universal coverage between the two campaigns or the candidates. It's just a question of how you get there. I've argued both. I think you can get there by incenting and by inviting people to participate and making it more affordable.

You can get there with mandates. His view is, let's try the incentives first. People aren't unwilling to get health insurance if they can afford it. You know, we have mandates in a lot of states today for health insurance and still fall far short of complete and universal coverage.

I think it's also important to remember that about 90 percent or more of the two plans offered by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the same in style and substance and approach. So we're focusing on the one area where there's somewhat of a difference.

Daschle was acknowledged as an expert on health care issues during his distinguished tenure in the Senate.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2hjtjl

[nonconformist]

54. Nowhere does it say they'll cover the same amount of people

Which is what you said previously.

Nobody denies their plans are very similar. The differences are mandates, cost and how many people will be covered. Obama claims that if it's affordable, people will get it. But statistics show that's not the case.

[kristopher]

83. On the health care issue

There are 2 problems with Hillary's plan. 1st is that the mandate has been shown to be an incendiary approach to solving the problem. It is the type of program that plays into the right wing stoked phobia of "big government" held by many "independents" and all of the wingnuts. I believe this point alone would cost her the election - here is the meme: "Hillary is going to put you in jail if you don't buy insurance."

I know it is a false assertion for them to make, but if you follow the right wing blogs you know that false arguments neither stop them nor render their attacks ineffective. It is close enough that refuting it requires a long convoluted explanation that is always spectacularly successful at failing to get them to listen.

The 2nd reason flows from the first: There will ba NO political support for her suggestion. It will not only fail to be adopted, it will send the legislators running for cover so deep that the entire effort will be derailed.

That is fair criticism based on objective analysis. If you don't believe me take the topic to the forum of your local paper, start a conversation and watch the balance of the reactions. It's a hundred foot tall antenna in a raging thunderstorm.

Edited to correct typo

[Cameron27]

55. Thank you!

I agree with everything you wrote and I'll add another. Every single time Obama makes a provocative or controversial statement, his supporters insist on interpreting it for the rest of us, even when it's recorded on video and we can watch and listen to him ourselves.

I've yet to see a pic of Obama that's been swiped from a RW site and posted here, but Clinton's supporters are subjected to them ALL the time.

[Seabiscuit]

61. How many about-feces can Obama supporters post?

THAT is the question.

[AX10]

63. If Obama gets the nod, and the media turns on him...

I will be laughing in the Obambots faces. If they continue to shill for him, I'd be concerned that we are getting socked with another Bush.

[CatnHat]

129. My thought exactly

[BlackVelvet04]

200. That's exactly what he is.....

After you read this go and read the PNAC website.....see how similar it sounds.


" We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills. Each major defense program should be reevaluated in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios. Our military will have to rebuild some capabilities and transform others. At the same time, we need to commit sufficient funding to enable the National Guard to regain a state of readiness.

Enhancing our military will not be enough. As commander in chief, I would also use our armed forces wisely. When we send our men and women into harm's way, I will clearly define the mission, seek out the advice of our military commanders, objectively evaluate intelligence, and ensure that our troops have the resources and the support they need. I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.

We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities. But when we do use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others -- as President George H. W. Bush did when we led the effort to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. The consequences of forgetting that lesson in the context of the current conflict in Iraq have been grave. "
http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf070607a.htm

[Herman74]

71. Look Here, Pretty Noncomformist: I Don't Accuse You Of...

supporting cluster bombs http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/hillary-cluster-bombs-ar_b_28990.html
and landmines
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/uslm/USALM007.htm#P121_1066

just because your candidate (or her husband) sees merit in their continuing usage. And when was the last time Hillary made any attempts to get the House to impeach? By the way, didn't Hillary promise to strive to rid the nation of the Electoral College, if so, what if anything has she done since becoming senator? Do I accuse you of being gullible just because your candidate was gullible enough to trust Bush with regards to going to war only as a last resort?

Obama's not perfect, but he can beat McCain. Hillary, I'm not sure about.

[nonconformist]

73. You don't have to - I criticize those things.

Those are all things taken from threads here at DU in my OP. I'm not assuming they feel that way... they SAY they feel that way.

Obama supports will.not.criticize.him. The only ones that will come close are the ones that were for someone else (like Edwards, as I was also for) and reluctantly switched to Obama, but have their reservations.

[trthnd4jstc]

74. Impeachment is warranted.

It is not a partisan idea. It is the protection of our constitution. Bush, Cheney, and others are guilty of Treachery, and Treason. Though, I support Obama for President, he is wrong about this. Not every politician gets it right. An Obama presidency is still better than McCain's Four More Years of Bush.

[Horse with no Name]

82. Totally on spot.

It is difficult to spend too much time here lately. Just yesterday I put one of my all-time favorite DU'ers on ignore because they haven't only DRUNK the koolaid...they've immersed their entire body and soul in it.
I came here because I thought this was the underground of the Democratic Party--not the mainstream marshmallow gooey center--you know the one? The one you can bend and pull in all directions to suit whatever need you need suited at whatever time.

[Voltaire99]

85. Sorry, but we'll think for ourselves.

"Du has been saying for years..."

As a Clintonista, you should be familiar with the big tent idea. There isn't a single DU, but many. We sort of plan to keep it that way, too, tough as that is for the intolerant to handle.

You, meanwhile, really need to check where the "cult" nastiness is coming from. It's certainly embarrassing to you -- a little latent racism, perhaps?

[nonconformist]

88. Well excuse the fuck out of me, but those are pretty standard.

Just like being against the war, it always seemed to me that you would be hard pressed to find someone who DIDN'T think the MSM sucked or that DIDN'T think Bush deserved impeachment.

But I guess I could be wrong, and some of those people are now Obama supporters.

And nobody fed me a "cult meme". I have EYES.

And there comes the racism allegation.

[Hoof Hearted]

113. "we" will think for "ourselves". Even in your own defense your language sways to a collective.

You can speak only for yourself.

For my part, I still believe that either of our current candidates will win handily in November. I am increasingly concerned about Obama's capitulation to the right. Yes, capitulation. When you run for the Democratic nomination stating that truly universal healthcare is a losing issue, that's some stupid ass capitulation right there.

When you say that Republicans were the "party of ideas" that is capitulation.

There are so many things about Obama I like, so many things I admire. However, the way he has fostered and nourished the suspension of disbelief surrounding himself, I find that trait extremely unpalatable.

[libbygurl]

86. Simple: as the 'uniter', he's just reaching across to the enemy and embracing their memes. nt

[nonconformist]

89. And just like the last uniter, he seems pretty damn divisive, looking around. nt

[sueragingroz]

91. after seeing the results tonight

I can't help but get more and more depressed at the fact that so-called progressive americans are falling for this.

I know that the bulk of these contests were caucuses and that they are stacked in Obama's favour - but Hillary has a tough month ahead of her if you look at demographics and the momentum will just build and build for Obama if it continues as tonight has...

Texas and Ohio are a millenium away...

