One good thing about Obama is that HIS campaign has never woke me out of a sound sleep with a phone call.
Hillary for President has, 3 times and counting.
That last glass ceiling is proving to be a real bitch!
TIKI AL,
Can you tell me what time the call came in and what the message was?
Thanks.
Posted by eriposte at February 3, 2008 12:12 PMWell, TIKI, it's not Hillary's fault you fell asleep in front of Days of our Lives! *smirk*
eriposte's right, though, we should all try to log these calls and hopefully get a fix on who's really doing them.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 3, 2008 12:25 PMHe's not a Progressive. He's a moderate Republican.
Whoopee.
I agree with you eriposte, but good luck on trying to convince Obama supporters or independents on your thesis. I'm afraid that Obama is another one of those inkblot candidates that some Americans just love. I've seen this before with Ross Perot. A number of voters read into Perot what they WANTED to hear. I remember hearing on NPR two supporters of Perot. One was a man who worked for Bobby Kennedy, while the other had worked for Reagan. I couldn't help but think how surreal that was. A Kennedy supporter and Reagan supporter on the same page? RIGHT! It wasn't until Perot continued to open his mouth that his more liberal supporters could no longer stay on the River DENIAL.
Obama is saner and smarter than Perot, so the inconsistencies between Obama's record and words will probably not be noticed by progressives.
Oh, and I am not some Hillary supporter who likes to gleefully bash Obama, in case anybody was wondering. I was an Edward's supporter.
Posted by merlin1963 at February 3, 2008 12:59 PM" persistent tendency to pander and say what he needs to say to get elected" yeah, eriposte, that's a real odd characteristic for a politician...and certainly Hillary has never done anything like that. Honestly, you've become a bit shrill as the race has tightened.
Posted by T2 at February 3, 2008 02:08 PMThe Nation has this interesting piece from a Chicago writer about Obama:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/hayes
T2,
I thought that Hillary was being criticized for not pandering, by voting in favor of Kyl-Lieberman rather than against as the netroots wanted her to vote. By not rejecting NAFTA outright like the netroots wanted her to. Like not stopping fundraising from PACs/lobbyists like the netroots wanted her to.
Not sure who is shrill here but the point is not whether someone panders. All politicians pander to some degree. The issue is that Saint Obama claims to be the one who doesn't - who doesn't say things to get himself elected. I have a campaign flyer from him that says these exact words: "Obama believes that we can't just tell people what they want to hear, we need to tell them the truth". That's as bald-faced mendacity as it comes (see, that's shrill, not my polite post!) Trust me, you haven't seen shrill from me yet.
Posted by eriposte at February 3, 2008 04:07 PMWith all due respect to Mike McIntire of the New York Times, the reporter who authored the article about the nuclear legislation, I would like to see or hear an actual tape of that statement. It just doesn’t ring true.
The language Mr. McIntire quotes in his article just does not make sense:
“Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was ‘the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.’”
“I passed”?? Legislators don’t use that language. As every 8th grade school student knows, the House and the Senate “pass legislation”.
Legislators typically use the term “propose or sponsor legislation” and for those hangers-on who want glory by association, the term “co-sponsor legislation” is used.
It is hard to believe that any legislator is so illiterate as to say she/he “passed legislation”. Seems to me that if those words were uttered by him it was a slip of the tongue brought on by too many campaign nights of getting four hours of sleep.
And nobody is so reckless as to try to intentionally pawn off a dead on arrival bill as something they passed.
I don’t have a dog in this fight just yet, but honestly, this story looks like a tempest in a teapot triggered by a tired tongue.
Posted by J Parr at February 3, 2008 04:14 PMSomething is rotten...when the netroots support a candidate who is the opposite of the type of Democrat they say will support...a fighting Democrat...So...either there are elements...lurking within that are carrying out a strategic campaign designed for the susceptible liberals..or it is happenstance. I tend to think it is long term strategy...Obama raised too much money too soon..from questionable sources and sources that cannot be traced. But I blame the Democrats, who had their best chance in years to defeat Rethugs...and instead are fracturing, not uniting under Obama's dangerous influence. This will have long term consequences. Move On will be discredited..all the liberal morons like Kennedy and Kerry...and the liberal elites...all ignoring everything...everything..including common sense. And all the liberal blogs...
