I recommend that every Dem read Obama's "The Audacity of Hope"

[mnhtnbb]

and read it with a critical eye.

I didn't know much about Obama so I bought the book. It was an eye-opener.


He is laudatory of Ronald Reagan for his involvement in ending the Cold War. He makes no mention of the bloated military budget taking down the Soviet Union.

He says "Bush won two elections". There is no mention of election fraud in either Florida or Ohio. He tells stories about first meeting Bush; he definitely was taken in by Bush's "folksy" charm.

He refers to the "bankruptcy of socialism".

He claims the press is only "distracted" not bought.

His discussion of 9/11 says nothing about questions disputing the "official"
story of how it happened.

I found enough in it to give me pause about Obama, especially since he's running a campaign on personality as opposed to policy.

[Colobo]

1. Do you think

that Hillary or even Edwards would say something different about those issues? Look, the Gravels and the Kuciniches of the world won't win an election in this country.

If a Dem candidate wants to lose, s/he just needs to criticize Reagan, buy into the "Bush stole the 04 elections" conspiracy theories, talk about the "wonders of socialism" and talk about how 9/11 was an "inside job".

[mnhtnbb]

5. See my post #4

[wyldwolf]

2. I probably will... usually read all the candidate's books... but... based on your take...

He is laudatory of Ronald Reagan for his involvement in ending the Cold War.

Reagan played a role in it, along with every president from Truman to Carter.

He refers to the "bankruptcy of socialism".

I have no problem with that. In the US, socialism was killed off by FDR.

He claims the press is only "distracted" not bought.

Again, pretty much true. The press goes after what will bring them glory and ad sales.

His discussion of 9/11 says nothing about questions disputing the "official"
story of how it happened.

Why should it have? There is no real evidence to contradict the official story.

[loudsue]

32. Always disputing facts, aren't you wyldwolf.

"There's no real evidence to contradict the official story" ??? Who are you trying to kid? Or do you just fail to READ all the mountains of evidence, so you can keep saying things like this?


All of your "replies" have been completely debunked.

[wyldwolf]

39. No, I dispute inaccuracies. Shouldn't you be in the 9/11 Conspiracy forum?

All of your "replies" have been completely debunked.

Point me to where...?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

71. No, you're not new here.

See, people here don't like their own vision of history distored by actual facts.

Would you like to "debunk" anything I wrote?

[Morgana LaFey]

55. And that is the PERFECT, and I do mean perfect,

synopsis of all I find objectionable about your views. :evilgrinl:

Well, actually, there's nothing in there about being a DLC-lover, and there may be a few other things, but that's a pretty good list.

[wyldwolf]

64. soo...

... are facts just objectionable to you or can you "debunk" what I wrote?

[Morgana LaFey]

76. I'll debunk to a point

Basically, your "facts" -- if that's what you feel you presented -- aren't facts at all but analyses and conclusions. I'm not going to go to the trouble of trying to disprove your conclusions, esp. since they're on such huge topics, but I'll tell you what I see as the way things are:

He is laudatory of Ronald Reagan for his involvement in ending the Cold War.
Reagan played a role in it, along with every president from Truman to Carter.

I think the jury's probably still out on what combination of factors ended the Cold War, but not giving Gorbachev ANY credit seems a little myopic to me. I rather think one of the main things was that we cause them to overspend during the arms race, just as WE are doing now, in Iraq.


He refers to the "bankruptcy of socialism".
I have no problem with that. In the US, socialism was killed off by FDR.

I can understand why you're saying that and from a certain odd perspective could agree with it, but socialism isn't dead. Just like fascism isn't dead. They're both alive and kicking and fascism is resurgent, right before our very eyes. Socialism, not so much. :D


He claims the press is only "distracted" not bought.
Again, pretty much true. The press goes after what will bring them glory and ad sales.

Boy, that couldn't be more off-track. The mainstream media is a gatekeeper for the official stories, AND for this administration AND for their own corporate interests. They've made up for having real news by having entertainment instead, and it seems to be working. Here's an incredibly revealing article on the subject I strongly encourage you to read:

ROVE Met With NBC In 1999 And Promised Them The Moon
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x726781#726880
Link: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6820
and that links to this, which is THE most important: http://www.makethemaccountable.com/coverup/Part_04.htm


His discussion of 9/11 says nothing about questions disputing the "official" story of how it happened.
Why should it have? There is no real evidence to contradict the official story.

Well, depends on what you call "real evidence," I suppose -- I call the version you and others trot out and demand whenever the subject comes up merely a good, viable-sounding cover for your denial. There is a mountain of evidence of various kinds that point to something much, much more and more sinister than the official stories about 9-11 allow for. Contradictions to the official story galore. Had you ever reviewed some of
this with a truly open mind, you'd agree.

Should you ever get intellectually honest -- and curious -- enough to openmindedly research it, you can't go wrong starting right here, with fellow DUer Paul Thompson: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project


It's a pity Obama has become just another stooge -- another useful tool -- for the offical stories in Washington, and the Washingtonians (aka: Clintonistas and DLCers). I think he's probably quite brilliant, but also clearly tragically naive.

[ripple]

3. I agree, read the book

rather than forming a judgment based on a hit post on DU. Anyone who has read Obama's writing, or even heard him speak, has heard him play the devil's advocate with a number of issues. He looks at the nuance of a given issue and explains the differing perspectives, and then takes the reader (or listener) through how or why he's chosen to take a certain position.

Personally, I find it refreshing to hear a candidate speak with nuance, rather than sticking to red meat sound-bytes. I don't mean that as a slam against the other candidates, because they all have their individual strengths. I just think one of Obama's greatest strengths is the nuanced, thoughtful approach he brings to complex issues.

[mnhtnbb]

4. Rather than a nuanced, thoughtful approach, I saw glaring

omissions in Obama's book. I wondered whether it was calculated pandering
to the Republicans he wishes to engage, or simply indicative of the fact
that he is not quite as progressive as his supporters would wish you to believe.

I don't consider it a 'hit post' to suggest that people read his book!

He could have remained silent on Reagan; he could have not told his anecdotal stories about meeting Bush; he could have provided a thoughtful analysis of the weaknesses of capitalism instead of dismissing socialism out-of-hand(which, btw, under the Bushies we've used government to socialize the risks and privatize the profits for corporations); he could have called for accountability regarding
9/11 even though he didn't want to discuss the fact that yes, there is significant evidence to suggest that we've not been told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about 9/11 (I recommend David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor").

Either way, Obama is selling himself. He is deliberately running a campaign
that is light on policy. I want to know who this guy is if I'm expected
to buy the personality. I think reading his book is a good idea for every Dem,
who can then make his/her own judgment.

[ripple]

11. He wrote about a lot of issues

And the ones you've chosen to take issue with really aren't even on the radar as far as policy issues for this election.

Reagan was well-liked. Although I disliked him, I think that's pretty undisputed.

His story about meeting Bush also included a slam at Bush for being such a poser.

His perspective on economic socialism was a bit more complex than you have described. And he didn't flat-out dismiss socialism. He talked about how strict socialist economic policies have in the past, failed to provide the intended results.

I don't know that any candidates are talking about 9/11 being an inside job.

I agree that Obama's book is an important one to read and I apologize if I somehow mis-characterized your OP. I'm sure everyone will find things that they either agree or disagree with in the book- as has been the case with virtually every political book I've ever read. There is plenty of information available about Obama's policy positions (some in the book, some online) and from what I understand, he's expected to introduce some more detailed plans in the coming weeks. As a matter of fact, he's speaking in Michigan today about energy policy. I doubt he would be doing that if, as you claim, he is deliberately running a campaign that is light on policy.

