Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hold Obama's feet to the fire

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:04 AM
Original message
Hold Obama's feet to the fire
Edited on Wed Feb-20-08 07:05 AM by JoFerret
Message to all democrats - if Obama moves on to the nomination and into the WH we have to hold his feet to the fire on key democratic social and economic issues. If he goes all pandering "faith and family" during the general election there will be nothing to keep him honest once in power. Getting anything done in Washington is hard enough but without any fire in his belly (I see none) we will have blown our best chance.

What does he stand for? What WILL he stand for? Will it be for us?
If he wins with crossovers and republicans will he blow the best chance of a generation?

And no more sexist crap please.
We would not have tolerated its racist equivalent so why are we tolerating the sexism?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. i agree, and i think he would want us to push him... hard.
he needs us to push him to make things happen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. He'll need us to push our congress to let him passes what he proposes......
And I'm sure that he will propose plenty.

That's what he means by us staying involved beyond voting......

We are his working majority and we are the ones who will hold all of our government responsible.....for a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. that too =)
if the party can stick together Obama is opening the window for us much more than the clintons ever did. i believe..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbieo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. To push Congress, he will need reliable department heads
NO MORE POLITICAL APPOINTEES!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
19. How will "we" be able to do that? Will an email suffice or will we
have to organize a huge rally? How big do the numbers have to get to make an impact? How many before he knows he's hearing the voice of the people?

See where his intentional vagaries leave us?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbieo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. It will depend on who he chooses for is cabinet members and department heads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
3. Agreed. And there will be no better way...
than for us to make it clear that we want Hill in the VP slot.

She can hold his feet to the fire for us. And I know she will!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. We do?
Why is that? :freak:

We want somebody that supports him instead of a virus acts like an albatross. After the last month of campaigning I don't know how Clinton meshes at all on an Obama ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. I don't think she would accept
And he is a sore winner so he won't offer.

But he will need her and we need her.

Senate leader? (Someone is going to have to do the work).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. It's not going to happen
There is no way that Hillary will accept it if offered. And why should she? She'd be giving up a powerful Senate seat for 8 years as second fiddle. She'd be 69 by the time that an Obama presidency ended. She'd have to suboordinate her ideas and goals to his.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. I know my Hillary and...
I simply do not agree.

She will do what is best for her party. This I trust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. We are all going to have to live with this "choice"
And my fear is that when the bubble bursts we will all have to live with the consequences.
I sure hope not. we have waited too long and worked to hard.
But I must say some of the signs are not encouraging.

Faith and family give me the creeps as election slogans.
And while I am an "anyboby but Bush" democrat I do find Obama an empty suit and a tad patronizing.

What will he stand for when push comes to shove. Other than himself? Is that enough? Not for me it isn't.

And the Obama worship? - when it's over we know what that will mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Sorry, all that comes through in your posts is bitter, sour
grapes. Nothing else. No astute observations. Just the parroting of lines. Obama is not an empty suit. Anyone that uses that line is either very ill informed or simply bitter. We have a real chance here with Obama. He's well informed, he's thoughtful, he's well organized. Could he fail? Sure. Could he be a disappointment? Yep. But some of you aren't willing to give him any kind of a fair chance.

Oh, and I have NEVER heard him use "faith and family" as an election slogan. I'm sure since you claim it, you can provide a link, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greguganus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. "We"? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Yes. "We". Meaning all of us
Edited on Wed Feb-20-08 07:33 AM by JoFerret
All of us whether we wanted something "better" or not.
Just as all of us have had to endure the bush regime we will all have the same president come 2009 whether we like it or not.

And maybe it will not be so bad if Obama wins. I had high hopes of something better this time around but looks like I will have to settle. Certainly we can all celebrate the end of Bush/ Cheney. but the hard work of undoing all the damage they have wrought. That will take all of us.

I just hope Obama is up to the job and want to actually stand for something and not just talk about it in lofty tones. we have to keep him to his promises. Maybe Edwards and Dodd can help. Clinton can in the senate if that's where she remains.

Apologies if you don't like plural pronouns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. "We" is the operative word now....
It will take all of "us" to beat McCain.

And, whoever gets the Dem nomination needs to make the best possible decisions for the party. Not for his or her segment of the party. But for the whole of us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #16
43. The best decision for the party
is to remove negative campaining and walk by candidate who thinks stealing pledged delegates is OK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
22. I dont want her in the VP slot
jesus, after the nasty attacks in the last 48 hours leading into wisconsin, I dont even want her as my senator any longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Well, if you don't like it....
you can always vote "present."

Or, god forbid, for McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Nope
Voting for my candidate, Obama. Do you live in NY? Do you have any idea what she has/or has not done for this state?

Do you consider HRC camps negative attacks, and yesterday's pathetic floated idea of going after pledged delegates as a good thing for the party?

Why in Gods name would Obama either want or need her? He's doing just fine without her.

You on the other hand, could vote present or for Mccain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. We'll have to wait and see who ends up on the ticket
won't we?

I am sure Obama won't call you, or me, to ask who his VP should be.

I would hope that he will look at the numbers and realize that he, like his moniker JFK, will have much to gain by supporting the other 49% of the party. (Just as JFK did with LBJ.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. I'm quite sure he wont be calling you
but you said "And there will be no better way..than for us to make it clear that we want Hill in the VP slot."

Many of the "we" you are talking about HAVE voted and have shown Barack to be their preference. Wisconsin showed us yesterday they are REJECTING Penn and Wolfson's dirty tricks from the 48 hours prior.

Sorry, Hillary is indeed the same old politics and Barack has NOTHING to gain by adding HRC to the ticket.

So dont pretend to speak for me, other DUers, or other voters by saying WE. It's pretty clear based on the recent blow outs that most of Edwards voters went to Barack, if they wanted Hil they would have voted for her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. Again.
We shall see who we get to vote for in November.

At least half of the Dem party is behind HRC. I am sure Obama knows that. And I think he is politically mature enough to make the right decision.

I'll vote for him, as long as he has *someone* on the ticket as VP that can hold his feet to the fire on:
* Choice for women
* Civil Rights for ALL (including non-heterosexuals)
* Health Care for every American

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. First off I am a woman
and all of my female friends are for Barack. And Barack is pro choice.

um, hello - have you looked at baracks voting record and experience in general? He has been VERY active in civil rights.

health care for every american my tuckus. she had 8 years as first lady to get it done, she didnt.

Sorry my friend, WE dont feel the same way as YOU do. Had they not gone negative, had they not started a dirty campaign, I would have been fine with it. Your candidate made her choices, it's up to the voters to make theirs and they are speaking, in large numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. Again.
We shall see who we get a chance to vote for this fall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. and again...
WE dont all share YOUR opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miceelf Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. Well,
I disagree with how desirable Clinton would on the ticket, either to keep progressive issues on the forefront (I don't see how a running mate who is less liberal than he is will keep him focused on our issues), or electorally (she'd turn off any potential crossovers, is my fear, leaving us with the dems who are probably going to vote for the nominee no matter what and little else).

But that's a side issue. Do you think she'd take the job? I would think she'd be more effective (AND have a higher profile and more influence) as Senate leader. First female senate leader is a pretty big deal and with the bigger senate majority that Obama would bring, she'd have the power to really enact liberal changes (assuming you're right and I am wrong about her politics). She'd have much more real power as senate leader than as the largely nominal title of vice president.

I think a good idea would be to have someone who was a Clinton SUPPORTER on the ticket, who would: a) actually want the job, and b) complement Obama's weaknesses. I am thinking Wes Clark. He'd beef up the foreign policy stuff, and also has the advantage of being at least as liberal as Clinton if not more so.

Do you really think Clinton would WANT to be VP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #44
51. It's really hard to say.
I believe, tho, that she will do what is best for her party. And her country.

I thought of Wes as well. But, will Obama go for him since he has been such a vocal supporter of Clinton? Who knows.

One would hope that, in the end... all of them will do what's best for "we the people."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miceelf Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. Well
I am glad we're at least in the same ballpark with Clark. But if Obama won't take him because he supported Clinton, it's unlikely he'd take Clinton herself.

I really don't think the opportunity to be senate leader should be denigrated and if Clinton loses (I say if because it's still early), I suspect she may see that as more desirable than veep. it might also be better for the party to have her in the senate and Clark on the ticket. So in my view what's best for Clinton and what's best for the party in that scenario fit pretty closely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #32
56. Not to mention
that many of us here are tired of the DLC, and her injection into the ticket pretty much means that the DLC albatross comes with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miceelf Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #3
42. Oh good grief
The Clintons invented triangulation. Aside from her being a polarizing figure, she's NOT the vessel of progressive hopes. Remember how Bill advised John Kerry to throw gay people under the bus? (more than kerry was already doing). Is THAT what you want for our 08 campaign as well???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
9. Questions...

If he wins with crossovers and republicans will he blow the best chance of a generation?


1) Name one President who has won without crossovers from the other party.

2) Did the existence of that creature known as the "Reagan Democrat" really hinder Reagan all that much in his push to implement his agenda?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. No. those Reagan "democrats"
...went over to the dark side and stayed there.If they are wobbling now they will turn to McCain in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. DUers should really stop with the faux oracle thing.
They just look silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Then his supporters should stop putting up "messiah" websites
Edited on Wed Feb-20-08 08:02 AM by RestoreGore
They then make him look bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. lol
red herring deluxe. That has zip to do with what I said, and for the record I was not only talking about Hillary supporters. Try again, maybe you have something germane to add.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
23. So being progressive means we're against faith and families? Way to buy into the RW frame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Being Progressive means....
we believe in the separation of church and state.

That separation is something that Obama is really having a bit of a difficulty with right now. Maybe not of his doing... but becasue of the desire of his followers to brand him some kind of saviour.

We need to help him walk this line. Yes... we can be for "family values" as long as we don't define "family" or "values" by our own narrow experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. And the SCS doesn't at all mean
that candidates are not allowed to be religious, nor does it mean that they cannot be in favor of families, nor that they cannot have strong values. By rejecting those words, you're rejecting the framework by which most Americans live their lives. Do not concede that territory.

Obama's genius is in demonstrating that liberalism and progressivism can indeed--and, in fact, should--be part of the framework of faith and family. Frankly, we've run enough Dukakis campaigns; I think it's time we take back faith and take back families.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Agreed--well-said. I think the Democratic Party might not be God's Own Party, but
there's no reason why Dems shouldn't grasp the title of the family-values party, in terms of all the support that the Dem party gives to family-friendly policies in its platform. We shouldn't cede an inch to Repubs when it comes to family and moral values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Absolutely. You want to talk family values?
We value keeping children healthy. We value assistance to keep impoverished families intact. We value keeping jobs in America--jobs that feed families. We value protecting the planet for our children. I think those are some pretty fucking great family values. What family values do they have in comparison--hating your gay son?

We value loving your neighbor. We value protecting the poor, sick, and elderly. We value peace on Earth. We value responsible stewardship of God's creation. What faith do they have in comparison? Fear of gays, fear of stem-cell research?

We are the party of faith and family. They're the party of greed and fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. Yep. You said it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #30
49. If the Obama campaign
Spoke like Occam speaks, I'd be mailing them money.
I am still waiting to know that I am allowed to define my family, not the Fundies. It is pretty simple. This is not an area where I hand out benefit of the doubt. There must be clarity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. I agree...
as long as we don't get "moral values" mixed up with "Christian values."

I think Barack is smart enough to know the difference. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. Of course! I'm not talking overturning Roe v Wade, religion, etc. I'm talking
about the things that REALLY help strengthen families, like Occam Bandage says above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Things like ....
*Health Care for every family, regardless of income.

and

*Equal rights for all families, regardless of sexual orientation.


I think Obama *can* come on board with these basic democratic principles. Don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. I have no doubt he'll do his best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miceelf Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #36
48. "Can"???
He HAS. you could possibly make the argument that Clinton's plan is more universal than Obama's (I would disagree, but I could at least see the argument). But I don't see how Obama will be any worse (and I think he will be better) on gay rights than Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #48
50. I hope that is right
I know alot of gay supporters that are very nervous about his affliliation with McClurkin. As the mom of a gay son, it makes me kind of nervous too.

But... I think he can overcome it... if he gets the right VP and cabinet with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miceelf Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #50
54. I guess
it comes down to how much weight you put on the McClurkin incident- was it a boneheaded stumble or did it reveal the "real Obama"?- versus his stated positions, and his history of talking about gay rights in hostile environments, like those same churches (which I haven't seen Sen. Clinton do- would be glad to hear if she has).

I guess I can see why some would be nervous about Obama on this issue, but I am not sure that Sen. Clinton is a lot stronger on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miceelf Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #31
47. yes
He's definitely smart enough to know the difference. So we agree. I'm not sure what the problem is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #47
52. I did not say there is a problem.
I'll be very happy with a BHO/HRC ticket. I can see alot of strength in such a ticket, in fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miceelf Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. Okay
It certainly wouldn't be the worst ticket in the world, but I suspect that she wouldn't take it if offered, for the reasons noted above.

Can I assume you'd also be comfortable with an HRC/BHO ticket if things turn around?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. You betcha!
I was pulling for that months ago.

But... now I am seeing some value in a BHO/HRC ticket. For many, many reasons... I don't want to get into here.

Suffice to say, I believe they are a winning team any way you slice 'em.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miceelf Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #25
46. Good googly
Where has Obama argued against separation of church and state?

You seem like a reasonable and intelligent person, so I am assuming you got this impression from somewhere- can you give a sense of how you arrived at the conclusion that he's soft on separation of church and state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
miceelf Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
41. he's been clear
His platform is every bit as progressive (a little more, actually) as Clinton's on every social and economic issue. it always helps to apply pressure, but Clinton would need more to get stuff done than he would.

I don't get why it's such a bad thing that he will win with crossovers and some liberal republicans, rather than losing without them.

Why is it such a foreign concept that we might have a presidential candidate who could actually CONVINCE people in the middle that we're right, instead of one who just hopes they don't vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
octobit Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
45. Not just Obama
This should be done for EVERY politician. Without doing this a political victory is meaningless. 2006 is a great example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #45
57. Exactly. Excellent post.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
58. It's too late. After inauguration he will turn into Clinton circa 1994.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NastyRiffraff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
59. Absolutely and I for one intend to.
Obama is not my first or second choice. He's at best a centrist politically, and I can't trust him to push progressive legislation. I'm downloading his entire web site, so I'll have a record of what he's promising today, and intend to consistently try to hold him to those promises. I doubt he'll keep all, or even most, of them, but I have to try to push him. I don't hold out much hope for women's issues, but women really do need to push him on those. Yes, he's nominally "pro-choice," but "morally" against abortion. I don't see him fighting hard for women; so far he's given lip service, but that's about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 04:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC