Turkana, don't forget the first thing he said to pander to the right wing was about decisions about laws about late term abortion being best left to the states. And this guy is a progressive?! Oh that's right, we can throw women under the bus, too!
F**k that!
there was much in the interview i didn't like, but i'm no fan of the purple america schtick. but this was an attempt to reach out to a demographic he's having trouble with, so i understand the rationale. i just found that particular quote particularly ironic, given how much daily kos has been subject to change....
Posted by Turkana at April 27, 2008 09:29 AMI think that it Obama is speaking to the general electorate in his interview; not to you or me. He understands the demographics and is trying to expand on his independents and cross-overs.
As political scientist Alan Abramowitz stated recently (Ambinder. 4/25/08): "...In order for John McCain to win, Republicans not only have to unite and turn out their own base, which they have been fairly successful at doing in recent elections, but they also have to win a large majority of the small bloc of true independents and make significant inroads among Democratic identifiers, which they have not been very successful at doing recently."
Obama is trying to be a uniter while practicing defensive politics for the GE as well.
He may also be trying to neutralize Sen. Clinton's 'chuminess' with right-wingers Murdoch and Schaife.
Posted by tfitznc at April 27, 2008 09:39 AMtfitznc: When politicians do this (esp. when named Clinton) it is called pandering.
But this is called hope and change and a new kind of politics when done by others. ahh progressivism!
And women's rights be damned!
When politicians of any stripe do "this" it is called 'winning the general election'.
Obama has been very clear upfront that it is his intention to expand the Democratic coalition by registering new voters, turning out the vote, and by finding common ground with independents and 'liberal' Republicans when possible. This approach positions him in good stead for promoting future legislative victories.
We need a FDR or LBJ at this tenuous point in our history; not Clinton or McCain (who according to Sen. Reid "only crossed the aisle three times" in his career).
As Elizabeth Drew said in Politico:
"Hillary Rodham Clinton is such a polarizing figure that everyone who ever considered voting Republican in November, and even many who never did, will go to the polls to vote against her, thus jeopardizing Democrats down the ticket... and the sizeable majorities [the Democratic leaders]hope to gain in the House and the Senate in November."
If it was an attempt, why do you cast it as less than genuine. He either appeared on a legitimate news show or he wasted his time. Or do you just like pandering to your base here? Terry McAuliff likes these people...Foxnews. He's aiding Clinton's run for president. Barry seemed to feel the need to do this show...he hadn't been there before. What, is he desparate now? Does he need these people now? I thought these are your best...they are by themselves outstanding candidates able to stand by themselves "head and shoulders better than anything we can put out there."
Now he needs Foxnews?
Or maybe he doesn't want y'all anymore..."trying to separate himself from the most strident parts of his base." J Armstrong at MyDD
Imagine the reaction had Hillary Clinton said that.
Her detractors would condemn her and her supporters would defend her.
Neither Clinton nor Obama, neither as senators nor as presidential candidates, is singing progressive songs. There have been plenty of instances in which either or both have made disparaging remarks toward the left and warm and fuzzy remarks toward the right.
I humbly submit that this has less to do with these two people than it has to do with the United States and the corporate press/media environment in which they are required to campaign.
Posted by James E. Powell at April 27, 2008 10:05 AMWow, what a statement. I don't read teh Daily Kos, but I imaging the Orangutans over there are explaining this away with many bobs and weaves, if they are addressing it at all.
I don't watch Olbermann any more, either. But I doubt he will criticize Obama for appearing on Faux.
Posted by Joelarama at April 27, 2008 10:12 AMtfitznc: When politicians do this (esp. when named Clinton) it is called pandering.
I don't remember any problems when Clinton said she would commit nuclear genocide against Iran. Indeed, it seems the Hillarians support her, unequivocally. Seems she reached out to the right and Democ-rats who are more neo-con than Democraticons.
Let's see: She votes for the AUMF -"just ducky!" She says she'll nuke a non-nuclear state, feeding into the rights war frenzy against Iran -"perfect!" Her best bud in Congress says no way in hell you're getting healthcare -"fantatstic!" She says we must include big insurance corporations in our healthcare decisions -"brilliant!"
And women's rights be damned!
You people are special! Oh, and I forgot...VIH-HIC-TUMS!
..."trying to separate himself from the most strident parts of his base."
He's just trying to connect with white bigots, the FOX demographic.
Posted by phidipides at April 27, 2008 10:14 AMjames,
i agree. which is why i don't consider either candidate an agent of serious change. change from bush, clearly. change from mccain, obviously. but the type of paradigmatic change we need- nope.
Posted by Turkana at April 27, 2008 10:15 AMphid,
you need to read up on the concept of deterrence. i know that complex issues can be tough, but it's worth learning about.
Posted by Turkana at April 27, 2008 10:17 AMPhidipedes -- The same way Obama was trying to connect with homophobes in South Carolina? That was essentially Obama's defense of his decision to let McClurkin spew homophobia onstage at an Obama event, that he must connect with people. Nevermind using the opportunity to educate them.
Posted by Joelarama at April 27, 2008 10:19 AMTurkana,
Change will come if and only if the American people start facing up to realities. I am not optimistic. If history shows us anything, it is that human beings will continue to act on beliefs long after those beliefs are demonstrated to be not only untrue, but destructive.
The only possible changes I can see coming out of this campaign are incremental changes. The most important change would be to stop the drive back toward the 19th Century. If we get supreme court nominees by Clinton or Obama instead of McCain, if we have economic discussions that are concerned with something other than corporate profits, and if we can end the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, I would be a happy little Democrat.
Posted by James E. Powell at April 27, 2008 10:35 AMRepetition for impact OR just plain insulting (aka the last refuge of a _________ [fill in the blank])?
From yesterday's thread:
"...wow, phid...
you just won the award for most shrill, dishonest post-parsing of the campaign season. and congrats on not understanding the concept of deterrence!"
Posted by Turkana at April 26, 2008 12:24 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Because Barack was Wise enough and is wise enough to point out how unfair and uneven the questions were directed at him at the last debate, they label him a "whiner" instead of someone who, and rightly so, is defending himself from a "hit job". But, if he does this, this might expose the ones who are directing the barbs and hits and their Purpose, so they distort the truth (he's whining) with a multitude of voices, all saying the same thing to give it power (brainwashing)!
Most of the corporate media: cable news, ABC, NBC :are owned and Republican controled. They tell us what they want us to Hear, not what we need to Know to truly inform us as a society, which would "expose{ their deeds, give us power and aid in their demise!
The Clintons and the Republican Spin Machine all aligned against Barack! Both are fabricators, distorters, engage in fear and smear... there is no truth from either of the Giants only domination for their own selfish gain and not for the good of "all" the people... they have even colloborated together for greater strength, then one will overthrow the other if they get what they want! They, the Republicans, know the Clintons have ailenated African-Americans so they are now actively courting their support while trying to elevate Hillary and deflate Barack. They MSM are not asking Hillary any of the pertinent questions, not on Iran, not on Mark Penn, although he is still on conference calls to this day, not on a pending lawsuit in California or anything elese that might damage her candidacy in the eyes of the people. They don't ask why, if Rev. Wright would have not been her pastor, why during Bill's Impeachment trial, they turned to Rev. Wright for prayer and strength? The Republicans have an "arsenal" of ammunition they Plan and have Planned for years to use against the Clintons if Hillary somehow becomes the Democratic nominee!
They belittle Barack's achievement in Pennsylvania -- to close the enormous gap between him and Clintons was a monumental success and not given any credit by the Republican talking-points media. Instead they ask, "do we really know who Barack is?" -- They slyly ask, "why can't he close the deal?" This after showing him bowling over and over again and stating how he cannot relate to blue-collar workers with such a low bowling score or showing skits from Saturday Night Light which casts him a poor light, along with continuing whipping of Rev. Wrght and now his self-inflicted wound, bitter. They do not report the news anymore, they do not inform us of the true conditions in Iraq or other pertinent news but rather pass on Gossip, fit for the Enquirer Magazine or Entertainment Tonight, so far we have fallen!
The nature of your posts against Obama, are so bad one would think this was a shrill right wing blog.
If it is your intent to destroy a democratic candidate your doing fine.
I used to read this blog almost daily, needless to say I am an Obama supporter but still a democrat, you are not emm a democrat you are a Hillary supporter, first and formost.
I notice your comments section are getting less and less comments, wonder why that is????
You have destroyed this blog, your and eriposte, sad we progressives need all the help we can get.
What with MacCain being ready to be commander chief per Hill, and not Obama.
So, in order to be a Democrat one has to support Obama?
I voted for Hillary in the VA primary but have come to the conclusion that it is time for Obama to close the deal so we can move on toward the Fall campaign.
I come here, however, because while the posts (not necessarily the comments) might be pro-Hillary they don't trash Obama unlike so many other "progressive blogs that trash Clinton at every turn.
Posted by Jerry Saleeby at April 27, 2008 11:20 AMFirst want to agree that see no problem with Senator Obama appearing on FOX News.
Want to highlight a problem that was noted in a post by another comment and has been a reccurring theme throughout this election. The assertion was people who watch FOX must be bigots. This is short sighted and will not 'expand the map'. If you expect to reach out to people you cannot view them from a false prism. I have relatives who would be comfortable with McCain. They were raised in muti-ethnic communities. Their positions are usually not aligned with mine. It is a matter of policy, not bigotry. If we make assumptions the primary impulse for a demographic is racism or bigotry we have lost any chance of communicating with them.
Posted by formerhoosier at April 27, 2008 11:35 AMHas anyone missed this one:
Careful perusal of the transcript makes me conclude that Obama wants the industry to set its own pollution standards and enforce it. Something akin to letting the fox inside the henhouse.
phidipides:
I truly didn't think you could get even more craven and disgusting than you already have, but you've taken the cake today. To respond to concerns from women voters about Obama's pandering to pro-lifers and their very real concerns about their basic reproductive rights by mocking them as 'victims' is really beyond the pale. You are the most disgusting, hateful, sexist person I've encountered on the liberal blogs. I don't know why you are tolerated here at all. You should be banned, IMO.
Could you really sink any lower? You are so truly mean-spirited and insensitive to others. It is shocking.
Posted by at April 27, 2008 12:26 PMphidipidies..how to win friends and influence people!...your man barry stands with you on hillary's iran comments and i don't think he gets much of the jewish vote..but then again with all the support he has with the working class ..maybe he won't need it
Posted by dennis at April 27, 2008 12:47 PMforsyth,
so, a post about obama appearing on a right wing propaganda site, trashing a once liberal blog, hurts obama against mccain how? that's sort of why he did it. apparently, you know very little about shrill. not to mention politics.
Posted by Turkana at April 27, 2008 12:53 PMjames,
again agreed- they're both safe, incrementalist, centrist democrats. to some extent, i do think the people have to lead, but to some extent, i think they'd respond to someone who dared to actually lead. they certainly respond to people who only pretend to.
Posted by Turkana at April 27, 2008 12:57 PMThe quote about Roberts is clearly a "saying nothing" quote. Obama voted against the vile turd Roberts, that's the (obvious) crucial point and tells you his actual politics. Saying he "defended" Dem fools who voted for Roberts (like Byrd) is meaningless pablum. And folks here can't figure this out.
As for the late term abortion comments, you really need to understand the current lay of the land here before you get enraged. You might be interested to know that the radical wingnut Supreme Court recently UPHELD the Repub's Federal late term abortion ban--last year, I believe. So there's currently a nationwide federal law restricting certain abortion rights in effect---the first such law upheld since Roe.
So what Obama is saying is that that federal law should be repealed, so at least SOME (blue) states can get out from under this draconian nationwide federal law, while Red state pinheads can adopt state late term restrictions (which will also be upheld by the radical right Court) thus benefitting at least some pro-choice Blue states, while making Red state pro-lifers work to get back to the restrictive position they are in right now. So Obama's position is progressive, given the disaster of this recent Supreme Court case.
Posted by euzoius at April 27, 2008 01:05 PMeuzo,
the whole interview was meaningless pablum, but that's a given, given the venue. and again, although i agree with those who say that no democrat should appear on faux (or msnbc, for that matter), i don't at all blame him for trying to reach faux's demographic. i just found it particularly interesting that he used having been criticized on daily kos as his marker that he's not a scary liberal who wouldn't appeal to faux regulars. had clinton done that, you know what the reaction would have been.
Posted by Turkana at April 27, 2008 01:09 PM...Obama's position is progressive, given......
That construct has become the entire justification for many people to even continue to support Obama. Others never had delusions about Hillary Clinton. She's a progressive Democrat who recognizes that this country is not going to go for the entire progressive agenda - whatever it it - overnight. She is who Obama would have to govern like should he ever be elected. At this point he seems disenthralled by the whole process of running for the nomination, let alone President.
So why didn't we just take a clear look at Obama's policies and past and make a reasonable judgement of what to expect of the man as President. Many of us did: Not ready. Needs to accomplish tangible things to demonstrate skills. Needs to be vetted, at least by his own Party. Needs to explain exactly what he does mean by his constant compliments of Republicans - it's like like his first appearance on Fix today was the first time he said Reagan was a great...-, he needs to actually run in an election where he has real competition that he doesn't knock out by technicalities. Many of us wanted him in this race to pull Hillary to the left. That hasn't happened.
Obama has accomplished several very important things in this election. he has served as an icon of what many people hoped our next President would look like and sound like. He'll be an unstoppable 2016 candidate. He would serve as a brilliant advisor in many roles in a Clinton administration. He could develop foreign policy experience. I don't see how he ends up losing from participating in the primaries, but I don't see how the Democrats can chose him considering his growing inability, as opposed to Clinton, to win the general election.
Posted by jeter at April 27, 2008 01:32 PMThe assertion was people who watch FOX must be bigots. This is short sighted and will not 'expand the map'. If you expect to reach out to people you cannot view them from a false prism.
I understand the point, but there are limits. In 2006 exit polls the single demographic that most solidly voted for one party or the other was Fox News viewers, with something like 95% voting Republican. That is larger than the number of blacks voting Democrat, or number of self-identified pro-lifers voting Republican. Heck, it was even larger than the number of Democrats who voted Democrat and the number of Republicans who voted Republican.
Fox News viewers are a special, self-selecting minority. (They are a small, if overpublicized, minority -- their largest audience is 2.4 Million for O'Reilly.) In order to watch Fox you have to have a certain world view and a psychology that needs to have your world view reinforced constantly, and can't stand to hear facts that conflict with your beliefs. You almost certainly fit the definition of "authoritarian follower".
Honestly, I can't think of a less productive use of time for a Democratic candidate than to appear on Fox. Almost anything else they do has a better chance of bringing in new votes.
It's kind of like Howard Dean's comment about having the Democratic party find a way to appeal to the white guys with the Confederate flag on their pickup trucks. He's partly right -- we do need to appeal to the pickup truck drivers with American flags. But when the individual has chosen to fly the Confederate Flag, or to watch Fox, or to listen to Rush ... well, you might was well talk to the wall as talk to them about politics.
Posted by Anonny at April 27, 2008 01:45 PMYou called Obama's performance exactly for what it was, Turkana. It was schtick.
Posted by Donald from Hawaii at April 27, 2008 01:56 PMAngellight: "They belittle Barack's achievement in Pennsylvania -- to close the enormous gap between him and Clintons was a monumental success ..."
The average differential between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for Pennsylvania polls over the past three months were 10 percentage points in February, 12 points in March, and 7 points in April. Given that Mrs. Clinton won by just a little less than 10 points, I really fail to see how you can even argue that the final result was even close, let alone claim that the gap was ever successfully closed.
What I DID see, however, was a campaign flush with cash that spent $10.92 per vote to get to 45% of the total. Not good.
