David Sirota: The Ridiculousness & Danger That Is Obama '08

[NashVegas]

(Edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)

Spot-on column from 2006:

Think about it. The national media is swooning over Obama, begging him to run for president. Yet, at the same time, they are implicitly acknowledging that he has actually not "developed significant legislative initiatives." In other words, we are to simply accept that the the Obama for President wave has absolutely nothing to do with anything that the man HAS DONE and further, that whenever he does decide to use his enormous political capital to do something, it is all in pursuit of the White House - not any actual sense of DOING SOMETHING for the people who elected him to the Senate.

I don't blame Obama for not having accomplished much - he's been in the Senate for two years. As I wrote in the Nation, the main concern about him is that he doesn't actually seem to ASPIRE to anything outside of the Washington power structure (other than maybe running for another higher office), and doesn't seem to be interested in challenging the status quo in any fundamental way. Using his senate career as a guide, it suggests that any presidential run by him is about him, his speaking ability and his fawned over talent for "connecting" (whatever the hell that means).

For progressives, this situation is perilous indeed. Obama is a candidate who has kept his record deliberately thin, who has risked almost nothing for the bigger movement, and in fact who has sometimes gone out of his way to reinforce dishonest stereotypes about the left. This is a man who has helped launch the Hamilton Project designed to undermine Democrats pushing for fairer trade deals. This is a man who belittled Paul Wellstone as merely a "gadfly." This is a man who refused to lift a finger for Ned Lamont. Flocking to a candidate like that without demanding that he change only reinforces the damaging concept that our movement is a Seinfeld Movement about nothing.

...


I want to be clear: I don't think our movement is a Seinfeld Movement. But don't fool yourself: a movement that rushes to embrace a candidate without demanding that candidate actually lead on the issues that the movement is supposed to be about - well, that could be a death blow for what we are working toward. Movements move because leaders lead and because they weild power by forcing politicians to stand up for people. Movements are killed by false prophets, cults of personality and by the unwillingness of those in the movement to weild their power for their agenda.


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1202-20.htm

[geek tragedy]

1. Who is Sirota backing now? n/t

[mod mom]

22. It sure isn't any DLCer. Sirota on the DLC:

David Sirota on the DLC:

-snip

It was the DLC’s president, Al From, who in 2001 said that his goal was to give Democrats “a game plan to try to contain the populism.” Populism, you may recall, is defined as “supporting the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite.” Al From has made that vision a reality. The DLC—which has been funded by the likes of Chevron, Enron, Merck and Philip Morris—has, until recently, been extremely effective at pressuring Democrats to ignore the will of the public and capitulate to big business’s demands. The DLC has also made a public spectacle of itself by berating Democratic candidates who actually stand up for ordinary people.

PUTTING THE “MOCK” IN DEMOCRACY—To be sure, the DLC never openly admits its objectives, or even its funding sources. Instead, it bills itself as quasi grassroots, holding so-called “national conversations” in an effort to create the impression that its corporate-written agenda has some semblance of public support.

Yet the media coverage of its most recent such “conversation,” in Denver this past July, tells the real story. The New York Sun noted that the meeting focused on pondering “how to counter the netroots”—i.e., how to counter the millions of grassroots Democratic Party voters who use the Internet to advocate for a more democratic political system. Perhaps most telling of all was the Rocky Mountain News’s note that the DLC’s supposed “national conversation” at the Hyatt Regency Hotel was, in fact, “not open to the public.”

In an August Rolling Stone column, reporter Matt Taibbi recounted his interview with one DLC leader, who called anti-war activists “narrow dogmatists.” Taibbi pointed out that recent Gallup polls have shown that fully 91 percent of Democrats support a withdrawal from Iraq, and he asked the DLC leader to explain this contradiction. “So these hundreds of thousands of Democrats who are against the war are narrow dogmatists?” Taibbi asked. “We have thirty corporate-funded spokesmen telling hundreds of thousands of actual voters that they’re narrow dogmatists?”

-snip

http://www.davidsirota.com/index.php/big-money-vs-grassroots/



The Democrats 2008 Choice: Sell Out & Lose, Or Stand Up & Win
Posted July 26, 2005 | 03:42 PM (EST)




The 2008 Democratic presidential candidates this week are busy genuflecting at Corporate America's altar -- otherwise known as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Now, it's true -- the DLC is really just a group of Beltway-insulated corporate-funded hacks who have spent the better part of the last decade trying to undermine the Democratic Party's traditional working class base -- a base that had kept Democrats in power for 40 years and now, thanks to the DLC, has been forfeited to the Republicans. Even so, the fact that these presidential candidates feel the need to bow down to the DLC is a troubling sign about whether the Democratic Party is really serious about regaining power in America.

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda.

Now, you could make a credible argument that the DLC's corporatization/Republicanization of the Democratic Party was justified, had it led to electoral success for Democrats. Few would argue that today's split-the-difference Democratic Party hasn't followed the DLC's policy direction over the last 10 years. That means the last 10 years of elections really have been a referendum on whether the DLC's model -- regardless of any moral judgements about it -- actually wins at the polls.

And that's when we get to the real problem with the DLC -- its policies are BOTH morally bankrupt, and politically disastrous. The rise of the DLC within the Democratic Party has coincided almost perfectly with the decline of the Democratic Party's power in American politics -- a decline that took Democrats from seemingly permanent majority status to permanent minority status. In this last election, just think of Democrats' troubles in Ohio as a perfect example of this. Here was a state ravaged by massive job loss due to corporate-written "free" trade deals -- yet Democrats were unable to capitalize on that issue and thus couldn't win the state because the DLC had long ago made sure the party helped pass the very trade policies (NAFTA, China PNTR) that sold out those jobs.

-SNIP

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-democrats-2008-choice_b_4729.html

[SoxFan]

54. Sirota also applied for a job with Lieberman

When he didn't get the job, he went on a hissy-fit rampage.

Sirota is a bozo who changes loyalties the way most people change their underwear.

[democracy1st]

64. He didn't get the job because ol Joe changed his outlook

[locker13]

2. YAWN

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. Isn't this the guy that called Hillary Clinton one of "the most out of touch elitists in in history"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-two-most-out-of-touch_b_96559.html

[Maribelle]

74. Our Hillary has slain many dragons this year.

Please do try to keep up.

[Pawel K]

4. Why is being an outsider such a bad thing?

He was right on the Iraq war. He is not taking money from lobbyists. He is not part of the DLC. Those are the huge differences between him and Hillary. On everything else he's like every other democrat.

It's time to let an outsider run the country for a while, it can't possibly get any worse if we stick with more of the same.

[depakid]

43. He's taken TONS of corporate money!

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

The only thing one can really say is that his campaign finances are a bit less seedy than Hillary's and, obviously, McCain's

[Orangepeel]

61. those are people's occupations, which they are supposed to list when they donate.

I'm sure that my $250 is in there, under "education." "Retired" is the 3rd most common industry listed. Is "retired" a corporation?

[depakid]

65. Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers

are donors (not individuals).

Whether they're by definition "lobbyists" or PACS is sort of splitting hairs.

And I don't think that its a stretch to ask whether they might have been a quid pro quo for his vote on the the class-action "reform" bill.

[grantcart]

5. More updates for Sirota

This double-standard dynamic is why Barack Obama's speech on race was so courageous: He addressed a taboo subject - America's racial divide - knowing that black political leaders like him have typically faced harsh Establishment vitriol for doing so.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/02/obama_the_dynamic_whose_name_m/



As ugly as it is, the Clinton firewall strategy is stunning in its ruthlessness. It has been half a century since the major triumphs of the civil rights and party reform movements, yet a major Democratic candidate is attempting to secure a presidential nomination by exploiting racial divides and negotiating backroom superdelegate deals.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3597/the_clinton_firewall/

hy is it "controversial" for one pastor to address the black community, racism and blowback, but OK for another pastor to slander an entire religion? Why is it news that one candidate knows a sometimes-impolitic clergyman, but not news that his opponent associates with an anti-Semite? Does the double standard prove the dominant culture despises a black man confronting taboos, but accepts whites spewing hate? Does the very reaction to Wright show he's right about racism?

