One last try, which I posted on DU:
My crystal ball is on the fritz.
Half the time I get the reading that Obama will win in a landslide, with 300+ electoral votes. But then it tells me that McCain is closing in. The repair shop says they can't fix it until Wednesday. (The crystal ball, that is; no doubt the Repubs are giving the college try to fixing the election).
In case the latter reading has the potential to be true (and because it would be great if progressives could, in good conscience, get on the same page), I ask you this: what can you say that just might get Obama the votes of PUMAs and other skeptical progressives?
They've heard the Supreme Court / Roe v. Wade argument ad infinitum, ad nauseum. This isn't the ultimate convincer that some might imagine, as Obama had to be swayed by an aide not to vote for John Roberts, for political "optics" reasons, and he posted on Daily Kos to defend Dems who did. Also, his short-list for his own nominees likely includes Roe-critic Cass Sunstein and other "centrists."
If their eyes and ears are still working, progressives know that John McCain is -- despite his endlessly irritating tagline -- not our friend. (Neither, for that matter, are the media scumbags who manufactured the myth of the moderate maverick, even if some are leaning Democrat this time. They lied to us then, so why trust them now?)
Obama-skeptics who would go so far as to vote for McCain (and that's a subset of the PUMAs) are probably long past convincing.
But there are others who would vote for Obama if they saw reason to believe this: that he can be influenced by the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. (Endorsements from party regulars are nice and all, but a lot of party regulars haven't exactly distinguished themselves in the 110th Congress, doncha think?)
I believe this is what it comes down to. Since the primary that Obama termed a "death march" ended, they've seen Obama cave on FISA/warrantless wiretapping, become a champion of Hank Paulson's giveaway to his buddies, and promise to expand the Faith-based Initiatives program and to make Colin Powell an advisor.
Whether or not you find these moves great policy or brilliant/appropriate/necessary concessions to garner support from swing voters, it may not charm those who are tempted to vote for a McKinney, a Nader, or a write-in candidate. IIRC, such voters turned out to be pretty important in 2000.
Seriously: do you want to try to win over such voters now?
If so, I ask you this: please share the best evidence you have that Obama will be responsive to progressive voters, and not just "centrist"/corporate influences, once he's in the White House.
--
Please rec if you think this is a discussion worth having, that reaching out to the unconvinced part of the liberal base is worth doing as election day draws so near.
I can see the potential for this to turn into a flame fest. Let's not, OK?
I post this because I am a lifelong Dem who knows many such Dems who are struggling with this decision. Maybe it's hard for you to believe that a real Democrat isn't convinced, and maybe it's infuriating to you. But so much has been done to reach out to independent, "Obamacan" voters. Can you spare a little courtesy, thoughtful rhetoric, and substantive information-sharing to dignify -- and maybe even satisfy -- the concerns of loyal Democrats who are searching their souls about Tuesday's vote?
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
I'll bite.
Nominally, Obama is a Democrat.
He seems to understand that the biggest issue facing the country right now is the shambles eight years of Republican mismanagement have made of our economy, of our job prospects, of our overstretched and overcommitted and undersupported military.
Why not give him a chance?
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
He seems to think the biggest problem facing the country...
... right now is bickering partisanship.
Lack of partisanship on the Democratic side is one of the main reasons the GOP has gotten away with what it has.
Obama seems to agree with Reagan's pseudo-libertarian agenda.
He wants to grow the size of the military, rather than stop over-using it. He wants to us to fund more faith-based initiatives, and he championed the $700B giveaway to Paulson's pals. Change, wha?
right now i'm watching him
say on tv -- for the ten millionth time -- "the only way to solve our problems is to set aside ideological differences between left and right"
he's an total ass lying about how to solve our problems and the very real reasons why we have differences in the first place-- there's nothing he could say or do to get me to vote for him.
Bob Somerby's going to have plenty of unpaid work
Anglachel.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Because he's had lots of chances
done the wrong thing with them (Iraq funding, FISA, bailout), is asking for chances I don't want him to take (inadequate health care plan, stance on gay marriage) or hasn't done anything with the chances he had during his years in the Senate.
And while he may understand the huge problems facing us, I don't have any sense the either he, his advisors, or the people he wants to ally with politically, have any clue about or even any interest in solving those problems.
Of course that's just my opinion - which is what I base my vote on.
"while he may understand the huge problems"--
He doesn't.
He clearly and obviously doesn't understand who caused and is still causing them--the Republicans, and Democrats like him who help them hurt us in every way everyday.
He understands PERFECTLY. He's one of those Republicans.
"You'd better get this straight. Wise up before it's too late." -- Sister Sledge
JFK has been shot, we miss him a lot
He always knew what to do
-- Philly Cream
that's my conclusion too--
for ages now.
his actions actually match his words on this--whatever the Republicans want, he votes for--from Cheney's Energy Bill to FISA to the "bailout" to funding Iraq with no timetables to being for nukes and coal and drilling to "free trade" to ...
"Seems to"
Stoller gives an example of "seems to":
Exactly, and so on down the line for plenty of other issues. Back in the day, we used to complain that Obama didn't have a substantial legislative record, and we were right. But now he does. I don't find either FISA or the bailout encouraging, and on both those votes, he certainly could have thrown progressives -- whatever that might mean these days -- a bone, and didn't even choose to make an empty symbolic gesture. So I'm with badger: We already gave him his chance.
Now, I'm well aware of the "He has to say that" argument, which has a close ally in the "FDR wasn't FDR before he was FDR" argument. Based on the two big votes Obama cast this year, I think both arguments are empty, although people may choose to believe what they believe. And if I'm wrong, I'll get a pony!!!!!
None of this is to say that the landscape isn't changed, that Sarah Palin isn't fucked, that people should vote for McCain, or any of the other straw men that I am sure will shortly be tossed into the arena.
NOTE To answer the question: Undo the damage of FISA [cough] reform, and put something like HOLC in place. Obama can even pretend it was his idea. Come to think of it, those are two fine litmus tests for the first 100 days.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
When do we begin to hold Obama's feet to the fire? Do we have a
a firepit ready to light? Do we have the materials needed for a fire? How, just how, will we manage to get him or his advisers near enough to our fire so we can hold anyone's feet to the fire?
And, when do we begin? What issues? Light which fires?
Lambert just mentioned FISA and HOLC. I think UHC has to be there, right away. It has to be part of the economic security plan Obama works on in the first 100 days.
How do we get his attention? How do we get any action?
Begin emailing on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2008? LTE wrting? Phone calls?
And not just to Obama but to our Dem Congress Critters as well.
Something like this needs coordination or at least some direction among the lefty blogs, right?
I caught part of a discussion panel on local ABC hosted by a black reporter with a panel of three black men, reporters also, but I'm not sure. For some reason, the channel only has To Be Announced in its listings for early afternoon, so I can't give more details. Yet.
All were Obama supporters, but about halfway through the issue of criminal justice system treatment of blacks came up. Obama's usual response is to say good education will ameliorate the criminal tendency among blacks and then not as many will be subject to the criminal justice system.
One on the panel said this has been his response since he came on the national scene, and it is the default position for many pols. One guy said Obama couldn't actually discuss measures to improve the justice system treatment of blacks bcz he has to get elected--and can't be seen addressing black issues in particular. Another panel member said he could go along with that, but on Wednesday he would begin to hold Obama's feet to the fire. And each person chimed in with variations on that phrase.
Yes, once he's elected, the progressives, libs, and, in this case, black journalists will work to hold Obama accountable. "Feet to the fire" will be heard far and wide.
Wanna place any bets on how far we'll get??
As always, I will be delighted and relieved to find my skepticism wrong.
urban issues too--
he's avoided all things that are stereotypically seen as "black issues" for the most part--except to scold black men (for abandoning him!) for being absentee fathers (like he is most of the time!).
There are voters who live in cities? Urban settings?
From this campaign, who knew??
Since Hillary, and Edwards so strongly early on, who has dicussed urban issues? New Orleans? Poverty? Working poor?
This has actually descended into a very low information campaign. Thanks not only to the candidates, of course, but to our MCM as well.
Maybe the problem is that there's no list
of things to hold Obama's feet to the fire about.
FISA, HOLC, and single payer are on my list -- black incarceration is another good one.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
We need to add faith-based giveaways.
I certainly don't want my taxes going to support any religiously-based organizations. Further weakening the already tottering wall of separation is a dangerous proposition.
completely--
it's a fundamental issue--and also relevant to all public spending and to government's responsibility and role in providing social services/programs.
