View topic - OK Obama... I've Had Enough

What the Hell is going on with Barack Obama? After I almost singlehandedly secured the nomination for him, he rewards me with an almost immediate shift to the right.

Faith based initiatives? Let the generals decide on Iraq? Siding with Israel in the Palistinian conflict?



No wonder Jesse Jackson wants to chew his n*** off.

Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?

I was asked to edit the word that Jesse Jackson was caught using regarding Obama's private area.

_________________
“We can have great disparities of wealth or we can have democracy. But we cannot have both.” - Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

These are manufactured issues by the media. They do this every election, with nothing to cover before the conventions, they report Gore's shift to the right, Kerry's shift to the right, Clinton's shift to the right. Obama was always a centrist (as I detailed in the thread that expired as an "off topic" thread). He has relatively conservative social values (dads should raise their kids, strong family values, worked as a community organizer for churches), always held this election was going to be about foreign policy (and was determined to remain tough on diplomacy and protecting America's interests and security), he's pro capital punishment (despite revealing a shoddy justice system in Illinois), has never suggested gun ownership is not a second amendment right (as a constitutional lawyer), and on and on. These are his positions. He's a national candidate, understands where the country is … and doesn't believe in top down governing (but in bottom up mobilization), which was his main difference with Clinton (not on the issues).

I'm upset about the FISA flip-flop (but Clinton would have done the same, and most of the democrats voted for the bill), and he's taken a more nuanced position on Iraq … in part to justify his trip there. I'd like to see a stronger position on Energy. But the people will have to demand these things … and it will have to come from diverse constituencies. Speaking in relative terms, very little about the campaign has to do with special interests (I believe), or keeling over to corporate control of government (in particular with respect to funding). I believe Obama has already won the election, and all of these "decisions" have to do with governing, and not with politicking. He's building a mandate for change, and it's going to involve a large group of very different kinds of people (and many who are not driven exclusively by the ideological and partisan differences of the past).

The media got it entirely wrong in the run-up to the primaries … why would you trust that they have it right now?

Running the board (Obama in Red States):

I'm not worried, they all have to make a collective shift to the right at this point in the game to court as many of the far right votes (and McCain suicide votes) as they can before November. I think it's safe to say the center and center left are are all but sown up for the Democrats so, barring any dramatic Kerry style crash between now and November, this is as good a time as any to reach out to every last red state vote possible.

The Republicans are already hemorrhaging from their base so pecking away at that wound is exactly what the Democrats should be doing right now.

_________________
Twelve months a year out west.

Sorry, but this all makes a huge difference to me. We're talking about a man who promises to bring integrity back into politics and right away he starts to court right wing votes with a disingenuous rhetoric. Personally, I feel that McCain is the one demonstrating the most integrity in the race so far.

Just because "my" candidate is in the lead and is likely to cruise to a landslide doesn't mean I can't be "bitter" about the way he ends up doing it. When the guy first refuses to wear an American flag pin on his lapel and then switches to being surrounded by them at every opportunity I have to wonder exactly where he stands.

Despite his popular appeal, nightmarish shadows of Willie Stark are beginning to appear, superimposed over the gleam.

_________________
“We can have great disparities of wealth or we can have democracy. But we cannot have both.” - Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

wouldn't it be great to have a leader that just stated his position, the reasons for it, and gathered people to his defined solutions? In Obama's case, has he really had time to define the issues and solutions? so it is trusting his integrity that does matter, isn't it? the reality of his under-experience is that he hasn't taken 12 years to define and clarify how he would actually do things specifically, so it is a bit fly by poll or issue as it crops up. that's a shame. I assume he has a collective of key advisors getting ready for day 1 in the big chair. ultimately, it is about getting elected only, then....

_________________
Midway 'twixt earth and heaven....
Above, below
Drift with my drifting, dim and slow,
As twilight drifts to even.
- Pauline Johnson -

Yes it would be nice, and that tragic flaw in our electoral process is most likely the biggest reason that Americans are so politically apathetic. And it's not coming exclusively from the lower socio-economic strata either. More and more, I hear from folks like my doctor or a scientist or a civil engineer that not only are they not going to vote in this election, they plan to never again vote for any candidate from either party.

Making clear your stand on divisive issues is now known to be political suicide. Look at how provocative candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were basically shut down by the information-political complex (new phase I just coined). Standing clear on the issues paints a bright red target on your chest for the media to take aim at. Yet without standing clear, how can they expect the thoughtful voter to make an informed choice. Better to not vote at all than to vote for the wrong person. Look at what Bush promised and then at what he delivered instead. An awful lot of sorry people there.

_________________
“We can have great disparities of wealth or we can have democracy. But we cannot have both.” - Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

BK,

Come on dude you sound like a disillusioned 20 yr old. You know how the system works ( ie the rich get richer and the poor get poorer ). I think the japanese had it closer on Obama with their phone commercial. Barack must be taking private lessons from Bill Clinton on how to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
If all you non voting types got together to support a Ron Paul or Nader you might shake up the system enough to get some real change.Though I'd tell your leader to stay away from Daly Plaza.
In the meantime too many americans have too much of a stake in the staus quo to demand real change.Though with this fannie/freddie meltdown I'd be ready to make a quick trip to the bank to withdraw all funds on short notice. The whole damn mess( ie your house of cards economy ) may be ready to implode.

It really does seem like our presidential elections generally tend to weed out the dedicated, honest, and committed candidates in favor of the wishy washy, stupid, and corrupt. W. was all three. I don't think Obama is stupid, but he is at least one of the remaining two. It's been a rough 28 years for us left wing idealists.

_________________
Steve Boal

Most of the world's political, social, and environmental problems have the same root cause: human overpopulation. By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach nine billion.

I'd love to see a new kind of politics too Bk, alas Obama is still a Democrat and McCain still a Republican... so lets not expect to see the sun and moon realign any time soon.

McCain is swinging far to the right from where he really stands too, and also changing his tune on issues from time to time... such as off shore drilling.

The sad reality in America is that the handcuffs are still on, you get to choose from one of two possibilities and thats it. To make matters worse, it is the exclusive province of those only two parties to decide what the terms of engagement will be, not the people.

_________________
Twelve months a year out west.

Seriously, I can list seven or more times just this week that McCain outright lied about his record, his ranking among veteran groups, what other people said, this week he even changed a story he's been telling for 35 years and is written in his own book, etc... The guy can't remember yesterday.

I don't see much of a change in Obama. The media is just starting to report on his centrist positions that weren't an issue before. No big deal.

There is one thing that is certain though, the media is being overly forgiving to McCain. Anyway, just my thoughts.

_________________

Life is what happens between the facts. -Robert Perkins My website: Free Canoe Plans On Twitter: @bryanhansel I guide Grand Marais Kayak Tours

makes you want to move to Canada.

I am sick of the whole campaign image too.

I think I would vote for anyone who has done a canoe trip. Canoe trips are reality.

_________________
http://www.canoetripping.net

I would like to think that there's a depth to Obama that hasn't come to the surface, perhaps intentionally. He's running on a promise to bring change to Washington. The most fruitful change that could come to Washington would be an end to gridlock. No president can achieve that by executive fiat but a popular president with negotiating skills has a better chance than anybody else. I'd like to think that by avoiding hard and fast positions during the election he's protecting his ability to negotiate productive compromise after the election.

Once in office he can use his considerable oratorical skills to persuade Americans to take seriously who they vote for in congressional and senatorial elections. I would find it very refreshing to see legislators grilled by their constituents on legislative matters and executives grilled by their constituents on executive matters. If a presidential candidate is asked where he stands on an issue that depends on legislative action, I would like nothing more than to hear him respond that he would faithfully execute the laws passed by the legislators that the voters elected. That, after all, is what he swears to do in the oath of office. For Obama to do that would certainly draw a line between himself and Bush/Cheney.

_________________
There's only one world out there; we'd do well to take good care of it.

Sorry to segue but the most fruitful change IMO would be to end the Iraq war and refocus on hunting down al Queda (those guys that attacked you).

On Saturday al-Maliki was quoted as saying that Obama's 16-month plan to withdraw troops from Iraq is "the right timeframe." Regardless of his political reasons for saying that, what does it leave McCain to argue for permanent bases and "100 years"? He can't dismiss al-Maliki because he'd be implying Iraq sovereignty is meaningless and besides, he's on record as saying US troops should only stay as long as Iraq asks them to.

And even Bush is now talking of a "general time horizon."

The McCain response:



So according to both Bush and McCain, the only politically viable way forward in Iraq is Obama's plan for getting the troops out? If al-Maliki doesn't retract his words, McCain's Iraq policy is gutted.

We(Americans) should demand the end of the war tomorrow, since freedom, for an Islamic nation, is not what they want or need. Why sacrifice more of our young people for an unattainable goal?

Steve

Obama's timeframe for withdrawing troops from Iraq may well coincide with big oil (Shell, Exxon, Chevron, etc) moving in. The economic prosperity that more efficient development of the oil reserves would bring on, is likely to be the thing that brings stability to the region, since a larger reason could be created to move forward and work towards making things better, instead of the hopelessness and desperation that fueled the terrorism and guerilla warfare previously. Some of the news reports state that the situation in Iraq is turning around slowly, and violence is in decline.

There have been negative press reports about big oil being the reason for the Iraq war - OTOH, if oil is indeed the reason, it should bring benefits to the population, since the government will have it's share of the increased profits and if democratization is in place, the benefits should filter down to the citizens, reducing violence.

All speculation, of course, but Obama could have the shift in Iraq's economic prosperity in mind in the withdrawal timeframe, along with the shift in forces to Afghanistan, where economic problems are worse. I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the facts on the Iraq war and the situation is far more complex than the news reports suggest. Still, it could be that there is a long-term shift in Iraq towards improvement and stability, and the war won't be without bringing some benefits to the region.

_________________

><((((º>