If you have "no place to go," come here!

The Warren report: Obama and McCain at Saddleback

vastleft's picture

Observations on Obama and McCain at Rick Warren's anti-establishment-clause summit...


Led off by citing Matthew about "the least of us." If you're going to play the religion card, this is the better sort of framing. Slippery slope, though, ain't it?

Says Bill Clinton was right about workfare. Over the course of the hour, Obama lists several things that Bill did right, such as Bosnia. Funny, when his wife was still in the race, you'd never hear that the Clinton era was so good! Also, he pops in "sexism" now and again as an issue. Just in time to repudiate all that misogynistic press against Hillary, right?

Feeds the bullshit idea that voting against war appropriations bills meant soldiers would suddenly run out of ammo and armor.

"I believe in, that Jesus Christ died for my sins and that I am redeemed through him, that is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. I know that I don't walk alone, and I know if I can get myself out of the way that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis hopefully will be washed away." I know all major American politicos are Christ-y, but "Jesus Christ died for my sins and that I am redeemed through him"? OMFG.

Re: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view," answers: "I think that whether you're looking it from a theological perspective of a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade." Too cute by more than half, IMHO.

Decent answer on Roe v. Wade but starts with the ol' "consultation with their pastors." Reaffirm his agenda of limiting late-term abortion to mother's health (no discussion of whether this includes mental health).

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman [big applause], now for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union, now God's in the mix [applause]. I'm not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions.... I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others if I have a different perspective or a different view [applause]." Doesn't support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (state's rightsish angle). Same old shit. So nice of him to "afford" watered down civil rights to others.

Warren: "Recent polls says 80% of Americans think faith-based organizations do a better job with community services than the government [applause]. Good thing Obama has been making such a great case about good government.

Obama: "What we do want to make sure of is that, as a general, we're not using federal funding to discriminate, but that is only when it comes to the narrow program that is being funded by the federal government, that does not affect any of the other ministries that are taking place." So, it's totally cool for churches to discriminate outside of those "narrow program(s)."

"I'm not suggesting that everybody who's making over $250,000 is living on easy street." As S.E. Hinton once wrote, "things are tough all over."

Empathy is why he wants to be president. Haw!

"Washington is so broken that we can't seem to bring together people of good will to solve these common problems." Just breaks my heart thinking about all that good will from the Republican Party that we've failed to cultivate.

"If you're a person of faith like me, I believe that things (garbled) work out, and we'll get the president that we need." Hey, Jesus, thanks for the president you gave us these last two elections -- exactly what we needed!

Dodged question about people who aren't happy about this kind of forum.


Admires Petraeus (seems teary-eyed talking about him), who, he says "took us from defeat to victory in Iraq." We win, we win, we win! So the troops are coming home now?

Also cited John Lewis and Meg Whitman. Is he specifically trying to appeal to Hillary supporters, with shoutouts to a civil rights leader who was bullied by the Obama camp and a female CEO (if a right-leaning one).

Says he's against torture! What was the Military Commissions Act, sport, a youthful indiscretion?

Pushes offshore drilling, nukes, and all forms of alternative energy

Man, that "my friends" thing is insufferable! Obama will win by a landslide if he runs ads that feature nothing but McCain saying it, asking if we want to spend the next four to eight years listening that smarmy tagline.

Says a person is entitled to human rights "at the moment of conception.... I will be a pro-life president, and this presidency will have pro-life policies."

Marriage is "a union between man and woman, between one man and one woman."

Wants to make sure there's time to discuss judges and abortion. Gawrsh he's such a maverick moderate, isn't he?

He's enjoying the question on evil, describing an "Al Qaeda" (now how was it, exactly that an AQ franchise opened up in Iraq?) suicide bombing "now if that isn't evil, you have to tell me what is?" OK, evil is selling your soul to start a needless and ill-planned war; evil is claiming the high road on torture, based on your own horrible experience with it, and then single-handedly legalizing torture. Does that help?

"The central battleground according to David Petraeus and Osama Bin Laden is the battles, is, a, is a, is Baghdad, Mosul, Basra, and Iraq." Hey, a self-fulfilling prophecy is still a prophecy, right? He's really pushing the "victory in Iraq" card and evil, defeatable Islamic terrorists everywhere.

Could not be doing a better job selling the Obama camp's, "it's the Supreme Court, stupid" argument, listing every decent justice as the ones he'd like to get rid of. I wish Obama could do a comparable job of demonstrating that he'll do right if/when the time comes.

Hmm, now that no-name poll that Warren cites has it that only 70% of Americans think faith-based programs are better than government programs. Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything; forty percent of all people know that.

McCain lurves faith-based organizations. Maybe he and Obama can run on a unity ticket.

Pushing vouchers, charter schools, home schooling, etc. Calls it a civil rights issue.

"I don't want to take any money from the rich, I want everybody to get rich. [Applause] I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth."

"Let's not have the government take over the healthcare system in America. [Applause]

Defines "rich" as $5,000,000... "... but seriously..."

Mr. Iraq War says that spending, not taxes, have been our biggest problem in recent years. You don't say!

Using lots of anecdotes, often to good (evil) effect. The usual themes: pork, government sux, low/no taxes, and of course his POW experiences.

"We cannot raise taxes in tough economic times." How did we get out of the Depression, again?

Probably best if your voice doesn't quiver when you say "I can lead."

He wants a secret ballot for union organizers. Apparently I'm not the only one who was a little confused by where he's coming from on that. Is the idea to make it easier for employees to vote against organizing, because their peers won't know that they did?

After a perfunctory statement in favor of the right to privacy, "It's remarkable the ability that our enemies have to communicate, so we have to keep up with that capability. I mean, there's too many ways, through cyberspace and through other ways that people are able to communicate with one another, so we're going to have to step up our capabilities to monitor those."

Pushes the post-partisan agenda, plays it every which way -- acts like partisanship is making us less secure. Not fully satisfied, apparently that Obama helped him shred the 4th Amendment.

Warren: "We are without a doubt the most blessed nation in the world, we are blessed to be a blessing." Damn, where is that bucket?

"The women are taking charge of the future of Rwanda, because they're saying 'never again,' and they're doing an incredible job."

Reagan-won-the-Cold-War is a big one for him. He's ready, willing, and able to pump up the Georgian crisis as Cold War II. OMFG, he's leveraging that Georgia was "one of the earliest Christian nations." It's "a great little nation... it's a beautiful little country, they're wonderful people" He lurves him some Saakashvili. Got mixed up for a second: "We must respect the entire integ-- territory of Russia, excuse me, of, the Russians must respect the entire territorial integrity of Georgia."

The penultimate question about adoption is a winner for him, as he tells the story of adopting a dying baby from Mother Teresa's orphanage.

His concluding framing is identical to Obama's: hope, reaching across the aisle, etc.

"When I go to Gee's Bend Alabama and meet the African-American women there who are so wonderful and lovely...." Echoes of his Rwanda line, pushing himself as the sensitive guy who admires impoverished black women. If only we had some tax dollars for good social programs to help pull people out of poverty....

Warren closes it out with a call for "civility" and not "demonizing each other." Good thing we're in a blessed country, so that evil that he asked both candidates about just couldn't happen here.

This forum probably helps McCain more than it helps Obama. With his nomination presumed eons ago, this is his first real national exposure in a long time, and kind of an exhibition game ahead of the post-convention frenzy.

Both accomplished their goals: Obama was likable enough, McCain had a good command of his "be afraid unless I'm your daddy" game, and his anecdotes provided a lot more memorable moments.

PUMAs who might vote for McCain got a lot to think about. Obama didn't seem to have signature issues; he more-or-less stood up for Roe v. Wade, didn't stand up for gay rights, and pandered on his Christianity (IMHO, a little more creepily than McCain did). McCain is on the attack re: abortion rights -- gay rights and UHC fuggedaboutit -- and he still hearts the Iraq War.

All told, if you had any illusions that McCain was going to be an attractive option for a progressive, he didn't give you much hope. So Will Bowers can stuff his McCain/Hillary joke of an idea.

Finally, it's interesting to note that both candidates seem to think female voters are in play, and it will be interesting to see if that becomes a substantial campaign theme for either or both (and whether any actual policy promises come out of it). Rumors of a pro-choice VP candidate notwithstanding, it's hard to see how McCain could bring home the bacon for feminists, given his aggressive anti-abortion position that he loudly touted here.