My favorite response
Here:
And the fascinating thing, to me -- though god knows why I still find it fascinating -- is that "do the right thing" is never defined. A question was asked:
And there's no answer at all! (Unless you consider "Fuck
you!" to be answer; many, in my experience, have and do).
And you would think it would be really, reallly, easy to answer, even by copying something right off Obama's website. But nothing. Perhaps this thread will be able to do better?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I am absolute and proud
that I will not cast a vote for Barack Obama. I am in a swing state and I hope I make a difference.
I am also, after a lifetime of affiliation, now and Independent. I decided that I cannot be a member of a party that would not consider a woman for president nor vice president; who would participate in a fraudulent election through manipulating votes via caucuses; who brazenly discounted and marginalized a candidate in the Rules, Bylaws Committee of the Democratic Party; who made a choice to force a candidate who both participated in and encouraged sexism, misogyny, and racism into office; who participated and continues to be owned by the corporations of America; who has selected a candidate than cannot even say he is a Democrat.
My vote is mine and it is absolute.
Disclaimer: I am not voting for McCain/Palin and I am not held hostage by Roe v Wade.
Serious question disguised as rhetorical snark
How about a question for VL:
That is a serious and important question: how can progressives gain more influence over politicians than corporate lobbying operations?
Nancy Pelosi was "responsive" to anti-war voters before the 2006 election by saying she would end the war in Iraq. Then she and the Dem-controlled Congress proceeded to fund the War without doing anything to stop it.
VL's question is entirely rhetorical: he doesn't expect anyone can respond in the affirmative so VL is self-justified in not voting for Obama. Heh.
Wrong, and ad hominem
To anyone remotely familiar with VastLeft's work, the post's question is obviously not rhetorical.
He has, at several critical moments, posted deeply honest, genuine surveys which invite participants to clarify an important position.
Not cool.
It's interesting how the discussion shifts...
... from the actual question, for which an answer presumably exists, to VastLeft's mental state and sincerity, which can only be inferred.
For myself, I don't see much real difference between VL's question and Shystee's. How then would I impose a test to see which one is rhetorical and which one, er, "serious" and "important" and which one is not?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
It's good to be Shystee
Your questions get to be serious and important, while mine are disqualified as insincere gamesmanship.
You've got me 180-degrees wrong, sir.
I'm trying one last time to find a way to rationalize voting for Obama. At least the DU respondent Lambert cited was refreshingly direct with his "fuck you."
As to your question...
Obama had very clear opportunities to show a commitment to progressivism, notably by making good on his promise to filibuster the FISA bill and by insisting on a better "bailout bill." He could have held his ground on offshore drilling. He could have disagreed with the use of the death penalty for non-capital crimes. He could have championed single-payer. He could have promised to shut down faith-based initiatives instead of promising to expand them. He could have promised to decrease the size of the military instead of promising to expand it. He could have based his campaign on something other than the lie that Democrats need to be less partisan.
My struggle in voting for Obama -- putting aside any and all qualms about his unsavory campaign tactics, which I would if I thought he'd stand up on the important issues -- comes from his seemingly genuine distaste for progressive politics, and the complete lack of leverage over him that progressives will have. All evidence -- to my knowledge -- from the post-primary phase says that's true, and most evidence from before then does, as well. I keep hoping someone will show me I'm wrong, but instead I get this ad hominem bullshit. No answer to my question, just calling me a liar.
As to Pelosi, if it were my district, I'd vote for Cindy Sheehan. Accountability now.
You know, I'm almost starting to think there IS no answer
Because if there were, it would be easy to give.
I mean, why not just hand the messenger the answer, instead of shooting them?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
There are answers - we just don't like them
The answers are the same ones that have been available to all marginalized groups since the beginning:
1. Withdraw from political participation.
2. Start a new political party.
3. Resort to violence.
...for the rest of us
...for the rest of us
Shoudn't non-violence be on that list?
I don't think it's the same as #2.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Probably closer to #1
But not quite the same, either. I'll give that one to you, Lambert.
I'd like to see a combined strategy of voting for the candidates who will do the least damage to progressive goals combined with working within our home communities to create an environment more supportive of progressive goals and candidates. This takes time; my long-standing complaint with progressive activists is that they lack patience.
I'd also like to see more progressive bloggers take a crack at running for office themselves, if for no other reason than to get a feel for what we are up against in the electoral arena.
