Saint ObamaTM must certainly rank high in the list of the most shamelessly hypocritical Democratic politicians to ever run for the Presidency.
Among ALL Democrats, that is a huge list. How are you able to isolate to one person?
Posted by jj at February 7, 2008 06:20 AMObama's hypocrisy really worries me because people hate a hypocrite. I think John McCain is the front-runner because whether you agree or disagree with him, he hasn't been hypocritical--at least not much. Despite her reputation for triangulation, I don't think Hillary Clinton is hypocritical. But Obama seems more and more hypocritical to me. People can excuse or accept some "ickyness" from anyone, as long as it's not hypocritical. More and more things are going to come out about Obama that show he's not all unity and love. And you know, it's ok that he's not because we want someone to fight for us, not just give in to the other side. And we want someone who can stand up to the republicans during an election, even if that means sometimes you have to be a bit unpleasant about it. And I think he's somewhat capable of that, but it wipes out his whole uniter theme and makes him look bad.
Posted by CG at February 7, 2008 06:55 AMFor me it is very simple. Any person who says they want to unite with the Republicans, reach across the aisle to the Republicans, work with the Republicans, is a person I would NEVER vote for. Hello. We have just gone through the worst fucking seven years in my life with regard to politics, and any candidate that thinks they can work with Republicans has learned absolutely nothing. If you want to work with the Republicans, then switch parties. Jeez!
Posted by Judith at February 7, 2008 07:13 AM"If Saint ObamaTM accuses his opponent of doing something, it is because he is doing the same thing - only a lot more of it."
The verb could just as well have been "being"...as in "Bush-lite", "divisive" yadayadayada...
eriposte: You are an amazing writer. Thank you for your thoughtful, concise and informative posts.
Posted by FNelson at February 7, 2008 07:21 AMWe have just gone through the worst fucking seven years in my life with regard to politics, and any candidate that thinks they can work with Republicans has learned absolutely nothing.
Then you must have a real problem with Clinton being the center-right candidate. I know, IOKIYAH. It's OK If You're Hillary.
...calculating, poll-tested....
Depends on how the poll results are used and the data collected. If the poll results help refine your message or allow you to know where you should target your message, what is the problem? It's Clinton's changing her message that is the problem. You know, like how she supports torture. You should also look at what Clinton did during the 93' healthcare debacle and why Obama's comments about being correct out of the box are so salient to this election.
I really like the way the author of this piece links to their own flawed analysis to support this flawed analysis. Pretty telling.
Posted by phidipides at February 7, 2008 07:31 AMFlawed analysis? Clinton doesn't support torture. You're lying.
Posted by MarkL at February 7, 2008 07:36 AMin principle, I understand your point, Judith. However, that assigns us to never-ending partisan bickering and the resultant poor governance, or no governance as it is now. I think part of Obama's appeal is that he is holding a ray of hope out there that maybe with the right leadership, something can change for the betterment of the entire country. You can call him a dreamer, or a charlatan and he may be that. But you can bet that Clinton will not be the answer to partisan politics. The country is desperate to get out of the mess we are in. 80% want a change in direction from the way the country has been run for quite a while and Obama, frankly, is that hope. It may be a false hope, but for many, it's obviously the only hope they see. Desperate times sometimes need desperate solutions, a leap of faith.
Posted by T2 at February 7, 2008 07:46 AMWe have just gone through the worst fucking seven years in my life with regard to politics, and any candidate that thinks they can work with Republicans has learned absolutely nothing.
Phid's got a point though. Both Hillary and Obama are saying the same thing. Given, this is something one needs to say in order to get elected, but doesn't this leave you without a candidate, Judith?
Posted by MaskedVigilante at February 7, 2008 07:50 AMYou know, like how she supports torture.
Torture is never acceptable.
Unfortunately, a large segment of our fellow citizenry doesn't see it that way. Especially when you ask them if they'd rather let a "ticking timebomb" explode and kill them and their neighbors or torture a known terrorist to find out where the bomb is hidden. It's a stupid question meant to do one thing; entrap the respondant into an answer that can be spun to create drama and discord no matter how they respond.
Which is how it's being used here.
Posted by snark at February 7, 2008 08:00 AMFunny, Phid the untruthful mentions 1993 and health care. In fact, Hillary refused to compromise on mandates, which she felt were essential. She stood on principle, rather than triangulate.
Would you expect Obama to be as resolute? Of course not.
It's a stupid question meant to do one thing; entrap the respondant into an answer that can be spun to create drama and discord no matter how they respond.
True dat. It's a trick question.
WHAT IF TERRORISTS STRAPPED A BOMB TO YOUR DOG?? WOULD YOU TORTURE TO STOP THAT??
"Yeah, with my bare hands. But..."
Headline: MASKED VIGILANTE SUPPORTS TORTURE.
"No, because he's likely to say anything if I beat him enough, so..."
Headline: MASKED VIGILANTE IS A GIANT PUSSY.
Which is why Hillary's refusal to engage in stupid hypothetical questions (at the debate) was the brilliant move.
Let me see. You are an honest broker of even-handed reporting, right?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 7, 2008 08:24 AMMASKED VIGILANTE UNCOMMITTED ON TORTURE! FLIPFLOPPER??
Posted by iamcoyote at February 7, 2008 08:26 AMJACK BAUER SURPASSES MASKED VIGILANTE IN POLLS!!
Posted by MaskedVigilante at February 7, 2008 08:37 AMSay, it seems to me that someone who describes the opposing candidate as the "the most shamelessly hypocritical Dems ever to run..." and mocks him as Saint ObamaTM has no intention of ever voting for such a person under any circumstances.
Fair conclusion?
And of course as phid sensibly points out, you have no idea what Obama is spending his "polling" money on---it could be what's the best approach to convincing people of your long held position or message. Or learning about the reactions and views the electorate has of your opponent(s).
Simply comparing spreadsheet dollars spent on "polling" seems like simpleminded claptrap and poor methodology, unless one wants to simply "score" some point.
Posted by euzoius at February 7, 2008 09:08 AMHeadline: MASKED VIGILANTE SUPPORTS TORTURE.
Headline at TLC: OBAMACANS TORTURE DOGS WITH BARE HANDS!! more below the fold by eriposte
It's a trick question.
Yes, it is. That's why Obama said torture is never acceptable when responding to it. It was a trick answer.
euzoius - phid, sensible?
OBAMACANS TORTURE DOGS WITH BARE HANDS!!
Today must be comedy day.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 7, 2008 09:44 AM...you have no idea what Obama is spending his "polling" money on---
Just like you have no idea what Clinton is spending less "polling" money on.
Posted by snark at February 7, 2008 09:49 AMPhidipide, I am not happy with either candidate. In fact, right now I am disgusted that these two are our candidates. I am not for either, but I will vote in the fall, holding my nose as usual.
Posted by Judith at February 7, 2008 10:26 AMdoggies, e'rip
that's layin' the wood to the saintly lad.
MaskedVigilante yes, it leave me without a candidate. If anyone believes that the Republican Party will work with the Democrats, then they love illusions. The days of reaching across the aisle and working with the opponent are over, unfortunately. The days of back slapping and compromise for the betterment of the Country ended when Bush was chosen as our pResident. It was replaced with power, greed and corruption. I don't see it changing anytime soon either.
Posted by Judith at February 7, 2008 10:45 AMPhidipide, I am not happy with either candidate.
Neither am I, Judith. I've held my nose for more elections than I can count, and will do so again with this one. That's what reasonable folks do. Look at the warts, look at the good stuff, know you're getting little of what they promise, and hope it all works out for the best.
But Judith, there is a high point to all of this. Something of which we can both be very proud. We ain't republi-cons! There is always something to celebrate.
Posted by phidipides at February 7, 2008 11:17 AMHe may be a hypocrite, but he'll beat McCain...something the shark-jumping Left Coaster endorsers of Hillary can't claim.
Posted by RAM at February 7, 2008 11:41 AMeriposte, this is really, really obvious spin. Absolutely nobody who follows politics closely (100% of the visitors to this blog) is going to be the least bit persuaded. I suggest that you remember that as a self-appointed spokesperson for Senator Clinton's campaign, what you say reflects not only upon you but upon her. Spewing venom and persuading nobody is not effective at helping your candidate in the primary, and it is counter-productive toward attracting Obama supporters to work for Clinton in the fall.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 7, 2008 12:52 PMPhidipides, AMEN!
Posted by Judith at February 7, 2008 02:11 PMYou folks are really getting scared aren't you?
You attack Obama for spending more on Polls? Is that all you have? Wow!
I'll say it once again. We support Obama because he will crush John Mccain and Mrs. Clinton will barely beat him or loose. The greatest issue of this campaign is Iraq and Clinton has no way to argue with John Mccain. They voted the same way.
Clinton fans need to begin to acknowledge that she is in an uphill fight and very likely will lose the nomination to Obama. She needs to lose with style and not hurt our chances in november.
Posted by Ericl at February 7, 2008 03:41 PMEricl,
It was, apparently poll driven, Barack Obama who was "attacking" Hillary Clinton over the use of polls. I suppose the nuance of the post was lost on you.
As far as Iraq goes I, and most of the rest of the electorate are more concerned with the future of the war than with the past. That being the case there's plenty of sunshine between Clinton and McCain on the issue and not so much between Clinton and Obama.
Posted by snark at February 7, 2008 04:46 PMas the first poster said, hypocrisy is a problem in elections as is flip flopping. we have the misfortune of having obama's flip flopping on video as well as his hypocrisy. no politician is free of it, the problem is that he is THOUGHT TO BE free of it. he gets the most favorable media coverage out of everyone FOR NOW. If he is the nominee, everything that is reported on him in the blogoshpere will be in the national spotlight, his halo will come crashing down, and this little tidbit of information as well as others will GUARANTEE mccain gets the white house. american voters know pretty much EVERYTHING about mccain and clinton. they know next to nothing about obama, and the more they know, the less appealing he will be. how is a democrat with the most liberal voting record in the senate who's trying to "reach republicans and independents" going to explain that? he can't, and they along with conservative democrats will vote for mccain instead. remember, democrats got the congress back in 2006 BECAUSE OF conservative democrats, not despite them. the blinded obama supporters need to spend more time studying and understanding american political history because i'd hate to be in the position as i was in the last election of democrats UNDERESTIMATING republicans and saying once again, I TOLD YOU SO.
Posted by kacey at February 7, 2008 06:34 PMSo you believe Obama is a hypocrite and Clinton who hedged her bets on war votes that involved the flesh and blood of american troops just so she could get elected is a Saintly? Let me see Cuba, NAFTA, Iraq and Iran votes, yep lets hold a ceremony and you can place the halo on her cranium.
Posted by jesse at February 8, 2008 01:33 PMjesse
you DO REALIZE that Obama voted TO FUND THE WAR FIVE TIMES after saying that he would NEVER FUND IT. I don't blame him for it because it's really easy to say OUTSIDE of washington, what you'll do. But the reality of actually being on the INSIDE, is something different. But to pretend that he didn't vote EXACTLY THE SAME as Hillary Clinton once he got to washington is a sign of delirium.
I don't recall saying Hillary Clinton, had a halo. Unlike you, I'm an educated voter who has spent enough time around politicians growing up so that I 'don't believe the hype' I believe their records instead.
Posted by Kacey at February 8, 2008 05:45 PM