How anti-candidate memes emerge from the left (thoughts on Obama)

[rinsd]

This meme deals with Obama and Lieberman. The meme is that Obama helped Lieberman while ignoring Lamont.

Here are the facts.

On March 31st, 2006 at a dinner for CT Democrats here is what Obama had to say about Lieberman

"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."

Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." That time, people cheered loudly."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446

This is the extent of Obama's campaigning for Joe Lieberman. This was March 31st, Lamont was polling in the 20's at this time. The election was in August.

Obama also gave $4200 in two separate payments of $2100 a piece in Feb & March of 2005.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/061023-senator_obamas_office_responds_to_misleading_harpers_magazine_story/index.html

That is one half of the meme, what about the other? Did Obama help Lamont?

The answer is yes, he did. Immediately after winning the primary, Lamont was sent $5K by Obama's PAC. 2 weeks before the election, Obama sent out a mass e-mail with a strong endorsement of Lamont.

http://nedlamont.com/blog/1976/barack-obama-writes-emails

Now it can be argued that Obama could have done more extensive campaigning for Lamont but really why should he have? David Sirota bitterly attacked Obama over the summer(pre-primary election) for his refusal to side with Lamont(Sirota was hired by the Lamont shortly after blasting Obama in his column).

Guess who is also the prime source of the Obama did nothing for Lamont meme? That's right...David Sirota.

[wyldwolf]

1. David Sirota is one of three Great Pretenders among Democrats

[Adelante]

49. Oh, wait! Who are the other two?

I didn't read that as "three" earlier.

[wyldwolf]

60. Arianna Huffington and Matt Taibbi

[Adelante]

2. David Sirota has endorsed Edwards

It may be worth remarking.

[rinsd]

3. And he did so in a column, where he attacked both Clinton and Obama

Berating both for not coming to Lamont's aid more. (Clinton also gave him $5K from her PAC post primary)

He also ignores Edwards record in favor of his campaign rhetoric.

Edwards is a good candidate but I am guessing Sirota's support of him is more in relation to the other 2 in the big 3 than any special love for Edwards.

[Cameron27]

4. And as I recall, you were the

who pointed this out. I don't know why anyone would read anything from any reporter or blogger without considering if there's a bias involved.

[AtomicKitten]

17. yes indeed

On edit: K&R :thumbsup:

As most of you know it really gets my panties in a bunch when journalists - and I use that term loosely because it doesn't mean today what it used to mean - and their loyal following cling to the moniker investigative journalist when the author clearly lost objectivity on some issues back at the last rest stop. It is no slam on them personally but rather a clarification of exactly the nature of their work.

This is what I've been hammering over and over here at DU ad nauseam when people continue to post their screed on certain issues as gospel truth repeatedly and cling to it like a floatie off the Titanic.

I realize people are really excited about certain candidates and politicians, but the rest of us at least really must be more discerning about choosing and accepting this sort of data as the end-all and be-all of truth. To some truth is a picture they paint in their head and anything that backs it up beyond reproach, and the key word here is anything.

We can do better than that kind of tunnel vision.

[w4rma]

123. Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman

By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
…
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
…
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

Then once Lamont won the primary, Obama only gave tepid support to the man who wanted to beat his mentor in the Senate, Lieberman. Even Hillary gave Lieberman similar support to Lamont that Obama did. Edwards, however was out there campaigning for Lamont.

[mnhtnbb]

13. No, he has NOT endorsed Edwards. He has written positively about

him and takes great pains to say he is not working for any one candidate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/5/104544/1056

[Adelante]

19. Okay, if that's true

But he says he is not on the Edwards payroll; not the same thing (or shouldn't be). I took it as an endorsement when I read it on his own site a few weeks ago.

If you are a voter looking for a candidate who is willing to confront the biggest issues facing America right now - Iraq, economic class, the middle class squeeze and skyrocketing inequality - then there really is no contest in the Democratic presidential primary right now: John Edwards is your candidate.

-snip

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have been hesitant to take sides in the presidential race because it is important for us to use the campaign to see where the candidates are on the issues. Up until now, I haven't been for any of them, because I was still studying them (I realize for some knee-jerk Partisan Warriors, that's impossible to understand or fathom). A few wild-eyed conspiracy theorists have tried to claim in the past that I work for one or another of these candidates. I wrote this response to that charge earlier, swatting that deliberate untruth down. I don't work for any of the candidates, and those who say I do are promoting a disgusting and ugly lie in an effort to slander my credibility. Just because you may be a blind, automaton-like zealot of one or another candidate, doesn't mean that people who disagree with you are on the payroll of your candidate's opponent.

[rinsd]

21. That's not an endorsement?

Headline: Edwards: The People Party Candidate of 2008

Sirota is being a weasel as usual. He slams two candidates and praises one to the heavens then at the end of his column throws in a note that he is undecided.

"takes great pains to say he is not working for any one candidate."

Yeah he waiting to be hired and hopes its Edwards because he has burned his bridges with both Obama and Clinton. Fuck him.

On edit: fixed atrocious spelling

[AtomicKitten]

22. smells like an endorsement to me

[Adelante]

30. I thought it was an endorsement

:shrug:

[mnhtnbb]

25. Not in my book. Edwards would be in big trouble were he to attempt to say so.

[rinsd]

33. That's not an endorsement in your book?

What does he need to do? fellate him on stage?

Ok all kidding aside while I doubt Edwards would cite a Sirota endorsement even without his caveats, that does not make this any less of an endorsement.

[mnhtnbb]

50. I read it as a recommendation, not an endorsement.

From his conclusion:

If you are a voter looking for a candidate who is willing to confront the biggest issues facing America right now - Iraq, economic class, the middle class squeeze and skyrocketing inequality - then there really is no contest in the Democratic presidential primary right now: John Edwards is your candidate.

Text in bold from me to highlight the recommendation, not endorsement.

[rinsd]

62. I see little difference between an endorsement and recommendation

But to each his own I guess.

[ieoeja]

44. David Sirota has endorsed Edwards ... But has Edwards endorsed David Sirota?

Is David Sirota on his staff? Is there ANYTHING tying Sirota and Edwards together? If not, then it was not, "worth remarking" and does not speak well of YOUR character.

[Adelante]

53. Huh?

What doesn't speak well of my character?

[AtomicKitten]

55. you pose an interesting question, grasshopper

But for the purposes of this conversation, the point is really that Sirota and others aren't exactly putting forth unbiased journalism. In fact, now that he has shone some sunlight on his personal politics, we can accurately label some of his work hit pieces.

[madfloridian]

5. More to the story than that.

Lamont campaign had been told he would campaign for him, but eventually they had to beg for an email to be sent. Then....the campaign was ridiculed about the number.

Let's not forget...Lamont WAS INDEED the Democratic candidate. This fact was ignored by too many Democrats.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/14/122820/27

"He declined.

Eventually, we asked Senator Obama to send out an email for the campaign to his Connecticut list. We created a culture in which emails became news (much like we did with the blogs in the primary). They made it entirely clear that he would basically not even mention Joe Lieberman's name in the email, let alone take him to task for his unfortunate position on the war in Iraq. This was disappointing, but I wasn't going to be spiteful. They sent the email, and as I hoped, the press came calling. Our Press Secretary, Eddie Vale, was asked how many people the email went to. He looked on the back-end of the website and saw the number of click-throughs to the landing page I created. He answered "about 5,000." Within minutes of the Associated Press piece going on the wire, I received several phone calls from Obama staff. They were none to pleased about the 5,000 number. Essentially, Obama could be seen as helping, but not helping THAT much. His staff apparently made it clear that the email only went out to 225 people in Connecticut. That's it. The next day we were subject to a correction in the papers and ridicule from Lieberman's campaign and corners of the right-wing blogosphere.

It's also important to note that Obama's email came only after a tremendous amount of pressure built up from portions of various online communities who "threatened" in behind-the-scenes conversations and open discussions online that support for Lamont would be viewed as a part of a "presidential checklist."

There's always more to a story. They refused to really stand with the Democratic candidate.

[Adelante]

6. Nice Notices

Thanks for posting

John Kerry
One of two rock stars for the campaign. He refused to endorse Joe Lieberman in the primary. He basically made a mockery of Joe by saying he doesn't get involved in contested primaries despite campaigning for Jim Webb against Harris Miller a few days earlier. After we won, he sent out a pair of mildly successful fundraising emails on our behalf. He appeared in the state.

Most importantly, John Kerry was the Senator who spoke most forcefully and publicly about Joe's support of "stay the course" and his Nixonian deception when Joe all of a sudden became a peace candidate in the closing weeks.
Senator Kerry was by far and away the most helpful senator to the campaign.

Wes Clark
Another rock-star. He appeared in a commercial for the campaign. General Clark sent out a fundraising email for the campaign. He came to Connecticut and spoke at a packed rally in Storrs (UCONN). He also spoke out against Joe Lieberman's desire to "stay the course in Iraq. He was the first to chastise Joe for running as an independent after Joe questioned the general's Democratic bona fides during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Again, the general was absolutely terrific.

[Cameron27]

8. Wes Clark

Rock-star! Now I like that.

[Adelante]

10. God, did you see those comments?

It's extremely long, so I didn't read them all, but it sounds just like DU.

The Kos site has small type and I have trouble enlarging it on my browser for some reason.

[Cameron27]

16. Oh yeah, very much like DU.

(it's hard on my eyes too...I don't like the format over there in general)

[madfloridian]

9. Kerry did support Lamont as all should have.

He did a good job. Obama sent out 225 emails after he had promised to campaign for his fellow Democrat...Lamont.

And then made sure his media folks embarrassed the Lamont campaign. He did not keep his promise.

[rinsd]

7. Thank you for even more evidence

"They sent the email, and as I hoped, the press came calling. Our Press Secretary, Eddie Vale, was asked how many people the email went to. He looked on the back-end of the website and saw the number of click-throughs to the landing page I created. He answered "about 5,000." Within minutes of the Associated Press piece going on the wire, I received several phone calls from Obama staff. They were none to pleased about the 5,000 number. Essentially, Obama could be seen as helping, but not helping THAT much. His staff apparently made it clear that the email only went out to 225 people in Connecticut. That's it. The next day we were subject to a correction in the papers and ridicule from Lieberman's campaign and corners of the right-wing blogosphere."

In other words, Lamont campaign went ahead and announced unverified numbers they calculated. And this is somehow Obama's fault?


"It's also important to note that Obama's email came only after a tremendous amount of pressure built up from portions of various online communities who "threatened" in behind-the-scenes conversations and open discussions online that support for Lamont would be viewed as a part of a "presidential checklist.""

In other words, some Lamont supporters issued threats towards Obama in addition to trashing him.

Gee I wonder why he wasn't hip to hip with Lamont on the campaign trail :eyes:

[bling bling]

11. Yeah, it's a shocker.

And it's only the beginning. The more the Edwards people keep trying to milk this dumb meme for all it's worth the more I want to point out that:

1) Edwards not only voted for, but he flipping co-sponsored the IWR. What's more important? 3,000 Americans dead and 100,000 iraqi lives or 250 e-mails vs. 50000 e-mails for Lamonts campaign.

2) This while Edwards was on the intelligent committee which was given special information about prewar intelligence. Durbin admitted
that it was this information that made him realize the prewar intelligence was wrong and he voted against the IWR. Good judgement vs. bad judgment.

3) Why did Edwards vote against adding the 2 amendments that would have delayed going to war? The mind reels.

4) Why did Edwards vote for the Bankruptcy Bill when he's self-proclaimed poverty candidate? This one really boggles the mind.

I have no intention of letting up on these points in response to the Edwards people who want to make Obama look bad when he did nothing wrong when it came to Lamont or any of the other ridiculous talking points. And those Edwards people know who they are.

[Colobo]

12. Great post!

[madfloridian]

14. "I have no intention of letting up on these points in response to the Edwards people"

I will be watching to see if you really mean that you are going to continue to attack Edwards because you support Obama.

That is some kind of party spirit.

You are actually threatening to continue these attacks. Amazing.

[mnhtnbb]

18. IMO, we ain't seen nothin' yet regarding attacks on Edwards.

I approached Obama with an open mind. I bought his book and read it.
I don't think he is the progressive that he pretends to be or that
many in the Dem party think he is. I believe everyone should have information
and make his/her own decision.

[ieoeja]

57. Obama pretends to be progressive?

The primary theme of his campaign is that he is a centrist who intends to reach out to both sides. Any pretense to being a progressive would seem to be in the eye of the beholder.

Many progressives like him for his stance on Iraq and/or because they'd like to see an African-American elected President who doesn't want to stay-the-course or take-a-hard-right-turn.

[AtomicKitten]

63. bipartisan does not mean centrist .... n/t

[bling bling]

20. "in response to the Edwards people who want to make Obama look bad"

Oops, looks like you left out some words. Was your intention to make ME look as bad as possible and Edwards people look like victims....again?

Hmmmm. Another shocker.

[mnhtnbb]

15. Obama chose Joe Lieberman as his mentor in the Senate

From:

"The Obama Illusion"

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

"Or that he chose the neoconservative Lieberman to be his “assigned” mentor in the U.S. Senate"

[Adelante]

23. That site always reminds me of this one

The Lies of John Edwards

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh12052005.html



I consider both sites unreliable.

[bling bling]

26. Nice.

Excellent response.

And bookmarked for reference for the next person who wants to whip out The Obama Illusion from zmag as a shot against Obama.

[madfloridian]

29. You are really going all out on this, aren't you? Bet Obama's proud of you.

.

[Colobo]

31. Are you proud of Edward's supporters citing "The Obama Illusion"?

[bling bling]

34. Pot meet kettle. And Edwards co-sponsored the IWR while on the intelligence committee.

Just sayin.

[AtomicKitten]

36. Obama should be proud.

He has inspired people to speak truth to power and to pay no attention to the ankle-biters.

[Jax]

41. You would know

all about finger wagging.

the right wing corporate screed never ends....

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

65. I'm sorry you find defense of Obama "RW corporate screed."

It's not enough for some to oppose candidates here at DU. For some reason they think piling on nasty scorched earth rhetoric somehow augments their case, against both the candidates and DU'ers alike.

You'll have to excuse people that disagree with that meme of politics of personal destruction.

[Jax]

68. "nasty scorched earth retoric"

What a laugh.

No it is the right wing corporatists who can't stand the truth about their sacred cows.

[The Magistrate]

75. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Ma'am

Are you claiming members of this forum who disagree with you at some length on some matters are "right wing corporatists who can't stand the truth about their sacred cows"?

[Jax]

79. Nope

just pointing out the hypocrisy. Or can only a handful of GDPolitics posters do that now?

I have never aspired to be a 'ma'am'. Ever.


Alyce

on edit: I have no idea how that simile got in there! Apologies!

[The Magistrate]

89. Unfortunately, Ms. Jax, That Does Not Really Clarify The Matter

People here support a variety of candidiates for the Democratic Party nomination, and many engage in some disparagement of other candidates, as well as, or in some instances, instead of, positive presentations of the candidate they support. Almost without exception, persons who support a candidate loudly decry all criticism of that candidate as "bashing" or worse. Within the rules requiring criticism of Democrats be constructive, and barring out-right smears, as well as personal attacks against other forum members, members are free to do all these things, and the conduct is so general that it is impossible to distiguish any group, or even many individuals, as being out of the general line in this.

What remains unclear to me is who your reference to 'right wing corporatists' and their 'sacred cows' is meant to indicate. There is, for example, nothing in your comments that indicates to me it is some pundit or political figure you are addressing with that.

[Jax]

92. Well Magistrate

I have been called an 'amatuer' on these forums.

Remember that? Was that name calling?

Just asking....

Alyce

[madfloridian]

94. Magistrate, if you are saying Jax is in trouble, perhaps I am also?

I am going to post my threads clarifying other votes that Edwards is being blasted for. I am getting concerned about it if Jax is in trouble. I know other of my friends are this week also.

Here are my posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3253709

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3253782&mesg_id=3253782

I am getting an uncomfortable feeling about Jax being in trouble in a whole thread filled with vemon.

Let me know if I am in trouble as well. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

[mnhtnbb]

39. So John Walsh has an axe to grind

http://filibusterforpeace.org/_wsn/page5.html

[bling bling]

24. Edwards co-sponsored the IWR that actually sent us to war.

It would really behoove you to sit back for 5 minutes and seriously think about the ultimate consequences of Lieberman being Obama's mentor vs. Edwards *co-sponsoring* the IWR.

The Edwards Illusion...by bling bling

1. Co-sponsored the IWR.
2. Voted for the IWR.
3. Continued to support his vote up until the war became unpopular.
4. Suddenly makes himself out to be champion of ending the war. Goes off on other Senators for not ending it fast enough. WTF???
4. Voted FOR the bankruptcy bill. Yet, now claims to be the populist, 2-Americas poverty candidate. All while living in a 30,000 square foot house.

The Edwards Illusion. Indeed.

[madfloridian]

27. Yes, I see you mean to continue. Kind of sad.

I guess we have a lot to look forward to, don't we.

Kind of sad to see Obama people doing this.

[Colobo]

28. They are counterattacking...

[bling bling]

37. Not nearly as sad as Edwards voting FOR THE BANKRUPTCY BILL.

Talk about sad. I'm defending Obama here with counterattacks. The guy you defend voted FOR a bill that would have hurt people who needed to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills.

Really, can we stay in reality when talking about "sad."

[madfloridian]

61. You are mixed up on your bankruptcy bills.

I have a whole post going about it. You need to read it. You are spreading stuff that is not true.

[bling bling]

70. Bill Clinton vetoed a similar bill because "IT HURT NEEDY FAMILIES."

The poverty candidate, eh?

John Edwards. The Illusion.
by bling bling

[madfloridian]

96. And Hillary also voted for the same bill under Bush.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3253782&mesg_id=3253782

I was pointing out that we are all terribly judgmental when most Democrats voted the very same way.

I have liked Obama. But things are getting so ugly here now that it worries me.

[bling bling]

97. Yes. Edwards voted for the same bankruptcy bill as Hillary.

Yet he's running on the poverty platform.

Seems like a more relevant point to bring up around here than the how hard Obama campaigned for Lamont and whether his efforts met the approval of some bitter Lamont supporter's diary on KOS.

One discussion is about policy and legislation and how it impacts the lives of people who have fallen on hard times. One is essentially a tired old attempt at pointing the finger at Obama for Lamont's loss in CT. The Obama/Lamont campaign is ridiculous to recycle over and over in light of the data that's been presented about it. How often do you think the GOP is going to hurl that dumb pile of drama out as an argument to not vote for Obama? YET, on the other hand, do you the GOP might find Edwards prior voting record useful to paint him as disingenuous when it comes to his 2008 campaign platform? I do. I think that makes the discussion about Edwards especially relevant.

[madfloridian]

101. I did not start the thread.

I think you are going off in all directions at once, and I don't know how to answer you.

I posted that criticizing just one Democrat for what most others did is not fair.

I don't know how to answer the rest.

[bling bling]

108. No but you fan the flames.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3254339&mesg_id=3254384

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3252963&mesg_id=3253308

"Nominal support just to shut up the other democrats...." Dramatic gossip that can't be backed up with evidence isn't exactly fair-play.

[madfloridian]

109. Well, you do what you have to do, bling bling.

If you need to go ahead with this, it is your right. After all, this forum says it is ok and for us not to worry.

So I won't. Life is too short anyway.

[AtomicKitten]

32. the irony of this

.... is that it will be construed as 'victimizing' Edwards by his devotees when they have posted or applauded some really insidiously nasty shit about Obama and other candidates.

We could use some insight here at DU.

[rinsd]

35. And its only a few Edwards "supporters"

John Locke has been doing a great job of posting pro-Edwards news that doesn;t need to take down other candidates to make his shine.

[AtomicKitten]

38. I was just thinking that last night.

He is a good example of a citizen supporting a candidate in an honorable way. I told an Edwards supporter yesterday he is doing his candidate a disservice with his nastiness here at DU. Me thinks Mr. Locke should have a sit-down with some people and instruct them on how to support a candidate in a constructive, positive way.

[bling bling]

40. So was I! Seriously!

I even felt bad that I went on a back and forth rant with someone else on one of John Locke's threads. I made a mental note to try not to do that again because I do respect his posts.

[AtomicKitten]

43. it served a purpose in illustrating the dichotomy of behavior

Just shows to go ya that we really can have civilized, respectful conversation here at DU about candidates without being dragged into the mud of cult of personality.

Here's to you, Mr. Locke.

:thumbsup:

[bling bling]

47. .

:toast:

[bling bling]

46. Exactly. And the irony seems to be lost

on those who I've been referring too. It's almost so ironic that it's amusing.

[AtomicKitten]

48. it's so ironic it gives me a headache

My kingdom for some insight!

[bling bling]

51. LOL.

You always do keep it real.

:yourock:

[mnhtnbb]

54. Ooh, tell, tell. Really insidiously nasty shit about Obama?

Links, please?

[AtomicKitten]

58. fresh

Just last night a DU'er went off on a bent, some of it was dealt with by the mods, but I think you can get the gist of what I'm talking about here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3253605

[Adelante]

64. Oh, my, you got the ultimate insult: "you Clarkies"

Thanks for not kicking us to the curb :pals: even though you're for Al and Obama.

[AtomicKitten]

66. hey

I'm in good company. :toast:

[Adelante]

69. You're a classy wench

Margheritas :toast:

[Cameron27]

81. Dammit AK,

you never gave me the password to the secret website. :smoke:

[AtomicKitten]

82. You must master the secret high-sign first, grasshopper.

[Cameron27]

91. ~

I'm sorry, I had to edit...

:rofl:

[mnhtnbb]

72. Yeah, that got a little out of hand, but it didn't have anywhere near the record

for deleted posts as some threads I've seen.

I would not agree that Obama is a con man. I know some folks would
probably think Edwards more easily fits that description. I do think
Edwards has evolved. Seems to me he's running more from his heart
this time around than from political calculation. I was not an Edwards
supporter last time around; I was a confirmed Deaniac.

[AtomicKitten]

77. we have an excellent line-up

Seriously. I have this "thing" about the IWR that influences my primary vote, but once the nominee is chosen, it's balls-out campaigning to put a Democrat in the White House.

:toast:

[mnhtnbb]

86. I'd really like to see Gore get in it. But I think he's past wanting it.

[AtomicKitten]

87. but you see I really want it - so it must be so

IMO these fellas would kick the ever lovin' crap out of the GOP.

Orgasmic.

[mnhtnbb]

90. That's a ticket I could endorse, wholeheartedly. Personally

I think Obama is where Edwards was last time around; I'd like to see him in #2 spot.

[AtomicKitten]

93. Ya know, I think if he doesn't get the nod as the nominee

... there is an excellent chance he will be the VP candidate. He's got the mo, the new candidate smell everybody digs.

Makes me all tingly thinking about taking the White House back.

:kick:

[madfloridian]

42. Lamont WAS the Democrat in the race. There should be no question

about it at all. All Democrats should have at once removed their support from Lieberman. They did not.

[AtomicKitten]

45. stick a fork in it, mf

You are hammering a red herring based on your view of what "should" have happened.

If that is your reason for opposing Obama, have at. But it's anorexic, at best. It has many mitigating factors that "should" be taken into consideration, but if you choose not to, fine. Don't vote for Obama.

Next.

[madfloridian]

59. "stick a fork in it" Wow.

Funny thing is, I like him just fine. Obama, that is.

But then silly stuff like that doesn't matter here.

[wyldwolf]

67. I personally think Obama was smart about this

It has already been shown he has centrist tendencies. Why would he cast his lot with online groups like MoveOn and the like that could just as easily target him next if he "gets out of line."

[Colobo]

71. He is appealing to all kinds of people

Republicans, Independents, Democrats, you name it.

If the man doesn't win the nomination he should be considered the VP candidate; he's got serious support across the aisle.

[wyldwolf]

73. Obama is too big of a talent not to be on the frontburner

My only reservation about him has always been his inexperience in running a national partisan campaign. I would rather see someone like Clinton or Richardson or Biden win and then hand the reigns over to Obama in eight years.

[Colobo]

74. Let's give him the VP then

He'll get the experience there.

[wyldwolf]

76. I have no problem with that

[AtomicKitten]

78. I see in Obama the untapped promise of JFK, Jr.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Colobo]

80. I see in Obama a great president

and we need him in the WH ASAP, not in 2016.

[Adelante]

83. I see the handsomest man who ever lived

and died :cry:

[AtomicKitten]

84. gawd - don't get me started

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[mnhtnbb]

88. Wasn't that a tragedy. I see in Edwards reminders of Bobby.

[illinoisprogressive]

103. You are joking, right???

[mnhtnbb]

120. No. And I'm not alone. Do you remember Bobby's interest in poverty?

from his appearance at Berkeley

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/03/john_edwards_pe.html

This is freaky. I looked at the author of the above article and have just confirmed through my alumni association directory that it was written by a high school classmate whom I haven't seen since our 20th reunion (at least) in
1989!

OMFG!

[elizm]

85. Barack Obama DID endorse Lamont in the general...

http://nedlamont.com/blog/1976/barack-obama-writes-emails

[Adelante]

95. Apparently it wasn't good enough

For some :shrug:

[w4rma]

98. I hate to tell you, Obama doesn't bring anything to a ticket. He won't be the VP nominee

or the presidential nominee.

2) When I see Obama groupies attacking a good grassroots Democrat like Sirota, I tend to think that his campaign is a big con. The corporatists don't like Sirota much because he exposes things they don't want people to know. These smears on a good man, simply because he doesn't support Obama, reflect very poorly on the lack of ethics in the Obama campaign.

3) How can anyone who obfuscates his positions be anything except a con-artist? Where does Obama stand on *anything*? What does he bring to the table?

4) Hillary just sucked off a whole wad of Obama supporters since the debate. Obama is dropping in the polls. I'm sure some mean-spirited Obama supporters can pat themselves on the back for some of that loss of support.

5) Of course Obama is going to only give tepid support to the man who wanted to beat his mentor in the Senate, Lieberman. Even Hillary gave Lieberman similar support to Lamont that Obama did. Edwards, however was out there campaigning for Lamont.

[rinsd]

99. Sirota is a bitter douchebag.

The Edwards campaign would be wise to steer clear of him.

[w4rma]

100. The Edwards campaign has nothing to do with David Sirota.

I, however, like Sirota's hard work and don't trust anyone who calls him a "douchebag".

Why do you call him a "douchebag" anyway? His primary issue is economic fairness. Do you dislike people who fight for America's middle class? Are people like that "douchebags" to you?

[rinsd]

106. His primary issue is getting his next job.

He has set himself up as a conduit to the netroots and seels it to you just as he sells it to potential employers.

[w4rma]

107. Wonderful! More anti-progressive rhetoric from Obama groupies!

Please, show conned progressives more about what the Obama campaign is all about! Thank you very much, rinsd! Keep up the extremely good work.

[rinsd]

111. Anti progressive? No. Anti-Sirota? You bet your ass.

"Please, show conned progressives more about what the Obama campaign is all about!"

I will leave that to more devoted Obama supporters. My beef was this BS Obama/Lieberman meme with Sirota's fingerprints all over it.

"Thank you very much, rinsd! Keep up the extremely good work."

Thanks. I hope you continue to lend your positive influence to the Edwards campaign!

[w4rma]

112. Thanks again! Im very happy with your responses so far. They show how Obama would treat progressives

if (and he won't) he wins the nomination or the presidency (which he definitely won't). You guys are really showing that your campaign is not interested, one bit, in helping the progressive movement. That's what happens when your campaign is shallow with no progressive substance.

And it sure shines a light on what Obama really means when he talks about working across the isle and when he says “If the Democrats don’t show a willingness to work with the president, I think they could be punished in ‘08”.

[rinsd]

117. I won't be baited into attacking Edwards with your BS attacks on Obama.

Though I find it hilarious that you think of me as either

a) Part of the Obama campaign

Or

b) Part of the group of Oabma supporters here.

So let me do you a favor. I am commonly associated with Hillary supporters as I should be. I tell you this because based on your postings here I figure you would gin yoruself up into a tizzy to attack Obama because well I smacked you around this thread.

So by all means take your petty anger out on Hillary.

I will be there to refute that BS too.

[madfloridian]

104. Sirota is a passionate fighter against the corporate influence in our party.

I get all his emails, and I admire him very much. I notice he was supposed to be on Countdown one night, got cancelled. I heard it might be corporate influence.

[AtomicKitten]

110. *

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3254339&mesg_id=3254476

Unfortunately it's the descent into partisan candidate politics that muddies credibility vis a vis objectivity.

[w4rma]

113. That's funny and very ironic. *You* accusing someone else of candidate bias?

Just keep repeating to yourself, as you already do I'm sure, "Obama is perfect." "Obama is perfect." "Obama is perfect."

You know. Like one of those cults do.

[AtomicKitten]

114. of course he's not -- we are all imperfect beings

Just don't try to peddle clearly biased pieces that constitute opinion based on an extrapolation of unrelated facts as gospel truth, that's all. Just agreeing with an author does not magically render it fact.

I would hope you would agree with that. Maybe not. Whatever.

[w4rma]

115. Everyone is biased for something. Sirota is biased for economic fairness. Obama and Hillary aren't.

I'm extremely happy that Sirota is biased for and working for economic fairness. I think you should pressure your candidate to be biased towards it and work for it, also.

Don't hold your breath though. Obama wants to reach out to the Republicans and sing cumbaya with them. But, economic fairness just isn't something that Republicans like much. In fact, the entire Republican Party is based on the issue of how to make America more economically unfair. Other issues are just wedge issues for their leadership to use against regular Americans.

[AtomicKitten]

116. you are mixing apples and oranges

That is not to say all of Sirota's work is biased. His work on issues such as economic equity is excellent and, of course, his Iran/Contra investigative pieces really terrific several years ago.

I'm talking about descent into partisan politics - in which he has endorsed Edwards - and then turns around and gins up hit pieces on Hillary and Obama. That is where Mr. Sirota ceases to be an investigative journalist and becomes an opinion journalist, and that's okay, but for our purposes in comparing notes at DU it's an important distinction to be made.

[w4rma]

118. Think about it. Sirota is a strong supporter of economic fairness. Obama and Hillary haven't spoken

Obama and Hillary haven't spoken one word about this issue, nor do they support the types of measures that need to be taken to fix the problem.

Do you really think that Sirota wouldn't notice that and pressure them to change their ways? This is *exactly* the type of topic that Sirota excels in researching and writing about. Sirota needs to write more about those two and dig deeper.

Obama is a fraud and a con-artist. Obama is no progressive.

[AtomicKitten]

119. economic equality is the cornerstone of Edwards' "Two Americas"

However, there are a plethora of other issues of screaming importance and relevance in this election. Just because Edwards and Sirota intersect blissfully on this one topic does not mean he owns it and that Obama and Hillary are bereft of presence on the topic, which I think is what you are trying to say.

All I'm saying is that Sirota is in Edwards' camp and his pretty nasty pieces on Hillary and Obama should be taken with a grain of salt. You are perfectly welcome to be his devotee on this issue, but it would be helpful if you would try to understand that others are not swayed and some are put off by Sirota's clearly partisan argument.

Please stop calling the other candidates names; that really is uncalled for and is over-the-top rhetoric that incites discord here at DU.

Peace.

[w4rma]

121. DLC Chairman Al From weighed in on Obama's issueless campaign, today.

It pretty much sums up what I have been thinking about it. Obama and Hillary are the DLC economic unfairness candidates is what I'm trying to say. They are not progressive. They are frauds. If Sirota found enough problems with them that he felt the need to write about them, then they most likely have serious problems on the issue of economic fairness.

Anyway: Here's what Al From has to say about Obama's issueless campaign:
…
In fact, DLC Chairman Al From argues that the leading Democratic candidates are centrist in their domestic policies.

"As the candidates start laying out their agendas, you'll see enormous influence from the DLC," he said.

"The overall message of the Obama campaign has been the kind of message that we've tried to bring to this party for a decade and a half -- of hope and responsibility and opportunity," he said.
…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3867.html

[AtomicKitten]

122. this

"The overall message of the Obama campaign has been the kind of message that we've tried to bring to this party for a decade and a half -- of hope and responsibility and opportunity," he said.

I have no problem with whatsoever no matter who issued that statement.

On Obama and the DLC:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

On edit: Gotta run. Have a great day. :hi:

[rinsd]

124. Yes, Sirota's writing about Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with Lamont

He just happens to put include his fairy tale version of events for shits and giggles.

[illinoisprogressive]

102. Sirota is an arrogant ass and the lamont people need to get over it. it is May!

[w4rma]

105. Thank you! Keep showing Obama's true self to people formerly conned into thinking he is progressive.

Thank you very very much for your hard work in helping to show the un-progressive, ugly inside of Obama's campaign, illinoisprogressive.