...for the rest of us
...for the rest of us
Voting for Cindy Sheehan
I think I will. It's an instance where my protest vote might actually register with the politician in question, even though the election will almost certainly go to Nance.
I'm not attacking you VL. Just pointing out that I don't think you really expected anyone to answer you with examples. Maybe you did.
My point is that I don't think the lack of serious progressive influence is a problem that relates to Obama only. It's a systemic problem.
Bingo
Double-plus imaginary pony bingo. (Apology to Sarah.)
Bingo to what?
Just checking.
If systemic, I agree. The fact that Obama is the clear favorite of the Village
is an indication that the systemic problems will not decrease with his election, and may even increase.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
challengers to bad sitting Dems are vital--
especially to those in leadership positions who are not listening to us at all, like Pelosi.
The problem is absolutely systemic
Obama is a symptom, not the disease.
Hoped, not expected
This isn't the first time that you've imputed dishonest intentions upon the Obama skeptics among Correntians, such as when you wrote: "I don’t buy the stated motivation for presenting these facts and not others."
For the record, I did have trouble swallowing one comment of yours, a paraphrase that didn't seem to match the original statement. Absent concrete evidence of disingenuousness staring me in the face, however, I extend to my fellow fellows the assumption of WYSIWYG.
If you post a question as an earnest one, I assume it is in earnest. I would appreciate the same courtesy.
My integrity is paramount to me, as I assume yours is to you. Pronouncing that my inquiry was not, in fact, earnest, that it's merely a ploy to give air-cover to my ill ends, is very much an attack.
What ElizabethF said
and what Jawbone asked.
(except I'm not in a swing state).
You don’t know me, son. So let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you’ll be awake, you’ll be facing me, and you’ll be armed.
-Malcolm Reynolds, “Serenity”
I'll take a crack.
We've had our differences in the past but I will respect vastleft's call to avoid making this a flame fest.
When asked by Rachel Maddow about public infrastructure expenditures as a way to stimulate the economy Obama indicated support for the idea.
He has also removed himself from the deficit hawk category and seems to understand that deficits are one thing when the economy is strong and another when it is weak.
In other words Keynesianism.
I may and probably will be accused of hearing what I want to hear, and disregarding the rest, but unless you live in a solid blue (or red) state, the vote for a third-party candidate is a risk too great to take when you look at where McCain would take the country on these issues.
And though you've grown tired of the Supreme Court argument, it still resonates with me.
I'm not overly enamored of Barack Obama, but I can't pretend there isn't a big difference between him and John McCain.
------------------------------------------------------
Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove THEY did it.
------------------------------------------------------
Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove THEY did it.
I appreciate the tenor of your response, sTiVo
My issue with the Supreme Court argument isn't that I'm tired of it, it's that I'm unconvinced by it.
My comments in the post explain why. Obama is either lying (let's hope!) or confused about the importance of partisanship. He has committed to putting Republicans in his Cabinet, he's surrounded himself with "centrists" like Sunstein, and he wished he could have voted for Roberts and wagged his finger at Dems who were miffed at their senators who did. This doesn't make me very comfortable that he'll make strong picks for the Supreme Court. Naturally, I don't expect McCain to make good picks, but we might do better with an adversarial Congress than with one that gives wide berth to Obama's right-leaning centrism.
What are the differences between Obama's behavior this year and McCain's? Both voted for FISA and continued Iraq War funding, both want offshore drilling, both think the Surge is a hit, both want a bigger military, both voted for the Big Give. Sure, McCain has pushed HOLC and put a woman on his ticket, and his party has stopped catering to the ethanol lobby, but I'm not going to vote for McCain just because he makes a couple of nods to progressives. But it's hard to vote for Obama when he won't make any.
Then...I have to ask; Why
would you vote for him? Because he is a Democrat? Why vote for someone who has clearly indicated, in my opinion, that he is not a Democrat. He belongs to the bipartisan party.
Oppositional conflict is a good thing in government.
And a strong Democratic Senate and House can be a balance with an opposite party. I think that the present Democrats in office need to work for their damn jobs anyway.
I don't know if this will help you but define for yourself what being a Democrat means. What are your meaningful issues, the ones you are passionate about. If Obama meets them and he has indicated he will fight for you - vote for him. If you have those passions on a wishlist - don't. What you have before you is what you get.