I was discussing my thoughts on the american political process and the democratic primaries with a friend today. He's a South African who lived most of his adult life in New Zealand ...

He told me that he hopes that whatever happens, that the US self-destructs sooner rather than later for the good of the planet as a whole. This was a highly educated man saying this to me. It was a sad comment that highlighted to me just how high the stakes really are internationally and how low international opinion toward the US has sunk.

Anyway... this maudlin mood... and a bit of beer at a get-together tonight caused me to slap my tin hat on for the evening.

At this party, I had a further discussion with another friend who was raised in Bosnia but spent his adult life in Canada. He nailed it on the head IMHO.

This all goes back to the military industrial complex that Ike warned us about in 61. I was born in '67 so I, like many of you only know a world in which the MIC holds the real balance of power. When Bill was elected, I have no doubt that he believed that he could take it on by going the "third way". He learned a very hard lesson when he was in power. Obama doesn't seem to have paid attention... I have no doubt that Gore thought he could make some real change when he ran for office. He got schooled as well and now has decided that the best way to combat the MIC is to dedicate is life to educating folks about global warming and get them off of the oil teat.

Despite the experiences of his predecessors (who he dismisses as useless boomers) Obama still believes that he can go in there and "make change". Either he is lying to get votes or he is incredibly naive. You cannot change the political system by confronting it head-on in a public way. They will just make sure that you don't get elected. You can't change the political system by reaching out to the sharks across the isle. They will smell the blood and then they will only gnaw your hand off and attack you relentlessly until the American public is sufficiently distracted and brainwashed to think that you are the villain instead of those that you tried to confront.

The only way to completely up-end the MIC control over the american political system is through violence. If you look at the video that was posted on this site with Gravel's commentary on other candidates, he hinted at this very subtly at the very end. I hate to break the bad news to everyone, but the sort of "Real change" that Obama goes on about is only brought about through violence. Just ask those who are from countries that experienced "Real Change" to their political systems. North Americans have been blessed in that they haven't had to experience the sort of "real change" that has plagued the rest of the world over the last 100 years or so. That in turn makes all North Americans more than a bit naive when it comes to discussing "Real Change".

Unless you want to go through that violence, then maybe you have to suck it up and accept the world as it is and try to learn how it works and to manipulate it in order to make the lives of every day americans as liveable as possible. I believe that Hillary has done that. This may sound like selling out. Maybe it is. But it's a valid choice nonetheless.

The unbalanced medial coverage in this election can lead me to only one conclusion: Hillary is being pilloried in the press (that is controlled by corporate america and arguably by the MIC) because they don't want her to be in power. She is a threat because she has learned how to work the system to the benefit of the common person. She is also a threat because of her strong positions on Iran and her husband's experience in using diplomacy and the "threat of war" or surgical strikes instead of all out invasion to tackle thorny international issues. Remember "wag the dog in Kosvo?"... Ah how the american memory fades with the years...

Obama is not a threat - at least right now. He's simply a distraction - he's the shiny thing that we are all supposed to be looking at right now at the Amway conventions that they call political rallies... He's not a threat in the minds of those who control the media because either he will be crucified by McCain (who will feed the MIC with 100 years in Iraq) or if he should manage to win, he will be easily manipulated due to his inexperience and naivete into a conflict with Iran.

Don't forget - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

116. Sad to say, I agree with you...

There is much going on, behind the scenes, to shape this election. I fear for my country.

[nonconformist]

119. You know what this reminds me of?

The lead-up to the war.

The media falling all over itself... everyone jumping on board... people you thought you knew turning into strangers... idealism, faith and hope...

[grizmaster]

132. Sadly, I agree with your assessment

[libbygurl]

149. Oh, my god, you have expressed the very heart of my argument for Hillary over Obama.

Thank you so much. Hillary is the greater threat and the one who can genuinely work the system to get things done in her plans.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

May I be so bold as to quote your excellent essay here in other boards?

[sueragingroz]

174. fer sure - go for it /nt

[libbygurl]

193. Thanks! Have you seen this post, though --

-- it summarises a lot of my own scattered thoughts over the last few months about the Obama candidacy from its very roots - all the way back from his run for IL senator. Just as I do, the article basically calls Obama Rove's Trojan Horse:

http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

I really don't understand why the strong Republican/red state support for Obama in the primaries doesn't raise red flags even among the so-called liberal people. I've pretty much given up on The Nation, which I used to read some fifteen years ago, when it was still under a more leftist editorship. Now, it's gone pretty much mainstream, and for all the wrong reasons.

I also don't get why so many seem mesmerised by this Obama guy. He struck me as a fake ever since his speech at the 2004 Dem convention, and was really surprised about the oohing and aahing by the press afterwards.

And do you recall that he was invited to visit the White House shortly after giving that speech?

[sueragingroz]

196. thanks for the link - omw to read it

I was headed down the hill on my scooter to get some groceries... and it hit me.

On the meme of change - cast your minds back to the former soviet union. Think about Gorbachev and Yeltzin.

Gorbachev tried to bring about slow and moderate change in the former Soviet Union and gradually bring it in line with modern socialism. However the russian people got way too patient and went with Yeltzin who whipped everyone up in a fervour about radical change.

I think that it is safe to say that going the Yeltzin way left Russia in a terrible mess and Putin ended up taking power...

[sueragingroz]

197. I've read it now and it's brilliant /nt

[BlackVelvet04]

204. It's a tactic right out of the Atwood book.......n/t

[FirstLight]

227. WOW this is exactly what I have been looking for...

to justify MY strong felings of angst over Obama... I have been saying that he feels like a republican in sheeps clothing all along...
scary stuff, thanks for the link...

Let's hope that our worst fears are just shadows that disappear with a good nightlight, But I agree with the poster previous to you, that is will take violence to create the change we are talking about (watch out, the FBI will come to my house now for even SAYING THAT)... Our forefathers even wrote it into the Constitution. That if our govt EVER became the imperialistic-beast we were trying to get away from, that the people are DUTY bound to overthrow...

what's it gonna take? rigged elections, civil liberties destroyed daily, police state, controlled media... geez, it sounds like we are one of those "other" countries with evil dictators, eh?

and Obama's ego could be our undoing. He likes the spotlight SOOO much, and they are giving it to him, so he will HAVE to do their will once in office...uh, IF he even gets there!
:scared:

[libbygurl]

271. You're welcome. Hope you've read Naomi Wolf's 'End of America' already.

The fascist shift she talks of has been happening with alarming speed ever since W took over.

[DawgHouse]

266. Excellent article. Thanks for sharing!

[libbygurl]

272. You're welcome. nt

[The_Casual_Observer]

159. This is a important post.

Thanks for it.

[Straight Shooter]

171. I have a Canadian friend who has been saying for years that America is the nemesis of the world.

I've always tried to remind him of the good in America, but this current election circus has me so appalled that I'm running out of arguments to the contrary.

He keeps reminding me to study the history of the Roman Empire.

[BenDavid]

93. Who is Obama?I aint figured it out yet!Does Obama want to be

JFK or MLK or JC??