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

I was wondering what happened. And what you said on McCain/Clinton. That's one dog that won't hunt.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by Randall Kohn on

I still don't have a valid reason to vote for either one of these turkeys.

"You'd better get this straight. Wise up before it's too late." -- Sister Sledge

Submitted by lambert on

1. Civil service is definitely better under the D. There is a residual belief that government should function, at least, and under Bush the civil service was totally politicized.

2. The Ds are easier to roll (hat tip, bringiton).

And that's about it, for me. Marginal, but not insignificant.

NOTE When Obama rattles off a list of his appointees the way McCain did, I'll give him something on the Supreme Court argument. For awhile, that was the only talking point you heard from the Obamacons (apparently this term is OK to use, for some reason) and then they fell silent about it, for some reason.

UPDATE And before I get the more progressive this, more progressive that on policy, after FISA I think everything is up for grabs. Everything. The D leadership's credibility moved from near zero to negative for me after that one. Frankly, I'd prefer a narrow Obama win to a "mandate" (even though the narrow win will be spun as a mandate), since a big Obama margin means the Blue Dogs and the former Republicans run the show. Ick.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Look at Obama's behavior over the course of this election cycle: Going after Krugman who dissented, trashing and sliming Hillary as racist, blaming "the bitters" for not voting for him, snubbing Rangle and Clark, etc.

He's demonstrated a petty vindictive personality. He (or at least his supporters) really don't like Hillary's base--maybe they do, but they sure as heck don't show it. Given the sentiment toward Hillary's supporters and his vindictive behavior, do you really think Obama will listen to those who did not partake of the hopium? Given that McCain will in part rely on Hillary's disaffected base (working class voters), couldn't one argue that he'd be more willing to listen to their concerns?

I don't plan to vote for McCain, but I can see him being more sympathetic to his critics and dissenters on the left than Obama. Maybe if I used the "Kool-Aide patch" like others (not naming names) I'd see otherwise.

Submitted by lambert on

A professor of Constitutional Law cheerfully guts... the rule of law -- and not even to pander, since there's no public demand for it. It was just the wrong thing to do.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I wasn't implying that Lib(eral)s had to influence Obama on FISA, but that Obama seems to have been influenced by anti-Libs. Same with health care. Same with voting rights. Same with dogwhistling S.S. Same with dog whistling women's right to choose. Etc.

I'm told that Obama is my natural ally (and I'd generally say the same about Obama and Wes Clark, Obama and Rangel, Obama and Hillary), but he doesn't seem to respect his natural allies. Instead, he goes out of his way to appease anti-Libs and to alienate his supposed allies. My question is, what does that tell us about how Obama will govern? Add to that the sycophantic behavior of some of his supporters and and Obama administration is not appealing in the least.

UNITY, it turns out, is following a person or Party for power, not a set of principles. We're told we need to win the White House. We *must* beat McCain. That's not a principled position. That's about power. And that worries me. (See the book I mentioned in the book review post.)

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

for a reason.

I'm still waiting for my Unity Pony, and that was promised months ago.

“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

hobson's picture
Submitted by hobson on

I thought his story about his captivity in Vietnam during Christmas was as creepy as you can get. He was being tortured by being tied in a stess position, not how he described it tho. But a guard came in and loosened his ropes. Then, he was allowed out of his cell for a few minutes. The same guard came over and scratched a cross in the dirt and looked at him. Then he wiped it out and walked away. We were just two christians he says.

I don't think there's a lot to talk about when it comes to choosing. This guy will not be a disappointment as president. He has laid out that it will be more of the same. He may not have a Dick Cheney pulling the strings. But the same forces that supported and enforced Bush will be pushing him and making policy.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Either way it's "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Submitted by lambert on

What you say here:

But the same forces that supported and enforced Bush will be pushing him and making policy.

at least taken literally ("pushing") is also true of Obama (and Hillary too, for that matter, although I have argued that their respective bases make the differences between them not insignificant).

I'm not saying that the two parties are "the same," but I am saying that both parties are part of a larger system. The Village, so far, has been the only real winner in this campaign, and who "supports and enforces" the Village that's the problem, not either candidate.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

FlipYrWhig's picture
Submitted by FlipYrWhig on

Why does that story suggest that both parties were Christians? If someone draws a cross in the dirt and then wipes it out, couldn't that be an insult or an attempt at intimidation? "Where's your Messiah now? Nyeah!"

CognitiveDissonance's picture
Submitted by CognitiveDissonance on

I'm beginning to look at this differently. Do I want to choose the amoral Obama who has no beliefs, no substance, nothing he is passionate about doing PLUS a Congress with a Democratic Majority? Or do I want to pick someone who has stated he is only running for one term, kept in check by a Democratic majority in Congress? This is one time when I think divided government is better than the scarier alternative.

Submitted by lambert on

I missed that. Got a link?

(Maybe that's where Bower is coming from on his bizarre McCain/Clinton idea.)

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Soto writes:

Nevertheless, many of us were all-too-ready in our swooning to honestly accept that it wasn’t racism to point out Obama’s shortcomings, but simply a preview of what was to come with Obama in charge of the party. Since it was Hillary saying these things, it was easy for the Obama supporters to dismiss it and chalk it up to racism from a bitter bitch and her overrated husband. However, that didn’t make her criticisms untrue.

That said, what you mean "us" and "our"?

Just thinking of the timing here, and guessing, it looks like Obama throwing Clark under the bus may have opened Soto's eyes, as has happened to more of us (FISA was my last straw).

UPDATE I really need to stop being so cranky about this. Rather, I should gracefully accept that I called my shot, and move ahead to more interesting matters!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

AFAIC. Soto was a BIG HRC trasher and Obama promoter. That capacity to NOT connect was evident months ago.

Buyer's remorse at this point is meaningless and does not redeem the folding like deckchairs.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

they lock the barn door after the horse has been shipped off to the glue factory.

“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Submitted by lambert on

It's exactly like Jesus's General. Crow never tastes good, and as we commended the General, we should also commend Soto.

After what, eight months of vilification, it's difficult not to avoid the "Where were you when?" and piling on the snark gawd knows I've done my fair share of it, but I question whether it's effective -- or helps with PB 2.0, which is the critical thing. Especially when LeftCoaster has been consistently interesting and, the litmus test in my mind, didn't undertake a purge.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Or trying to catch a ride on the "I told you so" express? Really, these people knew they were full of excrement but peddled their nonsense anyway. I never trusted PB1.0 and this cycle only reinforced my suspicions.

Its not that these people were wrong, its that they never stopped trying silence dissent. And silencing dissent in the way they did is dangerous and, to me, exposes one's character. There is no way to justify the RFK smear, the "darkened Obama photo", the "fairy tale comment was racist" smear. They not only knew they were full of crap, but they didn't bother to apologize or retract when called out. The worst offenders are able to make faux apologies to maintain some level of respect, but repeated offenses when they should know otherwise isn't some accident.

I'm willing to forget honest mistakes--we all make them--but deliberate dishonesty is harder for me to forgive. I'm inclined to see PB1.0 in the latter category as opposed to the former.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

while soto admitted the glaringly obvious (that Obama has serious shortcomings) he gets NO credit -- he's still completely dominated by CDS ('bitter bitch and her overrated husband'), and still a complete an absolute pile of dogshit for doing so.

badger's picture
Submitted by badger on

and he has a list of 10 things he doesn't want you to do ...

Where's George Carlin when we need him? He could have waited until after the election to die.

badger's picture
Submitted by badger on

That's just some Nader bullshit.

But just because the parties are different doesn't mean one's right and one's wrong. It's quite possible that we get the apocalypse (for some range of values for apocalypse; this is a religious thread, after all) no matter which party wins.

Choosing to vote for one or the other is like asking me to choose between herpes and syphilis. Can't I just choose neither?

And what applies to parties applies to their presumptuous nominees as well.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Do you think he's saying that in earnest, really?

Can't say as I really know him, but I find it hard to believe that's straight up.