I gave you a couple of examples
You didn't comment on any of them but the Supreme Court issue.
I think these refute the notion that Obama won't make ANY nods to progressives. Not enough to make you happy, sure, but not none either.
Yeah, I'm reduced to HOPING Obama's lying about the bipartisanism schtick. And not afraid to admit it. Or that even if he isn't, that events have spun far enough out of control that he may become the agent of progressive forces he didn't necessarily want to lead. Would you prefer seeing a McCain who wants to cut every bit of non-military spending out of the federal budget to an Obama who says he'll stimulate the economy with infrastructure spending even if it temporarily increases the deficit?
I don't see NO nods to progressive. I see some. Weak nods maybe but nods all the same. Maybe not what we had every right to hope for, but greater than zero.
Oh, and an "adversarial" Congress? That hasn't worked out too well this term and I see no reason to expect better of a Democratic congress in a McCain administration.
------------------------------------------------------
Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove THEY did it.
------------------------------------------------------
Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove THEY did it.
sTiVo, I think you'll agree that's a small whiff of weak tea
He likes the idea of infrastructure investments. Well, that's nice.
Yet instead of pushing for that kind of response to the financial crisis, he just flushed the better part of a trillion down the drain, as pocket money for Hank to play with. And he's begun signaling that he's going to do even less than promised thanks to that meltdown.
Except for the unrepentant hawkishness, I did think he sounded a little better than usual in the Maddow interview. That's what prompted this last ditch bit of soul-searching, but my goodness Mr. Hope is giving us soooo little to build that hope on.
Better weak tea than poison
I have no stars in my eyes. Why pretend otherwise? My argument is more negative than positive. Infrastructure investments may seem like weak tea to you. But John McCain has basically called for cutting all non-military government spending - brilliant economics in a recession. I see a significant difference there.
I only had to disprove your assertion that Obama's done NOTHING to please a progressive constituency. I think I've done that. I could go on to talk of other speculative potentialities - is there truly NO value in America electing its first black President? But I'm trying to meet your criteria.
The case for not voting for Obama seems to me to boil down to painting a best-case scenario for President McCain and a worst-case scenario for President Obama and saying, see, not too much different.
I understand that you'd rather not rely on hope. True, in making my case I have to hope for the best from Obama. But at least acknowledge that, in making your case, you are hoping for the best from McCain. I see better odds in my gamble than in yours. This was tried in 2000. How did it work out? (And yes, full disclosure, I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.)
I will say that if, in four, eight, sixteen, forty, whatever years we do manage to elect a president who campaigns in his first campaign on the left, wins the election, and then delivers on his or her promises, it will be a first in American history. It's never happened. Not with Abe Lincoln. Not with FDR. I don't think the Overton Window
gets shoved left in a Presidential campaign. When it moves left, it gets shoved left by events on the ground in between elections.
To demand this as the price of one's support, well, let's just call it a formula for perpetual disappointment. I'd rather cast a vote that has a 5% chance of turning out well than one that has 0%.
I didn't expect to convince you, but I've taken my best shot. May it all work out for the best.
------------------------------------------------------
Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove THEY did it.
------------------------------------------------------
Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove THEY did it.
Not advocating anything here...
I can't think of any good convincing arguments - seems to me Obama says and does very different things. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of getting him to *say* anything. (but also makes me wonder why he doesn't *say* at least some of those things that would make progressives who are on the fence happy.)
I really wish I could trust the guy.
Minor correction: McCain did not vote for FISA - he skipped the vote. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...
Thanks for the correction! n/t
.
"seems to"
That's the second time today I've heard that locution in regard to Obama.
Interesting.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
On "Seems To"
I'm not sure how he could be accurately critiqued without using such a phrase. "Seems to" is very central to his character. No one knows who he really is, his apologist don't really care, and quite frankly, he doesn't want us to know. If he's been masterful at nothing else during his entire political career it's been at keeping both his skeptics and supporters at arms length. It's not the usual charasmatic aloofness other presidents and presidential candidates have displayed over our history, but at least to my eyes a crazy-cavernous emotional aloofness.
As for the question, if I'm to be honest, it's far too late, and I'd thought about this nearly every day since the end of the primaries, too. There simply isn't anything left to salvage.
I'm not going to use my vote to get directly in his way (as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't matter, anyway), but as far as I'm concerned I'm not going to keep reaching out to someone that has displayed numerous times that he doesn't want to meet me even halfway. I've come to the painful realization that I exist very much on the outside of our current political system.
So, what's left? I'd like to see our movement try and co-opt some liberal third-party voters and their ideas. I'd like to see a movement that begins to take over at the local and state levels. Whether that is taking the party back or building a new one, I do not know. What I do know is that the Democratic Party, as it stands, is now a lost cause.
And, as a Michigander, I will not award a candidate who used both his nation, state, and local campaigns to run out the clock on redoing our primary. That is shit I'd expect from a GOP primary, I will not accept this kind of chicanery from not only a Democrat, but one who so vociferously describes himself as a uniter and agent of change. The rest can call me selfish all day; that would be the height of irony considering that Barack Obama's presidential campaign has been about Barack Obama 24/7 from Day One.
Fuck
"staying the course" for the ungrateful Democratic Party and it's titular nominee, and fuck the bat-shit crazy Republican Party that saw the writing on the wall and stayed its own course.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
then why are tax cuts for "95% of us" so central?
i can't reconcile that with increased spending or even regular spending--he's calling to reduce the money coming into govt--and has also said he won't end the Bush taxcuts if we're in recession.
it doesn't make sense.
I hope obama doesn't disappoint
his true believers. I'll actually feel sorry for them. Losing the past two elections has been bad enough. Having a dem president consistently ignore liberal/progressive/democratic stances will be much worse.
Maybe he'll surprise us all, but I'm not holding my breath, based on his words and actions of late.
Can we hold Obama's feet to the fire if he's never taken
a definitive stance on an issue? The phrase
holding one's "feet to the fire" is also inappropriate because this refers to tormenting someone in order to extract a confession.
I'd hold him accountable for his promises if he actually made some. I guess we can see if he brings any hope or change. There's something.
I love this job!
I love this job!
John Kerry on Meet The Press seemed to be WORMing for Obama
Per this comment at Digby's about her post:
I don't usually disagree with Digby, but I think we have more to fear from Congress rolling over for Obama than from Congress urging him toward more progressive programs. I will be delighted if Obama turns out to be more liberal than the Congressional Dems want to be--however, I don't think that will be the problem.
But, thus it begins, with Bob Kerry fluffing the Villagers' demand that Obama be Very Serious
and John Kerry piling on! Good grief. I can't imagine Obama did not set the parameters for what was to be said by at least John Kerry.
A commenter has little faith Obama will roll over the Village
:
Gonna get pretty WORMy going forward....
Well, I'll stick my neck out here.
Very briefly.
I began thinking better of Teh Preciousss when I read his course syllabus in the New York Times a while back: thoughtful, well-balanced, not just hopehopechangechange crap. So I figure there must be a thoughtful well-balanced not just crap person who wrote the syllabus. And that part of that person must still be there. I like thoughtful and well-balanced.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:DVd...
Reporter to Mahatma Gandhi: What do you think of Western Civilization?
Gandhi to reporter: I think it would be a good idea.
The ultimate shape shifter
I've started going to righty blogs as well as non-demoninational liberal blogs.
Mr. Obama's description of himself, "I am a blank slate and people can project whatever they want upon me" is the only truth about him.
He is everything, a liberal savior to those that want to believe and he is a marxist to those on the right. And there are "intellectuals" and pundits that put him in either the FDR box or the Reagan box.
The scarey thing to me is that I can understand ALL of these interpretations.
This room of mirrors won't work when he has to actually make decisions. What will happen then? Who will defend him? Who will turn against him?
The PUMAs (wasn't this post a question about them) won't be persuaded that Mr.Obama is 5 or 50 degrees more progressive. They sensed early on that Obama stands for nothing but himself and all evidence until now has only reaffirmed that insight.
"If we have to have a dictator, who better than Obama"
- progressive blog commentator
Actually Obama gave Rachel Maddow his up close and personal
answer to your question:
"You'd better get this straight. Wise up before it's too late." -- Sister Sledge
JFK has been shot, we miss him a lot
He always knew what to do
-- Philly Cream
That was an eye-brow furrower
It seemed that he felt like using a rhyming phrase that was simply inappropriate to the context, like when that Fox announcer called Michelle "Obama's baby mama."