Another continuation of 'cut and paste' posting.
Let's talk issues (for once) and stop the 'finger' pointing.
Perhaps the most important issue in our debate relates to which candidate can actually enact our common progressive agenda. Clearly, our government is paralyzed by special interests whose goal is to see that nothing really happens; nothing of worth does happen. At least of worth to regular folks.
Special interests, lobbyists, PACs, and Chinese and Gulf state banks run our government - the people do not. Any disagreements there?
The fact is that Sen. Clinton is the BIGGEST recipient and conduit of lobbyist and PAC largesse in Congress. Period. In either party (source: FEC).
Sen. Obama's plan for curbing special interest-induced paralysis of our democracy is as follows:
(1) Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters bu creation of a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.
(2) Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules by using the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated.
(3)Support Campaign Finance Reform by financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system.
(4) Create a citizen-based fundraising network until legislation can be passed. At present Sen. Obama is fortunate to have about 1.5 MILLION independent contributors to his campaign.
Posted by tfitznc at April 20, 2008 12:42 PMSadly, I don't know how Hillary can surpass Obama without "stealing" the primary. As a fiscal conservative, I think Hillary's the most conservative candidate left running and I prefer her over Obama or McCain. But I think she's toast.
I wouldn't dismiss Obama's chances in the Fall, though. Remember, the Democrats have a hard time getting the youth vote to show up. And here's a guy in Obama that energizes the under-30 crowd. This will be huge, IMHO.
McCain fails to energize the Republicans, who view him as left of center. I don't think he'll beat either Democrat.
On Bill Clinton, many folks are wondering why he seems so off the reservation lately. Here's an article about the after-effects of heart surgery.
One of the savviest politicians of our generation, known for his wit, charm, and calm under extreme pressure, Bill Clinton appears out of character in the speeches and interviews televised since his bypass surgery September 6, 2004—and his mental deterioration may be accelerating. Remember, this is the president who withstood public impeachment before the entire world for his relationship with Monica Lewinski without once losing control. Now, he is easily angered by hecklers, and makes factual mistakes and racial slurs while aggressively defending his wife’s campaign for presidency. Everyone sees his mental and emotional decline, yet to date, no medical professionals have spoken out about the cause or offered help.
Check it out. It's a big failing of our medical establishment not to point out and acknowledge the risks of heart surgery.
Posted by Muck at April 20, 2008 12:42 PMTFT: I agree with you that special interests run the show. That's true for all the candidates. It's easy to campaing for "change," but when a candidate gets specific, they come under fire. McCain is coming under fire today for saying he wants to cut earmarks, and then when he starts rattling them off, cages get rattled. In otherwords: It won't happen.
We have a government of the status quo. As I've mentioned before, it's probably not the worse thing. But I know it flies in the face of those who are hoping for change when it comes to enviromental policy, military policy, health care policy, etc. One only has to take a look at what happens when somebody mentions "universal health care" or proposes a new nuclear power plant.
Forget it. It's tough to get things done. Too much opposition.
Posted by Muck at April 20, 2008 12:48 PMI heard that John McCain isn't really American, that Congress on Thursday last week, passed a resolution granting him US citizenship--because, like, dude was born in Panama. RNC just now notices the old fart isn't legally elible to run for President?
Well, come to think of it, most of Congress are Martians; and Bush and Cheney are mastodons from the Planet shithead.
What is going on in this country....oh, never mind. I meant to say, what is going on in this banana republic?
Add to that, now Chelsea Clinton is gay.
Posted by Tami at April 20, 2008 12:50 PMAt present Sen. Obama is fortunate to have about 1.5 MILLION independent contributors to his campaign.
And how many of those just happen to be married to lobbyists or are spouses and/or employees of "special interests?"
BTW - Those $millions of bundled contributions are being wasted flooding PA with ads. Obama will lose by 10+
Good investment.
Another continuation of 'cut and paste' posting.
Do you by chance have a blog of your own where we can see how it is done the right way?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize.
Posted by myiq2xu at April 20, 2008 12:57 PMHillary Clinton is not a progressive. She said as much to a group of fundraisers in March 2008. Senator Clinton bashed Move on .Org by citing their Progressive politics which she said she disagreed with them on. Remember Move On started as an organization to defend Bill Clinton when the right wing impeached him wile he was president. Indeed the Progressives in this country fought to save Bill Clinton during his impeachment.
As is the way with the "Clintons" especilly Hillary they throw good "friends under the bus as necessay for their personal gains. This particular quote of hers has not gained much traction this week end, not nearly the "bitter" gaffe from Obama. For me this is revealing of the Clintons, I am a progressive I always knew they were not. The "base" of the Democratic Party just got mud in the eye from Hillary and the crickets are chirping here at the Left Coaster.
Move on as Hillary said in her fundraiser has gushers of money too bad Hill doesn't.
Can't wait to see those Move on Ads with her comments slamming Progressive Democrats. That should make her electable tell the super delegates this one LOL
Barack Obama is a progressive? LMAO!
I see today that Obama said that McCain is a better choice than Bush. Maybe rm forsyth could explain to us all What Obama Really Meant?
eriposte..keep up the good work..it is quite apparent to me as of late that using any form of reason with the obama people is quite the waste of time..they acknowledge nothing negative about him..it is a trait that will be disasterous for them either now or later....i am not sure what many of them believe him to be..he certainly isn't a liberal or a progressive..i really don't know what he is..he actually is a little like bill clinton was..plays to all depending on the situation..i think the problem is his support..the very loud left wing side of the party...which barely exists anymore other then in 527's like move on...they are not a factor in the general election..they do however wreak a lot of havoc..but they won't get him elected president....i believe bill clinton was a good president who had to run in the middle after ronald reagan..barack obama has a lot of kids..ultra liberals..and the aa vote ..but an 8-2 margin...it won't be enough in the ge..blue collar whites are gonna go the other way...but don't tell them that ..cause barack all he has to do is brush it off his shoulder...with a smirk..
Posted by dennis at April 20, 2008 02:17 PMThe "base" of the Democratic Party just got mud in the eye from Hillary and the crickets are chirping here at the Left Coaster.
Many of them are Pelosi/Reid/Clinton Dems. That should explain what you need to know.
Not to worry! eRi-stephanopolous is on the job! eRi-stephanopolous'ses massive cut-n-paste of flawed statistics and race-baiting blogs from which he paraphrases the thoughts of others as eRi-stephanopolous' own thoughts will soon arise in support of the centrist candidate...uhhhh progressive candidate...uhhhh libera...(Fuck!!! eRi-stephanopolous can't say liberal because Shillary said Obama was too liberal)...I mean...eRi-stephanopolous will look into this. eRi-stephanopolous will be all over this! Wait...wait...here we go...eri has put down the flying fickle finger of fate debate thread...here it is!!!
eRi-stephanopolous:"Obama looked at Clintoon and said 'Pull my finger, bee-atch!' Quelle horreur!"
...chirp...chirp
Posted by phidipides at April 20, 2008 02:32 PMThis is from the John Judis article about Obama's electability, linked in eriposte's commentary: My emphasis added in boldface, if I have done the HTML correctly:
Many white working class voters in these states used to be loyal Democrats. The last two successful Democratic presidential candidates, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, swept Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. Many of these voters have always been highly patriotic, church-going hunters who were skeptical about the benefits of trade and immigration and--what Obama did not mention--black political assertiveness. But they still distrust Republicans as the defenders of business and look up to Democrats (or at least some Democrats) as being more in tune with average Americans like themselves.
It would appear that Judis, whom I've read for many years, is implicitly making an argument against "black political assertiveness". What then is one supposed to conclude? That no black Democrat can win with the white working class in the states mentioned? Sad. And sad that Judis seems to be making that argument. And sad that eriposte seems to think it's a good argument. Not racist--I'm not getting into that silliness. Just sad.
Judis went on to argue that a Democrat can only win the white working class vote if the GOP candidate is "unacceptable" (whatever that means), or if the Democrat fits into one of these categories:
The Acceptable Democrat: The Democrats have sometimes run candidates in these states who are sufficiently moderate on guns, abortion, and religion to neutralize the Republican appeal on these issues...
Neither Clinton nor Obama has made radical statements about gun control. Clinton, not Obama, has been the candidate more obviously staking out what one might call a "feminist" position on access to abortion. Religion? Evidently both are Christians and have neither hid this nor flaunted this. So what's the basis for thinking one is more electable than the other on these grounds?
The Empathetic Democrat: The Democrats have run a candidate who can connect with these voters in spite of his or her beliefs on abortion and guns...Sometimes, voters will think a candidate cares about them because they think he is "one of them." Bill Clinton, of course, was a genius at this...
Guess what? An African American can never, by definition, be "one of us" to a white voter. So this seems to be a nice "argument" why the Democrats just should not put forward a black candidate.
Hillary Clinton knocking back boilermakers with a bunch of guys in a tavern: that's what it takes to win their vote? Are we now looking for a candidate like Dubya: someone we'd like to share a beer with? Geez Louise.
I don't mind eriposte going on about what s/he thinks about electability. I don't mind Clinton making the argument herself. After all, it's hard to see how, barring some Obama scandal erupting, Clinton has otherwise got much chance to overtake Obama in the delegate count. Let's just bear in mind that any "electability" argument I've ever heard revolves around gross demographic generalizations.
Finally--geez louise, it would sure be nice to read more stuff in the blogosphere (whether Clinton-centric or Obama-centric) that would just put the resentment and bitterness on the shelf somewhere and get on with substantive political discussions. eriposte used to do this up until a few months ago, before endorsing Clinton. Now eriposte seems to be incapable of writing anything without a stream of vituperation directed at Obama.
phidip..i've asked you before..but you never answered..are you an academic?
Posted by dennis at April 20, 2008 02:50 PMphidipidies..i only ask cause you're sooo smart..and you cut and paste so much faster and better then anyone else ..even eriposte ..and you do it with links to boot....so cool....
Posted by dennis at April 20, 2008 03:38 PMaxelrod today on russert...hillary's tenure as first lady ...they have maintained was not relevent to any form of experience related to the office...funny how he went to great length to note her involvement in the nafta negotiations..
Posted by dennis at April 20, 2008 04:03 PMI see today that Obama said that McCain is a better choice than Bush. Maybe rm forsyth could explain to us all What Obama Really Meant?
I think he meant that McCain is a better choice than Bush. I have to agree. For my tastes he's not dissimiliar enough from Bush, but I do think, to a slight, slight degree, that he is better. For one thing, he doesn't appear to be on a mission from God.
Posted by Bailey at April 20, 2008 04:15 PMHal
Barack Obama did not slam the Progressives, Hillary did, The Democratic Party can and does contain democrats of different views who have the same core values. Hillary slammed Progressive Democrats, which leave me the answer to your second question. Hillary slammed Barack Obama her fellow Democrat saying John McCain would make a better Cammander in chief and was more "ready to be President than Obama. Hillary is ready to throw the Democratic party under the bus if she doesn't get the nomination. Perhaps, Hal you could quote specificaly and not out of context the Obama, Bush quote your so in love with. Anything against the democrats will do for you. I on the other hand was hoping and working toward a win for the party this Nov. slamming the progressives doesn't quite do it. Talking against Move on is a Republican talking point don't cha know???? sheesh! If it wasn't for Move on fighting during the impechment and mounting a battle with congress she would have been the wife of an impeached president.
Yes, I will have butter on my popcorn.
What's that?
Obama has released a statement attacking Hillary for a statement she released attacking him. Oh boy, another round of "can you top this identity politics!"
Posted by Bagley at April 20, 2008 05:04 PMWhat is progressive about a candidate who doesn't have a decent health care plan and who looks down the nose on working people? If these comments reflect the average blog reader, we really deserve the arrogance, mean, hateful, misleading, empty Obama. Enjoy.
Posted by koshembos at April 20, 2008 05:26 PMBitter with nothing to cling to.
Posted by onar at April 20, 2008 05:46 PMI heard that John McCain isn't really American, that Congress on Thursday last week, passed a resolution granting him US citizenship--because, like, dude was born in Panama.
Heh... I heard that Obama is from Africa!
No, really Tami, anyone born in the Panama Canal Zone is considered a U.S. citizen. His father was stationed in Panama. His father ended up being a full Admiral in the Navy. His Grandfather was a full Admiral in the Navy. The only father-son full Admirals in U.S. history.
So when Senator John Sidney McCain III tries to say he was not born to priviledge, he lies, the silver spoon has always been touching his mouth.
OMG, I find myself agreeing with Muckdog for once!
Posted by Seven of Six at April 20, 2008 08:05 PM..are you an academic?...
I'm your huckleberry.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize.
And those who can neither do nor have any room to criticize post on other's blogs. Amazing, huh?
Posted by phidipides at April 20, 2008 08:24 PMAh! So that is why you poston this blog?
Posted by jwrjr at April 20, 2008 08:40 PM""Two, maybe three days ago, universal health care was a pillar of Democratic policy, and common ground between the two candidates. And now, according to Stoller, for one candidate the policy has fxxxxxg crumbled into nothing. You might think that might give Stoller pause, maybe even make him rethink his support, maybe make him stop at the brink… But no! Stoller’s in the air!
If I had to guess, I’d pick global warming." h/t corrente
Wonder what else Barry Obama will give away.
Posted by peter at April 20, 2008 08:48 PMwhy, johnny ringo! you look like somebody just walked over your grave.
Posted by dennis at April 21, 2008 06:29 AM...why, johnny ringo! you look like somebody just walked over your grave...
You're no daisy! You're no daisy at all. Poor soul, you were just too high strung.
Posted by phidipides at April 21, 2008 09:49 AMThe "base" of the Democratic Party just got mud in the eye from Hillary and the crickets are chirping here at the Left Coaster.
As a long time Move On member, I'd hardly call my organization the "base". Even if we were, half of us voted for Hillary. We don't care what she said. We remember when she voted against censuring us for the "Betray Us" ad, while Obama was *ahem* conveniently absent. We'd rather have a candidate who may criticize us, and who's willing to spend political capitol to defend us ,than somebody who's too worried about his political future to criticize anyone--or help his friends.
Posted by Blue Jean at April 21, 2008 11:25 AMEven if we were, half of us voted for Hillary.
I'm a member as well and don't remember the vote coming out that way: The vote favored Senator Obama to Senator Clinton by 70.4% to 29.6%.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 21, 2008 11:37 AMthere is no normal life wyatt..just life.....a great performance and a great movie..one of my favorites...love the exchange in latin..
Posted by dennis at April 21, 2008 12:30 PM