Clinton seems to think so. Her aides have been calling the states they believe Obama will lose their political "firewall." That's campaign-speak for "race wall" — one built with bricks like Pennsylvania and Indiana. These aren't the near-purely white states where racial politics is often muted (and Obama won). They are the slightly diverse states where racial politics simmers and where the black vote is too small to offset a motivated racist vote. This race wall is now being fortified.

http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/2008/03/david-sirota-is-wright-right-about.html

[otohara]

8. Someone Changed His Tune

He's on the radio here in Denver once per week - I should call him

[butterfly77]

17. Just can't leave that race thing alone...

IT DOESN'T MATTER!

[SeattleGirl]

6. 2006?

:shrug:

[AllentownJake]

13. They hear the band warming up

I expect them to get crazier before they actually concede.

[murielm99]

7. Kick.

:kick:

Let us now throw Sirota under the bus, along with Joe Wilson and anyone else who does not worship at the altar of St. Obama.

[ecdab]

18. LOL - you may want to read a bit of the posts here

"Similarly, Clinton continues to label Barack Obama "out of touch" for saying that when people get economically crapped on by politicians and corporations, they get angry. From the confines of her mansions in Georgetown and Chappaqua, surveying her $110 million fortune and her long career as a corporate lawyer and Wal-Mart board member, Clinton expresses a "let them eat cake" attitude, apparently believing regular folks are totally happy when politicians like her champion policies like NAFTA that crush them."

- David Sirota

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-two-most-out-of-touch_b_96559.html

The OP posted a piece from 2 years ago. Sirota has since clued into what is going on.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. she didn't bother to read. now guess who'll be throwing Mr. Sirota

under that damned bus....:rofl:

[jkshaw]

27. Thanks ecdab, for the date on these pieces.

I often check on the date these things were published, but not often enough!

[ecdab]

40. My pleasure - we all need to watch out for one another with so many

unscrupulous posters about.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Did you even bother to read post #5 before jumping in? nt

:eyes:

[The Doctor.]

29. Why throw Sirota 'under the bus'? That's the Clinton people's M/O.

Randi Rhodes
Keith Olbermann
Stephanie Miller

I've seen Hillary people post that they'll "never listen to them again" just because they don't support Clinton.

Well, Sirota is smart, insightful, and has been an asset to the cause of truth in this country. I'll sit back and see if any Obamites start acting like Clintonites towards him.

[cornermouse]

46. Don't forget Paul Wellstone.

[Hepburn]

60. LOL.....

....try reading prior to bitching, OK? :evilgrin:

[sandnsea]

9. John Kerry had no substance? Are you fucking kidding me?

And where the hell is Hillary's substance? She's done SQUAT in 35 years. Absolutely not a fucking thing.

[NashVegas]

14. Sorry But It's True

His 2004 supporters loved to bring up John Kerry did in testifying against Vietnam and BCCI and ignored the fact he hadn't done anything for us lately, as the saying goes.

As a candidate, John Kerry was selected to represent Democrats because he looked the part and was non-threatening to the power elite in DC and NYC. Obama is much the same in that regard.

[sandnsea]

19. lol, Obama is the DC power candidate???

You have lost it. Completely gone round the bend.

John Kerry wrote the legislation that became SCHIP. HE wrote the global vaccine legislation. He's implemented more small business legislation tha I can remember. He was a key backer in the Agent Orange legislation. He was key in Vietnam normalization. He rewrote the oceans & fisheries legislation many years ago. He's leading the way on ending this stupid war. What's Hillary done? NOTHING.

[ProSense]

25. Oh BS! Hillary's record includes lying about stuff Kerry did initiate, like SCHIP n/t

[fedupinBushcountry]

26. Please tell me

WTF has Hillary done for anyone during her time in the Senate? John Kerry won the primary he came from behind, because he connected with the people he is an activist and always has been, Hillary would like to say she is one , but please show me her activism in the past 8 years? He wasn't threatening? Is that why Hillary needed to throw him under the bus in Nov. '06? Hillary cares about Hillary not we the people, if anything that has come out clearly in this primary.

[stillcool]

33. what you don't see isn't real...

I don't know if you live here or not..or get emails about the different things he is/has been working on, but as my Senator, I am more than pleased with he and Senator Kennedy representing me. I don't know what you were expecting him to do for you, but I'm sorry he did not live up to your expectations.

[Petey Wheatie]

10. Half the party bought the car without even checking under the hood n/t

[AllentownJake]

11. I don't concede

substance to Hillary.

If we wanted substance Joe Biden would be the nominee.

[The Doctor.]

36. Or Kucinich. Either way I agree. n/t

[anonymous171]

12. WTF 2006?

[butterfly77]

15. Sirota another neocon asshole...

Its not working I have heard him answer all types of questions. The questions are being asked about the non issues are the ones he is trying to make into something that it is not,he has answered these question many times but they don't like the answers they want him to answer them over and over so that if one word is out of place they can jump on it and try to turn it into something it is not. Won't work asshole not this time...

[The Doctor.]

30. Uhhh... WHAT?

That didn't make much sense at all.

Exactly what were you trying to say there? It was barely intelligible.

[Straight Shooter]

41. butterfly77 is angry because Obama is being asked non-issue questions

That's the gist of what I got from it, that the neocons are engaging in a form of entrapment by focusing on non-issues.

[The Doctor.]

44. I'm highly suspicious of BF77's motive here.

I mean, I can't think of any DUers that would call Sirota a 'neo-con'. That's just plain fucking ridiculous.

[Straight Shooter]

47. I think the word "neocon" gets tossed around far too casually on DU.

That's probably why b77 used the word. Just guessing, here.

[brentspeak]

51. Uh, yeah...sure. Sirota's a, um, "neocon"...

:spray:

[azmouse]

16. Zzzzzzzzzzz....

:boring:

[ProSense]

20. Sirota is being disingenuous

For progressives, this situation is perilous indeed. Obama is a candidate who has kept his record deliberately thin, who has risked almost nothing for the bigger movement, and in fact who has sometimes gone out of his way to reinforce dishonest stereotypes about the left. This is a man who has helped launch the Hamilton Project designed to undermine Democrats pushing for fairer trade deals. This is a man who belittled Paul Wellstone as merely a "gadfly." This is a man who refused to lift a finger for Ned Lamont. Flocking to a candidate like that without demanding that he change only reinforces the damaging concept that our movement is a Seinfeld Movement about nothing.

Lamont gets lift from Obama, Lieberman campaigns with Landrieu

Sirota is echoing the thin record talking point.

Ned Lamont: Why I'm Supporting Barack Obama

[The Doctor.]

34. If he said that lately, then you'd be right....

But he wrote it 2 years ago.

Isn't it amazing how the Clinton folks have to resort to this?

[babylonsister]

24. Sirota 2008: The Clinton Firewall: last ditch efforts/trampling democracy

The Clinton Firewall
The New York Senator’s last-ditch efforts to win the Democratic nomination could rely on the “Race Chasm” and the trampling of democracy.
By David Sirota


Google the phrase “Clinton firewall” and you will come up with an ever-lengthening list of scenarios that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has said will stop Barack Obama’s candidacy. The New Hampshire primary, said her campaign, would be the firewall to end Obamamania. Then Super Tuesday was supposed to be the firewall. Then Texas. Now Pennsylvania and Indiana.

For four months, the political world has been hypnotized by this string-along game, not bothering to ask what this Clinton tactic really is. The “just wait until the next states” mantra has diverted our attention from the firewall’s grounding in race and democracy. But now, with only a few months until the Democratic National Convention in Denver, the firewall’s true composition is coming into focus. Whether Obama can overcome this barrier will likely decide who becomes the Democrats’ presidential nominee.


snip//

Ruthless, but probably useless

As ugly as it is, the Clinton firewall strategy is stunning in its ruthlessness. It has been half a century since the major triumphs of the civil rights and party reform movements, yet a major Democratic candidate is attempting to secure a presidential nomination by exploiting racial divides and negotiating backroom superdelegate deals.

But success is not likely.

Even if Clinton wins big in the remaining Race Chasm states, Obama has advantages in Montana, Oregon, North Carolina and South Dakota—smaller states, to be sure, but likely enough pledged delegates to keep a significant lead. Clinton, therefore, would have a difficult time convincing superdelegates to go against the will of the people in their states.

That leaves the “electability” argument with the superdelegates—and the problem for Clinton there is that polls show Obama is at least as “electable” as Clinton, if not more so.

more...

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3597/the_clinton_firewall/

[Arugula Latte]

57. Hey, the OP was talking about Past Sirota. He counts.

Current Sirota doesn't count. Got it?

:rofl:

[babylonsister]

59. Kind of puts the OP's OP in perspective, doesn't it. Ha! nt

[earth mom]

28. This election is about the cult of Celebrity. Oprah pushed Obama on the country

and everyone is supposed support him because she said so.

NO thanks. :puke:

[Windy]

31. Really, you're kidding me right? Get a grip. Obama is the better candidate

I don't watch Oprah Winfrey nor do I or any Obama supporters I know lend any credence to Oprah's endorsement. We researhed, read policy positions and watched Clinton's votes on critical issues dealing with the war (IRW, Kyl/Lieberman) and the economy (bankruptcy bill, NAFTA support during her husbands administration and Colombia with Penn, Ickes, Wolfson and her husband) and decided to support Obama's candidacy.

Your comment is an insult to thinking, rational dems who want the best for the country and their families!!!! Hillary isn't it!!!

[earth mom]

38. Obama is an Obamanation. He is all fluff and NO substance. I don't want hype, I want solutions.

So don't insult me with your bullshit.

Btw, Hillary is practically the same, except she is willing to kick rethug a$$, while Obama wants to "work with" the rethugs.

SPARE ME. :puke:

Hell, Obama won't even try to Impeach * for all his crimes.

Not only that but Obama has sketchy friendships with Rezko, Wright and Ayres!

Wake up and smell the corruption!!!

FYI:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3180644&mesg_id=3180644

"Obama was asked last week in Philadelphia about impeachment, indictment, and accountability for Bush and Cheney. He suggested that he MIGHT investigate their crimes AFTER we elect him president, and that he MIGHT prosecute them "if" they were found to have committed crimes. "If"? "If"? That word may become as famous as Dick Cheney's "So?" At every stop Obama makes on this endless campaign, people should hand him copies of John Conyers' "The Constitution in Crisis," a book you can buy in most bookstores which documents a long list of criminal offenses committed by Bush and Cheney. Does Obama disagree with the book's conclusions? Does he have a response to Bush's public confession to violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? Does he question the two Government Accountability Office studies that have found that in a significant percentage of cases, when Bush has announced his right to violate laws through signing statements, he has proceeded to violate those laws? Does Obama now believe the invasion of Iraq and everything that came with it was possibly legal? Was the February 7, 2002, order from Bush allowing the torture of detainees a legal act? "If?" "If?""

[stillcool]

37. I am shocked that people on a ...

political discussion board speak like 4 year olds. Do you really think that the record number of voters turning out in state after state has something to do with Oprah? You believe that this election has nothing to do with the Iraq War, the erosion of our civil rights, torture, and the crumbling of our society, but more to do with Oprah?

[earth mom]

39. Yes, I do. People are still watching the evening news like it's truth, when it's filled with lies.

They didn't even blink when Edwards-who came in second in Iowa-was pushed out of the race.

If you can't see that the majority of the population of this country is controlled, then you obviously are controlled YOURSELF.

Obama is Status Quo. Edwards told you so. Were you even listening???

Wake up! Obama is gonna do nothing for you! He will serve his corporate masters! NOT YOU!

[stillcool]

66. You know me? you know the people...

I associate with? You know what where all 18-29 year olds get their news? Who is your majority? Who do you speak for? Are you familiar with Senator Edwards' record in the Senate? Do you read? Or do you only listen? You are not nearly as superior as you think you are. And there are plenty of Americans who are more awake than you. Your condescending arrogance reveals your ignorance.

[earth mom]

70. What do you know about Obama & Rezko, Wright & Ayres? Obama & Liquified Coal? Obama & Impeachment?

Obama & Endless War in Iraq & Pakistan? What about those speeches Obama STOLE? Or the Platform Obama STOLE from John Edwards? How about those votes Obama STOLE in Iowa and elsewhere?!

Educate yourself and then get back to me-it's easy to do a DU/Google search because every single one of those topics have been on DU!

Btw, the ignorant one is YOU.

[stillcool]

71. Ah...recycling?

Is that all you have on your little list? Pimping the same old lies? Pathetic.

[earth mom]

75. Ah...denial. Sad and pathetic that you can't admit the truth.

:puke:

[IsItJustMe]

32. Is David Sirota a faux news contributor by chance. LOL

[The Doctor.]

35. No, it's a 2 year-old article. n/t

He's seen the light since.

[bvar22]

48. Not necessarily "seen the light"....

more like faced the reality of having to choose between Hillary or Obama....the two least Progressive and least electable of the Democratic field in 2006.

Hillary, with her ties to the DLC, the Iraq War, AIPAC, and the armaments industry is clearly the MORE conservative and more offensive of the two remaining candidates.

As a Kucinich>Edwards>Obama supporter, I have come to the same conclusion as Sirota and most Progressive/Populist Democrats. Out of the remaining two, I strongly prefer the Obama promises to the certainty of a Hillary/DLC presidency.

I will stand with Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, and MoveOn.

[depakid]

42. These were pretty much my exact thoughts in December, 2006

"I sincerely hope that Obama becomes a conviction politician, whether he stays in the Senate or runs for President. I mean that, because our side needs conviction politicians with his skills, and because I don't want to see our movement be tricked by someone who is not part of the movement. If he becomes a conviction politician, then there is no quandary for progressives, and he would make a great president - one that I would loudly cheer on."

That said, his record to date is a mixed bag at best.

[hfojvt]

45. your last line is simply wrong

"Sirota had Obama's ass nailed two years ago. Too bad no one was listening. Like they did in 2004, progressives went with the candidate that fit the Johnny Bravo suit and ignored substance."

Progressives went for Kucinich and Edwards, particularly Edwards and found that we are not strong enough to beat the M$M's candidates and framing it constantly as a two person race. Then we went for the lesser to two evils and found many positives in the one we selected and found many more negatives in the one we didn't. Same thing in 2004, DU was evenly split between Dean and Clark, two anti-war candidates, and had a strong Kucinich group as well. Kerry was certainly NOT the choice of progressives, but after he won the nomination, we sucked it up and did our best for him.

[NashVegas]

56. It's Amusing, The Attempt of Ownership of Certain Terms

I think if you look back in the DU archives, and look at who was for JK from the start or near start those posters fit the accepted description of "progressive" pretty well. If it must be further narrowed, I'd say "higher ranking, elite progressives."

Kucinich was the choice of the far left.

[hfojvt]

62. It's not about Kerry supporters

some Kerry supporters may have been as progressive as Kucinich supporters or Dean supporters. I am using progressive as a synonym for what you deride as the far left. Those are generally the people of DU and the people who read The Nation and David Sirota. The majority of those people were not Kerry supporters from the start any more than the majority of US were for Obama from the start.

[KoKo]

49. Obama is the Dems answer to Religious Right...Run a "Preacher Man!"

He sounds great...in his oratory....yet has a Columbia/Harvard Degree and his mother lived off Rockefeller Foundation Grants and he lived in "Indonesia" that "Islamic Place" that's always ready to "ERUPT."

We Dems are always good at seeking someone like "Bill from 'Hope,' Arkansas and Jimmy Carter, the "Peanut Farmer" from Georgia to give us our Evangelical "Hope and Change." We defiated with John Kerry that "Liberal from Massachusetts" and Al Gore, that "liberal who grew up in a Hotel in DC" but putting it all together we Dems always WIN...with those EVANGELICALS who do that "PreacherMan thing."

I don't know what this says about Democrats...except that rather than build party from "Grassroots Up" (like Howard Dean supporter) we always look to a "SAVIOR!"

Obama is pushing the EVANGELICALS STUFF back in their FACES and so we Dems are DELIGHTED WITH HIM. We believe he sees what's happened with the Bush "Crime Family" and will Prosecute them and make the Constitution "WHOLE" again.

It will be a cold day in hell before the Bushie/Rove/Powers that Be ...allow that to Happen.

So..be prepared for a "Bumpy Ride." And more crap...because we are SO WEAK....So WEAK... Just look at Pelosi, Reiad and all the PROMISES/PROMISES made to us....and what has been delivered. :shrug:

[GoldieAZ49]

55. not to mention that the shine is off the apple for this candidate to appeal to

the evangelicals, they are none to impressed with the black baby jesus religion of Obama and Wright.

Nationally, don't expect much.

[AtomicKitten]

50. Sirota chose Edwards and now prefers Obama over Hillary and the DLC.

[babylonsister]

52. Shhh! Can't let those ugly truths get in the way.nt

[AtomicKitten]

73. It does seem to have skipped over some heads.

;)

[GoldieAZ49]

53. also from the OP link:

Consider Ezra Klein's recent piece in the Los Angeles Times about Obama:

"Obama is a cipher, an easy repository for the hopes and dreams of liberals everywhere...But if Obama avoided being battle-tested in 2004 by the grace of God, it's his own timidity that has kept his name clean since. Given his national profile and formidable political talents, he could have been a potent spokesman for Democratic causes in the Senate. Instead, he has refused to expend his political or personal capital on a single controversial issue, preferring to offer anodyne pieces of legislation and sign on to the popular efforts of others...Indeed, Obama is that oddest of all creatures: a leader who's never led. There are no courageous, lonely crusades to his name, or supremely unlikely electoral battles beneath his belt. He won election running basically unopposed, and then refused to open himself to attack by making a controversial but correct issue his own."




Spot on, the guy is vaporware. His biggest cause is himself.

[KoKo]

58. Sirota see's "Writing on Wall" and in recent posts is coming around to Obama...he has to

just to survive...

But, he still pushes the Populist Message. I'm a Dem Populist...so I understand that compromises must be made with fledgling voices...but he's in an awkward place compared to those Lefty New Bloggers who've made Millions by just "catching an Obama Wave" but don't look behind to see the fractured Party they are leaving in their wake.

:-( It will take DECADES TO UNDO IT ALL!

[NashVegas]

63. Decades

If it's successful, sure.

[JoFerret]

67. Death blow? What are we working towards?**

<<I want to be clear: I don't think our movement is a Seinfeld Movement. But don't fool yourself: a movement that rushes to embrace a candidate without demanding that candidate actually lead on the issues that the movement is supposed to be about - well, that could be a death blow for what we are working toward.

** I used to think I knew the answer to that.

[smalll]

68. Seinfeld Movement!

Well done, "my Sirota!" :applause:

[D23MIURG23]

69. This was written in '06.

I understand where Sirota is comming from with this peice, but wouldn't a more recent opinion be more relevant?

[CK dexter]

72. Always with the grandiose overstatement, the anti-Obama people

Can't they ever say anything cool-headed? It's always max power with them.