Submitted by lambert on

It's a tendentious summary of how the OFB framed the issue in their own minds, not Soto's own thinking.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

From the PPP poll (disclaimer that I know nothing about polling, but assume that BTD does):

The Democrats neglecting to choose Obama are disproportionately white, female, and middle aged, an indication that it could be former supporters of Hillary Clinton who are holding out.


Since the leadership only responds to pain, by all means inflict it. It was painful being thrown under the bus, so I'm happy to see the karmic hammer coming down in this lifetime, and not, say, after the 2012 mid-terms.

And it's a shame, because the remedy is so fucking simple: Speak to these voters where they live, with concrete policies. That's what Hillary did. Oh, and don't be a sexist asshole, and slap down your supporters when they bring the hate. Of course, if Obama could do any of that, or wanted to find a surrogate who could, he already would have. So on we go, away from the convention floor and into the stadium.

Now cue the explanation that all these women are racists.

UPDATE For anyone who thinks that this coment is somehow "not progressive," there are no progressive policies without a base that needs progressive policies. That's why it makes no sense at all to throw Hillary's base under the bus. So, "more power to them."

UPDATE And since the poll is from Ohio, note especially the quote from Ohio's governor, Ted Strickland.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

You're just insane! :-)

BTW, I'm sure if we were so inclined, we could go back months and find posts that you or VL wrote that described exactly this situation that concern Soto and BTD so much.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

the right to be considered ironic when calling clinton a 'bitter bitch' is earned. Soto hasn't earned that right by finally admitted the obvious about Obama.

peter's picture
Submitted by peter on

Steve Soto endorsed Hillary Clinton very early on in June or July of 2007. He doesn't have that CDS and was never on the Obama koolaid. He has supported the ticket. He has backed off Clinton(as in late April, early May). Eriposte over there did his best to allow people to vote for Clinton in many numerous front page "articles" with fantastic references. Obama fans have attacked Soto as a troll many times over the primaries! And he has been trying to cheer lead the folks over there towards Obama now.

To this thread, Barry Obama blew many answers at this event. He had a weeks vacation to rest up and prepare for the event and "this is all we get"!

What a disappointment this guy is. The recriminations in November will be something to behold.

And Lambert, my reference to "McOld" wasn't really about ageisms. Several there have 'other' names for McCain, for me it's more of a taunt to the locals. This "old" guy is basically tied with your young guy! It's McOld versus McYoung, both about the same. I liked CognitiveDissonance post up there, but the one term thing? Never seen that.

Submitted by lambert on

I don't really know any other way to interpret "McOld" as ageist. McSame and McStain are terms of abuse that don't bring in that aspect....

Funny, mentally I had Obama still on vacation. So, let's see how the runup to the convention goes.

Frenchdoc: Yeppers. Though Sarah would remind me to make sure my head fits through the door.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

peter's picture
Submitted by peter on

McCain wasn't my first choice, nor my second. I thought he was done last year. But, he is the very best choice for this election season with the brand's tarnish of late. And I am "taunting" the locals over there with my usage. I am a supporter, not a derider of the man.

BTW, thanks for allowing me to post over here. I do appreciate it a bunch. Emal over at TLC has a message for you.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

In your post you state or imply that PUMAs are holding out hope that McCain will be an impressive option for progressives. Now, I'm not a PUMA (though, I feel a kinship with them), but from my interactions with them they are under no such illusion. If the vast majority of PUMAs were voting their ideology, they'd vote for a third-party liberal. Most of them are voting to punish the DNC/save the party from itself. In fact, the only thing I do see them focusing on to divert their attention from voting for such a conservative record is the man's character.

snow-moon's picture
Submitted by snow-moon on

If only he had placed it in quotes- otherwise, it's that old ambiguity defense again-- appealing to the broadest base possible. Plausible deniability. (He didn't mean it that way-- that wasn't his intention... what he REALLY meant was...)

He was being ironic.

My personal reaction: it jumped off the page when I read it, and it felt inappropriate.

but I'm sensitive that way.

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

you state or imply that PUMAs are holding out hope that McCain will be an impressive option for progressives. Now, I’m not a PUMA (though, I feel a kinship with them), but from my interactions with them they are under no such illusion. If the vast majority of PUMAs were voting their ideology, they’d vote for a third-party liberal. Most of them are voting to punish the DNC/save the party from itself.

I haven't officially signed up anywhere (is there even an official sign-up?) but my views on a lot of things are fairly close to what is usually attributed to PUMAs, and Damon's comment describes my voting plan exactly.

McCain is running on a platform a I find loathsome, but Obama's is not so good that I feel awful losing it, and I expect him to govern worse than his campaign, but most importantly, I don't want to validate his or the DNC leadership's behavior in this primary, or their FISA/offshore drilling/how many other things? capitulation. The whole party needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up, and the best chance of this is, I think, an Obama loss. If this *doesn't* happen, I worry for the next few decades, and the impact of the next few decades energy policy for much longer than that.

Yes, Obama is running on a not insignificantly better platform than McCain, though even if I otherwise liked him it would arguably be worse/more conservative than I might vote for (his horrible energy policy, the marriage sell-out, late term abortion stance, FISA vote, only national political figure since Reagan to use the term "welfare queen", overall rhetoric, and could go on).

Combine this with *how* he "won" the primary, and not voting for him becomes a no-brainer.

Honestly, despite the better position on *some* issues, I'm not even sure we will be better off even for four years under Obama -- I fully expect McCain to bend more to the left to work with a Democratic congress than Obama. Obama will expect--and no doubt get, from what I've seen so far--complete aquiescence from the congress to his every conservative/wrongheaded policy maneuver, whether it be coal or offshore drilling & nuclear (where I fully expect McCain to push harder but at least have a hope that the Congress will push back).

Initially, I planned on voting for McKinney, in what I acknowledged even then was a "heart over head" decision. That was partly because I thought she would get more traction than she has (I thought at least half the Hillary voters not voting for Obama migrate to her camp), and partly because my opinion of Obama and the Democratic leadership has somehow managed to further decline over the summer, which took some serious effort. Now? My vote depends entirely on how close California is. If there's no hope for an Obama loss in this state, I'm voting McKinney. If it's close enough that I think one vote might actually make a difference, there's a very good chance I will vote McCain.

People can yell at me all they want, but I think it's the smarter decision. If it was all this "they are just being too emotional and not thinking" crap you keep hearing, I would vote McKinney.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

That's why I said "PUMAs who might vote for McCain..." to indicate a subset of PUMAs.

What % I don't know. I expect it's relatively small, but Will Bowers, who is or was a PUMA-PAC spokesman, is dreaming of a McCain/Hillary ticket. I know others are on the fence about whether to vote for McCain.

Oh, and can someone can provide a good link that sorts out PUMA's actual origins / organizations / sites between Bowers, Darragh Murphy, and Riverdaughter/Goldberry, and others if there be others? Is the Wikipedia page accurate and sufficiently comprehensive?

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Will Bowers came later

“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Others have made this point, but I don't think it can be made enough - Obama and McCain are wrong, as a factual matter, when they say things like marriage is between a man and a woman. Obama can "believe" that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but in several states marriage is no longer defined this way.* And with California's recent addition to this list, more than 10% of the United States population lives in a state that permits marriage to be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.** What's more, some churches recognize these marriages and even perform the service. So whether you mean in a legal or religious sense, marriage is no longer as a factual matter limited exclusively to a man and a woman in the U.S.

Obama and McCain can talk all they want about what they believe marriage is, that isn't reality. And what they so happily gloss over is that this is no longer about denying rights to people who don't have them, which would be appalling enough, it's about stripping rights from people who do have them or, and this is where the "belief" language comes in, pretending those people don't exist. It's as if you and I got together on stage and decided that Barack and Michelle Obama should not be and, thus, were not married (or John and Cindy McCain). That McCain and Obama and anyone else in America can define marriage in a way to erase people who are already married. IOW, they create their own reality. With the media's help, of course. What could go wrong?

* This simple fact illustrates what bullshit Obama's state rights approach is because in stating his "belief" he ignores what several states have done which is either sanction gay marriage or recognize gay marriages performed in other states. IOW, it's a state issue, but my "belief" ignores what some states, including the most populous one, are doing.

** If you include states that recognize gay marriages performed in other states, like NY, that number is even higher.