Obama is running a cynical campaign like clockwork...Even the polling must be questioned. I never thought I would despise Democrats...whether the weak Senators who have caved on FISA...(we must wonder what is going on...have they all been wiretapped? are they facing threats of prosecution?) Meanwhile, those that are fighting against FISA are supporting an Obama, who would go along as well. Obama is no fighter...that is clear from his record. So what are these liberals thinking? What is wrong with this picture? Mass brainwashing?
If Obama can run a Harry and Louise ad and get no pushback, then something is terribly astray. Imagine if Hillary ran such a false attack ad? I just don't understand why Hillary isn't pushing back with more clever ads...juxtaposing Obama's different positions..and then adding, "leap of faith?" Flip flopper?
Posted by lily15 at February 3, 2008 04:52 PMI also think the blogs have been infiltrated with paid operatives...I wish we had some people writing about the how to in mass brainwashing , propaganda, disinformation, etc. There is a method to this. There are black arts and I wouldn't put it past anybody to engage in it. Just listening to Feingold on what FISA authorizes is frightening. And the mass media controlling the flow of information...and the blogs helping the effort by supporting the turncoat candidate...just amazing.
Posted by lily15 at February 3, 2008 04:56 PMThink about it...Move On and the blogs is in alliance with Ben Nelson and other conservative Democrats who have voted with Republicans on important legislation...There is something wrong with that picture...very wrong. And add to that, the media is completely against Hillary. It's just too convenient.
Posted by lily15 at February 3, 2008 04:59 PMShorter Eriposte:
Obama = Clinton, with Obama being less honest about being the corporate-owned shill that Hillary clearly is.
Which still doesn't give me a reason to support either of them....
Posted by Tampa Student at February 3, 2008 05:37 PMExcellent point! A look at their respective resumes helps clarify reality:
http://thedamedomain.blogspot.com/2008/02/please-submit-your-resume.html
Posted by Jane Becker at February 3, 2008 05:39 PMFuck the Clintons.
By the way, eriposte, you and the rest of the Left Coaster staff could save a lot of time when posting diaries ripping Obama by stating the same thing as I did only toward Obama, "Fuck Obama," and leave it at that. It'd save you a lot of time and be just as intelligent and well-reasoned as your current diaries on Obama.
By the way anyone notice the Maria Shriver endorsement Obama picked up, or that Obama is now within 2 points in California according to the Field poll? (The gold standard for polls in California, always right.) But, I guess, being a propaganda site for Hillary and all, we wouldn't want any intelligent political analysis going on here.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 3, 2008 05:48 PMAny chance at progressivism ended when Edwards exited stage left.
Wha...you think Mark Penn's Girl is gonna go to bat for progressive causes?
Bwahahaha! Good luck with that.
Posted by RAM at February 3, 2008 05:56 PMHere is a 4th artilce from commenter at TM:
Coal Fuels A Debate Over Obama
Democrat Stuck Between Industry and Environment
By Alec MacGillis and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 24, 2007; Page A01
"He was trying to throw a bone to the southern Illinois coal interests . . . and was surprised when people started saying, 'What the heck are you doing?' " said Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch. "That's a rookie mistake for a presidential candidate, to think you can get in the middle of a controversial issue and no one will notice."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062301424.html
Another nice post, eriposte, thanks again. You can tell by the increasing volume of the whining by the usual suspects, they're beginning to realize that Obama is not the saint they want him to be; he's just another mendacious politician saying whatever he needs to say to get people to vote for him. As usual, they're kicking Toto for pulling aside the curtain, rather than blaming the fake wizard pushing and pulling the levers.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 3, 2008 06:11 PMYou know what? I sure don't know whether Obama will be a very good president. However, with Obama, given all that we have heard and seen so far, and given the way that regular people, young and old, men and women, of all races and social background, are getting engaged (for at the end of the day, we are all accountable for the kind of people that we allow to get into government), it looks like the country may be able to repair its soul and rejoin the family of nations.
Unfortunately, no such hope exists with Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, I have to agree with Stephen Zunes when he writes on the "dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency":
Though an overwhelming majority of Americans, according to public opinion polls, believe that human rights should be a cornerstone of American foreign policy, Senator Clinton has repeatedly prioritized the profits of American arms manufacturers and the extension of Washington’s hegemonic reach in parts of the world. Similarly, a Hillary Clinton presidency would simply be a continuation of the efforts by the Bush administration to undermine the UN Charter and the basic international legal framework in place for much of the past century. Historically, it has been the right wing of the Republican Party that has opposed international legal restrictions on the activities of the United States and its allies to advance America’s hegemonic agenda. Now, however, the front runner for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination also shares this view, indicating a clear break with the internationalist and law-based principles espoused by such previous Democratic leaders as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. Indeed, Senator Clinton’s notions of what constitutes the legitimate use of force by the United States are so extreme, she would – if elected – likely become the most aggressive-minded Democratic president since James K. Polk.
The coming primaries and caucuses will test whether the Democratic Party can make a firm break with the hegemonic, unilateralist, and militaristic agenda of the Bush administration, or simply pursues an only somewhat nuanced version of the current dismissive attitudes toward human rights and international law that amounts to little better than Bush Lite. - LinkPosted by Gene at February 3, 2008 06:32 PM
There's something very fishy going on, and I can't for the life of me figure out why so many progressive bloggers don't see it. Or maybe they see it and have decided to ignore it. But suddenly, the very same Corpress we've been waging war against lo these many years, is now trusted by these very same people.
My good buddy ms in la, over at CCN (Clark Community Network) posted about the seemingly orchestrated ever-growing line of Republicans praising Obama. She has a much better way with words than I, so I will post the 2 links and hope you will all take the time to check them out.
Frank (Ugh) Luntz on Maher show tonight
Today's Republican for Obama Chronicle
Posted by jen at February 3, 2008 06:34 PMGene,
Obama and Clinton have an extremely similar voting record in the Senate. I will have a post up tomorrow talking about AUMF because, as is typical with many progressives who love to hate Clinton, her record on it is not the caricature that people like Zunes portray it to be. Russ Feingold - not exactly a war-monger given his opposition to AUMF, voted like Sen. Clinton in opposing the Levin amendment due to the concern that it would cede US power and interests to the UN. Susan Rice and Samantha Power - two of Obama's close foreign policy advisors - are active advocates of the use of military force to address human rights issues around the globe. What I see here is the typical Clinton Double Standard - the Internet has just made it a lot easier for me to identify those who rant fact-free and those who are real thinkers. Zunes doesn't fit the latter category.
Posted by eriposte at February 3, 2008 06:42 PMRe. Dr. Zunes.
And yes, I listened to Rice recently on Real News and watched Power's interview with Charlie Rose. They both sounded reasonable to me as a layman.
Susan Rice - Samantha Powers I - Samantha Powers II
Posted by Gene at February 3, 2008 07:26 PMOops! That's "Samantha Power".
Posted by Gene at February 3, 2008 07:35 PM...they're beginning to realize that Obama is not the saint they want him to be...
Not at all. All politicians are flawed because they are human and constrained by the arena in which they play. The issue is putting Clinton under the same glaring light you cast upon Obama. It simply doesn't happen. That is the real issue. No balance, just corporate-shill type reportage and analysis.
Feingold didn't support Levin? He must not have read it either. Rather than supporting Clinton's vote it just points out that Feingold can also do stupid things.
In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon
And Clinton's primary advisor, Mark Penn, worked for Blackwater. I wonder which one of these is more sinister? And each of the wonderfully bolded sentences has a relevant Clinton analog, often many more than one since she has 35 years of experience at perfecting the art of spreading her legs and whoring for the corporate lobbys.
Too bad someone who believes that balance in research and reporting are important when presenting a story isn't available for this post. Then again, we are not dealing with anything close to reporting or balance here. We are being presented with Yellow Journalism the likes of which William Randolph Hearst or Fox news would be proud. Write on, Margaret.
