Suggestion for Hillary supporters who attack Obama for "being DLC": STOP!!

[Swamp Rat]

Disclaimer: I supported Dennis Kucinich and then John Edwards, and will vote for the Democratic nominee.

I've seen numerous posts referencing other blogs regarding an assumed relationship between Obama and Lieberman. I've seen attacks against Obama based on other's opinions and blogs which often include a Harold Ford reference, based on opinions and blogs. I've seen many posts calling Omaba a DLCer with links to opinions and blogs.

I think this tactic is really really bad.

Now, please read the information below before starting yet another 'attack Obama because he might be a DLCer' thread:

________________________________________________

The DLC - PNAC connection: Will Marshall

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295.html

(snip)

With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the DLC, an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Both organizations are sometimes described as neoconservative for their foreign policy positions. In an analysis of the two groups' stance on the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in summer 2006, Tom Barry wrote: "In practice, though, DLC/PPI positions differ little from that of the Bush administration. As Israel rained bombs down on Lebanon, the DLC's New Dem Dispatch echoed the neoconservative camp in its plea for the Bush administration to avoid the supposed shame of appeasement in the Middle East. Adopting the same line taken by the Bush administration and the Israeli government, the newsletter recommended that the war be taken to Tehran and Damascus, which 'have become clear threats to regional and world peace, and must be isolated and sanctioned, not appeased.'"

(snip)

Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East."

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neoconservative figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson. At the request of the Bush administration, Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with former DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with former Democratic Sen. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska (who coauthored "Progressive Internationalism"), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. Other advisers included James Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295.html

_____________________________________________________________

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253482&kaid=137&subid=900111

DLC | Speech | July 26, 2005
Remarks of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to the 2005 DLC National Conversation

(snip)

"So I would like to start by thanking Al From and Will Marshall, Bruce Reed, and all of the people at the DLC and the PPI, not only for the rich legacy of your ideas, which have helped to transform our party and reinvigorate our country, but for your determination to stay focused on the future, laying the groundwork for the next great era of...."

(snip)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253482&kaid=137&subid=900111

_____________________________________________________________

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

Progressive Policy Institute
600 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20003
Web: www.ppionline.org
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

(snip)

PPI, founded in 1989 by Marshall and Al From, is a project of the Third Way Foundation, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. As the think tank for the Democratic Leadership Council, the PPI says its mission "arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces reshaping our society and economy." PPI claims to advocate "a philosophy that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities of the information age and points to a 'third way' beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government."

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

[Cha]

1. I wouldn't be supporting Obama

if he were dlc. hilary is the dlc girl who employs dlc strategy artists.

[bvar22]

80. Correct!

Hillary is "their girl".


Obama is no Liberal, but he is easily the lesser of two "Centrist" evils.

I believe that we are witnessing a Power Struggle for control of the Democratic Party.
The DLC is wounded and dangerous, as they feel their grip on the levers of POWER slipping.
The DLC prefers a "Top Down" authoritarian command structure and have no use for the "Grass Roots" and Dean's 50-State Democratic Party.

OTOH, Obama is genuinely a product of the Grass Roots (OK. He DID get $100Million dollars from somewhere...)
Endorsements from Kennedy, Kerry, Kucinich (in Iowa), and now Feingold indicate who the REAL Democrats are supporting.

I couldn't have my preferences Kucinich/Edwards, so I'll go with the candidate that Kennedy, Kerry, Kucinich, and Feingold like.

PS: Fuck the DLC!

[Enrique]

2. if a Hillary supporter condemns Obama as being DLC

and denies that Hillary herself is DLC, then they are full of it.

Hillary and Obama are equally DLC.

[BringBigDogBack]

4. Incorrect.

[Swamp Rat]

6. Please provide a link that demonstrates "Hillary and Obama are equally DLC."

Thank you.

[Enrique]

11. here's one

this is from the National Journal article that calls Obama the "most liberal" Senator.

They give their votes, which really show that their voting records are virtually identical.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm

edited to remove the word "key".

[Swamp Rat]

16. Strawman

1) The term "key" makes your statement a strawman argument. Their votes are not identical.

2) AND, Red Herring: this thread is specifically about useing the poor tactic of calling Obama a DLCer.

3) Another article by National Journal Group Inc. debunks your argument: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

[Enrique]

20. you're misusing the term strawman

it simply doesn't make sense here.

The assertion that I'm disputing is that Hillary and Obama are significantly different ideologically. If it were a strawman, then that means that I'm making up that assertion.

Do you deny that you are saying that Hillary and Obama are

Regarding #1, the word "key" is from the National Journal, not from me. I will edit it out since it doesn't matter for my post.

Regarding #2, you will notice that I agreed with the OP. It is a poor tactic to call Obama a DLCer if they don't admit Hillary is equally DLC. It would be hypocritical.

Regarding #3, your "other" article is the same one I posted.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Yes, your use of the term, whether borrowed or not, makes it a strawman argument.

Drat! I was hoping you would see it, but now I will point it out to you. Yes, I reposted your link, in that article, National Journal Inc. rated Obama much higher on their "Composite Liberal Score." How can one deny they just pointed out a clear difference between the two candidates?

This helps to debunk the argument regarding their 'similar voting records' based on the link you provided. Thanks for posting it.

Nevertheless, allow me to point out that to vote significantly different would change the nature of either Clinton's or Obama's standing in the Democratic Party. In other words, if either of their records were very contrary to the Democratic Party platform, then they would be Republicans, or something else.

[Enrique]

47. sometimes it helps to look at the facts the rankings are based on

and when someone provides a link that you requested, sometimes it helps to read that link, which you obviously didn't since you posted it yourself without realizing it was the same one I used.

If you do happen to actually look at the votes, you will see that they differ on very few votes, and those differences certainly don't add up to them being ideologically different.

In fact, much more significant than the votes where they voted opposite were the votes where Hillary cast a vote one way or the other and Obama didn't cast a vote. Most of those votes were controversial ones. That says something about political courage, imo.