Posted by Donald from Hawaii at April 27, 2008 02:09 PMDailyKos diarist: Obama said he would vote to confirm Gen. Petereas. It's all good!
Posted by wilder at April 27, 2008 02:30 PMtake away the philadelphia vote nd clinton wins the rest of the state by close to 20%..he's the frontrunner...that sunk in yet ?
Posted by dennis at April 27, 2008 02:35 PMDennis,
IMO your credibility on this or any other progressive site has been mortally wounded by your "vindictive queer" comment the other day.
On some moderated sites you would already be history...
tfitznc
you wouldn't know a progressive ..or what it means..if one slapped you in the head..and i will stand by what i said..andrew sullivan is a nasty vindictive human being...and queer..look up queer you idiot
Posted by dennis at April 27, 2008 02:50 PMDennis, you're right. Obama was completely humiliated in PA, but don't hold your breath for any clear-sighted acknowledgment of that. The democratic party elders are apparently hell-bent on coronating Obama no matter that he will sink our chances for the White House.
Posted by at April 27, 2008 02:50 PMClinton rulz once again.File this under stuff you just can't make up....coming out of the left progressive blogosphere.
Obama goes on Faux News and he is considered a brilliant brave politician and this a smart strategical maneuver in order to reach out to those people (who he earlier dissed) whose votes he'll need in the general election. Clinton goes on Faux News and she's considered a traitor for doing business with the enemy and obviously should be banned from the party because she's not a dem anyway.
Obama supporters your hypocrisy is showing again.
And lastly, I have no idea who he was out pandering to today, but I can tell you by his commentary it certainly wasn't unions or women, perhaps it was those who he considers clinging to bibles and guns.
Posted by emal at April 27, 2008 03:02 PMHehe!
I love watching Leftists tear themselves apart and the associated disappointment that is reflected in these threads.
More popcorn, please.
P.S. When John McCain is elected in November...how will you folks react? (And, no children, you cannot claim that the election was "stolen.")
Posted by Bagley at April 27, 2008 03:40 PMObama is now going for the general camapaign in November and is battling McCain, since the fight with Hillary is all but over.
Posted by Muck at April 27, 2008 04:08 PMYes tarheel74, Obama's statement about letting the corporations enforce their own pollution laws raised my eyebrows, also.
That and his support of charter schools.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 27, 2008 04:19 PMTurkana
Parsing other peoples words is very regretable and insincere. If you read my words for what they say and what they mean, I did not address the Fox interview not at all, nor did I address the Kos issue..
My meaning was furthermore, not obscure, I mention the trashing of Obama in the context of his being a progressive liberal democrat which I believe is the same side all democrats should be on on.
UNfortunately you cannot or will not concede this point, daily you go on and on with the same theme. Accusing other people of your same faults is in no way an excuse. November is the important win month for the Democratic Party. Further to the subject why do I have to be stupid for you to be smart?????
Still standing is the loss of comments and I am certain hits to this blog, your partly to blame for not seeing the trees for the forest. Sheesh!
Obama supporters love it when he panders to the righties, he's a uniter after all, gettin' righties' votes mean he's unitin' the country.
When righties vote for Clinton (in TX), ohmy ohmy ohmy, what the fu** is she doing?!!!! Thievery, fixin' the vote, nofair nofair, she should quit dam-bit!!!
It will make a difference...any of it. Barack is not electable
Mr Jeremiah Wright is making sure of that tonight.
Posted by jj at April 27, 2008 05:10 PMI thought it was tacky of the peeps at Fox to stick that "Kick my librul ass" sign on Bama's butt.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 27, 2008 05:13 PM"not" I think you know that
Posted by at April 27, 2008 05:23 PMforsyth,
i don't think the words "progressive" and "liberal" mean what you think they mean.
Posted by Turkana at April 27, 2008 05:27 PMI think the reaction would have been about the same but, perhaps, I just lack imagination. Perhaps if you spelled it out for me.
Posted by cemmcs at April 27, 2008 06:02 PMTurkana,
Advancing a new political agenda could not be anything but progressive, promoting reform is progressive. Obama is all of this in his mission to promote moving forward into a new and different political discourse.
The repeat performance of partisan "fighting" is not accomplishing anything for the American people. in 1992 The Clintons promised health care. excuses don't count. You can parse words all you want we lost the Democratic Congres we had for 40 under
Clinton. The Clintons have never done anything for the Party. Surrogates like you would rather destroy Obama and the Democratic chance in Nov.
Like I said I have to be stupid so you can be smart. So smart you have ruin this blog.
forsyth,
if you believe that gibberish, good for you!
Posted by Turkana at April 27, 2008 06:59 PMThe Clintons have never done anything for the Party.
But Obama will wave his magic wand and-presto!-health care will be there for everyone!
That's what the tooth fairy told forsyth, so it must be true.
Posted by Blue Jean at April 27, 2008 08:08 PMI remember when Obama said that at dKos. He got a major ration of shit. He's trying to show that he can talk to anybody, an attempt, I think, to counter the notion that he's an elitist. But what are you going to do? Vote for McCain or Mrs. Terry McAuliffe?
Posted by kaleidescope at April 27, 2008 08:11 PMAn example of his courage.
Posted by Prabhata at April 27, 2008 08:17 PMthe clintons have done more for local democratic politicians that most people have never heard of than have any other democrats in the country. claims to the contrary are just more evidence of the complete derangement that has infected those supposed democrats who feel a need to destroy the clintons in order to support their chosen. it's pathetic.
Posted by Turkana at April 27, 2008 08:28 PMIn response to this comment:
"I don't remember any problems when Clinton said she would commit nuclear genocide against Iran. Indeed, it seems the Hillarians support her, unequivocally. Seems she reached out to the right and Democ-rats who are more neo-con than Democraticons."
First, the question that was given to HRC was: What would you do if Iran attacks Israel with NUCLEAR weapons. I wish Hillary had said if ANY country attacks a neighbor with nuclear weapons, I would take that as an attack against humanity. I did not appreciate the "obliterate" word to express her sentiments. But if anyone is upset about Hillary using strong words about a nation using NUCLEAR weapons against a neighbor, I'd say you are not mainstream. Most Americans would not want a president that uses diplomacy in such a case. After a nuclear attack, it would be useless to use diplomacy.
Posted by Prabhata at April 27, 2008 08:29 PMBroader brush. Broader brush. I know I had one around here somewhere.
Ah, there it is! I knew you probably had it!
Posted by Kagro X at April 27, 2008 09:10 PM"This approach positions him in good stead for promoting future legislative victories."
No it's not. Passing meaningful legislation is a partisan matter. You don't realize that we have partisan conflict because in the last 3 decades we have been very far apart concerning what government will be and do. In the last three decades the Conservative Movement has sought to dismantle the New Deal. That reperesents an attempt to make the most drastic of fundamental change in what government does.
Prior to gaining control of the GOP, conservatives in that party were marginalized. There was a consensus about the nature of government based on the New Deal. The GOP in general was more moderate because of this consensus.
What you don't get is that establishing the New Deal, establishing that general consensus was a bloody partisan war. Make no mistake about it, FDR was a partisan warrior of 1st magnitude.
LBJ operated when the consensus was the great center of American politics and it still required large Democratic majorities for his landmark legislative triumphs, extensions of the New Deal.
What's required today is siezing control of government and using strong majorities to re-establish the activist role of government. Make no mistake, this will require battle led by a determined warrior who's not afraid of getting mussed up.
"We need a FDR or LBJ at this tenuous point in our history"
You've got to be kidding me. You actually compare a little snip like Obama to these giants of American history. You are clueless beyond redemption.
You've swallowed enough kool-aid to float the USS Nimitz.
well, kagro, as i said- imagine if this had been said by hillary. markos might say she was an enemy of the netroots. markos might say he no longer considered her a democrat. doesn't get broader than that.
Posted by Turkana at April 27, 2008 11:23 PM"The quote about Roberts is clearly a "saying nothing" quote. Obama voted against the vile turd Roberts, that's the (obvious) crucial point and tells you his actual politics. Saying he "defended" Dem fools who voted for Roberts (like Byrd) is meaningless pablum. And folks here can't figure this out."
Well euzoius do you really want to get into this one. It appears that you are not aware of what happened regarding Obama and the Roberts confirmation.
Obama wanted to vote yes on Roberts confirmation. He was impressed with Roberts' intelligence.
He was stopped by his top aid Pete Rouse. Rouse told Obama it would hurt him politically if he wanted to run for President. Rouse also told Obama "this is not some moot law school exercise"
Obama wasn't conerned about the damage that Roberts could do on the Supreme Court. The consequences to the nation of a Roberts led court were of no concern to Obama, only his admiration for Roberts' intelligence was considered. Among other things I'd call that elitist but I'll back off from saying that.
It demonstrates that Obama is clueless about the impact of his decisions on the nation. In fact he praises Rouse for being able to 'see around the corner.' That corner was Obama's political future and had nothing to do with what damage Roberts would inflict.
'Moot law school exercise.' Indeed.
euzoius, you really ought to try to keep up.
Supporting Republicans, defending Republicans or compromises with Republicans, is not supporting other Democrats.
Posted by Judith at April 28, 2008 03:57 AMBy-the-way, to the person who claims that the comments have dropped off here at TLC. I don't think that is true. New posts come so fast and so frequent now, that we no longer have the time to develope any comment section before another post is up, and we have moved on.
Posted by Judith at April 28, 2008 04:49 AMBlue Jean
16 Years later and we still don't have Hillary Care, 16 years! What has she been doing all these years? Do you have any back up facts about health care and bill care for those 16 years. I have not seen nor read of her taking up that agenda ever again, oh except for talk, talk, talk.
Obama won't need a magic wand to beat her record or what did you post "fairy " ummmm that word seems overused by the Hill & Bill Team. Turn the page. its time.
Jeez, now even the process by which Obama ultimately comes to (clearly sensible) votes is not adequate for Obama haters like cal1942.
And even if your conclusion (political motivation) were accurate, at least Obama (correctly) voted against Bushco's wishes for politic reasons, unlike Hillary, who voted (incorrectly) FOR Bush's War for political reasons.
But you, cal1942, are clearly a person who can't see the forest for the trees.
And you read an awful lot into unsubstantiated personal inferences from an "insider" newspaper account. But it supports your biased views against Obama, so carry on.
Posted by euzoius at April 28, 2008 08:00 AMAnd the halo grows brighter yet!
Posted by snark at April 28, 2008 08:12 AMgreat, another Obama/Hillary foodfight fueled by Turkana.
Posted by Gay Veteran at April 28, 2008 08:20 AMHonestly, I can't think of a less productive use of time for a Democratic candidate than to appear on Fox. Almost anything else they do has a better chance of bringing in new votes.
It's kind of like Howard Dean's comment about having the Democratic party find a way to appeal to the white guys with the Confederate flag on their pickup trucks. He's partly right -- we do need to appeal to the pickup truck drivers with American flags. But when the individual has chosen to fly the Confederate Flag, or to watch Fox, or to listen to Rush ... well, you might was well talk to the wall as talk to them about politics.
Seriously Anthony, educate yourself a little. My dad and all of his business partners are well educated black men who support Obama. And they all watch Fox news religiously. It's this ignorant attitude that many Democrats have that explains why that stupid network is so successful.
Do you have any back up facts about health care and bill care for those 16 years. I have not seen nor read of her taking up that agenda ever again, oh except for talk, talk, talk.
Well, you could look at her platform, which is far better on health care than Obama's, but I wouldn't want to strain your brain or anything.
Obama won't need a magic wand to beat her record
Nah, he'll just need to outspend her 4-1 and have the DNC fix the rules for him.
or what did you post "fairy " ummmm that word seems overused by the Hill & Bill Team. Turn the page. its time.
Yes; to the tooth fairy, if you're reading this, I apologize. I know you'd have better taste than to have this guy as your friend.
Posted by Blue Jean at June 12, 2008 03:39 PM