Which is such a perfect political framing. Obama's leading his party's Congressional failures. McCain's setting his own path.
Only if gullible liberal bloggers swallow the media's narrative about McCain and ignore his frequent flip-flops to pander to the Republican base on issues like immigration, offshore drilling, taxes, the economy as well as his standard Republican voting record on GI benefits, belligerence, civil liberties, etc etc.
HINT: If you're CONCERNED about frames in the general election race, don't buy into false frames perpetuated by McCain's lapdogs in the press.
Hilarious that Obama raising money for Democrats and the party is now a bad thing and that McCain deserves praise for his inability to shake the money tree for his party.
But, why pass up a chance to say "I told you so" to all of those people stupid enough to support Barack Obama in the primary.
To summarize: Turkana thinks that Obama's problem is that he's too loyal to the Democratic party, and Turkana also thinks that McCain is a pragmatic moderate maverick.
Turkana sounds like a newly minted version of the Village.
right, geek. your hero sells out on every important issue, but is good at playing the money game, and i sound like a villager.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 11:43 AMYes, he sells out on 'every important issue' but his problem is that he's too much of a mainstream Democrat as opposed to the principled moderate Maverick who wants to keep Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% and who wants to keep us in Iraq for a century.
P.S. Please list every important issue and tell us how Obama has sold out on it.
You're going to have to get over your ODS sometime before November.
you're not one to lecture people on political psychosis, geek. i'll hold my nose and vote for obama. and, as always, i did mention that mccain is worse. but obama's a fraud, and you cultists look more and more like cultists.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 11:54 AMBy the way, here's an example of McCain's maverick stance on immigration that your post cites as proof of him setting his own way:
Q: Your 2006 immigration proposal was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were already here. At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?A: No, I would not
See also:
Discussing McCain's immigration flip-flop, MSNBC's Brewer asked, "[H]ow is that really changing?"
McCain spins like a top on immigration flip-flop
But, who am I to doubt his Maverickness? Tucker Carlson and Turkana say he's a maverick!
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 11:59 AMMcCain has split with the majority of his party by favoring immigration reform that would create a path to citizenship for illegal residents. McCain is also at odds with his party over drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Hasn't he changed his mind on both of these issues?
Obama hasn't sold out. He always said he's reach across the aisle, work with the other side, bring everyone to the table, compromise. He compromised on FISA. Compromised on the bill, compromised democratic principles, whatever. I really don't get what people thought change meant. To me, it always meant he wouldn't bother really fighting for what's important. Change meant a new tone, which meant compromise.
Posted by CG at July 10, 2008 12:01 PMyour reading comprehension is suffering, geek. as is always the case with cultists. i didn't say mccain is a maverick. i said he's playing for that framing, while obama's playing into a negative one.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 12:03 PMyou're not one to lecture people on political psychosis, geek. i'll hold my nose and vote for obama. and, as always, i did mention that mccain is worse. but obama's a fraud, and you cultists look more and more like cultists.
Yes, you are quite rational and fair. I must have missed your statement that McCain is worse amongst your praise for him as a maverick.
Not my problem your ODS causes you to see McCain fluffing article as insightful and use childish insults like "cultists." Then again, small minds reach for small insults.
P.P.S. Why is No KKKwarter still on your blogroll?
cg,
you hit the nail. i never bought into obama's schtick, but he always left it vague enough for two possible interpretations- that he'd change politics by being principled, and sticking to ideals; or that he'd change politics by going the sold-out, non-confrontational broderite route. it's clear which he meant.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 12:05 PMi know nothing about no quarter, and i don't pick our blogroll. and once again- if the bot fits, wear it. and once again- i didn't say mccain is a maverick. in fact, i linked to juan cole's salon article about him being bush iii. no, shouldn't you be off for your hourly o-bam-a, o-bam-a chanting?
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 12:08 PMReading comprehension for small minds (with Tourette's like fixations on the word 'cultist')
i didn't say mccain is a maverick. i said he's playing for that framing, while obama's playing into a negative one.
vs.
Obama's leading his party's Congressional failures. McCain's setting his own path.
And your evidence is that Obama is raising money for Democrats, but McCain isn't raising money for Republcans. And that reflects negatively on Obama somehow.
P.S. I bet someone could play a "Turkana calling Obama voters cultists" drinking game.
once again- if the bot fits, wear it. and once again- i didn't say mccain is a maverick. in fact, i linked to juan cole's salon article about him being bush iii. no, shouldn't you be off for your hourly o-bam-a, o-bam-a chanting?
No you only said that "McCain's setting his own path."
Oh, and a bot reference! Wow, you're expanding your vocabulary! I bet you'll win the 5th Grade debate trophy!
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 12:13 PMObama reaches across the aisle with one hand and gives the Democratic base the finger with the other.
Posted by Johnny at July 10, 2008 12:16 PMjust trying to communicate on your level, geek. you are a museum quality specimen.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 12:17 PMyes, geek- just ignore the preceding sentence. which set the context of my meaning. about the political framing obama's playing into.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 12:19 PMjust trying to communicate on your level, geek. you are a museum quality specimen
Ah, the old rubber/glue retort! The "it's your fault I don't write like I'm Smarter Than A Fifth Grader" defense.
Anyhow, it's very telling that you saw that b.s. piece of McCain worship from The Hill and saw it as proof that Obama is bad for raising money for Democrats.
Instead of, you know, objecting to its multiple false premises.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 12:20 PMother than the premise of mccain going his own way, i didn't see any other false ones. but obama's making it very easy for such articles. leading the democrats as he is.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 12:21 PMturkana and CG you're both spot on...anyone who was paying any attention during the primary knew this was what Obama was all about. But now for the resident Obama minder to show up and whine that "buh buh McSameshitdifferentday is worse" and saying you'll vote for Obama isn't good enough, you have to beat up on McSSDD more and be less critical of Obama is all too predictable., complete with namecalling....talk about projection.
I've said all along, if people can't openly criticize our leaders for their actions or votes (or inaction and non votes)any of them no matter what party they hail from, no matter when they screw up or betray our principles then this blog is no better than the rightwingnut side of the aisle and blogworld. And people who are advocating that sort of authoritarian purity, deserve no respect or credibility.
Posted by emal at July 10, 2008 12:27 PMyes, geek- just ignore the preceding sentence. which set the context of my meaning. about the political framing obama's playing into.
Here's the thing: You didn't challenge the validity of the frame. You accepted it and blamed Obama instead of the media flunkies for regurgitating false facts!
McCain's principled stand on immigration and drilling? PLEASE! How is that frame Obama's fault?
This is the frame you accepted:
The symmetry between Obama and congressional Democrats contrasts with Sen. John McCain☼ (Ariz.), the presumptive GOP presidential nominee who has broken with his party on several high-profile issues. An economic plan McCain unveiled this week included a proposal to allow cheap prescription drug imports from other countries, something that most Republicans oppose.
The problem is two-fold:
1) It's a lie in that it treats McCain like he's willing to break with his party's base. We've seen that he's not.
2) It's treating Obama's solidarity with his party as a BAD thing.
You do realize that the only way to satisfy this Broderite frame is for him to do the opposite of what you want, right? They want Obama to break with rank-and-file Democrats on high profile issues.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 12:27 PMOnly if gullible liberal bloggers swallow the media's narrative about McCain and ignore his frequent flip-flops to pander to the Republican base on issues like immigration, offshore drilling, taxes, the economy as well as his standard Republican voting record on GI benefits, belligerence, civil liberties, etc etc.
Newsflash: The price of oil has increased. Only a fundamentalist environutcase would cling to their anti drilling BS.
Which, sadly, McCain is close to their camp.
Posted by m12 at July 10, 2008 12:28 PMother than the premise of mccain going his own way, i didn't see any other false ones.
How about the frame that it's a BAD thing for a party leader to be too partisan and that raising money for fellow Democrats reflects negatively on a party leader?
The McCain as Maverick Myth is kinda the whole point of that article. The author had his narrative--McCain the Maverick vs. Obama the Typical Unprincipled Democrat--and he forced facts into that paradigm.
The point of this article is to paint Obama as being too loyal to the Democratic party as opposed to St. McCain.
That doesn't sound like something I'd be touting.
Hey Turkana, having fun yet. It's going to be a long election cycle with some of our friends making it longer. The Democracy Corp piece should be paid attention to. This being a Democratic year, or is that the MSM messing with us, it's surprising how the polls are playing out. There were those two outliers from June that Steve seemed to like. The race seems closer than expected, if you believe the MSM.
Anyway, enjoyed the read, enjoy the rest of your day.
Posted by peter at July 10, 2008 12:35 PMuh. yes, geek. i want obama to break with the broderite framing, rather than play into it. and yes- when obama is in solidarity with a failed congressional "leadership," that IS a bad thing. what exactly is he changing?
emal- always great to see you here!
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 12:35 PMNewsflash: The price of oil has increased. Only a fundamentalist environutcase would cling to their anti drilling BS.
The benefits of drilling would be merely 'psychological' according to McCain.
But, he wants to begin offshore drilling anyways--as well as giving the oil companies a gigantic tax cut.
What a maverick!
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 12:37 PMMcSameshitdifferentday
Made me laugh. I like it.
Posted by CG at July 10, 2008 12:38 PMuh. yes, geek. i want obama to break with the broderite framing, rather than play into it. and yes- when obama is in solidarity with a failed congressional "leadership," that IS a bad thing. what exactly is he changing
You do know that the top three Senate Democrats--Reid, Durbin, and Schumer--all voted against the FISA bill, right?
When the MSM press faults Obama for voting too much with his party, it isn't because of FISA. It's because they think he's too liberal.
Also, do you recall any talk about how bad it was for a party leader to raise funds for his party when Republicans did it more than Democrats?
The Hill article is trash, and you would have been much better off not buying into it merely because it was unflattering to Obama.
The benefits of drilling would be merely 'psychological' according to McCain. But, he wants to begin offshore drilling anyways--as well as giving the oil companies a gigantic tax cut. What a maverick!
It was Clinton who originally gave oil companies a tax cut in their 1997-1998 leases. This is bipartisan policy.
Posted by m12 at July 10, 2008 12:49 PMthe facts are what they are, geek. and so is obama's playing into the framing that mccain wants to use against him. it would be nice if obama just took principled stands on issues, because they're principled stands. oh well. the money's good.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 12:53 PMthe facts are what they are, geek. and so is obama's playing into the framing that mccain wants to use against him. it would be nice if obama just took principled stands on issues, because they're principled stands. oh well. the money's good.
Other than FISA, what positions or votes has he sold out on? You said he sold out on 'every important issue.' So, a list of 5 or ten should be easy to rattle off.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 12:57 PMObama:
In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"
Obama now: I agree with DC v Heller
I have only one thing to say.
We have endured almost eight years of a f*cking wacko right-wing, neo-conservative, fascist loving advoctes of a destructive ideology, and the Democrats want to take a "centrist path?"
I give up.
Sorry, "advocates" not advoctes.
Hey geek, Obama's about to change again and follow Durbin's lead on off shore drilling...that's his next waffle. Then he'll throw another stone into the water on abortion rights. Us poor folks need our cheap gas and cheaper food. Get the drilling started, drill some new wells here, do it sooner than later and drive the price of gas down.
Posted by peter at July 10, 2008 01:14 PMFirst of all, congratulations to Turkana for managing to write an item without referring to Obamabots and Kool-Aid drinking cultists.
Second, this analysis is bang on, and nicely explains McCain's overwhelming lead in all polls.
Posted by joel dan walls at July 10, 2008 01:35 PMFirst of all, congratulations to Turkana for managing to write an item without referring to Obamabots and Kool-Aid drinking cultists.
Read the comments and take three drinks.
OMG! Obama's not doing everything we want him to do! He's only going to get our troops out of Iraq, improve access to health care, enact progressive energy/climate policy, and appoint progressive Supreme Court justices! What a jerk!
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at July 10, 2008 01:50 PMOMG! Obama's not doing everything we want him to do! He's only going to get our troops out of Iraq, improve access to health care, enact progressive energy/climate policy, and appoint progressive Supreme Court justices! What a jerk! Welcome to the world of confirmation bias. Obama votes against the Senate leadership but raises money for his party, which means he's too closely aligned with Senate leadership and that's bad. And John McCain is a Maverick, even though he's renounced every formerly principled stand he had, because the media ignores that and who are we to challenge the media when it treats someone besides Hillary Clinton unfairly?
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 01:53 PM1) death penalty
2) guns
3) weak-kneed iraq occupation continuance plan
4) faith-based waste of tax dollars
5) fisa
is that enough of a start?
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 02:06 PMCaPJ question? Was Senator Obama going to do all those things before or after he stated and is on the record specifically saying he was going to filibuster the Fisa issue if it contained retroactive immunity?
Oh yeah,my bad that's right I should excuse him for not keeping his word, he's a politician after all and he's now running a national campaign and had to do the ole switcheroo on that with the Fisa vote. But.. so I should believe him when he says those other things he's going to do why? Oh yeah, that's right because he's better than McSSDD (which I agree but not much). But seriously, I don't trust the man...he's proved his word is no good and is meaningless... his action and vote proved that to me. And I should trust him to do those other things you so speak of why again? (and don't tell me because he's better than McSSDD).
Posted by emal at July 10, 2008 02:09 PMTurkana, you seem to have slipped into a comfortable zone, firing off critical Obama pieces every day and then saying you'll hold your nose and vote for him. I wonder why? Just because he's head and shoulders above the GOP candidate or just because he's the only alternative to another four years of Bush-type government?
Couldn't you bring yourself to offer Obama the same level of "tepid" support you accorded Ms. Clinton?
And (6) now Iran is "threat."
Nothing scarier than the alleged "liberal" trying to prove he's "strong" when it comes to "national security." Wait until President Obama attacks Iran to show he's got the cojones.
The FISA fight was only a fight because the netroots made it so. It's not part of the big picture, though. Letting telecoms off the hook for selling out our privacy was inevitable one way or another, with or without the new law. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be more cynical. We need to accept that George W. Bush and his cronies will get away with every single one of their crimes.
War, energy, taxes, the economy, and the Supreme Court are orders of magnitude more important. People can "hold their nose" all they want when they vote for Obama, but he is offering our country and the world a much better future.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at July 10, 2008 02:19 PMcapj,
thanks for demonstrating your concern for the constitution.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 02:22 PM1) death penalty
I'm betting you can't point to a past statement of his where he indicates that death is so grossly disproportionate to the crime of child rape as to be constitutionally forbidden. But, this happens when people without legal educations try to interpret legal analyses.
2) gunsThe DC gun ban is an important issue? Thanks for playing.
3) weak-kneed iraq occupation continuance plan
An utter lie on your part. His position has remained the same for months--withdrawal of 1-2 combat brigades per month, subject to consultations with commanders on the ground. Which is not a sellout position, given the sheer logistics involved in withdrawing that many troops from the region.
"What I'm also going to take into account is...prime minister Maliki saying that we should have a timetable for withdrawal," Obama said in an interview with NBC. "The American people believe we need a timetable [and] the Iraqi government believes that it's ready to stand up and take on these responsibilities."
But he has since reaffirmed his earlier position that, as president, he would pursue policies to withdraw all American forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
And don't even start with that rightwing crap about him 'refining' his Iraq policy means that he's completely reversing himself. That was authored at RNC headquarters.
4) faith-based waste of tax dollars
Not an important issue, and an issue on which he's had a very constant position. Also, just because he disagrees with you doesn't make him a sellout.
5) fisa
Reading comprehension: I said "other than FISA"
To recap, you consider the following to be 'every important issue':
1) The constutionality of the death penalty for child rapists;
2) The constitutionality of the DC gun ban;
3) The need for a reckless and precipitous withdrawal from Iraq
4) Faith-based initiatives
Stunning indictment.
Of you.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 02:22 PMP.S. I bet someone could play a "Turkana calling Obama voters cultists" drinking game.
Read the comments and take three drinks.
You'll do better if you take a shot every time someone says "frame" or "framing" in this thread.
Obama's leading his party's Congressional failures. McCain's setting his own path.
Ahhhh, the "Obama is very scary" meme is playing well here. McCain? "Mavericky". The MSM is doing it's expected part in the election. Too bad you didn't know the candidate better. Nothing Obama has done should be a surprise to you, but for some reason it is. Curiosity, or lack thereof, comes to mind as the reason for your feelings of surprise.
Get the drilling started, drill some new wells here, do it sooner than later and drive the price of gas down.
Can we wait until after they've drilled on their current leases they aren't drilling on?
Posted by phidipides at July 10, 2008 02:23 PMt2,
when the media come after him- unfairly, i'll defend him as i defended clinton. i already have, actually.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 02:23 PMyes, geek-
the principle of capital punishment matters to me. so does changing the constitutional meaning of the second amendment. so does having a permanent occupation of iraq. stunning. and if you want a different #5- how about pandering to aipac, on iran?
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 02:27 PMTurkana -
1) death penalty
His position has changed how exactly?
2) guns
Has he ever proposed very much regarding guns at the national level? Has that changed?
3) weak-kneed iraq occupation continuance plan
It's exactly as it always was: 16 month withdrawal time frame, but he'll work with the commanders to do it right.
4) faith-based waste of tax dollars
Annoying, yes. You'll need a few decimal places to indicate its proper fraction of the budget, though.
5) fisa
His vote was indeed disappointing, but the practical effect is nil. There is no way either telecoms or Bush would ever be held accountable.
is that enough of a start?
Can we talk about the things that actually matter now? Do you think Obama will help the country's economy, energy policy, foreign policy, health care, and court system?
I read this differently:
Obama had taken control of the news cycle going from the questionable radical Black man to the centerist who if anything is too stayed. If he didn't take this control the Republicans would push the Rev. Wright angry radical thing.
Obama "gets" how to make things happen. Instead of worrying about making his language and actions sounding progressive he is investing everything in what will help him get independents and help solidify the Congressional Majority.
Finally a Demcorat who understands how to win! I hope he is a progressive, but you won't know until he takes office - whatever he says now. And he won't get anything done without a mandate and Democratic Congress.
If Obama is really about change, he is setting himself up to be very effective.
Or would you rather have Bill's pretty progressive words and then the Health Care fiasco, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and selling out Welfare.
Posted by allansfca at July 10, 2008 02:29 PMcapj,
glad to know those issues don't matter to you. with obama's influence, something has, indeed, changed.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 02:33 PMthe principle of capital punishment matters to me. so does changing the constitutional meaning of the second amendment. so does having a permanent occupation of iraq. stunning. and if you want a different #5- how about pandering to aipac, on iran?
1) Apparently you still don't get the legal issue in the death penalty case. It wasn't about the death penalty itself, it was on the finding that child rape is so much less harmful than murder that the death penalty is constitutionally forbidden. It's a very minor issue.
2) the authority of the federal government to ban handguns is not a top 25 issue. Sure, some people care about it, but it's nothing compared to the economy or global warming
3) The problem isn't that you oppose a permanent occupation--the problem is that you are LYING about him favoring one
4) So, he's a sellout for sounding more like, but still not NEARLY as bad, your candidate Hillary (the Obliteratrix) on the issue of AIPAC and Iran? Not that he's made any particularly noteworthy policy changes on that subject, mind you.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 02:41 PMyes, geek- expanding the scope of the death penalty is trivial. as are guns. liberals once felt differently about such things, but things have changed. as for the permanent occupation- i'm not lying, you're simply deluded:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-klein-and-jeremy-scahill/players-not-cheerleaders_b_93515.html
and hillary was never "my" candidate. she was what i was left with. and just because obama might not be as bad as she on one issue (while being worse on others) should hardly be a qualified for someone who spent so much time shrilly and dishonestly demonizing her.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 02:46 PMyes, geek- expanding the scope of the death penalty is trivial.
