Obama '08?

This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue.

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

Obama had his work cut out for him.

He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."

The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Lola wrote:

Spin this:

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/78053/

Quote:

The [SNL] show recognized what many observers had come to feel: that the media has conducted itself poorly and are worthy of parody. And watching Tim Russert, parodying himself in Tuesday night's debate, scowling eyebrows, raised voice, blustery manner and slightly weird questions -- encapsulated what's wrong with the media. Tim seemed to have the mistaken belief that he was the third debater, an impression only heightened after the debate when Chris Matthews repeatedly lauded Russert on "reeling in" Hillary Clinton with a question on her war vote. Increasingly the media has become the story -- and not such a complimentary one. While the "serious" reporters and pundits were this morning condescending of Clinton's mention of the comedy show, SNL's take on the coverage seems at least as informative as what shows up on nightly cable shows.

Spin what, exactly?

Hillary shouldn't have referenced SNL in the debate. It made her look petty and small and failed completely.

Cycloptichorn

You can find what you need here http://www.johnmccain.com/

Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned.

Santorum?

OK.

I'll just take one thing and puncture it:

frothy byproduct wrote:

This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue.

Charles Peters wrote:

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

Obama had his work cut out for him.

He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."

The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None.

Lola wrote:

Spin this:

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/78053/

Quote:

The [SNL] show recognized what many observers had come to feel: that the media has conducted itself poorly and are worthy of parody. And watching Tim Russert, parodying himself in Tuesday night's debate, scowling eyebrows, raised voice, blustery manner and slightly weird questions -- encapsulated what's wrong with the media. Tim seemed to have the mistaken belief that he was the third debater, an impression only heightened after the debate when Chris Matthews repeatedly lauded Russert on "reeling in" Hillary Clinton with a question on her war vote. Increasingly the media has become the story -- and not such a complimentary one. While the "serious" reporters and pundits were this morning condescending of Clinton's mention of the comedy show, SNL's take on the coverage seems at least as informative as what shows up on nightly cable shows.

The irony is that we have an Alternet columnist writing about a comedy skit from a late-night comedy show and using it as an example of how the media has fallen down on the job when it comes to substantive coverage of the candidates. We also have a presidential candidate pointing to that same comedy skit in a debate to make a point about that lack of sunstantive coverage and the unfairness of it to her. Yet, in both instances the Slate commentator and the presidential candidate did not themselves use their time in the debate or the column to do what they are objecting to. Instead, they perpetuate the lack of substantive information by just pointing to a skit on a comedy show and expecting someone else to do it for them.

I think having Hillary run with Obama is a very bad idea; with Bill and Hillary vs Obama, the battles will be a unnecessary diversion. There's enough "hard work" ahead for whoever takes over the white house - if they plan to reverse the Bushite mistakes.

Can you highlight the part where he didn't use his persuasive charisma to change opponents minds and instead worked with the other side of the aisle to negotiate the bill? I can't seem to find that in your puncture.

cicerone imposter wrote:

I think having Hillary run with Obama is a very bad idea; with Bill and Hillary vs Obama, the battles will be a unnecessary diversion. There's enough "hard work" ahead for whoever takes over the white house - if they plan to reverse the Bushite mistakes.

I'm with you! After her apparent loathing for the man, I couldn't trust her, at all. If I didn't know better, I'd swear that Hillary is still a "Goldwater Girl"! She could hook up with McCain!

teenyboone, I think you're right; Hillary will do almost anything for power.

teenyboone wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

I think having Hillary run with Obama is a very bad idea; with Bill and Hillary vs Obama, the battles will be a unnecessary diversion. There's enough "hard work" ahead for whoever takes over the white house - if they plan to reverse the Bushite mistakes.

I'm with you! After her apparent loathing for the man, I couldn't trust her, at all. If I didn't know better, I'd swear that Hillary is still a "Goldwater Girl"! She could hook up with McCain!

I wouldn't be surprised by anything. I'm getting sick of MSNBC's Chris Matthews and CNN's Wolf Blitzer! They're both practically frothing, at the mouth!

====shudder======

A McCain/Clinton ticket would certainly be one thing that could make me think voting for Obama wouldn't be so bad after all.

Another point about Hillary: after she said she was proud to be sitting next to Obama at the debate in Austin, she turned around and practically stabbed him in the back. Do they still call that "two-faced?"