more bullshit

Yeah... they keep on shoveling it, don't they.

It is not at all surprising though.

how would you explain it?

I thought the article explained it well enough... the Republicans, and their supporters, are inventing an issue they think will play in the press.

BTW, the charge that Obama (as a Senator and a presidential candidate) is a politician still cracks me up.

course it does...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25536472/

I am not sure you understand, Bear. This is a political campaign-- there are two sides and two candidates; one of whom will be our next president.



As a supporter of Obama, and as someone who cares about the issues involved from defending a woman's right to choose to conducting a sane foreign policy, the results of this election are very important. This is why you will see broad continuing support from the left, even as there is some disagreement (and even some pressure). We all still know it is imperative that Obama win.

That being said-- This Iraq war flap has no intellectual merit-- this is just a right wing Republican attack. This is why the attacks on Obama's Iraq policy are only coming from the right (and Obama's opponents).

The real sticky issues are the ones for which the left has been pressuring Obama-- FISA and faith based initiatives. Obama has taken quite a bit of criticism particularly on FISA.

Even on these issues, I will never side with the Republican attack dogs.

you Obama zealots become more identical to the bushites daily.... it's ugly.... but i can't turn away...

So you want to elect a man who isn't a politician but will lie to the populace in order to be elected president. Sounds like a politician to me.

You Harriet Christian "Democrats", willing to risk abandon values you should share with us (like protecting Roe v. Wade, supporting the middle class and ending the war) because of nothing but bitterness... now that's ugly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

Bullshit is right bipo!

Obama supporters have crossed through the Looking Glass.

The Anointed One reverses himself and it is the fault of Republican Attack Dogs.

He flips on this and he flips on that and it is all OK, because this is an important race, and we need a Liberal flipper more than we need a Republican one.

Fine - I would prefer a flawed conservative over a flawed liberal, but I also didn't enter this season preaching the New gospel of Barrack Obama.

It really is the same old bullshit except this time around it is being shoveled to us by zealots who want to believe that not only is their ideology correct but that their Leader is Really Really Special.

So all the talk about Obama bringing new and inspired participants into the process is just so much cynical and hollow crap. It's a Bait and Switch ploy by a new Old Chicago Politician.

But don't take my word for it. After all, I empathies with the Republican Attack Dogs.

Read this from the NY Times:

New and Not Improved

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush's abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he's on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. "We have not been able to have much of the senator's time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet," she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush's unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. "We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend," he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates "vigorous oversight" and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush's policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the District of Columbia's gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups' misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to "reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court's barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama's shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don't want any "redefining" on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Just wait until he returns from his visit to Iraq.

I might be heartened by this move to the center if I wasn't absolutely certain that it is all bullshit and that his liberal supporters need not worry. Once he wins he'll flip back --- at least if it helps him secure a second term.

After all, what is truly is important is that he gets into the White House. So what if he needs to dish out bullshit to do so? So what if has to promise special favors to powerful interest groups? So what if he has to throw friends and allies under his campaign bus? We need Obama, not simply his ideas, in control. Don't worry bipo, once he gets in the Oval Office then he'll be a New Politician.

It is very funny that Bear finds himself in bed first with McGentrix, and now Finn as he is comparing us to the "bushites".

I hope he gets the irony.

Because of course if he finds any common ground with McGentrix or Finn he can't be part of "you."

He's either with you or agin you.

I suspect he's hear that message loud and clear.

Of course, that is so not so when you are talking about ebown_p.

Joe(not so yin/yang neither/nor)Nation

I'm glad you're seeing it - I reproach myself for accusing you of having Chrysler-driving parents. I mean, posturing is one thing, unless we want congress to call it, or to have some segment offended out of their gourds, but to win the party as a peace-nik, then say 'well, I'll go, take a look, and let you know'...

It's condescending, pure and simple, whereas with McCain, maybe I ain't glad to be squaring other American's vibes, like alternative lifestyles and druggies, but he had done more for the afore mentioned before his 25th birthday than I ever will, and I'm convinced that he's sincere about it so, buy the ticket take the ride...

Astonishing, really.

Who is actually threatening Roe v Wade?
If you truly want it protected, I would think you would want to see it returned to the state level, where it belongs.
It should never have been a federal issue, IMHO.

The Harriet Christian Democrats agree with Obama supporters on this issue (just as they do on most issues).

That's the point. They are abandoning the issues as part of their little tantrum. It is not surprising that you conservatives are cheering.

Bear
Bear, smart people have wised up to the Republican Playbook. They were fooled once in 2000. Many were fooled again in 2004. Few will be fooled again in 2008. Even the fools would be hard to fool again. But I've never underestimated the stupidity of many American voters.

I watched a non-partisan research session on C-SPAN yesterday. It was filmed in Pennsylvania in May. I could not believe how misinformed the citizen members were. Some were overt racists, Some were undecided and were obviously too lazy to go to the candidate sites to learn their policy positions. Instead, they said they were undecided and needed specific information.

One woman said she didn't vote for John Kerry in 2004 because his wife said Laura Bush had never held a real job. She said she couldn't vote for Kerry for that reason. How stupid can you get?

A racist man said it was obvious that Barack Obama was not a real American because his middle name was Hussein, which means he is a Muslim. Now that's world-class stupidity. He went on to say that if Obama is elected, Blacks would take over the country and there would be riots in the streets. This guy was unbelievably stupid.

Another man said he was not a racist because he let his daughter play with a Mexican girl, even in his house, but he was worried that she was here illegally and the immigrants were going to ruin the U.S.

A racist woman said if Obama was elected, she would expect the big black cars to come to her house, and then we all know what will happen.

There were five people who were intelligent and informed. They really stood out among the idiots.

I watched the entire session and was surprised that people would express their true feelings on camera for all the world to see. What is going on with some people in Pennsylvania?

BBB

Re: more bullshit


So.....the new great American messiah cleverly says that he has not changed his Iraq policy made without talking to a single military leader on the ground in Iraq, and he isn't changing it now, and he won't be changing his stance on troop withdrawal, but after a careful assessment of the situation, he might not follow his own policy? ANOTHER LINK

And this is unusual politics how?

A brief partial history of Obama's war statements:

October 2, 2002, Chicago Wearing a war is not an option pin, he thrilled the anti-war rally by disparaging the Iraq war as a "dumb war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle, but on politics."


The Audacity of Hope When America was obtaining clear victories on the ground in Iraq, Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope, "I began to suspect that I might have been wrong [about the war]"


March 28, 2003, on CNN, Obama claimed that he, "Absolutely want to make sure that the troops have sufficient support to be able to win." He was invested in winning at that point.


Democratic National Convention July 2004 His only mention of the war was, "There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it." The day after his speech, Senator Obama told reporters that the United States had an "absolute obligation " to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success. He stated that failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster and would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective". (CNN).


Same month He was no longer certain how he would have voted. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." (The New York Times on July 26.)


2004 election To keep in line with his party's candidates Kerry and Edwards, who had voted for the Iraq War, he told The New York Times, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought [the war] was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence,"


After the election Obama regained his certainty on the Charlie Rose Show. When Rose asked him if he would have voted against the Iraq War resolution had he been in Congress, Obama's answer was a simple, "Yes."


July 2004 Obama told the Chicago Tribune "[t] here's not that much difference between my position [on the war] and George Bush's position at this stage."

Who wouldn't be in awe of such clearness of vision and strength of conviction. . . . cough?