eriposte, this series of Obama really needs to be printed out and held for posterity if he becomes our nominee.

aimai

eRiposte, nice try, but between you and Armando, the Clinton shilling against Obama is in meltdown mode. We know the bloodbath is coming when Hillary comes in 3rd tonight. Do you think we progressives really believe you are not getting marching orders from Daou or someone on the Clinton payroll.
You accuse Obama of using right wing talking points, when you yourself are using Wolfson talking points. By shouting Lieberman every 2 seconds , we progressives who aren't afraid, and never bought into the Rove fear machine, we certainly aren't going to be afraid of Wolfson and the DLC crackpots who are spreading this drivel!

Pauline,

I can't thank you enough for making those comments because you just made my case for me. Rather than answer any of the specific points in the post your attack is on me - this is exactly what I wanted to see, to show other readers the cult we are dealing with.

Well if anything, Obama is keeping his name in the forefront.

Hopefully, Edwards can slide under the radar and win tonight.

Another sad case of Obama Derangement Syndrome ...

Callimaco - certainly, per the straight-talking reality based community, someone who says that Obama will be a much better President than any Republican does have ODS. But, I must thank you for your thoughtful response to the post just like Pauline's very polite and courteous response as well.

Boy Howdy, the Obamabots are nearly as blind as the Paulbots.

Nice post, again, eriposte. How utterly sad and annoying to have yet another Dem sign on to the "civility" chorus. Funny how they agree that civility only applies to political opponents and not to fellow progressives... How many of Obama's acolytes were saying "fuck civility" a year ago? Cult of personality, indeed.

Obama's bipartisanship schtick is simply revolting, and even if it's a scam, he'll be locked into it for good---and no good will come out of thinking that conservative Repubs are going to somehow vote for truly progressive legislation. No how, no way.

Plus this Obama crap will be used by the MSM to undermine the rhetoric of actual progressives running for Congress.

On the other hand, the only leading Dem speaking actual progressive language is Edwards, not Hillary, and you've thrown in totally with her bloodless, robotic "experienced beltway" dynastic schtick.

Is Edwards really progressive...?? His rhetoric is BUT look at his record carefully:

John Edwards voted for No Child Left Behind. Voted against funding NO Child. Now he wants to fix it?
He voted for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -3 times.
He voted against the estate tax.
He voted for the Bankruptcy Ripoff bill('01).
He voted for bankruptcy reform which has hurt many lower income families in this country.
Edwards voted for the Packer Ban and the Right to Work bill.
He voted against restricting consolidation of Big Meat Packing..
He voted against public financing -2 times.
He vowed not to take public financing and now he has conveniently changed his tune and the party will carry this burden. There is no legitimate plan after Iowa.
He voted against the Wellstone VA funding amendment.
He voted for free trade in China.
He acted like he was critical of offshore tax shelters for the wealthy in 2004, and then in 2005 he worked as a consultant for the Fortress Investment Group whose hedge funds were incorporated in the Cayman Islands. They foreclosed on homes in LA and even Iowa.
Edwards voted for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada (which IMO Nevadans will not appreciate).
John Edwards has the worst environmental record according to the League of Conservation voters ratings? '59 for JRE----- 96 for Barack Obama'.

Edwards CO-SPONSORED and promoted(in videotaped speeches) Lieberman's S.J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution, and also later voted for it in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. KYL-LIEBERMAN comes to mind. The more I look into John Edwards' record, the more troubling it is. Because the support for the war has gone down, are these hawks trying to play both sides of the fence? He didn't read the NIE report and lied and said he had at one point.
He now has 2 workers that left his campaign and went directly to start 527s. Back in 2004, John Edwards asked GWB to ask 527 to stop.

techinvestor,

As a senator from a historicly red state, the state that elected Jesse Helms to the Senate five times, Edwards voted in a manner that gave him a chance at re-election had he chose to go that route. A presidential contender had a more centrist populace to appeal to. There's no reason why he couldn't be a more progressive president than his Senate record would indicate.

The bigger question is, why do both Obama and Clinton have such conservative Senate voting records even though they represent deep blue states?

Why did Mr. Edwards "the populist" decide he needed to live in a 28,000 square foot home...?? After Edwards left the Senate why did he need to associate himself with a questionable Hedge Fund when he was already worth over $50 Million...?? Can Edwards really be trusted...?? Is he in touch with average Americans...?? Just wondering. And Edwards is my 2nd choice but I have many concerns about the disconect between what Edwards says and what he actually does.

Has Obama vacationing these past seven years? He can take his civility and cram it. Once again, for the 20th times, you don't fight the enemy with "polite" politics. Why in the hell can't the Democrats get that SIMPLE point, including Obama? According to Obama, we can all get in a circle and hug. Jeez!

"But if the insurance companies get in my way, we'll just push them aside very politely and go ahead and do what's right for the American people. That's how you bring about real change."

Talk about living in lalaland. I'm sure they will just rollover for you Obama, because after all, you will be so polite. Now pass me the tequila.

Right on the money Eriposte.

This plays right into the hands of the GOP minority and shows that Obama has learned nothing, nada, zero zippo, about the GOP playbook over the last 7 years.

I can't believe that even Obama is willing to accept the stunning right shift that we've had forced down our throat during this administrations tenure. At the very least he seems to be willing to give them that shift to advance a couple of agenda items...it won't happen.

GOP: Never give an inch, never ever admit a mistake, ALWAYS shift the blame.

Why did Mr. Edwards "the populist" decide he needed to live in a 28,000 square foot home...?? After Edwards left the Senate why did he need to associate himself with a questionable Hedge Fund when he was already worth over $50 Million...?? Can Edwards really be trusted...?? Is he in touch with average Americans...?? Just wondering. And Edwards is my 2nd choice but I have many concerns about the disconect between what Edwards says and what he actually does.

In terms of where Edwards lives it really doesn't matter. I can be healthy and still be concerned about the sick. Your question about trust can apply to any politican. Nevertheless, it is a factor that has to be weighed. I support Edwards because he does seem to be the one who understands best that the modern Republican party is not a party in the traditional sense of the word.

And people talk of Democratic unity. How many here will stay home if their person doesn't win? How many will hold their nose when they go to vote?

Looks to me to Obama/Edwards neck and neck with HC a gapped third. BO and JE could be reversed, they are that close, but HC comes in third with room to spare.

As you point out Obama thinks Dems just are not working with Repubs to get things done. Okay, if that is true and if he can change that then here is my question to Obama supporters: If Obama is the man to change Washington, if he can bring the parties together and if he the one that can make Washington work (whatever that means) then why is it that as a member of the U.S. Senate, one of 100 members of one of the most power clubs in this country (if not the world) why hasn't he been able to "work with" Republicans to get legistlation passed that is core to the Democratic Party? For example, why hasn't Obama crossed the aisle and talked it up with a few Republicans to get a veto proof majority to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion. It would seem to me that if he is the "one" and he has the pixie dust to bring everyone "together" then why doesn't he start where he already has a job and can actually make a difference. And this is legislation that is really bipartisean and would seem, with all of his powers, a pretty easy thing to do. Why hasn't he done it? Why hasn't he worked with reluctant Republicans to stop funding the war?

Does Mr. Obama think he has to be President before he can put his powers to work? When is he going to show his stuff?

Senator Obama is not a Democrat; he isn't even Bush lite; he is just downright ambitious. No one every heard of this guy outside of Chicago (and maybe Springfield but he was not big player in Dem politics there either) before 2004. Now because he can give a good speech he is ready for primetime. Democrats across the country should be insulted and angry at this man for suggesting that we sell our liberal Democratic principles to the Devil to show that we can "work together." Whatever that means.

techinvestor: Why did Mr. Edwards "the populist" decide he needed to live in a 28,000 square foot home...??

I hate to say this but are you fucking stupid? How big a home did FDR live in? You don't have to be poor or middle class to support policies that benefit the poor or middle class.

Frankly, some of you people sound like George W. Bush: everything is in simple, zero-sum, with us or against us binaries. In that kind of world-view, yes, indeed Obama is going to be lumped in with the "against us" camp because he doesn't obviously tow the "with us" party line.

If you people want to reduce politics to these George W. Bush levels of Manichean stupidity then fine. But know what you're doing.

There are many ways to fight: you can fight straight on and directly (which is what I think most of the Edwards backers want - it's also, I think, nothing but a left-wing feel good losing strategy) or you can fight indirectly with cunning by trying to change the terms of the fight. That strategy, I think, has one definite advantage over the direct strategy: it might actually work.

Where you see Obama "compromising" and capitulating to "right wing talking points" I see him trying to change the terms of the fight. That does not mean he's abandoning his progressive principles. Far from it.

What will we do when Obama is the candidate and he chooses Lieberman as his vice? Why is Obama attacking Gore? Gore may be the stopper we all need when we find Obama doesn't care about us. I can tolerate Hillary, prefer Edwards, and am afraid of Obama. Hey Al, you listening? The whole world will vote for you. Events may force you to save us.

Great post.

I'll point out, for what it's worth, that the corporate and political right-wing in this country spent the last 40 years--ever since Goldwater got his butt handed to him--building a movement that would take control of the government and keep that control in perpetuity.

If anyone here, or anywhere in the progressive movement, thinks that these guys will just meekly go away, they're sadly mistaken. Obama and Clinton are both creatures of this corporate power, as much as Bush was. At the level of wealth we're discussing, ideology doesn't matter much. Who gets the cash matters much more.

I think it's highly unlikely we'll ever see a serious progressive candidate for the highest political office in this country. Corporate power will make damned sure that never happens.

The single biggest change in this equation in our lifetime is the complete control corporate power now wields over mass-media. That was the first item on the agenda 40 years ago: capture the media. Color that one accomplished.

The only way we'll have real change is if one of the corporate lackeys changes course in office. This is what Teddy Roosevelt did, and it's what FDR did. It's very tough to predict such a thing in advance. But likely it'll be a democrat who does it. When, and how? Beats me. But I doubt it'll be Obama. And I doubt it'll be Clinton.

I agree that Obama's rhetoric is a soup of Villager Idiocy spiced with right-wing tropes. And I agree that, for progressives, this is disturbing and occasionally infuriating. But I wonder sometimes if Obama would say to us, if he could say to us, "Jesus Christ on a skateboard! I'm black! Do you expect me to run as a Democrat too?"

If a candidate wants to run as a Candidate for Change, do you think it's a good idea to suggest actual changes? I'm not sure, but we could ask Howard Dean. He might have some insight.

And by the way, I am an Edwards guy all the way. But I have some sympathy for the dilemma Obama is faced with. This is a racist country, deeply racist. I think that the majority of people who are strong Democratic voters are ready and willing to vote for a black man. But America generally? I am not so sure.

If the Democratic nominee is a black man or a white woman, that candidate is going to have to spend a lot of time reassuring the Great Mass of American Morons, the Common Clay of the New West, that his or her candidacy represents careful change rather than radical change.

The corporate ruling class that opposes any real or fundamental changes to our system cannot simply say, like Governor LePetomane, "Can't you see that that man is a ni----?" But they can say that he is a "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show."

And they will.

Like I said, I am an Edwards guy, but if Obama is the nominee I can support him without reservation and with enthusiasm.

Why did Mr. Edwards "the populist" decide he needed to live in a 28,000 square foot home...??

Why people insist on these types of stupid arguments is beyond me.

"What will we do when Obama is the candidate and he chooses Lieberman as his vice?"

My lord, how detached from reality are you?

Better question is what will you do when Al Gore endorses Obama?

eriposte:

I'm a progressive and I believe this "drivel."

It's true that Republicans have been the obstructionsts all along. But this is no reason for Democrats to act the same way.

First of all, we're no good at it. In a ferocious scam-filled contest, Republicans will almost always win.

Second, Democrats have an agenda to help the people. We cannot accomplish this if we are constantly fighting with the Republicans.

Third, the reason the country is so polarized is that some Democrats are trying to act nastily like Republicans. Obama wants to stop the fighting, treat opponents with respect (are you positive you are right and they are wrong?), find common ground and solve festering problems.

You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

For example, why hasn't Obama crossed the aisle and talked it up with a few Republicans to get a veto proof majority to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion. It would seem to me that if he is the "one" and he has the pixie dust to bring everyone "together" then why doesn't he start where he already has a job and can actually make a difference. And this is legislation that is really bipartisean and would seem, with all of his powers, a pretty easy thing to do. Why hasn't he done it? Why hasn't he worked with reluctant Republicans to stop funding the war?

Thank you. I'm glad that someone is finally saying this. Because this is the big question about Obama's claims that he can get bipartisan compromise when it hasn't happened in the past 16 years. He has NOT been able to do that in the Senate. He did NOT do that in the Illinois state legislature. So how is he all of a sudden going to do something that he has yet to ever do in his very skimpy, undistinguished career?

As Eriposte keeps eloquently stating, and doing so despite it not being popular - what Obama says he can do will NOT work against a wingnut party that against all reason, against what their own constituents want, against any common sense, will NOT compromise on anything. And let's face it, they won't even compromise knowing that they are bringing this country to ruin. They simply do not care as much about that as they do about not compromising ever to democrats. That tells me everything I have to know about them. They are not the patriotic Americans they say they are, they are guilty of the worse kind of treason. And naive Obama is going to compromise with them? Get real!

Bill Clinton tried to do that 16 years ago, and look what they did to him. They are still trying to ruin him and drag him through the mud. They will do that to his wife, to Edwards, to Biden, to Dodd, to Richardson, and I think most especially to Obama. I shudder to think about him getting through a general election with his naive and dangerous blindness. He is going to look like a deer in the headlights. He will implode and bring us all down with him. This is one of the most important elections of my lifetime (I'm 54). If we don't get it right, I really shudder at what will happen to not only this country, but to the rest of the world as well.

Like Atrios sez:

Stoller comments a bit more on the bipartisan/independent disease. It's a message the mainstream media - and many politicians - have been transmitting for years, that somehow politics is about finding ways to get along. It isn't. It's a contest to put people in power so they can enact a particular agenda. There isn't a "good" set of policies which would be implemented if only we stopped arguing. People argue because they disagree and because policies impact different people and sectors and interest groups in different ways.

There's nothing wrong with bipartisanship, and given the peculiar nature of our government and recent voting patterns it's often necessary to pass legislation. But it isn't a goal in and of itself. In fact, it isn't important at all except to the extent to which it enables things to happen.

People disagree about stuff. Grow up.

Obama seems to have forgotten that, to the Republicans, bipartisanship equals date rape.

You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

This isn't a garden party, no matter how much the Villagers and Obama (pandering to them) try to make it so.

"Why did Mr. Edwards "the populist" decide he needed to live in a 28,000 square foot home...??"

Why does Mr. Bush, the Uniter not Divider, decide he needed to build a "Ranch" in Parquay?

I don't give a damn if Edwards built a 40,000 square foot home. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing!

Paul Siegel,

I have to take issue with your second and third points above.

The reason the country is so polarized is that the Republicans have been polarizing it for the last thirty years with campaigns and corporate press/media messages that promote division. They cannot succeed without it.

And many progressives, me included, believe that we cannot accomplish anything unless we fight the Republicans. We have had thirty years of compromise and accommodation. And look what it produced.

I don't give a damn if Edwards built a 40,000 square foot home. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing!

Not that it'd make me not vote for him but it does say something to me.

28,000 square feet is equal to the surface area of a regulation NFL football field from one endzone to the 40 yard line of the opposite half of the field. More than half of a football field of habitation for 5 people. As a successful person he has every right to build such a grandiose home for his family. But it doesn't tell me nothing about him. Look at it this way, if he had all the wealth he currently has and lived in a modest (using the term 'modest' loosely)5000 square foot house, everyone would be talking about how meaningful that is. And if he lived in an eco-friendly 5000 square foot house people would be outright praising him for it. So the fact that he lives in a massive 28,000 square foot house is something that indeed says something to me. Because if I had his money I wouldn't live in a 28,000 square foot house. Would you?

I've always thought Obama's defense to be to loudly and openly proclaim: "I'm going to fool enough of the Republicans so that we get a working majority in Congress. Once that happens, we'll be unstoppable!"
(Yes, that's a paraphrase---those are "ironic quotes", IIRC. One has to be very careful when speaking to Obama supporters).
So exactly what part of the Progressive agenda will Obama tackle first? guess starting with those areas which can be changed by Executive Order alone. An obvious first step would be to scrap "don't ask don't tell".
What next?
If you think about this carefully there's only one logical inference: if Obama is elected, and if he actually enacts some of the Progressive agenda using moderate Republican support, this will be at a price. What price? My first guess would be abortion rights. Ditching gays would help him out, but nothing would gain him as much good will as formulating a "compromise" position on abortion.
Regardless, you can't fault my logic. Obama may be different, but Congress isn't: they will require quid pro quo.