Commenting on a fait accompli regarding what penalty is too severe for CHILD RAPISTS is not a top-100 issue.
as are guns.
Newsflash: This isn't the 1970's with its litmus tests of what is and what isn't an acceptable position for a liberal. If you ask most liberals whether the death penalty is a grossly unfair punishment for child rapists, what do you think they'd say?
And, that's a pitiful answer on the war in Iraq. He'd withdraw all combat troops, leaving only the US embassy and the airport. And that's the same as occupying the entire country. Nice.
And, given your cultlike demonization of Obama and his supporters, cry me an effing river about your supposed motives for supporting Clinton.
I will buy that you sided with her not out of affection for her, but rather because you hate Obama and his supporters.
You haven't been capable of being anything other than hateful towards Obama and his supporters since Halloween of 2007.
Which is why you only hang out at websites like TakLeft where John McCain is more popular than Obama is.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 03:00 PMvery good, geek. yes- he'll withdraw combat troops. and keep the 1.3 billion a year "embassy," plus support staff, plus "trainers," etc. it's a cop-out, as klein and scahill note. i'll take their intelligence over your derangement, any day. and i'm glad such things as guns and the death penalty are about where they stand as popular issues, and not as principles. change, indeed.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 03:03 PMInteresting,it appears now when the Obama supporters don't have an answer to a question (why should you trust someone's words-mainly Obama something) or criticisms/concerns (see turkana's list of them and the Obama minder's and then CaPJ's response) of Senator Obama they say the "issue is not important" and not part of the "big picture". Wow, who made you gawd and decided what issues are important or not to individuals. And ftr, I came to support Dodd (originally even before my 2nd choice Edwards) because of his stance on Fisa and the constitution....it was a big issue to me....but I guess I'm just not privy to big picture in politics. Yikes....still didn't answer the question about trust and why his word games and shifts to the right with his most recent rhetoric on the campaign trail are something people should just disregard now ....because you guessed it....those things aren't important and of course the standard refrain he's just better than other guy.
Just Trust us, we Dem leaders/insiders know best what's important and you have no where else to go because the other guy's worse is not imo a winning strategery....(it failed miserably in 2004). There's still a lot of time between now and November and I'm hopeful to see the opposition party leader contrast his differences and actually mean it.
Maybe, hopefully, they'll figure out that blurring the distinction between the rnc candidate and his mentor Mr. 28% isn't really a winning strategy. As Judith above accurately noted why are they doing that. I mean that strategy and mindset has also led to the lowly 9% approval rating of the sternly worded letter writing Democratically led congress. Apparently they're aggressively courting the 23% Bush dead ender voters who only vote for a person with an R after their name on the ballot. Why the Obamacrat National Committee and Dem Leadership continue to avoid appealing to those 70+% of the people that disapprove of Bush and think the country is on the wrong track is beyond me.
Posted by emal at July 10, 2008 03:04 PMemal,
exactly. it was the issues that led me to dodd, and then to edwards. but who cares about issues when you have pretty speeches and kool-aid?
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 03:12 PMvery good, geek. yes- he'll withdraw combat troops. and keep the 1.3 billion a year "embassy," plus support staff, plus "trainers," etc. it's a cop-out, as klein and scahill note.
How many troops does it require to occupy a country the size of Iraq? Yes, there will be too much entaglement. But, if you take out 90-95% of the troops, that ends the occupation. As a matter of pure math and logistics.
i'll take their intelligence over your derangement, any day.
You'll take their word for it because it's a way for you to distort Obama's position and hold it against him
and i'm glad such things as guns and the death penalty are about where they stand as popular issues, and not as principles. change, indeed.
You're the one who said he sold out on 'every IMPORTANT issue.' And then you cited child rape death penalties and DC handguns instead of economic justice, labor rights, global warming, the housing crisis, healthcare reform, immigration, etc etc.
Moreover, do you have any evidence that Obama changed his position on the death penalty issue? (setting aside your purity litmus test approach to it as an issue) You see, it's not selling out if he disagrees with you.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 03:12 PMexactly. it was the issues that led me to dodd, and then to edwards. but who cares about issues when you have pretty speeches and kool-aid?
Yes, because all of those stupid Obamabot cultist Kool-Aid drinkers don't care about issues, they're just young and stupid morons who worship rockstars.
As I said, your hatred for all things Obama really has rendered you completely irrational. Classic Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Note, by the way, that I am perfectly capable of saying nothing but nice things about Clinton, but you STILL are more interested in trashing Obama than seeing him elected.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 03:20 PMOh dear lawd, turkana...I knew it..now it's Hillary's fault for this and your commentary....she's to blame. I mean how did I not see that......the more things change the more they stay the same...sigh.
