Obamas Inclusive Message

sozobe wrote:

I get ebrown's point about toughness, and where Hillary lacks it. The Iraq vote is the most obvious example of that. It would've been much tougher at the time to vote "no" than to vote "yes." One of my earlier "uh-oh, maybe I don't want Hillary to be the nominee after all" thoughts was when I found out she didn't even read the intelligence thingie provided to Senators, despite much urging from a fellow-Democrat (was that Durbin?)

That says a few things to me, including. A) She's not really so detail-oriented and wonkish as her reputation, or at least isn't always, and here is a place where it would have really counted; B) the details were not what she based her vote on; which means that C) her decision was probably ultimately political. Looking long-term at her presidential aspirations, especially.

Not tough.

Obama's opposition would have been tougher if he'd actually been in the U.S. Senate at the time, but it was still pretty tough as someone who was already thinking about running for the U.S. Senate and who had been plotting a bid for the White House since kindergarten... ;-)

Did he speak out against the war at the time of that vote, and, if so, did he call the faulty intelligence? If so, was he actively campaigning for office at the time?

0 Replies

My concern with H. Clinton and somewhat with President Clinton before her is that she seems to position herself to whatever position is politically expedient. I can see Edward's and Obama's frustration on this issue. If any position they stake out starts to make headway, then it's Clinton's position too. In the end there is nothing to debate because her positions are their positions. Clinton certainly won't get my vote in the primary and I was considering going against her should she win the nomination in November, but I am just so far away from the pro-War, anti-immigrant, fiscally irresponsible positions of the Republicans that I don't think I'll have a choice. But back to Obama: I do see backbone there and a willingness to get into the trenches and negotiate something that represents the middle of the country rather than the extremes. He's proven that in his state government positions and I think he's willing to put in the hard work to do it on a national level. Obama's strength among independents supports that. I'd like to see a President who doesn't think it's enough to govern from a 50%+1 position. The Republicans had it all and lot it doing that and the Democrats will do the same if they are not careful.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Did he speak out against the war at the time of that vote,

Yes, loudly. Here's a sample speech:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Quote:

and, if so, did he call the faulty intelligence?

He didn't have access to the intelligence that Hillary did. But he said things like this (from the speech above):

Quote:

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

Quote:

If so, was he actively campaigning for office at the time?

He was an Illinois State Senator at the time, and started his bid for the U.S. Senate in 2003.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Did he speak out against the war at the time of that vote,

Yes, loudly. Here's a sample speech:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Quote:
and, if so, did he call the faulty intelligence?

He didn't have access to the intelligence that Hillary did. But he said things like this (from the speech above):

Quote:
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

Quote:
If so, was he actively campaigning for office at the time?

He was an Illinois State Senator at the time, and started his bid for the U.S. Senate in 2003.

Ah. Thank you. My respect waxeth mightily.

0 Replies

I am wondering what the heck difference it makes having democrats in congress much less president.

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Thursday rejected an attempt to expand a secret court's oversight of government eavesdropping, sticking instead with a surveillance bill favored by the White House.

The bill, which failed 60-36, would have strengthened the oversight powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It would have given the court the authority to monitor and enforce how the government protects the identities of innocent Americans whose communications may be inadvertently collected.

source

I don't expect too much out of Hillary; but can anyone tell me; how Obama voted? I am betting he either was absent or in favor with the rest with an explanation. But I would love to be proved wrong.

0 Replies

I have been following this...

Neither Hillary or Obama voted... it was a officially a vote to table the bill. Neither Hillary or Obama made a clear statement about the bill.

Edwards has written a strong statement against telecom immunity.

The (reasonably) good version of the bill... which is protective of civil rights and does not give telecom companies who helped wiretap Americans immunity was tabled.

They are currently debating a bad version of the bill which includes immunity for telecom companies (and by proxy the Bush administration.... a cloture vote is expected on Monday.

Senator Chris Dodd is mounting a filibuster.

If you care about this issue, you should definately call your Senators.

Chris Dodd is a national hero on this issue. Many of us are giving him money to retire campaign debts as a way of thanking him.

0 Replies

Gee, I read the rest of the article and found this quote. I think I'd much rather they diddle around and let the whole thing expire so that court orders are again required.

Quote:

Senators are up against a deadline: the Feb. 1 expiration of the surveillance law. If a new law is not passed by then, some eavesdropping practices that are now legal would be prohibited. Most vexing to the intelligence agencies, the government would have to get court orders to listen in on all communications that pass through U.S. telecommunications switches and computer servers, even those that are between people outside the country.

0 Replies

You're welcome, dlowan!

Re: the FISA issue, I just read a long article about it in the New Yorker and I'm confused. Have to re-read and think about it more.

Had a hard time finding it online, but tracked it down:

http://cryptome.org/spymaster.htm

0 Replies

Edward's take on the FISA issue:

John Edwards:

Quote:

In Washington today, telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press to win retroactive immunity for their illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off the hook and hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program.

"It's time for Senate Democrats to show a little backbone and stand up to George W. Bush and the corporate lobbyists. They should do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price."

Now they are doing their jobs. They need to keep up the filibuster and let this slime law expire and then get to work nailing the telecom companies to the wall.

0 Replies

Re: Obamas Inclusive Message

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Obama reached out and said positive things about Reagan. Nothing wrong with that... he seems to be presenting even more now as an inclusive candidate... I guess one could say "A uniter, not a divider".

Sound familiar? How'd that work out this last time?

Wow. You are a true disciple of the Clintons. Even starting a new thread by referencing a blatant misrepresentation, after it was thoroughly discredited by simple fact checks. Rolling Eyes

The positive things Obama said about Reagan, were no more positive than what both Bill and Hillary have said as well. Usually, I attribute this kind of willful ignorance to hyper partisan loyalty... but that doesn't really fit here. Imagine a lefty... deliberately spreading falsehoods about a lefty... while asking people if this sounds familiar. Uh, yes. It does.

0 Replies

look at the bigger picture... that's just part of the whole tone of his campaign... so OB,think what you like and I'll think what I like.

As far as being a true disciple of the Clintons... yeah, I like 'em. I don't agree with them on everything and I know that to get somewhere in this business a certain amount of sleaze comes with the territory.

I think Obama is snowing a lot of people. There's something about him I instinctively don't trust and it has nothing to do with race. I've seen this guy before many times...

I think she can straighten up the country to the extent it CAN be straightened up so she has my suppport.

Now instead of just inferring I'm slimy for being a liberal you can infur that I'm slimy because I support Hillary. We're narrowing our focus here, eh? Laughing

0 Replies

Some of us want more then just a new flavor of sleaze in the WH.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Yes I understand that..... as would I... where do you plan to get it?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Yes I understand that..... as would I... where do you plan to get it?

From Obama. To claim that he's anywhere near as sleazy as the Clintons is farcical, and you know it.

I think, honestly, you just don't care if the Clintons do whatever it takes to win, because hey - that's politics. You might want to consider a future in the Republican party, really.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

don't fall off that high horse there Mr. Purity..... it's a long drop.

Just watch and see what happens... then instead of pre judging you can armchair general. :wink:

I don't happen to believe in Obama or his schtick... guess what? I'm allowed, and it doesn't make you any better than me. Sorry to disapoint.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

don't fall off that high horse there Mr. Purity..... it's a long drop.

Just watch and see what happens... then instead of pre judging you can armchair general. :wink:

I don't happen to believe in Obama or his schtick... guess what? I'm allowed, and it doesn't make you any better than me. Sorry to disapoint.

I find it to be interesting that you personalize the issue to such a degree. It isn't that anyone thinks they are 'better' then you, BpB.

I have been watching, and which side is the one using sleazy tactics? Which side is the one who is trying to run a cleaner race? If that doesn't matter to you, then it's difficult to see why you aren't a Republican.

You are taking an 'ends justify the means' position, and that's wrong. If Hillary was a superior candidate she should be able to prove it without being sleazy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And I forgot:

Quote:

I don't happen to believe in Obama or his schtick... guess what? I'm allowed, and it doesn't make you any better than me. Sorry to disapoint.

What is it you don't believe? Why don't you believe it, whereas you do believe Hillary's shtick?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

obama is also being sleazy but you will never admit to it and I'm not taking it personally.... you're the one who said I should be a republican and used that term to paint me as cro magnon man the way you consider republicans.

don't try to back peddle now Laughing

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

obama is also being sleazy but you will never admit to it and I'm not taking it personally.... you're the one who said I should be a republican and used that term to paint me as cro magnon man the way you consider republicans.

don't try to back peddle now

Can you provide examples of his sleaziness? I sort of doubt it.

You don't even need me to tell you that I can provide examples for the other side. Dozens.

And yes, I do believe that 'the ends justify the means' is a Republican position. I think that running a dirty campaign to win is immoral, even if you think Hillary would do a better job once she's in. I think looking the other way is as well.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

look at the bigger picture... that's just part of the whole tone of his campaign... so OB,think what you like and I'll think what I like.

As far as being a true disciple of the Clintons... yeah, I like 'em. I don't agree with them on everything and I know that to get somewhere in this business a certain amount of sleaze comes with the territory.

I think Obama is snowing a lot of people. There's something about him I instinctively don't trust and it has nothing to do with race. I've seen this guy before many times...

I think she can straighten up the country to the extent it CAN be straightened up so she has my suppport.

Now instead of just inferring I'm slimy for being a liberal you can infur that I'm slimy because I support Hillary. We're narrowing our focus here, eh?

So you have secret sixth sense that overrides the vividly clear evidence littering every legitimate fact-checking organization who's addressed the situation... Not only can you not provide any evidence whatsoever to support your suspicions; you think it's perfectly acceptable to use already debunked BS as evidence to support your cause (what are you doing with those aluminum tubes). And if anyone points this out; you simply retreat to assuming there's some politically motivated reason (instead of the easily researched truth).

I don't think you're slimy, Bear, and I'm not with you or against you. I just think you're willfully ignorant and more than a little stubborn. Most lefties defended suggestions that the Clintons would fight extremely dirty up until a couple months ago. Most lefties stopped defending it when the Clintons went ahead and proved it.

0 Replies

Obamas Inclusive Message

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know