Of course the other possibility is that Obama really will govern in a 100% Progressive manner, in which case his moderate support will dry up quite rapidly. In this event, he will be seen as the mirror image of Bush---promsing centrism but bringing hard Left policies. Should this happen, you can be assured that Obama will be hated worse than Bush before his first term is up.

To snark and others concerned with the size of John Edwards's home,

The size of the home is less relevant than the fact that he built it with money he earned rather than wealth he inherited. That fact says more about "Who is this guy?" than the square footage.

But both of those facts are trivial, on the same level as "Who do you want to have a beer with?" The questions are what kind of decisions is this person likely to make on policy issues? What sort of people will this person appoint to federal office and the federal bench? What will this person's legislative agenda look like?

Despite Edwards vote for the Packer Ban, I was happy to see Green Bay was still around to make the playoffs.

the 12:18 post was mine.

The size of the home is less relevant than the fact that he built it with money he earned rather than wealth he inherited. That fact says more about "Who is this guy?" than the square footage.

Uh, no, it doesn't.

I'm with Pauline on quite a few things, including the Clintonista attitudes showing so strongly around here. As she said:
...the Clinton shilling against Obama is in meltdown mode....

Pauline is right -- Hillary has faded to 3rd place behind Edwards in the latest Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll. Now, I don't know how accurate that is, but lo, how the might have fallen!

Now, I do NOT believe anybody is bought and paid for by the Clintons around here, unlike what Pauline said. But, the anti-Obama postings are getting shrill.

Now, you want your points answered, eriposte? Okay, I'll go with your primnary point here, which is, as you, eriposte, said:

According to Sen. Obama, the biggest problem in Washington is that Democrats have shown themselves to be so unwilling to work with the Republicans and opposing interest groups...

Not true. Way to put words in his mouth, eriposte. Where does Obama actually say this? He doesn't. You're making that up, eriposte, as are many anti-Obama critics.

Obama's talking about how to get something done as a president and, hopefully, with a Democratic majority in Congress. He NEVER said this was our country's biggest problem and he never said the Democrats' problem is that they won't work with Republicans. He's talking about how he would get something done with Congress, and he never said that the Republicans aren't part of the problem. Does it also imply some Dems are obstructionist? Yes, but what Obama said cuts both ways.

Go read the quotes again. He also said "some Republicans" can be part of the solution, implying that Republicans are part of the problem and that only some would be willing to solve it.

Moreover, three-quarters or more of your argument against Obama consists of quoting other people about Obama, instead of relying on his record or what he actually says.

Who has supported Bush's war through their votes more -- Clinton or Obama? Clinton.

Which candidate introduced legislation to require Bush to come to Congress to approve any attack on Iran? Obama.

Which candidate states they want to talk to our enemies instead of threaten them? Obama.

What more is there?

Who is the real progressive in this race, a Bush enabler like Clinton or Obama?

Your criticism of Obama is forthright and honest. It omits his "double standard" when it comes to certain segments of Americans, such as his awkward comments about marriage equality that "something [civil unions] is better than nothing," a statement that Rosa Parks, like homophiles, would reject categorically. BUT, a good politician has to speak in pluralistic senses, not to offend the base, but more importantly, to energize interest in a rather unlikely candidacy -- a black short-term Senator from IL.

While blacks audaciously insist "he's not black enough," and progressives insist he's not utopian enough, and homophiles insist he's not homophile-friendly enough -- at least in some overt cases -- it suggests he's cognizant of not being in a position to be forthright black guy for president without significant alienation. If one views him with de-stressing the "stereotypes" to play to the great large masses -- e.g., the angry nigger who will screw the world up -- and sees instead an intelligent, thoughtful, almost pastoral healer of immense politically divisiveness, as I and others have come to regard him, he may be shrewder than the progressives think.

America, notwithstanding conservatism and progressivism, is inherently LIBERAL, and it wants a LIBERAL president. 70% of the American people are excluded from the electoral process by virtue of Repub/Demo nominating ideologues or incompetents. Obama is not my first choice, but he represents the best aspirations, assuming idle and spineless Democrats, retain Congress. Gravel and Dodds are superior, but ignored. Hilary guarantees a Republican president.

Democracy is messy compromise.

Brian,
Thanks for the detailed comment. It's now clear you are not saying anything different than other Obama supporters, although you are more articulate.
I have a couple of responses.
First, if you believe Obama believes in talking with enemies but Hillary does not, you are either deluded or lying.. and incidentally I'm guessing you just started reading Eripose recently. Take a look at his candidate comparisons on foreign policy. They are eye-opening.
Second, I find your criticism of Eriposte for lacking a direct quote criticizing Democrats for not being bipartisan enough unconvincing, to say the least. I find Obama supporters in this regard very much like people who complained that Bush never said "imminent threat". Well, he didn't, but his meaning was clear. Ditto with Obama.

Nice comment, Gay species.

Past 7 years? Where have the Obamabots been for the past 27 years? Does he think the reason Grover Norquist refers to bi-partisanship as date rape is that he was just too badly treated during the Clinton administration? Or was the roasting of Anita Hill fair game because of the roasting of that great fascist Bork?

I'd really like to know what examples the Obama fans are using to build their model that ALL Dems will stick together and support Obama if he becomes president as well as a number of Republicans. Heck, 80%+ of America opposed Bush and the Congress intervening in the Schiavo case. Another 70%+ opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Do these jokers have an explanation as to how Obama's strategy will make majority opinion more meaningful to Republicans? When is the last time this happened and what makes them think it will happen more frequently for Obama than the other candidates - ALL of whom have much deeper ties to the occasionally agreeable Republicans in Congress. I see him as being the least likely to be able to get anything done and probably the most unwilling.

I'd like to see some data that proves Obama has had extraordinary success gaining bi-partisan support in DC. He's just finished his third year in the Senate. How much legislation has he passed with generous bi-partisan support as opposed to the other candidates first 3 years in the Senate? If he is capable of doing what he says he can do, why hasn't he done it up until now? Or is it simply a statement that cannot be disproved by his record - or more precisely, his lack of record?

Some historical comparisons would be in order if the case was to be made. I think it's all bullshit and is entirely dependent upon people not questioning what Obama has actually done in Congress that supports his contentions. If being polite works, why hasn't he been able to advance more legislation up until now?

Nice Post eriposte. I've read majority of your posts here and your staunch clinton support is appreciated. I will vote for Clinton in Primary and will to any dem that is nominated. But if you look at polls today, lot of 'em predict clinton coming in third. If she comes in third, the media will kill her before the NH election and if she looses that, she is dead. I hope she is the ultimate nominee, but the way things are going, she doesn't look like the candidate for this year. My thinking is, Obama will certainly be better than any rethugs that are in the field now. We need to work towards putting a dem in WH rather than criticizing each other.

It's true that Republicans have been the obstructionsts all along. But this is no reason for Democrats to act the same way.

Huh? Don't see where Eri was proposing an obstructionist agenda. I've certainly seen some progressives suggest it, but certainly not here.

Saying that I don't believe that olive branches should be offered to criminal thugs doesn't mean I want to be one. Absurd logic that I assume was intentional to attempt to support your argument.

MarkL, what do you mean by this:
...Second, I find your criticism of Eriposte for lacking a direct quote criticizing Democrats for not being bipartisan enough unconvincing, to say the least. I find Obama supporters in this regard very much like people who complained that Bush never said "imminent threat". Well, he didn't, but his meaning was clear. Ditto with Obama.

Um, Eriposte's entire argument is basically that Obama is not a true progressive Democrat. Of course, nobody ever claimed he was. Eriposte also states, basically, that Obama's knocking the piss out of the Democratic Party by blaming them for the state of Washington and our Congress if not our world. Eriposte states that Obama claims that is our country's biggest problem.

This is false. Obama has NOT said these things. That's a fact. Eriposte is putting words into Obama's mouth. And you find that argument of mine "unconvincing," MarkL? So be it. Facts are facts, though. Obama has not said the things Eriposte is claiming Obama has stated. Obama did NOT say these things.

In other words, Eriposte is making this crap up through, at best, misinterpretation.

All Obama has done is talk about how he will govern if elected president. Obama did not blame the Dems solely for the problems, as Eriposte falsely claims. Obama did not absolve the Republicans of fault for the gridlock and attitude within the partisan politics of Washington, as Eriposte falsely claims. And Obama certainly did not claim this is the biggest problem we as a country face. These are facts. It's not open to interpretation. You can choose to ignore that, MarkL, but the truth remains that Obama has not said the things Eriposte claims he said. That's why there's no direct quote, because Obama did NOT say this stuff.

As I said before, where's Hillary's votes and actions on Bush and war in the Middle East? She's with Bush, her voting record makes her enabling role clear. Obama? He's against Bush's war and desired wars.

Obama? He's against Bush's war and desired wars.

And what's he done about that exactly? Other than saying it...politely...a lot?

Snark, he has introduced legislation requiring Bush to seek Congressional approval before launching any attack on Iran, which admittedly looks a bit more distant now than it did a couple months ago. But, it's still something.

What did Hillary do? Oh, yeah, she voted to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard terrorists and to basically give Bush an excuse to start bombing whenever he felt the need to do so. What did Hillary do about Iraq? Voted in favor of giving Bush all the authority he needed to attack Iraq. Indeed, the original Iraq and Afghanistan resolutions are so open-ended, they could arguably give Bush carte blanch to attack any country he wants to in the Mid-East. That's what Hillary has done -- literally enable Bush.

Which candidate sounds closer to your ideal of what a Democrat is supposed to be about? I can't imagine in the foreign policy arena that it's Hillary.

Stellar case you've laid out there Brian.

Obama has voted consistantly to keep funding "Bush's war".

Brian,
You're just lying now. It's one thing to have a polite disagreement, but when you say Hillary is "with Bush" on Iraq, you're crossing a line that will be noticed here at TLC.
Second, if you're going to be a literalist, then please show me where Eriposte claims that Obama solely blames Democrats.
I read "According to Sen. Obama, the biggest problem in Washington is that Democrats have shown themselves to be so unwilling to work with the Republicans ..."
So, please provide the quote to back up your claim.

Senate S. 970. Senator Barack Obama cosponsor it. Look it up.

Wow, Obama sounds like he's suffering from a case of Battered Democrat Syndrome from the serial abusers of repukes and the media.

He's so bought into the mentality and conventional wisdom that Democrat's are the problem in this country here and if and only if they are willing to work more with and reach out to the other side and with those whom they are being abused by things would miraculously improve. How sad is that! I really thought he was smarter.

He's sadly coming at if from the angle of the chronically abused...from one who questions their self worth and well being, and who just feels he'll get more love and things will be better if he just is willing to work harder with his abusers. Talk about perpetuating the cycle of abuse....Oh Good grief Obama...Charlie Brown never did get Lucy NOT to pull away that football! No wonder democrats are in such sad sorry state. My respect for him is not what it used to be...how disappointing...how naive

MarkL, you answered your own question. Where does Eriposte claim Obama solely blames Democrats? Right where you quoted it. Read it, again:
"According to Sen. Obama, the biggest problem in Washington is that Democrats have shown themselves to be so unwilling to work with the Republicans...

