Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Buzzflash publishes a tough nut to swallow: Obama channels Kerry & Gore: Loserville

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
 
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 04:58 PM
Original message
Buzzflash publishes a tough nut to swallow: Obama channels Kerry & Gore: Loserville

Before you scream at me with many capital letters and ugly smiley face icons...I AM ON YOUR SIDE. No, I am not a handwringer. I am very concerned that Obama does not know how to handle his campaign and he is going to fall victim to the same Republican slime tactics that occurred in 2000 & 04. I believe that Bush won neither of those elections, but all it will take is a close election for the Repukes enough room to cheat their way into the oval office AGAIN.

Buzzflash loves Obama, btw. They were blatantly pro-Obama during the primaries. They wouldn't be putting this up on their website unless they thought the opinion piece deserved consideration.

This isn't a call for despair but it IS a call for us to let the Obama campaign that this is not holding and he can not continue to be Republican-lite and win.

Here's the link - and here's the article:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/lindorff/130

Well, it's happened, and it's no surprise. Barack Obama, the prospective Democratic presidential candidate, has managed to turn a 5-8 point lead over prospective Republican opponent John McCain into a 7-point deficit -- a double-digit slide -- in just two and a half months following a campaign that had voters really excited over his candidacy.

How did he manage this feat (which is documented in the latest Reuters/Zogby poll)? Simple: he followed the tried-and-true strategy of Democratic centrist advisers who have increasingly dominated his campaign since the end of the primaries, and who have a proven track record of producing Democratic electoral disasters now for several decades.

Like John Kerry and Al Gore before him, Obama, who ran his primary campaign as a liberal, staking out an anti-war position, has morphed over recent weeks into a Republican-lite candidate, calling for a hard line against Palestinian rights, threatening to attack Iran, calling for an expansion of the disastrous war in Afghanistan, and backing away from genuine health care reform and other important progressive goals here at home.

One might think that after watching Democratic candidates lose the last two presidential elections by following exactly this kind of "strategy," if it can be called that, Obama and his campaign managers would have decided to try something different, but it appears that the Democratic Party at the top is hopelessly in the grip of corporate interests that favor war, free-market nostrums, and corporate welfare.

(Okay, I know Gore really won the 2000 election, but he should have won it so convincingly -- for example taking New Hampshire and his home state of Tennessee -- that the election couldn't have been stolen. And Kerry, similarly, should not have had his race determined by a close vote in economically distressed Ohio, which should have been his by a blowout.)

Obama got where he is -- the first African-American major party nominee and the first black candidate with a real shot at winning the White House -- by appealing to the Democratic Party's liberal base. Now Zogby reports that Obama's support among liberals has plunged 12 percent. That's liberals, folks!

I count myself among those on the left who have turned away from this fast-talking eel of a candidate. It's not a matter of turning to McCain, who is if anything more dangerous than President Bush because of his fondness for war and his evident lack of any kind of principles, not to mention his personal greed.

But how can I or any progressive vote for a presidential candidate who goes from opposing a war to saying he not only supports the idea of keeping troops in Iraq for another five years -- the length of the entire WWII! -- but also who further says he won't rule out attacking Iran, even if that country poses no imminent threat to the U.S., simply because it develops nuclear weapons -- the same weapons that our putative friends, Pakistan and India, have? How can I vote for a candidate who wants to expand the military (by 65,000 troops) instead of shrinking this huge, bloodsucking parasite of an organization that is costing as much as the rest of the world spends on its armies?

How can I or any progressive vote for a presidential candidate who cannot state categorically that he will defend the Constitution by reversing all of President Bush's abuses of power and who will not promise to prosecute the president and members of his administration for any crimes committed while in office?

If you look at Obama's vaunted Web site, and check out his positions on the big issues of healthcare, education, the economy, labor, Social Security, etc., you can see he's pretty good on most things (okay, his health care "reform" is a loser and will never fly. He should be calling for a nationally run insurance system modeled on Medicare and paid for by the government). The problem is that there has been a deliberate effort to soft-pedal all of it, while backpedaling on his position on the Iraq War.

It's almost as if he and his campaign think the "smart" progressives will go to his Web site and be satisfied with his online positions, while the "dumb" unaffiliated voters will not go there and will just base their votes on his gauzy image TV ads. (More importantly, if he can go from anti-war to pro-war, what's to say he won't backpedal in office on the rest of his positions, especially if he won't highlight and defend them vigorously on the campaign trail?)

There has clearly been a decision made in the Obama campaign to soft-pedal liberal positions and to make Obama appear "safe" and uncontroversial. The result has been his precipitous slide in the polls. That's not the worst of it, either. Obama is not just losing liberals in droves. Many liberals, after all, will in the end return and vote for grudgingly for Obama, though they probably won't volunteer to do any of the critical campaign work registering voters, promoting his candidacy or getting people to the polls.

The worst part is that by becoming just another middle-of-the-road, namby-pamby, Republican-lite clone of Kerry circa 2004 and Gore circa 2000, Obama is losing the young and also the disaffected, unaffiliated voters who were flocking to his campaign during the primaries. This group of erstwhile enthusiasts is down 12 percent, too. And it's those people -- particularly the unaffiliated voters -- who are raising McCain's numbers. The Zogby poll reports that McCain's support among younger voters has reached 40 percent -- not that much below Obama's 52 percent.

There is probably still time to turn this electoral debacle in the making around. Obama needs to come out unambiguously for a quick end to the war in Iraq. He needs to do an about face on his call for an expansion of the war in Afghanistan. He needs to flatly rule out preemptive war as a policy for the United States of America, unless the country is in danger of imminent attack. He needs to scotch plans for expanding the military, and instead to start talking about how to reduce military spending, so that those funds can be shifted to domestic priorities such as improving education and dramatically increasing research into carbon-free energy production. He needs to call for a national healthcare system that will provide quality, affordable medical care for all, and he needs to call for an aggressive campaign to combat joblessness and to reduce income disparity within the U.S.

Do that, and we will see an Obama presidency and a Democratic sweep of both houses of Congress. Continue with the present losing strategy, and we will see John McCain as president, and the continuation of a weak, compromised, sell-out Democratic Congress for at least the next four years.

Now as sympathetic as I am to the politics espoused by Ralph Nader and by the Green Party, I'm well aware of the futility of Third Party campaigns. Even so, count me as one progressive who at this point has stopped supporting Obama.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net .
Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash | delicious | digg | technorati
Technorati Tags: Dave Lindorff Barack Obama John McCain lesser of two evils Zogby

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. With all deference to BF...
...Obama will win in a landslide.:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. nice preface, too bad it doesn't match up with what you posted
yet another lame smear of Obama.

You are foolish if you think Obama and his team don't know what they are doing.
They would not have made it this far if they didn't.

Why clutter the board with any further trash?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I DO SUPPORT THE NOMINEE, DAMMIT!!
I'd just like for him to fucking WIN!!!!!!!! In other words, NOT TO BLOW IT. WHICH IS EACTLY WHAT HE IS DOING. BLOWING IT.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedoll78 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. It really is tiresome.
If you dare criticize, you're not "supporting the nominee."

Give me a fucking break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. that's the most lamedick excuse for support I've ever seen
he hasn't blown anything. you're just in a tizzy because the VP announcement comes tomorrow and you know who's name won't be mentioned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
42. How many campaigns have you won against the clintons? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
45. Plus - the ONLY Dem to move right was Bill in 92. Gore moved left and Kerry was always left
and it took rampant election fraud from BushInc to carry the day.

So Lindorff is FULL OF SHIT. And too many Dems STILL don't understand what the Siegelman case and the US attorneys being fired is all about. ELECTION FRAUD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. I won't be screaming at you but this is one person's
OP on buzzflash..and he's not the only handwringer today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Don't you find the "coincidence" of all these "concerned" people....
discovered how "concerned" they were on the SAME day! Wow, who'd a thunk it, eh! Good thing there is no coordination involved!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I've been thinking it; I just wasn't the first to post it.
For fear that I'd be excommunicated ...

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Well, I am sure this has NOTHING to do with what is going on today....
Clinton partisans waging fierce cyber campaign to derail Obama

By BARTHOLOMEW SULLIVAN
Scripps Howard News Service
2008-08-19 00:00:00

WASHINGTON -- A massive e-mail and Internet campaign is under way aimed at derailing the nomination of Barack Obama and making Hillary Clinton the party's standard bearer next week in at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

"It's downright nasty," said Memphis, Tenn., super-delegate and City Council member Myron Lowery, who has shared dozens of the messages he's received with The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal newspaper.

"I think it's divisive for the 'Support Hillary' campaign to continue at this time. She made the decision to fully support Mr. Obama," said Lowery, who initially supported Clinton but later switched his allegiance to Obama. "I don't know why they're not taking their cue from Hillary and falling in line."

Lowery said he does not believe Clinton herself is behind the effort, but that it's "her supporters, acting on their own because they're proud of what they have done for her."

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=HILLARYTACTICS-08-19-08


I am sure it just another one of today's amazing coincidences, lol.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Honestly, I didn't know that was going on.
I've gotten no emails from any "support Hillary" group. You can believe that or not. I've just been wondering for days, while Obama has been off body surfing and McLame has been pounding him in the media, how long it was going to take Obama to get back to work and RESPOND.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. I didn't post that assuming you had received anything....
it was to point out what is really happening as opposed to there being amazing coincidences, that was all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #10
37. Yes, of course they are.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Hope the really
concern trolls drop off the edge tomorrow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Yes, the latest, and it seems credible, we will know tomorrow!
The air should clear considerably after that, lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. Yeah... just coincidence I'm sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. LOL, anyone who says there is no such thing as a coincidence....
really needs to visit DU today, damn, the number of "coincidences" here today needs to be scientifically researched!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
23. This is really really surreal. Coordination of WHAT?


Fine. Ignore it. I will play along.

Obama's campaign is perfect and the fact that McCain is leading in a major poll is wonderful news. I am so happy Obama
has chosen to run in the middle, and I think he should be a gentleman whatever McCain says or does. I think it is really
great that he is constantly put on the defense by McCain and I am thrilled he won't go 'negative' and hard hit McCain with
the brutal truth. And, I love the fact that he flipped on off-shore drilling, it really showed his strength. And, the FISA
vote. Brilliant move.

Yeah!

Gobama!

Look the sky is pink with yellow & orange rainbows and marshmallow clouds.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Go Obama! You got it! I am glad you are on board! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. No campaign is perfect

But is there something wrong with running a clean and positive campaign?
Stop with the "sky opened up" crap. If you really want Obama to win, you
should stop with these divisive smear posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pecwae Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #23
35. Now that's a positive post
that won't get you called a PUMA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
32. The implication is that these are disgruntled HRC supporters or stealth Republicanites, yes?
I'm not an HRC supporter and never was, and the thought of McCain (or more likely, he and his vice-president, who will be the real one in charge as McCain slips into dementia)in the White House makes me want to pull the shades down and hide under the bed. Or emigrate.

However, I am getting deja vu all over again, as a candidate overdoes the "move to the middle" dance in precisely the wrong ways by letting the Republicanites set the agenda and agreeing with them on too many points.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. YAWN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. BULLSHIT! Kerry was the most progressive candidate in history. Lindorff BOUGHT the spin even as he
complains about the media. He's full of shit on this and I would say to his face. He is NOT half the analyst he claims to be. He certainly doesn't mind misleading Dems on blogs because he thinks you all are too unaware to challenge his declarations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
21. He's too unaware to realize that many (most) of us *are* aware. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
33. And he was not able to communicate that
Edited on Thu Aug-21-08 08:52 AM by Lydia Leftcoast
He had the support of the anti-Bush crowd, but he was unable to convince the fence sitters that their lives would improve if they voted for him.

He had a policy wonk's dream of a website, with nothing clear and drawn in crayon for the average uninformed voter and nothing but vagueness in two public appearances where I heard him speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Yes, he did. He won all 3 debates decisively and BushInc had to steal another election.
Edited on Thu Aug-21-08 09:16 AM by blm
What Kerry did NOT have was a team of Dem lawmakers and party spokespeople who would show up on tv every day FURTHERING his positions and remarks. Most lawmakers were too cowed by Bush and Rove at their most powerful and didn't want to stick their necks out and become a target for Rove themselves.

And the party spokespeople of that era were idiots schooled for years on defending Clinton and his problems and knew nothing about any other Democratic lawmaker. Hell, they needed to ignore Kerry's top achievements in the senate because they were more concerned about protecting Clinton who deep-sixed much of Kerry's work in the 90s to protect his buddies, GHWBush and Jackson Stephens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. I agree that the entire party shares the blame for Kerry's defeat
but the election should not have been close enough to steal.

The Dems and others on the Left (remember that even the Greens avoided nominating a pres. candidate) were fired up to get rid of Bush, but they needed hep in convincing the undecideds that electing Kerry would be a better option than voting for Bush or just staying home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #36
48. Both Gore and Kerry won their elections. I fail to see the point of the post.
We need for Obama to channel MORE of Gore and Kerry, not less.

My only quibble with Obama is that he doesn't seem to be aware of who determines the winners of American elections in 2008. He'd better get some folks that realize what's happened and is still happening, somebody who understands a few things about Diebold (Premier), ES&S, Hart Intercivic, Sequoia, etc. etc. etc., every one of them a criminal organization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. Who is smarter, some editor at Buzzflash or Harvard Law Prof, dem nom winner Obama hmm nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StuffyJones Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-20-08 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
13. Obama is running a fantastic campaign
It may just be impossible for him to win.

Why?

Well, your guess is as good as mine, I personally think it amounts to racism, but I know plenty disagree.

Maybe it's still that the media landscape is such that no Democrat can win the Presidency. It certainly would appear that they'll do their best to make sure it's close (e.g. all the "Why isn't he doing better?" articles--shouldn't those be about the guy behind?)


Or perhaps the Dems just aren't willing to get so juvenile and negative to win?


Now some of you don't think he's running such a hot campaign, but consider these points:

1. Wouldn't we all have to agree that the Obama-Clinton party fracture hasn't materialized, despite a media that wants badly for it to happy? Give credit to Hillary too, but this was a potential landmine he's avoided.

2. No major gaffes.

3. An amazing trip to see Iraq/Afghanistan and visit world leaders.

4. He's been counter-punching. Some wish he'd go more negative, but he certain is on the offensive as early as any Dem in recent memory.

5. Maybe he can't help it, but he's remained THE story in nearly all political reporting. For a first term Senator, getting name recognition (especially because his name is so foreign), is hugely important.

6. He's continued to raise money and has opened the playing field in more states than Dems are used to.

7. He's more or less remained ahead by both popular and electoral math.

8. He's still way ahead (58%) on the international trading markets.

I contend that's a good summer. The "problem" is given all his advantages is that he really ought to be destroying McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
29. No reason to go the racism route,he's not doing anything like he did during the primary
whenever a negative attack ad came out his team was on it,now their just flat as pita bread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wvbygod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #13
30. He's still way ahead (58%) on the international trading markets.
Since America is considered the leader of the free world should we not allow other
nations to help us elect our president?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highprincipleswork Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 03:09 AM
Response to Original message
26. Agreed - he has lost his "oomph"
Why does Senator Obama think he won the primaries over Senator Clinton? It is solely because he held out the hope for a more progressive policy.

Even then, it was clear that this might all be an illusion. But there were times he talked the right talk and walked the right walk. His brand was hope and change and surely this was not meant to be in a more reactionary direction.

As soon as the primaries were won, he turned his back on this brand and suggestions of its future development, and swallowed hook, line, and sinker that old clunker about "appealing to the center" or even to "right of center", which some people say is where the American public stands.

The only reason there is any appearance that the American public stands there is because there has been a thirty year concerted effort to paint it that way by the media and spokespeople started by Rush Limbaugh.

Against this, and against the current Bush administration, it has been repeatedly shown that a majority of the American people favor impeachment, they want us out of Iraq, and they want universal healthcare. Why does one need to tread so lightly on issues where there has become such consensus.

No, Barack Obama, for all his potential to march forward with good, honest principles, based on integrity and common sense and a healthy dose of populism and a strong arm against globalism and a reasonable if strong foreign policy and a downright conservative notion of balancing the budget - the man so aptly qualified to speak for these things, he chooses to squander his gifts in a poor imitation of John Kerry's campaign.

I think the comparison is apt, and the results can be catastrophic. I worked like a dog for John Kerry. I haven't been moved to work for or donate to Senator Obama for several weeks. Oh, I may get around to doing these things, but you simply cannot expect people to put their heart into things they don't believe in.

I don't believe in the current campaign, I don't believe that they barely considered Wesley Clark for V.P., and when Evan Bayh is somewhere near the top of your V.P. list, you are saying buh bye to all sorts of goodwill from me (and I'm sure others like me).

I never thought I'd say that I'd actually prefer it if Hillary was chosen, but she, at least. seemed to be "getting" the power of the populist message. She certainly wasn't and isn't afraid to talk and act tough. I didn't think I'd say it, certainly not this early, but I'm very, very, very tired of the current Obama action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Naturyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 05:44 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Got to admit, you make some strong points.
I support Obama and I want to win. I think we can win - but I also think we're giving up ground. The failed DLC centrist approach won't work anymore. It worked for Bill Clinton, but those days are over. People want "change" to actually mean "change" - they don't want it to be a code word for "just some mild and comfortable adjustments." Nobody is interested in Democrats running as watered-down Republicans. If somebody wants a Repuke they will vote for a real one. Bill Clinton was as far as you could go with that triangulating DLC business, and then the cat was out of the bag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. Some on our left feel we are never progressive enough, whatever that is.
Edited on Thu Aug-21-08 08:53 AM by MarjorieG
Obama will be as progressive as he can, given the Congress we get. Reports of his sounding more populist.

But as with Kerry, a lot of what he did and said never made it off the cutting room floor, acknowledged by our new media, or old media.

Just saying...


(sp)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
31. Obama's latest statements on Afghanistan, and defeating the Taliban (why, exactly, is that our
Edited on Thu Aug-21-08 07:15 AM by WinkyDink
business, not that they aren't thugs, but so are the Chinese, and well......) which he combines with"Al-Qaeda", have been distressing to me. It's still more war, more $$ for the M-I C, more deaths, more being bogged down in a land that DEFEATED the USSR!

I don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LowerManhattanite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
38. Your concern is noted. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
39. the main flaw in this article is that Obama is not moving
to the center. He's always been in the center.

The left bought the slogans because they wanted to believe. They never bothered to investigate Obama's true political leanings, and now they feel they've been betrayed.

caveat emptor

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
41. Like I said on another thread about this article: It's a whole lotta concern trolling
And I hope those 40% of young people who are supporting McCain are ready to enlist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
43. "Centrist" = "Corporatist", "Corporatist" = campaign $ NOT # of voters!
Edited on Thu Aug-21-08 12:16 PM by calipendence
THAT is the problem...

All of this BS of trying to appeal to the "Centrist" voters is a line of bull for the candidates to do what their corporatist backers want them to. Obama needs to understand that, unlike the Republicans, who are always favored by corporatists who get more from them than they get from Democrats, Democrats trying to appeal to "centrists" are falling right into the hands of defeat. It's been that way for the last few elections.

The American people CANNOT afford to be under corporatist rule for another four years! Obama, go back to being a grass roots candidate of the people. You have enough individual contributor donations that you can afford to do this. Please don't "knuckle under" to these folks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
44. man dude has got to becareful when refering to the military as
bloodsucking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
46. A Thread Regarding The Same Article Was Locked
I didn't see this post until after I had posted an excerpt from the same article at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6685369

My lead post was locked when some posters engaged in a long series of low-level personal attacks against the author rather than critique the article.

It's now clear that their goal objective in posting those personal attacks was to get a thread locked that they disagreed with.

As I pointed out in follow-up post:

" .... not a single poster has challenged the views of the writer.

Guess they just don't have any logical and reasonable counter-arguments to post.

Oh well, guess all they can do is step up their personal attacks in the hopes they can convince a moderator to lock and thereby prevent any democratic discussion and debate regarding the writers article.

Is that what all of these personal attacks are really all about here?

If so, that's not very democratic and clearly violates the letter and spirit of DU rules which encourage civil discussion and debate."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6685369#6685533

Well, I was right. And unfortunately a moderator fell for their undemocratic tactics. I hate to see moderators and DU used and abused in that fashion.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-21-08 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
47. K&R
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 Wed Apr 24th 2024, 05:19 PM
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