A historian against Obama: "The American people demand transformative change...not empty words"

[Bluebear]

...I initially had high hopes that Senator Obama would be such a transformative leader. After hearing his electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I was prepared to enthusiastically support his candidacy.

But Senator Obama has not campaigned in the bold, pathbreaking manner in which he delivered that speech. On the contrary, the entire record of his campaign is one of equivocation and half-measures. To name just a few examples, Obama has sought to undo decades of successful government secularization by advocating for more overt expressions of faith in the halls of politics. Despite his initial opposition to the war, he has refused to pledge an end to American military involvement in Iraq or to take the lead in Congress on ending the war. He has campaigned with a homophobic minister, Rev. Donnie McClurkin, and refused to disavow McClurkin even when the man’s views were pointed out to him. He has ceded leadership to other candidates on issues such as poverty, gay rights, and the President’s illegal warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. These are not the actions of a strong leader, but of a man afraid to stand up for his beliefs.

(As an aside, I categorically reject the notion that I or anyone else should vote for Obama as “a symbolic opportunity to break with a tradition of bigotry” in what is shaping up to be easily the most critical election in a generation. That a group of distinguished historians would advocate such a consideration, even in passing, is deeply troubling to me. The only way to break with this tradition is to judge Senator Obama not by the color of his skin, to paraphrase Martin Luther King, but by the content of his character.)

Nor does Senator Obama’s 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, offer assurances that he comprehends the enormity of the next president’s task. On the contrary, he appears to value compromise and civility over bold and decisive action. In his book, Obama looks longingly back to “a time before the fall, a golden age in Washington when, regardless of which party was in power, civility reigned and government worked.” He writes, “I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we’re in.”

On the contrary, I believe that Obama and his supporters misapprehend the moment we’re in. The “Historians for Obama” want to “begin the process of healing what ails our society,” to bring back the ephemeral Camelot of the Kennedy years. But they forget that Kennedy succeeded a moderate Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, who epitomized bipartisanship, supported the New Deal social welfare programs, and opposed McCarthyism and the “military-industrial complex” (a phrase he coined). Kennedy’s message of unity and civility was desirable only because the opposition was respectable.

But there can be no civility or compromise with a president who spies on American citizens without a warrant, who tortures suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, who manipulates and fires U.S. Attorneys in order to politicize their positions, or who pardons an aide who has outed a CIA agent. We do not need Obama to heal the rift between good and evil, or to bind up the nation’s wounds with Bush’s venom still in her bloodstream. Obama’s balms of civility and bipartisanship may lull Americans into complacency, but they seem ill-equipped to end the outrages and injustices of the current administration’s policies and restore America to moral solvency. Obama has given us no indication that he will exercise the bold, far-reaching, and, yes, partisan leadership that will be necessary to undo the travesties of the past seven years.

I believe that we as historians should not rush to support a candidate who has traded the audacity of hope for the mendacity of politics as usual. History shows us that, in times of national strife, the American people demand transformative change; we do them no favors by endorsing a man who offers only empty words.

http://www.hnn.us/articles/45064.html

[hedgehog]

1. Does a grad student count as a historian?

[TeamJordan23]

3. Hahaha. LOL. First the Kindergarten story; now relying on Grad Students for arguments. nm

[Bluebear]

10. Hahaha. LOL. What are your credentials?

Did you read the article?

What did you find laughable?

Or are you just a cheerleader?

[cuke]

14. It's just more of the Obama Attack Squad in action

They can't defend Obama's candidacy main argument with logic, so they attack the messenger. It won't be long before they're attacking Clinton and accusing you of supporting her

[Bluebear]

16. It's quite unbelievable. Nobody comments on content, they just post "nyah nyahs"

This article is by an editor of a progressive site. If the support of some candidates runs as juvenile as "ha ha ha", how will they stand up to the right wing attack machine that is inevitable?

[cuke]

17. I disagree. No "nobody" - Obama supporters

I know you don't like Hillary, but if you (or anyone else) criticizes her, I will defend her. Unless, of course, if she does something wrong IMO. Then, I will criticize her, as I have done in the past.

Obama supporters consistently fail to defend Obama. Usually they attack the critic or another candidate. Sometimes they deny the charge, but their denial is never backed up with anything more than their denial.

[hedgehog]

19. Heading the OP as a historian against Obama implied that the

person referred to was well known as a historian. I'm thinking Doris Kearns Goodwin territory. I'll grant you the title is from the original blog.

[Bluebear]

21. Fine. Any comments about the article, or are you just arguing his credentials?

[hedgehog]

28. It's his opinion. You're going to grind your teeth at the comparison,

but if Lincoln could offer the South charity after the Civil War, what's wrong with Obama offering civility now? I think he's reaching out to the majority in the middle. Can I say Obama is appealing to the better angels of our nature?

[Bluebear]

29. You can say it, but personally it does not attract me as a voter.

Saying he will seek out Coburn for advice, one of the most conservative nuts in the Senate. The well-known gay-bashing concert flack. The heavy reliance on religious themes in his campaign. But, of course, to each their own.

[Andromeda]

38. Loved the article.

.

[SaveElmer]

12. Sure...

If he is a working historian, going for his Ph.D. absolutely

In fact this essay is right on target...and whining from Obama supporters about the source (as they always do when the criticism hits too close to the bone) is really quite amusing...

Particularly given the penchant for them to use discredited right wingers in their attacks on Hillary

[Benhurst]

18. Bruce Catton, one of the Twentieth Century's greatest American historians,

never even attended a college history course.

So in answer to your question, yes.

[hedgehog]

20. I think he had a book or two under his belt before he was declared

one of the Twentieth Century's greatest American historians.

[Benhurst]

47. But Catton was an historian, nonetheless, who went on to be come one of our greatest.

And he had no formal training when he wrote his first book, nor had he had any by the time he completed his last.

Guild cards are convenient (and that is what a PH.D is); but not necessary.
Yes, a graduate student does count as an historian. Most professional historians and history professors count heavily upon the professionalism and scholarship of their graduate students for the research upon which they base their work. Take away the research done by graduate assistants and there would be next to nothing published. And take away the teaching assistants, and there would be few lower level undergraduate classes taught.

[LWolf]

48. A grad student has a degree.

Hopefully a grad student in history has a BA in history or social sciences.

Grad students are often employed by their universities to teach classes and do research.

I guess that would make a grad student in history "count" as a historian.

[Bluebear]

60. It's much easier for these folks to denigrate the author rather than the article.

Per usual.

[rinsd]

74. People post Kos diaries. What's wrong with this guy's opinion?

:shrug:

[freesqueeze]

2. He has been slow...

to dip his toe in the controversy pool.

However, I have to tip my hat to anyone in power who spoke out against the Iraq mess beforehand.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Historians for Obama

==Obama's platform is ambitious, yet sensible. He calls for negotiating the abolition of nuclear weapons, providing universal and affordable health insurance, combatting poverty by adding resources and discouraging destructive habits, investing in renewable energy sources, and engaging with unfriendly nations to ease conflicts that could otherwise lead to war. He takes more forthright stands on these issues than do his major Democratic competitors.

But it is his qualities of mind and temperament that really separate Obama from the rest of the pack. He is a gifted writer and orator who speaks forcefully but without animus. Not since John F. Kennedy has a Democrat candidate for president showed the same combination of charisma and thoughtfulness - or provided Americans with a symbolic opportunity to break with a tradition of bigotry older than the nation itself. Like Kennedy, he also inspires young people who see him as a great exception in a political world that seems mired in cynicism and corruption.

As president, Barack Obama would only begin the process of healing what ails our society and ensuring that the U.S. plays a beneficial role in the world. But we believe he is that rare politician who can stretch the meaning of democracy, who can help revive what William James called "the civic genius of the people." We invite other historians to add your name to this statement.==

Manan Ahmed, Cliopatria*
Catherine Allgor, University of California - Riverside
Joyce Appleby, University of California, Los Angeles
Ray Arsenault, University of South Florida
Robert Baker, Georgia State University
Doron Ben-Atar, Fordham University
William C. Berman, University of Toronto
David Blight, Yale University
Ruth Bloch, University of California, Los Angeles
Edward J. Blum, San Diego State University
Clayborne Carson, Stanford University
Mary F. Corey, University of California, Los Angeles
Daniel W. Crofts, The College of New Jersey
Dennis C. Dickerson, Vanderbilt University
W. Marvin Dulaney, College of Charleston
Peter Filene, University of North Carolina
Kenneth Fones-wolf, University of West Virginia
Matthew Gabriele, Virginia Tech
James Gilbert, University of Maryland
Rebecca A. Goetz, Rice University
Sara M. Gregg, Iowa State University
James Grossman, Newberry Library
David Hall, Harvard University
Nancy A. Hewitt, Rutgers University
Jonathan Holloway, Yale University
Jeffrey Houghtby, Iowa State University
Harold Hyman, Rice University
Randal Jelks, Calvin College
Robert KC Johnson, Brooklyn College
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Richard H. King, University of Nottingham
Steven Lawson, Rutgers University
William A. Link, University of Florida
James Livingston, Rutgers University
Ralph E. Luker, Cliopatria
Chandra Manning, Georgetown University
Martha May, Western Connecticut State University
Joseph A. McCartin, Georgetown University
James McPherson, Princeton University
Todd Moye, University of North Texas
Michael Punke, University of Montana
Albert J. Raboteau, Princeton University
Janice Reiff, University of California, Los Angeles
Leo Ribuffo, George Washington University
Edward B. Rugemer, Yale University
Leonard J. Sadosky, Iowa State University
Nick Salvatore, Cornell University
Rachel F. Seidman, Duke University
Brett L. Shadle, Virginia Tech
Daniel J. Singal, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Harvard Sitkoff, University of New Hampshire
Daniel Soyer, Fordham University
Paul Spickard, University of California, Santa Barbara
Brian Steele, University of Alabama - Birmingham
James Brewer Stewart, Macalester College
Mary Stroll, University of California - San Diego
David Thelen, Indiana University
Stephenie Ambrose Tubbs, Helena, Montana
Bruce M. Tyler, University of Louisville
Siva Vaidhyanathan, University of Virginia
Richard Weiss, University of California, Los Angeles
Craig Steven Wilder, Dartmouth College
David W. Wills, Amherst College

http://hnn.us/articles/44958.html

[ClarkUSA]

8. You beat me to it, BG.

:toast:

Man, this is getting too easy.

[BeyondGeography]

9. ...

:toast:

[cuke]

15. Too easy?

I think this may be the first time I've seen an Obama supporter came up with a decent defense, instead of attacking someone else.

But you haven't really refuted the author's point that Obama's talk of Unity is nothing but hot air

[krb123]

54. The author has done nothing to prove that Obama's talk of Unity IS hot air

EOM

[Scriptor Ignotus]

64. all the neocons will be long gone by Nov. 2008

all the people who screwed this country up will be out of there, with maybe a few dozen or so Republicans in the House and Senate. Marginalizing them will not bring this country justice.

[AtomicKitten]

13. Thanks, BG.

:yourock:

[Quixote1818]

44. Self Delete

[ClarkUSA]

5. I'll match your one grad student, er, historian against Obama and raise you 63 Historians for Obama.

Sixty-three "Historians for Obama" have signed a letter endorsing Obama's presidency so far:

Manan Ahmed, Catherine Allgor, Joyce Appleby, Ray Arsenault, Robert Baker, Doron Ben-Atar, William C. Berman, David Blight, Ruth Bloch, Edward J. Blum, Clayborne Carson, Mary F. Corey, Daniel W. Crofts, Dennis C. Dickerson, W. Marvin Dulaney, Peter Filene, Kenneth Fones-wolf, Matthew Gabriele, James Gilbert, Rebecca A. Goetz, Sara M. Gregg, James Grossman, David Hall, Nancy A. Hewitt, Jonathan Holloway, Jeffrey Houghtby, Harold Hyman, Randal Jelks, Robert KC Johnson, Michael Kazin, Richard H. King, Steven Lawson, William A. Link, James Livingston, Ralph E. Luker, Chandra Manning, Martha May, Joseph A. McCartin, James McPherson, Todd Moye, Michael Punke, Albert J. Raboteau, Janice Reiff, Leo Ribuffo, Edward B. Rugemer, Leonard J. Sadosky, Nick Salvatore, Rachel F. Seidman, Brett L. Shadle, Daniel J. Singal, Harvard Sitkoff, Daniel Soyer, Paul Spickard, Brian Steele, James Brewer Stewart, Mary Stroll, David Thelen, Stephenie Ambrose Tubbs, Bruce M. Tyler, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Richard Weiss, Craig Steven Wilder, David W. Wills

HNN Editor: The list of signers was updated 12-2-07.

Read the letter:

Our country is in serious trouble. The gap between the wealthy elite and the working majority grows ever larger, tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance and others risk bankruptcy when they get seriously ill, and many public schools do a poor job of educating the next generation. Due to the arrogant, inept foreign policy of the current administration, more people abroad mistrust and fear the United States than at any time since the height of the Vietnam War. Meanwhile, global warming speeds toward an unprecedented catastrophe. Many Republicans and overwhelming numbers of Independents and Democrats believe that, under George W. Bush, the nation has badly lost its way. The 2008 election thus comes at a critical time in the history of the United States and the world.

We endorse Barack Obama for president because we think he is the candidate best able to address and start to solve these profound problems. As historians, we understand that no single individual, even a president, leads alone or outside a thick web of context. As Abraham Lincoln wrote to a friend during the Civil War, "I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me."

However, a president can alter the mood of the nation, making changes possible that once seemed improbable. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and kept the nation united; Franklin D. Roosevelt persuaded Americans to embrace Social Security and more democratic workplaces; John F. Kennedy advanced civil rights and an anti-poverty program.

Barack Obama has the potential to be that kind of president. He has the varied background of a global citizen: his father was African, his stepfather Indonesian, his mother worked in the civil rights movement, and he spent several years of his childhood overseas. As an adult, he has been a community organizer, a law professor, and a successful politician - both at the state and national level. These experiences have given him an acute awareness of the inequalities of race and class, while also equipping him to speak beyond them.

Obama's platform is ambitious, yet sensible. He calls for negotiating the abolition of nuclear weapons, providing universal and affordable health insurance, combatting poverty by adding resources and discouraging destructive habits, investing in renewable energy sources, and engaging with unfriendly nations to ease conflicts that could otherwise lead to war. He takes more forthright stands on these issues than do his major Democratic competitors.

But it is his qualities of mind and temperament that really separate Obama from the rest of the pack. He is a gifted writer and orator who speaks forcefully but without animus. Not since John F. Kennedy has a Democrat candidate for president showed the same combination of charisma and thoughtfulness - or provided Americans with a symbolic opportunity to break with a tradition of bigotry older than the nation itself. Like Kennedy, he also inspires young people who see him as a great exception in a political world that seems mired in cynicism and corruption.

As president, Barack Obama would only begin the process of healing what ails our society and ensuring that the U.S. plays a beneficial role in the world. But we believe he is that rare politician who can stretch the meaning of democracy, who can help revive what William James called "the civic genius of the people."

Manan Ahmed, Cliopatria*
Catherine Allgor, University of California - Riverside
Joyce Appleby, University of California, Los Angeles
Ray Arsenault, University of South Florida
Robert Baker, Georgia State University
Doron Ben-Atar, Fordham University
William C. Berman, University of Toronto
David Blight, Yale University
Ruth Bloch, University of California, Los Angeles
Edward J. Blum, San Diego State University
Clayborne Carson, Stanford University
Mary F. Corey, University of California, Los Angeles
Daniel W. Crofts, The College of New Jersey
Dennis C. Dickerson, Vanderbilt University
W. Marvin Dulaney, College of Charleston
Peter Filene, University of North Carolina
Kenneth Fones-wolf, University of West Virginia
Matthew Gabriele, Virginia Tech
James Gilbert, University of Maryland
Rebecca A. Goetz, Rice University
Sara M. Gregg, Iowa State University
James Grossman, Newberry Library
David Hall, Harvard University
Nancy A. Hewitt, Rutgers University
Jonathan Holloway, Yale University
Jeffrey Houghtby, Iowa State University
Harold Hyman, Rice University
Randal Jelks, Calvin College
Robert KC Johnson, Brooklyn College
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Richard H. King, University of Nottingham
Steven Lawson, Rutgers University
William A. Link, University of Florida
James Livingston, Rutgers University
Ralph E. Luker, Cliopatria
Chandra Manning, Georgetown University
Martha May, Western Connecticut State University
Joseph A. McCartin, Georgetown University
James McPherson, Princeton University
Todd Moye, University of North Texas
Michael Punke, University of Montana
Albert J. Raboteau, Princeton University
Janice Reiff, University of California, Los Angeles
Leo Ribuffo, George Washington University
Edward B. Rugemer, Yale University
Leonard J. Sadosky, Iowa State University
Nick Salvatore, Cornell University
Rachel F. Seidman, Duke University
Brett L. Shadle, Virginia Tech
Daniel J. Singal, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Harvard Sitkoff, University of New Hampshire
Daniel Soyer, Fordham University
Paul Spickard, University of California, Santa Barbara
Brian Steele, University of Alabama - Birmingham
James Brewer Stewart, Macalester College
Mary Stroll, University of California - San Diego
David Thelen, Indiana University
Stephenie Ambrose Tubbs, Helena, Montana
Bruce M. Tyler, University of Louisville
Siva Vaidhyanathan, University of Virginia
Richard Weiss, University of California, Los Angeles
Craig Steven Wilder, Dartmouth College
David W. Wills, Amherst College

http://hnn.us/articles/44958.html

[Jim Sagle]

6. In other words, Obama ain't nuthin' but an empty suit. Fuck'm.

[MadBadger]

7. Oh John Edwards

Ill take the high road.

[AtomicKitten]

11. self-delete

[calteacherguy]

22. The graduate student earns an F for plagerism of Clintonian propaganda. nt

[MadBadger]

23. I was always taught that if i considered a student a source...

Id lose points on my paper.

[Bluebear]

27. He's not a source. He is presenting an opinion. Any comments on the opinion?

Or are you just ridiculing his credentials?

[MadBadger]

30. ridiculing his credentials.

[Bluebear]

31. Then it says more about you than the author, sorry.

[MadBadger]

32. hmm, okay, what does it say about me?

[Bluebear]

33. That you are incurious and nothing more than a cheerleader for your candidate.

[MadBadger]

35. I see

You've got some skill. Seems like you've figured me out because of one or two posts.

[Bluebear]

37. You're ridiculing an obviously learned man, what more is there to know about you? Ciao.

[MadBadger]

39. Are you referring to the IU grad student?

[Benhurst]

49. Well, yeah, if it was something you overheard at a student beer joint.

On the other hand, if even an undergraduate had managed to get his or her work published in a professional journal, it would be just as legitimate a source as any other.

[Bluebear]

24. "plagerism" - - what subject exactly do you teach?

" :rofl: "

[calteacherguy]

25. You've really made Clinton supporters look foolish with this kind of nonsense. nt

[Bluebear]

26. I'm not a Clinton supporter, "teacher"

Plagerism. hehehe.

[ClarkUSA]

42. He's an Edwards supporter who detests Obama.

Do a search on the name to find out why.

[enlightenment]

34. Thank you for posting.

An interesting perspective on the issue.

And a note to some of you who have posted . . .

It's nice that sixty-three historians feel strongly enough about Obama to sign a letter of support for him. A few of those who signed are recognizable; the rest, like most of us, toil in relative obscurity . . . in other words they get up in the morning and go to work as historians in the same way that someone else gets up and goes to work as an accountant. Nothing special, really.

I don't know if the grad student who wrote the editorial arguing against Obama is a first year or if he's a candidate getting ready to defend his dissertation. I don't know if he has a BA or has completed his MA. I will, without knowing, do him the courtesy of allowing him the title of historian - because if you haven't become one long before you add the magic letters "P. H. D." to the end of your name, you're never going to be one. Not really.

I do know that I am appalled that anyone should believe that any group should march in lock-step - which is what some of you seem to be suggesting historians should do. Like everyone else, we come equipped with our own opinions. We're actually pretty opinionated people - why else would we keep churning out books on the same topics, year after year?

I am also shocked at the response to this one man's opinion. Why should it be dismissed because he's a graduate student? Would it carry more weight if he had the magic letters? Why should it? If you want to argue his position, fine - that's what debate is all about. But to dismiss his argument because he doesn't have his PhD? Good grief - you can't do better than an ad hominem attack? Go after what he said; engage the debate. If he's wrong, say why. Attacking his credentials is no better than attacking his character.

*shakes head, wanders away, muttering . . .*

[Bluebear]

36. You're welcome, and of course, I concur with your every word.

[hedgehog]

40. I might listen to a pre-med's opinion about the funny rash on my elbow,

but I'd be pretty amused if he referred to himself as a doctor. We can laugh about degrees, but they are supposed to indicate that a certain level of professionalism has been reached. It just seemed a little pretentious for a grad student to be classifying himself as the equal of the others.

[Bluebear]

41. About the author

Jeremy Young, 23, has been a fixture in the blogosphere for the past five years, writing under both his own name and the username "Nonpartisan." He has worked with many of the leading lights of both the progressive and history blogospheres, including Maryscott O'Connor, Aziz Poonawalla, Ali Eteraz, and Rick Shenkman. Sites for which he has written include Nation-Building (the former Dean Nation), Daily Kos, My Left Wing, Polstate, and Schweitzer for President, which he founded in 2005. As part of his online activities,he has conducted interviews with Congressional nominee Paul Babbitt (for Polstate) and Presidential candidate Bill Richardson (for ProgressiveHistorians), organized an online symposium on 9/11, and reviewed books by Jeffrey Feldman, Ralph Brauer, and David Horowitz. In September 2006, he became the youngest-ever proprietor of a community weblog (ProgressiveHistorians).

Offline, Jeremy is a graduate student at Indiana University-Bloomington, where he studies 20th-century U.S. history with a focus on the Progressive Era. He is also a writer for the History News Service.

[enlightenment]

72. Not pretentious at all.

There are distinct differences between the degrees.

An MD is a medical doctor.

A PhD is a doctor of philosophy.

I would accept your argument for qualification if the comparison were between an MD and a PhD of, say, Biology - or another of the "hard" sciences. But history isn't a hard science; in most schools it is classified as a social science, in some it is part of the humanities.

America is a bit unique in its insistence that Uni professors have the terminal degree; for example, there are a number of individuals on the Faculty of History at Cambridge (UK) that do not hold the PhD.

Cambridge has one of the finest history programs in the world, and they've been in the business for a long, long time. They recognise, as other places also do, that an individual can be an extraordinary historian even with the PhD.

You may find this young man pretentious - and perhaps he is in his argument (I did chuckle over it in several places) - but he is an historian.

[omega minimo]

69. maybe he's

not a "he." :think:

[Maven]

43. "We do not need Obama to heal the rift between good and evil"

So well said.

Obama has been too busy dressing his hollow candidacy with inspirational fluff to be decisive where it really matters.

[Mythsaje]

45. This highlights my concerns with Obama.

I like the guy, but I'm not sure he grasps the nature of the enemy--an enemy that, must I remind everyone, has done its level best to destroy everything WE stand for.

[Alamom]

46. Obama Camp; "College students" Support O, work for O, send your money

to O, show up at O's rallys everywhere and cheer for O*, caucus for O, VOTE for O, but O & company don't give a shit about your opinions."


O's the one because,

"One of my jobs as president is to make government cool again," Obama told a college crowd this fall.

Source for Obama Comment:

http://www.kentucky.com/216/story/247917.html



* Obama's Call & Response Teams.

[krb123]

50. Historian?

As a Barack Obama supporter, let me reply to your ramblings and baseless claims (which included no sources, no less...what kind of "historian" are you?) as best as I can:

"Obama has sought to undo decades of successful government secularization by advocating for more overt expressions of faith in the halls of politics"

Where's your source? Obama has openly talked about his faith and has called on to people who tend to be more religious to apply their faith to work to solve issues such as poverty and AIDS - and not the Republican, divisive talking points such as discrimination against gays and anti-abortion. But Obama has made statements on numerous occasions that show his complete support for separation of church and state...below is a link to a particular statement of Obama on the separation of church and state:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1907

"Despite his initial opposition to the war, he has refused to pledge an end to American military involvement in Iraq or to take the lead in Congress on ending the war."

No Democrat in Congress has, or could be able to do anything that would help bring us out of Iraq before Bush leaves office - it's just the cold reality. Democrats barely have a majority in the Senate, and while there is a majority that want us out of Iraq, there isn't nearly enough support to override a veto from Bush. Once Obama becomes president, though, his plan is to remove 1-2 brigades from Iraq, per month, and have all combat troops out of Iraq within a year.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

"He has campaigned with a homophobic minister, Rev. Donnie McClurkin, and refused to disavow McClurkin even when the man’s views were pointed out to him"

Obama never campaigned with McClurkin....McClurkin one time performed with numerous other gospel singers at a fundraiser for Obama. And Obama, who supports civil unions, came out and strongly disavowed McClurkin's comments (which in fact, were not even homophobic...McClurkin stated a completely misinformed statement that sexual orientation is a choice but at the same time affirmed that in no way does he discriminate against gays).

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/23/obama-takes-heat-for-link-to-mcclurkin/

Every presidential candidate has millions of supporters - it is absurd to criticize a candidate over one of their supporters views (especially when the candidate actually comes out and criticizes their supporter for their particular view in question).


The remainder of your post was completely vague, and semi-incoherent ramblings, so I don't even know how to respond to them....unlike the few assertions you made at the beginning of your post that were completely false and unsubstantiated.

[BeyondGeography]

52. Great post, krb...and welcome to DU

:thumbsup:

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

53. McClurkin's comments not homophobic?

"McClurkin one time performed with numerous other gospel singers at a fundraiser for Obama."

He also emceed the event, and went into an anti-gay tirade during the last half hour of it, don't forget that. Even after promises from the Obama campaign that he'd only sing.

"And Obama, who supports civil unions, came out and strongly disavowed McClurkin's comments"

Yes, he said McClurkin's comments disturbed him, but that isn't all he said. The night of the first concert, the one with McClurkin, Obama's campaign issued a statement that McClurkin only wants to help the "unhappy gays." Backing up McClurkin and the rest of the ex-gay crowd that homosexuality is a choice, and backing them up that being gay is what makes unhappy gays unhappy. Gays are made unhappy by homophobes like McClurkin, homophobia isn't the cure for unhappy gays, and that was an outrageously offensive position for a Democratic presidential candidate's campaign to take (and for his supporters to defend.)

And Obama's final word on the subject, was again highly offensive. He told the Advocate that we have to come to terms with the "fact" that there are "good, moral, decent people who haven't yet accepted gays as fully equal." Homophobes are bigots, just as racists are bigots, homophobes are bigots plain and simple. Bigots are not good, moral, decent people, not until they renounce their bigotry they aren't.

"which in fact, were not even homophobic...McClurkin stated a completely misinformed statement that sexual orientation is a choice"

McClurkin said Jesus delivered him from homosexuality (on stage at the event). Are you going to try to claim that someone prays to Jesus to "deliver" them from something that is neutral, not a sin? Please, McClurkin was demonizing gays in the name of God, and it's obvious to anyone who cares about homophobic bigotry, how virulently homophobic that is.

[krb123]

56. McClurkin's comments, while extremely ignorant, were not homophobic

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This ho·mo·pho·bi·a (hō'mə-fō'bē-ə) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

McClurkin's comments are completely ignorant and misinformed, but in no way has he shown "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men". He is an extremely ignorant man making extremely ignorant comments but it no way did he show spite or ill-will towards gays. It doesn't make what he said right, in any way, but it doesn't really fall under the definition of homophobic either.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

61. Homosexuality is a sin = bigotry

I asked if you were going to deny that saying "Jesus delivered me from homosexuality" is the same thing as saying homosexuality is a sin, and you haven't denied that. Saying homosexuality is a sin, is showing contempt for gays, duh. You can get banned from DU for saying it, it's defined as bigotry here.

[Bluebear]

55. LOL, your long-winded post to the author is written as if he could read it

"The remainder of your post was completely vague, and semi-incoherent ramblings"

Heh.

[krb123]

58. So the article wasn't written by you?

It's bad enough to post an article by a well-renowned historian because you are unable to make any intelligent points of your own, but it's even worse when you have to resort to posting articles written by grad-school students from second-tier students because you are unable to make any intelligent points of your own (not to mention, you were probably unable to find any actual "historians" who would write such awful, unsubstantiated, hearsay and other assorted garbage).

[Bluebear]

59. Whose foolish sock puppet are you, little one?

:rofl:

[krb123]

62. You completely proved my point

You only copy other people's posts/articles and the only thing you can even come up with yourself is "whose foolish sock puppet are you, little one". It's quite obvious that you are incapable of coming up with any independent thoughts.

[Bluebear]

65. You joined TODAY and are insulting me left & right, of course you are a sock puppet.

That is what's quite obvious.

[Bluebear]

57. "semi-incoherent ramblings" lol ... actually the article is well-written!

Whether you agree with him or not, which parts of the article are you not following? Maybe we can interpret them for you?

[rinsd]

73. Obama did not disavow the comments McClurkin made at the fundraiser.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

51. I disagree with this analysis. The American people reliably demand empty words.

Leaving aside what Americans SHOULD want, the fact is that Americans love con-men and demand empty slogans in preference to meaning.

A historian should know that.

[Tactical Progressive]

63. LOL! So very, very true.

This Publican administration - maybe all Publican administrations, but certainly this one - were built wholy on empty words.

[omega minimo]

67. why is that?

"the fact is that Americans love con-men and demand empty slogans in preference to meaning."

[omega minimo]

66. change for change sake is how we ended up with

[Bluebear]

68. Au contraire, the operative word is TRANSFORMATIVE change. nt

[omega minimo]

70. obama and his appeal appear to be "change for change sake"

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

71. Gotcha. :)