Hey xan,

Your learning lesson taught me that you’re voting for Obama because he’s not Hillary. Where’s the part about why you’re for Obama?

The only paragraph where you seem to be saying something positive about him, other than he’s not Hillary, is this one:

“But I have to say I’ve never heard him give a speech in which a large segment wasn’t devoted to the theme that getting good work done depends absolutely on the continuing involvement of the people, not just politicians, in the process. Not just voting, and not just nattering on blogs.”

So why are you for Obama? Speeches about how “good work depends on the continuing involvement of people” (see, I don’t have a lot of faith in “the people”. Look who’ve they’ve been electing the last 8 years.) doesn’t really tell me a lot about why I should vote for him. (Other than he’s not Hillary or McCain.)

Just asking. Please don’t backhand me just yet.

is disingenuous.

Pro-Obama lead bloggers say that he’ll reinvent politics. That he’ll move Dems from the errors of the DLC (even though the DLC endorsed him) to a new way of non-partisan politics. No one that I’ve read who has trashed Clinton’s campaign tactics has said Obama’s platform is similar, or his tactics comparable. They say he’s the new way, and Clinton represents the old.

Oh, and just because we choose to question Obama’s spokesmen and followers about their beliefs and tactics does not make us idiots arguing over obscure schismatic details. If you take the business of electing a president seriously, give us the same respect for our seriousness.

that Zan is an advocate of the Obama Rules — specifically the one that states:

Obama and his campaign can say anything about Hillary Clinton they want to. At any time. But if Hillary Clinton says anything critical, its bad for the party”.

Well before Clinton merely demurred on the Commander in Chief question, the Obama campaign — with Obama’s consent — went out of its way to portray Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists.

When it comes to things Democrats should never do to each other, Obama would have been disqualified well before Clinton’s CinC remark.

And I agree with Darrow —- I’m just as capable of any Obama supporter of listing Clinton’s flaws (the difference is I don’t include the imaginary ones.)

But I have very good reasons for supporting Clinton, not just opposing Obama. Not the least of which is that even though she’s been forced to play by Obama rules, the results from the primaries over the last two -plus months demonstrate conclusively that anyone who thinks that the most important thing is beating McCain has to pick Clinton.

Clinton never ran as the “inevitable” nominee. She ran to win in November, not September. That’s how someone who can win in November runs — there was none of this “pandering to the Democratic base, then shifting your positions to pander to the rest of America” stuff from Clinton. Obama’s campaign hasn’t even been that — its been “pander to the Democratic base, and then try and figure out how to pander to the rest of America.”

Hey, who ya’ talking to?

seriously, good to have you back.

And you don’t get political experience credits via marriage. If your spouse/SO dropped dead tomorrow, would his or her employer’s first impulse be to hire you as a replacement? Really? If your plumber died would you call his wife to fix your busted pipes? Gee, I bet they talked about plumbing at home a lot, so why not? Talking isn’t the same as doing, you say? Hmmm.

This might be valid if she were relying on the fact of her being married to the president, versus the experience she herself gained while participating in and representing his administration, and serving as an adviser to him.

Not to mention those two terms in the Senate.

straw man in the morning!

Saint?

Whatever. Typical non-substantive “give me a pony” post.

Hope! Change! Love! Puppies!

Your learning lesson taught me that you’re voting for Obama because he’s not Hillary. Where’s the part about why you’re for Obama?

As awful as the Obama-cultists are, there is one thing the Clinton supporters don’t get. The above sentence is a demonstration.

It isn’t up to the level of anybody-but-clinton but there is a burden of proof that she has that Obama does not. That is her double-edged sword. Many people have seen somethings they can’t look past like the Bosnia lies that she refuses to admit to.

This wasn’t anything like you read from pony-worshipers and people really need to re-examine what they are thinking when they write, “Whatever. Typical non-substantive “give me a pony” post.”

This might be valid if she were relying on the fact of her being married to the president, versus the experience she herself gained while participating in and representing his administration, and serving as an adviser to him.

to use Xan’s own analogy… would anyone have a problem with hiring the plumber’s wife to fix the plumbing if she’d been working as the plumbers assistant for most of her life, then spent six years on her own doing plumbing — and displaying impressive levels of competence on the job?

I sure as hell wouldn’t. But its indicative of the extent to which misogyny pervades the thinking of Obama supporters that they try and argue that Clinton’s experience during her eight years in the White House isn’t relevant, because she was “the wife” (And you don’t get political experience credits via marriage) as if Clinton spent all her time as First Lady picking out china patterns.

Indeed, this aspect of Xan’s argument is so specious that I’d like to suggest that Xan is really running an experiment here — that she wants to see if Obama supporters automatically get flamed here, or if the response is to rebut their arguments in a rational manner.

“That did it. You. Do. Not. Say. Such. A. Thing. Against. A. Fellow. Democrat.”

Congratulations, on your conversion Xan. I’m relatively new here so I don’t know you but I do know a double standard when I see one and your post has some fairly glaring ones.

As Cicero quoting Ennius would say, “Amicus certus in re incerta cernitur.” or “A sure friend shows himself in an unsure time.”

On the subject of Obama conversion (general — not specific to Xan or anyone in particular):

I don’t mind dissension or disagreement but one thing that does bother me and has bothered me this entire cycle is the need, dare I say compulsion, that too many converts to Obama have to announce their conversions by listing off a series of Clinton’s alleged sins. This strange shahada of Obama and subsequent rebuke of Clinton is too often made to known or supposed Clinton supporters. I’ve never once felt the compulsion to announce my support of a candidate by listing the alleged faults of another and I’ve never sought out those I know or suspect to be supporters of my newfound candidate’s opponent to say such things to — the whole process reeks of both guilt and condemnation.

