I'm Done

by dlh77489, Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:34:19 PM EST

The Obama campaign is apparently run by a group pusing for him to be elected President of the Student Council.  

I just finished yelling at David Axelrod's dumb-ass on Hardball.  Everytime Matthews opened his mouth, Axelrod should've said Hillary Clinton is the irresponsible and naive one for authorizing this fucking war.  But no.  Wolfsohn, says that it didn't take courage for Obama to stand up and speak against the war, because Illinois is liberal.  WTF?  What parralell universe does this ignorant fuck live in?

So, I'm done. At least for this cycle.  I have been following Barack Obama since I first saw him on the stage at the Democratic National Convention in 04, and I had hope that he would be the first black man in the White House.  Now, I am so dissappointed in his fucking campaign that I am done with with this election.  I'm done.  I'm not using this website anymore.  I'm not supporting any of the other Dem candidates for the Nomination.  Hillary Clinton is a centrist, Republican-lite clown who went into this nomination process feeling like she was entitled to be president because her philandering husband did a ho-hum job for 8 years.  The rest of them have no chance to beat her, so why waste any more of my money on this bullshit.

Obama started in February brilliantly, then came the first debate.  Whoever on that campaign who didn't know that he needed to knock that out of the park was a fucking idiot.  He did fair in the first debate and of course the media sells that as weak, and the polls plummeted from there.  I've been quite disappointed in this campaign.  I'm pissed, and I'm done.  I could've run Obama's campaign better, and I'm not at all "qualified" in the sense that I've never worked for a campaign.

PREDICTION
Hillary Clinton is going to win the Democratic nomination for the presidency.  She will pick either Evan Bayh or Mark Warner as her running mate, and it will be a very close election.  She will face either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson in the general.  And she could very well lose.  We will still be in Iraq in November of 08 because the Dem Congress is too pussy to cut off the funds.  So, she may win, but quite frankly, I'd be surprised if she did.  Whether you think it's fair or not, the GOP is gonna have magnificent turnout with Hillary Clinton to demonize.  (Quite frankly, I don't care if you think that argument is fair, it's the truth.)

THIS IS WHAT OBAMA NEEDS TO FOCUS ON
He's not going to get the Dem nomination.  (All you Obama lovers: I really do hope I'm dead wrong, but I'm not.)  If Hillary loses, and I think it's at least 50:50, if not 60:40, that she will; Obama needs to go back to the Senate, be as bold as possible with his time there, and let his term expire in 2010.  And in 2010 run for Governor of Illinois, assuming Blagojevich doesn't run again.  Even if Blagojevich does run, Obama may be able to take him in the primary.  He'll easily win Illinois and he'll have two years to get as much accomplished as possible.  This will allow him to run as an outsider again in 2012 or 2016.

Hopefully when he does this, he'll hire a better campaign staff because these people who are currently running his campaign are like amateur hour at the Apollo.

I'm disappointed Senator, and I'm done.

Update [2007-7-26 18:51:10 by dlh77489]:: I've said in the past that I could vote for Clinton, but it's not happening, I'll either stay home on election day or find an independent to vote for. It'll be the first time in my life that I have abandoned the Democratic Party.


Tags: Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 56 Comments :: Post a Comment


as an Edwards supporter (3.00 / 2)

I'm glad Axelrod is not running the Edwards campaign this cycle. I think he is overrated as a strategist.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:37:48 PM EST

Re: as an Edwards supporter (none / 0)

can you explain his record to me? I have no idea about these so-called 'strategists'?

Thanks


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:39:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NY Times Magazine profile (3.00 / 3)

of Axelrod is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazi ne/01axelrod.t.html?ex=1185595200&en =46be14f0387dbc49&ei=5070

He worked on Edwards' campaign in 2004. He has one mode: the campaign heavily geared toward the candidate's biography and inspiring personal story.

I was for Kerry in 2004, but if Edwards had proposed the kind of substantive things he is talking about now, I would have been for Edwards for sure. I don't personally care for the Axelrod style.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:53:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Magazine profile (none / 0)

The article is too long, sorry for my shallowness but I got immediately turned off by his moustache, so I stopped reading.

Did he have any winning record on national stage?


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:57:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Magazine profile (none / 0)

The article is too long, sorry for my shallowness but I got immediately turned off by his moustache, so I stopped reading.

This must be a satire, right?


by Korha on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 11:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Magazine profile (none / 0)

Why? Just because he looks and acts like G. Gordon Liddy?


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:33:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Magazine profile (none / 0)

Fascinating article with a lot of rich details.  thanks.  I really related to this on a number of levels:

During the 2004 convention, he stood with Senator Chris Dodd, who told Axelrod that Democrats "were making a mistake by turning the whole thing into a giant V.F.W. convention and not mentioning the failure of the Bush administration on a wide variety of issues." The lesson he took was that the party shouldn't get too wrapped up in the issue of the moment.


by Satya on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:33:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as an Edwards supporter (none / 0)

So this joker ran Edwards campaign in 2004? No wonder I hated Edwards back then. I like the new Edwards much more.


by Pravin on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You do a disservice to the Apollo (3.00 / 2)

amatuer hour there is pretty damn good


by okamichan13 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:48:54 PM EST

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

c'mon dlh - toughen up man.  This is just getting good. Finally a real skirmish in what was looking like a lame policy seminar.  The only bad advice Obama can get is "be above the fray."  It screwed Bill Bradley in '00 and Kerry last time. People say they like it, but they don't.  He needs to fight the HRC juggernaught and be ready for the crap that will be thrown by swift boaters et al.  


by PositiveLiberty on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:49:15 PM EST

Obama can always take one (none / 0)

for the team and spend 40 million on Hillary Negative ads in Iowa and NH???

If Edwards had Obama's money - Hillary would be in bigger trouble.

And yes Axelrod seems way too soft to run presidential campaigns.

He hooks up with very attractive candidates (Edwards 2003) and Obama and takes them no where.

Edwards should have lambasted Kerry on Trade and never did - blame axelrod.

Obama's team should be labeling Hillary a flip flopper


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

nope. Bradley's the man.  If we had the sense to nominate and elect candidates of his caliber, this country - and its electorate - wouldn't be seen as a joke in much of the world.  


by PositiveLiberty on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:53:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

Congratulations dlh!


by bsavage on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:57:23 PM EST

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

calm down----no one undecided votes on who the stratigist is, frankly one who watches hardball is undecided, Obama will win the nomination becuase he will expand the universe of primary voters to include people who are sick of both
Bush and Clinton.
Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:58:33 PM EST

Agreed. (3.00 / 0)

While Axelrod definitely was not to my liking on Hardball, no one is deciding based on the interview of the strategist.

I am absolutely fine with the Obama campaign and I think this fight has opened up the opportunity for Obama to further clarify the differences between the two.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:02:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

I really think that there are many undecided voters that were wondering when will any democrats take on Hillary...My hope is that Obama would be able to get those undecided off the fence.

There are many of them that just wants to see Hillary get challeneged and if you dont start differenciate yourself from her, then those voters would eventually vote for her since they know her best and no one wants to challenge her.

In my opinion,any voters that arent on Hillary's camp yet, is gettable..These voters might not feel comfortable with her or do not trust her...These voters will only vote for her if there arent any other options...This is where Obama has got to differenciate himself from her and draw a line on the sand.

Hillary polls in the 35% range..This means that 65% of democratic voters dont think she's worthy to be their first choice candidate....Now, this might not look too bad if Hillary wasnt an institue inside the democratic party with the very popular husband of hers and a 95% name recognition...There are clearly a lot of democrats out there that just dont like her as their first option.


by JaeHood on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

I do not think Obama is doing too badly in this debate and I frankly think Axelrod stood his ground , but with regards to who will win eventually , it is still very much up in the air but if you look at the internals of polls coming out the Clinton's have to be happy where they are , She is basically leading in every group. So She will be tough to beat unless something happens and the hardcore dem just all of a sudden switch from a woman i.e. Hillary which it looks like the hardcore dems look at her like a nancy reagan like figure and I am not just throwing that statement out there ( Check her ratings 80 - 85% favourable , 13% unfavourable , that is dam impressive )  and women are sticking with her She will be hard to beat.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:21:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Axelrod sucked (none / 0)

I don't know if any campaign has anyone as lowly as wolfson to "debate" him.

he lies so easily how can any spokesman rebut wolfson


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

there is a cartain "you have to eat your vegitables" quality to Hillary's pitch to voters.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You never started (3.00 / 3)

Yeah, spill your beer on the upholstery and grind the food crumbs into the carpet, then you leave?