Posted by phidipides at February 3, 2008 08:14 PMeriposte:
I feel like I keep making the same observation. But as long as you keep making the same argument, I guess I have no choice.
I am not defending Obama. I largely share your concerns about him. BUT...I find your attempts to distinguish Hillary to be almost laughable.
Hillary has hardly been the "fighting Dem" over the past 8 years. She has largely sat back and let Bush and Cheney go nuts while she bided her time for '08.
What I see from Hillary is someone who is considerably savvier than Obama (i.e. she knows that you don't run as a centrist in a primary and you don't make easily debunked claims). But I don't see someone who is any less calculating, phony or praising of bipartisanship.
Yes, her health care plan is better than Obama's. But she basically buried her "signature issue" for 15 years. Then she waited until Edwards came out with a plan that pointed towards Universal Health Care. Months after he did so and was not pilloried for it, Hillary was brave enough to follow suit. That's not leadership. That's being a weather vane.
The issue is putting Clinton under the same glaring light you cast upon Obama.
I couldn't agree more.
Posted by space at February 3, 2008 08:44 PMPhidipides,
I am sorry you decided to discount the fact that I have explicitly called out Hillary's relationship with Mark Penn in more than one post in the past and even criticized it. I am not required, in every post I write about Obama, to reproduce everything I have previously written about Clinton or anyone else.
You are a longtime reader whose readership and comments I have always appreciated, even if we don't always agree. So, I am naturally disappointed that you would choose to use words like "spreading her legs", "whoring" and "yellow journalism". I guess we will agree to disagree on your consternation about my using the limited time I have to devote to blogging to defend the record of Clinton and reveal some facts about Obama - in a mostly polite manner - even though Clinton has gotten the worst coverage in the media and blogosphere and Obama is treated like he walks on water. I am not the media and I'm not here 24/7 trying to provide "fair and balanced" coverage that satisfies your whims or anyone else's.
Posted by eriposte at February 3, 2008 09:01 PMSpace,
It is entirely legitimate for you or anyone else to question Hillary's leadership and whether or not she is a "fighting" Democrat. I have never asked any reader to support Clinton and I have my reasons for why I call her a "fighting" Democrat. In part it is her history, that traces back to her days in the White House. Just to give you one example, she did fight for universal healthcare before people like Edwards and Obama were even talking about it and when she was beaten, she didn't give up and fought and helped get SCHIP through. She did not hesitate to fight back the concerted attack by the right wing in the 1990s. She, unlike Sen. Obama, has actually taken an interest in funding progressive infrastructure through her support for CAP, Media Matters and so on. When the right-wing media declared war on the left-leaning blogosphere last year, it wasn't Sen. Obama who went to defend the blogosphere that loves him. It was Sen. Clinton who dispatched Wolfson to defend the blogosphere that loves to hate her. Just a few examples.
Any descriptors used for any of the candidates is relative. When I say she is a "fighting" Democrat, it is obviously in relation to Sen. Obama, who goes out of his way to point out he is post-partisan. I am hardly arguing she is either perfect or a saint. On the contrary, I'm simply trying to point out that the Saint is just another above average politician like Sen. Clinton. I have called out Hillary's attempts to bridge across the partisan divide and that she and Obama are not that different overall in multiple posts - in case you missed them. I can hardly be expected to keep regurgitating the content of my earlier posts in every new post.
So, we seem to be talking past each other a bit.
eriposte: I have picked up(the phone) and talked to young sounding females 3 times. I looked at the caller ID and it read "Hillary for President", so I answered "You are preaching to the choir, call someone you can convert." They were polite, thanked me for supporting Hillary, and didn't say anything weird or even ask for money. I think they were genuine campaign workers.
All calls were between 10:30 AM and 5:30 PM.(I sleep at odd times-long story)
While we were gone, 6 more calls registered "Hillary for President", but did not leave a message, I think because I have it set at 8 rings.
Our Superbowl guests just left, all were for the Giants(more against the Pats than for the Giants), so they had a good time.
We thought our local American Idol winner, Miss Sparks did a fantastic job with the National Anthem. I liked Tom Petty, also. Thank God his wardrobe stayed in place.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 3, 2008 09:32 PMLet's see, Feingold voted against the AUMF and against the Levin amendment, and Hillary voted FOR the AUMF and AGAINST the Levin amendment (i.e utterly and completely in favor of Bush's Invasion with no restrictions or firewalls).
And eriposte tries to makes out of these votes that Hillary is sort of the same as Feingold because they voted the same on the Levin Amendment? Is that what you're going to write tomorrow?
This is getting ridiculous---when you refuse to simply acknowledge that Hillary was a bare faced Bush war enabler you have left reality, sorry. You may not like it, but you're stuck with it, in an intellectually honest world anyway.
And you think Obamans are refusing to see the negative traits and failures of their candidate. I'll look forward to your view of Clinton on Bush's War tomorrow. Perhaps we'll see that Hillary "really" opposed it!
Posted by euzoius at February 4, 2008 04:59 AMlily15,
How sad I agree. Something is seriously wrong. My mother thought it's misogyny-based (I don't doubt that it plays a factor), but the systemic level of cooperation by the powers that be strikes me as overtly political. Perhaps Krugman is right: if universal health care is passed it'll usher in progressivism like the New Deal did; undermining Social Security undermines progressivism. I'm not exactly sure what policy issue is the trigger, but I'm convinced Obama is a Trojan horse designed to divide the left and co-opt it into a right-wing frame.
All his supporters would do during an Obama administration is feverishly justify, rationalize any policy or action and call it "progressive." What better way to undermine the progressive movement than hijacking it? What better way to ensure the inevitable rise of the conservative movement once again than put an inexperienced, ego-driven, complicit "bipartisan" in the White House right as a recession is about to hit? I'm afraid the right is already working on shifting all the blame for every Bush disaster onto Obama and progressives. And we're handing it to them.
I don't think Hillary ever had a chance against this. And I say this as someone who was an ardent Edwards supporter who's been shocked at how he's been completely cut off by the press and the establishment.
Posted by Nathan at February 4, 2008 05:49 AMThe issue is putting Clinton under the same glaring light you cast upon Obama.
Jesus H. Christ! Every newspaper, tv show and blog is digging through her underwear drawer and repeating every rumor ever manufactured about the Clintons, and ignoring even the slightest whiff of wrongdoing on Obama's part, but that's not enough, is it? Talk about groupthink. It's like watching Christianists go after non-believers.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2008 05:52 AMBrian Bell,
Why don't you counter the argument with an argument than a pathetic attack? I don't understand why Obama supporters are still so rabid: everything is going your way and yet you're still paranoid to the point of reflexively demonizing whoever may question your candidate without bothering with the issues at hand.
For those who think there's a double standard at this site: The Left Coast dares to apply basic scrutiny to Obama while the rest of the blogosphere and the entire media engage in knee-jerk bashing of Clinton on baseless charges (with rare exception) while failing to ever hold Obama accountable.
Naturally, this site is going to focus more on Obama since he's the one getting away with murder. This is the same thing that happened with Bill Bradley: his fans were rabid and they hated Gore with such intensity they would see any criticism of Bradley, no matter how legitimate, as absolute betrayal. Honestly, it's almost as if this is the left's version of Rush Limbaugh listeners.
Posted by Nathan at February 4, 2008 05:55 AMBut she basically buried her "signature issue" for 15 years. Then she waited until Edwards came out with a plan that pointed towards Universal Health Care. Months after he did so and was not pilloried for it, Hillary was brave enough to follow suit. That's not leadership. That's being a weather vane.
Or a politician smart enough to know when to deploy tactics.
Posted by bartcopfan at February 4, 2008 10:12 AMTrying to find policy differences between Clinton and Obama as president is a pointless exercise, especially when you factor in the meat grinder of Congress. Pointing fingers is equally unproductive, as anything can be dug up on any politician. The differences between them are in style and rhetoric. Clinton is combative, Obama is inclusive; Clinton fights, Obama inspires. I think it's high time to give the latter approach a chance. We could certainly use the millions of Obama-inspired young Americans to help push a progressive agenda.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 4, 2008 10:43 AM