Frankly, that this is a rather codified process, even down to an almost uniform list of ’sins’ from which a given convert recites, and the optional but often present profession of past love of Clinton and statement of how the convert should belong to a given Clinton demographic, scares the hell out of me. That fact alone tells me that, at the very least, there is entirely too much uniformity/bias in election coverage both in the MSM and in the blogosphere and that it is at the level of outright propaganda.

I don’t support Obama because of hate. Sigh.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I don’t support Obama because of hate. Sigh.

Obama’s supporters may well be a serious problem for him. His paper thin resume and amorphous campaign themes and proposals leave potential voters at a loss when it comes to understanding where Obama really stands and who he is.

And that means that undecided/unconvinced voters have to look elsewhere for clues about Obama — and that includes using his supporters to define him.

The answers that people get from Obama supporters about why they support his candidacy (which seems to come down to “Hillary is Satan”) and what he’d do as president (“bring change! achieve unity!”) will simply reinforce the impression that OBama is an empty suit.

Obama’s supporters desperately need to come up with talking points that provide a positive reason to support him that will resonate with the “average voter.”

My belief was that you endorse and support candidate whose views are the closest to you provided that the gap between you and that candidate is too large in your judgment.

This election cycle, I find that way too many, to my taste, individuals make emotional decision. There is a lot of racism in the opposition to the Clintons; it’s retargeted from racism against Bubba, against small towns and against outsiders. Racism is an extreme emotional reaction.

Support for Obama, a candidate whose values people are guessing, is similarly emotional aided by the need to replace one racism with another. Namely, support the black candidate while hating a new group.

It’s still a democracy, you can support the devil (or you may already be doing it).

“She finally pushed me over the cliff with the “Of course I’d be qualified to be commander in chief*, of course Sen. McCain would be…as for my opponent you’ll have to ask him.”

That did it. You. Do. Not. Say. Such. A. Thing. Against. A. Fellow. Democrat. Was that just before or just after that fawningly “gracious” gesture at the (SC I think it was) debate where she ended with patting his arm and gushing how “honored” she was to be on the same platform with him, yada yada. Talk about smarmy pandering in front of a virtually all black crowd. I did not care for the gesture. So by the time the “sniper fire in Bosnia” crap came around I was already in the lifeboat and rowing for the other ship.”

First of all- the debate of which you speak took place in Texas, and it was not in front of a mostly black crowd. Your take on it is offensive and ignorant as are most opinions based on things that are not true.

Secondly, what Hillary said about Obama’s qualifications to be commander in chief was true. You don’t even deny that. You simply imply one should not say such things about a fellow democrat. I guess what you mean is that we have an obligation to be dishonest to help our party out. Funny, the Republicans believe the same thing, so how does that make us any better? When Bush I choose Dan Quayle to be his VP we cried bloody murder because we claimed he wasn’t qualified. He had twice the experience Obama does. Granted he couldn’t spell potato, but he did at least know there were only 50 states.

Could you please spend a little more time outlining how evil the Republicans are? You seem to skim over it, and it is worth emphasizing. No need to even mention Obama. Far too many people are past the point were they will vote for him, but I am positive they will vote against the Republicans if reminded of how terrible they truly are. That would be a lot more productive than this silliness.

this puppy says welcome back xan

seriously, lets say Obama wins the nomination? are we going to keep this up? or just blog about house and senate candidates we do like?

suppose Hillary does pull a miracle and gets the nomination? Is anything we have been blogging about likely to reconcile the Obama supporters? Time to think about the general election. If you can’t say anything nice about Obama, blog about something else.

I don’t see a need for Xan to focus her fire on Republicans; I do most of my content-creation work supporting my candidate. (And with a 5 year back catalog of posts on Republicans, and successfully tagging Huckabee and the Republican elite as dog killers, which will no doubt come in handy in the general, I feel I’ve more than discharged my anti-Republican duties. Ditto Xan, on separate topics.)

So, answer Xan on point, and don’t ask her to be doing something she doesn’t need to do.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

If my candidate doesn’t win, the next best thing is for the policies and the constituencies I support not to be thrown under the bus as part of a “new kind of politics.” Maybe sitting down and shutting my mouth is the best way to achieve that, since what I want will then be magnaminously vouchsafed to me. Somehow, I doubt it.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Look into his approach to women and you may not be so pleased….
He is the most coddled candidate I’ve ever seen….
I fault the whole Democratic poobah establishment for foisting him on us. But I also fault him for letting his ego rule over his statement a few years ago when he admitted he didn’t have the experience to run for President just yet. What has changed? Nothing.

He needs to go back to Chicago and help clear out the Rezko slums that he somehow didn’t know about and missed the first time around…”Community organizer” —well, he even failed on that score…

I am not familiar with Xan, so I will take your word that she is sufficently Anti-Republican. My only point is that instead of trying to prove to us why we were all so wrong in this primary, it would be more productive to emphasize why the Republicans are so wrong for the country. She is the one ready to give us the back of a hand for even considering not voting for Obama. Fine, but the back of her hand isn’t nearly as persuasive as really reasons why we can’t afford a McCain win. If Xan is going to focus her fire on Hillary Clinton then she isn’t doing anyone but John McCain a favor. I am personally not coming here to figure out who I should vote for, I am long past the point where a Republican gets my vote for President. I come here to hopefully read something that will make me feel a little bit better about what is going on out there. Xan’s smears of Hillary Clinton aren’t helping that, and I can’t imagine how they must be taken by people who might actually vote for McCain or sit home. An Obama victory will be a hollow one if the reasons people have chosen him are false and empty. A hollow victory beats a loss, but the long term damage done to the party by their attempts to destroy Hillary Clinton and her supporters will come back to bite us in the butt when we are forced to confront a Republican party who no longer has the albatross of George W Bush around their necks.

first of Arkansas and then of the United States is unfair, as zuzu and Paul Lukasiak have explained. This is a way of dismissing the relevant experience only of women politicians, and it doesn’t take into consideration the real generational disadvantages Clinton had. She couldn’t run for Congress right out of law school the way her husband did (albeit unsuccessfully)—women in the 1970s weren’t welcomed back into their home communities and given all kinds of connections and credit. Many of them were fortunate to find jobs in the law at all. Secondly, the position of First Lady is an unpaid position (although it comes with a staff and a budget) that nevertheless requires hard political work on behalf of the spouse and his administration. This dismissal of her work as First Lady also doesn’t respect the fact that she wasn’t a Laura Bush/Mamie Eisenhower, rather, she was an Eleanor Roosevelt-type First Lady, who went beyond ribbon-cuttings and poetry-day speeches and delved into serious policy details and politics.

I think it’s perfectly legitimate to support Obama—but please don’t do it because you unfairly trivialize the tremendous work she did as First Lady, both of Arkansas and of the United States. (N.B.: If you don’t like the work she did or the policy positions she took as First Lady, that’s fair game—just don’t say that it wasn’t relevant work experience.) If you dismiss this work, you’re putting up an unjust and heavily gendered barrier against taking seriously the vast majority of women her age who are in national politics. (After all, Nancy Pelosi had strong family connections she used to launch herself in politics, as did Elizabeth Dole, Mary Landrieu, etc. So do many men—consider the Bushes, Kennedys, Dodds, Jacksons, Fords, etc.—but for some reason, we’re supposed to be all hostile and suspicious when women benefit from family connections.)

senior member of the Mighty Corrente Building

not quite nothing.

My assumption is that Obama said he wouldn’t be ready to be President thinking that no one with his complete lack of experience could win in November.

But once Bush’s poll numbers completely tanked, and it looked like a Democratic “lock” on the White House, and the “evil cabal” that is behind the Obama candidacy showed him how a candidate could get the nomination by relying upon delegates in Deep Red states that nobody was going to be terribly concerned about winning in the primaries, Obama “realized” that the only thing that mattered was not having an “R” next to your name — his “plan” for winning in November consisted solely of not changing his party affiliation.

We’ve had the convention? Did I miss the memo?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

But at least Xan didn’t try to suggest Obama had qualifications for which they could use to convince us of supporting Obama. Anti-Hillary is sufficient to endorse Obama. But hey, when Kerry/Kennedy/Richardson make similar non substantive endorsement speeches, how can I expect more from the underlings.

Until that happens Democrats do not yet have a nominee.

I’m for Clinton because I think she is vastly more qualified to fix the problems left behind that is Obama. The presidency is not a place for “on the job training.”

Clinton has a better understanding of how to deliver health care to everyone, bring the troops home safely, and restart the economy that, while once good under her husband’s administration, has now gone to shit under GWB.

I simply don’t think Obama is ready to be president of — his words — the “57 states” he has visited during the campaign.

BAC

I am happy to have sane Obama supporters here, and Xan is sane. (Not that anyone needs my permission for anything)

I don’t like him as a candidate, and I think his chances of winning the general election are poor, but I’m kind of hoping for getting some other perspectives without having to put on a Racal suit to visit the bloggerboyz.

Being against Sen Obama and for Sen Clinton is not a good excuse for leaving the reality-based community, just as the Blight (*) took over GOS.

What will I do if (as seems very likely) Sen Obama wins the nomination? Work against McCain, big time. What will I do if (as seems very unlikely, under 1 in 10) Sen Obama wins the presidency? First, be real happy McCain lost, then start a rearguard action to keep Social Security public, and keep health care from getting worse.

* “A Fire Upon the Deep”, Vernor Vinge

will be? What he plans to actually do?

Why does he tend to support Republican Lite (or even full strength) things such as saying SocSec is in danger and must be changed? Why does he use Harry and Louise type attacks? Why does he use (or permit those in his campaign to use) charges of racism and race-baiting against fully normal statements of historical and political reality?

I am not being snarky. I have asked these questions of others who have either rationally chosen Obama or have “seen the light.” The answers are usually that I am stupid and can go read his blog.

Which I have done, with unsatisfactory results for me.

Why did he initially take a strong stand against Excelon’s pollution of ground water (the low level radiation leaks), then move to essentially giving them carte blanche in the form of the (ultimately unpassed) legislation giving the AEC “guidelines”?

What is his actual stand on the death penalty?

What is his stand on universal healthcare? Will he fight for it, or go the Excelon route?

Etc., etc. There are so many questions, so much to try to understand about the Hopeful Change(s). He does tend to used the singular of “change,” right?

Thanks! I look forward to a member of the reality-based community educating those of us who are, somehow, resistant to “the light,” who have not had epiphanies, and are, indeed, not likely to support a politician on those grounds.

Note: While I have tried to learn about his political history, it’s not always easy. I am so not an expert. But who is? What did he do as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge director of the board (my term may not be exact—so hard to find info)?

One of the indicators of candidate strength is the endorsement, which politician is popular enough that other candidates want them to campaign for them. Obama won the endorsement primary going away. I can see his point of view, why should he run around campaigning for these other politicians, why not campaign for himself?

You know, Booman was right, had Clinton voted against the Iraq war authorization vote, she would have walked away with this nomination. It won’t be a bad thing for this country or the world if voting for a war is seen to be a career killer.

I understand the dissatisfaction with the unity pony, really I do, I am just coming to understand why people might prefer him to princess conventional wisdom.

Funny, I searched the DLC wsbite for their endorsement of Obama but couldn’t it. Did find a pic of Hillary on the front page and this article they cited about the DLC from the NY Observer that said:

If Barack Obama prevails over Hillary Clinton to become his party’s nominee, it will mark the end of an era for the Clintons. But the agenda of the group that devised their national political identity will be just fine.

Anybody who thinks there’s huge policy differences between Obama and Clinton are willfully misinforming themselves. There’s a difference in style and approach but goals, no.

You don’t praise the Republican nominee to be president and then say of the Democratic candidate who is beating you “he gave a nice speech.”

That’s how someone who can win in November runs — there was none of this “pandering to the Democratic base, then shifting your positions to pander to the rest of America” stuff from Clinton.

Tell that to the NRA gun nuts in PA and the gas tax holiday fans who think she’s going to make the oil companies pay this summer by waving her magic wand and getting Bush to sign a windfall profit tax. The first lady who lobbied congress for NAFTA as manufacturing fell in this country to 13% of the economy all of sudden is Eugene Debbs and now cares about jobs in PA and OH?

Xan: The rest of us, churchgoers and nonbelievers alike, used to quietly sit back and giggle over what idiots these guys both sounded like. I leave that as my Learning Lesson for this Sunday night.

From a slow learner who finds herself occasionally distracted by cosmic shadow-play, welcome to the idiot class.

*Good night

…if you ask me. Just like Obama’s record. This isn’t “American Idol - The Next President”. Unlike being “Class President”, Obama will actually have enormous responsibilities. He won’t be able to just roam the hallways acting cool, trying to get free cafeteria ice cream for the kids.

Support for Obama, a candidate whose values people are guessing, is similarly emotional aided by the need to replace one racism with another.

Nobody has to “guess” about Obama’s values, the man has written two best selling books spelling out his values, his governing philosophy, his life story for crying out loud. They are available at your public library in print and audio form.

can you sell some ads here?

I’d like to respond to markg by thanking him for commenting, and reminding him to visit your advertisers.

I know why Hillary’s asking for my vote: The boring bullet points about policy, and a determination to make government work again.

Here is what I see in Xan’s post about how Obama asked for, and got, her vote:

… [G]etting good work done depends absolutely on the continuing involvement of the people, not just politicians, in the process.

Apparently a lot of people felt exactly the same way and became dedicated supporters of Hillary. I wonder why?

Obama’s not the only candidate who can boost turnout — though he is the only one who gets written up, on a regular basis, in our famously free press about it.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Hillary has not gotten credit for the millions of new voters her campaign registered and the number of volunteers she has recruited who have never previously volunteered.

If I hadn’t had so many other things on my plate I would go through the turn out figures for the primaries back in the days when the Republicans still had a contest. I looked at the numbers for New Hampshire, almost twice as many people voted in the Democratic primary as the GOP. Online we have gotten pretty cranky, but in the field voters are charged up.

is this something that matters what this “xan” person and her white vagina do?
Please you folks that have partaken in these discussions for many years, tell me if I this matters.

xan is a senior fellow at the Mighty Corrente Building.

You’re a strong commenter at TL. you know how the “blogging thing” works.

And Xan is a Senior Fellow here at Corrente, so, she and her vagina have every right to ut their views on the table (so to speak)… then we get to pick it apart.

BTD over at TalkLeft ran the exit poll numbers. Clinton and Obama tied among voters who said Iraq was the most important. The AUMF vote is just an excuse, as those who have educated themselves about this know there is no difference from Obama and Clinton in their Iraq support, though Clinton has proposed a more definite plan to get out of Iraq, and she has taken a stand on the mercenaries, unlike Obama.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Or tell Axelrod to give you fewer blogs to monitor. Thanks.

Secondly, what Hillary said about Obama’s qualifications to be commander in chief was true. You don’t even deny that. You simply imply one should not say such things about a fellow democrat. I guess what you mean is that we have an obligation to be dishonest to help our party out.

Barrack Obama has far more foreign policy credentials than Bill Clinton did when he entered office. He’s been to Russia to see about securing their nuclear warheads, worked with Lugar on non proliferation of not just nukes but conventional weapons like AK-47s which are in fact the tools of genocide these days. He toured Africa where they treated him like a king. During the New Hamsphire primary he was on the phone to leaders on both sides in Kenya, Condi Rice and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, (who was trying to mediate the crisis) to end the post election violence there.

Funny, the Republicans believe the same thing, so how does that make us any better?

It doesn’t. It makes you sound as deluded as they are.

NOTE I closed the ital tag that was turning everything downthread ital. Preview is your friend! — lambert

jawbone: I have asked these questions of others who have either rationally chosen Obama or have “seen the light.” The answers are usually that I am stupid and can go read his blog.

Aw, go ahead, jawbone, you might just as well be snarky at this point.

Point of reference: definition used here by me for snarky: irritable or short-tempered; irascible.

In other words, not sarcasm.