[Swamp Rat]

56. Did you miss this the first time around graphic?:

Look at the score, as per the National Journal Inc.



Your claim that their votes "don't add up to them being ideologically different" may or may not have significance. I will certainly consider it again. It has bearing on the reasons why I was for Kucinich and Edwards before they dropped out.

[Enrique]

58. did you look at the votes that those numbers are based on?

you'll find that Obama's missed votes contributed to virtually all of the difference in those rankings.

[Swamp Rat]

84. Yes, votes are missing.

But we cannot make significant qualitative assessments about them, as they are absent from the pool of data. The sum of the data cannot therefore be based on them - Hillary's 'N' is certainly higher.

Now, one could construct another argument regarding those missing votes. ;)

[Bongo Prophet]

122. It's simple Swampie. I will spell it out s-l-o-w-l-y ....(L-0-L-ly)

National Journal, see.
Objective source.
Of Course!

SEZ.


Obama is most liberal Senator EVAH!.


And Hillary is EQUALLY MOST LIBERAL!

Their votes are THE SAME, even when they are NOT.

THEREFORE.


They are EQUALLY DLC.


(slaps dust off hands)

IRREFUTABLE LOGIC.


Thank you.

Swamp Rat, surely you are convinced by this bulletproof argument!

I wish I had an LOLWTF combined emoticon for ye.;)

[Swamp Rat]

125. LOL!

:rofl:

[ErnestoG]

29. Nice try. That doesnt show him close to the DLC at all.

But please, keep trying. Does the term "specious association" mean anything to you?

[Enrique]

59. no, it doesn't

it shows that Hillary and Obama have nearly identical voting records.

[rodeodance]

77. Thank you for DEBUNKING the OP---

[Swamp Rat]

93. Please explained how the OP was debunked.

I made a suggestion to Hillary supporters. How was this suggestion "debunked?"

Think for a few minutes before you post an answer. ;)

[Bongo Prophet]

123. Will not happen. non sequiturd hit and run tactics abound here.

nice to see you doing an OP, though.
Don't see that often.

[Swamp Rat]

126. Yeah, I do not often start threads, nor do I post in this forum.

When I came here yesterday I was surprised at the level of vitriol DUers have toward each other, and by some who are even hurting their own candidates. :wow:

[Emit]

99. Nothing in the OP was debunked n/t

[Emit]

87. lol, the fact that they have similar voting records does not make both DLCers

I think you are not understanding what the DLC is and Hillary's association with the DLC.

typo

[ErnestoG]

104. Which means your whole thread is deceptive. How Hillary!

[billyoc]

114. Wrong. Obama is not a member of the DLC. Clinton is a member of the DLC.

Not equal, get it?

[thunder rising]

3. Barack told the DLC to kiss off a long time ago. Hillary on the other hand is a card carrying member

[dailykoff]

61. Stop with the facts!

Too hard to spin.

[thunder rising]

113. Sorry, I apologize. I will refrain (reframe?) in the future.

[Metric System]

5. Obama supporter Dan Gerstein is a DLC member.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/23/12655/5195

[MADem]

9. An inconvenient truth!!!! nt

[Swamp Rat]

10. This is part of the problem I am addressing: You posted yet another link to an 'opinion and blog'

Give me a link to a Seymour Hersh, Bill Moyers, or a credible journalist's column please.

[Stephanie]

19. I will ask Dan about that myself, rather than take a third-hand blog's word for it.

I will likely see him in the next few days and I'll let you know what his answer is. He's a nice guy, by the way, despite his work for Lieberman. He is a good Democrat, he would not support a Republican, so he has two choices. And maybe he's pissed at Hillary for backing Lamont after Lieberman lost the 2006 primary. Would you feel better if he were supporting Hillary? Do you think ALL DLCers are supporting her? Or are some of them lining up behind the obvious winner?

[Swamp Rat]

35. Yes, please ask him, and please tell us what he says.

:hi:

[Stephanie]

39. Will do.

He's my neighbor - we talk all the time. Still I can't see what the point of that accusation was. Are all the DLC members supposed to line up behind Hillary? I can see where someone like Dan, who was on Lieberman's Senate staff for years before becoming a consultant, might be a little bit peeved at Hillary for throwing her old pal Lieberman under the bus in hopes of picking up some of the 2006 antiwar vote by backing Lamont.

*edit* Note she ONLY backed Lamont AFTER he won the primary, though Bill had campaigned for Lieberman in CT.

:hi:

[jackson_dem]

51. As are Ben Nelson, Kathleen Seblieus, Tim Johnson, and so on

Apparently they missed the netroots memo that Obama is a resolute foe of all things DLC! :rofl:

[rocktivity]

7. Hillary is a DLC OFFICER

So why should Obama being seen as DLC a BAD thing? If it's wrong for Obama to pretend he's not DLC, why is being DLC good for Hillary? You can't have it both ways.

:crazy:
rocknation

[Swamp Rat]

25. You found a kink in that logic.

;)

It may turn into a ripple in time which will destroy the universe! :D

[mudesi]

8. How a supporter of a DLC candidate can accuse Obama of being DLC is beyond me (nm)

[Swamp Rat]

12. Watch the responses to this thread and you may see archetypal examples.

DUers might be able to use those posts (data) for future reference, adding the information to our knowledge database.

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. Damn right .... I just have to laugh at that one ...

The Cato institute thinks Obama is way too liberal for there taste.


"The Coors Connection" how the Coors Family, Scaife and other wealthy rightwingers have funded the New Right movement since the early '70's. Among these rightwing benefactors are the Koch brothers. But the Kochs have been working both sides of the fence. As Bill Berkowitz writes, the Koch brothers have also been funding the Democratic Leadership Council.

According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, the brothers are "leading contributors to the Koch family foundations, which supports a network of Conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Manhattan Institute the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council."

Charles Koch co-founded the Cato Institute in 1977, while David helped launch Citizens for a Sound Economy in 1986.

This link is even from the official democratic party.
http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

[Forkboy]

13. Obama is close to one, if not one in name. But...

Hillary supporters once again have no leg to stand on. The "See, he's as bad as me" line of argument wont get them far, something they still haven't picked up on.

But, his policies and Hillary's policies are very similar, and not really all that hopeful to someone like me. Sure we'll be better off with either of them. Meanwhile, humankind jumps off a cliff.

[Swamp Rat]

18. After the lemmings fall to their deaths, we rodents are TAKIN' OVER!

:evilgrin:

[Tatiana]

14. Obama is not a member of the DLC. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar. n/t

[jackson_dem]

30. True but anyone who suggests he doesn't adhere to the DLC philosophy is blind or lying

Why the obsession on the netroots of stupid labels? If Hillary left the DLC t-ball team would that change her policies? Of course not. The DLC is not some cabal. It is an organization with an ideology and Obama adheres to that ideology.

[Tatiana]

32. He supports some ideas (like national service) but opposes many others.

Therefore he does NOT adhere to the DLC platform or their ideology.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar.

[jackson_dem]

53. What DLC ideas does he oppose?

Your link down thread produced no instances of Obama disagreeing with the DLC platform. He is as DLC in ideology as Hillary.

[bvar22]

82. For one, the DLC & Hillary were cheerleaders for the Bush invasion...

...and occupation of Iraq. They still are.
Hillary and the DLC have never denied the basic wrongs of invading Iraq.


Obama opposed it.

:hi:

[Straight Shooter]

55. Then, since Hillary's and Obama's voting records are similar, she does not adhere entirely either.

As long as Obama is willing to accept endorsements from prominent DLC members and their support, most notably Sebelius at this time, then he's benefitting from the organization, just as Hillary benefits from being a member.

Doesn't matter to me if he's sitting at the banquet or getting food snuck out to him by the back door, he's still getting fed.

[SammyWinstonJack]

103. ...

:thumbsup:

[Catherine Vincent]

15. You folks better pay attention.

When Swamp Rat says stop, you better do it!

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

17. Way'at cat_girl25

:hi:

Just a friendly suggestion. It does not help Hillary to use this tactic. Better to argue issues that are important to our community.

[jackson_dem]

22. Hillary isn't getting votes for falsely being viewed as "anti-DLC". Obama is

[Swamp Rat]

24. Please restate your argument more clearly. n/t

[jackson_dem]

28. What are you having trouble with?

The inconvenient truth?

[Swamp Rat]

31. Your unique brand of English.

I would love to know what you were trying to say. How about reposting your argument in a clear fashion?

[jackson_dem]

44. It is very clear. The truth is hard to hear for some when it conflicts with sacred beliefs.

[Swamp Rat]

83. I sure wish I knew to what "truth" you are referring.

:shrug:

[Kurovski]

26. K&R

Thanks, Mr. Swamp Rat. :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

33. Kurovski!!

:hi: :hug: :loveya:

[Kurovski]

34. McCain looks like he wants to hug me!

Or do something with those thumbs.

Sorry John, I'm not a lobbyist.

But I'll hug you, Swamp! :hug:

[Laurab]

60. There you go again...always making me jealous!

:loveya: :hug:

[Kurovski]

73. Don't be jealous of John McCain!

I turned him down.

:hug: :loveya:

[Laurab]

75. Whew - I admit I was worried just a little....

He's so attractive and all, especially in that picture of him hugging bush - or were they kissing? I forget. :loveya: :donut:

[Kurovski]

96. I've seen dogs do that when they roll over and expose their bellies.

Or maybe it's just plain old fondling.

[Swamp Rat]

100. LOL! ... arf! arf! arf!

Lie with dogs, wake up with Rove's fleas. :D



Btw, the emotions are really running high this evening. :)

[Kurovski]

102. Or distemper.

Severe vomiting at the very least.

But John is a good doggy. He might get his big white dog house yet.

[Swamp Rat]

107. LOL!

Yes, he just might get that Big White Doghouse, especially if we continue the circular firing squad.

Right now, I see a lot of folks shooting themselves in the foot, and occasionally shooting their own candidate in the ass too.

[Laurab]

117. Oh, that's so disgusting....

not the part about the dogs - my dog did that just now. THAT was cute.

The thought of bush and mccain YOU put that in my mind you sick, sick man! Fondling.......:puke:

[Kurovski]

118. And George makes John keep his eyes open during the whole thing.

No one ever said the White House comes cheap.

[Laurab]

120. Well I doubt John can see well, so maybe that's not so bad.

The bad part is me having that picture in my head - matter of fact, the idea of anyone fondling either of them is enough to make me sick.

I will NOT pay attention to Kurovski - I will not pay attention to Kurovski..I will think of puppies and kittens and dogs rolling on the floor puppies & kittens. But my new kitten attacks me all the time, and I have scratches all over the place - even one on my face. Yet I love her so much - is that wrong? She terrorizes my dog in the middle of the night - and my 70 lbs of dog lies on ME to hide from her...puppies & kittens and dogs...

and ..................FONDLING........ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww that is just SO disgusting!

[ErnestoG]

27. According to the Hillary crowd, war is no longer a "big deal".

It's amazing what you can learn here.

[Tatiana]

36. Barack on the DLC:

I intend to engage DLC members, just like I intend to engage everybody else that I can during the next year of campaigning, in a conversation about the direction our country needs to take to give ordinary working families a fair shake. In some instances, I may even agree with DLC positions: their insistence on the value of national service, or the need to harden domestic targets like chemical plants from potential terrorist attack, to cite a few examples I just pulled from the DLC web-site, make sense to me. Where I disagree with them – and, as we have already discussed, I disagree with them strongly on a lot of major issues - I intend to let them know, firmly and without equivocation, just why I think they are wrong. - Barack Obama

[Cha]

40. And that's why they can't stand Obama like

they can't tolerate Dean! Thanks for that, Tatiana.

[jackson_dem]

43. What makes you believe they can't stand Obama?

They hated Dean and attacked him. Al From has praised Obama and called Obama a "New Democrat". Many DLC members have endorsed Obama. Despite the beliefs of many in the blogosphere the DLC clearly knows Obama's views are in alignment with that of the DLC.

[jackson_dem]

41. What issues does his disagree with the DLC on?

[Tatiana]

45. Please read:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Tatiana/13

[jackson_dem]

52. So the answer is he disagrees with the DLC on 0 issues

The DLC and Obama have the same position on Iraq. See Clinton, Hillary. On health care, trade, and education he is to the right of even DLC leader Hillary Clinton.

"It’s to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better."

What is the significance of that fluff? That is the job of every candidate. The DLC has long emphasized bipartisanship by the way. Obama didn't invent that.

[Tatiana]

62. Can you honestly say he agrees with "Cheering Progress in Iraq?"

PPI | Front & Center | January 28, 2008
Cheering Progress in Iraq
By Jim Arkedis

According to the U.S. military, some 75 percent of Baghdad's neighborhoods are now "secure," which means that violence levels have dropped and normal economic activity is resuming. One year ago, just 8 percent of Baghdad was classified as such. The recent reduction of violence in Iraq represents an unambiguous blessing, both for the people of that troubled nation and our own armed forces. What is ambiguous, however, is the sustainability of such progress when Iraq's political factions remain so resistant to compromise.

As American commanders have acknowledged, security gains will remain tentative in the absence of advances on the Iraqi political front. This mixed picture has left many progressives unsure as to how to react. Here's one suggestion, in three parts:

1. Acknowledge the improved security situation

Reductions in violence in Iraq over the last several months are the result of several key events, only one of which is the troop "surge." Most important has been the shift from break-down-the-door military tactics to a counterinsurgency approach designed to win hearts and minds among Sunnis. This has helped induce Sunni leaders in Anbar province to switch sides and turn their guns on al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI).

Another important factor was the six-month cease-fire called by influential Shiite cleric and militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr. Additionally, the decline in civil strife could be the benign result of a not-at-all-benign phenomenon -- namely, the sectarian "cleansing" of once-mixed neighborhoods by one side or the other. Then again, it could simply be that the members of Iraq's depleted adult-male population have (at least temporarily) lost the urge to risk their lives in eye-for-an-eye street fighting.

We must bear in mind that while the security gains are promising, they are also precarious. A significant attack by AQI against a notable religious site, a second allegiance shift by the Anbar Sunnis, or a cancelling of al-Sadr's cease-fire could plunge the country back into civil war.

2. Support continued progress -- it doesn't make you a Bushie

Some Democrats seem to think that acknowledging any security progress in Iraq is tantamount to endorsing the Bush administration's failed policies in Iraq. It is not. The president's gross mismanagement of the occupation is well-documented, and progress at this late stage will not blur the electorate's hindsight. Polling data from Democracy Corps even bears this out.

It would be a mistake to look at Iraq, or any war involving American troops, through a strictly partisan lens. All Americans have a stake in consolidating and building upon the recent security gains. The slackening toll of violence is a tribute to the skill and bravery of our armed forces, as well as the Iraqi sects who are increasingly willing to cooperate. As we continue to draw down U.S. forces in a manner consistent with America's national security interests, continuation of the stabilizing trends in Iraq offer the best hope that we will be able to leave the country without an upsurge in violence.

3. Recognize that Iraq is America's responsibility

Iraq is an issue not just for 2008, but for 2012 and beyond. Democrats must acknowledge that this is not "Bush's war" or "the Republicans' war." It is, unavoidably, America's war. America's sons and daughters are dying on foreign soil, and American security will be either threatened or enhanced by the circumstances of our withdrawal.

Should a Democrat become commander-in-chief of this war, he or she will be responsible for bringing it to a responsible end while protecting our nation's long-term security. In order to carry out this difficult task, the president must be guided not by past debates on whether or not the invasion should have happened in the first place, but by honest considerations of what is best for our country now. This requires, first of all, a candid assessment of the situation in Iraq -- the good as well as the bad.

Jim Arkedis is director of PPI's National Security Project

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=254560

[jackson_dem]

64. Neither does Hillary. Does that mean Hillary isn't a "New Democrat"?

[Tatiana]

71. OK... let's go with this.

If Hillary does not agree with that sentiment (and her speeches of late indicate that she does not), then why doesn't she, as a http://www.dlc.org/ndol_sub.cfm?kaid=137&subid=900111">member of the DLC leadership team, have that policy position removed from the DLC platform?

[jackson_dem]

72. Because she doesn't run the DLC

The DLC isn't a cabal that requires full adherence to every white paper it puts out.

[Tatiana]

74. But she is a LEADER. If she cannot correct that glaring problem in the DLC platform among a few

leaders, how can she contend that she will fix the glaring policy problems as President when she will have to work with a much larger Congress?

Are you telling me Hillary Clinton cannot get Harold Ford, Jr. to correct that awful stance on Iraq?

[jackson_dem]

76. The DLC isn't a dictatorship

The DLC even split on who to endorse. Obama has gotten a lot of DLC support. Carper, a formal DLC leader, endorsed Biden. If Hillary can't dictate who they endorse how can she, as one of many leaders, dictate the DLC's platform?

[Tatiana]

79. Again, tell me how Hillary will change our policy in Iraq?

Apparently she can't even change the opinion of an organization in which she is a member of the leadership team.

[jackson_dem]

92. The same way Obama will

They both presented Iraq bills after beginning running for president. Neither bill went anywhere...

Hillary probably doesn't even care what the DLC's view is. The DLC is not much more important than Americans for Democratic Action or People for the American Way. Only in the blogosphere is it perceived as an omnipotent cabal. DLC white papers don't matter in and of itself. What makes them important is the influence they have on elected officials who use them to formulate policy. Where do you think Barack Obama got his views from education? Unless it was the Heritage Foundation he got it from the DLC's think tank...

[ErnestoG]

109. So vote for Obama!

[Swamp Rat]

42. There's the "Inconvenient Truth" in his own words.

"I intend to engage DLC members, just like I intend to engage everybody..," including American's enemies like Fidel Castro or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Now, let me reiterate to Hillary supporters to drop the "Obama is a DLCer" tactic. It can only hurt her campaign.

Tatiana, please post a link to the above statement, preferable one from Obama's website(s). :hi:

[Tatiana]

54. Here is the whole response, which I will post yet again, because some people seem to hate facts:

Dear Black Commentator:

Let me begin by saying that I’ve enjoyed the dialogue that we seem to be developing on these e-pages, and hope it continues as my campaign progresses.

I also appreciate your desire to focus on specific issues that should be of interest to all progressives, both inside and outside of the Democratic Party. My views on universal health care, the unilateral use of force in Iraq, and NAFTA are in fact what you might expect given my previous history and voting record.

I favor universal health care for all Americans, and intend to introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end in the U.S. Senate, just as I have at the state level. My campaign is also developing a series of interim proposals – such as an expansion of the successful SCHIP program – so that we can immediately provide more coverage to uninsured children and their families.

I would have voted against the October 10th congressional resolution authorizing the President to use unilateral force against Iraq. I believe that we could have effectively neutralized Iraq with a rigorous, multilateral inspection regime backed by coalition forces. Nothing since the end of the formal fighting has led me to reconsider this stance; indeed, the inability of Saddam Hussein to mount even token resistance to American forces, the failure to discover any significant, deployable arsenals of biological or chemical weapons inside Iraq, and the on-going turmoil currently taking place in post-war Iraq, have only strengthened my views on the subject.

And although I believe that free trade - when also fair - can benefit workers in both rich and poor nations, I think that the current NAFTA regime lacks the worker and environmental protections that are necessary for the long-term prosperity of both America and its trading partners. I would therefore favor, at minimum, a significant renegotiation of NAFTA and the terms of the President’s fast track authority.

You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC. That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC. As I stated in my previous letter, I agreed to be listed as “100 to watch” by the DLC. That’s been the extent of my contact with them. It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC also listed me in their “New Democrat” directory. Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.

I do think a broader question remains on the table. What is the best strategy for building majority support for a progressive agenda, and for reversing the rightward drift of this country?

One important part of that strategy - and on this I think we agree - is for progressives within the Democratic Party to describe our core values (e.g. racial justice, civil liberties, opportunity for the many, and not just the few) in clear, unambiguous terms.

A second part of that strategy - and again, I think we agree here - is to stake out clear positions on issues that put those values into action (e.g. the need for universal health care), and to stand up for those values when they are under assault (e.g. opposition to the Patriot Act).

But the third part of this part of the equation – and on this we may disagree – must be to gain converts to our positions. My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, isn’t to scold people for their lack of ideological purity. It’s to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better. Thus, while I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn’t keep me from reaching out to NRA members who are worried about their lack of health insurance. I favor affirmative action, but I’m still going after the votes of white union members who oppose affirmative action, because I think I can convince them that it’s Bush’s economic agenda, and not affirmative action, that is eroding their job security and stagnating their wages. And while I may object to the misogyny and materialism of much of rap culture, I’m still going to spend the time reaching out to a hip-hop generation in search of a future.

In other words, I believe that politics in any democracy is a game of addition, not subtraction. And I believe deeply enough in the decency of the American people to think that progressives can build a winning majority in this country, so long as we’re not afraid to speak the truth, and so long as we don’t write off big chunks of the electorate just because they don’t agree with us on every issue.

All of which explains why I’m not likely to launch blanket denunciations of the DLC or any other faction within the Democratic Party. I intend to engage DLC members, just like I intend to engage everybody else that I can during the next year of campaigning, in a conversation about the direction our country needs to take to give ordinary working families a fair shake. In some instances, I may even agree with DLC positions: their insistence on the value of national service, or the need to harden domestic targets like chemical plants from potential terrorist attack, to cite a few examples I just pulled from the DLC web-site, make sense to me. Where I disagree with them – and, as we have already discussed, I disagree with them strongly on a lot of major issues - I intend to let them know, firmly and without equivocation, just why I think they are wrong.

To some, this approach may appear naïve; to others, it may appear that I’m headed down a path of dangerous compromise. All I can tell you is that in my twenty years as an organizer, civil rights lawyer, and state senator, I’ve always trusted my moral compass, and have thus far avoided compromising my core values for the sake of ambition or expedience. Hopefully, by listening to the people I seek to serve, and with the occasional jab from friendly critics like The Black Commentator, I can stay on that course, and ultimately do some good as the next U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois.

Sincerely,

State Senator Barack Obama

Candidate for the U.S. Senate

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

[Swamp Rat]

85. Thank you! n/t

:hi:

[Tatiana]

86. Welcome!

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

89. Btw

Wouldn't it be great if Wes Clark was on the ticket? ;)

I'd settle for Secretary of State, or Secretary of Defense. :D

[Ichingcarpenter]

46. Exactly, but some try to Obstinate even when facts

are given to them.

[mtnsnake]

37. Are you serious? If Obama wants to act like a DLCer you should be beg him to stop, not anyone else

BTW, I don't remember too many people saying Obama was a member, just a lot of people saying he acts like a DLCer with his "reach out to Republicans" strategy (pure DLC) and his "I'm against the war, but I vote for funding to enable it all the time" hypocrisy.

[Swamp Rat]

48. How does Obama want "to act like a DLCer?"

And how does one's supposition about someone else 'wanting to act like something else' have any bearing on realty?

The rest of your post made no sense to me. Can you please restate it clearly?

[mtnsnake]

65. I gave some examples earlier here

not that I expect any of his supporters on DU to take grasp of it or anything...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4726737

[Swamp Rat]

88. I'd prefer you restate your argument in full here as it relates to the OP.

I am not intersted in what "his supporters on DU" are able to "grasp" or "anything." This language is too vague and it appears you may have an axe to grind with someone or something not related to the OP.

[jackson_dem]

49. The obsession with the DLC in the blogosphere is insane

People froth at the mouth at the Deeee L Ceeeeeee without looking at what the DLC actually believes. If they did that they would realize their hero Obama, who they perversely "believe" is opposed to the DLC cabal, is in full alignment with the DLC ideology.

The DLC is like the Illumanti for many progressives. There isn't a rational opposition to it among many. Look at the VP polls here. DLC members Kathleen Seblius and Bill Richardson consistently place in the top 3 while Clintonite Clark always wins.

[mtnsnake]

63. And the sad part is

that half the people voting in those polls would never vote for people like Biden, Richardson, and Seblius if they realized how DLC they were. Look at the pass that Al Gore gets here, and Gore, as much as I love the guy, certainly is no stranger to the DLC. He practically got the DLC on its feet in its inception.

[jackson_dem]

70. Yup. The NAFTA bashing of Hill is hilarious

Hillary opposed it in the White House while Gore went on national television, beat Ross Perot in a debate on NAFTA and probably proved decisive in getting NAFTA passed. Gore, who they love, is what they hate Hillary for. It was Gore who was always pushing the DLC philosophy in debates in the Clinton White House. The record shows Gore was to the right of Bill Clinton!

[Swamp Rat]

97. No, it is NOT hilarious!

It's a really bad idea to confound her voting record with her husband's.

"Gore, who they love, is what they hate Hillary for." - Who is "they?" Who are these lovers/haters and what do they hope to accomplish?

"The record shows Gore was to the right of Bill Clinton!" - What record? Post it here please.

[Bongo Prophet]

124. There is much resentment here that Gore "gets a pass" on all sorts of things.

But what is never mentioned is the fact that Al gore came out with several strong speeches against the war and for our rights to speak out, our rights to privacy and constitutional freedoms, the evils of torture and gitmo, etc.
He also has long said NAFTA needs to be revisited, with real changes in environmental, labor rights and more.
All at a time when it was NOT politically safe to do so.
All at a time when Bill and Hillary were so attached to Bushes it was...unseemly.

THAT courage gives him more than "a pass" - that courage demonstrated his gravitas and honor.
Plus there's that whole global warming and peace prize stuff. Little things.


How dare he- why should we care!
So tired of fact, it's just not fair!
People love Gore more!
Makes centrists' head sore.

[Swamp Rat]

94. Ad hominem.

No logic.

No substance.

No dice.

[Peace Patriot]

38. Can anyone tell me what Obama's appearance at the DLC amounted to, and

what he said to them? Or point to an info source? Thanks!

[Swamp Rat]

50. Kick for good questions.

:kick:

[Tatiana]

67. When did he appear at the DLC? None of the presidential candidates went to the national event this

past year.

Hillary Clinton delivered the http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=137&subid=900111&contentid=253996">major address at the 2006 national event.

[jackson_dem]

68. You have to appear at DLC meetings to adhere to the DLC philosophy?

That makes no sense. Did you go to the DNC's fall meeting?

[Peace Patriot]

121. It was two years ago or so. I seem to recall that Obama went to the DLC for

a speech, or to lobby them, or something. It could have been Edwards. My memory is fuzzy on it. Obama's statements on the DLC indicate that he regards them as just a faction within the party and will listen to them, as to others, and make up his own mind about things. I've never thought of him as a big DLC supporter or member. But you don't have to be a big supporter or member to go talk to them. I just had a vague memory that he did, and I wondered what it amounted to.

[From The Left]

57. Hillary Is the Queen of the DLC

And Lieberman is her King.

[jackson_dem]

66. Is Hillary deceiving folks into believing she is an "alternative to the eeeeevil Dee L Cee"?

[mtnsnake]

78. If Lieberman is her King, then why did she support Lamont and why did Obama support DLC Lieberman?

And why does Lieberman brag to this day how Obama picked HIM as his mentor and not the other way around?

[Ichingcarpenter]

91. Now, you are just reaching and you know it.

Let's not rehash this old bullshit.

[ronnykmarshall]

69. Oh my

and charming graphic too!

Oh dear!

[rodeodance]

81. Just another lecture by the obama camp--quickly de-bunked

[Swamp Rat]

90. Incorrect on both accounts.

:)

[Swamp Rat]

95. I see you are a passionate Hillary Clinton supporter.

So, do you think it is wise for her supporters to use an anti-DLC tactic against Obama?

Thank you. Here's another:

[ErnestoG]

111. Passion? I thought that was bad when exhibited by Obama?

[Major Hogwash]

98. The truth has a force of it's own!!

John Kerry said that about the facts concerning his military record and the reasons that the entire Bush asministration lied about the reasons they went to war in Iraq.

[Peace Patriot]

101. I did not find his article in Foreign Affairs magazine very comforting...

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

The "Manifest Destiny" language, re Amerika, made me queasy. Why can't politicians express confidence in the American people, and hope for the future, without saying things like this: "After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew." --Barack Obama

The "American moment." Just what does that mean to Iraqi children torn limb from limb by our bombs? Just what does that mean to us, with our Constitution and the rule of law in tatters, and our federal and state treasuries completely looted and our people probably facing Great Depression II?

He sounds just like JFK in his early "Cold Warrior" period (1960). JFK changed in office, and, by the end of his violently shortened term, had turned a corner toward becoming a peace-maker. Is Barack Obama capable of this? Yeah, maybe. It's funny, I am quite a leftist now, but I did not support the true leftist candidate in the 1960 fight for the Democratic presidential nomination--Adlai Stevenson. I worked for JFK because he was young, smart, witty, well-read, incredibly well-spoken and represented the new generation--me. I was 16. His "Cold Warrior" rhetoric went right over my head. I was responding to something else--an instinctual recognition of someone with the creative ability to change with the times. Really, JFK was the spark that sent an entire generation into the most profound changes for the better that any society has ever seen at one time: the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, gay rights, indigenous rights, the environmental movement, the anti-war movement, the ecumenism movement (liberalization in the Catholic Church), liberation theology, the anti-Nicaragua war movement, which, by the time that happened, was a movement in CONGRESS (as a consequence of the anti-Vietnam war movement), and resulted in a law forbidding the Reagan regime from making war on that country.

All this was sparked by JFK and his ability to change--to stop the invasion of Cuba, to de-fuse a nuclear war with the Soviet Union with a compromise (about Turkey), to initiate the first nuclear disarmament treaty, to write the civil rights and anti-poverty legislation that was later passed, to de-fuse yet another war by signing executive orders, just before he was killed, beginning the withdrawal of U.S. military "advisers" from Vietnam (--a country that, at that time, was not on anybody's radar except U.S. war profiteers), and, finally, by beginning to convert the military budget to peaceful uses (the space program).

I doubt that Adlai Stevenson could have accomplished that much, in such a short time. (He had too many enemies on the right, for one thing.) What I perceived in JFK in 1960 was what a lot of young people are perceiving now in Barack Obama--the ability to be creative, flexible, open-minded and intellectually adventurous, like they are. A fresh face. A fresh mind. The hopeful qualities of youth. Some of us oldsters may think that Hillary Clinton would be better for women's rights, and more liberal on some other issues. But that is not what the young--and opponents of the war (70% of the American people)--are perceiving. They are perceiving the ability to change. Creativity, freshness--or its potential.

-------

Here's Obama:

"Today, we are again called to provide visionary leadership. This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts.

"To recognize the number and complexity of these threats is not to give way to pessimism. Rather, it is a call to action. These threats demand a new vision of leadership in the twenty-first century -- a vision that draws from the past but is not bound by outdated thinking. The Bush administration responded to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged. In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles." --Barack Obama

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

-----------

This is so hopeful in some ways, and so off-base in others--much like JFK's campaign speeches and debating points in 1960.

"This century's threats ...come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism." --Obama

In truth, this century's threats come primarily from the Bush Junta. They have slaughtered 1.2 million innocent people to get their oil. Have many people have "terrorists" of any kind slaughtered during the last decade?

"This century's threats....come from rogue states...."--Obama

In truth,we are the "rogue state." And this failure of Obama to acknowledge what we have become, and to disavow it for what it is--war crimes and gangsterism--and to disavow all of the many Bush Junta crimes--leads directly his repetition of the old "Cold Warrior" propaganda that the U.S. is somehow special, with special values, and a special destiny in the world.

His "Moving Beyond Iraq" section begins, "To renew American leadership in the world...".

America's arrogant assumption that we have a right to leadership of the world--after Vietnam, after endless bloody interference in country after country, in Asia, in the Middle East, in South America,in Africa, and now after this disastrous, monumentally criminal war on Iraq, and attendant atrocities--such as torturing prisoners--all in the interest of U.S. war profiteers and U.S.-based global corporate predators--it's time for a little humility. It's time to acknowledge that our vaunted democratic and human rights values have ceased working here at home--let alone in the reality, and in the perception, of world at large.

Another mistake that Obama's attachment to U.S. "Manifest Destiny" leads him to make is his mention of the 3,300 American soldiers' lives that have been lost, without mentioning the 1.2 million Iraqi lives that we have taken. This bothers me every time a U.S. politician does it, and it bothers me in Obama. He seems to say the right things about Iraq, but the focus is wrong--narrow, provincial--as if only U.S. lives, and only U.S. interests, and only U.S. "destiny" matter.

"Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by America's civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place. We have now lost over 3,300 American lives, and thousands more suffer wounds both seen and unseen." --Obama

Iraq was a "diversion" from a "fight" against terrorists that has occurred because of our narrow, self-interested, myopic, greedy, anti-democratic foreign policy, which has been satisfied to ally the U.S. with the Middle East's worst dictators, and to let the vast population of the Middle East languish in poverty, and in fact to actively destroy efforts at democracy (as we did to Iran in the mid-1950s), and to positively foster terrorism, in Afghanistan, and inspire it in other places with our profoundly unjust economic policies.

And just listen to this, from Obama...

"REVITALIZING THE MILITARY

"To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. Unfortunately....(t)he Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq; 88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas.

"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.

"We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines." (!!!)

-----

Here comes the Draft--to "swiftly defeat" any threat "to our vital interests" and "to put boots on the ground" anywhere on the globe for "global scale" conflicts. Whatever does he mean? He sounds like Donald Rumsfeld who, on Dec. 1, 2007, urged the U.S. to "act swiftly" in support of "friends and allies" in South America. The U.S. does not have any "friends and allies" in South America--except for the fascist thugs running Colombia, the "free traders" in Peru, and the fascist cabals in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina who are conspiring to overthrow democratic leftist governments, funded by the Bush/USAID-NED and covert budgets.

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

You see where this rhetoric of "Manifest Destiny" leads--to endless war, to endless colossal war budgets, to endless bullying and interference in other countries, and to endless economic injustice. And if we don't give this delusion of America's "right to leadership" of the world up, another Bush Junta is going to come along and take it further than it has already been taken, that is, if Obama himself doesn't succumb to nefarious advisers and plots to draw him across the warmongering divide.

He is not a warmonger, but he is speaking the lines, and devising the policies, that will lead to more war, one way or another.

JFK fell into this very same trap. While he was moving toward peace-making, the war profiteers were manufacturing a war for their own benefit, in which 2 million people, including more than 55,000 U.S. soldiers--mostly draftees-- were dead before it was over. And it was "justified" by the kind of "Cold Warrior," anti-communist rhetoric that JFK started off with, and never fully abandoned. His speech about world peace to the UN will make you cry over its high aspirations, and its misunderstandings of the communist world and of the vast and almost unimaginable poverty and suffering that brought about communist revolutions.

Similarly, Barack Obama misunderstands the world, and our place in it. I am the first to say that the American people have strong human rights, democratic and progressive values that our current political leadership does not share, and we, the people of the U.S., have an obligation to the world to bring those values back into our government, because of the capacity of our government to do evil when those values are abandoned. And I am the first to say, in addition, that we must provide leadership and example, and marshall all our fabled ingenuity, in the fight against global warming, because our society is contributing 25% of the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming. Not because our wealth grants us any "right to leadership." It does not. And not because we have better values than others. We do not. In fact, our leaders have far worse values that many other leaders in the world. But because we owe it to humanity, which has suffered--and may indeed lose the very planet we live on--from our ungodly greed and self-centered, profligate lifestyle. We have lived high off the rest of the world's poverty, and have profited immensely both from slave labor and environmental destruction. Now we need to give back.

But before we can even do that, we have to set our own house in order. And bigger and better military budgets are not the way to do that. We are absolutely without any claim to moral leadership while multi-millions of our own people live in poverty. Obama's lofty assertion of our "Manifest Destiny" to lead others is way out of focus, and contains great peril for us. Not that anybody else's rhetoric is any better. As many other Americans are perceiving, Obama is the best of the remaining candidates--because he is young, and relatively untouched by the cauldron of corruption that our government has become. He's new. He's smart. He's desperately trying to create a positive vision for our country. I think that vision cannot be clearly formulated or realized until we have dealt with the past, with what we have become--or, rather what our government has become: lawless, greedy, murderous bastards.

[Swamp Rat]

105. I think it is a specious argument to say Obama's "American Moment" is like Manifest Destiny

What is the "American Moment" to you? To me it is the Apollo Moon landing. To iraqis it is likely something akin to Manifest Destiny. To Obama it is, in part, "the time when we renewed the America that has led generations of weary travelers from all over the world to find opportunity and liberty and hope on our doorstep."

___________

"The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world. If elected president, I will start renewing that promise and purpose the day I take office."

(snip)

"I believe they will also agree that it is time for a new generation to tell the next great American story. If we act with boldness and foresight, we will be able to tell our grandchildren that this was the time when we helped forge peace in the Middle East. This was the time we confronted climate change and secured the weapons that could destroy the human race. This was the time we defeated global terrorists and brought opportunity to forgotten corners of the world. And this was the time when we renewed the America that has led generations of weary travelers from all over the world to find opportunity and liberty and hope on our doorstep."

(snip)

"We can be this America again. This is our moment to renew the trust and faith of our people -- and all people -- in an America that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more."
___________


Maybe Obama's "American Moment" is restoring peace in Iraq? Maybe it is economic justice for all citizens of America? Maybe his "American Moment" begins with putting our own house in order?

Thanks for the article. You should post this in its own thread, if you have not already done so.

[Peace Patriot]

127. I do think that Obama was partly riffing off the "Project for a New American

Century" - trying to turn the NeoCons' heinous gloating over American wealth and power and their philosophy of dominating the world with it, toward better more altruistic goals. But Obama fails in that effort, in my opinion. He buys into their philosophy too much, doesn't analyze and criticize it sufficiently. It is rotten at its core. Got to cut the rot out, first, and see what you have left.

Yes, I think you're right that what Obama means by the "American Moment" is not war but beneficial achievements - things like putting men on the moon, and the Civil Rights Act - today, solving global warming, restoring world peace (after we destroyed it!), and tackling poverty again. And I am not saying that the U.S. shouldn't demonstrate leadership toward positive goals. I'm talking about, a) tone - understanding (the "Manifest Destiny" tone), and b) the emphasis on massive continued military spending, which I think is just nuts - morally, economically and as a leadership - what kind of leadership is it, that bases power and safety on these massive war budgets?

Both things need to be challenged - or we're going right back down the path toward nazism. Americans as a "superior race" with a "destiny" to direct others. Americans conquering and occupying other countries to steal their resources.

We are, of course, a mixed race country - Obama being a prime example of it - but by "superior race" I don't mean white race, exactly - although it's a white, European concept. I mean...Manifest Destiny - that, being an American, makes you superior. We have got to give this up, just as we - as a society - have given up racism and achieved a more enlightened, informed viewpoint on other people. It's still a struggle, of course. But it would be patently absurd today to assert that blacks are an inferior people - or Jews, or the Irish, or anybody else. Give any human being half a chance, and they shine forth with intelligence and creativity. And now we have to cross this next mountain: that Americans are "superior" and that we have some special right to rule the world.

90% of Obama's Foreign Affairs article does not even see that next mountain, nor recognize that it is there. And that is...worrisome. Very worrisome.

[Straight Shooter]

106. Nice catch.

I have never felt "quite right" about JFK, and always thought Adlai Stevenson would have made a great president and changed the course of history for the better.

"REVITALIZING THE MILITARY

"To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. Unfortunately....(t)he Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq; 88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas.

"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.

"We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines." (!!!)

More Missions Accomplished in the works? America is so dependent on oil, and Obama knows it. Watch him move closer and closer to the right.

[rodeodance]

108. It tells me BO is for expantionism--by any means.

"After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew." --Barack Obama

[ErnestoG]

110. Like his pro war vote? Oh wait.....

[rodeodance]

112. read the entire article to get the context.

[apocalypsehow]

115. K & R

:kick:

[Kurovski]

116. Kick. (nt)

[PassingFair]

119. Someone MUST be telling them to spread this non sequitur.

Why else would so many keep repeating such
BLATANT NONSENSE?

One more time: Hillary Clinton = DLC LEADER
Barack Obama = NOT DLC