Just a reminder for anyone disappointed in Obama "breaking his word": His words:

[jenmito]

Obama's speech at Invesco Field:

"Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land – enough! ...

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future...

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise – the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort...

full transcript: http://www.breakingtoday.com/obamaspeech.html

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ato7BtisXzE

[katandmoon]

1. Agreeing that gay couples can visit each other in the hospital is not exactly a courageous

Endorsement of gay rights. It's the absolute bare minimum he could possibly get away with, the merest sop thrown to gay right supporters, and even at that, the statement sets forth absolutely no plan of action for its implementation. So it's meaningless. IMO Obama needs to set the bar a hell of a lot higher than that. But on the other hand, he can't be accused of breaking his word because he didn't even make a commitment to anything.

For some reason I just don't think that's particularly admirable. I think it's typical politician doublespeak.

[ellacott]

3. It the political speech of almost all the Dems in leadership

The only candidates that went farther were Gravel and Kucinich.

[jenmito]

12. Do you realize that his position HASN'T CHANGED? He was never an "anti-war"

candidate-he always said he opposed DUMB wars and that he'd increase the size of the military. He also always talked about giving rights to same-sex couples SHORT of the word "marriage" and he hasn't changed there, either, no matter how much we disagree with him.

[rug]

58. What is not dumb about escalation in Afghanistan?

[jenmito]

62. What didn't you know about HIS opinion that it wasn't dumb to escalate troops in Afghanistan?

[rug]

67. He never gave a nondumb explanation. Now can you answer my question?

[jenmito]

70. It is not the POINT what's not dumb about it. The point is Obama consistently said he was for

more troops in Afghanistan. He ALWAYS called Afghanistan the "right" war.

[rug]

71. So the point is he has consistently advocated for a dumb war?

Oh, ok, as long as he's consistent.

[jenmito]

73. For people who always thought Afghanistan was a dumb war, you should've

always disagreed with him. AGAIN-my point is this isn't a surprise.

[rug]

75. I did. I do. And he's wrong.

I'm not surprised.

Do you think it's a dumb war?

[jenmito]

76. Nope. I always agreed with his long-stated position that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq

and should've stayed in Afghanistan to get bin Laden and those who attacked us.

[truedelphi]

138. Wait a minute. You can't mention his being wrong -

He isn't really President yet!!

I mean, once he is President, then you will see - he will be absolutely magnificent on everything. He will give Rahm, Geithner, Summers, Rubin, Vilsack notice that he has changed his mind.

Marijuana will be legalized, anyone who is a human being may marry any other human being, and cancer will be a thing of the past.

Now just you wait...

[Madison knows]

120. Iraq was dumb...

Afghanistan is not.

(To each according to what he earns)

[merh]

83. You seemed to have failed to read the entire sentence

and to live lives free of discrimination.

AND - the thought continues - to live lives FREE OF DISCRIMINATION.

[samplegirl]

2. Wonderful reminder

:applause:

[jenmito]

7. Thanks. I see people saying they're disappointed that he's not keeping his word...

well his word is there for all to see.

[AllentownJake]

4. Jesus Christ just drop it

[jenmito]

8. Drop WHAT?

[CreekDog]

38. You miss her point, one you probably agree with

that is that Obama is basically doing what he's promised to do.

he never promised to be an anti war, partisan liberal as President. far from it.

[jenmito]

63. Thank you. You're exactly right.

:hi:

[avaistheone1]

65. Far from it, eh?

So what did he promise that is "far" from it? I really want to hear this.

[jenmito]

74. Read my OP and see the parts in bold print. n/t

[CreekDog]

114. he didn't support single payer, he didn't support immediate withdrawal from Iraq

and he doesn't support gay marriage.

now perhaps he does support all those things in his heart, but for political reasons has tack more to the center. i accept that. all our great leaders have been aware of the art of the possible.

i think Obama is terrific by the way, even though my politics are more liberal than those which he has publicly supported --but then again, nobody with my politics could get elected at this point.

Obama is the most liberal president we've elected in ages, if ever.

[Kahuna]

112. At least YOU were listening...

:hi: For the record, I think all the people who are "disappointed" that Obama is doing exactly what he always said he would do are completely full of it.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. When people referred to him as the anti-war candidate, did he issue corrective press releases?

No. He went along with the flow.

When people characterized him as steadfastly against the Iraq war, did he remind them that he spoke out against the IWR vote before it happened precisely once?

No. He made a recording of the text of that one speech (so IMPORTANT to him at the time that he didn't even make sure it was videotaped or even fully audio taped) and played it as the focal element of campaign commercials to make it seem as if he was a resounding voice against the war. No mention was made of his covering for Kerry and Edwards when asked how he would have voted. No mention was made of his currying favor by saying that he might have voted for such a hated thing.

Here's the problem: other people put words in his mouth, and he smiled broadly along with the deception and played it for what it was worth depending on the audience at hand.

When he had to show that he wasn't a wimp, he rattled the saber like the best of 'em, but when he wanted the anti-war vote, he was serenity itself.

The more people defend his actions with his equivocations, the more obvious the serial maneuvering will be. Dean and Clark played this game, too; they just didn't do it as well.

[AllentownJake]

6. It's called politics

and Obama is one hell of a politian...we'll see how he does. He might be better than Bill C.

[PurityOfEssence]

48. Great. More "genius" like Bill Clinton's politickin' could well polish the Democratic Party off

Clinton and Obama are closer than many people like to admit: both are so obsessed with being loved by the right that they don't understand that reactionaries will never be won over. For all the movement toward and endless accomodation of the right, the right never tired of persecuting Bill Clinton anyway.

At least Clinton didn't slather his politics in gooey religion and theocratize everything in sight. Twas a time when there was a religious party and a somewhat secular one. That day is gone.

The sheer genius of Bill Clinton's politickin' left us with a more conservative country than when he took office, even if he did hold the line on certain things. His incredible and monumental brilliance merely got himself elected and left a country close enough to a draw for the reactionaries to steal it in '00. The very slipperiness and acrobatic displays of precision maneuvering still netted a drift to the right and left us vulnerable for the coming coup.

People who revel in successful deception are generally powerless serfs enrapt with the boldness of their heroes; it's like watching the meek all agog at a gangster movie.

So very much of Obama's sucking up to the right of late has been attributed to him just being a masterful politician, but expressed another way, it's not only dishonorable but dangerous. What I mean is this: some say it's so cool that he's deceiving them just so he can get in a position to shed his cloak of conservatism and sweep in some bright new day of progressive populism. That means that his appeal is based on a snickering in-joke where we're all convinced that he's blatantly lying to them, and that's somehow cool. How do we know he's lying to THEM and not us? We know because he says so. We know because of faith and hope. We sure as fuck don't know because of his record, because he's been studiously careful to duck controversy and not go on record on votes of divisive potential. How many times did he vote "present"? He's been exceptionally cagy on what I consider the great issues at hand: health care, the economy, foreign trade, the environment and workers' rights.

Yes, isn't he cool. Isn't it so fabulous the way he can get those despicable feudalists to think he's one of them. How do we know he's not?

Once again, here's a hot one: he's smiled and slipped by as many have attributed diametrically opposed allegiances to him, and somehow thinks this is cool. Many of his more ardent supporters just LOVE the way he's dodged and weaved and been on both sides of so many issues, and they don't see that this is dangerous: at some point, he has to make serious stands, and virtually any stance he takes will elicit screams of deception. These will be warranted screams, because he HAS deceived by allowing people to think whatever worked at the moment for that particular audience.

Here's the dynamic of disaster: his defense against cries of deception will be to quote himself, and those quotes will show in stark contrast what pastel beliefs he's proposed. The level of qualification and nuance built into many statements is beyond that of the run-of-the-mill political doublespeak. It's a kind of simulspeak, and the very defense will show the calculated evasion in the original positioning.

Worse than anything is that the human creature has a very dark side, and it loves to tear down heroes. Icarus is flying VERY high right now, and the altitude is largely attributable to this perception of "goodness" and "altruism". The stacking up of examples of expediency will rankle many people and the result will be potentially as fierce as the love is at the moment. So many have such certainty of his presumed actions, and those presumptions are at odds. When the savior betrays, it doesn't go down very well.

[AllentownJake]

53. I didn't say I liked it

but that's what he is.

To give Bill C. some credit/defense the ineptitude of the House and Senate Democrats during the 1993 to 1995 session was part of their own downfall. They didn't play nice with the white house and part of that is they had been in charge for so long they didn't think they'd ever lose power.

Bill Clinton found it easier to work with republicans than democrats after the takeover.

[ProgressIn2008]

84. You nailed it. Oh, how you nailed it, every word. nt

[reflection]

101. You are a wonderful wordsmith.

I wish I could write like this. :)

[jonnyblitz]

113. wow. great post. nt

[racaulk]

117. Excellent reply!

Damn, you are so right on! :thumbsup:

[Zuiderelle]

122. Wow. Really powerfully and well said.

:thumbsup:

[BlooInBloo]

142. Very nice whine.

[jenmito]

9. Are you suggesting that HE was wrong for not sending out press releases every time

those against him said something false? :rofl:

[PurityOfEssence]

41. No, when people FOR him said something false

He was perfectly happy to benefit from misleading advertising. It's not like I wasn't nauseatingly OBVIOUS about it...

[jenmito]

64. "When people referred to him as the anti-war candidate, did he issue corrective press releases?"

The rest of your comments are equally ridiculous. He has been consistent in his message from beginning to end. He can't control the web or every pundit on tv. Get real.

[PurityOfEssence]

91. Oh, "get real" yourself; this is consistent if you can READ

The VERY specific equation in the post is that being anti-war was viewed as a positive in the campaign. I'm asking whether he saw fit to correct his allies when they were misrepresenting him as such. It's not like it's not obvious in the context of the post; how do you get that those who "characterize him as steadfastly against the Iraq war" are OPPONENTS?

Anyone else care to chime in here? Sounds pretty damned obvious to me: the question is why he let his allies mislead others about his positions.

If there's ANY question about intent, this should end it: "Here's the problem: other people put words in his mouth, and he smiled broadly along with the deception and played it for what it was worth depending on the audience at hand." Do you think I'm saying he stood by like a fool and let OPPONENTS put words in his mouth without complaining? This is an OBVIOUS accusation of letting his proxies mislead people.

Real, indeed. Things may rock differently in awesome dude land, but back in dullsville, we give things a good read before we ridicule.

Keep digging; you'll find LOTS of carefully parsed bits of steadfast shilly-shallying to bandy about, and like quicksand, the thrashing only increases the effect.

[jenmito]

92. Which allies called Obama anti-war? Could you name some of them? I assume you

mean people on tv and not random posters here. You make no sense. His opponents painted him as ultra-liberal, the most liberal, etc. etc. His allies on tv would correct them. I wish someone WOULD chime in!

[PurityOfEssence]

93. OK, I can take a dare; chew on these:

The anti-war perception helped him get leverage with prominent anti-war women.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3502/context/archive

Here's a fun headline from Code Pink from right after the election:

"An Obama victory is a victory for the peace movement. It sends a message to the political establishment that being against war is the winning position. War is SO Over. American voters have recognized the costs-lives lost, international cooperation thwarted, and tax dollars squandered-and chosen the candidate who promised to end the Iraq war and to use diplomacy first."

http://codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=4507

No, I didn't alter that at all; it came perfectly wrapped in ditzyspeak all by itself. Yes, war is just, SO, like, uh...not even a little bit awesome, dude. Vapidity of that caliber has such a stench of adolescence that it's depressing to hear lest the reactionaries think that all of us are like that.

So, not to duck the question and just be vague or cite non-celebrities, how about Michael Moore. You've heard of him, I presume? Here's a pip:

"Never before in our history has an avowed anti-war candidate been elected president during a time of war. I hope President-elect Obama remembers that as he considers expanding the war in Afghanistan. The faith we now have will be lost if he forgets the main issue on which he beat his fellow Dems in the primaries and then a great war hero in the general election: The people of America are tired of war. Sick and tired. And their voice was loud and clear yesterday."

Yes, Moore does bring up the specter of the "considerations" of expanding the Afghani idiocy, but he still refers to him as an "avowed anti-war candidate". Mr. Moore might have been a bit more honest by depicting Mr. Obama's musings as much more fully-formed than just "considerations", as was evident at the time, but he's still chirping the big adjective of him being "anti-war", and not merely in passing, but BIGTIME and FOR REAL.

Presumably you've heard of a little novelty called "The Nation"? Here's the interference they ran on February 25th of 2008: an editorial praised Obama's "humane and wise approach to foreign policy, opposing the Iraq war while Clinton voted for it".

If the reading issue still persists, let me clarify the significance of this: they are characterizing his WISE AND HUMANE philosophy of foreign policy as being typified by opposing the Iraq war. It's not a stretch to say that this means that he is at the very least decidedly against war as a foreign policy. The inference and the flavor of it all is there to lull others into a safety zone of joyous hope as the Pied Piper leads them to his land of whatever he damn well pleases. Such naivety on the part of The Nation is not so horrible, and I guess letting misconceptions like this stand to help one get elected isn't too far beyond acceptable bounds of decency, but it's hardly commendable.

The simplistic tag was that Obama was the anti-war candidate, and he happily let that continue until compensation time came and he had to prove he was a suitable tough-guy. The tag was affixed early, and he used it for all it was worth. Here's a headline and first paragraph from an article from the Boston Globe on February 13th 2007 ("Obama's Antiwar message receives cheers...")

"DURHAM, N.H. -- Senator Barack Obama of Illinois brought a strong antiwar message yesterday to New Hampshire, winning enthusiastic applause from audiences in Nashua and Durham who said they were tired of the unpopular war and eager to find a candidate who would get the country out of it."

Here's the article:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/13/obamas_antiwar_message_receives_cheers_in_nashua_durham/

People equate "anti-war" with "anti-war in general" instead of "anti-this-particular-war". Politicians understand this.

So, here are prominent examples of people and institutions endorsing him as being somehow an honorable peacenik. It was just a quick cursory googling, but it wasn't hard to find.

[jenmito]

98. OK-I chewed on them. Here's what I got out of it:

Your first link was about a group of anti-war women split between Obama who was against the Iraq war from the beginning and Hillary who's a woman but more hawkish. This paragraph sums it up:

"As the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination intensifies, a gulf is also widening between established women's rights leaders who back Clinton and anti-war activists who say Obama is better for women."...

These anti-war women aren't saying OBAMA is anti-war, but that he's better for women. Again from the article:

"I don't think it's a betrayal to support Obama," Rosen, who has written extensively against the Iraq war, said. "I think it's a positive step to embrace the candidate who supports the broadest feminist values."

Just like gay groups support Obama for his positions on gay rights, that doesn't mean they think HE'S gay...just better on gay rights.


Your second link was from Code Pink, which says what they WANT from the Obama admin. and ask, "Will we get all these things? Not without continuing our feisty, vibrant and sometimes LOUD agitation."


Michael Moore is anti-war. Obama always said he's NOT anti-war, but anti-"dumb" wars. And as you pointed out, Moore acknowledges Obama is not against concentrating on Afghanistan.


The Nation accurately described Obama's position on foreign policy: "Obama's humane and wise approach to foreign policy, opposing the Iraq war while Clinton voted for it" so I don't see the problem.


And your last article ALSO accurately reflects his position of being against the IRAQ war and wanting to avoid war in Iran. The title, "Obama's anti-war message..." is the author's title, nothing more.


So I don't know if you expected Obama to look through every article title written by everyone everywhere, but nowhere do I see him misrepresenting his views or others publicly misrepresenting his views. YOU may not find it a stretch for people to think of him as "anti-war," but even the articles you cited accurately describe his positions. :shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

107. habitually, happily goes along with convenient misconceptions

You may think this is cute and fair game in politics, and to a certain degree it is, but there's a price to be paid for getting away with greasy evasiveness: being called to account for it.

Let's go right back to the heart of your original post: people are being SOOOO mean to Obama by claiming that he was for or against certain things, so let's look at his hallowed words. Clutching the scripture with the zeal of a bloodied cloak, you merely reinforce what I and many others consider the REAL problem: deliberate obfuscation and habitual trying to have things both ways, while conveniently allowing misconceptions to flourish. This isn't a justification for it, it's the problem itself: he's perfectly happy to let people claim he's for or against this or that, while maintaining butter-won't-melt-in-his-mouth DENIABILITY.

This will hurt him, and he and many of his most stalwart supporters can't seem to grasp this simple and obvious fact: he'll be portrayed as a serial misrepresenter, a glad-hander who's all things to all people. He loves Jesus in South Carolina and turns a blind eye to the Black Gospel Culture's "problem" with gays to make them think he's "one of them" to such a degree that voting for him is an endorsement of their very beliefs and even their God. Then he slags Gun totin' Bible fearin' backwoodsy types when in the Bay Area, but only when he thinks he isn't being recorded. He's for healthcare reform after Edwards forces it to the forefront, but his plan is a series of patches to sustain Medicine Incorporated, which has been very helpful for his political coffers and his wife's rather large income. He's against the Iraq war, but he wasn't really even that against it or there would have been more than ONE speech, it would have been recorded, and he would have stuck his neck out at the time, which HE SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T. Like Dean and Clark, he played the field and was grateful he didn't have to stand up and have his vote counted. He's all for the environment until gas goes through the roof and the reactionaries start to use it as a wedge issue, but then, suddenly, ANWAR's up for grabs and offshore drilling isn't so bad. (Of course, there's a built-in "out" of talking about a comprehensive policy so he can once again please both sides.)

He is studiously vague so he can appeal to the most people and deny and qualify his steadfast stances as they waft about in the winds of current developments and the tides of the particular venue of the moment.

This has all worked so very, very well for the bereft who long for a savior, but he's going to be pinned down on various things and each time he does, a big group will be outraged. If his people use his shilly-shallying statements of the past to justify that he didn't REALLY change or mislead, it will just show the evasiveness that's endemic in his approach. Not calling him to account for these shows one to be soft on deception when it suits one's cause, and I happen to be a big fan of honesty. People have an inherent sense of fair-play; maybe not for THEMSELVES or THEIR ALLIES, but they do for their ADVERSARIES. Disappointed zealots can be very unpleasant when the salvation turns sour. Movement leaders who disappoint tend to get handled rather roughly.

The pattern is already clear to far too many, and this is a deadly concoction for our standard-bearer to be serving up: mealy-mouthed expediency and sanctimonious demands to be above the law of the rest of us unwashed so-and-sos. Somebody's going to dig out his response at that nauseating Jesus forum in Pennsylvania between him and Hillary Clinton and flog his quote of "looking forward to my collaboration with God" as putting himself on a plane with the allfrighty, or at least above the rest of us. Americans HATE that. We're deeply anti-intellectual and aggressively false-common. Putting on airs or high-hattin' people is muy dangerouso.

He can make jokes about not having been born in a manger, but this is dangerous ground, and I don't think he or many of his dazzled disciples get this even slightly.

He is not above the laws of comportment the rest of us have to obey, and we all are subject to analysis of our past actions and statements. Back to the heart of your original post again for a little ad absurdum redux: you infer that his statements SHOW that he didn't backtrack from being anti-war to considering the mailed fist of a military as a primary tool of foreign policy, while I say that this misperception was gladly embraced--if not orchestrated--by him, and is a recurring pattern. He likes to have people claim things about him that are immediately tactically useful, and he likes to have cover to deny these things when the situation either changes or he's in front of a different audience. This is beyond dangerous now, and he needs to address it. He's about to be working for US, not the other way around; he owes US.

Things change, and when people don't change as their lives change, things tend to go dreadfully wrong. Athletes who don't change their eating habits when they retire blimp out. Legislators who don't get specific and lead when they become Executives just waft about with upraised, wetted index fingers as things go to hell.

He's specifically paying the price for his ambivalence and deceptive expediency, and if it was a mere tactical chameleon dance to get the reins of power to use them decisively, then that's some comfort, but it raises EXTREME character issues, and no evidence is forthcoming at the moment to show the forthrightness we deserve.

He brought this upon himself, and even though so many thought it was so cute and so clever that he could gobble up the anti-war voters wholesale while still currying favor with the more "war-friendly" are denying the inherent deception there. The tough-guy stances were only brought up to answer allegations that he was too soft, but he played a careful tightrope act to bluster and puff about hounding Bin Laden and the boys clear into sovereign foreign territory if need be, while still allowing himself to be referred to as "the anti-war candidate"

How many times was he referred to as the "anti-war candidate"? Wasn't that the Cliff Notes version of who he was? Clinton was experience, Edwards was the poverty guy, and Obama was the anti-war guy. How is this continual tagging, that was happily used over and over again any different from Cheney's and Bush's conflation of 9-11 and Iraq? Say terrorist and Saddam and 9-11 close enough together and often enough, and people think Saddam bought the plane tickets himself, while deniability is still there if necessary. Anti-war candidate, anti-war candidate, anti-war candidate; that's how Obama was introduced and sustained through the early part of the primary season, and he didn't go out of his way to dispel this grievous misrepresentation. Once he had to prove how butch he was, though, he huffed up and strutted like the best of them, then turned it off when it wasn't necessary to preserve the power base.

You can dismiss this tactic and parry for examples to then quibble about, but each example I gave is a good example of a news item, which, if looked at in passing, equates "Obama" with "peace candidate", and in this age of ultra-fast bullshit sound-byte media, headlines and lead sentences are virtually all that matters. Viewed in those terms, the examples I gave are resounding proof of others tagging him as the peacenik and the great philosophical man of wise, wise grandeur.

Playing games. Wink wink, nudge, nudge. Pssst: isn't it great? He's only lying to THEM. That has been the constant refrain that's been grating on me for months now: how cool it is that he fucks over the bad guys. Never mind that we have little window into what he REALLY believes in, except for a pretty solid corporatist pattern of power accommodation.

Yeah, this is important, and that's why you started this thread and are spending so much time tending it: it's dangerous for the characterization to get further entrenched that he's driven more by expediency than ideology, and it's REALLY bad for him to seem like a constant prevaricator. The reason you tend it is because it's an assumption you don't want to see gain ascendancy; the reason I spend so much time on it is because I see it as a major pitfall that needs to be acknowledged and STOPPED before more damage is done.

Conservatives love this: one of the principal complaints they have about liberals is that we'll say and do anything to get elected, but then don't have the decisiveness to lead. Personally, I'm not proud of deception as a standard modus operandi; that's one of the many reasons I have so many problems with Bill Clinton: he's veracity challenged.

That's another harangue, though.

Obama played both sides of the street on so very, very many issues, and your being shocked at people thinking that he was doing precisely what he was doing is indefensible.

He was the anti-war candidate. Over and over again, he was the anti-war candidate. It worked. He got away with it so far, but he's not above the laws of reality. People catch on, and they're very hard on those they presumed to be noble when they're caught being crafty.

[jenmito]

108. I've never seen a post with so many words that said so little.

You totally mischaracterized my OP, accusing me of saying something I never said. Your insults, usually used by RWers, paint a false picture of both Obama and his supporters. You shouldn't have wasted your time writing them and I sure shouldn't have wasted my time reading them. Keep living in your warped sense of reality. I'LL keep living in the REAL world.

[PurityOfEssence]

110. I guess you're not "into" proofreading, then

Outrage that Obama's pretzely words are being twisted compels you to dare others to dispute the OBVIOUS specificity of these deliberately evasive words, and when met with examples, you deny that you said anything of the sort. Perhaps this belies a skewed personal outlook that sees no contradiction in willingness to go along with people's misconceptions when they suit one's needs of the moment.

If I've so wronged you by mis-characterizing your thread-starter, then please conform to your own expectations of manners and give me specifics of how I've mis-characterized them.

I'm saying that you're outraged that people are saying that he's going back on his anti-war stance because he never portrayed himself as anti-war, and I'm saying that he specifically used the convenient fact of his not having to stand for a vote on the IWR and that one speech to claim laurels as an anti-war candidate, and was perfectly happy to have pacifists make the wrong conclusion. Furthermore, I'm saying that he habitually plays both sides of the street, and that he's starting to take heat for this short-term effective ploy that he's milked for the past decade.

You say he's clear, hasn't changed, and people are just big meanies and nincompoops for saying that he has, and I say he's played both sides of many issues, and that's why he's taking heat. How do I have this wrong?

Are you as selectively responsible for your words as he is for his and those of his proxies?

Please give specifics for how I've grotesquely misinterpreted your words; I obliged you when you threw down the gauntlet with such aplomb.

[jenmito]

121. You want specifics? You got 'em:

The only words in my OP which were not from Obama's speech: "Just a reminder for anyone disappointed in Obama "breaking his word": His words:"

Your characterization of my OP: "Let's go right back to the heart of your original post: people are being SOOOO mean to Obama by claiming that he was for or against certain things..."


Then you go on to mischaracterize him, his words, and me and those who support him:

"He loves Jesus in South Carolina and turns a blind eye to the Black Gospel Culture's 'problem' with gays to make them think he's 'one of them' to such a degree that voting for him is an endorsement of their very beliefs and even their God."

FALSE. He gave a speech at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church and directly called on the black community to fight homophobia among other things.


Then you say he "slags Gun totin' Bible fearin' backwoodsy types when in the Bay Area" which was, of course, the Hillary Clinton-turned RW-talking point that he's an "elitist."

He stood by the point he was making, that "many working-class Americans are angry and bitter over economic inequalities and have lost faith in Washington - and, as a result, vote on the basis of other issues such as gun protections or gay marriage."


Then you accuse him of only being for healthcare reform after John Edwards brings it up, calling his plan a "series of patches to sustain Medicine Incorporated" implying it was to financially benefit his wife. Again-a ridiculous statement said by someone who was obviously always against Obama.


THEN you say, "He's against the Iraq war, but he wasn't really even that against it or there would have been more than ONE speech, it would have been recorded, and he would have stuck his neck out at the time, which HE SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T."

How ridiculous. He had to give more than one speech to prove he wasn't really against it? He correctly predicted what would happen if we invaded. He said so. Out loud. Sorry it wasn't enough for you.


Then you claim that once gas prices soared, "ANWAR's up for grabs." Not only is that false, I see you give him no credit for standing strong against the "gas tax holiday" which Hillary and the Repubs. proposed. Yeah-Obama's a real coward.


You accuse people of longing "for a savior" and imply his supporters are stupid, blind followers who eat up his "shilly-shallying statements" which you say are so vague that he can change them and not be accused of going back on his word.

You say "you infer that his statements SHOW that he didn't backtrack from being anti-war to considering the mailed fist of a military as a primary tool of foreign policy..." I "infer" no such thing. Again-neither I nor he ever said he's anti-war. So what would he be backtracking from? All I said is here's a reminder of his words for anyone who thinks he went back on his words. You're the one who keeps inferring from his words that he was anti-war. And your justification for that is a few articles you cited with titles using the words "anti-war" in them.

You accuse him of "ambivalence and deceptive expediency" just because you chose to think of him as portraying himself as an anti-war candidate. I can't help your misconceptions. That's not my problem nor his.

You obviously are against Obama and have been against him from the start. Whether or not you even voted for him only YOU know, but all signs point to "no."

[PurityOfEssence]

129. binary thinking on parade

I voted for him. What kind of third-rate apparatchik enforcement god gives you the mandate to slag anyone who doesn't keep step with the phalanx of perfection? As a hardcore LIBERAL, I take extreme umbrage at that, and it reeks of the kind of slander more fitting to a conservative.

If you want to whip the throng up into a righteous dismissal of me by a mealy-mouthed accusation of having voted for the feudalists, go right ahead. Dismiss and crush any dissent; life's really very simple. What's next, accusations of criminality? That's what conservatives do: portray anyone with differing opinions as somehow defective and ugly to a degree that they should be hounded from the public forum as despicable.

That's binary thinking, and much as it's a common human failing, it's dangerous. That's part of Obama's vulnerability: people want things as yes or no, one or zero, good or bad, and he brings wishy-washiness to stunning heights.

I have had MAJOR problems with him from the onset, especially his invoking religion.

Yes, after whipping up a frenzy in October, 2007 with McClurkin and his "40 Days of Faith and Family" godfest, he DID speak out six days before the South Carolina primary vote and say: "...We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.", but that was the full extent of his message regarding gays. That's it. A full, whopping dozen words in a rather long and involved speech. It was part of a laundry list of mild chidings, and a mere blip in a speech that was about empathy and understanding. Yes, this was six days BEFORE the vote, but it was in a different state, and MONTHS after he had merrily played along with the gospel crowd's homophobia and WHEN HE WAS NOW COMFORTABLY IN THE LEAD AND JUST A FEW DAYS OUT. The McClurkin ugliness was in October of 2007. That's not courageous standing tall with the downtrodden, that's covering your VERY EXPOSED ASS and doing it with very careful words: "embracing" is not "accepting". "Embracing" can be connoted as a form of hospitality, not endorsement. There was no other message at all on the subject in this speech. He had been REPEATEDLY asked to comment on McClurkin's ugliness in the nearly 3 months since the concert, so once again, he was not nobly standing front and center to stand by the maligned, he was making a careful tactical move under duress. Perhaps he would have said this regardless of the situation, but he is not noted for stirring up controversy.

Yes, he covers his bases; I keep making that point.

Binary thinking refuses to accept ANY flaw in its dearly-held positions, and labors mightily to paint any dissenters as deceitful operatives for the enemy.

I've voted for every Democratic Presidential Candidate since 1976, and I've voted in every primary. I've also voted in every bi-annual federal election, and always voted for the Democratic Senate candidate and the Democratic House candidate. I'm a liberal. I have major problems with Obama because he's too far to the right and he plays games and allows others to play games for him, always maintaining wiggle room if possible, and because of his intrusive and opportunistic use of religion.

I was a Hart supporter in '84 and I was a Brown supporter in '92.

Obama ALLOWED others to repeatedly refer to him as an anti-war candidate, and was perfectly fine with confused pacifists making the mistaken assumptions. THAT'S what I've been saying: he's played fast and loose and that's why this same recurring complaint comes from increasing voices these days. I'm FAR from the only one who's skeptical, and if you take your ego out of the equation for a minute, you might learn something here: he's played with fire and hasn't gotten burned YET, so he's in grave danger of playing the same game. It won't work anymore.

I see his stance against the gas-tax holiday as being gainsaying against an opponent; he and she were constantly waiting for the other to make proposals so they could seize upon them for political hay. That proposal was a clumsy sop to the cheap seats, much like the $600 giveaways, so he should get some credit for standing against that, but it was also done SPECIFICALLY to hector Senator Clinton.

Still, you really offer no examples of how I've repeatedly twisted your words. Lots of noise, but no examples. My principal contention is that he sneakily stood by while others portrayed him as anti-war, then is SHOCKED that people think he portrayed himself as such. It's all very cagey and convenient, and that's why he's getting grief for misleading people. It's a bad, bad habit, and much as it works fairly well in the sticks, in the big mean city, it's another game.

My contention was that others portrayed him as anti-war, and I offered quite a few examples.

Personally, much as I am wary of his word and his policies, I DO want him to succeed. That's mostly why I carry on as I do: he's not learning from his mistakes. History teaches us of the dynamic to come: people will sour. By simple arithmetic, he can hardly keep this high in the polls, and riding such a crest of joy and hope and faith and sweetness and light, many who were swept along thinking he was "for" whatever pet cause they have will feel doubly betrayed because he appealed on such a soul-stirring and spiritual way. That's the worst kind of betrayal, and people are really on edge these days. He was supposed to be a "new" kind of politician, not given to the sucking up to power and mealy-mouthed maneuvering to curry favor with entrenched interests. Not only is he not unlike these typical old politicians, he's a really good example of the breed. That's not going to sit well with those who thought he was a reformer.

He's getting nailed because he tried to have things both ways, and he did it on many, many things. He will now be forced to make hard choices, and each one will disappoint people who thought he had said he was with them when he was just playing both sides of the field.

It's sort of amusing that you've huffed up in a binary snit, needing to have everyone either "fer" or "agin" you, when you're so enamored of someone who's on both sides of damned near every issue there is.

[Luminous Animal]

130. Great post.

Absolutely wonderful. Thanks!

[jenmito]

132. That's not what I'm doing at all. I took your exact words

and proved each claim you made to be false. The examples you gave which supposedly portrayed him as anti-war did no such thing if you actually read the articles used in your examples. You obviously never liked Obama and you're still trying to make him out to be a smooth-talkin' swindler. He's not and all your admittedly well-written posts do nothing to change that.

[PurityOfEssence]

140. Wrong, wrong, incredibly wrong, misleading and tiresome

You did no such thing. You claimed that since HE didn't say he was unequivocally anti-war in all circumstances that he's off the hook. My specific contention is that he stood by whistling with his hands in his pockets while MANY different sources referred to him as anti-war and deliberately painted him as such, and he LET THE DECEPTION FLOWER AND MULTIPLY.

You did NOT refute my words, you put the words in my mouth that I claimed HE labeled himself with the specific phrase of being "anti-war", when I'm pretty obvious in saying that it's precisely that he fluffed the question when convenient and let others portray him as such that causes people to think he's deceptive.

Here are some of the instances I cited:

Code Pink says, after the election: "It sends a message to the political establishment that being against war is the winning position." (That's not "against this particular war", that's "AGAINST WAR" as in the concept itself.) He seems perfectly happy to let this misconception continue, but for his supporters to rage at the unfairness of saying that he happily allows people to foster this misrepresentation is DISHONEST.

Michael Moore says, after the election: "Never before in our history has an avowed anti-war candidate been elected president during a time of war." (That literally DEFINES HIM AS NOT SOME FAIR-WEATHER ANTI-WAR FELLOW TRAVELER, BUT AS THE REAL, AVOWED, HARDCORE PEACENIK TO THE SOUL. He's an "avowed anti-war candidate". Avowed; that means to take some kind of deeply spiritual oath of soul-level allegiance. It's serious overblown hyperbole, not mere casual characterization, and not from some spaz on the internet as you intimated when you dared me to cough up some proof, it's from MICHAEL FUCKING MOORE HIMSELF.)

The Nation praises Obama's "humane and wise approach to foreign policy, opposing the Iraq war while Clinton voted for it." (This more than suggests that his approach to foreign policy is typified by his opposing wars.)

The Boston Globe has a headline of "Obama's Antiwar message receives cheers..." (That was early, too, and that's how he got cachet to get the oomph to get going. It was SPECIFICALLY his steadfast, continual, voice-in-the-wilderness pristine decency that gave him a leg up on the evil Clinton and Edwards. He milked it for all it was worth. Son of Howard, the return of Wesley, the new and improved always-righteous-in-the-face-of-adversity newfound soloist for the choir.)

These are CLEAR EXAMPLES OF PROMINENT PEOPLE AND ENTITIES EQUATING HIM WITH "ANTI-WAR"ness itself. How hard is that to see? These are DIRECT QUOTES. Headlines, key sentences, hearts and souls of the communications that DEPICT HIM AS FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI-WAR. Where's the press release where he says 'oh, by the way folks, I'm perfectly happy to stomp the baddies with every weapon at hand, so don't worry that I'm weak'? It's not there because it's not convenient.

My principal claim isn't that HE said it, it's that HE ALLOWED THE FALSE ASSUMPTION TO TAKE HOLD whenever it was favorable, and carefully preserved deniability for when he had to prove how tough he is.

Why are people so confused about him being anti-war? Gosh, beats me.

It's his own fault; he's played fast and loose with vagueness, and now he's going to be specified up against the wall like a butterfly on display. He and his people need to get this, but quick: they've gotten away with outrageous duplicity and triplicity and quadriplicity because PEOPLE WERE HURT AND WANTED SO VERY DEARLY TO BELIEVE IN A SWEET BIT OF HOPE AND DECENCY, instead of the same old prevaricating, ward-heeling political con-job, and they're going to be personally hurt on a very primal level when the prince isn't so charming. That way lies danger. Switch gears now before it's too late.

As for your refutations, they're dizzyingly non-existent. I claim that others depicted him as inherently "anti-war", give some really good examples, and you somehow think that slagging me as not a member of the apostles negates cold, hard facts. It just isn't so.

[jenmito]

143. See posts #98 and #121. It IS getting tiring. n/t

[elizm]

37. Guess there was really no reason for you to even vote. nt

[IndianaGreen]

10. Obama already broke his campaign promise to repeal DADT

DADT is a threat to our national security, and Obama has chosen to appease the fundies than to get rid of the witch hunts.

[jenmito]

13. Really? By what date did he say he'd repeal DADT? He said he'll repeal it and he will...

if he doesn't, we should complain.

[IndianaGreen]

15. So anytime from 2011 to the Second Coming is Obama's timeframe for DADT repeal?

Do you think we are fraking stupid? Do you think LGBTs are morons that can be taken advantage of?

[jenmito]

18. I'm asking you if he said he'd do it in a certain time frame, therefore going back on

his word. No, I think the LGBTs are exactly like everyone else.

[Political Tiger]

25. He's not even president yet

some of you act as if he should have done all these things yesterday. Give the man a chance. He can't change everything on day one. Change takes time, and there are a lot of issues facing this country, and a lot of damage done to this country by Bush. It's going to take time, that's just the way life is.

[mopinko]

30. how about after he is sworn in?

jeez :eyes:

[totodeinhere]

21. Give him time. I predict that DADT will be gone by the end of Obama's presidency.

And DOMA will either be repealed or the most onerous parts of it will be repealed.

[Political Tiger]

24. Bull!

Obama has done no such thing!

[gblady]

36. don't think he's President, yet....

how could he have broken promises?

[Kajsa]

118. How can he repeal anything

when he's not even in office?

[avaistheone1]

11. I like Obama, and I voted for Obama, but I think he flip flops alot.

Sorry, it is not all about principles with Obama. He plays the political game.

He made Hillary the war-monger on Iraq (nope I'm not a Hillary supporter), and now he can't wait to escalate military operations in Afghanistan. I just see this as more of the same. I hope to proven otherwise.

[jenmito]

14. He has the same position now as he always had. His words are in bold print in my OP.

Maybe you chose not to listen to him, but he always said he wanted to concentrate on Afghanistan and that it was wrong to invade Iraq.

[Political Tiger]

17. Dat True!

Obama made his position about Iraq and Afghanistan perfectly clear all throughout the campaign.

[jenmito]

19. Thank you...

it's all there in black and white for all to see.

[avaistheone1]

31. Obama has not spoken much about his position on Afghanistan.

He has been pretty mum about it. Of the hundreds or more positions Obama spoke about he certainly didn't give this one much air time.

If Obama had been more vocal about this Afghanistan issue, he would have faced alot more opposition about it. I really don't like the way he has handled this given he was so opposed to the Iraq war, and so vocal in that opposition.

It is surprising how many people don't even know Obama supports a major escalation in Afghanistan. I think if they knew they would be very disappointed in him to say the least.

[Political Tiger]

34. Not true. Some Examples:

"It’s time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming, more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that’s the change I’ll bring to the White House."
–Sen. Barack Obama, October 22nd, 2008

"I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer restrictions – from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century’s frontlines are not only on the field of battle – they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat."
–Sen. Barack Obama, July 15, 2008

"It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."
–Sen. Barack Obama, August 01, 2007

"The question is, was this wise? We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there. Senator McCain, in the rush to go into Iraq, said, you know what? We've been successful in Afghanistan. There is nobody who can pose a threat to us there. This is a time when bin Laden was still out, and now they've reconstituted themselves. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself acknowledges the war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and it needs to end there."
–Sen. Barack Obama, first presidential debate, October 14, 2008

[avaistheone1]

39. You are making my point for me. He hasn't spoken much about his opinion on Afghanistan.

With all the speeches Obama gave these examples when he spoke of ramping up in Afghanistan are very few and far between.

Escalating US military presence in Afghanistan certainly hasn't been a theme Obama has hammered. Mentions of it have been few, short and sweet.

[Political Tiger]

43. You expect him to talk about it everyday?

I mean, throughout the campaign he made his position clear....he gave speeches about it....on the campaign trail and off, talked about it during the debates, both the primary and presidential debates. He talked about it during television interviews and stated his position on his official campaign website.

With all due respect, maybe you weren't listening? Speaking for myself, when I went into the voting both on election day, I knew exactly where Obama stood on Afghanistan.

[avaistheone1]

49. I noted those for times Obama spoke about Afghanistan, he couldn't get a rise out of the crowds

Few people want this military boondoggle. It is too late to start an escalation in Afghanistan. Our own country is falling apart. Our big dollars and efforts need to be shifted here.

However, I also hope that Obama represents change and that he has the wisdom and the courage to see that the American people are desperately hurting right now.Things have gotten much worse e in the US since the campaign season. Our needs must be met at home. The economic threat here is much stronger than any threat the Taliban could present to us, or our need for retaliation.

I think the Obama administration needs to seriously revisit his Afganistan offensive. Too much has changed since the American people first supported such an excursion back in 2001. This will likely be his Vietnam. What is Obama's exit strategy from Afganistan? Anyone know?

BTW I went into the voting booth and voted for Obama - despite knowing the terrible position he held on this issue because he was the better choice than McCain.

[Uzybone]

40. You seriously need to pay more attention

the problem with our sound byte media is that the details usually do not get discussed. But I'd think someone who takes the time to post on political message board would at least know the basic details of the presidential candidates position.

[ejpoeta]

115. i agree. people are hearing what they want to hear.

he hasn't changed his stance on anything. and when i hear folks decrying his rick warren thing and other stuff.... i would just point them to his book, dreams from my father, in which when he becomes president of the harvard law review, he doesn't just stack the place with his democratic supporters. he makes people mad when placing conservatives in key spots. i believe that obama truly does want this to be about something other than it's us or them. he has always said he wants to focus on that which we share. and there is a lot that warren agrees on. no one is going to be 100% in agreement on everything. and this whole thing about how we shouldn't be inclusive of them because they aren't going to be with us is kind of juvenile if anyone asks me. i know, no one did. but i have young kids and have to deal with that stuff all the time. if we keep going on like the republicans were doing, we are not going to get any farther than we did before. obama isn't even president yet. i find it amusing in some respects that folks are forgetting that. hear the blowhards on tv yammering about obama and this and that. as much as we would all like bush to be booted TODAY.... we still have almost 20 days to wait. as for the rest of us.... we all need to let the man be who he is. he is the same as he has been all along. if he gets into office and turns into bush lite or something, i'll be the first one to jump down his throat. but nothing comes easy. and we are going to have to trust that our choice still remains that.

ps.... picture what it would be like economically etc if we were waiting on president elect mccain and vp elect winky. does it make you shudder like it does me???

[NaturalHigh]

16. K and R.

Obama specifically said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He never once advocated gay marriage. Anyone who says that he did is either mistaken or simply lying.

[jenmito]

20. Thanks. And I didn't post this for that issue alone, but also for his consistent position

on building up the military.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. "anyone who says..."

Name one. Trust me, the community in question is well aware of exactly what Obama has said all along. He's barely an advocate for common decency in the public square, so we are all very damn clear that he is far too provencial and neurotic to support marriage equality. Please. Building up an invisible person who said a thing never said in order to state that person would be a liar if they existed and if they said that, wow! Talk about a strained point.
In short. We all know what he said. All of it.

[Luminous Animal]

42. Nobody says he has.

Not one single person.

He has advocated for civil unions. The closest he came to any kind of support for gay marriage was when he made his statement against prop 8.

What he hasn't done and what Warren has is, support the "ex-gay" movement which seeks to eliminate "the gay", equate LGBT unions with pedophilia, come out against civil unions, and campaign against gay marriage.

Warren clearly is a bigot and a homophobe.

[cbc5g]

22. I love Obama but man

surely he knows why there is so much gang/gun violence in cleveland. It's probably due to the fact that prohibition of drugs put an unlimited supply of money in their pockets which they can use to buy guns and protect their turf. Lets all thank the drug law warriors for giving us decades of brutal gang violence. Obama talks about applying a bandaid to a cut artery when a tourniquet is needed. I understand his positions though, he has to walk a tight rope as a politician so as to not offend anyone.

[sniffa]

23. Thank you for this

This helps so much.

:hug:

[jenmito]

26. No problemo!

Glad I could help! :hi: Just clarifying the record and his consistency. :)

[LostinVA]

27. You know I know what this means

:rofl:

[sniffa]

28. Glad I could help

:hi:

[jenmito]

66. Thanks for the sarcasm.

:hug:

[ashling]

29. So he is going afterthe war criminals and torturers?

And I will restore our moral standing

[avaistheone1]

44. Obama is 7 years late and trillions of dollar short!!!!

But that's okay he is super man.

Osama is not in Afghanistan. In all likelihood he is dead. There is absolutely no appetite in this country for starting another military boondoggle in that part of the world. That time has come and gone.

There are more pressing problems at home. People are wondering if they are going to be able to feed themselves, have a job, and take care of the basic necessities of life. We are teetering into economic collapse and depression.

There is no popular, broad based support for IBM's folly in Afghanistan. Time for the Obama admin to get a reality check.

[ashling]

90. You talkin' t' me? I'm not talking about Bin Laden or Afghanistan!

I'm talking about putting this country on at least some sort of moral footing by prosecuting - or at least facilitating the prosecution of - war criminals, torurers and their enablers here in this country: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woo, Gonzo, et al.

[Zuiderelle]

32. "our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to live lives free of discrimination" except...

when it comes to marriage. It's the height of hypocrisy to say that but then agree with the discrimination that denies us the 1000+ benefits married people receive from our government, by saying that he doesn't believe in gay marriage.

[Bluebear]

46. But we can visit each other in the hospital at the end of our decrepit lives.

:hug:

[jenmito]

72. He's been consistent in his position on this. He SAID he wants to give

gay couples all the rights of married couples, all 1,000+ of them.

[Zuiderelle]

78. And he also said that he thinks it should be left up to the states.

We've all seen how well that goes.

[Political Tiger]

80. For some reason that I can't comprehend

some people are dead set against acknowledging this truth. :shrug:

[Zuiderelle]

95. Yes, it's true that he said that, and he also said it should be left to states to decide.

How do you reconcile the two "truths" when they conflict with each other? You can't leave it up to states to decide when states' decisions give NO federal benefits. And how is it possible to give us all those federal benefits if there are states that do not allow marriagesb or civil unions?

[Luminous Animal]

35. You have a gaping hole here...

the problem is, you conflate Obama's position with Warren's and somehow pretend that the LGBT is criticizing Obama's position not his choice.

Most folks were and are aware that Obama has never supported gay marriage but Obama has stated that he supports civil unions. And though many (including me) would argue that civil unions are a separate but "equal" measure we do know that he considers such unions a matter of civil rights. He has also stated that he believes that gay marriage is a matter for the states not the Feds and made a statement against prop 8. Given these stances, we know that Obama is not anti-gay but rather, a bit shallow in his understanding of the meaning of full civil rights.

Warren does NOT support civil unions. He does not recognize civil unions as a civil right. He actively fought FOR prop 8. He not only campaigns against civil rights issues but his ministry is associated with the "ex-gay" movement... that is, he does not want LGBTs to exist. He is a bigot and a homophobe.

[jenmito]

68. This has nothing to do with Warren...

the problem is you and and others are obviously making that connection.

[Grateful for Hope]

69. That is what I am seeing also. n/t

[jenmito]

77. I'm glad you see it. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

81. Who is making that "Obama is breaking his word"?

I'm not saying that somebody somewhere is saying this, but that surely is NOT the overriding complaint. I don't think that I'm wrong and willing to be proved otherwise.

From what I've seen (and granted, I have a job - so I can't read every thread or post) is that most folks are pissed off that by Obama's decision to choose Warren. Known bigot and homophobe.

[jenmito]

86. The whole reason I started this thread was because of the many threads

about how people were disappointed in Obama for not being the change he promised (even though he's not sworn in yet). They claim he went back on his word to repeal DADT, that he's "now" talking about an escalation in Afghanistan, and other things that aren't true.

[Bluebear]

45. Grand. I can visit my partner in the hospital. If that doesn't sweeten the pot.

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

52. I can't believe people don't even hear how that sounds. Wtf.

[jenmito]

79. He has also said gay couples should have ALL the rights of straight couples.

:eyes:

[Luminous Animal]

82. Yes, but what does that have to do with the fact,

that he invited a homophobe and bigot to share the podium with him at one of the most historical political events of U.S. history?

That is the complaint. Activists can work on his gay marriage blind spot, too. But they can also be very very pissed off about Warren.

[jenmito]

85. I hate to tell you this, but this thread has nothing to do with Rick Warren. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

88. I hate to tell you this...

but you are making the claim that people are somehow disappointed with Obama's stance on gay marriage and, as far as I can tell, nobody has done that.

[jenmito]

89. I hate to tell you this, but you must be blind. There are people saying they're disappointed with

his stance on gay marriage on this very thread. :eyes:

[Luminous Animal]

102. I'll be clearer....

Folks have always been aware of Obama's stance on gay marriage. Many of those folks disagreed with that (and were, in fact, disappointed) yet still worked to get him elected. They worked to get him elected because he was better than the alternative. Because having a president who entertains the notion of civil rights (albeit, through the flawed institution of civil unions) is better than having a president who thinks that civil rights is not an issue at all.


Get it? You are acting as if LBGTQ activists are stupid and feel as though they were duped into believing something that wasn't true. The rage and protest is not, "Oh noes! Obama doesn't believe in gay marriage. How could I be soooo wrong?" The rage and protest is against featuring a person who is not only against gay marriage, but against civil unions for gays, equates them with child molesters, and wishes to eradicate "the gay" altogether.

So yes, I can be disappointed with Obama's stance on gay marriage going all the way back to 2006. I can even vote for the man with eyes wide open. I can also be hopeful that, given his support for civil unions, a dialog can be opened up because the parameters will have been changed from no civil rights at all to separate but equal civil unions. And we all know what happened to "separate but equal" institutions the first go around.

[jenmito]

104. You're being clearer about a false premise...

You said, "...you are making the claim that people are somehow disappointed with Obama's stance on gay marriage and, as far as I can tell, nobody has done that."

I told you there are people right on this THREAD that are disappointed with Obama's stance on gay marriage. All you gotta do is read since I can't "call posters out."

And now you said, "Get it? You are acting as if LBGTQ activists are stupid and feel as though they were duped into believing something that wasn't true."

No, I'm not acting like anything. Some people, (not just gay people but anti-war people) are acting like they were duped. Read this or any of several other threads.

[Luminous Animal]

109. I've read nearly all the Warren threads...

you are the one misrepresenting the anger of LGBTQ folks. And it is damn insulting.

Thanks for the support, asshole.

[jenmito]

123. Um, no...

You are either purposely closing your eyes to the posters who say they're disappointed about his stance on gay marriage, or you're stupid. Call me anything you want. I support the GLBT community and the desire to have FULL and EQUAL rights. But YOU are the asshole.

[Luminous Animal]

126. I spent 4 hours this morning...

searching for any post which claims that people felt betrayed by a change of Obama's position on gay marriage. I could not find one. You are totally misrepresenting the protest here on this issue.

I am disappointed on Obama's stance on gay marriage. I was disappointed in it two years ago and I am disappointed in it today. People are not angry at this juncture at Obama's stance on gay marriage, they are angry that he is giving national platform to a person who depicts queers as incestuous rapist pedophiles.

This is your endless argument:

Me: Warren is a homophobic bigot.
You: Obama never supported gay marriage.
Me: I know. He supported gay civil rights. Warren is not only against gay civil rights, he is anti-gay. He wants to wipe out "the gay". His bigotry goes far beyond a debate about gay marriage.
You: Obama never supported gay marriage.
Me: I and LBGTQ folks on this board know that Obama, never supported gay marriage rights. We know that he (in my opinion, wrongly) feels it is a matter for the states. We know that he weakly opposed prop 8 and weakly supports civil unions. Smart politicos take those positions as an opening for dialog. The choice of admitted homophobic, misogynist Warren appears to be a symbolic shutting of the door on that dialog.
You: Obama never supported gay marriage.

It is almost if you have some investment of proving Obama a bigot.

[jenmito]

127. No need to look any further than this thread...

And that is NOT my argument at ALL. My argument was always that although Obama never said he supported gay marriage, he HAS said he supports giving gay couples all the rights that straight married couples have. Then I'M accused of being a bigot, a homophobe, trash, etc. For the record:

"Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as
married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal
health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need
to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf

[Luminous Animal]

128. I don't see anyone accusing you of being a bigot.

You are being extra-ordinarily pigheaded and you've shifted your talking point because you cannot support your original premise. That is, you claimed this; "anyone disappointed in Obama "breaking his word" then bringing up Obama's stance on gay marriage as an example . Now you've watered it down to a mere observation that people are disappointed.

Well, no shit.

Yes, people are disappointed in Obama's stance on gay marriage. Now read very very carefully because this is the point that you cannot seem to understand.

People were disappointed with Obama's stance years ago. They were disappointed with his stance months ago. They were disappointed with his stance before he became a viable primary candidate. They were disappointed with his stance when he became a viable primary candidate. They were disappointed with his stance when be became a presidential candidate, they were disappointed with his stance when he was elected.

There aere zero surprises in Obama's stance in regards to gay marriage. People are acutely aware that he was against it yesterday, he's against it today, and he will be against it tomorrow.

Nobody is making the claim that Obama changed anything about his support for gay marriage. Nobody has accused (as you claim) Obama of breaking his word on gay marriage.

[jenmito]

131. They didn't on THIS thread...

And no. I'm not shifting ANYTHING. I'm replying to your posts. My OP stand-for anyone disappointed in Obama breaking his word, here are his words. And if you read the thread, you'd see responses saying how unhappy they are with THEIR perception of his breaking his word on "repealing DADT" or how he's now just for allowing gay couples to visit each other in the hospital.

The whole reason I started this thread was because there are so many threads about how people are disappointed in him, how he's not the change he promised he'd be, etc.

[Luminous Animal]

134. In regards to DADT, you are correct...

though, in speeches, Obama stated he would repeal DADT, he never gave a time frame. When interviewed, he advanced the slow approach that is now being reported.

BUT, you did not mention DADT in your OP and you most certainly are not responding to my posts.

People are not disappointed with Obama for breaking his word in regards to gay marriage. You've made a false claim and you refuse to back down from it. Rather, you now make the obvious claim that people are disappointed in Obama's stance on gay marriage. As I said, no shit. People who care about the matter have always been disappointed in Obama's stance on gay marriage and they are disappointed still - as expressed in this thread. And believe you me, the people on this thread have been disappointed going back to McClurkin and beyond. Their opinion of Obama's stance on gay marriage has not changed.

Folks are not accusing Obama of breaking his word on gay marriage. This is what you have asserted and you are patently wrong.

You and everyone else who makes that claim is promoting misinformation.

[jenmito]

136. I went back several posts. Looks like YOU'RE the one who

started combining the words in my OP with YOUR words of "gay marriage." My OP was for anyone who thought Obama broke his word on his positions re: the military, gay rights, and working with those he disagrees with. Go back and read it again. Then read the responses to it.

[Luminous Animal]

137. Nope. Wrong again...

Your OP is titled: Just a reminder for anyone disappointed in Obama "breaking his word": His words:

Then you bring up this example to support your title:

I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. (Bold - yours)

I based my response on the fact that in regards to the bolded example that you put forth, there is zero evidence that people are disappointed in Obama for "breaking his word" on same sex marriage (or even civil unions for that matter).

Furthermore, you yourself used marriage to advance your agenda thus:

You mentioning marriage: "He also always talked about giving rights to same-sex couples SHORT of the word "marriage" and he hasn't changed there, either, no matter how much we disagree with him."

In response to this: "But on the other hand, he can't be accused of breaking his word because he didn't even make a commitment to anything."

Again, in regards to marriage you said this:

Responding to a post that specifically mentions marriage (reproduced below): "Thanks. And I didn't post this for that issue alone,..."

In response to this: "Obama specifically said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He never once advocated gay marriage. Anyone who says that he did is either mistaken or simply lying."

Both of these posts happened before I posted anything on this matter. And the last example proves that you were specifically referring to gay marriage in your OP.

Let's play that one back again in the correct sequence.

Post #16: "Obama specifically said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He never once advocated gay marriage. Anyone who says that he did is either mistaken or simply lying."

Your direct response #20:"Thanks. And I didn't post this for that issue alone, but also for his consistent position on building up the military."

What would be "that issue" that you are referring to? Answer, gay marriage.

I reiterate, no one is accusing Obama of breaking his word in regards to gay marriage (or even civil unions).

[jenmito]

139. OK then. There are lots of posts complaining about how Obama doesn't

CARE about gay people, how he's a homophobe, and on and on. I'd say THAT constitutes people thinking he changed his opinion on gay rights. Not gay marriage, but gay rights. BUT, on THIS thread, a couple posters claim all Obama wants to give gay couples is the right to visit each other in the hospital.

[Luminous Animal]

141. There a not a lot of posts accusing Obama of being a homophobe...

You really need to stop making things up. People are pissed off because Obama invited a bigot to the inauguration. The jury is out whether or not he's changed his opinion on gay rights. He says he hasn't but time will tell.

FYI, the hospital remarks were a sarcastic reaction to your OP.

[jenmito]

144. Yes there are. And lots of post accusing posters HERE of being homophobic.

There was a thread saying something like, "If you don't support gay marriage, you're a homophobe." And posters were saying since OBAMA doesn't support gay marriage, HE'S a homophobe. You must remember.

[Luminous Animal]

145. Show me your search string and prove it...

send it via PM. My search shows otherwise.



Edited for grammar.

[jenmito]

146. Will do. n/t

[Creideiki]

119. Actually, what he said

is that gay couples should have some basic set of rights--not "ALL the rights of straight couples", just some basic set of rights.

[jenmito]

124. Actually, you're wrong...

"Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples"

Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as
married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal
health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need
to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf

[EFerrari]

47. The man said he would be the president of all Americans and you can't parse that.

[avaistheone1]

50. What exactly does that mean in terms of policy?

[EFerrari]

51. That means we're all equal except on some things that are politically inconvenient

for some people some of the time.

[avaistheone1]

54. Sounds like a bunch of malarkey to me. Can you give me an example in terms of policy or legislation

how this would work?

[EFerrari]

57. Sure, I invited a virulent homophobe and misogynist to invoke the Almighty

at my inauguration that is meant to unite the country.

'Kay?

[avaistheone1]

59. Got it. I think that's is about the only way this can be translated.

:scared:

[EFerrari]

60. Obama is such a huge relief after these last horrible, horrible eight years.

And, imho, choosing Warren was a mistake. He's going to make mistakes because as he himself said, he was not born in manger.

[avaistheone1]

61. The people are the sovereign power in this country. It is not only our responsibility,

it is our duty to point out a better way for Obama. Yes, this will put much needed political pressure on Obama to offset the pressure from the special interests and lobbyists.

Yes, Obama is much better than God awful George W. Bush. Times are terrible in this country and it our job to make Obama be the best president possible. It was pressure from the people that catapulted FDR to be one of our greatest presidents, and we should give Obama the same favor.

[IndianaGreen]

55. I guess it means that Operation Rescue is okay

as is the Westboro Baptist Church.

:eyes:

[avaistheone1]

56. That's shameful. I was hoping Obama would be a transformational president.

[Skip Intro]

97. love it

[Bluebear]

106. .

[MadHound]

87. Hmm, I don't think that a Rick Warren invocation is a terribly graceful way of bridging divides

In fact, at best it looks like a very clumsy move. And he's not even president yet.

[eridani]

94. I'm very well aware of the fact that he promised to continue our policy of imperial thuggery

And just knowing that any candidate who doesn't isn't going to get within hollering distance of the presidency doesn't make me like it.

[jenmito]

99. If you voted for him knowing his positions and thinking of them the way you do now, you

have no reason to be any less supportive of him now than you were then.

[Luminous Animal]

103. "Knowing" doesn't make anyone less an activist

for peace and justice. Particularly when the choice is between, "bomb bomb bomb Iran - Iraq occupation for 100 years" and "phased withdrawal out of Iraq - lets engage a discussion with Iran".

I was anti-war (including Afghanistan) before voting for Obama, and I am anti-war, still. Just because Obama won does not mean that I have to change my position.

[jenmito]

105. You're missing the entire point of my OP. It's for people who have been saying

in the past week or so that Obama is not the change he claimed he'd be, and they go on to cite his plan to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan even though that's ALWAYS been his position.

[eridani]

111. I do support him. I intend to criticize him also

If we weren't destroying so much of our wealth on military domination of the rest of the world, there would be far more money for his green jobs and infrastructure plans.

[jenmito]

125. Nothing wrong with criticizing him, but there IS something wrong with

people who claim he has changed his positions when he hasn't.

[LibDemAlways]

116. The other night I heard Biden refer to

getting the troops out of Iraq in two years. Whatever happened to 16 months? (Which was bad enough)

Between Gates, Warren, and now this prevaricating on the timetable for troop withdrawal, I'm wondering what the hell I voted for.

[Skip Intro]

96. Vague platitudes from a gifted politician. Wake up. nt

[jenmito]

100. I'm wide awake. I knew exactly who and what I voted for. n/t

[bluedawg12]

133. I don't think he broke his word. His words were carefully chosen.

I think he has diverged from his intent: "surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters ...deserve to live lives free of discrimination."


The sudden elevation of Rick Warren comes to mind as being counter productive.

[MasonJar]

135. Obviously it is appropriate to back Obama at this point, but I do not agree with

his over-the-top bipartisanship mantra. The Pugs will never bend; we will lose and so will the world and the planet. Enough is truly enough. It is a time for a progressive agenda and if Obama will not deliver it, he will be opposed.