[mnhtnbb]

28. Don't get me started about Reagan. I was a college student in CA

when Ronnie was Governor; his signature is on my diploma from UCLA.
The downward spiral of this country--the belief that somehow, government is inherently bad--was promoted by Reagan and began with his governorship.
He did in CA what he went on to do big time for the country. I think there is no
bigger issue facing this country than what the appropriate role is for government.

I found Obama's book rather cheery--I guess with that title that shouldn't have been a surprise. I'm not so confident that we can so easily fix the problems
that the Bushies have either created or ignored.

I don' know how you can fix something when one refuses to acknowledge there's a problem. We had two stolen elections. We have NOT heard the truth about 9/11
and NO ONE has been held accountable! I suspect that having been directly affected, that Edwards does indeed know that there were shenanigans
with the 2004 election.

Crony capitalism has become a cancer. It needs serious chemotherapy.
I think Edwards is inclined to understand that.

For me, there were red flags popping up as I read Obama's book. Not everyone
will react the same way. But I do think that it's important for people
to gather their own information and form their own opinions. I learned
things from reading his book that I have not encountered on DU
from his supporters.

[ripple]

61. Edwards and Obama have a lot in common

And I believe that Edwards has not publicly addressed at least two of the points you criticized Obama for giving a pass on. If Edwards had such a problem with the 2004 elections, he probably should have challenged them at the time, rather than trying to appease people later.

And just for the record, Edwards is my second choice.

Yep, Reagan sucked. I agree wholeheartedly. Obama didn't say that he was a great president, he said that he was well-loved and made people complacent. Big difference.

Obama also didn't say that it would be easy to fix all of the problems Bushco has created. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I agree that crony capitalism is a cancer, and I'm sure Obama does, too. I somehow doubt that either Edwards or Obama would attempt to eliminate capitalism altogether.

Frankly, your criticisms seem more personal than about policy. Edwards and Obama carry a similar message and worldview, both are running for the nomination, and one of them has to be shoved out. I vote Edwards goes and you want to see Obama go. Pretty basic, rally.

I can think of worse choices to have to make, as both are fine candidates. I'm not going to pile on Edwards, just because he isn't my top choice. He's a fine candidate and one I would support wholeheartedly, should he get the nod.

[loudsue]

34. He is NOT "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination. He is DLC all the way.

They groomed him, they financed him, they mentored him, and they support him. It's no big secret!!

:kick:

[ripple]

63. Obama is not DLC

A couple of other candidates are, but he isn't one of them- in fact, he refused to go that route a long time ago.

I don't think there's any doubt about who the DLC will be supporting in this election.

Nice try, though. :hi:

[jcrew2001]

78. I agree, policies can only hurt a candidate

for someone like Obama - his most sellable asset is his personality and he's going to drive that train home.

He'll let everyone else see what they want to see - republicans, independents, dems they see hope and he'll give them hope - he'll give the promise of hope - he'll give them the illusion of hope - he'll try to restore their faith in hope, hope for tomorrow, hope for something better - but that may never come.

I'm just worried that he'll come off as an empty suit.

[Tellurian]

6. The hallmark of Republicans are "nuanced" issues..

a drive thru at Mickey D's.. fast food/a full sit down diner= distraction from important issues.

[ripple]

7. Oh, bullshit

I suppose that's where we got "they hate us for our freedom", "we've got the terrorists on the run", "we're fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here", "the sanctity of marriage", "mission accomplished", etc. etc.

The rethugs are guilty of a lot of things, but nuance isn't one of them. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Colobo]

8. The "ignore" function works great, ripple!

[ripple]

13. Thanks, but if we all used *ignore*

when people post ridiculous slams and smears, they would go unchallenged.

I'll admit it's tempting, though. :hi:

[Colobo]

19. I have little patience for fanatical people

There are two Hillary supporters around here you can't simply talk with, because they have seemed to deify her. It's crazy and annoying.

SaveElmer, Wyldwolf and others are pretty cool...

[Tellurian]

27. Oh, boo- hoo.. pickup your toys and take them home..

or grow a thicker skin..

But if you're referring to me... I'm insulted.

"fanatical"..my aunt fanny's wooden spoon!

:crazy:

[mtnsnake]

80. You must fucking hate yourself then! nt

[mtnsnake]

81. You wanna use ignore, use it, but don't try & force others to chicken out like you do.

What a candy

[Tellurian]

14. Hold On!

I'm not saying Obama is a Republican.. but perhaps 'nuance' is not the proper word to be used with him.

But "Patriotism", "mission accomplished" etc.. are all nuances. And Republicans are notorious for using 'nuances' for public consumption. I didn't call Obama's book nuanced...you did. But that's a take away from how the Republicans operate. You should consider the commonality of what the word 'nuance' connotes. The Republican association was always there, long before Obama made his debut..

[ripple]

16. You're kidding, right?

Perhaps a definition would be instructive:

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: nu•ance
Pronunciation: 'nü-"än(t)s, 'nyü-, -"äns; nü-', nyü-'
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Middle French, shade of color, from nuer to make shades of color, from nue cloud, from Latin nubes; perhaps akin to Welsh nudd mist
1 : a subtle distinction or variation
2 : a subtle quality : NICETY
3 : sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)
- nu•anced /-"än(t)st, -'än(t)st/ adjective


Obama does take a nuanced perspective. Meaning that he looks not just at a single issue, but at the distinctions and subtleties surrounding an issue and how they might be impactful. In other words, he doesn't take a black or white approach to issues. That's certainly a far cry from the 'it's my way or the highway' approach the Decider-in-Chief has taken.

[Tellurian]

17. No, I'm not kidding..

It's common knowledge within Democratic spheres. Why do you think nothing got done in a Republican controlled Congress? They were so busy arguing about Religion, the Flag, Patriotism and Pro-Life plus working a three day work week is it any wonder why nothing got done.

"That's certainly a far cry from the 'it's my way or the highway' approach the Decider-in-Chief has taken."

agreed on that. Rather you find out now that later as you would be inadvertently sending the wrong message defining your candidate.

Katz-

"Ye of little Faith"- so quick to hit the ignore button- hee-

[ripple]

18. You're confusing nuance with diversionary tacts

They are two different things altogether and in fact, Obama has been very outspoken in criticizing the rethugs for using such tactics to divert attention from the issues that really matter.

For example, there was nothing nuanced whatsoever in the rethug attack on gays and lesbians in 2004. Saying that the institution of marriage will be destroyed if if gays are allowed to marry is about as far from nuance as one can get. Similarly, there is nothing at all nuanced in "abortion is murder", "flag burners are traitors", the "war on Christmas", and similar RW talking points.

I stand by my assessment of Obama. He's a nuanced, thoughtful, and insightful thinker.

[Tellurian]

21. Nah, I'm a stickler for words..

I can't sleep nights if the right word doesn't come to mind. I'm sure on this ripple. Look at the words 'diversionary tactics' and the word 'nuance' in the real world, those words are incongruous to each other not synonymous. They're expression is antonymous in meaning for the purposes of communicative value..

[ripple]

23. Well, you certainly chose the wrong word to describe GOP politics

I didn't say diversionary tactics and nuance are synonymous- quite the opposite, in fact.

I'm sure about this, too. Nuance is not something the rethugs have much interest in or patience for. Diversionary tactics are much more their cup of tea.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, has an obvious fondness for nuance, as evidenced in his writings, interviews, and oratorical presentations.

[Tellurian]

26. No, you're not understanding..

The Repugs use 'nuanced' issues as their priority issues, rather than Health Care, the Environment, Education etc.
Back to the original post. Labeling OBama's book 'nuanced; is not the most flattering descriptive because of the Republican agenda it connotates.

[ripple]

59. Look back at post #17

Are you seriously calling arguments like that nuanced?

You might be a stickler for words, but I suspect they are often the wrong ones. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that you had no idea what the word 'nuance' means when you replied to my post.

