Obamania - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 03-24-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

I know it isn't relevant for the sake of this discussion, but in Exorcist: The Beginning, the priest doesn't actually shoot anyone. The Nazi makes him choose the ones that the soldier will kill or else he will just wantonly shoot away.

Yes, but that doesn't illustrate my point in the least. Call it creative reinterpretation for the sake of illustration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

What is relevant is the underlying message throughout the movie. That the priest did not, in fact, become party to the Nazis evil because of his compromise but suffered because he let that compromise strip him of his faith.

And why was his faith compromised? Two reasons:
1) Anger that god would allow such a thing and
2) Anger at himself for participating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Actually, it was his very rigid ideology (i.e., A good God wouldn't allow this kind of evil to exist) that caused him to lose faith and led to suffering. The idea that a 'presidential' individual doesn't compromise with the enemies is ludicrous.

A compromise in which freedoms provided in the Bill of Rights are lost is not something a good leader or even a good person would be willing to do. The idea that somehow it's okay because he got to add his asterisk is ludicrous. His name appears on a document that allows abuse of power. It's not more complex than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

First it begs the question, how are these enemies and what defines them as such? Second, the idea that these enemies are completely & entirely wrong/at-fault is egocentric nonsense. There is always room to compromise, even with our enemies. Certainly there are individual issues that shouldn't be compromised, but people/nations are not simply issue-vessels and there is always room to compromise with them.

I'm not making vague references, though. The document in full is available online. In 2003, Barak Obama specifically said that he would support a repeal of the Patriot Act, and then in 2006 he voted to extend it because they allowed him to make very minor changes. The document he signed still takes away liberties.

Look at how he's formulated strategies about other things, such as Iraq, and you see a man unwilling to compromise his values and the safety and rights of the people. He supports withdrawal from Iraq, which is not a compromise at all, but in fact is a move that is beneficial to all Americans (except a few dozen really rich ones) and that is not a compromise with the madmen that would continue the war indefinitely. That's the kind of leadership it takes to be president, and putting his Iraq policy next to his Patriot Act policy shows one thing: inconsistency.

host · 03-24-2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Yes, but that doesn't illustrate my point in the least. Call it creative reinterpretation for the sake of illustration.

And why was his faith compromised? Two reasons:
1) Anger that god would allow such a thing and
2) Anger at himself for participating.

A compromise in which freedoms provided in the Bill of Rights are lost is not something a good leader or even a good person would be willing to do. The idea that somehow it's okay because he got to add his asterisk is ludicrous. His name appears on a document that allows abuse of power. It's not more complex than that.

I'm not making vague references, though. The document in full is available online. In 2003, Barak Obama specifically said that he would support a repeal of the Patriot Act, and then in 2006 he voted to extend it because they allowed him to make very minor changes. The document he signed still takes away liberties.

Look at how he's formulated strategies about other things, such as Iraq, and you see a man unwilling to compromise his values and the safety and rights of the people. He supports withdrawal from Iraq, which is not a compromise at all, but in fact is a move that is beneficial to all Americans (except a few dozen really rich ones) and that is not a compromise with the madmen that would continue the war indefinitely. That's the kind of leadership it takes to be president, and putting his Iraq policy next to his Patriot Act policy shows one thing: inconsistency.

willravel, please watch this short clip, especially Sen. Feingold's comments near the end.... I was not impressed with his impartiality, or his denials, and he was the one who pointed out that he serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee. If he is the best we have, the most open minded, I think that we are screwed....

Links to back up the things the man in the video said to Sen. Feingold:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=103028

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A9679C8B63

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE DETAINEES; Dozens of Israeli Jews Are Being Kept in Federal Detention

By TAMAR LEWIN WITH ALISON LEIGH COWAN
Published: November 21, 2001

The one Israeli killed at the WTC was a passenger on a hikjacked airliner:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/mem...try/page9.html

The US State Dept. worked OT to debunk "slander" against Israel....why?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...le+Search&aq=f

A NOTE TO THOSE SYMPATHETIC TO FEINGOLD's REACTION IN THE VIDEO? WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST AN AMERICANcentric, examination of the facts?

How could Feingold serve on the SSCI and claim that the presenter's information was new to him? It certainly wasn't "new" to the State Dept. !

Is Feingold representing Israel in the US Senate, or the people of the US state of Wisconsin? Forgive, me, I couldn't tell, for sure....sheesh, another politician I thought I could support, and now, I am not so certain....

A NOTE TO THOSE SYMPATHETIC TO FEINGOLD's REACTION IN THE VIDEO? WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST AN AMERICANcentric, examination of the facts?

Willravel · 03-24-2008, 12:49 PM

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that bears directly on Obama supporting the Patriot Act and whether it's the right compromise or the wrong compromise.

dc_dux · 03-24-2008, 01:30 PM

I dont seen Obama's positions or actions in the Senate as capitulation or compromise.

When in the Senate, particularly in the minority party (at the time), the best one can do is attempt to minimize the damager of legislation that will pass regardless of your position.

As president, I would not expect him to act in the same manner. The situation will be complete reversed; he would set the agenda.

What appeals to me is both Obama's policies and issue positions and his commitment to try to build consensus to bring the country closer together.

I would expect him to act as a pragmatic progressive, with his positions as his foundation, but demonstrating flexibility in moving his agenda forward in order to bring those in the center (and even right center) on board.

IMO, that would make a far better leader than one who attempts to govern as a rigid ideologue.

An ideologue on the left will not succeed anymore than an ideologue on the right.

Willravel · 03-24-2008, 01:36 PM

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Had Obama concentrated on Senate Democrats voting the renew of the Patriot Act down instead of working to make minor changes in it, they may have actually been able to tie it up until the midterms, which were like 7 months out.

dc_dux · 03-24-2008, 01:38 PM

You gotta know when to hold em and know when to fold em.

ratbastid · 03-24-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Had Obama concentrated on Senate Democrats voting the renew of the Patriot Act down instead of working to make minor changes in it, they may have actually been able to tie it up until the midterms, which were like 7 months out.

So instead of working to contain the inevitable damage, he should have taken a massive gamble on what was then the vastly unlikely possibility of a Democratic majority after mid-terms, and stuck his neck out to hold the thing up? Remember--it wasn't until a couple months before mid-terms that it even looked like the GOP might be hurting. At that point they were decreasing in popularity, but even that didn't seem like it could stop the machine.

Democrats have never been good at legislative obstruction; that's a Republican game. To have expected Obama to have been the lone Senator to do that from the left side of the aisle is asking a lot, especially from the benefit of several years' hindsight. At the time, there would have been no way of knowing that's what should have been done--the PATRIOT renewal looked like just another turn of the Republican steamroller's wheel.

I look at Obama's response compared to the relative glee with which McCain and even Clinton voted to renew PATRIOT, and I can't help but think my money's on the right horse.

Tully Mars · 03-24-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

So instead of working to contain the inevitable damage, he should have taken a massive gamble on what was then the vastly unlikely possibility of a Democratic majority after mid-terms, and stuck his neck out to hold the thing up? Remember--it wasn't until a couple months before mid-terms that it even looked like the GOP might be hurting. At that point they were decreasing in popularity, but even that didn't seem like it could stop the machine.

Democrats have never been good at legislative obstruction; that's a Republican game. To have expected Obama to have been the lone Senator to do that from the left side of the aisle is asking a lot, especially from the benefit of several years' hindsight. At the time, there would have been no way of knowing that's what should have been done--the PATRIOT renewal looked like just another turn of the Republican steamroller's wheel.

I look at Obama's response compared to the relative glee with which McCain and even Clinton voted to renew PATRIOT, and I can't help but think my money's on the right horse.

Yeah, what he said

Willravel · 03-24-2008, 01:47 PM

Looking back at TFP posts in 2006, most of us lefties were perfectly aware of just how bad the Patriot Act was and were against it's renewal. We all groaned when so many Democrats cowardly crossed the isle and signed away our liberties. It's possible that was why the Democrats only got the 51/49 majority instead of a 60/40 split.

If someone with balls had gone on record and said, "We can't win against enemies of freedom by becoming enemies of freedom" or some other clever lines over and over and over, using the GOP strategy of "repeat until it's true", there was a good chance giving the unheard majority a champion could have had a real shot at stopping the loss of liberties juggernaut. This isn't hindsight, either, as we were all complaining about this at the time.

When I read your and DCs posts, they strike me as, with all due respect, defeatist. Defeatist rhetoric infected the Democratic party back in 2001, and it's long since been time to purge it.

dc_dux · 03-24-2008, 01:56 PM

Read Obama's floor statement:

Quote:

...We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that....

Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America....

Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:

* We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

* We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

* We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things....

his is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law.

So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/06021...r_statement_2/

IMO, its not defeatist; its a recognition of the reality of how our public policy debate works in Congress.

host · 03-24-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that bears directly on Obama supporting the Patriot Act and whether it's the right compromise or the wrong compromise.

My point was that the one senator who consistently voted against both patriot acts, and there is only one....appeared in the video that I linked, to be doing an imitation of an AIPAC lobbyist, in front of constituents, on video.

I guess the entire senate is so compromised, indoctrinated, lost when it comes to who they are supposed to represent, what to support, and why, that the situation makes Obama look like one if the better ones, even though he voted to support pat. act II.....

Willravel · 03-24-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

My point was that the one senator who consistently voted against both patriot acts, and there is only one....appeared in the video that I linked, to be doing an imitation of an AIPAC lobbyist, in front of constituents, on video.

I guess the entire senate is so compromised, indoctrinated, lost when it comes to who they are supposed to represent, what to support, and why, that the situation makes Obama look like one if the better ones, even though he voted to support pat. act II.....

Oh, okay. Assuming this is the case, then, it makes sense not to vote for someone from Congress. Maybe the House (Kucinich/Paul)? I dunno, I like Obama but that decision concerns me a great deal.

host · 03-24-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Oh, okay. Assuming this is the case, then, it makes sense not to vote for someone from Congress. Maybe the House (Kucinich/Paul)? I dunno, I like Obama but that decision concerns me a great deal.

Kucinich is the only one I could comfortably support. Paul would let Wall Street mug us worse than Bush's admin. does, and he wants to let private business do their own EPA enforcement....

dc_dux, what do those of us who think that Obama's first sentence:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obama

......We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.......

...when he said it, and now...was a consequence of the same "Op' that Bush seems to be failing with, now, over his threats concerning permanent elimination of FISA laws. Just the fact that Obama bought into that tired Bush line of fear mongering propaganda and said "We all agreed that we needed"...

...they didn't "agree", they were either pandering or clueless. because the majority were ahead of them....no longer buying the "we will control you" through fear argument coming from Bush and Cheney. It was only still working to influence Obama and the rest of congress, but not the majority of voters,

not after early five years of the same message that got us bogged down in Iraq....for nothing....

dc_dux · 03-24-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Oh, okay. Assuming this is the case, then, it makes sense not to vote for someone from Congress. Maybe the House (Kucinich/Paul)? I dunno, I like Obama but that decision concerns me a great deal.

Thats why we havent voted for a member of Congress (Senate or House) for 100 years...we (the electorate) prefer benign governors (Carter, Reagan, Clinton , Bush) who were never in the position of having to vote on controversial national issues.

This year, there is no choice. We will elect a sitting member of Congress. I know which one I want in the White House.

host..I dont believe that Obama (and others) acted in a manner that was clueless or pandering.

Where I would agree is the extent to which Bush/Cheney (and Repub Congress) have politicized the "threat" for ideological purposes.

Willravel · 03-24-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Kucinich is the only one I could comfortably support. Paul would let Wall Street mug us worse than Bush's admin. does, and he wants to let private business do their own EPA enforcement....

Kucinich is obviously the better of the two. It's a shame that no one is interested in being led by someone who hasn't compromised.

DC, I'm not arguing to get people not to vote for Obama. I'm not insane. My point, simply, is that arguing over something as utterly inane as what one's pastor says in the heat of sermon instead of actual important issues is basically what's wrong with our government: the people are damn easy to control. If Bush wants us talking about "the gays" instead of the war or the disappearance of the middle class, it seems that even liberals take the bait. Bush (or the people pulling his strings) know that there is only so much people can discuss at once. It's bullshit like Reverend Wright that gets people away from what should be discussed.

dc_dux · 03-24-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

DC, I'm not arguing to get people not to vote for Obama. I'm not insane. My point, simply, is that arguing over something as utterly inane as what one's pastor says in the heat of sermon instead of actual important issues is basically what's wrong with our government: the people are damn easy to control. If Bush wants us talking about "the gays" instead of the war or the disappearance of the middle class, it seems that even liberals take the bait. Bush (or the people pulling his strings) know that there is only so much people can discuss at once. It's bullshit like Reverend Wright that gets people away from what should be discussed.

On this we agree.

Willravel · 03-24-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

On this we agree.

I don't want to freak you out, but we agree most of the time. Most of the stuff we disagree on is simply interparty politics and how the Democratic party can fix itself. As a green (read: hippy), I know that short of a cataclysmic disaster or revolution my party won't ever make a difference. That being said, I have to do what I can to fix the lesser of the two evils: the Dems.

ratbastid · 03-24-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Looking back at TFP posts in 2006, most of us lefties were perfectly aware of just how bad the Patriot Act was and were against it's renewal. We all groaned when so many Democrats cowardly crossed the isle and signed away our liberties.

Yeah, I remember. Don't get me wrong--it's a travesty, and it never should have been made law to begin with, and I do wish we had a candidate who could say they were against ALL of the Bush incursions on our freedom. But given we've got what we've got, for my money Obama's a damn-sight better than anybody else. He's not even a lesser of evils. He's perhaps a somewhat bruised apple in a basket of rotten fruit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If someone with balls had gone on record and said, "We can't win against enemies of freedom by becoming enemies of freedom" or some other clever lines over and over and over, using the GOP strategy of "repeat until it's true", there was a good chance giving the unheard majority a champion could have had a real shot at stopping the loss of liberties juggernaut. This isn't hindsight, either, as we were all complaining about this at the time.

Yeah, I know. And I wish it had been politically feasible for somebody to do that. I like to think that had it been, Obama would have been the one to do it. But I can't say I know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

When I read your and DCs posts, they strike me as, with all due respect, defeatist. Defeatist rhetoric infected the Democratic party back in 2001, and it's long since been time to purge it.

I don't think I know what you mean by defeatist. I think we're going to win.

Willravel · 03-24-2008, 03:59 PM

Rat: Again, I'm voting for Obama and TPing the house of everyone who doesn't. That's not what I'm saying, though. Actually, using your analogy, I'm simply pointing out Obama's bruises. This thread is called Obamania, after all.

loquitur · 03-24-2008, 06:06 PM

Boy oh boy, Christopher Hitchens unloaded on Obama today. Also on McCain. Wow is his pen acid. Some samples:

Quote:

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)

and

Quote:

Meanwhile, the Republican nominee adorns himself with two further reverends: one named John Hagee, who thinks that the pope is the Antichrist, and another named Rod Parsley, who has declared that the United States has a mission to obliterate Islam. Is it conceivable that such repellent dolts would be allowed into public life if they were not in tax-free clerical garb? How true it is that religion poisons everything.

and

Quote:

I assume you all have your copies of The Audacity of Hope in paperback breviary form. If you turn to the chapter entitled "Faith," beginning on Page 195, and read as far as Page 208, I think that even if you don't concur with my reading, you may suspect that I am onto something. In these pages, Sen. Obama is telling us that he doesn't really have any profound religious belief, but that in his early Chicago days he felt he needed to acquire some spiritual "street cred."

Willravel · 03-24-2008, 06:17 PM

To be quite frank, Chris Hitchens doesn't know shit about politics. He still, in 2008, believes that there were WMDs in Iraq. In my book all he gets credit for is being an atheist, and he even manages to screw that up from time to time.

Charlatan · 03-24-2008, 06:19 PM

Along those lines... It really is a shame that politicians have to pander to religion at all, regardless of their beliefs. What should be a private matter, separate from any decision the electorate makes becomes a check box on a list of mandatory attributes for anyone considering public office.

An atheist or an agnostic would never be able to get elected president without playing the game and getting some religious "street cred".

host · 03-24-2008, 09:12 PM

When Clinton or Obama says something, there is throrough fact checking and scrutiny from the press:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us...cs&oref=slogin

The press coverage of McCain, however, is a deliberate free pass from the press. They explain away or minimize any signifigance relating to his frequent gaffes, so he doesn't have to do it himself, and then, they move on....forget about it....

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23766063/page/5/
Meet the Press' transcript for March 23, 2008

Maria Bartiromo, Erin Burnett, Jon Meacham, Peggy Noonan, Eugene Robinson, Chuck Todd

....MR. RUSSERT: Chuck Todd, John McCain has been traveling in Europe and in the Middle East.

MR. TODD: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: Had some problems when he was in Jordan, he talked about al-Qaeda being trained by the Iranians.

MR. TODD: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: And then, then Lindsey Graham, who he was with, and then Joe Lieberman both tried to say to him, al-Qaeda is Sunni, not trained by the Shiite Iranian government. Does that kind of stumble hurt a McCain candidacy?

MR. TODD: Well, what's odd about the, the stumble is that it--is it a stumble or was it, or was it that this talking point that he'd been, that he'd been using for actually a couple weeks or over a week, where he was talking about sort of almost blurring that the, the enemy of al-Qaeda and the enemy of the, the Shia-trained Iranians and sort of blurring them as one enemy. And the, the question is, did he just sort of--he truncated it to the point where he ended up misspeaking. The, the problem, of course, McCain has is that he can't, you know, he doesn't want to make it so that he, he forgot it for a minute. You know, he's--because of the age issue, he can't ever look like he's having a senior moment. <h3>So instead, he's better off going ahead and saying, you know, OK, so he misspoke. Even if he gets dinged on the experience stuff, "Oh, he says he's Mr. Experience. Doesn't he know the difference between this stuff?" He's got enough of that in the bank, at least with the media, that he can get away with it. I mean, the irony to this is had either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama misspoke like that, it'd have been on a running loop, and it would become a, a big problem</h3> for a couple of days for them....

...and

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030202108.html

...I thought that was an odd comment from Sen. McCain, and I do think that it would have gotten a lot more attention were it not coming from someone who is generally judged to have a lot of foreign policy expertise . . . . <h3>Probably won't break through the chatter, and I agree, would be a bigger deal if the speaker had been different.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ain/index.html

......One can acknowledge that all of the topics on which the Meet the Press panel harped endlessly are legitimate topics to discuss. But by comparison to those petty sideshows, consider the towering significance of what McCain was really doing all of last week and even before that.

The vast bulk of the country believes they were deliberately deceived about the nature of the threat posed by Iraq. And a principal reason why we ended up in Iraq is because the Bush administration was permitted to spew all sorts of falsehoods about the Iraqi threat while the media uncritically passed along those falsehoods, depicting Bush officials as Serious, honorable national security protectors whose word could be trusted and whose knowledge was beyond questioning.

And now -- by their own admission -- they're doing exactly the same thing with McCain. These Iran/Al Qaeda episodes occurred when McCain was traveling around the Middle East with his closest ally, warmonger Joe Lieberman -- who has already explicitly advocated an American military attack on Iran -- and it involved McCain's repeatedly making patently false assertions in order to tie Iran to Al Qaeda and to exaggerate wildly the Iranian threat, exactly the sort of deceit that misled large majorities of Americans into believing that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

And then, when McCain gets caught doing this, <h3>the establishment press corps comes right out and admits that they barely even consider it a real story because it was something that was done by John McCain, as opposed to Clinton, Obama or some Unserious liberal war opponent.</h3> It was just a momentary "stumble" that can't possibly call into question something as certain and beyond reproach as McCain's expertise and honor.

Garden-variety media criticism consists of nothing more than each side just reflexively complaining, with little or no proof, that their side is being treated unfairly. But with McCain, that exercise is unnecessary. Journalists themselves continuously acknowledge without much shame that they treat McCain differently, and better, because they have such a high opinion of him. Here's what Time's Ana Marie Cox told Howie Kurtz earlier this year:

"The journalists who covered McCain in 2000 <h3>feel very self-conscious about the criticism that the press came under for apparently being so taken with John McCain.</h3> There's a sense that the first time was so fun and exciting, but this time we're really going to be sober and critical and the dispassionate observers we're supposed to be."

That rehabilitative project doesn't seem to be working out too well. While media stars focus incessantly on petty Democratic surrogate wars and what Time's Michael Scherer aptly calls "phony second-degree scandals," here is John McCain serially engaging in a replica of the worst and most destructive behavior of the Bush administration -- <h3>spewing outright falsehoods about a country that he may attack and which his most stalwart allies want to attack -- and journalists have decided that it's not newsworthy because McCain is far too good, smart and honest to be depicted in such unflattering terms</h3>, just like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Colin Powell were.........

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2000964_5.html
Media Notes
Howard Kurtz

Obama's Speech, Sliced and Diced

...Speaking of McCain, A.J. Rossmiller at Americablog jumps on his gaffe of saying Iran was training al-Qaeda operatives, which the senator corrected a moment later:

"McCain is at it again, this time telegraphing his profound lack of understanding of the regional dynamics. He recently claimed, multiple times, that Iran is training al Qaeda elements from Iraq. Iran, of course, is a Shia theocracy, and al Qaeda a Sunni terrorist group. This is like claiming that the RNC is training Democratic congressional candidates. Seriously -- this is a HUGE error. Not a single other government official or expert has claimed anything like this. It wasn't a momentary gaffe or slip; again, he said it multiple times. It's increasingly clear that he truly doesn't understand the situation . . . five years into the war."

A blunder, to be sure, <h3>but can the Democratic candidates really argue that they know more about foreign policy? ...</h3>

Is Mccain's campaign paying these pathetic assholes who claim that they are "journalists", to shill for the candidate?

03-24-2008, 01:30 PM	#124 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I dont seen Obama's positions or actions in the Senate as capitulation or compromise. When in the Senate, particularly in the minority party (at the time), the best one can do is attempt to minimize the damager of legislation that will pass regardless of your position. As president, I would not expect him to act in the same manner. The situation will be complete reversed; he would set the agenda. What appeals to me is both Obama's policies and issue positions and his commitment to try to build consensus to bring the country closer together. I would expect him to act as a pragmatic progressive, with his positions as his foundation, but demonstrating flexibility in moving his agenda forward in order to bring those in the center (and even right center) on board. IMO, that would make a far better leader than one who attempts to govern as a rigid ideologue. An ideologue on the left will not succeed anymore than an ideologue on the right. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

03-24-2008, 01:38 PM	#126 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	You gotta know when to hold em and know when to fold em. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

03-24-2008, 06:19 PM	#142 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Along those lines... It really is a shame that politicians have to pander to religion at all, regardless of their beliefs. What should be a private matter, separate from any decision the electorate makes becomes a check box on a list of mandatory attributes for anyone considering public office. An atheist or an agnostic would never be able to get elected president without playing the game and getting some religious "street cred". __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-24-2008, 12:49 PM	#123 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that bears directly on Obama supporting the Patriot Act and whether it's the right compromise or the wrong compromise.

03-24-2008, 01:36 PM	#125 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Had Obama concentrated on Senate Democrats voting the renew of the Patriot Act down instead of working to make minor changes in it, they may have actually been able to tie it up until the midterms, which were like 7 months out.

03-24-2008, 01:47 PM	#129 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Looking back at TFP posts in 2006, most of us lefties were perfectly aware of just how bad the Patriot Act was and were against it's renewal. We all groaned when so many Democrats cowardly crossed the isle and signed away our liberties. It's possible that was why the Democrats only got the 51/49 majority instead of a 60/40 split. If someone with balls had gone on record and said, "We can't win against enemies of freedom by becoming enemies of freedom" or some other clever lines over and over and over, using the GOP strategy of "repeat until it's true", there was a good chance giving the unheard majority a champion could have had a real shot at stopping the loss of liberties juggernaut. This isn't hindsight, either, as we were all complaining about this at the time. When I read your and DCs posts, they strike me as, with all due respect, defeatist. Defeatist rhetoric infected the Democratic party back in 2001, and it's long since been time to purge it.

03-24-2008, 03:59 PM	#139 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Rat: Again, I'm voting for Obama and TPing the house of everyone who doesn't. That's not what I'm saying, though. Actually, using your analogy, I'm simply pointing out Obama's bruises. This thread is called Obamania, after all.

03-24-2008, 06:17 PM	#141 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	To be quite frank, Chris Hitchens doesn't know shit about politics. He still, in 2008, believes that there were WMDs in Iraq. In my book all he gets credit for is being an atheist, and he even manages to screw that up from time to time.