[QC]

94. As many as Dear Leader tells them to make. That's simple. n/t

[IndieLeft]

96. I don't see a SINGLE LINK to support those allegations.

Not one! You can't just post b.s. like that without backing it up.

Go back to Posting 101!

[zulchzulu]

105. Don't expect links with this kind of useless OP

It is skewed, flawed judgment on many levels.

I refuted the OP, but don't expect anything intelligent to come back as a response.

[ProSense]

141. Hillary supporters are afraid of links. Thin air is the source of their so-called "facts." n/t

[cooolandrew]

97. I would like to see impeachment but it just won't happen it's the party strategy to win big...

...Just as I will vote for Hillary, he isnt going against the party on impeachement. I would like impeachment but that is just the way it is. Hillary isnt for it either that is theparites chosen stance.

[zulchzulu]

98. You have completely misread what Obama supporters are about

I absolutely support Barack Obama.

On the issues you want to perpetuate a myth, here is a refutation:

• I fully support impeaching both Cheney and Bush.
  
• I believe that in order for legislation to get passed, there has to be bipartisan support to get legislation passed. You don't give away the store. You work toward getting legislation that can pass. You make progress, not failed political theatrics.
  
• Hillaryworlders would have us all ignore history and perhaps re-write it when it comes to Bill Clinton. Add that even he has admitted he went too far and was too aggressive in thsi campaign and has been told to shut up since he is a liability.
  
• Universal healthcare that has individual mandates and have fines, garnished wages and other penalties for those that can't afford to sign up WILL NEVER PASS. Likewise, Hillary's plan is based on the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries to have a good faith effort to lower costs. THAT IS A JOKE!
  
• Hillary's targeting MSNBC is nothing more than the usual phony garbage she is generally does. She wants to debate on Fox News, which makes an industry out of attacking not only her, her husband and Democrats in general FOR YEARS.
  

I would fully throw the "cult" meme right back at Clinton supporters. It's as though they can't accept change and reality and want to live in the faux-nostalgia of the Clinton years.

[cooolandrew]

99. Romeny had the same enforcement of buy healthcare and some couldn't pay...

...Barack is out to make a plan that focuses on lowering costs first. We know with his organisation he will get it done then Americans will have the option to buy it or not.

[nonconformist]

111. It's not a myth... anyone who has been around here a lot for the last couple weeks knows

They see all this flipping on core beliefs.

I completely disagree about health care. But I'm not going to rehash that argument.

Your comment about MSNBC is exactly my point.

"ignore history" "faux nostalgia"

Not quite. Just not vicious, ugly and unfounded personal attacking. There's a big ass middle out there, you know.

[Straight Shooter]

100. Joe Wilson. From hero to outcast in one fell swoop.

He was a hero on DU not so many years ago for going up against the most monstrous administration since God knows when, a man who risked everything to tell the truth to the American people. Recently, his article in Salon wherein he endorsed Hillary Clinton was posted on DU. He referred to "the real Hillary" and "the unreal Obama." The response of many Obama supporters was to figuratively spit on him and everything he stood for.

That was the day I knew without a shadow of a doubt that we had another "uniter" seeking to be our leader.

[nonconformist]

103. I remember that.

I couldn't BELIEVE it.

There are just so many different examples, aren't there?

[grizmaster]

131. I stand with Joe Wilson

and my opinion of those who use childish attacks to disparage him is not fit to be put in print.

[griffi94]

153. living in texas

i was unfortunate enough to see the formation of the bush phenomenon up close and earlier than
a lot of other political junkies. imo the obama fans are todays version of the bushies....back in 99
i had long time friends of mine not speak to me and worse because i didn't see how wonderful bush was...at that point i didn't even hate him....i just didn't trust him and i absolutely didn't like his politics.
that didn't matter to the ones who had seen the light. now 8 years later a few of those folks still
cling to the old bush is destined to lead bullshit, but most of my friends who drank the koolaid have since had a change of heart....unfortunately in their zeal of the early days of bush...they crossed the line too many times for us to be real friends anymore. i haven't asked but i wonder how many of them are on the obama train

[TankLV]

176. yep - and that is but ONE example...ONE...see that zulchzulu?

but I know whenever countless examples are brought up that zulch demands, he will conveniently ignore them, as all other rebuttals to his dubious claims...

[oasis]

101. Kool Aid and Dr. Obama's Miracle Snake Oil has proved to be one helluva concoction. (eom)

:beer::crazy::beer::crazy::beer::crazy:

[flyarm]

114. Thank you , an Honest post and i appreciate it enormously! i don't know

wherwe i am any more coming here..in fact i am looking to stop coming here..it is too damn ugly anymore!

fly

[KoKo]

233. I still come here...but it's like watching a train wreck....So many DU'ers that I never thought

I'd see turning into crazies. Issues we fought for years on just thrown over as if they never existed.

It blows my mind. But, it's fascinating in some weird way sociologically to watch our Democratic ideals implode over our own candidates. I think if I watch I will learn something valuable. I'm worried my conclusion will be that I'm not a Democrat anymore....but some alien person drifting in a some nightmare that I wandered into by mistake.

[ProgressIn2008]

115. Answer: you ain't seen nothing yet, not until an awful lot of us

have been thrown under the bus.

Defense will be a biggie. Anything Obama says about defense spending, military bases/roles/plans will be GOOD. About Saudi Arabia? It will be good. About arms sales? It'll be great. About Israel? It'll be fantastic!

Serious, the fun is just starting. We're about to see how Obama's big tent works. Let's go reach out to some Republicans and shoot for the stars!

[McCamy Taylor]

122. Some one claiming to be an Obama supporter used the word "Clintonista" yesterday.

We are under attack from refugees from the Free Republic.

Forget about illegal aliens. This is Pat Buchanan's dirty trick number 1. Make disparaging remarks about one Democratic Candidate and attribute them to another candidate.

From now on, I will not believe ANYTHING that ANYONE claiming to be an Obama poster says unless their comments are the same as those made by the Obama campaign.

You got that? Some bad apples posing as Obama supporters lurking here on DU in order to cause trouble as making the real Obama supporters look bad. Maybe the real Obama supporters should get after them and tell them that phrases like Clintonista are not acceptable.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

126. All you have to do is look upthread to see it used...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4508824&mesg_id=4514418

[SaveOurDemocracy]

127. Excellent post, nonconformist...

You put into words what so many of us have been outraged about. It's these very reversals that make me want to look around for where the pods are hidden.

:pals: Thanks for this.

[avrdream]

130. I hear you.

I can't believe this man may become President and, yes, I said that very same thing about George W. Bush. WTF is going on?

[xchrom]

133. recommend

:applause:

[dragon82a]

134. Legislation Record: Clinton VS Obama

Instead of a drooling rant lets look at some facts:


Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years including the following:

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov ).

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first (8) eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included the following:

**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record.

[botchan]

156. Good Post - Unfortunately no one looked...

I have not posted to this site in several years - it is at times too aggressive for my tastes, I prefer real "fact based" debate. However, my lurking here helps with finding links to interesting blogs and information so I read the posts regularly.

I must say to Dragon82a - good post. It is nice to see that there are democrats doing research on records, not talking points and personal attacks. It is unfortunate that it did not strike up a debate as to your posts validity, how laws are passed, and how we CAN change this country. There are only two ways to achieve real "change" - legislating or revolting - one is quicker and one is better (IMO).

Rather than arguing amongst each other: can't we support a candidate positively and rally every American to vote!!!

Go Democrats 2008 - Don't forget about your local elections; give them the same effort and attention!

PS. Dragon82a - it is http://thomas.loc.gov/ (no www)

[Straight Shooter]

175. "Drooling rant."

You apparently can't make your case without including an insult to the IP. That seems to be SOP for Obama's supporters, which is something the Edwards supporters and Clinton supporters are having difficulty dealing with.

Please don't say, "Waaah, they do it, too." No one is going to take the time to cull through the thousands of posts to present a statistical argument for which side is the worst offender.

[bvar22]

229. Good post, Dragon.

You should post this as a thread topic.
Cheers.

[snappyturtle]

246. Thank you. n/t

[Sapphocrat]

275. You lost me at "drooling rant."

If you'd like to try talking like a grown-up, I'll read a re-post.

[dcindian]

135. Has any one noticed?

The more you Obama detractors post this crap the bigger Obama's lead becomes?

It's not working as intended try some other right wing tactic...

[jasmine621]

138. We Hillary supports can't help it that truth drives people nuts.

We should always speak the truth, no matter what. And the real truth here is that we don't know who a lot of people are at DU. But when someone like WillPitt buys in it makes one wonder. Come November, the Dems will lose the WH because we have all been sold a bill of goods. Obama will win the nomination, the party will unite behind him, including the Clintons, and we will lose again.

[peacock]

136. Thank you, nonconformist

Almost all of the blogs are making me ill these days.

[bowens43]

137. Wow! An attack worthy of the most atrocious swiftboater!

Hillary's supporters have learned well!!!


This is why Hillary isn't an option. We don't need anymore rovian politics.
Thank you for reinforcing by belief in Obama.

[Tarc]

140. Obamaniacs are starting to resemble Huckabee's blindly-led evangelicals

They follow his words without really thinking of what it means, even if it contradicts things they said only a short while ago.

"WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EURASIA" indeed.

[BlackVelvet04]

142. I wonder how many of them have checked out the

website of the church he attends. It's a republican smear job just waiting to happen.

[dcindian]

143. LOL

Odd you should type that.


Since it was Clinton who feel for such nonsense and voted to murder a million plus Iraqi men,women, and children.

[Tarc]

146. Talk to me again when you can actually make a non-strawman argument

[ProSense]

147. Your arguments are bogus! Here's why

DU has been screaming for Bush's head on a pike for years. Then, Obama said he didn't support impeachment, that it should be reserved for grave offenses. Not "it's too late to impeach now"... he said it was never warranted.

Obama supporters agree with him.

Hillary supporters are being hypocritical with this claim. Hillary has never supported impeachment of her friend Bush so this is BS.

DU has criticized the Clinton administration for years for their compromises with the right-wing, which led to shitty policy like DADT and welfare reform. That criticism is very valid. But Obama is running his campaign on the idea of compromise and negotiation, and embracing Republican voters. The Obama campaign is saying that's how they can win, with Republican support, and touting that as the reason they will be effective for change.

Obama supporters agree with him.

It's the Hillary and Bill who have a record of triangulating and embracing Republicans.

How to fight for a progressive agenda and not cave to Republicans:

...Obama pledges to reach across partisan lines, and outside them as well, to build support for a progressive agenda, he's not talking about abandoning his party and sharing power directly with people who don't share his (or Nunn's) assessment of the challenges facing America, and who would oppose any progressive agenda with every political weapon available. Best I can tell, Obama's offering an extended hand to the GOP that he's willing to make into a fist. And his argument with some in the Democratic Party, most notably John Edwards, over how to enact progressive policies, mainly reflects differences of opinion on how to marshal public opinion to reverse most of the GOP policies of the Bush era.

more

[nonconformist]

211. You still don't get it.

First, let me say that I was at first undecided, then supported Edwards 100%, then was forced to choose between Obama and Clinton. After much research, I chose Clinton as the BETTER OF THE TWO. This doesn't mean that I now agree with her on every issue. This doesn't mean I can't criticize her. This means that I decided that based on various issues, I felt that she was the better candidate.

Now...

I think impeachment was warranted. I'm upset that Hillary didn't push for it in the past and come out as an ardent supporter of it. But there was a thread here a few days ago about Obama's comments on impeachment, and the thread was full of Obama supporters saying "I agree with him, he's right" on the issue that impeachment should be reserved for "grave offenses" and therefore, was never warranted. That's what I'm talking about. I didn't change how I felt about impeachment because my candidate holds a different position. That was Obama supporters.

And you're absolutely right. The Clinton administration had a history of "working with Republicans" and what did we get out of it? Shitty legislation. This is why it's confusing to me that an Obama supporter can admit that in one breath, but in the next breath are telling all of us that Obama working with Republicans is the key for winning, the key for change, and the key for a successful administration. It's cognitive dissonance. You just can't admit this is a bad idea.

Now, are you trying to tell me that there haven't been a plethora of right-wing 90's throw-back attacks on the Clintons? I can't tell you how many times I've seen Monica mentioned. And blue dresses, cigars, on and on. And the disgusting "she's just a WIFE" meme. Now, you don't like something they did recently? Criticize them for it! Does that criticism require going THERE, though? When someone does go THERE, it makes it look like they've decided that the right-wing was JUSTIFIED all along in making those attacks.

On health care, I strongly disagree, and I'll leave it at that.

On the MSN, you're still projecting. What I said, and I think it's clear, is that we have generally been saying for a long time that they suck. But on this PARTICULAR ISSUE, she said they need to look at the pattern of behavior in their network that leads to those attacks... but then she had her words twisted and mischaracterized.

This is what I don't think Obama supporters are getting. Other people can see mistakes and they can criticize them, regardless of who made them. But all Obama supporters can do is either agree with him, or start saying "but Clinton...". Yeah, we know. We hate that too. We didn't change what we believe in because our candidate told us to.

[Politicub]

148. Obama isn't all that seductive to me - and it's making me wonder about myself

I've seriously been thinking about starting a thread for people who just don't get Obama - I mean along the lines of "feeling" him. I need some group therapy.

I think he has a tremendous amount of natural talent for getting folks organized, and his record is pretty good too - nothing to complain about. But I'm just not feeling the same kind of adoration that the more passionate posters on this board seem to have.

I'm a Clinton supporter, so it really bothers me that the 90's-era GOP talking points are being thrown out by folks in my own party. And, I guess continuing to follow this line of thinking, maybe my party is leaving me - maybe it has already left me. I'm not really sure what it means. But it makes me feel uncomfortable.

Though I'm still holding out hope for Clinton, it seems that Obama has generated the kind of momentum where he seems to be the one that will be our nominee in November. I'll vote for him, but I guess I'm just not seeing myself wrapped up in the same kind of Obama ecstasy that other folks are experiencing.

