I am honestly confused about whether to support Obama if he becomes the nominee. Despite some earlier frustration with the progressive movement and contemplating a spite vote, I know that I would never be able to pull the lever for McCain. I really don't like the idea of 4 or heaven forbid 8 more years of Republican damage to the country and our Constitution.
My fear is that a "unity" candidate like Obama (who will still have the label liberal or progressive) will fail, spectacularly, to meet the (outsized) expectations of whatever crossover he would actually get in the GE. I think that many progressives will be disillusioned as well.
Where will that leave the progressive movement then? Will we end up wandering even longer and further in the wilderness?
Why am I so pessimistic? MoveOn.org's memberships vote to endorse Obama, even though it was Clinton who spoke up in support of MoveOn while Obama skipped the vote (or didn't vote, I can't remember right now). If supposed progressives support someone before the GE who doesn't support them, I fear that they will still get behind that same person when he does something really anti-progressive.
Not sure that all makes sense. I haven't had my coffee yet.
Posted by SeaMBA at February 29, 2008 07:15 AMNow is the time to be confused. Support the candidate you feel most comfortable with. Once the candidate is chosen, I'd be grateful if you can explain to me what rational alternative you can suggest.
Can a Democrat be "not progressive enough" compared to McCain and THEIR Republican movement?
Posted by DeminNewJ at February 29, 2008 07:31 AMI think I can supply a just-published article on Obama's actual voting record. This may aid you in whether you want to vote for Barack Obama or not.
It was issued by San Francisco's alternative daily called "BeyondChron." Issued on February 27, 2008. The article is by Matt Gonzalez, and is very well written.
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413#more
It is not pretty, this political record of Barack. As a matter of fact, it looks downright non-Democratic. Non-progressive. Non-"main street."
I may even daresay that his record, statements, and actions look, smell, and sound Rethuglican.
Before I experience brick bats from the Obama-anians, read the article in completeness.
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413#more
It provides an extensive chronology on his voting record, and what he has said. For if one cannot determine how a person thinks and acts (and how they may behave in the future in their thinking and acting--by what they say, and what their voting record is, and what their behavioral trends are--what can one make judgements upon?
Here is the URL link.
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413#more
Afte reading this article, and pondering it, I have made a decision that I will not be voting for Obama in the primaries. I will be voting for Hillary Clinton.
I would like people to post their reactions to the content of this article here.
This is what political discourse is about. This is what the American people need to make accurate and informed decisions.
Uninformed Decision Making Electorate = Totalitarianism (that in part--outside of the cheating by Rove--brought us Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Feith/Cambone/Wolfowitz/Rice/Pearle/Gonzalez/all their ilk)
Posted by Troubled American at February 29, 2008 07:32 AMGood article Troubled American.. though I'm sure that's not his entire voting record. I think there is a diary entry on democraticunderground.com where a Pro-Bama member had a slightly longer list of his votes (though the list seemed to be short of the votes that make him look bad.)
Posted by Jolly Sapper at February 29, 2008 07:51 AMIt doesn't matter anymore what you all think of Obama. Latest polls show him leading Texas. Hillary had to win there and Ohio by at least 60-40. If Hillary wins TX and OH and it's close, Hillary loses. If Obama loses TX and OH and it's close, Obama still wins. Now, it looks like he might take Texas outright, and he's closing in on Ohio. This thing is over, and Hillary's not the winner. You all need to get used to the idea of an Obama candidacy if you intend to vote Democratic.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 29, 2008 07:55 AMDeminNewJ, Thanks for the question. My question is less about the next 4 years and more about the next elections and the elections after that. It is the question of whether it really makes sense to win this battle but end up loosing the war. Loosing this war to me would mean that the outsized hopes that Obama carries with him fail to become reality. Even if what he does manage to accomplishes is good, if he fails to bring the promised unity and progressive progress at the same time, that is loosing the war. To win he has to create unity by bringing new people and keeping new people to truly progressive values. Unity is not simply compromising.
If McCain is elected, I fully expect him to further make a mess of things, further discrediting conservative ideas. And setting up the progressive movement for a long and successful run.
Hillary lawsuit? God help us...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/29/13538/8353/691/466106
Posted by cajun at February 29, 2008 08:03 AMNow, if Hillary (or Obama, for that matter, or any Democrat) only *acted* like a progressive as well as talking big, maybe something could be accomplished. Unfortunately, being progressive doesn't serve their favorite corporate benefactors' needs, so it ain't gonna happen.
If all it took was grassroots enthusiasm, we'd have a different president right now, and the present one would be in chains in the Hague. But the Democrats are afraid of their own farts, much less having the balls to stand up for ANYTHING.
Unfortunately, Kucinich being out, I'm either not voting this time, or voting for Ralph.
If you want change, don't vote for the people who have consistently been voting against change. That sort of makes sense to me, but not you boys, apparently.
Posted by Michael at February 29, 2008 08:06 AMOfficials: Clinton aides threatened lawsuit over Texas caucuses
The Texas Democratic Party warned Thursday that election night caucuses scheduled for next Tuesday could be delayed or disrupted after aides to Hillary Clinton threatened to sue over the party's complicated delegate selection process.Posted by Seven of Six at February 29, 2008 08:32 AM
Is it not pathetic and revealing that the writer has to beg for no hate mail simply for writing positively about Clinton?
Isn't it long past time for thinking adults to recognize what this means about Obama, his campaign's strategy, and his constituency?
Posted by at February 29, 2008 09:27 AMIn contrast, one of the things that I respect immensely about Sen. Clinton is that she gets it - she really understands what it takes to build the progressive movement even if she does not necessarily agree with the movement on everything.
Is this in contrast to the 50 state strategy, people-powered ground game, and one million donors of Barack Obama?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 29, 2008 09:38 AMSeaMBA, we are guaranteed to lose the war if we don't try. Conservatism and the Republican Party almost literally can't get any less popular than they are now. Our time is now.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 29, 2008 09:43 AM(I have also attended Obama events - no hate mail, please).
(I am not saying that the Obama team does not have a similar understanding - no hate mail, please.)
(Obama also was at this forum, no hate mail please.)
The Obama supporters deny their aggressive behavior towards Clinton supporters, but I have never seen comments of preventive deterrence aimed at Clinton supporters. And I have never felt attacked by Clinton supporters.
BTW, I am an Edwards Democrat and am not thrilled by either Clinton or Obama.
Posted by hells kitchen at February 29, 2008 09:49 AMHillary also said on Nightline last evening that she doesn't pay attention to polls.
What a baldfaced LIAR.
Or Mark Penn has been paid millions (from you suckers' wallets) for nothing.
Posted by RAM at February 29, 2008 09:55 AMIt doesn't matter anymore what you all think
Yes, Brian, you've made that quite clear. Which is why I started doing more research on Obama, and discovered he's not what he pretends to be, and what's worse, his followers don't care.
You all need to get used to the idea of an Obama candidacy if you intend to vote Democratic.
And this is why I'm moving towards not bothering at all, because I'm sick of being told what to do by you and by the Dems, who are in the process of capitulating on FISA yet again.
after aides to Hillary Clinton threatened to sue over the party's complicated delegate selection process.
You were saying about "timing" in an earlier thread, SoS? Funny how easy it is to believe (or more importantly, spread around) unsourced accusations when they're against Hillary, huh? Like Somerby says "We are all Drudge, now." Woohoo!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 29, 2008 09:57 AMIf Hillary Clinton gets it, it's because she's been reading the blog about how Obama has energized a lot of people to come out and vote and get involved.
I'm waiting for next Wednesday's excuse.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 29, 2008 10:13 AM"no hate mail, please"
Standing from afar--"netroots progressives" are sounding and looking more and more like schoolyard bullies. Have you gone to the school of Newt and Tom Delay? Possibly you don't even know who those men are.
I have never voted for a Republican but I want nothing to do with the "progressives' attitude" I see all over the comments sections of the same blogs I cheered (and donated to) for the '06 off-year elections (Hooray, we won!).
Doug Wilder, Virginia, has predicted a 1968 style Democratic Convention, with mayhem in the streets, if "progressives" don;'t get what they want.
I want the liberals back, "progressives" are crazy.
Funny how easy it is to believe (or more importantly, spread around) unsourced accusations when they're against Hillary, huh?
I posted a link to an article from McClatchy Newspapers and blockquoted its lead paragraph... yet, to you it becomes unsourced accusations.
Look coyote, I can't help it if you hate the treatment Hillary is receiving... when she was leading by double digits she said she could "handle the heat in the kitchen".
What a way to mess up the coronation eh?
Posted by Seven of Six at February 29, 2008 10:25 AMyet, to you it becomes unsourced accusations.
People in the article refusing to be named. But okay, sorry, I forgot, we're now believing unnamed people in the news. Carry on...
Posted by iamcoyote at February 29, 2008 10:39 AMPeople in the article refusing to be named. But okay, sorry, I forgot, we're now believing unnamed people in the news. Carry on...
Jeez, if the Left can't trust McClatchy Newspapers we are really fucked.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 29, 2008 10:56 AMShe not only reads blogs regularly, but her experiences at the hands of the GOP led her to support entities like the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, not to mention mount a strong defense of free speech at blogs like Daily Kos (anti-Clinton central during this primary) and conferences like Yearly Kos on Bill O'Reilly's show.
I'm certain you mean that her campaign went on Bill O'Reilly's show, not Hillary Clinton. It was a very good step, but the only candidate who went on O'Reilly's show to defend Yearly Kos was Chris Dodd. You can see Dodd's appearance here.
Posted by Matt Browner Hamlin at February 29, 2008 10:58 AMIt's simultaneously hilarious and pathetic witnessing this site rationalize it's opportunistic endorsement of Hillary.
At least Steve Soto seems to be on the road to Realityville.
Posted by RAM at February 29, 2008 11:00 AMThere are 2 articles circulating about the Texas elections. One is by McClatchy: (http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/510802.html) and the other by AP: (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8V3PNAO0.html)
Only the McClatch article includes the "unnamed sources" quotes and it totally changes to tone of the article.
Posted by w2 at February 29, 2008 11:08 AMJeez, if the Left can't trust McClatchy Newspapers we are really fucked.
If it's for profit, it can't be trusted. At least that's what we used to believe. Now if it's for Obama's benefit, it's a trusted source, even if it's Drudge. Neat, huh?
It's simultaneously hilarious and pathetic witnessing this site rationalize it's opportunistic endorsement of Hillary.
I think it's hilarious how you've gone from "Edwards is the best there is" to slurping the "hope" from the guy who's been dissing Edwards on the stump.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 29, 2008 11:20 AM...slurping the "hope"...
Like an anal chug?
Posted by snark at February 29, 2008 11:29 AMNow if it's for Obama's benefit, it's a trusted source, even if it's Drudge. Neat, huh?
Don't read Drudge, never have, never promoted a thing he has said... but somehow if you're an Obama supporter it's all inclusive, right?
Just lump me in with the dkos babblers coyote... how kind of you.
I'll be really glad if we don't have a continuation of the bu$h/clinton dynasty... and I'll be really glad if we have a Democrat win in November.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 29, 2008 11:38 AMI think Brian is like many Obama-anians...they fervently want "groupthink" to take over, and they want "that woman" to go away....
I think that what's very saddening is that polls really don't account for much--the only polls that count are on primary day in the states that are holding them. One can point to a crapload of polls and interpret them anyway one wants to.
And how accurate are these polls, anyway? I have had to deal with putting together medical studies in my employment, and so I am very much sensitized to the pitfalls of using statistics, particuarly those kind that are derived from asking people questions. If the questions are wrongly worded, or coached in leading terms, or having the actual questions that are of interest put into the complete series of questions in the wrong place, all these errors will skew the response results.
Which is why I ignore all the polls. Journalists are usually clueless on how to interpret or ask the appropriate questions on how polls polls were conducted, and whether they were conducted correctly.
(A stopped clock is right twice a day; a malfunctioning clock can perhaps be right once a day. But the Obama-anians, as well as the MSM would tell you "But the clock tells time! Therefore, and ergo, it tells the correct time!"
Not really.
Only one poll is sufficiently accurate. Just one. (So long as Kathleen Harris of Florida or Blackwell of Ohio aren't involved.)
The one where the voters go to the polls.
The Obama-anians that I have read comments from do have a "cult of perosnality" issue, I think. (Not all, but a significant number.) This guy Obama tells people what they want to hear. And plays on unfulfilled/postponed gratification issues that people have.
I'd like to see an in-depth study about how many people who actually have voted for Obama up to this point have actually done their homework, and looked at his voting record--both in Illinois, and in the US Senate. And not merely voted him "because he's won a string of caucases in X number of states in a row" or "he's ours" or "he sounds like JFK" or "there's a national poll (whose, please? How was it conducted?) that says he's leading McCain, and Hillary isn't leading McCain right now" or "he's got mocha mojo" or "he's cute" or "he gives great speeches (yes, so did Ronald Reagan)" or "I felt emotionally uplifted by what he said" or some other illogical reasoning.
I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of persons who have voted for Obama don't have a clue about his voting record.
Read this URL link. I described it earlier:
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413#more
The MSM is a powerful tool in which those in power make the attempt to FORCE down everyone's throat "manufactured consent" based on actually nearly zero data. And the Obama-anians are probably good examples of those people who are influenced by the info-tainment environment in which we live. "Just go with the flow!"
Not this Troubled American. It is telling a Pro-Obama supporter who was on I think it was cable TV was asked to describe some achievements Obama has had while in political life (I am paraphrasing the content here). The person couldn't come up with a single one. This may have been actually been on this website here, or crooksandliars.
Well, I live in Western PA, and even though my primary isn't yet scheduled, I live close enough to the Ohio border to get on TV all of the political ads. NOT ONE of Obama's ads tells you anything. He engages in bromides, and says obvious things. He keeps saying the word "change," but not really defining how that "change" is going to come about. He talks about how Washington needs to be fixed. But not "how" he will "fix Washington." And he also doesn't EVER describe how he will pay for his proposals.
It's important for a thinking (even if I am very troubled) American to ask, "where's the beef?"
At least Hillary Clinton's ads talk about the pathway to get things done, and how things may get paid for that she proposes to do.
I don't want to have a choice between "McOld" and "McOld Lite": Barack "Tastes Great and is Less Filling!" Obama.
There has to be a real Republican (we now have three still in the race: Huckabee the theocrat, McOld "Let's bomb Iran!/We're going to stay in Iraq 50 or 100 years/I don't know much about the economy", and Barack Obama) versus a real Democrat (the one that is still running is Hillary Clinton).
Problem is, Barack Obama is running on the Democratic ticket.
I myself was going to vote for John Edwards, but he dropped out. So I have been doing my homework on both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
We need someone to fight for us, the majority of the people who live in America. Not someone who gives speeches about fighting for us, but with a voting record of caving in to special interest, corporatist, and other pressure groups.
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413#more
Posted by Troubled American at February 29, 2008 12:09 PMInteresting article, Troubled American. Some of it bothers me and some of it doesn't. I'm a Clinton supporter and I'm finding more and more reasons to be troubled by Obama. His not being progressive enough isn't too troubling for me, as I'm sort of just left of center myself, but his words and actions not matching does bother me. People say Clinton triangulates, but Obama does too. All politicians do and it's necessary at times, but I don't like the way Obama's "bringing people together" to reach an agreement waters down our side so much.
Posted by CG at February 29, 2008 12:35 PMTroubled American, I heartily agree that the only polls that count are the ones where voters go. Obama has won 11 of those polls in a row...
Posted by T2 at February 29, 2008 01:40 PMThe progressive blogs are a lost cause. They're all in for Obama, and there's no reason to enter their snake pits anymore. A President Obama will be able to sell us out on health care and everything else before you'll hear a peep out of them. We're going to have to find other places for independent thinking if he's elected.
Posted by cygnus at February 29, 2008 02:13 PMCygnus,
Get over yourself.
Posted by at February 29, 2008 02:26 PMThe "uniter" that divides us. Just like Bush.
Posted by Sharon at February 29, 2008 04:00 PMCygnus,
Do you have any ideas on those places for independent thinking? I am frankly desperate.
Posted by at February 29, 2008 04:18 PMT2,
Let's see what the results of next Tuesday brings us.
And that will tell me, and everyone, whether people are voting on emotion alone, or whether they really have attempted to research what the candidates' voting records are.
Just tonight, the effort of the MSM to manufacture consent was much in evidence--on the Lehrer news hour, Lehrer brought up ONLY the scenario of whether on Tuesday Hillary Clinton loses. I never saw them entertain the concept if Barack Obama loses, what the fallout might be.
Most curious.
Posted by Troubled American at February 29, 2008 05:37 PMMatt,
You're right. One of those days when I was rushing my post as I was heading out.
Posted by eriposte at February 29, 2008 05:59 PMthe article was interesting troubled american and contained a lot of stuff i've read for a while since i actually follow chicago politics. what i find interesting is that so far, obama fans haven't commented on the actual content of the article. i would love to hear someone explain obama's positions that are contrary to progressive interests on each of those issues without trying to villify hillary clinton. people seem to have a hard time understandig that she has nothing to do with his positions.
Posted by kacey at February 29, 2008 06:13 PMI asked 3 male chauvenist pigs in the last week if they would vote for Hillary Clinton or Richard Simmons.
Not only would all 3 vote for Simmons just to keep "the little woman" out of the White House, they would TELL their "old lady" to vote for him too.
Should this be a new poll category?
I demand an exit poll this Tuesday of all barefoot and pregnant women who happen to be sporting shiners.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 29, 2008 06:33 PMTIKI, you always make me laugh!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 29, 2008 07:38 PMAnd that will tell me, and everyone, whether people are voting on emotion alone, or whether they really have attempted to research what the candidates' voting records are. - Troubled American
Shorter Troubled American: "People who don't agree with me are lazy and uninformed!"
There are perfectly reasonable and logical reasons for someone to vote for Barack Obama, TA. Besides the issues, though, it is also perfectly reasonable to take into account that a candidate is inspirational. That quality brings votes and political capital, good for getting elected and passing an agenda.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 29, 2008 11:40 PMCA Pol Junkie,
If you are voting (or have voted) for Obama (I take it you live in CA), tell us why you did so.
Did you vote for him because of his "inspirational qualities"?
Or, did you vote knowing what his voting record was?
Let's ask this question directly: Did you know about his voting record, prior to going to the polls to vote in your state?
Please enlighten the throngs here.
It would be most instructive.
Posted by Troubled American at March 1, 2008 09:09 AMFor the Obamanians's sake, I hope they have a better pick up line than "Baby, you're as dumb as shit and I'm victorious, so let's fuck!"
Posted by Blue Jean at March 1, 2008 10:23 AMIf you are voting (or have voted) for Obama (I take it you live in CA), tell us why you did so.
1. I have an aversion to political dynasties, so Clinton would have an extra-high hill to climb for me.
2. Obama's opposition to the war before it started showed two things: he has good judgment, and he has a spine. Supporting the war would be the easy thing to do for someone who aspires to higher office (like John Kerry).
3. I want a campaign which will compete everywhere and build the Democratic Party.
4. I don't want to go back to the politics of the 1990's. I think Obama's collaborative approach will be more effective than Clinton's combative approach, even though Republicans are a*******.
5. Obama has charisma. That helps bring people to support his policies.
Did you vote for him because of his "inspirational qualities"?
Not so much because he inspires me, but he does inspire others (see #5 above).
Or, did you vote knowing what his voting record was?
His voting record is that of a solid progressive, in spite of the Clinton campaign's efforts to spin it otherwise ("present" etc.).
Let's ask this question directly: Did you know about his voting record, prior to going to the polls to vote in your state?
Yes, of course.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 1, 2008 10:00 PMBy the way, if you're wondering, I'm Ralph Nader's vice presidential nominee! Just in case you're wondering if I have a bias.
Posted by Matt Gonzalez at March 1, 2008 10:10 PM4. I don't want to go back to the politics of the 1990's. I think Obama's collaborative approach will be more effective than Clinton's combative approach, even though Republicans are a*******.
LOL! Yeah, good luck with that one. Anybody who gets the Dem nod will automatically get an army of Rep enemies, even if he (or she) is a saint. Me, I'd rather have somebody who knows how to fight and THEN negoiates, instead of somebody who automatically rolls over and invites the Reps to kick and bite and demand even more.
Posted by Blue Jean at March 2, 2008 10:35 AMMatt Gonzalez, Are you Troubled American?
Posted by Seven of Six at March 2, 2008 12:09 PM