That's the problem with amateurs - they think that politics is just like a student council race. Here's the dirty little secret - your opponents run just as hard as you do - you expect no quarter and you give none - everyone makes mistakes - no supporter is more fickle than the superficial fan on a bandwagon - newspaper ads are a waste of time - yard signs are a tremendous waste of resources. Just to name a few.

The only Obama supporter around here who I have any respect for is the individual who signed off last week to say he was going to work his precinct door to door. He's the only one who gets it. You fight the good fight, then you pick yourself up and fight it again.

Amateurs give up at the first sign of a hard road. Self-indulgent amateurs write "good bye cruel world" diaries and declare they're going to sit on their hands.

I've said in the past that I could vote for Clinton, but it's not happening, I'll either stay home on election day or find an independent to vote for. It'll be the first time in my life that I have abandoned the Democratic Party.

You were never with the party. A real Democrat would find someone at the statewide, Congressional District, or local levels to support - and then work hard to turn out the vote.  


543,895 votes
by Michael Bersin on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:47:05 PM EST

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

I don't really know what you are complaining about here.  Axelrod brought up that mistake of a vote by Hillary three or four times on Hardball tonight.  Just because he didn't say it in response to everything doesn't seem to be a reason to avoid voting for him.  If anything, you should be happy that Obama is finally willing to take Hillary on.

There is no doubt that Wolfson is a pro.  He's been out in front of the public for Hillary for several years now and he's good at this game.  Axelrod is somewhat more green with this stuff and overtime he's either going to have to kick it up a notch or they are going to need to find a middle reliever who can come in and throw some heat.


by freepursuits on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:00:15 PM EST

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

he's about as bad as Chris Lahane was in 2004


by orin76 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:40:19 PM EST

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

Lehane.

I can't stand that guy.


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:41:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am very encouraged (none / 0)

I think this is working out very well for Obama actually.

Very well. He is coming out swinging and this is the very thing people on this site were begging for and it is exactly what Obama needs; to be and look like a tough fighter (doesn't matter if his original statement was a bit of a misspeak). The fact that Obama is not apologizing or switching topics but rather going after Hillary is very encouraging. This has also served to marginalize Edwards further which is key for Obama.

And lets face it: Obama should go after Hillary on this or have we forgotten her record since 9-11?? On foreign policy she has almost been a republican so she SHOULD be called Bush Cheney Lite!

Remember: Obama was and is the underdog.

We don't know , ultimately, how things will play out. There are always risks. To unseat Hillary Obama will need to run a tighter campaign and have a bit of luck.

At least thats the way I see things.


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:40:58 PM EST

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

Hey I think the Bush Cheney lite thing might backfire on him , he might be overstepping if he continues with it. Question , how come some people think calling someone's position naive and irresponsible is bad and somehow they condone the bush cheney thing. Someone wrote a diary basically switching their vote because she called obama's position naive , I am waiting for that person to switch the vote from Obama , you know who you are, where is your diary switching from Obama.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:49:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

Because Hillary started it. She hit below the belt and not so much at the debate as the next day. She was the first to hit that low against someone that had largely kept a respectful distance.

Thats why its different. Once someone goes after your "balls" (pardon my expression but I think it tells the story) you've got to show them and thats why I think people will allow for him calling her Bush Cheney Lite.

ANd don't forget that on foreign policy she has been Bush Cheney Lite. Its a fact!!!! You don't know how mad I have been at her these past few years. She has completely let down the American people and more so the democratic voters such as me. In order to, somewhat understandably, prove that a woman can be President she has become incredibly aggresive on issues of national security. It has been very unbecoming to look at. Compare her approach and Gore's! Its night and day and I like the daylight.


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

Can you explain how her foreign policy has been Bush Cheney light and I am really looking for a subsatntive discussion about it , I hope you don't take it the wrong way I am not trying to be rude but I seriously want to know how you came to that conclusion, her iraq war vote alone is not a valid reason to conclude that she is a neo con  which is the Bush/Cheney lite


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:03:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (3.00 / 1)

Its not her vote as much that after her vote she has been pro War until only this year! I remember seeing her on CNN a while ago now and things were going real bad over there and the woman was asking her (Judy Woodruff) if it was time to maybe perhaps start thinking about setting some sort of deadline or what have you and the way she looked at Woodruff was like "are you insane? how can you even ask that?" before swallowing a frog and going on to talk about how it was way premature etc.

She's been trying to look real tough on security for years. Talking the talk. Just like she did in the debate. Its all an act to fight against the stereotype that as a liberal woman she can't be taken seriously on national security.

I understand she's boxed in and I must say she's played it beautiful from a political standpoint but it doesn't mean I have to like it, support it or more importantly forget and forgive it.

She has been one of the biggest democratic hawks next to Joe Liebermann. I am surprised you have not observed this cause it happened and I know many many democrats who are mad as hell about it! I mean I can't cite the specific instances of every time I heard her speak between 2002 and early 2007 where she has been parroting the Bush administration's approach on the war but there have been a plethora of such instances and you will have to just go dig them out if you are interested.

Another hawk was Edwards but of course he changed course earlier. Thats what is particularly galling about Hillary: that she waited until she kicked off her campaign and realized she needed democrats to vote for her to start ramping up her anti-war act. So transparent.


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

I mean when you are Hillary Clinton you have a bit more of a responsibility to provide leadership and good judgmement on the most important issue facing our country than a newly elected Senator!!!!!! WHere has her leadership been in the Senate?? Nowhere! What has she done???


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:16:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

Since you are an Obama supporter:   You are making the argument that he is a neocon Bush/Cheney Lite then also.  Ever since he came into the Senate, his votes have been identical with Clinton's.   Absolutely identical.   So, if you contend that Clinton voted a certain way to appear "tough," what is Obama's excuse?  Did he want to look tough as a rookie?


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:29:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

Read below GeorgeEP.

It ain't the same.

And you know what? Ultimately whats your point? That I should judge both them and say they are the same on the war??? Well even if they were then I would be entitled to say that I prefer Obama for a whole host of reasons

But for Hillary supporters to be up in arms because Obama labels her Bush Cheney Lite is ludicrous. THAT IS WHAT SHE HAS BEEN. I have listened to her for five years be it on C-Span on CNN or read her statements and quotes in the paper. She has been a complete hawk.

Obama may have a similar voting record but he has not helped frame the war in the way Hillary has.

And you have to admit that voting for the war is a big minus whatever you may think Obama would have done had he been there.

I don't want to get sucked in to this anymore. I think you have made up your mind and so have I.

I respect Hillary and would enjoyhaving her 5 blocks from where I live (thats how close I am as I type. I live very close to White House) but I would much prefer Obama.


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:38:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (3.00 / 1)

Maybe as a contribution to MYDD at some point- and it could take days- I will try and dig up Hillary's statements on the war over the past five years.

She has been a complete hawk. It has been sad and I grew to rather dislike her. Recently I have understood her reasons for having done this but it doesn't mean I have to forgive and forget. In fact I would be a very poor American if I were to do so.

I have recently began to like her a bit more as I can't help but marvel at the great campaign she is running. ANd of course the benefits of having a woman in power (and Bill's wife at that!) are huge.


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:46:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

Well, I have a lot of quotes from Obama in writing as well regarding what he thinks of Cheney (early quote, but still a barf bag candidate,) how stubbornly he spoke against a "date certain,"  his plan to engage in counter-terrorism in Iraq (meaning, his residual forces would be fighting in Iraq for many years to come,) etc.    I don't consider him a dove at all, he seemed pretty hawkish in his own way (as much as a liberal Democrat can be.)  


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:45:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

You know Obama himself didn't want any timetable until recently and they have basically voted the same way since they were both in the senate , How come you don't consider Obama Bush cheney lite or a neo con . I definitely don't consider him bush cheney lite and I don't think you can cite any good reason to claim she is. Even in terms of this debate about meeting with this rulers they basically share the same position.Both of them are not that far apart in terms of foreign policy , I know Chris Mattews keeps shouting She is a neo con but the doesn't make him right , its only because she voted for the war thats why he claims She is Bush - Cheney lite. The fact that she didn't want to set a deadline at that time doesn't make her a neo con infact most of the dem members at that point didn't support one to, including Obama , Dodd , Biden , Jack Reed , are they all neo cons or bush lite . Today Dodd , Edwards , Biden all said Hillary was right are they Bush lite. Obama is actually where Hillary is at  with regards to talking to dictators so unless he is a bush lite himself , then he is being disingenous. His words can actually be turned against him because did you notice on NBC news last night he actually switched his position and agrred with Hillary.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:24:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

No I don't buy it. Sorry.

Its not the same because Hillary

1. was there from the beginning of this war

  1. she is Hillary Clinton which means she is a player
  2. the way people talk and the words they use are important and I have listened to Hillary for the past 5 years using frames and language to validate everything Bush Cheney have done

When you add it all up its very different. Look at Obama

1. Gets thrown in Senate in middle of a complete disaster of a war

  1. Is a junior senator. A nobody. You have to cut him a little slack for taking a while to look aroudn and appraise the situation
  2. Obama does not talk about the war like Hillary has for FIVE years.

If you haven't seen it you haven't seen it and we can agree to respectfully disagree.

Hillary has either been a neocon or completely validated their actions. And again, its worse cause it is Hillary you are talking about. She ain't chopped liver right?


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:34:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

There is really no way you can make that argument , if the way She has voted is the same as Obama then I don't know how you cannot come to the same conclusion that if She is a neo con then he must be as well , it's the votes that count right not actually what they say right , what difference does it make if Obama is not vocal but votes the same way as Hillary . They are both not neo cons and Bush Lite and He will be wise not to continue pushing that line. He got away with it today but if he continues pushing it he will overstep . So we can agree to disagree.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:45:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

Thats nonesense. First of all Hillary was in the Senate during the years when the war was undertaken? How can that not mean anything?

A person can be against the war and still feel that it is not responsible to leave tomorrow!

Really I can't believe what I am reading. Are you saying her vote to authorize Bush to go to war was not a bad vote? Obama did not cast the same vote.

Secondly the language people use, particularly when they are very powerful (and HIllary has been the number one democrat for years), is very important. Ultimately some of these votes you say they voted the same are things like keep funding the troops! Now I am against the war but I would not cut off funding either! But where has Hillary exercised leadership commensurate with her status and position??

You really have glossed over a lot of what I wrote earlier!


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

I mean add up

vote to authorize war we all knew Bush would undertake

plus

republican frames on war in early years

plus

lack of leadership commensurate with her position

and

it is a very weak record on the most important issue of our time.

Then you say that because Obama- a new junior senator- voted to continue funding the troops who are already there and becaue he has refused to support a timetable

that

they are the same!

Do you really believe that?


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

You are holding up a double standard here , you are claiming that because Obama doesn't somehow have the same stature as Hillary his voting the same way even though he wasn 't vocal about it doesn't make him bush lite but it makes her bush lite , this is a whole lot of double standard , I frankly think its how he votes that matters not what he said or didn't say , and if he votes like she did all the time then if he calls her bush lite or a neo con then he must be one himself. He also agrees with her on meeting Dictators after he's turnaround , so that must make him bush lite to . I don't agree with the term on any of our candidates because it is false and I susupect Obama will never use it again.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

What double standard?

I will write it in caps for the 4th time

HILLARY VOTED FOR WAR OBAMA DID NOT.

It is a key distinction.

It is VERY different to fund troops already there than to vote to essentially go to war.

But, yes, senior senators, particularly like Hillary have a responsibility to provide leadership. She did not do so.

I think what I wrote is pretty clear but we can disagree. ANd you may not have seen my post below but I am going to do something I didn't want to do and put in some research to dig up her ridiculous hawkish statements over the years that HAD an impact. Its not only the votes that matter Lori.


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:04:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

Don't waste your time with the research lafinur I already know what she said all i am saying is you can criticize her for the iraq war vote but thats not enough to say she is a neocon and she is bush lite , it is just campaign rhetoric. Do you know the neo con agenda , do you really think thats her agenda.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:07:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

You know, lafinfur, I like some of your posts, but you calling her a neocon completely crosses the line.  I have to believe you have no clue what the term stands for.   Too bad, because in some ways you are one of the few lucent Obama posters here.   Oh well....  


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

be fair I said either / or

I meant neocon in the much broader sense in so far as Bush's policy with respect to the war


by lafinur on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:14:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

Either, or?  What choice is that?  I realize you are getting yourself heated up over this issue, but these "choices" are nonsensical.  It is like me stating "Obama is either a neocon or a glib self-promoter."  See, no choice really for you at all.  

Whatever you "meant" is inconsequential.  You are using the term way too liberally, slamming a fellow Democrat with it.  It is way beyond the pale.  Neocon, Bush/Cheney Lite, etc.  Obama and his supporters have seriously poisoned the well.  


by georgep on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:14:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

She can't run away from her record and I will be posting about it in the coming days(I have copy pasted this from my new diary). She is Bush Cheney lite. Obama is on the money:

Opposes international treaty to ban land mines!

Voted against restricting US export of cluster bombs!

Opposes restrictions on training govts that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses!

Called for dramatic increases to Bush's military budget!

Challenged credibility of Amnesty International!

One of Senate's most outspoken critics of UN.

Supports Israel's "security" fence;

Critic of International court of justice ruling on Laws of War being binding on all SIGNATORY countries;

Supports delivery of nuke capable missiles to Pakistan (DICTATORSHIP) among others!

Accused Bush admin of not taking Iran threat seriously enough;

Maintains US should maintain right to use nukes against non-nuclear countries!

etc...


by lafinur on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:40:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

Boy, you are taking things out of context and use votes that were part of omnibus bills and accuse Clinton of actively supporting these items?   That is cheap right-wing tactics the GOP would be proud of.   That list is bogus and a shambles.  By using Obama's votes (as limited as they were in the short time he has been in Congress) I could craft a very similar list for him.   What does that prove?  Nothing.  You are grasping for straws.   Why do you think nobody but the rabid Obama posters has actually agreed with you on the substance of your post?


by georgep on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:44:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

You are absolutely right. It's not fair to Obama. He's only got 2 years of national experience. Of course, he's going to make mistakes.

Here's what scares me. What if he is the Democratic nominee and makes another foreign policy blunder in the final debate against Rudy Guiliani?

He's a shining star in the Democratic Party. Be fair to him. Give him a few years of seasoning so he can avoid walking into traps in debates.


by hwc on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:47:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very encouraged (none / 0)

Now if the media decides to spin this against Obama to validate Hillary's point that this demonstrates that he is "naive" and inexperienced when it comes to foreign policy then I think Obama would be toast.

But I don't think they will do that this early in the game because they need a horse race pretty bad AND because they know that there's a whole hell of a lot of people behind Obama.


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

Lehane and axelrod are examples of the incompetent kiss asses, that get their postition not because they very good at what they do but because they are good at bowing low enough to the party leadership.  


by orin76 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:49:41 PM EST

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

and why we keep losing elections


by orin76 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:49:54 PM EST

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

I'm surprised you don't add that Frum guy to that list! He's the biggest loser in the history of political campaig strategy!


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:56:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

SHRUM (none / 0)

frum is a gop speachwriter.


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

oh you mean schrum yes him too. Those were just two examples most of the democrats that won house seats won because the party leadership keep their nose out of their races instead of because of the involvment. Most of the races the Dccc interfered with that were close the candidate lost most of the close races that the dccc keep their nose out of or the candidate simply ignored their advice the candidate won. If Emmanuel has stuck his nose into the races we won the candidates would have lost.  


by orin76 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:11:38 PM EST

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

Yah thats the clown. YOu are right on about Rahm. I love the way Novak and the press tried to paint him as the reason for the democratic wins. They just could not bring themselves to admit that Dean was at all the reason.


by lafinur on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:14:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

I'll be looking out for you in Jan/Feb, after B.O has won NH and South Carolina (not sure of Iowa).

Your ass needs to chill the F out. I don't see what all your fuss is about. Were 6 frigging f'ing months away from the primaries. Remember patience is a virtue, and we're only just starting, there are still what 8-9 debates to come b4 the first votes are cast? Gosh!?


by rapcetera on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:17:03 PM EST

Re: I'm Done (none / 0)

I think in most cases it was the candidates left to their own devices, with a local campaign staff can do a better job of winning then when you import outsiders to run a campaign, and have people telling you from washington what to do.


by orin76 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:21:26 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: