He ain’t a saint: A citizen’s guide to Barack Obama
Why do Peggy Noonan, George Will and David Brooks favor Obama? (David Seaton’s News Links)
Because they are terrified of Hillary Clinton, that’s why… It is this simple: in recent decades the Clintons are the only Democrats that win elections against Republicans… They don’t want to ever face them again, no more complicated than that. As soon as Barack Obama is declared the official candidate of the Democratic party the voters will be treated to something similar to the old TV show, “This is your Life”…
And below are some of the things they’ll bring out about him. Now, to those who will surely say that I shouldn’t do the right’s work for them, I say you must have been living under a rock for the last 18 years. The information below is already in the belly of the beast, waiting for the right moment to regurgitate all over the “transformation”. And to those who say I shouldn’t “bash” Obama, I say, it’s not bashing if it’s true. How can Democratic primary voters possibly make an informed decision about which candidate to vote for, when they know almost nothing about one of the two who remain?
We Illinois progressives sent Obama to the U.S. Senate, where he promptly joined the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party. He’s not a progressive. But he’s a master at pretending to be one. “Obama is a company man.”
His economic advisers are very conservative, from the University of Chicago-Milton Friedman school of economics. My favorite economist, Paul Krugman, caught Obama using right-wing talking points on what to do about Social Security and about his health care plan.
His voting record is pro-business and pro-war. He glorifies American imperialism. He flip-flopped on the Palestinians and Israel, and now is AIPAC-approved.
He has shown repeatedly what good friends he is with anti-gay African American preachers.
He misuses history, according to a prominent historian.
He, uh, stretches the truth.
Example:
Trying to sound authentically African-American during a speech memorializing the forty-second anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights March at the Pettis Bridge in Selma, Obama claimed that his black (Kenyan) father and white (Kansan) mother married and conceived the future Barockstar because of the great Civil Rights struggles fought in Selma and Birmingham, Alabama… (Obama 2007)
Wow. Too bad Barack Obama Jr. was born in 1961, two years before the famous campaign to desegregate Birmingham, three years before the Civil Rights Act, and four years before the famous Selma march!
His chief political adviser is a Daley machine strategist.
And then there’s his Tony Rezko problem.
When are we Americans going to stop getting fooled and fooled and fooled again?
Wow. Can we all hear the sound of desperation in this article. He is voted most liberal, then they call him a secret conservative. He is criticized becaused he knows people that are 'anti-gay', not because of his own comments, stances or proposals. I have to ask how is he not authenitically African American? Is this to say that only African descendents with a history of slavery in the US are actually African Americans? Wow, like I said it sounds like desperation. They will do and say anything to win.
February 10, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please. My mother is a traditional Republican, she is not heavily ideological, she is the kind of person who is simply drawn to character above all, and she is leaning toward Obama. Republicans like her are not drawn to Obama because they are 'terrified of Hillary'! Ha! It is simply because Hillary does not exude the kind of character that most Americans are drawn to. For myself, as a more policy oriented Democrat, I would of course be happy with a successful Hillary presidency, but I doubt it is possible. Obama will have a much better ability to create the kind of climate needed for advancing good causes as President.
February 10, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
One magazine called him most liberal, but it's not a progressive magazine. Progressives have been very disappointed in his voting record.
I have no idea what my post has to do with slavery or Africans.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
February 10, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never understood the term "progressive". To my ears it sounds like most progressives want the type of situation you have in the Netherlands or Sweden. That might work if you have a small country, essentially homogeneous in population and don't mind very high taxes.
I would look at it this way: to this group of progressives, the country will never be socialist enough and to the right-side, the country will never be God-fearing enough. Once you recognize that you are on the extreme end of things, the best you can do is vote for the candidate who leans from the middle towards your side.
Or move to the Netherlands or Sweden.
February 11, 2008 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he's, say, a 5 on the 1-to-10 saint scale (10 being saint, five being average mortal, 1 being pure sinner), where's Hillary Clinton?
No politician is pure, and no politician is going to match up exactly with one's beliefs. No politician is going to have pure friends, supporters.
Put the right spin on the most negative, out-of-context, details, and you'll have the type of smear-jobs that Gore and Kerry faced. It makes me wonder how many lessons the Clinton's learned from Bush and Rove.
February 10, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this post.
In fact, Americans have been snookered so often over the years, that I believe that this is a nation of mean-spirited idiots who get exactly the leaders they deserve (and I include Bush and Cheney here). Politics in this country is poisonous and no one goes into it "for the greater good".
This election is shaping up to be just as bad and disappointing as any of the past elections. Without any reasoned discussion, only crazy people trying to goad you into seeing things their way, and joining their "team". Bummer.
By the way, the whole caucus thing yesterday was a HUGE turnoff!
February 10, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Life does imitate art. The Obama phenomenon is uncannily like the script of The Candidate, a scathing critique of American politics and the selling of Presidents. It's almost as if the Obama campaign said, hey, let's do it like the Robert Redford character in that movie. You know, the guy starts off talking about the issues, but that bores everybody, so he switches from issues to hope, the future, charisma, and he wins the election. But we won't make the mistake of ever talking about issues in the first place. But I suspect Mr. Obama and his supporters know all that. They have two ways to win. Get the nomination and control of the Party, even if they can't win the Presidency. Or make sure that if Mrs. Clinton does get the nomination she is too savaged to beat McCain in the Fall. Either way, Mr. Obama emerges as the new leader of the Democratic Party. Quite an accomplishment for someone who was a complete unknown four years ago.
February 10, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, did you watch Obama's speech last night? Issues touched on: get out of Iraq, talk to countries we don't like, raise minimum wage along with inflation, get more into higher education and have those students pay back with service (Americorps, Peace Corps), etc.
Can we have an honest debate here? What's up with the sweeping statements like Obama never talks about the issues! Or, Obama says the '90s were just as bad as this decade! Why the dishonesty, the disingenuousness? A lot of us who've banged heads on the blogs with Bushies recognize the tactics.
February 10, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those aren't issues, Bat. They're talking points from a stump speech. On a more personal note, I wouldn't waste my time banging heads with the Bushies or Freepers. I'd spend my time thinking about issues like how you are going to keep Israel from attacking Iran -- by holding a summit with Iran? -- how you are going to reduce health care costs -- by jawing it to death on CSPAN while FOX and MSNBC spin the dialogue every night on the evening news? -- how you are going to get to universal health insurance without mandatory coverage -- sounds a lot like optional participation in social security and auto liability insurance to me. As your candidate is fond of saying, you can't beat McCain by agreeing with him.
February 10, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you prefer BOB ROBERTS?
February 11, 2008 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bitter much?
February 10, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
At first I was happy to see Obama inspiring people with his message of hope but now, seeing how so many have turned him into some sort of messianic figure, how easily they adopt right-wing attitudes and talking points against the Clintons, how unwilling they are to tolerate anyone questioning anything about Obama's candidacy, I am repelled. Not bitter. Wary.
February 10, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't build up your candidate I guess the next best thing is to try and tear down the opponent.
If you want to talk about Rezko, you should really consider Hillary's lobbyist problem and then take a look at this list of shady donor's to the Clintons.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e
If you want to talk about support for (neo)conservative policies consider her support of cluster bombs. Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.
Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.
Let's then look not only at her authorization of the war, but her willingness to continue the politics of fear and escalate on Iran.
Krugman is too caught up in his ego and righteousness to recognize a differing view. One that has a lot of basis if we look at how mandates have worked in Mass. Obama wants to start with cutting costs in health care. How dare he support an encouragement mechanism over an enforcement mechanism despite the fact that results will likely be similar and only one has political feasibility.
Obama supporters are informed. We look forward to your becoming more informed about the nominee for the Democratic party.
February 10, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Let's then look not only at her authorization of the war, but her willingness to continue the politics of fear and escalate on Iran."
Iran is an interesting issue, because we're all pretty clear on McCain's position on using force against Iran to keep them from getting a nuclear weapon -- if he waits that long.
On our side, I think we tend to talk around the real issue. There is no doubt that Israel is willing to go to war with Iran to keep that particular Shiite regime from getting a nuclear weapon.
Forget about electability. The real world is lot more dangerous than a Democratic primary.
Which of our candidates can keep Israel from attacking Iran? Which of our candidates do you trust to manage the crisis if Israel does?
Personally, I don't think Obama is up to it.
February 10, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What evidence supports confidence that Hillary can dissuade Israel better than Obama?
Neither has any lock on controlling Israel.
February 10, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Obama is getting a free ride because anybody who attacks him is immediately labeled a racist, while at the same time many white liberals seem to like him because he isn't culturally African-American. This called, "being all things to all men". He has very vague positions, no health plan and his speeches mostly consist of rhythmically stroked platitudes. If Hillary can stay in the fight long enough to pin him down to particulars, I think the wind may go out of his balloon a bit.
However, by then I think the two of them may be such damaged goods that the Democrats will have to draft Al Gore in order to defeat McCain.
February 10, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you cite an example of a critic being labeled as a racist by the Obama campaign? Or by the media?
February 10, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your links criticize Obama for insufficient attention to human rights in his wide-ranging Foreign Affairs article last year - that's the worst thing he's done? That makes him "pro war"?
All the links are from Z Magazine, even the blackagendareport.com links are reprints from Z. So Z magazine is not supporting Obama. This publication called Bill Clinton the The World's Leading Active War Criminal" in December, 1999.
I'm all for reducing corporate influence and militarism in the Democratic party. Right now there are two options to prevent a McCain presidency, and even accepting all of your criticisms, Obama is the better option.
So, Carolyn, what would you have us do with this information? Support Hillary, a more pro-Israel, pro-business, pro-war, pro-Wall Street Democrat than Obama? Whose chief political adviser is head of Burson-Marsteller, one of the largest PR/advertising agencies in the world? Or encourage Ralph Nader to run again, on an ideologically pure third party platform? Is that your point? Or is it that you just don't like Obama?
February 10, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama and Clinton are about the same on Israel.
I voted for Clinton because of the two economic platforms, hers is the more progressive.
My purpose with the post is to try to deflate some of the fanaticism I'm seeing all over the place. Euphoria is not the best emotion to be a victim of when choosing the next leader of the free world.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
February 10, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is this "fanaticism" you talk of? I mean, besides people saying he is one helluva speaker?
Me? Personally? I think Huckabee is very and away the most polished TV personality on the GOP side. Very different than Obama but just as media charismatic. Does that make me a Huckabee fanatic? I hope not -- I wouldn't vote for him in a 1-man election.
It seems to me that the "fanatic" and "messianic" labels that are conferred to on the Obama supports are coming from the Clinton supporters.
PS If you are really progressive, you might want to move to one of these 3 cities: Cambridge, MA; Boulder, CO, or Berkeley, CA. But these obviously don't represent the country at all.
February 11, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, I haven't heard anyone who has questioned Obama's stance on the issues as being a racist. Seems like a straw man argument to me. Let's look at what you just said.
1. "He has very vague positions." This is a very vague complaint, on what issue do you find him vague. I'm sure you'll find lots of specifics if you choose not to ignore them.
2. "no health plan". Really? If you are that uninformed I'm wondering, do you vote?
3. "and his speeches mostly consist of rhythmically stroked platitudes." Seems like many people consider him one of the greatest orators of our time, but to each his own.
February 10, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree that Barack Obama is an amazing orator. by all accounts, he can move an entire room of people to the beating of his heart, if he wants to. And that's wonderful. I wish it made for a good president. What concerns me is the oft-repeated comment that his oratory skills make any difference in his abilities as the leader of this country.
I think that David makes a valid point that shouldn't be belittled. "he has vague positions." He does. Although i admit to not being as strong on each candidates stances on the issues in their solidified form, i have paid very close attention to the speeches given by the candidates as well as the debates. What I find is that Obama often says things like, "we need to change politics as usual." okay. i agree. but how? how do we change an entire system of government so that it is more effectual and represents and defends the people of this nation? It's wonderful to say, "yes we can" but how? i think that is what concerns me about Obama. He appeals to everyone's sensibilities that things need to be changed, but there's no clear pathway shown though his public appearances as to how to get there.
Obama's health plan is flawed, as has been discussed here on TPM before because it doesn't account for user fraud. ie: not paying in while healthy, meaning that only those whose health care is expensive are paying into the system. if we're making health care affordable, then we can't ask those with conditions to pay more, and so the whole system goes bankrupt. he offers no means to combat this issue, and as i see it, the debates he's been having with clinton will hurt him in the long run because the only way to rectify this issue is by fining people who sign up for health insurance just when they need it (which seems vaguely cruel and "unamerican," so to speak) or by mandating coverage for everyone. saying people will get health insurance if they can afford it ignores the fact that it's still an expense, and as such, there will be people who aren't in need of it immediately who won't get it.
"and his speeches mostly consist of rhythmically stroked platitudes." He is one of the greatest orators there is, but that doesn't mean that his speeches necessarily contain any substance.
in the interest of full disclosure, i feel hillary clinton is more pragmatic and realistic about the way to achieve the things that this country needs. I also think that in many ways she faces more discrimination because sexism is a problem that much of the country views as an issue that has been "solved" when it very much isn't, so it isn't discussed. i also find some of the "dirty" stuff in the hillary clinton campaign disheartening and upsetting. on the other hand, i think obama represents what people like myself (young idealist liberal/progressive students) find most appealing and representative of the america we want to live in. he speaks to the things that we care most about. and i believe that he is capable of winning the general election far more handily than hillary clinton possibly ever could. for that reason, i support hillary in my dream world, and obama in the real world.
that was way more than i meant to say...
February 10, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to hear you support Obama.
It's not vague to talk about the need for transparency and trust. It's what inspires the people to actually believe in their government again, to take an active part, and to be willing to sacrifice in times of need.
You admit to not being strong on both candidates stances on the issues. So, you are saying to me you are more comfortable with Hillary because when you hear her talk she goes more into specifics. I don't hear the same thing.
What I hear is someone who wants to continue operating behind closed doors, take money from lobbyists, and continue extreme partisanship.
I don't trust that she learned her lessons on health care. Clinton's plan doesn't take care of costs at the start, so it only forces people to buy expensive insurance in a dysfunctional system. All of the problems with health care are not magically fixed because you declared a mandate.
Hillary can continue to be pragmatic and realistic in the senate. I'm much more comfortable that way considering her stance on Iraq and Iran in the past.
February 10, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that a post claiming Barack Obama stretches the truth would, uh, stretch the truth.
E.g.: the link on "He misuses history." The Sean Wilentz article cited contains several examples of Nicholas Kristof and Joseph Ellis very arguably "misusing history" on behalf of Barack Obama. That, of course, is not Barack Obama misusing history. (It's a real undestimation of the audience to think that we don't know the difference between what Obama says and what people who like Obama say.)
And then, Wilentz rehashes the totally distorted, unsupported claim that Obama "endorsed a partisan Republican account of the post-Reagan years that is at odds with the facts," by calling the Republicans "the party of ideas" in recent years.
Wilentz goes on to claim, incredibly, that Obama suggested that the Contract with America, supply-side economics, and other Republican ideas were "innovative and daring."
I'm not sure how anyone wanting to have an honest debate about this election can continue to make claims like this. Yeah, Obama said that Republicans had been challenging conventional wisdom more than Democrats. He also said that their ideas were "played out" and had been shown not to work. He never "endorsed" any of the Republican ideas listed by Wilentz.
When the Clinton campaign made similar charges in a radio ad in South Carolina, it was so widely denounced as a ridiculous distortion that they had to pull it off the air. It's depressing to watch so-called "progressives" continue to recycle it. What's progressive about lying about Obama's record?
February 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure the issue is whether he "endorsed" them or not. In explaining his remarks later, he said he obviously didn't agree with Reagan's ideas, saw first hand how bad they were, etc. The point is, talking to the editorial board of a conservative newspaper, he didn't put his remarks in that context. As Jesse Jackson argued in 1988, the Reagan policies were consciously designed to hurt Black people. Why did the Clinton campaign make that remark an issue? They were probing to see if they could break his stride with Black voters. Failing to do that, they moved on to slug it out state by state. Personally, I think that in contesting states with a high percentage of Black voters they should make Obama specifically denounce Reagan, the Reagan military buildup at the expense of social programs and Reagan's war on the poor. Mr. Obama needs to get back on board. Leaving the impression that Mr. Reagan might have been okay is giving McCain an advantage he doesn't need.
February 10, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Glad,
May we please give this "Obama praised Reagan" meme a rest. It is, after all, complete BS. Go read what he said, as it is obvious you don't know. At least I'm hoping you don't know, as if you did you'd be lying and I doubt that's the case.
Obama simple acknowledged the indisputable fact that Regan "changed the trajectory" of politics in the USA.
Obama has repeatedly stated he will "restore habeas corpus", "close Guantanamo" and that the first thing he would do as president would be to review every Bush executive order and beginning repealing them, just to cite a few specific policy proposals.
Oh, and Ms. Kay, I am awiting you "She ain't no Saint" contribution. Since you're providing the service to we citizens I'm sure you're anxious to run down Clinton as well. After all, there are no saints running, are there?
February 10, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say anything about Obama praising Reagan. I said his remarks to the editorial board of a conservative newspaper left the impression that Reagan might have been okay. Compare Obama's remarks on Reagan to Jesse Jackson's appraisal of Reagan in Keep Hope Alive and you'll get a feel for the difference. If you don't feel it again during this Primary, you'll feel it if Obama ever faces McCain.
February 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't compare himself to Abraham Lincoln? He did so in his announcement speech.
Maybe he didn't personally compare himself to JFK, but he didn't object when the Kennedys did--Teddy, who was barely conscious when his brother was president and Caroline who was a toddler.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
February 10, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! I hope you were being sarcastic by the Ted Kennedy comment because he was in the SENATE when his brother was president -- he got elected to JFK's empty seat in 1962.
February 11, 2008 3:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
>>Wilentz goes on to claim, incredibly, that Obama suggested that the Contract with America, supply-side economics, and other Republican ideas were "innovative and daring."
Obama said, "I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Here it is on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbaszmcpesc
Not only was it praise of Republicans, it was a direct slap in the face to Bill Clinton. And when Clinton defended himself, HE was the bad guy.
Obama speaks in ways that allow every group to hear what they want to hear, and that gives him deniability when he's called on it.
People go into vapors claiming that Hillary Clinton is two-faced, and they give Obama a complete pass.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
February 10, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Sloane: Yeah, Bill Clinton. He noted that Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina and noted that the demographics there with the large number of black voters were favorable to Barack this year. Bill was charged with bringing up Jesse Jackson to make Obama appear to be the 'black' candidate. Of course, being fond of even-handed assessments I assume that Obama chose Jesse Jackson, Jr. to remind everybody that Obama was the black candidate. It makes about the same amount of sense.
Cokie Roberst offered a similar analysis of Hillary's New Hampshire victory in terms of noting the favorable demographics -- percentage white, female and older and nobody said a word.
February 10, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy said "Which of our candidates can keep Israel from attacking Iran? Which of our candidates do you trust to manage the crisis if Israel does?".
Easy answer, I trust Obama more. It's not even close. In my view the mistake on authorization on Iraq was already repeated with Iran. I'm glad she reversed her stance on talking with Iran, but her earlier criticism of Obama for saying we need direct diplomacy again showed poor judgment.
February 10, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>I trust Obama more. It's not even close.
No politician is trustworthy. That's why I'm trying to bring people down from this dangerous high.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
February 10, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you elaborate using HRC as the test case?
February 11, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
February 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is about the most idiotic post I've read this year.
The original post says that the Republicans are going to attack Obama by claiming he's really a stealth conservative, and he's really anti-gay, and his economic advisers pray at the altar of Milton Friedman, and he's really pro-war, etc....
Sound like a platform for a republican not a set of attack points.
Whatever.
February 10, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Sound like a platform for a republican not a set of attack points.
Republicans are all about power. They won't use these as their attack points, they'll make up lies about him, as the Swiftboaters did about Kerry. There will be some tiny kernel of truth in their lies, and these are the kernels.
Are you saying that progressives shouldn't know these things about Obama before deciding whether or not to vote for him?
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
February 10, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am saying you don't understand politics. Republicans will attack either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama as tax and spend liberals who will appoint judges who legislate from the bench and who are weak on defense, namely they want to surrender to al Qaeda. Oh Yeah, Hillary is a raving godless Bitch who wants the government to take over your lives, and Obama is part of a Muslim sleeper cell who wants to give driver's licenses to Muhammed Atta's brother.
How hard is that to figure out and what difference do you think your pathetic attempt to smear Obama will make to the Republicans.
February 10, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but the many legitimate points in this post are diminished by the utterly hyperbolic spin. This is little more than a diatribe about guilt-by-association that draws on Karl Rove campaign techniques; take our candidate's weaknesses and find them in equivalent form in your candidate, and then spin them to seem worse.
For Terry McAuliffe read David Axelrod, for loud AIPAC cheerleading read fond AIPAC friendliness, for one set of neo-liberal economists read another set of neo-liberal economists, for Norman Hsu read Tony Rezko. But in each case the Obama offense is LESS serious.
On substantive issues of policy it looks even worse. Obama has a stronger set of proposals on LGBT rights than Hillary, a more restrained foreign policy than Hillary, and a more concrete and progressive plan for Social Security. Only on healthcare does she have the edge, and even there she owes a big one to John Edwards for coming up with a coherent plan in the first place.
When will people like Ms. Kay contribute to the debate in a more meaningful way than "your guy's as bad as ours?"
February 10, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>utterly hyperbolic spin
Like what?
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
February 10, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carolyn:
I trust you will support Obama over McCain. It does not look promising for Hillary, now that Obama has won in Maine (a state that was a "shoe in" for her.)
February 10, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I will vote for Obama if he is the Democratic candidate. Unfortunately, I'm not hearing from his supporters that they will vote for Clinton.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
February 11, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nowhere in the Obama quote that Carolyn cites does Obama endorse supply-side economics, the Contract with America, or any of the other Republican ideas that Sean Wilentz expressly and erroneously asserts that Obama endorses. I'm not sure why we can't acknowledge that Ronald Reagan tapped into how people were feeling in this country and changed its direction, even if we think he was a terrible president who left this country worse than he found it.
Hillary Clinton has said that Ronald Reagan is one of her favorite presidents (a far bigger endorsement than Obama ever gave him) -- where's the outrage about that?
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
February 11, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink