There is a time and a place for everything.
Back when McCain won the GOP primary, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the conservative blogs. He wasn't their guy, they thought he was a sellout on immigration, etc.
But now? Go look at some conservative blogs. You will not find a single post critical of McCain. These blogs are all anti-Obama, all the time.
The right has message discipline, and they know how to win an election.
The goals of the left right now should be:
1. Do everything possible to get Obama elected
2. Vigorously pressure him once he's in office.
We will absolutely have to fight it out with the Blue Dogs/DLC elements of our party. But we should wait until we have something to fight over first.
Posted by NR at August 13, 2008 11:31 AMthanks for making my point, nr- it's the man that matters, not the issue. sorry, but my number one political goal is and always will be to promote better policies.
Posted by Turkana at August 13, 2008 11:33 AMthanks for making my point, nr- it's the man that matters, not the issue.
Did you read anything I wrote?
Better policies will not be possible with McCain in the White House.
Posted by NR at August 13, 2008 11:38 AM"I LOVE Barack Obama!"
"He can do no wrong!"
"He embodies everything I think this nation needs in a leader!"
"Everything will be better once he gets elected."
See how easy that is Turkana?
We're supposed to be following the lead of the fucktard rightwingers now.
Get with the program.
Posted by snark at August 13, 2008 11:46 AM2. Vigorously pressure him once he's in office.
This makes me LMAO. "Vigorously pressure" Obama? Please. He will tell you exactly what you want to hear, leaving enough wiggle room for him to get out of it.
Everything Obama says is 100% true and 1,000% useless.
Posted by BlueStateGirl at August 13, 2008 11:48 AMBlueStateGirl - I am not talking about what he says. I am talking about what he does.
Posted by NR at August 13, 2008 11:50 AMPolicies are not made by voters during elections.
The only way elections influence policy-making is by determining the people and the party who will have the stronger hand in deciding policy choices.
Elections and election campaigns are only concerned with who wins, not what they will do after winning.
But, you know this Turkana. You are smart and well-read in politics.
So why are you going on about things that don't matter in an election campaign?
If it were the case that Obama's switch on FISA, or on drilling, or on anything else, would mean that he will lose votes, then the discussion is germane to an election campaign.
But great mass of American voters who have not yet decided for whom they will vote are not animated or alienated by FISA. I would suggest that you and I would be horrified at the FISA policies that the great mass of American voters would choose if they were permitted to do so.
Whatever you believe about these policy matters, you have to know that things will be worse, across the board, if McCain wins.
Posted by James E. Powell at August 13, 2008 11:53 AMTurkana,
Isn't the problem that Obama's completely lack of spine makes him the unelectable caricature of the Democrat who stands for nothing?
Except for some organizational advantages, he is worse than the worst Democratic candidates of the last 30 years--he is absolutely TERRIBLE without a script.
He's maxed out on inspiring voters, IMO, and the selling out you mention works against this.
Posted by MarkL at August 13, 2008 11:57 AMI'm writing in Edwards in November - If we're gonna be fucked, might as well back someone who has proven he knows how to do it, and isn't bad on the eyes.
Buncha twits, all of ya! And you wonder why these guys ignore the 'nets until they need money.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 13, 2008 11:59 AMI would suggest that you and I would be horrified at the FISA policies that the great mass of American voters would choose if they were permitted to do so.
To sum up.
We're gonna get him elected by allowing him to take positions counter to our liking but that the majority of our fellow citizens will agree with but then expect that we can pressure him to govern the way we want and against the wishes of the majority once in office. And even if he doesn't bend to our will he will be better in some respects than McCain.
And this constitutes the "politics of change" how exactly?
Sounds like the same old same old to me. And if that's the case we'd have been better off with Clinton IMO.
Posted by snark at August 13, 2008 12:04 PMTurkana, thanks for continuing to point out where our party is going. It's disturbing.
Posted by Joelarama at August 13, 2008 01:01 PMThose damn Liberals... one would think that they are a bunch of individuals... not the collective.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 13, 2008 01:21 PM"we'd have been better off with Clinton IMO." Except that Bill cannot run for a third term.
Posted by T2 at August 13, 2008 01:31 PMThere you go, becoming what you despise in Republicans. Figures, this is what Obama will bring. I loved the "pressure" line up there. "Pressure" is lost once he has the job. The "politics of change" becomes "don't make waves". Coyote's bitter, how nice. Obama's taken out Clinton and now got rid of Edwards. He's beheading every Democrat that can get in his way. Who's next?
The party suffered by defending President Clinton, now it's going to go the rest of the way by sacrificing all the things Democrats hold dear. What will be left? What will make Democrats Democrats? Obama's the blank slate, draw what you will on him. Nothing else matters but him. Nothing!
Posted by peter at August 13, 2008 01:35 PMWhat will make Democrats Democrats?
Not standing together in a massive group circle-jerk like the republi-cons do.
Posted by phidipides at August 13, 2008 01:39 PMPhid, other than some here, it's what they're doing and big time, more generic Dems you know.
Posted by peter at August 13, 2008 01:47 PM........we should wait until we have something to fight over first. NR 11:31 AMIt is interesting that you ignore the tiny little data point, the point that McCain has reversed his positions to agree with his conservative base. Obama, on the other hand, is crapping on issues that the supposed Democratic base holds dear: health-care, NAFTA, FISA, gun control, death penalty, funding religion with taxpayer money. If you don't think issues are important, support Obama; if you do, vote third party.
2. Vigorously pressure him once he's in office.
Like he listens to the concerns of the base. Like he shown how much he cares. Yeah, right: nada.
....The party suffered by defending President Clinton, now it's going to go the rest of the way by sacrificing all the things Democrats hold dear.... peter 01:35 PM
Do you want your Empire nice and smooth with Obama?--or nice and rough with McCain?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
Posted by Copeland at August 13, 2008 02:12 PMMike, my reference was more for compromising on Democrats values. I'll agree with you that electorally, Republicans did suffer more in the 2000 race. My statement was more focussed on issues, the place women were put in defending President Clinton.
Posted by peter at August 13, 2008 02:12 PMAnyone consider that the new FISA could be helpful to a Democratic administration in sending many of the fratboy thugs to prison?
Posted by opportunist at August 13, 2008 02:18 PMMike - Your rhetoric was tired back in 2000 and it's even more tired today. On every major issue of the day - Iraq, foreign policy, tax policy, health care, energy policy, social issues, etc. - Barack Obama is significantly better than John McCain. If you're too stupid to see that, all I can say is that I feel sorry for you.
Posted by NR at August 13, 2008 02:19 PMWe've hashed that on one opportunist. It doesn't fly, especially since "AG" John Edwards messed up.
Posted by peter at August 13, 2008 02:23 PMAnyone consider that the new FISA could be helpful to a Democratic administration in sending many of the fratboy thugs to prison?
And torture helps keep us safe from terrorists too! So pipe down about that, k?
Posted by snark at August 13, 2008 02:26 PMObama seems to be a better person than McCain, has a more even-tempered personality, does not get stampeded into extreme positions, and has not cried out in the manner of some Jacobin, that "We are all Georgians!" And while he may be a fraud on some level, at least he's not a monster of testosterone, a beet-faced rage-aholic and warmonger, who will touch off World War III and become the only person who can make us forget George W. Bush.
Posted by Copeland at August 13, 2008 02:36 PMPeople realizing that Obama is a hack and a fraud, eh?
Shoulda nominated Hillary.
Posted by m12 at August 13, 2008 02:42 PM"can make us forget George W. Bush," with Barry Obama continuing Bush doctrines for four more years, how can one expect to do that?
Posted by peter at August 13, 2008 02:46 PMYes, yes, m12. We could have had Plan Colombia. But better McCain and "nukular war toe to toe with the Ruskies".
Posted by Copeland at August 13, 2008 02:46 PMFuck you peter. At least m12 is an honest rat.
Posted by Copeland at August 13, 2008 02:48 PM"Editorial: Eye on the Prize" From CPUSA.org
Your alliances are showing, more big tent?
Posted by peter at August 13, 2008 02:51 PMWho said anything about nuclear war?
We are merely preparing for the possibility on an Iranian strike on Israel.
Posted by m12 at August 13, 2008 02:54 PMBut great mass of American voters who have not yet decided for whom they will vote are not animated or alienated by FISA. I would suggest that you and I would be horrified at the FISA policies that the great mass of American voters would choose if they were permitted to do so.
At least 1 liberal realizes how out of touch radical leftwing policies are compared to the rest of the nation.
Posted by m12 at August 13, 2008 02:57 PMm12, you stooge, you mean an Israeli strike on Iran.
Posted by Copeland at August 13, 2008 02:58 PMm12 is already in the Fuehrer bunker.
Posted by Copeland at August 13, 2008 03:00 PMIf you say so, Copeland. An appropriate response after such threats as
"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
Posted by m12 at August 13, 2008 03:05 PMWho are you quoting, m12, Norman Bates?
Posted by Copeland at August 13, 2008 03:15 PMI take back what I said about you being an honest rat. You're a puke.
Posted by Copeland at August 13, 2008 03:17 PMNo, Copeland, those are quotes from the leader of Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
Posted by m12 at August 13, 2008 03:25 PMCopeland, now you know why these goatblowers need to be banned. There are no honest Republicans. Not a single one.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 13, 2008 03:27 PMLooks like the Iranian regime has an ally here in Iamcoyote.
Posted by m12 at August 13, 2008 03:28 PMDemocratic honesty...see John Edwards and see the lack of news coverage until he fessed up on ABC.
Posted by peter at August 13, 2008 03:38 PMHey, Hillary would make a good V/P... she'd be getting killed by the right wing smear machine... but she'd be fighting back like hell.
Other than that, Obama is the Democrats choice... he'll do fine. Another 4 years of McShit would be a disaster.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 13, 2008 04:18 PMSo what is your point, Turkana? Should we only nominate a candidate who agrees with you (or me) all the time? Barack Obama is and has always been a pragmatist. We are not going to get everything we want, just a good president with sound domestic and foreign policy who will leave the country in much better shape.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 13, 2008 04:19 PMpetr McGoatblower: Lying about sex, bad. Lying about war - millions dying, good. 'Course, when your first love is goats, sex with a woman is bad, right goatboy?
Posted by iamcoyote at August 13, 2008 04:21 PM"So what is your point, Turkana? Should we only nominate a candidate who agrees with you (or me) all the time?"
Yeah, that's a fair reading. Turkana says, x is Orwellian and looks to be pervasive, and you respond, Obama will be good enough so shut up.
Posted by rilkefan at August 13, 2008 04:22 PMyes, capj- the new fisa law is sound policy. thanks again for proving my point.
Posted by Turkana at August 13, 2008 04:41 PMYeah, that's a fair reading. Turkana says, x is Orwellian and looks to be pervasive, and you respond, Obama will be good enough so shut up.
Orwellian and pervasive? That's quite the extrapolation from Obama's FISA vote.
There are two basic ways to get elected president: spectacular lies (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, McCain) or showing occasional separation from one's own party (Clinton I and II, Obama). FISA is a relatively minor issue compared to (for example) NAFTA or authorizing war.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 13, 2008 04:43 PMyes, capj- the new fisa law is sound policy. thanks again for proving my point. - Turkana
It expires in 4 years, during which time I expect (despite your best efforts) we will have a president with 10 times the respect for the Constitution as Bush or McCain.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 13, 2008 04:54 PM"That's quite the extrapolation from Obama's FISA vote."
Read the post, please, bearing in mind that there are people in the public sphere besides Obama, then reread the comment in question. Hint: they're not about Obama. I.e., they're about other people.
"(despite your best efforts)"
This little aside is heading for goatblowing territory.
Posted by rilkefan at August 13, 2008 05:01 PMAfter a long amount of soul searching and the Democratic candidate's recent position changes - I'm changing my support.
I'm voting for George McGovern.
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 13, 2008 05:09 PMrilkefan, you mean this?
Because to a certain type of mindset, it's not the issues that matter, it's the man selling them. Sadly, that type of mindset is now the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
The post basically extrapolates FISA to everything. It is profoundly insulting to say it's all about the man, not the issues, because some of us stand up for Obama even though he did something we disagree with on FISA. That's because some of us care about all the issues, including energy policy, climate change, the economy, the budget, tax policy, health care, foreign policy, and the Supreme Court. Objectionable but temporary parts of FISA truly don't matter next to all that.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 13, 2008 05:12 PMThat's because some of us care about all the issues,
Exactly.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 13, 2008 05:28 PMSteve,
what is up with the talking ads???? end that now please
Posted by schaz at August 13, 2008 06:29 PMTurk,
The FISA bill issue was settled a couple of months ago. Haven't you had enough? Why don't you critize McLame with the same fevor you attack Obama on certain issues?
What the fuck do you think life will be like under McLame? Do you think that asshole cares about anything that you care about?
Your anti-Obama stance is getting awfully fucking boring!
Posted by angryman at August 13, 2008 06:54 PMYou make some good points here, but what is it with this constant use of the word shrillosphere? To me, it just sounds offensive, and shrill, and I'm just some guy reading your words from a computer somewhere out here. You are casting quite a big net with that term, sort of sounds like anyone who supported Obama in the primaries. Besides, there have been a number of promenant bloggers, even ones who came to support Obama during the primaries, who have been very critical of him since the FISA vote.
Posted by Panhu at August 13, 2008 07:26 PMWow Turkana, way to neuter your post. You might as well turn off the comments since you have made clear that only people who agree with you have anything of value to say. Everyone else: well, we are all sellouts or part of the 'shrillosphere.'
It would be possible to post on a different topic, everyday until the election, about what a dangerous fuck that John McCain is. It would be possible to point out the severe damage that McCain will do to this country, if elected, everyday from now until November 4th without ever uttering a word about Obama. You would not have to feign support for him, just say nothing.
It would be possible - if your motivation were to do something about the issues that you care about.
I highly doubt that any of these issues stand a snowball's chance in hell of being addressed with a McCain administration.
However, my guess is that you care a slight bit more about "being right" and being righteous than you do getting Democrats elected so that we have at least a slight chance of changing the disastrous policies of the last 8 years. We are seriously screwed and we don't have the luxury of voting 3rd party or any of this shit that all of these high minded people claim we need to do.
Obama has a lot of strikes against him and the Republicans own the voting machines and are all ready working hard to purge the voter rolls and challenge new registrants. A margin of 3-4 percent and they steal this one too. We don't have the luxuries of nit-picking everything that Obama does or insinuating some nefarious intent of an endorsement of a bill by someone who has nothing to do with the Obama campaign. The only reason to do this is obviously to again add doubt to those who make up the slim margin of support that Obama has over McCain.
Yes, Obama is a politician. Holy crap - don't we want a politician to be our nominee? Someone who can hopefully fight and manuever and compromise and get support so that he can get elected? Cause right now, that is all that it is about, getting elected.
I don't agree with a whole lot that Obama has done since getting the nomination, but I agree with nothing that McCain has done.
Obama runs a hell of a campaign. Tight and organized and no drama. This is a good thing...and he can win - with our help.
We have this kind of bullshit happening every day. These people are criminal fucks. With McCain there will be far worse. Hows about you write about this kind of crap?
I have no idea what kind of a president that Obama will be but I am pretty friggin' sure that he will be miles better than John McCain.
ca pol junkie, you still can't bring yourself to address Halperin's switch, and of course you know that Turkana is referring to more than just this issue; and of course you can't defend "best efforts". I guess that periodically when you're feeling let down by your candidate you feel the need to launch attacks as a way of trying to boost his appeal. If you'd just say, 'I don't like Obama saying w or x or y, and I wish his more fervent supporters wouldn't switch their policy positions when he does, and there's an important role for people making such arguments, but on z he's ok on the facts', you would be a much more effective advocate. As it stands I'm seeing your claws-coming-out reaction as evidence for the above claim.
Posted by rilkefan at August 13, 2008 08:01 PM"It would be possible to post on a different topic, everyday until the election, about what a dangerous fuck that John McCain is"
Sadly Turkana is the only pro-Obama blogger in the country as well as being the most prominent, so that anti-McCain message just isn't getting out there. Whereas the liberal blogs are just dominated by people pointing out for no conceivable reason the occasions when Obama is bad on policy or use debatable tactics.
Posted by rilkefan at August 13, 2008 08:08 PMIDK good points, sick of hearing about FISA though
Posted by fderk at August 13, 2008 08:13 PMGo, Anjha!
Posted by iamcoyote at August 13, 2008 08:21 PMrilkefan, I honestly don't care a bit why Halperin changed his mind. He only represents himself, though. In fact, I haven't seen anyone in the leftroots switch on FISA. I ceratainly haven't, but I accept that I'm not always going to get my way.
Go, Anjha! - iamcoyote
Amen to that!
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 13, 2008 08:37 PMCertainly not in the next four years...
An apparent compromise on last week’s proposal that would have had all combat troops out by 2010, conditions permitting. The new plan: Combat troops out of the country by 2011 (again, conditions permitting) but out of the cities next summer, with the departure date for residual forces TBD. If the current troop presence is like training wheels, this is like taking the wheels off but running alongside the bike. The point is to be as close as possible to catch it in case it starts to topple over.
Posted by peter at August 13, 2008 08:54 PMThe point is to be as close as possible to catch it in case it starts to topple over.
That's why you have a CIC to give orders and have them followed. If the Generals aren't getting the job done in the time alotted, you replace them. Of course all Generals want a blank check and all the time in the world to complete a mission with an open ended timeline.
When a Dem takes office, that shit is over!
Way to go Anjha, you speak for me!
Anjha, my sentiments exactly!
Posted by Judith at August 14, 2008 03:10 AMIke and Marshall had a blank check, Nimitz too. Halsey too, never got to command any decisive battles, but he managed to stay around the whole war. Then there's Kennedy's and LBJ's commanders. Truman's commanders? And Carter did so fine with the hostages, sending the wrong vehicles into a dessert environment. What a joke Seven.
You're desperate..."don't we want a politician to be our nominee? Someone who can hopefully fight and manuever and compromise and get support so that he can get elected? Cause right now, that is all that it is about, getting elected" Isn't this what we have now, had in 2000? How many Democrats voted for the war? Even your pick, John Edwards did. The guy running Obama did too. He's got a second chance, will be in an Obama admin. He's got a lobbyist wife.
Yeah Seven, you're desperate, ready to overlook many things just to get the 'D'. Ideology is out this election cycle for both of us, but I'm not that desperate.
Posted by peter at August 14, 2008 03:11 AMIke and Marshall had a blank check, Nimitz too.
Don't even try to compare petie. We were taxed like hell to pay for that war, the people pulled together and made do without. In addition, it was a moral war.
Their has never been an administration who has squandered so many billions and received so little in return, in such an immoral war. But raping the treasury has always been part of the plan!
Even your pick, John Edwards did.
Even I did... for the first week. We were all lied to dick face!
The guy running Obama did too.
No he did not. But he did give a speech against it. He was not even in the Senate fuck face!
Posted by Seven of Six at August 14, 2008 06:43 AMPeter
SOS just "tapped out"...
Posted by jj at August 14, 2008 06:55 AMjj... facing the reality he will become a minorty... makes the weakest of comebacks.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 14, 2008 07:34 AMTurk,
What is your end game here? Are you hoping that Obama looses and Clinton comes back in four years?
Think about all of the chaos that will occur under McLame...including another arms war with Russia and impending war with Iran. Let us not forget "bomb, bomb, Iran." (youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg)
THIS IS FAR AWAY FROM FISA: However, as a result of your negative posting, the repug fuckwads are now pilling saying generals in the past have had a "blank check" to run about willy-nilly and fight wars how ever.
Just for the record: We elect the president. The president sets the policy (CIC). The military, including "generals" follow orders. That is the way it was set up in the Constitution and the way it has been historically. For an individual to suggest otherwise is disingenuous and just plain silly! Historically, anytime a general disagreed with policy, they were fired! Including under this administration.
So, get it right Damn it!
...no, the weakest use the language that you do and still can't make a point.
Try again
Posted by jj at August 14, 2008 08:02 AMSeventied it!
Posted by Seven of Six at August 14, 2008 08:14 AMSoS, you devil, you!
Posted by iamcoyote at August 14, 2008 08:23 AMI knew the endless banter with jj would propel me...
Posted by Seven of Six at August 14, 2008 08:39 AMangryman,
i know this is hard for some of you to comprehend, but i was never a huge fan of clinton, i just wanted her treated fairly. my end game is to wake people up to the reality that once obama takes office, we're going to have to ride his ass as unrelentingly as we would have had to ride clinton's. and of course many in this thread who would have ridden clinton's will continue to do what they're already doing, with obama- making excuses for him.
Posted by Turkana at August 14, 2008 09:02 AMI knew the endless banter with jj would propel me...
I was wondering why you were giving that pathetic twerp the time o' day. He fell for it, too.
my end game is to wake people up to the reality that once obama takes office,
Sorry, but your lame protests are really getting old. It's become obvious that you're just bitter about Obama when you write whiney shit like:
Because to a certain type of mindset, it's not the issues that matter, it's the man selling them. Sadly, that type of mindset is now the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Not to mention the shrillosphere.
Especially when only one or two commenters here actually overwhelmingly support Obama in all he does while the rest of the haters flock to your posts.
And yes, I know, you thank me for proving your point. We get it, everyone who doesn't agree with your whining "proves your point."
And please, could you dispense with the no caps, no punctuation affectation? That's skippy's schtick, and anyone who copies it is a lame-ass poseur who thinks we're stupid enough to believe you're just so busy you have no time to hit the shift key.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 14, 2008 09:23 AMSenate Majority Leader Daschle did vote for the war Seven. He's "The guy 'running' Obama did too. He's got a second chance, will be in an Obama admin. He's got a lobbyist wife." Try again Seven, read the comment first.
yes, coyote-
i'm either with obama or i'm against him.
Posted by Turkana at August 14, 2008 10:08 AMThis was the last straw for me personally. First his speech to AIPAC then the FISA bill.
At this point I'm reading to vote third party unless Obama revokes some of his more right-leaning stances: http://tinyurl.com/5w9w9v
Posted by Vadim at August 14, 2008 10:16 AMturkana, I find it interesting here that many are knocking your for your lack of total adulation and purity toward Obama ...almost like something I'd read over on the right blogosphere by the bushbot in discussion of Dear Leader ....some in their own righteousness accusing you of being righteous..lol...
All I can say is at least when you stand for something, I know where you stand and that you'll be consistent in your values and word..and if you're not you should be called on it. You've got way more integritude than many here and definitely far more credibility and objectivity when discussing it.
Lastly here's that Roosevelt quote that is so appropriate here for the Democratic candidate vying to become president even if your planning to vote for them to hold that office..."To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt...
Boy this purity litmus test that supporters are applying is enough to drive people away from the candidate imo...
prophylactic...I know John McSame sux way way more than The Precious. I will never vote for McSame.
Posted by emal at August 14, 2008 10:18 AMYowza turkana, ....coming next... it's the way you cross your t's and dot your i's ? ;-P
my end game is to wake people up to the reality that once obama takes office, we're going to have to ride his ass as unrelentingly as we would have had to ride clinton's. - Turkana
We're not stupid, Turkana. We don't need to be "woken up" as if you're the Oracle of Wisdom. You assume that Obama will take office, but we have to win an election first or that won't happen. We've seen in the last 8 years, to disastrous effect, what happens if liberals get in a huff before the election.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 14, 2008 10:41 AMi'm either with obama or i'm against him.
Pretty much. And judging from all of your snide posts, it looks like you're against him. But to cover your ass, you add "oh, I'll vote for him, but I'm not gonna like it." No one is asking you to like it or him, 'cos frankly no one gives a shit whether you do or not. I don't like him, and I don't need to like him. But I want him to win, because I want McCain to lose. I'm not so sure you do, based on your smearing of anyone who isn't trashing Obama 24/7 as cult of personality shrill merchants.
And emal, no one's asking anyone to give Obama unquestioned adulation, I'm just saying that if you want McCain to lose, but can't bring yourself to say anything supportive of the Dem, then trash the 'puke instead. Stop working against people who want the Dem to win. As CAPJ says, we're not stupid enough to think he's perfect. But he's better than the alternative.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 14, 2008 11:05 AMTurk,
I understand your point exaclty. But why do you continue to throw darts when the guy doesn't even have the official nomination yet?
To your point, we should hold anyone who wins accountable. Just like we have the past eight years...oh right that didn't happen. If McLame wins, it is more of the SOS and your comments and points about Obama and individuals changing to his point will be like PiaoP!
Lets all say that in unison "Obama has to win first."
Otherwise all you are doing is giving fuel to these numbnuts, so they can distort what you say and reference this blog.
Posted by angryman at August 14, 2008 11:54 AMSo turkana, ixnay on the itcismcay of Obama or his positions or his supporters hypocrtical positions until after the general election...just stifle yourself...yup no pointing out hypocrisy on our side until after the election....because your helping the enemy when you do. You can only criticize the enemy.
Gee where have I heard supporters of a certain leader telling others to shut up and stop criticizing their leader when they disagree because when/if they do it, they're only enabling/helping the terrori..errrr...um... enem...errr....the other side.
We have met the wingnut enemy that we've criticized for these types of actions/behaviors/words and we have become them.
(seems irony and hypocrisy are alive and well in the left blogosphere)
Posted by emal at August 14, 2008 12:21 PMHey everybody... lets all criticize Obama so he doesn't get elected... then we can bitch about McLame and the repukeli-cons for 4 more years...K!!
Posted by Seven of Six at August 14, 2008 12:39 PMSenate Majority Leader Daschle did vote for the war Seven. He's "The guy 'running' Obama did too. He's got a second chance, will be in an Obama admin. He's got a lobbyist wife." Try again Seven, read the comment first.
But, but I thought Obama = bu$h... peterMcGoatblower?
Posted by Seven of Six at August 14, 2008 12:44 PMI never meant to accuse anyone of oppressing me coyote...just pointing out how I find it interesting that there are those on the left who are advocating that people should stop writing or speaking out critically about Obama and or his supporters...and that they should hold their fire until after the general election to do so because doing it now aids McSame. I personally find that request and the need for it remarkably similar to the rightwing side of the blogosphere/political spectrum...that's all. I also found it ironic and hypocritical.
Posted by emal at August 14, 2008 01:22 PMI find it interesting that there are those on the left who are advocating that people should stop writing or speaking out critically about Obama and or his supporters...and that they should hold their fire until after the general election to do so because doing it now aids McSame.
Precisely. And it is not interesting at all. It is called responsibility and every single asshole who posts on a blog shares in it.
I went back through the archives here at TLC and there is very little Kerry whacking by the front pagers. There is a whole lot of Bush exposure. The posters went after GW and all of his bullshit and worked to combat the misinformation from the right.
When misinformation is perpetuated and the writings boost John McCain, I find that irresponsible.
I personally find that request and the need for it remarkably similar to the rightwing side of the blogosphere/political spectrum...that's all.
You mean the ones who stay on message and practice excellent political theatre and win elections? (Or at least keep them close enough to win.) Ya.
Listen, I don't expect anyone to hold their fire and not go after someone when it is deserved. I also do not expect anyone to let up on the assholes who are in office. But why don't we quit doing the work for the right and pull together and win this fucking election?
And lastly, the bullshit of constant whining and Obama resentment described as some kind of noble psychological examination or as duty to issues or devotion to principles is crap. Call it what it is. The dishonesty is smearing the reputation of TLC and has to stop.
also found it ironic and hypocritical.
There is nothing ironic or hypocritical about it. I have never been either. I want to win. I will call out those who are doing their best to ensure a loss. Period. No hypocrisy here. Truth and honesty.
Winning this election is everything. McCain wants nuclear war and he does not hide it.
"There are going to be more wars, my friends." is not something that I can abide by. This I will fight with everything.
And please, could you dispense with the no caps, no punctuation affectation? That's skippy's schtick, and anyone who copies it is a lame-ass poseur who thinks we're stupid enough to believe you're just so busy you have no time to hit the shift key.
Heh.
Pure poetry, Coyote. Lovely.
Posted by Anjha at August 14, 2008 01:55 PMNinetieth it!
Posted by peter at August 14, 2008 02:10 PMI never meant to accuse anyone of oppressing me coyote.
I know, emal, and I'm sorry for being so harsh. (that was a Monty Python reference, if you didn't already get that) I know you're one of the good guys, and as you know, I'm fully aware of the shit that went on during the primary. I had to step away from the computer for a month to calm down and remember that my main goal was to get a Dem elected, no matter who it is. I would have loved a Hillary presidency, but it didn't happen, she made too many mistakes, the worst of which was ignoring the importance of caucuses, and Obama had his strategy all plotted out. But you know what, there were a lot of pricks around before the primary and they're still around afterward. I'm not going to bother giving money to Dems (except Darcy Burner, she is an angel, and has some great ads going on here!); I am going to concentrate on my issues, and give money to the orgs that fight for my issues. Politicians will never address complaints from we the voters, but a larger issue-oriented org might have more luck and clout. But there's gotta be a Prez in there who actually seems to care about the country, and McCain just ain't it.
Ninetieth it!
Aw, lookit, goatboy's trying to get my attention. Sadly, he's just made himself look even more clownish, if that's possible.
Pure poetry, Coyote. Lovely
Thanks, Anjha. That silly affectation has bugged me for months; it's like an american who calls ads adverts like the brits 'cos it sounds cooler.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 14, 2008 02:41 PMI never meant to accuse anyone of oppressing me coyote...just pointing out how I find it interesting that there are those on the left who are advocating that people should stop writing or speaking out critically about Obama and or his supporters...and that they should hold their fire until after the general election to do so because doing it now aids McSame.
My basic question for Turkana is "What do you hope to accomplish by attacking Obama and/or his supporters?" All of us but the trolls find Obama to be far superior to McCain and hope he will be president for the next four years; Obama's supporters will be key to making that happen. Surely there are better outlets for one's time and energy (like here) than a post like this one.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 14, 2008 03:19 PMsorry to be affected, coyote, but it's been my style since i was first published more than two decades ago. it's also always been my style in emails, blogs, and other internet commenting formats. i also sometimes allow my crayons to color outside the lines.
Posted by Turkana at August 14, 2008 03:21 PMHey coyote,
Thanks for that post. I caught it just in the nick of time as I had a very harsh response all ready to go taking on Anjha because I really did not appreciate her comment...at all! So thankfully I caught yours before I hit post and have decided to do what is best... ignore it entirely...walk away from the thread.
I can't believe alot of what I'm reading in this thread so I'm checking out for a while...back to lurk mode again, skimming comments, not posting until I see something that I can comment on that is a much less controversial subject.
Let me just say, thanks again for getting that response out. I really was ready to go on a tear and you saved me from most likely ticking off some people here (well most likely one... but I get ahead of myself). Let me just say in closing I still believe in my principles (above party) and believe in self reflection...I'm not and never have been a win at all cost kind of person and that's just how it is. I've always been able to agree to disagree....but even that is getting harder to do here in this thread...and I'll leave it at that.
Good Luck.
Posted by emal at August 14, 2008 03:37 PMIsn't it something emal? Friends can't even talk to each other because of this Obama or politics in general this year. And the labeling of each other, amazing. How 'W' of the people here. It's coming to that now. Adopting that which you despise. That's what Obama's doing this election cycle, his followers. What happens to the party when he looses? After all this animosity has happened?
Make sure to great each other with the sign of the "O". The followers won't recognize you till you do.
Posted by peter at August 14, 2008 04:49 PMemal,
don't let them chase you off. i love these comment threads. in case anyone wonders, some of them provide the case studies.
Posted by Turkana at August 14, 2008 04:59 PMMy basic question for CA Pol Junkie is, "What do you hope to accomplish by whining at Turkana and/or her neutral readers?" All of us but the trolls find her posts to be evidence driven and reasonable and obviously of zero point zero likelihood of swaying the election to McCain. Obama's online supporters will be key to making squat happen, but maybe some of them can help make him take less centrist positions. Surely there are better outlets for your time and energy (like, picking up litter in the nearest park) than a "I disagree with you but I've lost on points and on rhetoric with 'best effort' but shut up anyway before you destroy the world with your opinion" comments like yours.
Posted by rilkefan at August 14, 2008 05:10 PMpetie, you really need to piss off... you come in here with your repuke bullshit and the worst of what is America, and try and play "see what Obama is doing too us!" Just remember freak, the repukeli-cons have fucked this country up for 8 years and the Dems are taking it back!!
Posted by Seven of Six at August 14, 2008 05:29 PMemal, thank you so much for the post! After I sent mine, I smacked myself on the forehead and said "hang on, that's fuckin' emal you just dissed, you dolt!" And then our CEO came into the office, and I couldn't post right away, like I wanted to. I'm glad I caught you, because we don't really want to be lashing out at each other, do we? We're on the same damn side, we just have different ideas of how we can reach our shared goals.
And Turkana, it was mean of me to point out your affectation. Following CAPJ's lead, I asked myself what I was trying to accomplish, and the answer was just to pick on you because I was annoyed at your generalization that the people supporting Obama - the shrillosphere, as you call them/us - were glossing over his recent failures. I have to say, there's not been much of that here, at least in the comments. From where I sit, I'm seeing a lot of trashing of Obama from the people you're hoping to "wake up."
This is not to say the gist of your post isn't worth examining, you just didn't need to tack on the sideswipe at people who are determined to have a Dem in the White House because they fear that four more years of the same will wipe us out, especially if McCain's at the helm. Why continue to stir up resentment when so much more is at stake? No one's asking you to talk sunshine and unicorns, we're way beyond that. No one's saying you shouldn't criticize Obama's decisions or suggest things he ought to do. Just stop insulting those of us who know already what we're getting and know that even so, it's still preferable to McCain.
Rule of thumb - if something you say is gonna make the goatblower cream his jeans, think twice before posting.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 14, 2008 06:30 PMMy basic question for CA Pol Junkie is, "What do you hope to accomplish by whining at Turkana and/or her neutral readers?" - rilkefan
I want the Left to be unified and on the same team with a common purpose: to get Obama elected. If we can't do that, nothing good will come out of our federal government the next four years and the Supreme Court will be stacked against us for a generation.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 14, 2008 07:11 PMNothing y'all say is going to get that reaction coyote.
hundredth it!
Posted by peter at August 14, 2008 07:13 PMI want the Left to be unified and on the same team with a common purpose: to get Obama elected.
Yep. (Who's all rainbows and unicorns, now, bitches?)
Posted by iamcoyote at August 14, 2008 07:22 PMNothing y'all say is going to get that reaction coyote.
Might want to talk to your urologist about that "little problem" of yours, goatboy. Or Rush's pharmacist. I'm sure he'll fix you right up.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 14, 2008 07:26 PMi know this is hard to understand, capj, but we can defeat mccain without glossing over obama's many shortcomings/
Posted by Turkana at August 14, 2008 07:46 PMRule of thumb - if something you say is gonna make the goatblower cream his jeans, think twice before posting.
You're right Coyote.
And emal, even tho you say you won't come back, I am sorry. You are one of the good guys.
I just don't know where I'm reading anymore. Obama gets as much shit on "lefty" blogs as right-winged ones. I do not know how we will win when there is so much anti-Obama tripe on the nets. Most of it stemming from mis-directed resentment.
2 years ago not a one of us could wait for 2008. We were absolutely fucking desperate for a Dem in the WH and to win every down ticket race possible.
After this primary when so many people have been 'its either the person I want or no one' I am floored that so many people seem so oblivious to the danger that we are in.
So, I am sorry that I took you on; we used to be on the same team and it used to be fun. This is not fun anymore. It feels like life and death and there are too many people who seem to think that a McCain presidency will be tolerable.
If McCain wins/steals this thing we are looking at a severe Republican Great Depression/all of us living in shantys (no computer access there)/and nuclear fucking anhilation.
This is no time for nursing hurt feelings and grudges over some slights or perceived slights from the primaries. It is general election time and we need to come together.
Its not that people should not criticize Obama. But right now, if you are not helping him you are helping McCain, and we cannot afford that.
Democrats have never been fall in line people...but at least we could be walking on the same street.
You mean the ones who stay on message and practice excellent political theatre and win elections? (Or at least keep them close enough to win.) Ya.
s/b close enough to steal
Posted by Anjha at August 14, 2008 08:44 PMI really was ready to go on a tear and you saved me from most likely ticking off some people here (well most likely one... but I get ahead of myself).
I appreciate the holding back, but maybe I deserved it and maybe you'd be right and I'd have to admit it and apologize.
But I appreciate the restraint nonetheless.
Sometimes, when I wait to hit post I am better off as well. (One cannot delete comments over here.)
Posted by Anjha at August 14, 2008 08:57 PMi know this is hard to understand, capj, but we can defeat mccain without glossing over obama's many shortcomings
It might be possible to defeat McCain if you actually put out some information on McCain's many shortcomings.
If you weren't so fucking condescending it might be easier to try to communicate with you.
Posted by Anjha at August 14, 2008 09:00 PMi know this is hard to understand, capj, but we can defeat mccain without glossing over obama's many shortcomings
Anjha has it right:
- McCain has about 1,000 times the shortcomings Obama does.
- It wouldn't hurt to respect the intelligence of Obama supporters.
"I want the Left to be unified and on the same team with a common purpose: to get Obama elected."
Then stop your counterproductive sniping at people who disagree with your assessment of the data. You could start by apologizing to Turkana for your bad-faith reading and rhetoric above. And openly admit you were in favor of any-means-necessary tactics to take the WH, accept that the party will not agree with that, and switch to the unity position that smart people should advocate for what they think best (and not just the ones who argue that Obama's caves have been bad on policy _and_ politics). That or admit you are in fact just another Obama-knows-best troll. Because anything else would be blatant hypocrisy.
(The above setting aside your undefended because obviously risible premise that blog posts here are important, and your commentary a critical correction.)
Posted by rilkefan at August 14, 2008 11:02 PM"It might be possible to defeat McCain if you actually put out some information on McCain's many shortcomings."
Just too funny. Can't tell whether this is a first-time-blogging newbie belief or a beautiful troll of Turkana's local critics' non-newbie blissful ignorance of the basic fact of blogs that A writing a post on subject s doesn't stop B from writing on t.
Posted by rilkefan at August 14, 2008 11:16 PMSo here's an interesting test case: there's a rumor that Obama isn't going to let Charlie Rangel speak at the convention. Quick now - stupid idea or not?
Ok, now, what if I tell you the Obama camp just said the rumor was crazy, that it would be stupid to poke the chairman of Ways and Means in the eye?
Ok, now, what if I lied about the second point and the snub is actually on?
Posted by rilkefan at August 14, 2008 11:22 PMThe snub is on and it is stupid to treat Rep. Rangel that way. Obama's running into a conflict of the right thing to do versus treating his 'friends' well. His 'friends' seem to be winning this conflict. Sure indicates old style politics...nothing 'changed' here. Or is it the experience factor?
Posted by peter at August 15, 2008 06:19 AMCalm down rilkefan... stop throwing out the troll assertations on people who are long time commenters and one who has posting priveledges here at TLC.
rilkefan,
you mean that obama can still win, even if i'm not fired up and ready to go, and am only in the hold-my-nose category? and here i always thought i was omnipotent!
Posted by Turkana at August 15, 2008 09:01 AMThen stop your counterproductive sniping at people who disagree with your assessment of the data. You could start by apologizing to Turkana for your bad-faith reading and rhetoric above.
If there is a good faith reading of this, I'd like to hear it:
Because to a certain type of mindset, it's not the issues that matter, it's the man selling them. Sadly, that type of mindset is now the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Not to mention the shrillosphere.
And openly admit you were in favor of any-means-necessary tactics to take the WH, accept that the party will not agree with that, and switch to the unity position that smart people should advocate for what they think best (and not just the ones who argue that Obama's caves have been bad on policy _and_ politics).
Winning the White House this year is orders of magnitude more important than any policy disputes we will have between now and the election. Far more issues are at stake after the election than before.
That or admit you are in fact just another Obama-knows-best troll. Because anything else would be blatant hypocrisy.
I disagree with Obama on some issues. I think Obama's FISA vote was wrong on the policy and possibly wrong on the politics, but obviously he thought differently. I'm sure it won't be the last time I disagree with him. What I disagree with him on is far less important than the issues on which we agree, however. This "troll" will probably be going to #$@%ing Nevada again to get out the vote, and others will be doing far more than me because we care about what happens to this country and we know it is vitally important that Obama get elected. I'm not going to sit idly by when someone who should be on our team (quite wrongly) accuses us of being mindless sycophants.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 15, 2008 09:50 AMyou mean that obama can still win, even if i'm not fired up and ready to go, and am only in the hold-my-nose category? and here i always thought i was omnipotent!
Hold your nose all you want, Turkana. You don't need to do anything to help. If you actually would rather that Obama win, however, you could refrain from actively spreading the right-wing smear that Obama is just a cult of personality and start respecting those of us who support him. We are trying to make our country better for the next four years and for the next generation - is that such a bad thing?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 15, 2008 10:04 AMTo push a cult, sure is. To sacrifice ones ideology, that's the question. How much damage are you willing to overlook to get this guy elected? You, just about anything and everything, Turkana, not so fast. Sounds like you want a bunch of mindless automatons walking into the voting booth to cast their vote for Obama. Is that what the Democratic Party is now?
Posted by peter at August 15, 2008 10:26 AMHow much damage are you willing to overlook to get this guy elected?
How much damage? As our country is in tatters because of your party's destruction. Your nerve never astounds me petie.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 15, 2008 10:33 AM"I'm not going to sit idly by when someone who should be on our team (quite wrongly) accuses us of being mindless sycophants."
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. Don't wear it by e.g. not getting so defensive about a blog post criticizing a guy straight-up lying for Obama - say that ok Halperin's gone too far, we have to have some principles or why bother, but I think you're exaggerating here, or need to show more evidence. Instead, "If you actually would rather that Obama win, however, you could refrain from actively spreading the right-wing smear that Obama is just a cult of personality and start respecting those of us who support him" just continues to beg the question and hoist yourself higher in your bad-faith reading of your interlocutor. How about you start respecting those who think their blogging is more productive of a better world than yours and continue to beat you on the points of the argument? Why don't you, God forbid, put up a post refuting what Turkana says argument by argument and direct people to it? I'll read it with an open mind, and of course ditto her reply, and maybe you'll convince some of us here.
That is, if you actually want Obama to win more than you want to try (with what seems hysteria to anyone at all skeptical of the hegemonic power of blogs [and yes, Seven of Six, it's deeply naive or plain trolling to say "If you don't attack McCain full time and exclusively, he'll win", or to make an argument dependent on that premise]) to keep people from making any legitimate criticisms of his supporters.
Incidentally I applaud your real-world GOTV effort. That would be another subject for a much-more-productive-than-sniping post.
Posted by rilkefan at August 15, 2008 11:29 AMLet me second your,"I applaud your real-world GOTV effort." I guess California's set already, better for Nevada. Don't care for your candidate, but, you're active and that's what counts.
Posted by peter at August 15, 2008 11:45 AMrilkefan,
As I stated far above, I don't care in the least about Halperin, or why he switched. I have no desire to ascertain the reason why he switched or to defend him because he speaks only for himself. What I do care about is the extrapolation of his perceived sins (and I won't contest them since I don't care) to represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
Turkana provides no evidence whatsoever that Halperin represents the many millions who support Obama, just stating "This will be a continuing theme." I saw nobody on multiple liberal websites saying that Obama was right on the FISA switch and alot of people were quite angry with him. I certainly don't defend his FISA switch. A quick search on DailyKos for Barack Obama FISA yields these front page entries:
Apparently, Even Barack Obama Thinks You're Stupid
Obama Supporters Organize on FISA
Obama's FISA sellout: bad law, bad politics
Obama on FISA: "National Security" Trumps Amnesty
Clinton, Obama, and FISA
All of those are highly critical of Obama, but that was a month ago and now we're fighting the next battle. We're all still trying to get him elected because we know he is with us on the vast majority of the issues and McCain isn't.
Turkana asserts that the issues don't matter, just the "man selling them", and that attitude is now "the mainstream of the Democratic Party". That's nothing but a right-wing talking point, and it isn't actually true.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 15, 2008 12:42 PM