Commenter Doc, over at this crack den post:
I’m just tired of leaders in my party running against people like me.
Molly has more.
Well said. I’ve held questions on Obama that I haven’t been able to put into words – your links come close to part of it. He came out of nowhere, took the post of being the darling of the media in a way that I haven’t been able to understand.
While he is a great orator, giving voice to the idea that there is a hope for the future, I’m still waiting for the specifics of how he plans to put his ideals into action.
I think the most likely explanation is that Obama and Co. think things aren’t looking good in Iowa. So they’re running to the right to appeal to the New Hampshire voters. Trippi was slamming Obama’s people for touting their big rally turnout–he basically said if they were really doing well, they wouldn’t need to say anything of the sort.
None of which bodes well for an Obama campaign over the long haul, let alone an Obama administration. If they’re willing to fuck over their base when the going gets tough, they’re screwed.
Which means he really isn’t about change at all, is he?
Which means he really isn’t about change at all, is he?
I think Obama must have started listening to his advisors, skipping votes, avoiding difficult positions, remaining largely neutral in action, while talking a great game. He hasn’t worked hard enough yet.
Edwards, in contrast, apologised a long long time ago for making a bad vote (for the war), and has both talked and walked a great game since then, by not taking corporate contributions, and by working, very hard, ever since, for real change.
Clinton never apologises for anything, and as hard as she works, and as awesome as she is, she has made several bad votes. She speaks as though she were a member of the Cabinet during the prior Clinton years. Like witnessing history up close is like shaping it. Like all we really need to do is get the current monkey out of the white house. She also needs to stop talking to Lieberman.
Four years as Edwards’ VP and we’ll know if Obama is on the team or not, yeah?
“Edwards, in contrast, apologised a long long time ago for making a bad vote (for the war)”
A bad “vote”? Is that all it was? I thought Edwards argued for months on behalf of Bush’s War, so much so that the Administration posted Edwards’ arguments on their Sec of State web site.
Then Edwards urged Kerry not to change his (positive) opinion of the Iraq vote in 2004. As the Boston Globe reported:
“Yet as John Kerry’s 2004 ticketmate, the former North Carolina senator was anything but eager to acknowledge error on Iraq. Instead, according to several Kerry-Edwards campaign aides, Edwards argued repeatedly that the two should stand by their votes, even after it had become apparent that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.
The matter came to a head in 2004. On Aug. 6, with no WMD found and no terrorist ties discovered, President Bush commenced an audacious political gambit, declaring that even “knowing what we know now” he would still have invaded Iraq.
What would Kerry have done, he demanded? To the dismay of many Democrats, Kerry, speaking at the Grand Canyon on Aug. 9, said he would still have voted for the war resolution because “it was the right authority for the president to have.”
His response was quickly seen as a lost opportunity. However, one man who had been adamant that Kerry shouldn’t disavow his vote was Edwards.”
Obama is pulling out the stops to win Iowa, trying to peal away some disaffected mod/con Dems. He’s already got Kucinich’s “second vote” endorsement for the caucuses. Every percentage point counts, here.
But Obama’s too nice to win it all, according to Edwards, but apparently not too nice to “do what it takes” to pull out a victory in Iowa. He has the bad form to run against elements of his party tied to the Village, while going after the “center” as well.
He doesn’t “fight” like Edwards, who debated Cheney in 2004 like a belly up puppy dog.
oyster, I disagree with you, obviously.
4 years ago even YOU couldn’t PROVE it was a mistake. I mean, we knew it in our guts, but the evidence to prove that wasn’t exactly forthcoming. The candidates who said so were slain by the media (Yeeeeaaaagh!!!!)
3 years ago, sure, by then we knew for SURE that smoke had been blown up the ass of the nation, as the midterm elections showed, but in ’04 there was way too much misinformation about where we stood for an apology to be anything other than another ‘flip-flop’, another target for Rove and his swiftboat.
So don’t tell me why Edwards was wrong 4 years ago…
he’s already explained that to my satisfaction.
What I see is Edwards’ walk matching his talk. I can’t say that about any other candidate in THIS election, (except maybe Dodd). And no, I couldn’t say that about Edwards in the ’04 primaries, which is why I didn’t vote for him then.
If you want to re-fight the last election, you sure can, but stay out of my way if you choose to.
Explain to me why any other candidate is superior in THIS election. Tell me who has a better plan, who has better experience, and who can better connect with the working people of this country.
There’s too much work to do to resent good men for not admitting their mistake early enough for your satisfaction. Please don’t be that activist.
“He [obama] has the bad form to run against elements of his party tied to the Village, while going after the “center” as well.”
It’s not bad form, if he actually believes it.
mdhatter: Of course it’s not bad form. My last 3 sentences were sarcastic.
“So don’t tell me why Edwards was wrong 4 years ago…”
I wasn’t doing that, or re-fighting anything. I was telling you, today, why Edwards’ apology for a bad vote is insufficient. He was doing more than just voting back then. He should apologize for dissuading Kerry about the war, too, if that’s indeed what he did. And if the best he can do in a debate against a Gooper is basically roll over… then he should apologize for saying Obama is “too nice”
You were telling us that Edwards apologized for (merely) making a “bad vote”. I was attempting to “correct” that statement. Edwards was doing much more than “bad” voting back then. He was militating for and arguing for a “bad war”. Persuasively, in the Administration’s eyes.
Oh…A, take a look:
That boyfriend of yours is looking forward to “our relationship growing and expanding:”
Chris Dodd to the Netroots
i wasn’t an edwards girl in 04′. he’s come back better. and of the crop, i would rather vote for gravel. if i have a ‘free’ vote, i will, but i want to fucking WIN. and i see edwards winning. i can’t see hillary winning with the presstitutes we have.
What Oyster said.
Obama gets in a dig at trial lawyers (ever tell a lawyer joke? I have) and he’s against kids who were maimed by some faulty product.
Obama uses the magic word ‘crisis’ to describe the 4th largest fiscal problem in government and he’s acccused of undoing 70 years of FDR’s work. By the way, Obama wants to increase the amount of funds for SS by raising taxes on the rich. Some GOP talking point, eh?
Obama says he’s for bringing home 1-2 brigades per month responsibly from Iraq and he’s more pro-Iraq War than Edwards, who co-sponsored the AUMF/Iraq.
Obama is inexperienced. Edwards and Clinton are experienced. Nevermind that geezer nation Bob Graham, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Dan Inouye & Dan Akaka all came to the same judgement as Obama with regards to Iraq. Like Goldilocks, we need our experience juuuust riiiight in the netroots.
Obama uses GOP ‘framing’. Was I sick the day when an obscure linguistics professor from UC/Berkeley was added to the pantheon of the Democratic Party greats alongside Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson and FDR? Watch what people DO, not say.
As Obama is inexperienced, I can’t figure out what he would do.
What joejoejoe said.
(It’s much better than what I tried to say).
Comments are closed.