I am impressed by how Obama and the Dems handled their first dust up with the repukes

[NJmaverick]

Clearly Obama is not going to let them walk all over him, like others before him have done. It's also clear Obama wasn't lying when he said he held back out of respect for Hillary's party affiliation. It's going to be a long 6 months with plenty of battles to fight and lies to dispell, but clearly Obama is fighter who can handle what's thrown at him.

[blm]

1. It was the Dem PARTY that was frigid from 2001-2005, not the few who stood against Bush.

And it was the MEDIA who would not further the attacks on Bush as they carefully protected his post9-11 image.

Do you think Obama would have gotten all his counterattacks broadcast if this was 2004?

Please show some realistic perspective when you make these comments.

In 2003-4, most of the bestknown Dems were SUPPORTING Bush publicly on his Iraq strategy even as the Dem nominee was targeting his criticisms on those decisions.

The last Dem president was doing a book tour where he repeatedly defended Bush on terrorism and Iraq while he had nothing to say about Kerry's years of efforts targeting terror networks and their international funding.

The Dem party and the current postKatrina media climate has made the difference in what YOU get to see and hear. You seem to forget how often Tom Ridge was trotted out for 'elevated' terror warnings.

[NJmaverick]

2. It's possible this bloody primary has made the party a little more fiesty

plus they saw what happened to Kerry, with the Swift Boating. They have probably vowed never to let that happen again.

[blm]

8. They CONTRIBUTED to the swifting by their intense show of fear to stand against it

and oppose Bush publically. Face it - Bush and Rove were at their most powerful then, and Democrats for the most part did NOT want to draw targets on themselves by backing up Kerry.

It was disgusting and shameful behavior for a party - but that was what Bill Clinton wanted when he set McAuliffe up to lead it and when he scheduled his book tour to be a three week defense of Bush tour in the summer of 2004.

Kerry won't let it happen to Obama and he, Durbin, and Daschle have been setting up this fight along with Dean as head of the DNC.

After this election is won, some people in the Dem party are going to be surprised at the entire back story on how Obama defeated first the deceitful Clinton machine then GOP.

[navarth]

5. I must agree

It's similar to the Phil Donahue/Keith Olbermann question: could KO have done then what he's doing now? Phil "should get the medal of freedom" Donahue got fired for doing it.

But I still would agree with the OP that Obama's done a good job so far. Al Gore and John Kerry didn't do enough to fight back against the pig slime machine, or at least that's the way I remember it......?

[blm]

11. They did - it ended up unreported and unbroadcast.

Few Democrats even know that Kerry attacked the swifts AND challenged Bush to stop hiding behind the swifts and come out and debate their services during that time. It was in a one hour speech to the FIREFIGHTERS CONVENTION that was supposed to have been broadcast - oddly, no news network aired it and few even reported it that it occurred. Firefighters endorsed Kerry and that is something that went against the media's carefully crafted 9-11 image of Bush.

Go to DU's Research Forum - there is video of it there. Imagine if none of the networks covered Obama's counterattacks or his speech on race after Wright....THAT is the media climate that Gore and especially Kerry had to endure.

[NJmaverick]

12. So what changed?

[blm]

13. PostKatrina Bush presidency. Plus, the media is distancing themselves from their role in building an

image of Bush that they could no longer maintain. Olbermann didn't even really hone his attacks on Bush until after Katrina - and his Special Comments started in fall of 2006.

A LOT has changed.

[Liberal Gramma]

25. Bingo!

The media didn't cover any counter to the swift-boating. I'm happy to see it's a little more even-handed this time.

[Life Long Dem]

15. The difference is the 2004 candidates were for the Iraq war.

Obama does not have to walk that line.

[blm]

34. Wrong. Kerry stood against the DECISION to go to war as soon as weapon inspectors

were proving force was not needed.

He was one of the few IWR supporters who stuck to his promise to stand against use of military force without proof from weapom inspectors that it was needed.

Other Dems would not face the task of backing Kerry up on that, and the best known Dems at the time were publically siding with Bush - especially Bill Clinton.

And I doubt you can come up with any scenario where any Dem could get their votes counted in crucial states like Florida and Ohio in 2002 and 2004 since Terry McAuliffe refused to secure the election process after 2000s theft, and instead, let the party infrastructures in those states and others weaken to the point of collapse.

[Happyhippychick]

3. Couldn't agree more. I misjudged him and thought that he might be too "nice"

to go up against the Pukes. But he's a scrappy guy who manages to punch back twice as hard and in beautiful form.

[Tim4319]

4. One thing I love what Obama is doing is

he is not letting things marinate! When topics come up about him and his views, he immediately address the issues by clearly stating his position, so that this is no mistake as to where he stands. I find that very presidential of him! I believe he will make an excellent president.

[Cha]

37. No time to marinate!

Zip Zap Bam Obama slaps it back in the gop's court!

[The Magistrate]

6. Indeed, Sir: The Riposte Was Excellent, And Clearly Told

[Triana]

7. I liked the way fellow Dems rallied around and all stuck together -

- Kerry, Dean, Clinton, Biden - ALL of them blasted bu$hit/McSame the next day.

THAT's how it's done!

And Obama's timely and formidable response was impressive!

[gateley]

29. And Pelosi was great, too.

It's as though they rose up AS ONE to speak out against Bush - it was a wonderful thing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. very, very impressive!!

particularly the way the way when Sen. McCain jumped on the bandwagon with Bush. They shot back instantly tying the two together.

If Sen. McCain is seen as the independent/maverick and moderate that he likes to portray himself - he is likely to win.

If Sen. McCain is seen as the continuation of George W. Bush - there will be a Republican electoral blood bath come November 4.

[slinkerwink]

17. that was a very dumb thing of McCain to do. He should've distanced himself from Bush.

[anonymous171]

26. Yep. Instead he AGREED with him and parroted his talking points.

I think he was trying to pander to Bush's 29% base that hates McCain.

[rndmprsn]

10. agreed...very impressed with the dem response

they stuck together and let them know if you mess with one dem you mess with us all...we stick together!

[Life Long Dem]

14. I feel the same way.

Obama struck a near knockout blow yesterday toward Bush and McSame. He covered every detail.

Regardless of who this was meant for, Obama grabbed hold and made the start of the GE election, while leaving Hillary alone to play in the primary with her games.

And he is linking McSame to Bush where he isn't going to let go until November.

[dchill]

16. Democrats with "testicular fortitude" - who'd a thunk it?

Gobama. Go Dems!

[Zachstar]

18. He really did great! Proved he has what it takes to take on McCain!

[lojasmo]

19. First in a long line of ass-whuppings...

Barack's going to administer to McGoo and his bushista cabal..

[knixphan]

20. Like I said a looong time ago...

The gloves were ON for Clinton.

They will be OFF for the GOP.

Full-on Kung-fu.

[knixphan]

21. K&R

[FrenchieCat]

22. I don't think folks know just how tough Obama is. They still don't

get how he got to where he is.

Watch him. He will be something to behold.

[anonymous171]

23. Proof that Obama WAS holding back against Hillary.

He is a fighter and will not be swift boated.

[Zachstar]

27. Bingo!

[Gore1FL]

24. As an Obama supporter

I also must give Kudos to Hillary for her response:

President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush.

[FlaGranny]

30. Agree. Perfect response from

Sen. Clinton.

[smoogatz]

28. Agreed, but—counter-punching is all well and good

but let's put McCain on the defensive NOW and keep him there.

[me b zola]

31. K&R!

:thumbsup:

[Bullet1987]

32. With regards to the MSM...

I get the impression just by watching CNN and MSNBC, that the media as a whole wants a Democratic President. You can even see signs of it, look at how lopsided the coverage has been. The Democrats have far and beyond received from coverage than the rethugs. Now, you can say it's because the Republicans ended their primary months ago...which I'm sure has had an effect. But it's not like McCain has been sitting on his hands all this time.

People are just so damn sick of George Bush and people like him. And it was stupid of McCain to jump to Bush's defense like that and agree with him. He's also been caught looking like a fool over this Hamas story. The guy is not as sharp as I think people give him credit for. I expect more gaffe's like this from McLame in the coming months.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[Zachstar]

35. Damn Skynet!

[Kahuna]

36. It was great team work by the Democrats. Even Hillary was a team player..

:applause: