Obama never claimed to be a liberal. We voted for him on his platform of bringing people together.

[jenmito]

He's supposedly "post-partisan." And I think he's behaving consistent with that message. He's no Kucinich. He's no Lieberman, either. He wants to WIN. Do you realize how many talking points he's taking away from the Repubs.? McCain sounds ridiculous trying to paint him as a "flip-flopper" on Iraq since there are tons of videos to prove him wrong (luckily, McCain's not that familiar with "the google.") He also sounds ridiculous trying to paint him as a "loony leftist" when he says things like, "Obama may not have agreed with the Supreme Court's ruling on THIS case, but..." Obama ran a TERRIFICALLY planned primary campaign, beating the entire Clinton machine. I think he knows exactly what he's doing to win the presidency and he will be a president who lives up to the majority of America's and the world's expectations (IMO).

[AZBlue]

1. Great post!

K&R

[jenmito]

2. Thanks, AZBlue!

:hi: And I LOVE that pic!

[rzemanfl]

3. I see nothing wrong with him bringing people together as long as

I don't have to touch any Republicans.

[jenmito]

8. I don't think you're in danger of having to touch any Repubs...

unless you're married to one, I guess. :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

4. Some folks are complaining that he's just a politician but

as it turns out he's a spectacular politician in that he knows how to win the White House and it is that and winning a supermajority in Congress with his capacious coattails that will put Democrats in the driver's seat to put forward and implement an aggressive progressive agenda.

Let the guy do his stuff. He knows what he is doing.

:hi:

[jenmito]

11. Exactly...

Nice to see you, AK! :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

15. 3 weeks working on the campaign gave me a fresh perspective

we are going to kick the every lovin' crap out of the GOP

8 long years + eyes on the prize = righteous victory in November ;)

[jenmito]

18. Good for you!

Yes we will! :)

[AZBlue]

31. Nice to see you on DU again!

We've needed your voice of reason around here lately...

But, you were off doing a GREAT thing for a GREAT man! And I appreciate that greatly!!

[AtomicKitten]

52. jet lag - oy

Wonderful enthusiasm in Colorado and I do believe it's going blue in November.

:hi:

[highprincipleswork]

50. Abandoning principle is not winning

When all he needs to do right now is to solidify the Hillary vote and continue to add new voters, choosing to piss of any progressive or liberal within gunshot is not likely to win the election for him.

This is the same failed and faulty policy that sunk Al Gore and John Kerry. Appeal to the mythical "center", which is way to the right of anything I would ever consider and way to the right, in my opinion, of Americans in general.

Wooing the evangelicals and righwingers is the way to go?

Principles work and people are hungry for a principle-based candidate. Straying off of your own message and brand in that way can be fatally destructive over time.

[AtomicKitten]

53. Obama is winning which is precisely what he was charged to do.

He has stuck to his principles as laid out in both his books. He hasn't changed. And, um, some of Hillary's voters are Reagan Democrats that aren't likely to vote for a black man anyway, plus a chunk of her "base" were courtesy of Operation Chaos. Obama is solidifying Democratic support nicely and bringing over all kinds of new voters.

But, hey, thanks for your concern. :hi:

[highprincipleswork]

56. Hey, thanks for your concern

Hey, thanks for your concern too. But then, judging from your emoticon I would really be curious what it is you think he does stand for and what you stand for yourself? Does anything matter, as far as principles are concerned? Is the Constitution important and worth defending? Is one's word worth defending and sticking to, or does one relish holding endless news conferences explaining what one really meant to say? Is it an accident that so many recent statements and actions need follow-up press conference to explain what are now being called charitably "nuanced positions"?

My most simple statement is that I can't and don't in any way see this as a winning strategy. Rather it reminds me of more of the same strained triangulating, caving in, appeasing strategy that makes the current House and Senate so unpopular.

You think it will not catch up with him, in terms of popularity? It already has weakened one large part of his base, the progressives who chose him over Hillary Clinton.

If you think his recent statements and actions are responsible for "solidifying Democratic support", then you're hanging with a whole different Democratic crowd than I am.

I'm all in favor of him winning. i think this is absolutely the wrong way to go about it, and your statements (and the attitude reflected in your emoticon) do nothing to convince me otherwise.

[northzax]

118. it is amazing, ain't it?

we nominated a centrist who will work with republicans because we couldn't stand the other centrist who worked with republicans.

And yes, I know that senator obama has made no bones about this, but if you think the democratic grassroots supported him as the 'unity' candidate, you haven't been paying attention. People hear what they want to hear.

[AZBlue]

54. That's "all" he needs to do? Oh my, I have to say, that's quite naive.

I wish it were the case, but it's not. How about deflecting the GOP Spin Machine, just waiting for him to hand them any nugget to spin and destroy him? Gore won and Kerry lost not because he was centrist but because he didn't control the GOP Machine effectively.

[highprincipleswork]

57. Namecalling on DU

It's interesting to see those on DU who like to call their fellow bloggers names. Let's just say, it's not the wisest or kindest way to go, especially as the pot is often calling the kettle black.

Everyone knows about the Republican spin machine. But Obama spinning to the right is not likely to nullify that. They are coming after him, one way or the other. That's what I believe, and I surely don't think it is naive. Perhaps thinking it will protect him could be called naive. It certainly will cost him support. His real protection should be the popularity of standing for something that is really good and true and that the majority of the American people support, the same thing he has built his brand on so far. Like the principles of ending the War in Iraq, re-Investing in America, ending tax breaks for those who ship our jobs overseas, balancing the budget, defending the Constitution, restoring the checks and balances of our governmental system, etc.

The Republican machine is already spinning that "he's just another politician", and if he keeps talking and acting like this they just may make it stick. I already read one story today about someone who convinced their neighbor to vote for Obama, but they are now unsure again, after seeing his stance on FISA. How else do I know they may have success with this? Because even I, a lifelong Democrat am sickened and saddened and disheartened by his recent comments and actions. I can also see his actions and comments seem to indicate that they are correct in what they are saying. I'd like to see him prove that they don't have a point with this.

As to Gore, he didn't win by nearly enough to make it clear he won, and I believe he lost in that way by being too much of a milquetoast, middle-of-the-road, don't stand for anything Democrat. I believe Kerry played it safe in much the same way.

Sacrificing principles seems so popular to some. They think it makes one pragmatic. They have bought the Clintonian point of view that this is what wins elections. But I am no fan of the triangulation, the appeasement, and the caving in that it causes, and I'm surprised that DUers are fond of these things to any degree either. I don't believe that sacrificing principles makes for good politics or good business or good anything else.

High principles work. They even worked for George Bush - he just never means them when he says them, but he said them alright. "Compassionate Conservative". "Clear Skies". "No Child Left Behind".

What the United States needs right now, in the face of so many lies and corruption and disastrous wars and a conman's economy and a cowering legislature is a heaping dose of HIGH PRINCIPLES!!!

The fact that you've got to stick to them, even when people attack you, well any alleged "agent of change" better get used to that.

So, think about it. See if you really want your candidate to spend all his efforts trying to avoid the Republican spin machine by pissing off some of his supporters, including those who have donated time and money to his nomination victory. See if you can't agree that principles and particularly high principles are the key to the human heart, the human spirit, and yes, through these, to winning elections. If you think about it, you may find that that's what we started off with, in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and God willing, that is what is going to keep us together and makes us successful all the way to the end as well.

[AZBlue]

99. You've yet to prove that he's "abandoned high principles"

You type a lot of words but say very very little. You use no facts, only your own opinions. Now we're all supposed to bow to what you want? When were you put in charge of deciding the Democratic party's future?

[highprincipleswork]

113. No bowing

Not expecting you to bow to anything, other than that which resonates with you.

However, noticed you didn't actually answer any of my points. Facts? Is that all you're concerned about?

I'm concerned about the selling and marketing of our candidate. I've made some pretty salient points about how I think he and his staff are making some important strategic errors. I'm certainly not the only one who feels he's abandoning principles or failing to live up to them or failing to distinguish himself by living up to them.

Neither he nor you nor anyone else in the Democratic Party has to do a thing I advise. And still I'm throwing my opinion out there. Isn't that what blogs are for?

Principles work. Not adhering to principles or following low ones usually catches up to you in the end. That's my advice, and I'm sticking to it. Give it a thought. That's all I ask.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

215. I believe

that Obama threw me under the bus when he told me he would never vote for the FISA bill and then... guess what? He says he's aboard the FISA express.

He abandoned his principals when he did that.

I also do not believe the person you are responding to asked anyone to bow to their principals. Looks like they just placed an opinion on a internet board meant to post opinions.

The Democratic Party's future? It is being decided by the likes of Nancy Pelosi.

Oh, and please tell me to shut the fuck up because I have an opinion about what Senator Obama is doing with his campaign. Principals mean a lot to voters these days.
Watching someone flail around, looking at the windsock to see which way the wind blows, impresses no one.

[Inuca]

59. Maybe he is abandoning YOUR principles

not HIS.

[ClassWarrior]

65. I agree that he shouldn't move to the right, and so does George Lakoff...

But for one, Obama hasn't moved anywhere. These have been his positions all along, and if you disagree, you haven't been paying attention.

Second, Lakoff believes that Obama's strategy is something different:

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought - call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I’ve called “biconceptuals”: progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don’t form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a “center.” Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas - the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care....

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/15/3174

NGU.

[highprincipleswork]

86. Paying attention

Dear Class Warrior

I've been playing plenty of attention. Glad you agree that he shouldn't move to the right and that George Lakoff has valuable things to say.

On the other hand, yes he has changed his positions and more importantly the tenor of his campaign. To deny that is to go against not only the MSM but the perceptions of many. One can do that, and one can fight against reality or evidence of any kind. Thing is- reality always wins.

I can easily go along with abandoning a knee-jerk left or right orientation in our politics. I think it is criminal that the Republicans vote in lock-step on virtually everything. I think, in fact, that they should be called out no this to the American public. The only two parties in history that I can easily think of who always did this are not parties that are popular in the U.S. That is a road to totalitarianism. So Barack Obama is right to work against that. I also believe firmly in both balanced budget and a foreign policy that doesn't stick its nose into everyone else's business - these used to be called conservative ideas.

On the other hand, can you honestly say the tenor and positions have not changed in the past few weeks? I truly think you'd find yourself in the minority. (Note - Duers really don't need to imply the other person is stupid, naive, or ill-informed to make their point, do we?)

I also agree with you and with Lakoff and with what Barack hopefully acknowledges - that "American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas - the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care.." My major point is that those principles and all high principles are the ones worth defending and fighting for, each and every time. They are winners, always. The country is hungry for them, and that is why Barack has been winning and will win. And "move to the center" or other pandering move will not be a cause for victory.

I would make the point that in recent weeks Senator Obama has abandoned or at last moved away from a high principle-based campaign to a lower gear - to a low-principled based campaign based on old ideas like the necessity for Democrats to "move to the center". He appears to be waffling on positions, to be courting folks who likely will never support him anyway, to be rejecting and disregarding the folks with some of the highest energy to throw behind him, to be sacrificing the Constitution for "the nation's security" (which is cowardly, crass, and misleading).

If Senator Obama thinks American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas, he might like to act more like a progressive than a panderer. There is plenty of room under the big tent for more than just progressives, but it's important to know how you're leading the charge.

[jenmito]

88. "To deny that is to go against not only the MSM but the perceptions of many."

Are you SERIOUSLY saying we should believe the MSM when they "report" Obama changed his positions? They keep saying he "flip-flopped" on Iraq. Do YOU believe that?

[Whisp]

107. heh. crazy world eh? now we must believe MSM...

:rofl:
who have been using the 'most liberal senator' line for months now - is he? I don't know but if the Media says it, I suspect something sinister is afoot. one step/move/vote away from 'the most liberal' is of course, moving to the center and betraying your base.
:eyesroll:

what suckers we have here. omg.

[ClassWarrior]

108. I noticed that little set-up myself.

NGU.

[jenmito]

114. Yup. Unbelievable that a DEM. actually trusts what the lying MSM is "reporting"!

Is Faux part of the MSM that should be believed? :shrug:

[ClassWarrior]

89. Sure, he's changed his tone. But a "tone" is not a "position."

You've offered plenty of examples of perception and image, but not one single example of an issue position that has changed.

What's amazing is that you find the sizzle more infuriating than the steak.

NGU.

[chimpymustgo]

141. Smart, smart points, highprincipalswork. I hope many here will read them, and THiNK.

Not just act of faith. Especially where principals and the Constitution are concerned.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[sakura]

264. Excellent quote, ClassWarrior.

A quick look at DUers varied opinions on any one of the issues Lakoff mentions proves his point nicely. I don't think any of us are "dyed in the wool" liberals, progressives, or anything else. The values and beliefs used to raise each of us differ, the eras each of us has grown up in have differed, and there are many other factors that cause each of us to view the world differently. Lakoff is right when he says there is no linear scale. I am quite liberal about a lot of things (most things-- I'm in the lower left quadrant of the political orientation diagram someone posted here a while back) but there are some areas where that just isn't true.

And guess what? Obama doesn't represent all of my views. How could he? We, the democratic party, are not monolithic in our thinking, and that's a good thing. I support Obama's nomination in spite of the fact that he thinks differently than I do about FISA, about some aspects of abortion and undoubtedly other things. Why? Because there's a lot we do agree upon-- overall we have the same view about justice and the way the world works. The same would have been true if it was Hillary, and the same was true for every other democratic candidate I've voted for since turning eighteen.

[MadMaddie]

5. As far as I am concerned - Obama is not a Republican, not

even close and that is the most important thing to me.

I accept the fact that he will not be perfect, I accept the fact that he is human. I also accept the fact that he has one fucked up mess to clean up left by the incompetent Republicans, not only in the US but around the world.

He is proving to me that he is picking the right experienced and knowledgable people to surround himself with. I am confident that he will put the right people in the correct positions to start fixing the US government agencies.

[jenmito]

14. I like your attitude...

and I agree with you. He made it THIS far and I trust him to make it to the WH and make us proud!

[300warriors]

6. Gore and Kerry did not call themselves liberals either

In fact, I don't think any Democratic candidate in history has called himself/herself a liberal, other than Kennedy.
We are voting for obama, I believe, because he is much better than McCain. And people are coming together, in my opinion, because gas prices are sky-high, there is a housing crisis, and other catastrophes that have made the situation worse today than it was in 2000 or 2004, for example.

[jenmito]

17. True, but they left themselves open to things that Obama apparently learned from...

and he's just not as susceptible to charges such as not being comfortable talking about his faith (not in the RW way, but in a way to make himself acceptable to more people), as not being compassionate (saying rapists of children should be eligible for the death penalty), etc.

[kentuck]

35. Not only that...

He's not only trying to neutralize the Repubs on these types of issues - he's trying to steal them from the Repubs! Which we, or many of us may find deplorable, but many other Democrats may find perfectly alright? I keep thinking that Jesus was a liberal...We should not be ashamed of what is in our souls...

[jenmito]

45. He speaks often about doing for the weakest among us...

he is truly compassionate, unlike Bush or the RWers.

[JoFerret]

125. That's great

I hope to see it translated into actual policies. (I hope some hope.)

[jenmito]

127. Why wouldn't it be? He has a record of doing this in the IL Senate. n/t

[JoFerret]

130. Illinois senate?

lol.

[jenmito]

142. So that doesn't count?

lol.

[JoFerret]

151. It counts

but it is not impressive.

Obama was smart - no footprints.(This not necessarily a bad thing)

[grizmaster]

7. He hasn't reached across the aisle he JUMPED across

Sorry, the moment Obama stated he is against the 4th amendment he was done in my eyes. I will be focusing on supporting true Democrats in the Senate and House to protect us from Obama.

[mckeown1128]

9. When did he say that?

I would like a quote? Back up your claim.

[grizmaster]

23. I'll let the ACLU explain

The bill clearly conflicts with the 4th amendment.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35872res20080701.html

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is an unconstitutional bill that would significantly modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It grants sweeping new monitoring powers to the government with little court oversight, and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against telecommunication companies.

The FISA Amendments Act was passed by the House of Representatives in June. The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation on Tuesday, July 8. Senators should be urged to vote against this unconstitutional bill.

The FISA Amendments Act:

· Gives the president broad new powers to spy on innocent Americans’ phone calls and emails – even when they have no connection to terrorism. It legalizes mass, untargeted and unwarranted spying on our international phone calls and emails.

[mckeown1128]

26. I must have missed the Obama quote in there.

So please high light the Obama quote for me.

[grizmaster]

27. Obama says he is voting for the bill

What makes it more clear than his promised action? He still has time to change his mind again, and I hope he does. But flushing the 4th amendment is a deal breaker for me.

Have you seen any sign that he will reverse his decision again?

[mckeown1128]

29. I doubt his vote will make the determine the passing of the bill....

but just think of the damage McCain will do the constitution if Obama loses the election because the repubs use a negative vote on this bill as a patriot bludgeon to beat Obama into losing the election.

[grizmaster]

40. If he's against the 4th amendment when his vote "doesn't count"

(and I don't buy that argument) then how he can he be trusted to defend the Constitution once he is in the White House?

[mckeown1128]

43. Obviously Obama is taking a chance of alienating his base

by voting this way... that to me suggests that he thinks that this vote is vital to his election. He knows how much damage will be done by McCain getting into the white house... he may be saving the constitution by voting with the majority on this bill.


Now if it comes down to his vote making the difference in this bill's passage... then that is a different argument.

[northzax]

119. he's been against a lot of things when his vote didn't count

but I thought he'd stick on this one, I must say

[LVjinx]

55. Imagine if he took the opportunity to show some leadership, and rallied congress against the bill

[mckeown1128]

58. Wow... what congress have you been watching over the last

year and a half. Imagine if he tried and failed (considering this already passed out of the house) Image how the republicans would say "look even his own party knows this will make us safer, Obama is dangerous and naive." Then it could keep Obama from winning the election. Imagine the lack of leadership this country would have for the next four years.

Sometimes being a leader means being calculated. I'll take Obama making calculated decisions instead of a McCain presidency.

[seaglass]

62. And I'm sure you'd excuse a vote for the IWR with the exact same

reasoning, correct?

[Political Heretic]

94. Bam.

There it is.

[sniffa]

12. You could have used more dramatic language

Like, why not add, "he JUMPED across the aisle USING AN ION PROPULSION JET PACK"

[MarjorieG]

25. That is something Obama wants you to do, and needs you to do.

Imprtant that you do something positive-off the blogs. But please try not to complain about Obama to everyone you meet. Think about all you have in common ideals.

[elocs]

10. Obama certainly does not need everybody and their brother advising him on how to run his campaign.

I have the feeling that if he listened to a lot of people here at DU he would not even have won the nomination. No matter what, there are only 2 choices here: Obama or McCain. I enthusiastically choose Obama!

[jenmito]

19. Exactly...

and the LACK of any shakeup in his campaign proves he's doing something right-at least in his opinion (and mine). :)

[300warriors]

13. I've seen no polls finding that "we" voted for him because he "brings people together"

But I'd like to see such poll(s).

Can't it be that "we", whoever those are, voted for him because he's had the best position on Iraq? Because we hate Republicans more than ever? Because gas prices are so high that we can't take it anymore? Because we are being evicted from our houses?

[NattPang]

16. I voted for him because he is change

and he will bring change,
and we need change.

I voted for Barack Obama
because I trust him.
So I'm going to let him run
his campaign,
and I'm going to support him
until he is in the White House.

[jenmito]

21. Good reason...

I just think "bringing people together" is part of that change.

[jenmito]

20. Well, we voted for him knowing he WANTS to bring people together...

unless you voted for him DESPITE that (if you voted for him at all).

[300warriors]

24. I don't think Edwards, Biden, Clinton wanted to bring people apart

I believe people voted for Obama mainly because of his opposition for the Iraq war since the beginning, and other very good positions on the issues. And I base my assumptions on polls.

[jenmito]

32. Well, Edwards and Clinton DID kind of ridicule him for "not being a fighter" like THEY

claimed to be. :shrug:

[Bake]

83. If you remember the GD/P "wars"

The biggest factor for an overwhelming number of people, according to what they SAID, was Obama's position/speech AGAINST the Iraq war resolution. And that, according to what they SAID, was the biggest reason many Obama supporters could not/would not/never would vote for Hillary Clinton.

Now it just MAY be possible that their STATED reasons were different from their REAL reasons. Only they know.

It is disappointing to see how quickly Obama has swung to the middle. I never really thought he was all that "liberal" anyway. Perhaps he could have turned course a little more deftly, subtly, so that it didn't give the MSM/GOP ammunition to call him a flip-flopper. I suppose time will tell.

One other question ... haven't polls repeatedly shown that America, by and large, AGREES with us on ISSUES but simply detests the "liberal" label?

Bake

[kentuck]

22. I think you are mostly correct jenmito...

I don't recall him running on anything to the far left. I do recall that he made a lot of our gay friends and supporters angry with his failure to denounce one of his anti-gay supporters. Also, I recall that some of his black supporters got angry when he did not make it to Memphis for the Dr. MLK, Jr memorial? He has been a difficult person to put in a box or put a label on since the very beginning. He's running to win. If he takes a majority Congress and Senate in with his coattails, he will not be able to do anything without their approval. They are our ace in the hole if he were to somehow not be the person we thought we were electing...

[jenmito]

30. Thanks, kentuck...

And yes, but ya can't please all of the people all of the time. And it's obvious that he's pro-gay rights and pro-"AA rights." I think he'll help GET a large majority in Congress.

[kentuck]

33. I think so too..

But there's no way to prove it. And understandably, there are a lot of unbelievers in the last few days...

[jenmito]

36. If he sticks to his core values, I have a feeling he'll

win them back soon.

[Imagevision]

28. Obama also said we won't agree with everything he does/says -no biggie!

To be rid of an intensely corrupt administration is first order of the day...

[jenmito]

34. Exactly. And he's proving that he's keeping his word when he said he'll listen to

people even when he disagrees with them, i.e. keeping those dissenters on his own website and talking to them.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. As I've stated many times, Obama is left of DLC, but slight to the right of the Blue Dogs

and Yellow Dogs. This guy has always been a "pragmatic" Centrist. I'm still trying to figure out why people continue to believe that he was some kind of liberal Messiah. Nothing in his platform or his speeches would suggest otherwise. :shrug:

[jenmito]

42. I don't know ANYONE who claimed he's some kind of "liberal Messiah" other than RWers

CLAIMING his supporters think that way.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

44. I've seen plenty of DUers who are angry because they were convinced that he was more liberal

than he is now displaying. The issue is that he's not liberal and never has been.

[jenmito]

46. You used the word "Messiah" which only the RWers use. He never claimed to be some sort of

liberal Messiah and anyone who voted for him thinking that way-that's THEIR problem.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. That was a tongue and cheek remark. And yes, the RW was responsible for planting the seed,

but it saddens me that the left seems to have bought into the lie.

[jenmito]

78. Can you show me ONE example of "the left" having bought into the lie? TIA.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

100. O.K., one primary example: I've seen people here on DU

and comments on Huffington Post, Daily Kos and other so-called "leftist" blogs complaining that Obama has flip-flopped on public financing. He didn't! I've seen charges that he's flip-flopped on gay rights issues. He hasn't. I've seen charges that he's flip-flopped on FISA. He hasn't.

But if you were to listen to mainstream media speak of Obama, the punditry is using the same talking points and language. Meanwhile, McSame's flip-flops go unaddressed and unscrutinized.

The new talking point is that Obama is the "typical politician" who will "do or say anything to get elected." That is the new charge that the media has leveled against Obama. And sadly, I've seen liberal bloggers repeat use the same language and it's maddening.

[jenmito]

109. Exactly-he HASN'T flip-flopped on those things. But I wrote my OP to address anyone who

thinks he HAS. I asked for examples of people on the left who claim he's the "Messiah" or close.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

136. Yeah, I'd like to hear that, too!

[jenmito]

140. Still no examples. n/t

[BklnDem75]

64. I think you're wrong.

Obama's voting record has always been dependable while the "blue" dogs hopped across the aisle many times. You do know you invoke a form of Godwin's Law when you mention Obama and Messiah in the same sentence, right? Nobody thinks he's the Messiah or any form of omnipotent being that you can make up on a whim. But don't let that stop you from trying. :hi:

[bowens43]

38. That's not why I voted for him.

I voted for him because he claimed that he was going to change the way politics works in this country. He hasn't and it looks as if he doesn't intend to.

[jenmito]

41. He IS changing the way politics works. If you don't agree, that's your right...

but not taking PAC money and making the same rule for the DNC is a good start.

[Inuca]

60. Actually I think that's EXACTLY what he is trying to do

Pigeonholing has been the rule in politics, he is trying to change that (among other things).

[BklnDem75]

66. Because presidential candidates has the power to do this...

You do know he has to actually get elected before fulfilling his campaign promises, right? Did you expect to wake up after the nomination to find everything has changed?

[burythehatchet]

39. ssshhhh. this is fun

[T.Ruth2power]

48. You didn't say anything

"Bringing people together" means absolutely nothing.

"Just winning" means absolutely nothing.

[jenmito]

75. It means not being walking in lock step with liberals or conservatives. It means being comfortable

talking about his own faith using it as something to HELP people (helping the ones who need it most) rather as a wedge issue (like gay rights or abortion).

[Skittles]

49. the spin is making me sick n/t

[jenmito]

87. WHAT spin?

[chimpymustgo]

150. Jenmito (et al) answer me this: would Obama have won the nomination if he had

iaid out the positions he has since winning said nomination?

I rest my case.

[jenmito]

170. Yes. He always HELD nearly ALL of those positions.

So, if you rest your case, you lose.

[Carrieyazel]

51. Of course he never claimed that. He's afraid to do it because he thinks it'll cost him.

Not being proud of an ideology that gets roughly half of the vote in presidential elections, doesn't sound too smart to me.

[Inuca]

61. Liberals, which ever way you want to define them

are NOT roughly half of the vote, not by far.

[jenmito]

79. So you think he's a "secret" liberal then? Did I miss something? Was he for gay marriage? Was he

against decriminalizing drugs? Maybe you're confusing him with Kucinich? :shrug:

[NorthCarolina]

63. "Looney Leftist"? Sorry, but I think that is an unacceptable characterization

coming from anyone.

[jenmito]

76. I said MCCAIN can't call him that. Of COURSE it's unacceptable but they try to label him that

even though it's not right.

[loyalsister]

67. post-partisan purple America

He is entirely consistent.
It's all in the 2004 convention speech.
It's all in the Audacity of Hope, which lays out a strong analysis of the history of our government and plan for reclaiming our coutry.

[jenmito]

80. Exactly. But apparently, some here seem to think he was a liberal in the primaries...

and is suddenly changing his whole platform. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

68. back in the old days we called it...

"triangulation." And don't say that in a negative way because I always thought it was a brilliant and winning strategy.

[MadHound]

69. We who?

I didn't vote for him for his people skills, I voted for him because he was the lesser of the two evils left between him and Hillary. I was under absolutely no illusion that he was anything close to a liberal or progressive.

I realized what I was getting with Obama, and wasn't two terribly happy with with it. I am willing to vote and support Obama, but only to a certain extent, and his refusal to defend the Constitution vis-a-vis FISA is disturbing to me, as are his positions concerning education(reforming NCLB is a joke, as is merit pay and both need to be scrapped)and faith based funding. However at this point I'm still willing to play along. But if he continues this hard right turn of his, especially on Iraq, I'm simply not going to be able to go there with him. There are certain things that I'm not willing to compromise on.

[pnwmom]

70. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good,

as Ted Kennedy likes to say. The reason he has accomplished so much is because he has always been willing to compromise as a step toward a long term goal.

The people who supported Obama because they thought he would be more progressive than HRC were fooling themselves -- their voting records in the Senate have been practically the same. Either one would have made a far better President than McCain, however, and that's what we should be focusing on.

[MadHound]

72. I've been in this political business long enough to know that

However I'm also old enough to remember when what is now considered a moderate Democrat was then considered a moderate Republican. The Democratic party, in its mindless zeal to run away from the words "liberal" and "progressive" has moved further and further to the right throughout the past three decades, compromising away some of its core values and core constituencies. Liberals and leftists of any stripes are not rewarded with anything, while the centerist and corporatist Democrats are given virtually all. The only time that liberals and leftists are acknowledged, at least on the national level, is when the party wants our money, our vote, or our sweat('cause God knows, moderates simply don't turn out in the numbers that leftists do in order to do the grunt work)

So I'm not expecting perfection from Obama, never was. I simply wanted somebody who would restore the Constitution, the economy and end the war. Well, with his stance on FISA and faith based funding, he's showing a willingness to continue the shredding of the Constitution, and apparently his war position is getting a little shaky too.

I'm taking a wait and see attitude at this point. If he realizes that he's fucked up in the eyes of a whole bunch of people and moves to correct his mistake, fine and great. If he continues down this path that he's taking, all in a vain pursuit of those RW fundies, I'm not going to go down there with him. Sorry, but I don't think that defending the Constitution is looking for perfection, I think that it is vital to this country, something that can't be compromised with.

[Kitsune]

71. Exactly where I'm coming from *nt*

[jenmito]

81. If you always just thought of him as "the lesser of two evils," then I'm not including you in the

"we."

[LWolf]

73. I agree with some of that.

He's no DK, he never claimed to be a liberal, and those who voted for him, which does not include me, voted for his platform of "bringing people together," which means, in political terms, "embracing republicans and their agenda."

It's probable that some voters who listened to the nice sounding surface didn't hear the underlying message.

As for the rest...only time will tell.

[LibDemAlways]

74. It didn't include me either. Obama struck me early on as

more style than substance, and you are right - the underlying message hasn't been all that comforting to someone who is looking to support a candidate with a progressive agenda.

Yesterday I watched an interview with Ralph Nader on C-span. I agreed with about 99% of what he said and it would be tempting to send a vote his way. However, realist that I am, I'll stick with Obama because some small change in the right direction will be better than none.

[LWolf]

77. I understand your thinking.

While Nader is obviously better on issues than Obama, I've never considered a vote for him. I was happy to vote for Gore in 2000, in spite of Lieberman, who was a real turn-off even then.

If I do vote 3rd party, it will not be for Nader, but for a former Democrat who was not exactly respected by her own party. No names needed; I'll nail the primary color/gender question all in the same candidate.

That's not a decision I'm prepared to make. I'd rather see how much effort the party is willing to put in to make sure we have, not just a democrat in the wh, but a progressive agenda.

Obama's not going to get my vote. If I mark the spot next to his name, it's not him I'd be voting for, but a progressive agenda. I'd like to see the party commit to that agenda, and earn that party vote.

A good place to start would be with the platform at the convention. I'll be writing to all my delegates to point this out to them. Calling them. Pressuring them.

I hope I'm not the only one.

[jenmito]

84. You're saying contradictory things. First you say he DID have a platform of

"bringing people together," but then you imply his "nice sounding surface" didn't match the "underlying message." What did he say in his "nice sounding surface" that doesn't match his underlying message?

[LWolf]

91. I'll be more blunt:

"bringing people together" = compromising democratic principles and issues while moving democrats into republican principles and goals.

"change we can believe in" = leaving the left wing behind, and becoming a party of dinos.

Listening to his words, looking at his record, reading his policy positions, that's what I've heard since he first opened his campaign.

I am not alone in that assessment, although you won't hear too much of that at DU.

[jenmito]

95. I TOTALLY disagree. "Change we can believe in" does NOT mean "leaving the left wing behind..."

but making government more transparent. He wants to have policy meetings on C-Span so people KNOW what's going on, unlike the Clintons, who held their healthcare policy meetings behind closed doors with nobody-knows-who. He wants to CHANGE that. I believe that change. And he's FAR from a DINO. If you know his positions, you'd know that.

[LWolf]

102. You are welcome to disagree.

That's the thing about a slogan like "change we can believe in." It's not defined. Each person projects their own perspective onto it, based upon what they believe in.

If a person is looking for something to believe in, it's easy to pick out rhetoric that sounds like what you are looking for.

You hear "transparency." I hear "NCLB needs to be modified and funded," instead of what I want to hear: "NCLB needs to be scrapped." I hear "I was against the war from the beginning, and I see consistent votes for that very war once he got to Congress, so I don't trust what he says.

I hear "Insurance companies have a place at the table" on health care policy, when what I want is HR 676.

I could go on, but why? You want transparency, but you don't want to be transparent enough about the candidate to admit that he's no liberal, no progressive, and that his "change" is not the move away from republican thinking, and the republican agenda, that many wanted, but a move to incorporate the republican agenda into the democratic party. TRANSPARENTLY.

[jenmito]

104. You are welcome not to believe what he says...

He has ALWAYS said he wanted to change, not scrap, NCLB, by not only funding it but by scrapping the bad part of it-measuring progress by a standardized test.

I don't see why you wouldn't trust what he says about the war. He's been consistent on that, too. He spoke out against it when it was very popular to be FOR it. HE didn't drive the truck into the ditch, as he says. He has to try to get us OUT of it, though. And he tried. He was a sponsor of the Iraq De-escalation Act.

Letting the insurance companies have a seat at the table is ok if it's shown on C-Span so we'll KNOW if he lets them have their way. It's another thing he's been consistent in.

You're accusing me of not wanting to be transparent enough to admit he's no liberal, no progressive, blah blah blah. I'm telling you he's been consistent in his positions and like I said, he's no Kucinich. He never WAS a liberal. His positions have been consistent. It looks like you never liked his positions.

[LWolf]

112. I do believe what he says about NCLB.

That's why I disagree. I don't want to change NCLB. I want to scrap it.

Why don't I trust what he says about the war? Because he campaigned on being against the war, while he supported it in Congress. He didn't walk his talk. As a matter of fact, he's a hawk, and I'm not. He didn't pretend differently; he said he wasn't against all wars, just "dumb" wars. Then he voted to support that dumb war every chance he got in Congress until the primaries heated up, when suddenly he was "against" it again.

I don't want insurance companies at the table. I want universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health CARE. I want HR 676.

You are correct. I never liked his positions, and I never pretended any differently. I still don't like his positions, and I'm still not pretending any differently. My positions on issues didn't change when he became the presumptive nominee, and he didn't suddenly appear better than he did before.

I said, when I responded to your OP, that I agreed that he's no DK, and he's no liberal. Those are not marks in his favor, from my perspective.

[jenmito]

115. Good. Then after everything you said, you agree with my OP.

Thanks.

[LWolf]

165. That's why I responded to your OP, in # 73,

by saying "I agree with some of that."
:shrug:

[Jackpine Radical]

82. Personally, I voted for him on the basis of his platform of

not being Hillary.

[jenmito]

85. Then please disregard my OP. This is for people who voted for him on his message...

which does NOT differ from his message today.

[Jackpine Radical]

90. Let's just say he's grown on me

as I've seen more of him in operation. He handles himself very well--and I keep remembering what was pointed out to me on another thread--FDR didn't have sugh a great, liberal platform in 1932, but events (and advisers) forced him leftward.

I pretty much laid out my sentiments on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6457743

[jenmito]

96. Well, THAT'S good to know...

Thanks. I'll check out the thread. :hi:

[1Hippiechick]

92. He had me at UNITY. 2-Party system is meant to keep the nation divided and super powers in control

Edited to add KICK!

[jenmito]

98. Thanks, Hippiechick...

I agree. :hi:

[Political Heretic]

93. Excellent, accurate post! K&R

Thank you!

[jenmito]

97. Thanks, Political Heretic!

:hi:

[EFerrari]

101. You're right, Jen. He never made that claim.

And he is in it to win, which is what we need him to do.

[jenmito]

105. Thanks for agreeing. True-he never DID make that claim...

and I think he WILL win.

[Catherina]

103. We? That's not why I voted for Obama at all.

It had more to do with his convincing bullshit about Palestine, Iraq and Iran so I took a chance on him because Hillary was unacceptable.

[jenmito]

106. "Convincing bullshit"? Has he changed from what he was back then?

If not, he didn't disappoint you, right?

[Catherina]

111. I think convincing bullshit is

going to Ramallah and the West Bank pretending to be genuinely outraged about the wall imprisoning people, the checkpoints and rattling off empty promises that Palestinians got so excited about "change" they were up all night blogging for him as an advocate of justice.

That is before Obama shamelessly turned his back on old "friends" like Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah to go grovel in subservience to AIPAC and offer an undivided Jerusalem, something that contradicts even our most hawkish policy, as soon as he had the nomination locked up.

His speech to AIPAC wasn't just pandering to the pro-Israel lobby, but a statement of his real positions on foreign policy issues.

I call that pretty convincing bullshit.

I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security. That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat--from Gaza to Tehran.

Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade--investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation.

That blank check is part of a plan to ensure that the Middle East remains thoroughly militarized under U.S. domination. Does that blank check sit well with you now that Obama is pushing for "national service by making it part of the requirement for a new college assistance program". In a similar speech on an Army Base on July 2 http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/16768499/detail.html, he reinforced his plan to "increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines"?

"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes, there are no alternatives to confrontation."

I don't know how you view this but in antiwar circles, we're calling what Obama did convincing bullshit.

Do you remember this?

"While I was working (as a community organizer in Chicago)...watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas," Obama said, "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

What a far cry that was from today's Obama who added Jason Furman, the man who's known to labor activists for writing a 2005 article defending Wal-Mart as a "progressive success story" and fighting against union-backed groups like Wal-Mart Watch, to his economics team. Furman is the same person who wants to decrease in the tax rate on corporations. Are you ok with that? And Anti-NAFTA? Apparently Obama was just joking.

From railing about compassion and the injustices of the death penalty, claiming he was key to death penalty reform in Chicago where he reformed the "broken system" that "had sent 13 innocent men to death row", to aligning himself with John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on execution for alleged child rapists.

Those are just 2 examples for how Barack has changed, or rather revealed himself. I am disappointed. I call what he did convincing bullshit. The problem is that you can only throw so much bullshit before people recognize it for what it is. The antiwar Left is in no mood to play games as is evidenced by all the people centrists are throwing under the bus right now.

A few days ago it was Ariana Huffington and Ray McGovern. Today, the Nation Magazine and Mark Cripsin Miller. Who next?

He is disappointing. I wish instead of pretending he isn't, more Obama supporters here would help hold his feet to the fire RIGHT NOW, because promises to hold his feet to the fire later, after the horse is out of the barn and we're no longer sitting at a negotiating table, are ringing hollow.

[dailykoff]

117. The whiplash is painful.

Another thing he talked about was holding the bush admin accountable for its crimes, and he even mentioned it in his statement explaining his flip flop on the FISA bill -- the sole purpose of which is to prevent the Bush admin from being held accountable for its crimes.

:wow:

[JoFerret]

154. Next time around

Effective bullshit?

[tomp]

110. maybe you voted for him.

not me. his "bringing people together" is exactly the problem- he wants to "reach across the aisle" to the repubs. not for me thanks.

[jenmito]

116. Who DID you vote for?

And who WILL you vote for?

[LostinVA]

120. Yup

[jenmito]

121. So you voted for Hillary who constantly praised Repub. McCain?

Will you vote for Obama in Nov.?

[LostinVA]

122. I don't need to prove my cred on DU, and I don't do tacit loyalty oaths

Skittles is right.

[jenmito]

123. Because you CAN'T.

:hi:

[LostinVA]

124. Because I have for several years -- much more so than most on here

[jenmito]

126. Are you going to vote for Obama or not? He's more liberal than Hillary is yet you

LOVE Hillary. :eyes:

[Evergreen Emerald]

128. Actually, you are incorrect

Clinton has a more liberal record and Obama. The difference is that in the primary, Clinton ran on the platform that Obama is now moving towards.


But, I do not understand why you keep fighting the primaries? Obama is not nominee--join the Obama unity train.

[jenmito]

129. Actually, YOU are incorrect...

She was for a PARTIAL repeal of DOMA while he was for a TOTAL repeal of DOMA. She voted for Kyl/Lieberman bill, he spoke out against it. And if you claim Clinton ran on the platform that Obama is "now moving towards," that proves me right.

I guess YOU'RE voting for Obama...unlike the poster who refuses to answer.

[Evergreen Emerald]

131. If you look at the voting records....you will find the truth

And of course we are not supposed to be fighting the primaries or I would go into detail about your kyl/lieberman lie.

The voting records prove who is the more liberal Senator: Clinton.

And with regard to you suggesting that you have the FUCKING RIGHT TO HAVE ANYONE PROVE THEIR LOYALTY TO OBAMA: why the hell should anyone answer YOU?

[jenmito]

132. Here ya go:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6772/

This is the DEMOCRATIC Underground. If she can't even say she's going to vote for Obama, she doesn't belong here. Who are you anyway? Her protector?

[Der Blaue Engel]

134. Who are you? The Loyalty Oath Nazi?

Last time I checked, liking a DEMOCRATIC senator wasn't grounds for dismissal from DU.

[jenmito]

143. What DEMOCRATIC senator are YOU talking about???

[Der Blaue Engel]

157. I am talking about Senator Clinton

What is YOUR problem??? (I think your caps key may be stuck. I know how frustrating that can be.)

[jenmito]

172. You might want to take a look at the rules of the DU now that we're in GE mode:

"You may not post threats to vote third party, to vote McCain, to not vote, or to write-in a Democrat other than Barack Obama."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6344459&mesg_id=6344459

THAT'S my problem. (And you also may want to take a look at your post above where you used all caps, which is why I responded the way I did).

[Der Blaue Engel]

247. I responded with all caps to your all caps. How far back do you want to go?

This part of the argument is silly (although I do find your use of all caps to be rude, which is why I brought attention to it).

However, your continued insistance that anyone who will not declare unbridled hatred of Democratic Senator Clinton is somehow tantamount to a threat to not support the presumptive nominee is just plain mendacity and bullying and is against the DU rules. Please cease and desist.

[jenmito]

252. What post of mine did I use all caps? Using caps for a WORD is not rude-it's used for emphasis

instead of taking the time to put words in bold print.

Please cease and desist lying about me. I never insisted that anyone declare unbridled hatred of Democratic Senator Clinton. That's a lie.

[Der Blaue Engel]

261. Oh, bollocks

You've spent the whole thread hounding people with "I Love Hillary" avatars for a loyalty oath and implying that the mere existence of our avatar is grounds for suspicion.

You need to learn the difference between a lie and poetic license. If you used more of the latter and less of the former, you might meet with less hostility.

[Evergreen Emerald]

135. ohmygod! You used the right-wing propoganda rag that is

attempting to suggest that Obama is the most liberal Senator? Just like they did with Kerry and Gore and every other Democratic Candidate?

I guess you can find any stats to prove your point.

[flush left]

139. National Journal's methodology has been criticized by media Matters

It appears that the National Journal's intention was to paint Obama as much more liberal than he is. He is a liberal, don't get me wrong, but they claimed he's more liberal than Kennedy and others that are clearly more liberal than him.

[jenmito]

145. I didn't purposely choose that one. I couldn't FIND any other records. n/t

[jenmito]

144. I looked for a link that had stats. I didn't FIND any other...

go ahead and find one that proves me wrong then.

[LostinVA]

137. Oh, so now I don't belong here unless I kowtow you to, eh?

I was just amusing myself until "The Mole" came on, but you have GOT to be FUCKING kidding me. I belong here and I'm staying here, no matter whose dumb list I'm on. Fuck off.*

*Betcha I'll get deleted but Jenmito's post won't.

[jenmito]

147. I don't use those nasty words. I've been asking you a simple question and you

can't answer it. Tells me all I need to know.

[Bjornsdotter]

153. Entitlement?

....for some reason you feel that because you asked a question you deserve an answer, however you asked a question where the answer is none of your business.

How someone votes is their business and only their business.

This recent trend is very disturbing and reeks of Big Brother.

What's next a loyalty oath?

[Shakespeare]

155. One, you have NO RIGHT to demand an answer to that question.

Two, you have NO RIGHT to even SUGGEST that anybody doesn't belong on DU. That's up to the admins, and the admins only. Who in the holy fuck do you think you ARE, anyway?

And just between you and me, where the fuck do you get off saying that shit to LostinVA, of all people? She's a better democrat than most of the Obama supporters here--of which I am one--and NOBODY should condescend to question her creds.

[AtomicKitten]

156. yes, we've seen her "fine Democrat" work on capitalhillforum

Considering that forum is home to some who still cross-bash here at DU, readily visible for all to see, your condescending admonition doesn't hold water.

[Shakespeare]

158. You guys just DO NOT get it.

You go WAY too far with this loyalty oath bullshit. It's not your place to make these demands, and you're acting like a bunch of fucking bullies.

And considering I've known LostinVA on this forum for YEARS and you...not so much...I give her liberal creds a lot more weight than yours.

[AtomicKitten]

159. you're the one that mentioned "good" democrats

I couldn't care less who you or anybody else supports. However, when you go off on a DU'er that I hold in high regard using a comparative "good democrat" reference, I thought it was only fitting to advise you that "good" is in the eye of the beholder and I've seen the work of people I deem "less than good democrats" that contradicts the picture you have painted.

[Shakespeare]

160. No--I'm NOT the one who said that.

Re-read the thread, because that didn't come from me. I'm defending a longtime DUer (and a helluva good person) from people demanding loyalty oaths and telling others that they don't belong on DU. I'm sick to death of this.

[AtomicKitten]

161. you invoked a superlative

She's a better democrat than most of the Obama supporters here.

[Shakespeare]

164. I was REPEATING a superlative (comparative, if you want to be accurate) somebody else had already ..

...suggested. Don't try to paint me as the shit-stirrer here, because I'm not. It's jenmito, and THAT is who I was responding to.

There's a subset of my fellow Obama supporters here who are acting like vicious bullies, and I'm sick of it.

[AtomicKitten]

212. When you claim one DU'er is a "better Democrat" than another

that is "shit stirring" any way you slice it. Particularly when your version of the "better democrat" posts two-faced BS elsewhere that completely contradicts your version of them.

Barack Obama is the nominee. Period. Your resistance to that is the source of your discomfort and agitation, and clearly some of you just aren't having the fact that other Democrats intend to win this election.

[Shakespeare]

231. I'm NOT saying one DUer is a better democrat. Jesus freaking Christ.

But jenmito was, and THAT is when I chimed in on this thread. My "version" of LostinVA is that I happen to know her personally. Clear on that yet?

And let me repeat this, since you seem to have missed it on repeated postings: I AM an Obama supporter. A very enthusiastic one, in fact. I just don't happen to think I need to bully my fellow DUers who are a little slower to jump on the bandwagon.

[AtomicKitten]

235. point in fact, they are your words --- post #155

Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-07-08 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #147

155. One, you have NO RIGHT to demand an answer to that question.

Two, you have NO RIGHT to even SUGGEST that anybody doesn't belong on DU. That's up to the admins, and the admins only. Who in the holy fuck do you think you ARE, anyway?

And just between you and me, where the fuck do you get off saying that shit to LostinVA, of all people? She's a better democrat than most of the Obama supporters here --of which I am one--and NOBODY should condescend to question her creds.

[jenmito]

240. Thanks for quoting her own words back to her, proving her wrong.

:hi:

[Shakespeare]

249. Actually, she didn't.

:hi:

Knock it off with the loyalty oath bullshit, mkay?

[Shakespeare]

248. Point in fact, I was responding to jenmito, who made that judgment because...

...LostinVA wouldn't respond to an asinine loyalty oath demand.

jenmito is the one who started the bullshit about who's a better democrat--take it up with him/her.

You prove nothing.

[jenmito]

254. WHAT? I NEVER said anyone was a "better Democrat" than anyone else. YOU did!

"And just between you and me, where the fuck do you get off saying that shit to LostinVA, of all people? She's a better democrat than most of the Obama supporters here--of which I am one--and NOBODY should condescend to question her creds."

[Shakespeare]

256. Riiiiight. You never said it, hinted at it, arm-twisted or browbeat ANYBODY on this thread.

Riiiiight.

[jenmito]

259. You have a serious problem. I think you need help. YOU'RE the ONLY one who said it and implied it.

Get real.

[Midlodemocrat]

241. Especially the members of the GLBT community who

feel as though they are being treated as second class citizens.

LostinVA is every bit the good Democrat as those bashing her appear to be. I say appear, because their bashing of a fellow Democrat and DUer sucks.

[jenmito]

173. Awwww, shucks...

Thanks for sticking up for me, AK! :hug:

[AtomicKitten]

214. I have it on good authority

that you are an excellent Democrat.

[jenmito]

218. Thanks, AK...

As are you. :hi:

[Midlodemocrat]

167. I agree with this post.

Actually, all of Shakespeare's posts. You loyalty oath people are fucking crazy.

[AtomicKitten]

211. "you people" ?????

I couldn't care less who you or anybody else votes for, the rabid accusation notwithstanding.

And, for the record, after waiting eight long-ass years for this election, the behavior of some alleged Democrats on this board coupled with their blustery threats and two-faced posts on another is what is fucking crazy.

No worries, others will take care of the heavy lifting while y'all bitch and moan and plot on message boards.

[Midlodemocrat]

234. Nice post, Hitler.

:eyes:

Get back to me when you've gone through puberty.

[AtomicKitten]

236. Nice post, Veruca Salt.

[LostinVA]

163. I am supporting the best-qualified man for president

Lee Mercer, Jr.

[Midlodemocrat]

169. All up in your house with disease.

:patriot:

[LostinVA]

178. (all three)

:patriot:

[jenmito]

180. You're in violation of the rules. You just said you will not be voting for our Dem. nominee.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

186. If you seriously think I'm voting for Lee Mercer, Jr., I have a wonderful bridge to sell you

:eyes:

[jenmito]

189. I DON'T think you're voting for OBAMA..

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

191. As I said, you can think whatever you want

:eyes:

You do realize, that I have Obama supporters sticking up for me, right? You're trying to go out on a little witch hunt. Are you that bored?

[jenmito]

193. And as I said, I do.

Nope. I'm not bored at all. Nor am I on a witch hunt. I'm simply asking (over and over) if you're supporting Obama. I've seen NO sign of it.

[LostinVA]

196. I'm just not answering your question, which is, apparently, distressing to you

You should be careful for your health.

And, I've seen NO sign that you're not here just to stir up trouble.

[jenmito]

199. You obviously haven't read any of my posts other than the ones posted to you.

Even this thread isn't even CLOSE to trying to "stir up trouble."

[LostinVA]

200. It's upside down day, I see

[jenmito]

204. You obviously DON'T see.

[jenmito]

174. Since you're not voting for Obama you shouldn't be here:

"You may not post threats to vote third party, to vote McCain, to not vote, or to write-in a Democrat other than Barack Obama."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6344459&mesg_id=6344459

[LostinVA]

177. Obviously, that flew way over your head

Do you know who Lee Mercer, Jr is? I suggest you check him out.

[jenmito]

181. I know who he is. Are you going to write his name in?

You still haven't answered.

[LostinVA]

183. That's because I don't have to give answers to your ridiculous questions

[Shakespeare]

201. The fact that you took that seriously speaks volumes about you.

And not in a good way. :rofl:

[jenmito]

203. If I took her seriously I would've alerted on her post. But she, unlike you,

still hasn't said she'll support Obama.

[Shakespeare]

232. Last I checked, you have not been put in charge of gathering loyalty oaths.

Get that through your head and lay the fuck off. LostinVA is NOT the enemy.

[jenmito]

239. Last I checked, you're not LostinVA. Take your own advice.

:hi:

[Shakespeare]

250. Fact of life of a public message board: many people will respond to you.

And that is NOT the same as demanding loyalty oaths from people. You are WAY out of line.

[Midlodemocrat]

166. Ahem.

Who the hell do you think you are? LostinVA doesn't have to prove a damned thing to you. Your strident tone has me concerned about your motives, sweetie.

[jenmito]

175. Ahem.

Maybe YOU need to take a look at the rules, "sweetie":

"You may not post threats to vote third party, to vote McCain, to not vote, or to write-in a Democrat other than Barack Obama."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6344459&mesg_id=6344459

My motive is to get everyone here to support our nominee, which LostinVA said she will not do.

[LostinVA]

179. Actually, I just refused to answer your loyalty oath

[jenmito]

182. It's a question-not a loyalty oath.

[LostinVA]

184. Okay -- I refuse to answer your "question" giving a loyalty oath

[jenmito]

187. I haven't seen one pro-Obama post from you. I think you're a Hillary supporter and not a supporter

of the nominee-Obama.

[LostinVA]

188. You can think whatever you want

[jenmito]

190. I do. And I think you're going to write Hillary's name in...like one of those PUMAs.

[LostinVA]

195. I'm a cougar, not a PUMA

Just ask my Trophy Wife.

[jenmito]

197. You could be both.

And you very well may be.

[LostinVA]

198. Who are you? Joe McCarthy?

Talk about vitorol and paranoia.

[jenmito]

202. Not at all. I'm an Obama supporter...

unlike you.

[Midlodemocrat]

205. She did no such thing. Quit making shit up.

You're not the one who gets to decide who is or isn't an Obama supporter, so fuck off.

[jenmito]

207. You sure have a foul vocabulary.

[Midlodemocrat]

208. Only when talking to the stupid. And those who make shit up.

What are you, 10?

[jenmito]

209. Then you shouldn't be talking to ME that way.

It's too bad LostinVA can't bring herself to say she's going to vote for our nominee. I made nothing up. She said she was going to vote for someone other than Obama.

I'm pretty smart for a 10-year-old, don't ya think?

[LostinVA]

257. I'm voting for Lee Mercer, Jr. -- BECAUSE I'M A FRIGGING MERCENARY

YEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW

[LostinVA]

263. Dupe

[chimpymustgo]

146. PLEASE. Obama DUCKED Kyl/Lieberman. Please face the facts, Jenmito.

[jenmito]

148. He spoke out against it. n/t

[chimpymustgo]

152. But he DUCKED the VOTE. Leadership?

:rofl:

[goldcanyonaz]

171. But, he was busy campaigning!

[AtomicKitten]

216. and Hillary Clinton voted YES on Kyl-Lieberman, so there's that

[chimpymustgo]

242. At least she took at STAND. Didn't duck it.

[AtomicKitten]

243. Riiiight. It was waaay better to vote YES on Kyl-Lieberman than not to vote on it at all.

Careful. That faux outrage - or poutrage - you got going on is messing with your rationalizations.

[chimpymustgo]

246. I'd say about the same on a moral level. I think the vote for it was WRONG. But ducking the vote

:puke:

[Straight Shooter]

233. He spoke out against it but he didn't vote on it.

When a politician believes in his/her position strongly, they make a record of it. It's called commitment.

[flush left]

138. Hillary praised McCain, but not constantly

She criticized him many, many times more often than he praised him. If she praised him 3 times I'd find it a lot.

[tomp]

162. the irony is astounding.

calling for loyalty oaths for someone who wants to "reach across the aisle". as if the very concept of loyalty oaths isn't bad enough and right-wing-like enough.

[lynettebro440]

133. You are right on

Thanks for the post. K&R

[jenmito]

149. Thanks, lynettebro! And on that positive note,

I'm going to bed. :hi:

[OwnedByFerrets]

168. Who is we.....

I voted for JE. I will vote for BO in the general, but I never voted for his "bringing people together platform". Please be careful how you use WE.:)

[jenmito]

176. I'm obviously talking about people who DID vote for him. He has always run on

bringing people together, unlike JE.

[goldcanyonaz]

185. Ouch, them fighten words round here, many JE voters are now Obama supporters

like the rest of us

[jenmito]

192. Not fightin' words. Just a fact...

I'm glad you're now an Obama supporter, but my OP is for people who voted for Obama in the primary.

[OwnedByFerrets]

226. If it was so obvious

I wouldnt have brought it up. Its "better than you are" people like you who make it more difficult to make the transition to BO. My first emoticon was a :) , but you effectively turned it into a :puke: . Good job!!

[jenmito]

238. I would think when I wrote "We voted for him on his platform.." posters would realize I was talking

about people who voted for him! Duh.

[OwnedByFerrets]

253. No, since WE here at DU are a family, it was obvious

that you meant WE here at DU. But enough of this banter. WE both know who we are voting for. The only difference is I am doing it with my eyes wide open.:)

[jenmito]

255. So you're saying I said we all voted for Obama in the primaries?

That doesn't pass the laugh test, so- :rofl:

[OwnedByFerrets]

262. I tried to be nice ......but you can

be ignored now...dont bother answering.:puke:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

194. All through the primary season I tried to tell people that Obama

isn't who they thought he was.

The REAL change candidates were Dennis Kucinich, and to a lesser extent, John Edwards. However, they were killed by media silence, and most Democrats were too superficial and star-struck to look beyond what the MSM wanted them to see, so it all got reduced to "Do you want the woman or the black man?" (Lest you think I'm a disgruntled Clinton supporter, I lost interest in the nomination process after Edwards dropped out, because I knew that it was all going to be a big popularity contest.)

Hence the cheering crowds imagining (on the basis of stirring speeches that dealt in generalities and were short on specifics) that Obama was the Great Liberal Hope.

So the Republicanites paint him as a "loony leftist." It's not even true, but if they're going to call him a loony leftist, he should take advantage of that and put forth some truly left-wing positions: reducing the U.S. military to strictly defensive levels so that poor and working class youth no longer have to fight rich men's wars, creating true national security by weaning the nation off oil, creating jobs by repairing and building the nation's infrastructure, affordable housing, you know, all that stuff that nobody has talked about for so long that the public doesn't think of it as "left."

Remember: Republicans are NEVER ashamed of being "conservative." They wear it as a badge of pride and boldly proclaim their positions.

I fear that Obama will make the same mistake that Gore did and say "Me too" to every Republican position. Again we will end up with 1/3 of the electorate "undecided" the day before the election. Again it will be close enough to steal.

We need a Johnson-Goldwater landslide to prevent theft, and I'm less and less hopeful that we're going to get one. Leave it to the wimpy Democrats to louse up a potential landslide.

[jenmito]

206. Why would anyone think he was a liberal? Was he for gay marriage? Decriminalizing illegal drugs?

What would give people that impression?

[Catherina]

210. Obama supporters with very bad memories would be my guess

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3609385&mesg_id=3610118

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4393801&mesg_id=4394053

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4064015&mesg_id=4064366

It's a good thing most people didn't fall for that bullshit but kudos for the about-face.

[chimpymustgo]

213. My, my Catherina. That's a "liberal" number of liberal references to Mr. Obama, by our OP, who now

says, HE NEVER WAS LIBERAL - and his supporters NEVER SAID HE WAS.

This should effectively kill this thread.

:rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

217. you and some of your cohorts are walking a dangerous line at DU

Perhaps your bashing of the Democratic nominee would be more suited for, well, you know where. Good luck.

[jenmito]

220. My OP said OBAMA never claimed to be a liberal. And he didn't.

[Catherina]

221. You asked where people may have gotten that impression

I merely helped you answer your ridiculous question.

There are a few Obama supporters here who were consistently truthful about him not being a liberal. Political Heretic is the first one whose refreshing honesty about that comes to mind.

You're in no position to write a belittling, condescending thread attacking people as if they were stupid and just "imagined" people were selling him as some great liberal. How many votes do you think your condescension got Obama?

[jenmito]

223. So people got the impression he's a liberal from ME? From my 3 posts many months ago

where I never claimed he held any liberal position that he doesn't hold? OK. :rofl:

My thread is NONE of the things you accused it of being. Obama never claimed to be a liberal despite my 3 posts saying he's the most liberal of the three other Dems. :rofl:

[Catherina]

225. You had a lot more than three posts Jenmito

but whatever. Knock yourself out reinforcing the perception that some unprincipled supporters knowingly dispensed kool-aid and are now waging a war of condescension on people who have a problem drinking it instead of working with them to prevent McCain from winning.

It's quite a show watching some immature Obama supporters continue pushing away loyal Democrats who don't like intellectual dishonesty or condescension.

[OwnedByFerrets]

227. Thank you!!

[jenmito]

228. Really? I just did a search and couldn't find them. But keep lying about me

being condescending, kool-aid drinking, dishonest person. You sound like a Freeper.

[Catherina]

229. The comeback of fools. Very lame Jenmito. Incredibly lame n/t

[jenmito]

230. Yours was a post of fools. Very lame Catherina. Incredibly lame. n/t

[chimpymustgo]

244. Catherina, you are AWESOME. Game, set and match.

:rofl: :bounce:

[Shakespeare]

251. Outstanding response. I wish I could recommend your post.

This Obama supporter is getting sick to death of seeing other Obama supporters act like schoolyard bullies.

:hi:

[LostinVA]

258. That's why you need to join me in voting for Lee Mercer, Jr.

You're too cool to not be a Mercenary.

[jenmito]

219. WOW! So you searched the word "liberal" and got 3 whole posts...where I still

said Repubs. like him even though he's the most liberal of the 3 Dems. running. He never claimed to hold liberal positions that he's now taking back.

[Catherina]

222. I'll repeat your question in post 206 since your memory is failing

206. Why would anyone think he was a liberal? Was he for gay marriage? Decriminalizing illegal drugs?
What would give people that impression?

[jenmito]

224. My memory is great and my OP stands. OBAMA never claimed to be a liberal

and your buddy said my one post about asking who ever said he WAS a liberal should kill this thread. Obama IS a liberal compared to Edwards and Hillary, but I voted for him on his platform of bringing people together and of changing the way govt. is run.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

237. He gives rousing speeches that are full of vagueness

People read into them what they want to read into them. They want change so desperately that they mistake emotion for substance.

[jenmito]

245. His speeches are full of details. People hold his ability to give an inspiring speech against him..

but if you LISTEN to what he says, he covers all the details. But you have to listen for them instead of closing your ears/mind to them.

[Orsino]

260. But we need him to become a liberal.

We may not get to have many more elections if we have to wait for a real reversal on corporatism.

We must teach him liberalism. I think he has it in him to learn, and maybe, maybe, maybe America does, too.

[Justitia]

265. Lots of "Democrats" around here, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is our year to be ascendant, so of course we have those among us who cannot bear giving up perpetual victim hood and reveling in narcissism.

They suck and they are killing this website.