You want to get more exact than what I said? Fine, Eriposte only claims that Obama states that Democrats are the biggest problem in Washington, not the only or sole problem. I see no meaningful difference between the words "sole" and "biggest" in this context.

You're talking about the difference between "tomato" and "tomato."

What I am writing about is the difference between night and day, claiming someone said something when they never said something at all. It is a FACT, Obama has NEVER said Democrats are the biggest problem in Washington. Eriposte said that. Not Obama. Eriposte says Obama said that. BUT, Obama NEVER said that. Eriposte said that, Obama did NOT. I hope you see the difference.

As for being a liar in regards to Hillary voting on resolutions that Bush wanted for the Iraq War and in regards to policy on Iran, what did I lie about, exactly? Show me the meaningful legislation where Hillary voted against Bush's policies in the Mid-East. She has NOT done that. She has supported every piece of legislation Bush has wanted for his policies in the Mid-East. That's a fact, too.

I can't help it that Hillary Clinton voted to give Bush authority to wage the war in Iraq. I can't help it that she voted to label portions of Iran's military a "terrorist" organization, thus giving Bush all the authority he needs under previous resolutions to attack Iran if he wanted to do so. That may not have been Hillary's intent, but it's what she did. You can go look up the Congressional record yourself if you want on it. I'm not lying about it.

Brian, as far as I'm concerned, the ONLY thing you are doing is distinguishing between potato and potatoe. This is why I consider your statement about Hillary being "with Bush" on Iraq to be lying. She is not a supporter of the war---not any more than Obama, judging by her statements and her votes since 2003.
As far as the disagreement about what Eriposte claims that Obama claims, I have no problem at all with his analysis. Obama is describing how his Presidency would bring a change, and the KEY element will be his willingness to reach across the aisle. If that's what he's bringing to the table, then obviously that is what the Democrats lack now. The criticism is quite clear.

Snark, Obama's camp said their problem with Lieberman-Kyl, specifically, over Senate S. 970, is that Lieberman-Kyl blames Iran for acts in Iraq, thus giving Bush the excuse, if he wants it, to bomb Iran.

S. 970 did NOT blame Iran for terrorist actions in Iraq, it just labelled the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, it did not blame them for anything Bush could launch a war over.

It's a crucial difference.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton in an e-mail back in Oct. said it much better than I did on this whole matter of the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, the previous Senate S. 970, and Hillary's and Obama's previous votes on them and Hillary's vote on Iraq:
"It's clear that Senator Clinton can get irritated by questions about her Iran vote but the Lieberman-Kyl amendment does indeed make a case that military action against Iran could be a part of the ongoing war in Iraq. And in 2002, the vote to authorize war in Iraq was not a vote for diplomacy and inspectors. Senator Obama is focused instead on ending this war in Iraq, and preventing another disastrous foreign policy mistake."

The choice to me is clear as day. Hillary has, however reluctantly or however she wants to parse it, supported Bush's military actions.

Obama does not. Obama has learned from others' mistakes.

Hillary seems to repeat her mistakes.

MarkL, I'm being much too polite about this.

Eriposte's "analysis" is a LIE. Or, barring that, a completely faulty misinterpretation of what Obama has said. Okay. There. I've said it. I've tried to be polite, but you don't seem to get it.

Obama has NEVER SAID that "the biggest problem in Washington is that Democrats have shown themselves to be so unwilling to work with the Republicans and opposing interest groups..." Eriposte SAID that. Obama did not. Eriposte MADE THAT SHIT UP. Obama NEVER SAID THAT.

Really, Hillary supporters, and I include you, Eriposte in this, show me a quote from Obama where Obama says the biggest problem in Washington is Democrats. You won't find it anywhere where Obama said that, because it does not exist.

And, MarkL? I'm lying about Hillary's voting record? No. I'm not. Hillary has voted in favor of every god-damned resolution to further Bush's war agenda. That's a fact. You can claim otherwise, but it's true.

What this really is all about is Hillary's supporters are trying to paint Obama as not "progressive" enough. Well, guess what? Obama is NOT a "progressive," whatever that means. He never claimed to be. He is however a reliable Democrat and has voted as such. Hillary meanwhile has voted for the war. That's a fact. Hillary voted for the war.

She got it wrong once, and continues to get it wrong in that regard. You want to vote for her and think she is some kind of opponent of the war? Feel free to delude yourselves. Hillary represents more of the same in Washington.

According to NYT Hillary has worked with several old enemies on constructive projects:
Bill Frist -- automating health-care records
Rick Santorum -- restricting graphic media for children
James Talent -- tracking gulf war syndrome
Lindsey Graham -- expanding health-care services for the National Guard
Source:

She can work constructively to get some good things done with enemies who are not about to change their overall stance and become part of some new 'movement.'

Any Dem could and would do that, 1950democrat.

It's nothing earth-shattering to agree with a handful of crazed Repubs on those rare occasions they are lucid and off their meds for a few minutes....

Brian,
Eriposte is making a simple deduction from Obama's campaign pitch. Your pretend outrage is just as annoying as your pretend position that Hillary is a warmonger. Obama's CENTRAL message is that he can bring a new kind of politics to DC.
Let me take your criticism at face value, implausible as that is.
At Theleftcoaster, evidence-based criticism is highly valued. It's perfectly clear that Obama is criticizing Democrats for being too partisan. Conversely, where does he criticize Republicans?
He has praised many Republicans, including Tom Coburn, who is among the nuttiest wingnuts.
Where does he criticize the Republicans?

Brian,

I am glad that you sought to engage on the specific points I made. That said, I really don't have the time to re-educate people on voting records or provide lessons in understanding human communication. (You didn't start your comment with "Eriposte, I am hereby criticizing you" - does this mean you were not criticizing me? Of course not. People are allowed to make reasonable inferences based on context and history. So, let's dispense with the kind of absurd nonsense that you are hung up on.)

Let me make a few points and then I'm done because I don't have time to keep responding to people who have not read my posts carefully nor read my entire body of work on this election campaign.

You said:

Okay, I'll go with your primnary point here, which is, as you, eriposte, said:

According to Sen. Obama, the biggest problem in Washington is that Democrats have shown themselves to be so unwilling to work with the Republicans and opposing interest groups...

Not true. Way to put words in his mouth, eriposte. Where does Obama actually say this? He doesn't. You're making that up, eriposte, as are many anti-Obama critics.

Obama's talking about how to get something done as a president and, hopefully, with a Democratic majority in Congress. He NEVER said this was our country's biggest problem and he never said the Democrats' problem is that they won't work with Republicans. He's talking about how he would get something done with Congress, and he never said that the Republicans aren't part of the problem. Does it also imply some Dems are obstructionist? Yes, but what Obama said cuts both ways.

I'm not making anything up. You must be on Mars if you think these references are not to some of his Democratic opponents - he is running in the Democratic primary not in the Republican primary, in case you forgot something as basic as that. He was responding to criticisms from Edwards and other Democrats that he is too soft and conciliatory in comparison to other Democrats running for President. So, please spare me the abject nonsense about "putting words in his mouth". Just go read any of his speeches, for example this recent speech on his website:

At this defining moment, we cannot wait any longer for universal health care. We cannot wait to fix our schools. We cannot wait for good jobs, and living wages, and pensions we can count on. We cannot wait to halt global warming, and we cannot wait to end this war in Iraq.

I chose to run because I believed that the size of these challenges had outgrown the capacity of our broken and divided politics to solve them; because I believed that Americans of every political stripe were hungry for a new kind of politics, a politics that focused not just on how to win but why we should, a politics that focused on those values and ideals that we held in common as Americans; a politics that favored common sense over ideology, straight talk over spin.

He has plainly been saying that the divisive politics has been the biggest problem that has prevented us from solving the most significant challenges we face. Yet, he claims to be the person who brings to the table non-divisive politics - even though the vast majority of Democrats - including those who are running for President - have not in any way chosen to be divisive, and even though it is not because of the Democrats that Washington became divisive. When you couple that with his reference that "if you show yourself to be willing to work with those who don't agree with you" - a clear insinuation that the major problems in the past arose because the Democrats in power (especially those criticizing him) failed to show themselves to be willing to work with those they disagree with, anyone with an iota of brains can put two and two together. He also made a comment recently about Gore and Kerry (who are Democrats, by the way) - which I clearly reference in my post. Anyway, you can scream all you want about "putting words in his mouth" - some of us understand English just fine.

You said:

Moreover, three-quarters or more of your argument against Obama consists of quoting other people about Obama, instead of relying on his record or what he actually says.

I'm not sure if you are running for President of Stupid but there are no rules on the length of analysis one is allowed based on the quotes presented. Not to mention, I quote Obama at the beginning of the post. I quote him in the middle of the post as well. I provide links to previous posts of mine where I have analyzed his statements and records. Are you kidding me?

You said:

Who has supported Bush's war through their votes more -- Clinton or Obama? Clinton.

Don't you get tired recycling these talking points? Probably not. I've said this repeatedly in multiple posts, which you have of course probably never read. For example, here:

With respect to Sen. Obama's self-touted opposition to the Iraq war and how his "foreign policy experience" (for lack of a better phrase) has "helped inform [his] opposition to the war in Iraq", I see little evidence for this especially given that all of that Magnificent ExperienceTM didn't prompt him to block funding for the war or force a timeline based withdrawal from Iraq from 2004 through 2006*. Even in 2003, he was forced by the Black Agenda Report to republish his 2002 speech opposing the war on his U.S. Senate campaign website after they discovered it had been removed from the site and wrote that his campaign was largely non-responsive about their queries about the removal. Further, on more than one occasion, he gave the impression that he might have voted differently if he had actually been in the U.S. Senate at the time of the Iraq resolution.

And here:

IRAQ: Outside of Sen. Obama's prescient and commendable opposition to the Iraq vote/war in 2002, his voting record on Iraq has been virtually identical to that of Sen. Clinton - indicating that his actions on Iraq have been barely different from Sen. Clinton's. There are also no significant differences between Sen. Obama's vision and Sen. Clinton's vision on how they would deal with Iraq as President - the differences are arguably nuances.

IRAN: On Iran, despite Sen. Obama's criticism of Sen. Clinton's support for the toothless Kyl-Lieberman "Sense of the Senate" resolution, his support for a Bill earlier in 2007 that called for the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, his views on the threat posed by a nuclear Iran and on Iran's support for terrorism inside Iraq, and his views on the options he would consider using to deal with Iran, do not differ in any significant way from the vision of Sen. Clinton.

You said:

Which candidate introduced legislation to require Bush to come to Congress to approve any attack on Iran? Obama.

Clinton is the co-sponsor on another Bill that would do the same. Get your facts straight.

You said:

Which candidate states they want to talk to our enemies instead of threaten them? Obama.

Is this meant to be a parody? All candidates have said they would talk with enemies - only Obama said he would talk to the heads of states of Iran, North Korea, etc. unconditionally in the first year.

You said:

Who is the real progressive in this race, a Bush enabler like Clinton or Obama?

Well, why don't you do some real homework for a change and find out the real answer?

On top of that, you took some liberties yourself in trying to read my mind without reading my posts.

You said:

Eriposte's entire argument is basically that Obama is not a true progressive Democrat. Of course, nobody ever claimed he was.

Um, if you read my post, you will see it says:

So, I'm not going to sit around and continue to pretend that Sen. Obama's approach, beliefs and strategy are acceptable just because of his progressive voting record...

I have been pointing out Sen. Obama's progressive voting record forever in my coverage. This is what happens when you criticize me without knowing anything about my body of work.

Not to mention, you conveniently add:

Obama did not blame the Dems solely for the problems, as Eriposte falsely claims. Obama did not absolve the Republicans of fault for the gridlock and attitude within the partisan politics of Washington, as Eriposte falsely claims.

I made no such false claims except in your creative imagination. I never said he solely blamed Democrats - my problem is that he blamed Democrats at all (again he's running in the Democratic primary distinguishing himself from the other Democrats, not from the other Republicans), when the root cause of the problem is really the Republican party and the media, not the Democrats. His comments were intended to show him to be different compared to Edwards and Clinton - unless you have been in Mars the past few months. (I even gave a clear example of Obama-fan Tom Daschle who used the approach Obama advocates, only to lose miserably). If you can pick out all the statements (the "direct quotes" that you seem to be so very fond of) where I said he never blames Republicans, I'll be happy to correct myself.

You took the cake with this one:

I can't help it that she voted to label portions of Iran's military a "terrorist" organization, thus giving Bush all the authority he needs under previous resolutions to attack Iran if he wanted to do so.

As you know, Obama co-sponsored a resolution even earlier that labeled the same portions of Iran's military a terrorist organization. Not to mention that your inference is categorically false - so badly that nutjob Michael Ledeen was made to look reasonable by comparison. As for your deep concern about the Obama camp's spin regarding the implication of structuring Iraqi forces to counter Iranian influence - I've dispensed with that red herring here and here.

But Brian, here's what you wrote;

What did Hillary do? Oh, yeah, she voted to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard terrorists and to basically give Bush an excuse to start bombing whenever he felt the need to do so.

Slamming Hillary as an enabler because she handed Bush what he needed to attack Iran by calling the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Yet you won't criticize Obama for cosponsoring a bill that did exactly the same thing.

Get your talking points straight pal.

*applause*

Eriposte, that was a work of art.

Eriposte, your inference of the things Obama says is, basically, made up. I expected better from The Left Coaster. You guys attack Obama like the Right attacks dems.

Nowhere did Obama ever say the divisive politics are all the Democrats fault nor did he ever say it was the largest problem we as a country face. NOWHERE does he say that or even imply it. Like I said, you're making that shit up.

Their voting records on the war? There's crucial differences between Kyl-Lieberman and 970, but ignoring that, there's a HUGE difference in the record between Obama and Clinton.

Clinton voted for the war in Iraq.

Obama didn't.

It's that simple.

If she couldn't be trusted to get it right then, she can't be trusted to get it right now.

Real liberals everywhere understand this.

Anyway, it's almost all over for tonight. If it continues to go the way it is thus far tonight, the odds are against her now in New Hampshire and hereafter. In Iowa, I think it's just about time o stick a fork in her. She's done.

The outrageous things people are making up about Obama are something to behold: he's a "secret" Muslim and maybe a terrorist; he's not black "enough;" he's not progressive enough and he attacks Dems. The voters will see through it this time. I hope the Clintonistas are big enough to get it together and to support an African-American man for President.

Yeah, eriposte's stuff was pretty good too.

;)

Clinton voted for the war in Iraq.

Obama didn't.

But what has he done SINCE ACTUALLY BEING IN OFFICE. Why has he voted for every appropriations bill?

The outrageous things people are making up about Obama are something to behold: he's a "secret" Muslim and maybe a terrorist; he's not black "enough;" he's not progressive enough and he attacks Dems. The voters will see through it this time. I hope the Clintonistas are big enough to get it together and to support an African-American man for President.

Don't bring that stupid race baiting bullshit around here you twit. How fucking lame.

Obama voted on appropriations per the party line, like it or not. He is a reliable Dem.

Anyway, race baiting? No, I simply said, and I mean it sincerely, I hope the Clintonistas are big enough to get it together and to support an African-American man for President.

I don't think Clinton and her supporters are racist.

I don't think Clinton and her supporters are racist.

Just like to imply it?

Paul Siegel: Third, the reason the country is so polarized is that some Democrats are trying to act nastily like Republicans. Obama wants to stop the fighting, treat opponents with respect (are you positive you are right and they are wrong?), find common ground and solve festering problems.

That is totally delusional. The reason the country is so polarized is because the ReThugs have become radicalized. Jesus Christ, torture is now a mainstream topic!

I can't believe people being fixated on the size of Edwards' house. Did FDR live in a shack when the Depression started?

The Gay Species: homophiles insist he's not homophile-friendly enough

snort! funny after Obama threw Gays under the bus in South Carolina

I can't believe people being fixated on the size of Edwards' house.

Who's fixated? Judith said it means nothing to her. I said it doesn't mean nothing but certainly wouldn't keep me from voting for him. That's all.

Would it matter to you if John Edwards drove around town in a Hummer? At all? Just a little bit? Maybe not. But I find a person building a 28,000 square foot house for themselves tells me a little bit about their priorities. If you find that offense then feel free to be offended.

obama does use right wing talking points ie calling Edwards a trial lawyer for example

Having read over this thread -- and still undecided on who I'll vote for -- it seems clear just from the tone that Brian would prefer to vote for Obama, but would gladly vote for Hillary if she were the nominee. I'm not so sure about the Obama haters. You guys seem to be attacking Obama with as much relish as you would Rudy Giuliani. Guys, Obama is still ten times better than any Republican candidate.