Good luck!
Posted by emal at July 10, 2008 03:24 PMyes, geek- you can't refute the facts about your illness, so you refer to ods- despite my criticism of obama being wholly based on issues. and given the way you obamabots are now bending into pretzels to rationalize his repeated sell-outs of liberal principles, i do think kool-aid is an operative term. were clinton the nominee, and were she taking such stands, i'm sure you'd be defending her. uh huh.
as for obama's stand on the death penalty- since it's a repetitively moving target, it's hard to say whether or not it's another complete flip-flop, as was telecom immunity. but to me, it's a principle, and a critically important one, getting to the very heart of the concept of human rights.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 03:24 PMwow Turkana. You rocked in this thread. I am in awe.
yes, geek- you can't refute the facts about your illness,
Facts? Your accusations and hyperemotionalistic insults are not 'facts' dearie. They're just standard Internet flaming. No matter how many times you stamp your feet and insist something is true, that does not make it so. Please try to be Smarter Than a Fifth Grader.
so you refer to ods- despite my criticism of obama being wholly based on issues.
Yes, your character attacks on him and comical inability to avoid smearing Obama supporters with smears like 'cultists' and 'Obamabots' shows that it's all about the issues to you
and given the way you obamabots are now bending into pretzels to rationalize his repeated sell-outs of liberal principles,
Repeated sellouts of liberal principles? He's always been a non-ideological pragmatist without much regard for your precious orthodoxies and laundy lists of litmus tests. To repeat: IT IS NOT SELLING OUT TO DISAGREE WITH YOU.
i do think kool-aid is an operative term.
Yes, because you are irrationally biased against Obama supproters. You think they're all stupid, brainwashed 12 year olds.
were clinton the nominee, and were she taking such stands, i'm sure you'd be defending her. uh huh.
Would I still be trashing her? No. I'd have done one of two things:
1) Gotten over the primary bitterness and gone after McCain; or
2) not gotten over it, kept my bitterness to myself, and gone after McCain.
I would not do what you do, and that is to show endless enthusiasm for trashing the man and his supporters, but show no willingness to lift a finger to help him defeat John McCain.
There's a reason why you're more comfortable hanging around with people who will NOT vote for him than you are in hanging around with people who will.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 03:34 PMactually, geek, as far as i know, btd, jeralyn and tchris are all voting for obama. i don't read all the comments, but pretty much all of the people i interact with seem also to be voting for obama. and yes- i do despise the obamabots. they are is irrational, dishonest, and cultish as republicans. i care about issues, and obama is less bad on the issues than mccain, but i will continue to rail on him for being so lame.
Posted by Turkana at July 10, 2008 03:40 PMTurkana, Obama has to move to the center. He has the left's vote. The country would not go for electing a leftist such as Feingold for President. That's why we have Obama as the Democratic candidate.
I agree with Feingold, Obama will make it right. I have confidence in him.
I predict he makes Edwards his V/P. Ease the left's minds.
I'm disappointed as hell. Took my name off his website in protest. I will not donate any money until the convention (or until his V/P pick). He has to know he has pissed of plenty of people.
OTOH, I would have predicted you holding Obama's feet to the fire after he's elected, not while he's trying to be elected. Makes you come off sounding a bit like a disillusioned Hillary voter.
There's way too much obsessing on the blogs about who's going to vote for whom. May the best man win. That's how we're supposed to settle things.
I can think of only one good reason to vote for Obama--he's not John McCain. (Well maybe two good reasons--electing an African American would benefit the culture.) That's pathetic at a time when the country has never been more ready for substantive progressive change after years of Republican misrule.
Not every website needs to be full of Obama cheerleaders.
Posted by cygnus at July 10, 2008 03:56 PMactually, geek, as far as i know, btd, jeralyn and tchris are all voting for obama.
Yes, they have all stated as much. But, their commenters are overwhelmingly anti-Obama--they're either staying home or voting McCain.
i don't read all the comments, but pretty much all of the people i interact with seem also to be voting for obama.
and yes- i do despise the obamabots. they are is irrational, dishonest, and cultish as republicans.
Sure, if you insist that they agree with you in order to be deemed rational and honest
i care about issues, and obama is less bad on the issues than mccain, but i will continue to rail on him for being so lame.
Hilarious, given that Clinton and Obama were very similar on the issues, but you were a vicious partisan on her behalf and against Obama.
You lost your shit re: Obama when McClurkin happened, and you never got it back. After that, everything he did and said was filtered through your severely negative assumptions about him as a human being.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 03:57 PMHe has the left's vote.
He's making it difficult to be an an enthusiastic vote. Some "inspirational leader" he's turning out to be.
I wonder if the Germans will let Obama speak?
"We don't need another Dr. Phil! We need solutions! It's not just a figment of your imagination. It's not all in your head. When people are struggling to buy gas and groceries....When people are losing their homes...It's not a figment of your imagination. And it's not too much to ask for the government to step in and give you some relief. It's time to have a president who doesn't deny our problems or pretend they don't exist. It's time we had a president who takes responsibility."
Hope so.
Posted by phidipides at July 10, 2008 05:48 PM
I can think of only one good reason to vote for Obama--he's not John McCain. (Well maybe two good reasons--electing an African American would benefit the culture.) That's pathetic at a time when the country has never been more ready for substantive progressive change after years of Republican misrule.
Posted by cygnus at July 10, 2008 03:56 PM
Sorry, but comments this rational give me a headache. :-P
The other reason I would have been less annoyed to have Obama as the nominee has disappeared; the promise that he could actually inspire people to action beyond just joining his groupies. tap tap tap...still waiting...
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at July 10, 2008 06:06 PMDid you see where the Russian spoke?
Posted by phidipides at July 10, 2008 06:06 PMInteresting,it appears now when the Obama supporters don't have an answer to a question (why should you trust someone's words-mainly Obama something) or criticisms/concerns (see turkana's list of them and the Obama minder's and then CaPJ's response) of Senator Obama they say the "issue is not important" and not part of the "big picture". - emal
In the real world in which I live nobody who agrees with me 100% will ever be elected president. Our economy, our national security, and our planet depend on a sensible progressive energy policy like Obama's.
The fundamental rights of 150 million women hang in the balance of who gets elected.
A disastrous war has cost countless thousands of lives and over half a trillion dollars.
Millions have no health insurance, can't afford health insurance, are afraid of losing health insurance, or can't change jobs because of health insurance. I own a small business, and providing coverage for my employees is logistically difficult even ignoring the cost.
And you want me to fuss over faith-based initiatives? Gun control? Telecom immunity? Pbbfft. Sorry, most of us in the real world have bigger things to worry about, and Obama has us covered.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at July 10, 2008 06:34 PMThe Germans will let him speak, but, Brandenburg Gate is for presidents or world leaders if you will. Wannabes can speak elsewhere. There's a nice Holocaust Memorial located nearby on EbertsStrasse between Hannah-Arendt Strasse and BehrenStrsse. It's just a block or two south of the gate. Check Point Charlie is also available.
I know the mayor of Berlin might like to show up Angela Merkel, different parties and all. If he wants to improve America's standing to the Germans he would chose another location. Otherwise, he'd be acting like a Texan.
Posted by peter at July 10, 2008 06:39 PMI think the Junkie needs to check into Barry Obama more. Seems he agrees with Scalia a lot more than the Junkie would like. He was on the verge of voting for Roberts until an aid mentioned the possible negatives of such a position. And his changing voice on abortion should get him more attention. Just because he says he's a progressive doesn't mean he is. He has said many things and not stood by the words.
Posted by peter at July 10, 2008 06:49 PMIf he wants to improve America's standing to the Germans he would chose another location.
Poor peter, your German brethren don't agree with you.
Just in time for Barack Obama's trip to Germany, a new poll shows (once more) that an overwhelming majority of Germans favor the Democratic presidential candidate over his Republican rival John McCain. A poll conducted on July 3 for the German Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag found that 72 percent of Germans want Obama as the next U.S. president. Only 11 percent hope for a McCain victory in November.Posted by Seven of Six at July 10, 2008 06:54 PMSimiliar to U.S. polls, Obama is especially popular among people with a high school degree (86 percent). Interestingly, East Germans (77 percent) favor the Democratic candidate more than Germans in general. A possible explanation for this factoid could be that East Germans on a whole are more inclined to vote for left-of-center candidates than Germans in general.
Throughout the primary I was mistified by Turkana's childish rantings regarding Barack Obama. After reading this post, I smacked myself in the head. Turkana is a Republican mole,hellbent on scuttling the Democratic Presidential election, Who Knew???? !
Posted by rm forsyth at July 10, 2008 07:06 PMMerkel's from the east, she would prefer him not to speak there. The mayors from a different party, anything to piss her off. So yeah, send Obama there to get between the two. Act international, or be like a Texan.
Posted by peter at July 10, 2008 07:17 PMSorry, most of us in the real world have bigger things to worry about, and Obama has us covered.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at July 10, 2008 06:34 PM
You mean, the real selfish world you live in?
You rant about abortion rights and yet dont care about privacy. That makes you too arrogant to make the connection between the two. Abortion is ALL ABOUT PRIVACY.
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at July 10, 2008 07:22 PM
You rant about abortion rights and yet dont care about privacy. That makes you too arrogant to make the connection between the two. Abortion is ALL ABOUT PRIVACY.
All medical history's are about privacy.
Posted by Seven of Six at July 10, 2008 07:27 PMCA Pol Junkie & Geek,
You guys are sure funny. You do not make a real case for Obama, you are still fighting the primary and Hillary defenders. I suppose neither of you think there was a thing wrong with Obama's primary campaign either, no sexism or misogyny, move along, nothing to see here.
Obama ran to the right of Hillary on everything but the war, which was the issue. As a woman, in today's USA, it was so easy to prove you were tough enough to vote against the war. You all told me multiple times how Hillary was sinful, just SINFUL, and triangulating, just an EVIL person.
Who is sinful NOW. Even Lessig gets it that Obama is hurting himself to try to get elected by republicans, or Reagan democrats, or whatever. We were sold a bill of goods, and some of us saw it all along. Obama is proving that he is just another politician. The supreme court votes are all that matter to me now.
And both of you should be ashamed of yourselves, you are promoting the same cult of personality that got America in so much trouble with shrub. ( and the only other case of this lately has been, oh HITLER. Yes, just trust him enough to get elected, and then we can change him. REALLY??
Posted by kcbill13 at July 10, 2008 08:08 PMThe Germans will let him speak, but, Brandenburg Gate is for presidents or world leaders if you will.
You mean those 600 nude people were presidents?
And both of you should be ashamed of yourselves, you are promoting the same cult of personality that got America in so much trouble with shrub.
Yes, both of you are very bad and should be spanked.
Obama released his position paper on women in the workplace. There are just too many specifics in it, like all his policy positions. Obama is so scary! And if he changes his position he lets you know and gives you an opportunity to respond. That is even scarier! Nope. He is just like the cult of Buschco in that regard, what with laying out detailed policy papers and inviting comments. He is so much like Buschco it's...well...scary! Obama is soooo scaaarrryyyy!!! It's because you have to believe in him without there being any substance (you go to his website and there are assloads of policy positions, but lets pretend there aren't)...you know, like policy positions. I'm really getting fearful now! Obama is so scary!
As Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar says about McCain's agenda for women, it's like a classic sitcom (I'm ripping this off and paraphrasing from http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/10/obama-on-women-dr-phil-gilligan/):
McCain's policies...remind me of TV Land rerunning, over and over again, episodes of "Gilligan's Island, and Ginger and MaryAnn are never getting off the island.
Obama is soooo scary.
Posted by phidipides at July 10, 2008 08:53 PM7of6, I am not talking about records.
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at July 10, 2008 08:53 PMAnd both of you should be ashamed of yourselves, you are promoting the same cult of personality that got America in so much trouble with shrub. ( and the only other case of this lately has been, oh HITLER.
This is the logical extension of Turk's cult meme. You're doing him proud.
P.S. You belong in a mental institution.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at July 10, 2008 09:13 PMIn 1976, 1980, 84, 88, 92, 2000, 2004 I voted for the Democrat for President, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, but without regret. In 1996, in a vote I later came to regret, I voted for Nader as a protest over Clinton's signing the Welfare "Reform" bill, but I did so not only knowing Clinton was going to win, but glad that that was the case. Had there been any question that Clinton might lose, I would have voted for him.
This is only time since I could vote that I not only won't vote for the Democratic nominee, but I want him to lose, and this despite the worst 8 years of Republican rule in a century filled with bad REpublican presidents. I very much wish that were not the case, but Obama has not done one single thing to cause me to question my judgement that as President he will be a disaster. No doubt McCain will be a disaster as well. But limited to a choice of disasters, I prefer the one that damages the GOP, not the one that revives them.
Posted by tdraicer at July 10, 2008 10:49 PMCaPJ....still failed to answer the main issue of trust...which Obama's "evolving" positions and word semantic games and yes even lies (about what he said he'd do about Fisa) seem to indicate. Why should I trust that he'll do the things he says today that you says he's got us covered by when tomorrow as his record indicates his words and actions will change? Oh yeah I can't and to me that's an huge character and integrity issue and reality.
And stfu about I don't live in the "real world"....you haven't walked in my or my family shoes and know nothing about what I deal with on a day to day basis...frankly the democratic party including both Obama and Clinton have been a huge let down since 2006....they've done nothing to address any significant issue that would assist or positively impact the serfs of the world....despite my hope of change. So if you're happy with the "he's got us covered" you go with that in the mean time, I hope he'll earn my trust back...because so far he's just another Status Quo Democratic presidential nominee running against Bush's Third Term....the evil of two lessers.... what wonderful choices.
Posted by emal at July 11, 2008 06:15 AMgeek: "Other than FISA, what positions or votes has he sold out on?"
Mrs. Lincoln, other than the assassination, how was the play?
CA Pol Junkie: “OMG! Obama's not doing everything we want him to do! He's only going to get our troops out of Iraq, improve access to health care, enact progressive energy/climate policy, and appoint progressive Supreme Court justices!”
after stabing us in the back on a fundamental issue like FISA, how in the world can you trust him?
CA Pol Junkie: “His vote was indeed disappointing, but the practical effect is nil. There is no way either telecoms or Bush would ever be held accountable.”
The telecoms will not be held accountable NOW, after Obama stabbed us in the back.
Posted by at July 11, 2008 07:13 AM