From a policy perspective, I believe Clinton's proposals are superior. Obama's are OK - but I'm starting to wonder what all of his hope for change will bring about. Will it be something big? I sincerely hope so. But, I'm just not hearing this from Obama - or Clinton for that matter, but her proposals that are on the table are more appealing to me than Obama's. As one example, I like the Universal Health Care mandate - did anyone think it was going to be free or easy to make sure every American has some kind of coverage, or a subsidy if they can't afford it?

[sleepyhead]

162. I'm with you, Politicub.

I don't get it either - and while I fully intend to vote for the eventual nominee, I can't see myself as a fangirl at my age. I agree that the Democratic party seems to be in a state of major flux and I have no idea where it might be going. I come from a long line of bleeding-heart liberal Democrats and am used to frustration with the party platform (it can never be progressive enough for me), but now I am just confused. And sad.

[Honeycombe8]

150. I'm an Obama supporter. I have never voiced an opinion about this...and you've never asked me. nt

[Enthusiast]

151. I will no longer read any

I will no longer read any of these negative threads. I will vote for Hillary or Obama. We must get back the Presidency.

[snappyturtle]

225. Amen.....thank you! Most sensible reply here. Welcome to DU! Do

you think you want to stay?

Time to post positives about the candidate one backs.....keep posting the "good news" to persuade rather than provide hatred that will divide our party.

Frankly, I've never voted for any candidate (I'm sixty years old) who wholly fulfills my every expectation....I've always compromised and will again this time around. We should be planning an all out assault on the republican talking points and values instead we're insulting one another's views and opinions. Sad. :cry:

[dsc]

152. too late there has already been a Foster thread

[Kermitt Gribble]

155. K&R

[Sadie5]

166. This is what I think

In the first place I never bought into this 'Obama Mania'. If you really look at things it reallY does resemble the Bush early years. I was for Edwards, now I'm for Hillary. We certainly can't stand another puppet in office and Obama will be nothing more than a Bush look alike if placed in office. Bush admitted he was a "Media Creation" and Obama is another media lackey.

[mistertrickster]

158. Everything you said was false. However, it's true that Obama doesn't validate

the kind of ideological hate that a lot of DUers seem to have a patent on.

The anti-Obama wing want the same kind of in-your-face and down-your-throat confrontation we've been victims of for the last seven years.

In other words, do unto them as they have done unto you. That's not good for the country, and the mass of thinking Americans are turned off by it.

Instead of revenge, Obama offers HOPE.

[TankLV]

160. Boy you got that right - the obamabots are as bad as the bushbots...

I'm ashamed to know too many of them...

From trying to make excuses for REPEATED BLATANT pandering to gay bigotry, to the UNWARRANTED attacks on Clinton's FANTASTIC record and the PERFECT SHAPE he left the country in when he left office...

It's astounding what the obamabots spew...

[calmonte]

169. Is there really a difference...

It seems as though everyone is at each others throats for
supporting  a candidate other than the one they believe is the
"right" one. I hate to admit, but the back and forth
on this site seems to be getting a little petty and beneath
civil discussion. Furthermore, I sincerely wonder whether or
not you guys actually believe that there will
"really" be much difference at all between a Hillary
or Obama led USA. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that
there isn't a politician alive that would make real changes to
or policies, who is also "electable". P.S. Just one
man's opinion, no need to spread more of the vile hate some of
you seemed to be so full of lately. Just wondering if someone
feels the same way, or if I'm crazy to think that even
liberals are blinded by their party's bull.

[TankLV]

180. Well - that ANY Democrat will do INFINITELY better than ANY repuke/traitor is horribly aparent.

and on the repuke/traitor - It's the REPUKE's ILLEGAL WAR OF CHOICE BASED ON LIES. Period. No matter which way the repukes will try to spin it. WE never forget that, except for to many obamababies/trolls...

[mistertrickster]

259. You mean the selfish, sleazy, reckless blowjobs in his office that handed the presidency to Worst.

President. Ever.?

We're supposed to ignore that because he lowered the deficit or something . . .

[gristy]

172. Your treatment of "Obama supporters" as a single entity is where you lost me

Wow... how many more about-faces can Obama supporters do?

I suppose this setup is needed for your screed to work at all. Not with me, though. Your willingness to take the nuclear option rather than pursue individual debate is beneath contempt.

[Wetzelbill]

177. Hillary Clinton voted for the war... her supporters agree with her

Hillary Clinton voted for Kyl-Lieberman..... her supporters agree with her.

Hillary Clinton thinks Iraq was a good idea, just badly mismanaged..... Her supporters agree with her.

DU has been disgusted at the Right-Wing attacks against Obama supposedly being Muslim, or when HRC's surrogates have brought up his drug use or attempted to label him as the Black Candidate.

Hillary's supporters agree with those attacks.

See, what you did was pick some ugly stuff that was black and white, anybody can do that, and then you painted a whole group of supporters as being in favor of that. That's unfair. Just as what I just did would be unfair.

Where was Hillary on impeachment? I must have missed her leading the fight on that one. How often has she worked on bad legislation with Republicans? Why does she dismiss single-payer healthcare, and with disdain when she was first lady? The point is, each and every candidate has viable problems. None are perfect. Hillary has plenty of little skeletons in her closet somebody could pick at. And Obama, he's been a disappointment in many ways, in my opinion. But to take either one and go and paint everything in black and white terms is not the right way to go about it.

Yeah, I think some Obama supporters can be hypocrital on certain things. Just like some HRC supporters are. But to suggest that because somebody supports a candidate it means they support every single thing they have ever done that could be construed as bad, is to paint people around here as absolute unthinking drones. Just not fair to anybody.

[calmonte]

179. Well said my friend

[Wetzelbill]

183. I just think if the OP and other HRC supporters are upset

and in some cases, viably so, what good does one childish argument do against all of the other childish arguments? Not a thing.

[druidity33]

212. welcome to DU!

hopefully you'll stick around. Just gotta say this site isn't "usually" like this, with all the sniping at Dems. Hopefully it'll settle down soon.

Cheers!

:)

[druidity33]

210. aahhhhh....

that was refreshing! I figured i'd read down thread for a bit before i added my 2 pennies... only to find you've said what i wanted to, only better!

And kudos to calmonte for speaking newbie sense!

:)

[bvar22]

182. And this is a reason to vote for Hillary?....Why?

If Hillary would end her politically expedient SILENCE on IMPEACHMENT tomorrow, and begin publicly calling for IMPEACHMENT, I would switch my support from Obama to Hillary.

For Hillary supporters to criticize Obama because he has the exact same position as Hillary.....well, "Hypocrite" is the word that comes to mind.

[pauldp]

186. Yes thank you, well said. nt

[nonconformist]

241. Who said it was?

These are just observations that I, along with MANY OTHERS who have been hanging in this forum a lot recently, have made about Obama supporters changing their positions on things.

I think the hypocrite label goes the other way, because I never changed MY position on impeachment. I WISH she would have come out for it forcefully a long time ago. It's not that he's being criticized for holding the same positions (which isn't even entirely accurate, because she said there wasn't support for it in Congress, not that it was never warranted), it's that some of us can criticize BOTH of them for holding opinions contrary to our own.

[bvar22]

251. Parsing it out kinda fine, aren't you?

I guess it comes down to what the definition of "is" is?

I'll stand by my original statement:

For Hillary supporters to criticize Obama because he has the exact same position as Hillary.....well, "Hypocrite" is the word that comes to mind.

Of course, the inverse is also true, but not applicable to the OP.

PS: I am neutral in the Hillary v Obama American Idol contest.
I don't give a shit for either of their Corporate Establishment asses.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[nonconformist]

252. Again, as far as the OP goes, I'm not criticizing their positions

Although I do, both of them, BUT

The OP is criticizing Obama supporters for AGREEING with that position (which they did, in great numbers, on a thread here a couple of days ago).

[BearSquirrel2]

184. Individual mandates are no solution ...

Individual mandates are a farce. All it will accomplish is driving up the price of health care insurance when the companies know everyone must buy it.

Economies in this area are achieved by increasing the size of the risk pool and streamlining paperwork. Mandates accomplish neither of these.

Mandates would just be another version of the prescription drug giveaway, this time to the insurance industry.

[NBachers]

185. Neville Chamberlain, Vichy France, Joseph Lieberman

That's what this "neo-biparatisanism" means.

Get in bed with child fondlers and sex-slave promoters.

Rebuild the government "our way" with the people who've been inflating it 'till it bursts and drowning it in the bathtub.

Create peace with torturers, rapture dominionists, and war profiteers.

Restore fiscal responsibility with the people who've leveraged our GDP to the Red Chinese.

Restore our environment with the corporate obstructionists.

Rehabilitate our legal system with traitors, spies, and lying gloating RICO jackals.

Revitalize our jobs, cities, and rural communities with bloated global slave toadys.

Educate our children with media shills and trinket-consumerists.

Safeguard our elections with Diebold, ES&S, and private Republican email systems; use our nation's intelligence assets to spy on Democratic candidates and sabotage them.

Say "Yes You Can" to global mass murders who make Vlad the Impaler look like a bubble-gum shoplifter.

If you lie down with these diseased carcasses you'll wake up with necro-gonorrhea. Nice picture, isn't it?

They've had since 1994; since 1980; since Dick Nixon; since November 22nd 1963; since the Gilded Age; since the Plantations; since the Inquisition to be "bi-partisan," to change their stripes.

"Neo-bipartisanism" is a Venus Flytrap. It looks and smells pretty. Don't fall for it.

[cgrindley]

188. I've always argued that impeachment wasn't going to happen

why are you trying to rewrite history.

[nonconformist]

221. I will admit that you are definitely an exception to the rule in the OP.

On probably all those issues.

[From The Left]

189. The Author Belongs in a Psych Ward

No sharp objects, padded walls and soft music playing.

[PollyH]

190. ObamaMania

Amen from me too.

[Oakland]

191. The whole freaking progressive left has lost its mind.

It is fight like cats and dogs over two sitting corporatist Senators without a dimes worth of difference between them. They have swallowed hook, line and sinker that Obama is the change candidate who is now going to do what he hasn't done all the while he has been in DC.

Obama supporters remind me of Elmer Gantry, Jim Jones and Heaven's Gate all rolled into one.

[KamaAina]

192. Ohhh-kayyy...

Then, Obama said he didn't support impeachment, that it should be reserved for grave offenses. Not "it's too late to impeach now"... he said it was never warranted.

What's Hillary's position on impeachment? I used to support a candidate who backed impeachment, but alas, he's no longer in the race. What is a boy to do?

DU has always been disgusted by the inane attacks the right-wing has thrown at the Clintons for years. Cigars, blue dresses, everything horrible to ever happen to mankind the work of the great and mighty Clenis. But now...

Simply because I support a candidate who isn't Hillary in the primaries, all of a sudden I'm one of the red-meat Clinton-haters? There's a logical fallacy there...

DU has been saying for years that Universal Healthcare is vital. That it won't work unless everyone is on board.

See above; my original candidate was also the only one who backed single-payer health care. But now that he's out of the race, I can pick between a candidate who wants to garnish my paycheck if I don't buy in, or her opponent.

Hillary releases a statement against MSNBC, telling them that suspending Shuster for his remarks isn't enough - they have to address this pattern of behavior in the network that leads to these types of remarks.

I agree with the Clintons on this one. The "pimp her out" remark was just disgusting. What would DU be saying if it had been uttered on Faux?

Gotta run... time to start another Vince Foster thread. :sarcasm:

edit: spelling

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

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

[ProgressIn2008]

220. Hillary Clinton is Bush with t***? Really? You don't say?

And she's supported every Bush criminal enterprise for the past year? Really? You don't say!

[libbygurl]

195. I'm calling the premise of O's candidacy a fake, and I'm not alone in this:

http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

This article summarises for me the suspicious nature of his candidacy since his Illinois senatorial run.

[sueragingroz]

198. you go grrl - everyone read the link.... it's a gooder.

[BlackVelvet04]

201. Hard to believe they are falling for it.......

Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that the Democractic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have decided to ignore the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. After rigging two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he's gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.

Not so. According to an article in Time Magazine, Republican party activists have been organized to throw their weight behind Barack Obama, the democratic rival of frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Early in Obama's campaign, major G.O.P. fundraisers and at least one indicted criminal flushed his coffers with cash - something the deep pockets haven't done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term senator from Illinois is doing well, considering few Americans had even heard of him before 2006.

The Time magazine article goes on to explain that rank and file Republicans in red states have switched their party registrations, enabling them to vote in Democratic primaries. The G.O.P. didn't even compete in the Nevada primary, where Obama subsequently picked up many rural counties, and in Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for him on February 9th. Called crossover voting, the tactic is playing a crucial role in the Rove push to deprive Clinton of the Democratic nomination. Even with his usually reliable arsenal of dirty tricks - paperless electronic voting equipment, waitlisting, swiftboating, etc. - Rove would be hard pressed to defeat Clinton in November, since she's popular nationwide and has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. If the contest isn't close, the vote-rigging won't matter.
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

[libbygurl]

209. Indeed. Why are so many so blind in this matter? I just don't understand it.

How could someone from nowhere, unknown to most Democrats, suddenly get 100 million for his campaign coffers, and so quickly, too?

Thanks for quoting the piece, BW04. I was going to start another thread on the article, but I have to leave here very soon and won't be able to attend to it. Perhaps the piece deserves a thread of its own? I don't think anyone else has posted anything on it before now.

[BlackVelvet04]

223. I think it's willful ignorance.....

they are so wrapped up in the feel good aspect and showing us baby boomers what they can do.

You're welcome....I think a thread has been started with this article but I'll check.

[libbygurl]

273. My question, though, is: if this is true, why have the Dems allowed it to happen?

Will have to say goodnight now, though. :hi: If you do happen to answer tonight (if you do), will check it out tom. morning. Nighty-night!

[HeraldSquare212]

206. You're accusing Obama of being a GOP operative? nt

[rosesaylavee]

260. The one line I agreed with whole-heartedly in the linked article is this:

"But if there's a runaway train in this race, it's the press."

That article is as biased as any the author is criticizing. Her use of half-truths is not commendable journalism. I did read most of it. Dropped out when she failed to note that among the things keeping Gore busy was he work on Climate Change and his Nobel Prize.

[HeraldSquare212]

203. But we're consistent on the war - killing and maiming innocents overseas outweighs all of the above.

Besides, by your reasoning, we shouldn't vote for anyone.

[nonconformist]

224. You are?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4524423

Really?

[jgraz]

205. Do you really want us to start judging candidates by their supporters on DU? Really?

You know who's going to lose that fight, don't you?

[nonconformist]

216. No.

There are plenty of things to judge each candidate on independent of their supporters on DU.

My OP was about the supporters on DU that seem like they've been taken over by pod people.

[snappyturtle]

242. That's helpful.

:sarcasm:

Could you write up one giant post on all of HRC's positives? All her opinions, attributes, policies, positions, etc. in one place for all to see might be more helpful in persuading others to switch alliances. Of course this would call for no replies except to keep kicked so all can see UNLESS the reply is in response to the administration or McCain.

I'm sorry I don't mean to be picking on you in particular but the "nature" of the replies must change OR on November 5th President-elect McCain will be announcing his cabinet.

Hopefully, someone on the Obama side could do the same for his "side".

[nonconformist]

244. There have been a lot of threads dealing with that.

I've posted in several threads myself on those things - qualifications of the candidates, their positions, etc. I know that I've laid out my thought process and why I decided Hillary over Obama in several "Edwards supporters - who did you choose?" type threads.

We're very divided right now. It's unfortunate. Will we all come together by November? I certainly hope so. But I fear a lot of bridges are being burned, and some people feel betrayed by people they thought they knew. In the end, I hope we all do the right thing and come together as a strong Democratic party.

[snappyturtle]

277. I work a lot and don't get as much time here as I used to. I'll take you at your

word that there have been threads on this. I guess what I hate to see here is the other kind...period...and there have been lots of those at least when I tune in. Thanks for answering.

[earth mom]

214. It's the cult of Oprah that has been transferred to Obama.

Few people bring it up around here, but that's what I really believe has happened.

I used to love Oprah myself. Hell, I wanted Oprah for President!

But then Oprah said and did several things that really pissed me off and I started looking at her without my blinders on.

Sure, Oprah has done lots of great things for people. But she also has a side that ain't so pretty and certainly NOT so progressive.

You can only prop up your idols for so long before it because painfully obvious that they are NOT who you thought they were.

I think that if Obama is elected, his supporters are going to be in for a VERY RUDE awakening next year.

[TomClash]

215. IWR

Hillary's unmitigated support for the War and its President is what made her unacceptable as the Dem candidate for me. And it's not because of her vote per se. It's because she only voted for the IWR because she thought it would help her in a future run for the Presidency - don't deny it because I have been told that from several pretty good sources. That a horrendous reason to authorize the President to go to war.

Now, almost 4,000 soldiers are dead. 30,000 American soldiers have been wounded. Tens and probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died and been wounded. Millions of civilians have been displaced. Our reputation in the world has diminished and the war has emptied Treasury's coffers and sent the national debt spiraling out of control.

My nephew is going back for a third tour. My cousin has war-related illnesses from her intense year long tour. My friend's son was seriously wounded by an IED.

And you're worried about David Shuster and compromising with Republicans and who's health care program may or may not be slightly better?

It must be nice . . .

[nonconformist]

218. That's a valid reason.

I struggled with it myself, especially with Kerry in 2004. And with Edwards this year.

Now, I will not, can not, defend her vote for the IWR. I think it SUCKS. But I decided that I couldn't let that be my litmus test all these years later, because right now I'm more concerned about solving this shit NOW. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just saying how I came to my decision.

I'm not worried about Shuster. All I was trying to say is that I see so many Obama supporters flipping on their core beliefs. Now, if I, all of a sudden, started saying that the IWR was the right vote, yadda yadda, the same claim could be made about me. But I would never do that.

[Wetzelbill]

279. I agree

My cousin served over in Iraq about a year. He came home healthy physically, but he literally had a friend die in his arms. Imagine how that would haunt a person for life?

I know several people who were over there, including one of my kids from back when I used to be a high school wrestling coach.

It must be fun to spin like Mark Penn and the boys on every little issue, but meanwhile, people are suffering and dying partly because of her vote and her actions to support that war. And you know, Obama hasn't been any better since he got into the Senate. It's frustrating and hurtful to see people suffer because politicians can't get the stones to do something that they have an overwhelming mandate to do. Reid, Pelosi, HRC, Obama. All disappointing on the biggest issue of our time.

[NewHampster]

226. Bingo

But wait. Obama is a wave of new young supporters and wants to throw out the old, but all his support is the old timers like Kerry and Kennedy.

[democrattotheend]

228. I'm an Obama supporter who never supported impeachment

Always thought it was a waste of energy with only 2 years left of Bush and would backfire, and that we should focus on winning back the White House in 2008. And I haven't heard Clinton call for impeachment, have you? Most mainstream Dem politicians oppose it.

[From The Left]

231. Top Ten Reasons Not to Vote for Hillary Clinton

1. Hillary Clinton voted for Bush’s Iraq war

2. Hillary Clinton for Bush’s USA Patriot Act

3. Hillary Clinton voted to reauthorize Bush’s USA Patriot Act

4. Hillary Clinton opposed the international treaty to ban land mines

5. Hillary Clinton is one of the Senate’s most outspoken critics of the United Nations

6. Hillary Clinton voted against the Feinstein-Leahy amendment restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas

7. Hillary Clinton is one of the most prominent critics of the International Court of Justice for its landmark 2004 advisory ruling that the Fourth Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War is legally binding on all signatory nations

8. Hillary Clinton supported Israel’s massive military assault on the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip which took the lives of over 1,000 civilians, half of whom were children

9. Hillary Clinton opposes the complete repeal of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act)

10. Hillary Clinton's candidacy is supported by Ann Coulter

[nonconformist]

235. You do know that Obama voted for the Patriot Act too, don't you? nt

[Iceburg]

237. Obama voted for the RENEWAL of the Patriot Act, Hillary DID NOT/nt

[nonconformist]

245. A very important distinction, yes. nt

[From The Left]

257. Nonconformist, Stop Lying About Obama's Record

The USA Patriot Act was voted on and passed October 25, 2001.

Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate November 2004.

STOP YOUR REVISIONIST HISTORY. Even Hillary would object to you.

[nonconformist]

261. You're lying about both of their records.

Obama voted for the Patriot Act RENEWAL.

Hillary Clinton did NOT.

[Redstone]

232. As many as you need to get annoyed and post about it.

Redstone

[cloud75]

236. you are right sometimes i wonder who these people (clinton haters) are n/t

[From The Left]

258. We're People Who Have Our Facts Correct

And don't engage in revisionist history.

Next?

[nonconformist]

276. LOL

That is so funny, since right above, you say that Clinton voted to renew the Patriot Act, but Obama didn't.

Wrong, and wrong.

[rosesaylavee]

239. Despite multiple misgivings, many feel that he is STILL a better answer than Clinton.

Not everyone is going to agree with you. This is part of life.

Not sure what your post is supposed to do for those that disagree with you. Certainly you don't think that you will 'shame' voters supporting Obama into agreeing with you?

[nonconformist]

240. Not at all.

I was just posting observations on the about-faces that Obama supporters here on DU have made on their beliefs. I've been hanging out in this forum a lot recently (too much, actually) and it's definitely a pattern. I just wanted to point it out, and it seems that many others that have been hanging out on this forum a lot have noticed it, too.

Why is it that whenever anything Obama/his supporters are criticized, it's about "getting people to vote for Clinton". Sometimes, it just is what it is.

[rosesaylavee]

243. Well, since there are only two candidates left standing

thinking that this is a pro-Clinton post is not too much of a stretch. I had to make a choice between the two last Tuesday. And it was a struggle right up until I entered the booth for a number of reasons. It was, without a doubt, the most informed vote of my life. That was why I struggled with it. Neither Obama or Clinton were my first, second or third or even fourth choices. Given the two of them, I realized that neither of them is the 'complete package' that I thought my previous candidates were. Neither of them is perfect. Each has qualities and characteristics I don't care for and associations I find distasteful. So I made my own choice as I have a right to do.

There is NO WAY we will all agree on why we made the decisions in our primaries. Why people keep posting their disgust with others who have decided to support 'the other' candidate is beyond my understanding. All I can figure is that some like to feel superior that their choice was 'right'. The only time I feel that way is when I support my favorite sports team.

[femrap]

248. K and R

They're sheep....BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

[bigtree]

249. I am so glad I got to recommend this thread

thank you

[cloudythescribbler]

253. As a vocal Obama supporter, let's review these grievances one by one ...

First, I don't agree with the notion that impeachment of W Bush was never warranted on the merits. I don't agree with Obama's votes to join Hillary Clinton and other Democrats in supporting war funding or on a host of other mainstream Democratic issues. Note that this person for some reason does NOT bother making COMPARISONS to HRC, to examine whether Obama is being singled out here (he obviously is).

My own view is that, as a practical political matter, impeachment of W Bush was never going to happen, especially for six years and a Repug House and, effectively, Senate; progressives need to focus STRATEGICALLY our resources and energies where they will strengthen our political power IN FACT and not just 'hope' (and I consider Obama in the empowerment and not just empty hope camp). I understand that this position on impeachment is NOT what the OP was talking about, however.

Second, this point is basically a misconstrual of Obama, one that is made by the much-criticized-when-it-is-convenient MSM. Obama wants to reach out to Republican and Independent VOTERS first of all, to build a broad base for needed changes, the way that Reagan and his minions did for THEIR program. Is that so obscure or are an awful lot of people being obtuse? As for compromises with power centers, the idea would be to win over enough GOP senators to be able to reach the magic # of 60 to overcome obstructive filibusters. This is in SHARP contrast with the triangulating approach of the Clintons, in which, for example, HRC went OUT OF HER WAY to introduce a legislative drive to ban flag burning, raising by themselves just the kind of wedge issue that helps the right (and that the Clintons can use to help THEMSELVES politically but not progressives or the Democratic Party overall) that has long marked the Clintons. "Triangulation" is not the same as NECESSARY compromise and negotiation to get reforms through. The Clinton Administration sought to balance the budget and push NAFTA style free trade, and never at least ACTED as if they had a progressive agenda at all (only justificatory spins).

Third, what are the "inane" RW attacks Obama has endorsed? You mean his proposal to tax at least some of those above the Social Security cap to preserve the integrity of the system? Or how about the mandates issue (discussed below)? Where are SPECIFICALLY all these right wing memes (like focusing on Whitewater, or Vince Foster, or blow jobs, or the other litany of RW NONSENSE). This charge needs specifics.

Fourth, on mandates. Krugman and some other progressives have REALLY (and I think unjustly) raked Obama over the coals for this one. I personally favor single payer and am not at all wedded to not critiquing Obama's plan on its merits.

But mandates (for adults getting health insurance for themselves) are on one hand ROUTINELY though not necessarily universally opposed by the labor movement, who have been seeking universal health coverage AT LEAST since the 40s; on the other hand, Obama has at times suggested that IF merely pushing for universal AFFORDABILITY proves insufficient, some further policy refinements, at times (I don't have a link offhand, but maybe some wonks here on DU do) including possibly mandates, would be considered.

ESKOW on Huffpost has written very cogently about Obama's health plan. Obama seeks FIRST to make sure there is universal affordability, something that CANNOT be guaranteed through the byzantine political system and struggle to come out EFFECTIVELY as the end product. To MANDATE universal coverage from the get-go is putting the cart before the horse; FIRST you struggle for universal affordability and THEN, once that policy is in place, perhaps improve it AND if necessary, add mandates (which he already has for children to be covered, as they have no choice).

Much too much has been made of this issue -- BY THOSE ATTACKING OBAMA. It is false to say that HE has been the one trashing mandates when the attacks have come in the other direction and he has just defended his position.

As for the MSM, the fifth point, this is among the silliest of all. No one is categorically defending the MSM; but sometimes issues are indeed blown way out of proportion (certainly by the RW, n'est-ce pas?) such as the 'pimp out' remark. It IS NOT that the remark was wise on national TV, since it could OBVIOUSLY have an offensive meaning to millions of viewers, even if seen differently by others. The whole thing seems very much like a tempest in a teapot. This use of the "MSM" as a matador's cape by the OPer is really manipulative, as if people are supposed to react reflexively in condemning the MSM regardless of the particulars.

[gristy]

278. thanks for your well thought out reply

A good read. :hi:

[Gloria]

254. Well said...not to mention the privatizers he has on his Soc. Sec.

panel...

Well, said, nonconformist!

[kikiek]

255. I heard necks snapping. Oh they're spinning again.

[Imagevision]

256. This just in...-> Obama even beat Bill Clinton out of a Grammy award but m$m not reporting...

[losthills]

267. Obama is a empty suit

and his supporters are like moonies or scientologists.

Whether he's electable or not, and I don't think he is, giving him the nomination is the worst mistake this party could possibly make....

[Raffi Ella]

270. Agreed.

I equate it to bushies who vote for him against thier own interests.No explanation at all for it except cult of personality.




Great post OP.Make'em think. :kick:

[ExPatLeftist]

281. "Obama supporters agree with him"

Your entire post is based on a huge logical fallacy.

Perhaps you have heard individuals say things that indicate that they agree with him on these specific issues, but you seem to take that as all/a majority, etc.

Let's see the study you've done to prove that.

Otherwise, all you have is an assumption that the voiced support by a few individuals somehow reflects on all people that share a common trait - Obama "supporters". That is weak to say the least.