In my mind, these devices of human communication can be compared to the descriptions of how the planet Mercury appears to move: direct or retrograde. They now and then help clarify the debate, I repeat — for me.

Second, Clinton only claimed that Obama hadn’t made the case to the voters that he could be CiC, not that he wasn’t able to be CiC.

Whether or not Obama had made the case, is a matter of opinion. It’s Clinton’s opinion, and about 50% of primary voters apparently agree with that opinion. Obama needs to make the case to the voters, he doesn’t need you making his case to those of us on the internet.

Also, sad as it is to say it, but Bill Clinton was elected in a different world. His experience would be insufficient to get him elected now. So is Obama’s. But at least you aren’t trying to claim, as your candidate did, that his childhood experiences are enough.

And what about all that wonderful experience he got as a subcommittee chairman? Oh, that’s right, he never chaired a meeting on that.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Funny, I searched the DLC wsbite for their endorsement of Obama but couldn’t it. (sic)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/…

… Al From, the D.L.C. founder, said he was “very happy about the two candidates” Americans are considering.

Sorry, there are other websites besides the DLC’s. This one belongs to a newspaper called The New York Times, perhaps you’ve heard of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Gool…

He has been Barack Obama’s economic advisor since Obama’s successful U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois. He is the lead economic advisor to the 2008 Obama presidential campaign and is known as a centrist. Austan Goolsbee is Senior Economist to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) …

This is less than sane discourse, because I have already pointed this out to you.

How do I close the tag — can I go back in to where I posted??

Extremely sorry all, didn’t know I had that power.

Help needed here.

Bill Clinton was elected in a different world—one that had just seen the end of the Cold War and the beginning of a major recession, so Americans were feeling like domestic issues were more important to them. But he was also a 6-term Governor before becoming President, and so had long experience in an executive position. As I recall, the Bush I campaign tried to make an issue of his relative youth and inexperience in foreign policy, but he was so clearly well-informed and comfortable with detailed policy positions that it didn’t work. The recent history of the Presidency suggests that Governors make better Presidential candidates than U.S. Senators. We’ll elect someone from the Senate this year, but probably only because that’s where all three of the remaining candidates are coming from.

SunnyLC

Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Congressional Record on Choice.
2007: 100 percent
2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent

Via HuffPo:
In a statement released to The Huffington Post, NARAL Pro-Choice America’s political director, Elizabeth Shipp, said that the organization was confident with the platforms of Obama and every other front-running Democratic presidential candidate.

“We are fortunate to have such strong pro-choice candidates like Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, running for president,” Shipp said. “All of these candidates have strongly communicated their pro-choice values. We are confident that any one of these candidates would protect and defend a woman’s right to choose, if elected president.”

The Clinton mailer focused primarily on Obama’s tenure in the Illinois State Senate. During his eight years in that office, the mailer said, Obama declined to take a position on abortion bills. However, during that same time period the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council gave Obama a 100 percent rating for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives.

He’s Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.

Lying about the presumptive Democratic nominee doesn’t do you or Hillary any favors. It’s time to put this canard to bed.

However, there are many DLC-types that do support Obama, largely because the Unity he’s been promoting is something the DLC has wanted for a very long time. Just look at Joe Lieberman, who is sometimes referred to as Obama’s “mentor.”

The Black Commentator had much to say about Obama’s links to the DLC.

And since you don’t provide a link, here is the NY Observer article you refer to.

Bill Clinton was inexperienced at foreign policy, there is no doubt about that. In 1992, however we weren’t involved in two wars and facing all the other problems in the world we do today. George W Bush did have better foriegn policy credentials, but the debate in that election was not about foreign policy. If it was Clinton would not have won. If Clinton on run with his experience today he probably would not have won. He made the election about other issues, and was able to do so because the American people were open to focusing on those issues. It was the economy stupid! Today it is more complicated than that because foreign policy will not take a back burner. Bill Clinton was the senior governor in America when he ran in 1992, Barack Obama is a junior Senator. His inexperience is a major liability. Clinton’s was too, but one that could be overcome by his vast experience on domestic issues, his ability to focus the election on those matters, a poor economy to hurt the incumbent party, and the fact that there was a major 3rd party candidate to spilt the vote. Obama has only one of those things going for him. We need to admitt Obama’s inexperience is a legtimate issue, but show that it is overwhelmed by other considerations. Trying to say that someone bringing these issues up is dirty politics only worked aganist Hillary because of the fact that the media portrays the Clinton’s as dirty, and that failed to respond forcefully back to it. McCain is not portrayed that way by the media, and has already shown he will respond forcefully to those charges. Not to mention they will resonate with Republican leaning voters far more than they did the Democratic base. If his supporter’s plan is to blame Hillary for his shortcomings we are in serious trouble.

That’s exactly what Nixon said about JFK and what Bush 1 said about Bill.

It’s far easier to say why you’re against a politician than why you’re supporting them. Look at all those super-d’s endorsing Obama: They’re just hopping on the popularity bandwagon before it passes them by. Every reason they provide sounds the same. Find me an endorsement from a super-d who says why Obama is substantively better than Clinton, and not some mushmouth nonsense about hope, unity ponies and change.

It’s Markg8 upthread who needs to close his own damn tag.

I closed it.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Come on.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

you wrote:

Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Congressional Record on Choice.
2007: 100 percent
2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent

NARAL lost its endorsing credentials awhile back, I heard: Don’t Reward Failure By Giving Money to NARAL

Didn’t see it.

It was safe for him to support it. Since coming onto the national stage, he has become extremely “squishy” on repro rights, he talks about it using anti-choice frames. He has given repro rights advocates every reason to believe that he won’t fight for it(new media blitz not withstanding). AAMOF, he hasn’t demonstrated a willingness to fight for anything besides his own ambition.

Mark, you can screech to women all you want, “He’s ProChoice, I swear”, but it’s not your body and your rights on the line. We’ve(women) been down this road before, we know the signs when politicians are going to sell our rights down the river, for political gain. Don’t be mad at us, that we can see it again.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Day-umn. Appreciate the correction. I did not know.

But, I was not trying to be sarcastic or snarky.

(I’m testing how this “edit” thing works. Added “I did not know.” Will see what haps.)

Whoohoooo! Edit works! ((2nd edit)

That may be what the post is about, I didn’t look.

But yeah, Lieberman, who believes that rape victims should be denied medical care at hospitals, was endorsed by NARAL. That doesn’t put them very high on my list.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

But I have to say I’ve never heard him give a speech in which a large segment wasn’t devoted to the theme that getting good work done depends absolutely on the continuing involvement of the people, not just politicians, in the process. Not just voting, and not just nattering on blogs.

OK, sounds good, but, um, how? We’ve watched many policies get enacted under Bush that vast majorities of the people have opposed, energetically so. What would the “involvement of the people in the process” look like? We’ve done barrages of angry letters and phone calls, and marches, and meetings. It seems to have had an effect on about one issue, Net Neutrality. Sadly, mostly it has come to nothing.

I hear a lot, from people I respect, about how Obama wants to make change happen by using The People to outflank those obstructionist Washington politicians. How? Washington is where laws get made and policies get set. There’s no getting around that, that The Politicians get the last word. How is Obama going to move them, using Us The People? I don’t see how it works. And that’s the biggest point in Obama’s favor.

but this argument that a spouse has nothing to do with, or no understanding of his or her spouse’s work greatly depends on the couple and the job. It is her participation in the administration that is the point.

But as to the example of the plumber — I suppose it very much depends on the plumber. If my plumber and his wife run the business together, and she has a thorough understanding of plumbing* gleaned through her long relationship with her husband and having assisted him when necessary — then, no, I would have no problem calling her to deal with my busted pipes — she’s going to know how to turn off the water main and what the next steps for the repairs are going to be.

I do think though that these repeated arguments about the numerous jobs that a wife couldn’t do in her husband’s stead are really more a discussion about gender expectations, and the jobs women are supposed to do.

A clip from My Cousin Vinny.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=g9ISFh1MBUI

“Now, if Mr. Trotter wishes to voir dire the witness as the extent of her expertise in this area, I’m sure he’s going to be more than satisfied.” I think that’s what all those debates were for.

*As a plumber who has worked on my apartment regularly points out — I don’t pay him the big bucks because he’s doing anything particularly difficult to learn how to do, I pay him because I don’t want to be bothered, and because it is often dirty, gross work and I would rather pay to have it done.)

She finally pushed me over the cliff with the “Of course I’d be qualified to be commander in chief*, of course Sen. McCain would be…as for my opponent you’ll have to ask him.”

That did it. You. Do. Not. Say. Such. A. Thing. Against. A. Fellow. Democrat.

How do you feel about a candidate “flipping off” his opponent during a major speech? Classy that.

Let’s see, cenobite you cite an article from January 11 titled “D.L.C. Leaders Cut Edwards Out” where Al From, the D.L.C. founder, praises both Hillary and Obama - but not Edwards - and that’s an endorsement of Obama?

And then you cite Goolsbee’s wikipedia bio. There’s noting in there about a DLC Obama endorsement either.

Try again oh sane one.

BOTH JFK and Bill Clinton had held actual jobs — answering to bosses, taking and giving orders.

Obama has never actually worked in a full time job. On the job training? He’s got the resume of a 27 year old not, a 47 year old.

He’s a joke. Seriously.

George W Bush couldn’t tell the difference between the Canadian Prime Minister and Canadian style cheese fries. I think you mean George HW Bush.

Click on the “Reply” button at the bottom, and everyone will know who you are talking to, mmkay? Unless of course, you really are just here to distract us

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Let’s see, cenobite you cite an article from January 11 …..
And then you cite….
Try again oh sane one.

It must crush you to see people using citations. With the amount of gun-for-hire crap you write, I would think 10% of your time could be used for research.

There is some truth to 80% of your time should be researching and thinking about what you want to say, and 20% in writing. Say more with less!

Getting back to topic —-
Xan, how do you feel about merkg8’s favorite topic of camel sex? Does that help/hurt your ideas about Obama?

The last refuge of the scoundrel.

Some people are looking for things to hate Hillary for. Look at WKJM, Kevin Drum and others who so eloquently explained John Kerry’s vote on AUMF who now use Obama’s tepid opposition to a war with Iraq (and one interview where he had very tepid opposition to AUMF itself) to show his judgment and say why Hillary is not qualified. When you can’t make the case for Obama, AUMF is what you run to. Even if you have no clue who Hans Blix is and what he has said about AUMF.

Do you really have a list of tangent, irrelevant topics you can throw out there to derail any conversation?

I never did study up on Bosnia, since after NH it was crystal clear that our famously free press was so biased against Hillary that anything they wrote, unless contrary to interest, would take a ton of time that I or a small network would have to invest our time in personally, since the A list squandered the media critique.

That said, assuming Bosnia has every bit the significance that Obama’s supporters give it, I didn’t and don’t see it as any more significant than this. And I see it as far less significant than this.

But then, what would I know….

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

in 2006 telling them they can expect nothing from me unless they stop endorsing the likes of Lieberman and Chaffee. Unloaded on one of their poor phone fundraisers too.

They didn’t lose my support because they don’t support women’s right, they lost it because it becuase they don’t fight effectively and they’re single issue focused which bugs the hell out of me.

Lorna Brett who was the President of Chicago NOW at the time of Obama’s present votes withdrew her support for Senator Clinton and became a supporter of Obama’s campaign saying, “Barack’s leadership on this issue went above and beyond the call of duty, and for anyone to intentionally mislead voters about that fact in the days before an election is simply sad. I am disgusted that this tactic is being used against a good man like Senator Obama.”

Does not matter to me.

It was safe in IL to go “above and beyond” the call of duty, no one in his constituency was going to hold it against him.

Now, it’s a different story, and he has not demonstrated the political courage to take this issue on, and if he is attempting to do fight for women, he needs to adapt his strategy, because many repro-rights advocates are upset about the anti-choice language he’s using. Remember WORDS MATTER!

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

I hate to intrude on the hate-fest,

Not feelin’ the love, hope, or change, here, Xan.

Look, both of these candidates suck. In terms of experience, Obama couldn’t win in another year with so little experience. If he’d been white, people would be screaming about a guy who started running for president almost immediately after arriving in Washington.

If Hillary were a guy, she’d be pretty average in terms of the kind of guy who usually runs for president - at least one full term in the Senate and another partial before throwing a hat in the ring, some family ties to other successful politicians or power-brokers (or really, really rich people), etc. - except that most guys would have lacked the executive experience she had as partner to a state and national executive. (But probably wouldn’t have had so many negatives, either. After all, the first thing the GOP hated the Clintons for is that Hillary Rodham didn’t change her name when she got married.)

I have reasons to be pissed off at Clinton that I don’t want to talk about and that pre-date this primary season (and that no one else is talking about, either), but that doesn’t change the fact that when Obama started trying to destroy her after New Hampsher - not just upstage her as a candidate, but destroy her - he got right down in the mud even deeper than she had. Please don’t try to convince me that he’s any cleaner and hasn’t been at least as destructive, because he certainly has.

Because one thing you absolutely Do. Not. Do. is falsely smear our likely nominee as a race-baiter when she still has a chance to win.

Unfortunately, he did do that, virtually guaranteeing that if she is the nominee, she will have the weakest support from the black community a Democratic contender has had since before LBJ. I mean, why would they vote for a race-baiter?

His campaign has also put it round that it’s she, and not he, who is dicking around with the nominating process in order to “cheat” her way to the top, virtually guaranteeing that if the superdelegates were to decide that she has the best shot at winning and endorse her, the acrimony among Obama-supporters will be so toxic that the whole party will fall apart. I’m sure that has a lot to do with why many of them are pulling away from her.

But it also has a lot to do with why so many Clinton-supporters hate him so much. It’s certainly one of my top reasons for not trusting him, and I’m not even a Clinton-supporter.

So Obama still needs to figure out how he’s going to make amends with the Clinton side of the party so he can do that unity thing he’s supposed to be all about. Hillary says she’ll work her heart out for him if he’s the nominee; he makes it sound like he doesn’t want her or her supporters in the party at all.

So fuck him and the horse he rode in on, but we still probably have to vote for the prick in the fall - so will you please stop reminding us of why we were hoping for a different candidate in the first place? Because every time you tell us why you think he’s cleaner, you remind us of all the reasons he’s not.

[Which reminds me: and she has taken a stand on the mercenaries, unlike Obama.

No, it’s worse than that - he has taken a stand and said the mercenaries would be okay.]

More liberal media at The Sideshow.

he stated in his book he wanted to, but was convinced not to for political reasons. How that cannot make women’s group’s nervous is beyond me. His courting of religious voters should also raise concerns that there will be political pressure for him to at the very least move to the middle on this issue.

Finally, Obama consistently criticized Clinton for failing to take clear stands on tough issues for political reasons. That is exactly what his present votes represent. Sometimes effective politics requires that, but that does not stop Obama from criticizing others for doing it in spite of the fact that he has done the exact same thing himself. Obama has consistently claimed he was above this type of politicking, so he and his supporters should not be suprised when people may misread his actions. It is not their fault they didn’t know he was lying about not being a typical politican, rather than lying about his commitment to a woman’s right to choose.

Obama has certainly done more than any democratic nominee in recent memory to pursue the opponents of choice vote. That should make people nervous. Forgive them if they don’t take the word of an Obama supporter that he can be trusted not to give in on this issue.

Both Sen Clinton and Sen Obama are equally in the favor of the DLC, so no more bringing it up if you intend on honest debate. Period.

I wasn’t correcting you! I’m sorry I gave that impression.

More directly, I am saying that I can try to explain the compelling reasons why I support Clinton and don’t jump on the Obama bandwagon until I am blue in the face because it is always rejected, not by sincere debaters, but by true believers as being something else [various derangement syndromes, racism, lack of information, gender identity].

Hint: sometimes the only way to stop that in its tracks is to reflect that abuse back, much like a splash of cold water in the face of an hysteric.

Example: A long long time ago in the land of Peace Between Dems, as the early candidates jockeyed and revealed themselves, I asked a friend, So who ya rootin’ for?

She said, “Obama, you?”

I replied: “Clinton.”

She: “OMG, I totally hate her.”

Stunned at my first exposure to Dem on Dem violence, I sputtered: “W-w-w-why?”

She: “I cannot forgive her for not punishing Bill.”

Me: “Whaaaa…whadjoo expect her to do, throw his clothes off the WH balcony? Besides how do you know she didn’t punish him? After all, he fled into family counseling, which an unfaithful spouse doesn’t usually seek out without a few compelling reasons, and he probably even learned a thing or two.”

She: “Hmmm, that’s true. Welllllll-l-l-l-l, SHE SHOULD HAVE KICKED HIM OUT!”

[Honestly, I swear that to the best of my recollection, this is a faithful reproduction of the original conversation — so stunned was I that it was burned onto my neuronal hard drive.]

Me: “Still that’s not your business what goes on between husbands and wives.”

Her: “I don’t care, I HATE her. And Obama is a new way, the old politics are dead. He inspires every one to be their higher self.”

Sickened and groaning on the inside, I leaned in to look her in the eye and asked: “You know how you hate Hillary?”

Her: “Yeah.”

Me, intentionally mean: “That’s how I hate Barack.”

Her, in utter disbelief: “You’re kidding!!” as though it had never occurred to her there was anything less than perfect about his self.

Me: “No. He’s a strutting, bullshit artist, and I’ve been married to a few, so I know that act. Ugh.”

Needless to say, this campaign season has been hard on the relationship, as the old politics Dems keep dragging the new politics Dems back into the fray, demanding answers and offering challenging debates when they just want to move on, bored with this stage of the process. Or scared.

I tried to write that without any hint of sarcasm, but I can’t always recognize the sneer or drool out of my own mouth. I grew up fighting in the street for my share of a little territory to plant my feet, so it can be second nature. I’m not sure if I would recognize my higher self if I hadn’t already bloodied its nose for putting on that holier than thou expression, but maybe that was really my darker self just foolin’ me.

So, after awhile, when I’m blue in the face with explaining, my higher self just has to walk away but my street fighting kid just wants to scream: STFU!

Here:

Because one thing you absolutely Do. Not. Do. is falsely smear our likely nominee as a race-baiter when she still has a chance to win.

And after preaching Unity, too.

Will the fence-mending — assuming, arguendo, that any is needed — start with the speech on May 20? Hard to tell. I’m guessing not.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Wow.

Sickened and groaning on the inside, I leaned in to look her in the eye and asked: “You know how you hate Hillary?”

Her: “Yeah.”

Me, intentionally mean: “That’s how I hate Barack.”

Me Too.

(stunned) I didn’t expect that.

she hasn’t been for many years. bonnie grabenhofer, CURRENT president of ILLINOIS NOW, has called out lorna brett on her fake credentials—but obama presumably still touts brett’s endorsement. frankly i wouldn’t be surprised if lorna brett is now pro-life. that endorsement is a sham.

http://www.illinoisnow.org/.

and katiebird and whaleshaman, i’m totally with you on the barack-hate. he clinched it for me with his race-baiting campaign. the motherfucker will NEVER get my vote.

TL with the primary season is about it. I actually never did the Kos thing, just read some of the blogs. So, that is why I was curious. Thanks for the info.

She said at least four times that the tarmac greeting and formalities were canceled, and she and her party ran from possible sniper from the plane to a hanger. That often presidents send the first lady to places it’s too dangerous for him to go.

If that was the case it sure doesn’t say much for Bill or what he thinks of his wife does it? Neither does the fact that he lied about it to a group of supporters saying she only said it once, was sleep deprived at the time and simply misspoke.

It was the kind of dumb desperate thing candidates say when they’re falling behind trying to puff up their cred. There were a whole lot of witnesses including the little Bosnian girl (now grown) who presented her with gifts who came forward to say her story was BS.

Because all I’ve ever seen reported is the one time remark.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

… absent links. You’re an Obama canvasser, and this is what you would say. These are just GOV talking points, and not worth anybody’s time.

And as my links show, it’s on the par with distorting your resume in your bio, and lying about when you give a key speech is worse.

As usual, you simply repeat, no doubt hoping to piggyback your crap into our Google results. Stop it, please.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

not the other way around. He didn’t have the political courage to just vote Y or N.

That’s his pattern. With all his pandering to the GOP, do you trust him? With anything? Do you trust him after his misogynist actions (snidely looking away from Clinton and sarcastically saying she’s “likeable enough” or giving her the finger?

They didn’t suggest it.

I do NOT trust him. His pattern is to give away the store. In that regard he is the supreme weak Democrat, more like Republican-lite.

He is UNTRUSTWORTHY. What he did in IL no longer applies [sessions were very short (55 days), he missed a bunch]. Not taking a clear stand in a safe seat doesn’t fly with me, no matter what he says.

He is a calculator. He will what he wants if it helps OBAMA. He sure didn’t do anything for the people in Rezko’s slums. Why do you think this guy who can’t tell his followers to stop with the sexist signs is going to protect women’s rights if it doesn’t suit his little agenda of the moment??

He has no political courage and he is NOT a progressive. Expect to be disappointed.

With Hillary as VP?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Unfortunately, he did do that, virtually guaranteeing that if she is the nominee, she will have the weakest support from the black community a Democratic contender has had since before LBJ. I mean, why would they vote for a race-baiter?

I have read, however, that something like 70-75% of African-Americans who voted for Obama would vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee. Which tells me that she’d have a lot of work to do to repair the damage, but that it could be done. I’d guess that her history as well as the fact that she continued to reach out to African-American voters even after they turned hostile to her helps.

His campaign has also put it round that it’s she, and not he, who is dicking around with the nominating process in order to “cheat” her w