At this point, it's clear that you are either trying to somehow justify your error, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

:banghead:

In case you are truly clueless about this, a nuanced approach to politics speaks to the intelligence of the electorate, while a non-nuanced approach generally exploits the peoples' ignorance. Obama falls into the former category, rather than the latter.

[IA_Seth]

24. I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

The GOP's positions are far from 'nuanced'. They are as about as black and white as you can get.

[NYCGirl]

22. The GOP HATES nuance. Bush has said "I don't do nuance."

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/07/07_200.html

Administrations acquire collective personalities that flow out and down from the top: Kennedy's was cool, cerebral, and stylish; Nixon's was suspicious and vindictive; Carter's was homespun, earnest, and inept; Reagan's had the aura of glittering artifice. The Bush administration has from the start conveyed a single trait that, though it goes under different names, some flattering and some not, has the pervasive and unflagging quality of a monolith. Call it resolve, discipline, stubbornness, clarity, oversimplification, pigheadedness, will -- they all come down to the same frame of mind. You recognize it in the tough dismissiveness of the president's avowal that "I don't do nuance," or the claim of his national security adviser, shortly after being named to her post, that "I don't do life crises."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1295337,00.html


Dubya doesn't do nuance, Arnie does - but even he lets his slip show


Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday September 2, 2004
The Guardian

By breaking his own iron law - "I don't do nuance" - Bush had blurred himself into the negative image of John Kerry as a flip-flopper.

Nuance leads to ambivalence, which can lead to inaction; and who then can be an action hero?

Bush's mistaken nuance set the stage for the larger-than-life persona of Conan the Barbarian, Predator, The Terminator, Commando, and, not least, Kindergarten Cop. "This is like winning an Oscar, as if I would know," said Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California.

[bling bling]

10. Are you calling Obama a Rebublican?

Or are you just extending on your earlier insinuation that he's bought and paid for by the Republican party now?

Or are you just hopping on each and every angle that you can in a desperate attempt to make Obama look as shady as possible? Kind of like your post a month or so ago that insinuated, seriously, that he may be the anti-christ.

[Tellurian]

15. I'll be sure to let you know, bling bling..

you only surface when theres something you can add to a pile on...otherwise..nada!

[illinoisprogressive]

31. Hillary is not exactly the shining example of a true democrat....

[Tellurian]

72. What is your definition of a "true" democrat?

Her husband was democratic enough to be a two term president and hated enough by the Right Wing to be unmercifully persecuted for 8 long yrs.

So, please tell me what your definition is of a True Democrat with examples, if you please.

[ejbr]

9. Bush DID steal the 2000 and 2004 elections

I don't know what any of the "I don't think so" posters or Obama is thinking, but you people need to wake the fuck up!

If Obama doesn't want to ensure and protect my right to vote, then I will cast my vote for someone else. Although I hear Republicans are flocking to him, he must be trying to steal my damn vote too!

[Colobo]

12. He stole the 04 elections

but they didn't steal the 06 ones, right?

[endarkenment]

36. Much harder to steal individual congressional elections.

However we do have that stink in FLA 13 that remains a throbbing appendage yet to be dealt with.

[CTLawGuy]

69. uh how?

The presidential election is essentially 50 statewide elections. It shouldn't be any easier to steal than any other election...

[ejbr]

74. How do they steal elections? Let me count the ways..

Using Ohio as the example:

Republican Secretary of state -

places enough voting machines in repug leaning districts, but so few in dem districts that some wait for up to eleven hours to vote or leave in disgust.

purges legitimate democratic voters from voter rolls in democratic leaning counties

prevents democrats from having recounts in close races that could have given Kerry the win

Republican Voting Machines-

CEO of Diebold announces in February prior to election: "I will do my part in giving this election to George Bush". Seven months later, voters who use his machine claim that when they tried to push Kerry, Bush's name came up. So they tried again and again. Others voted for Kerry and saw that the machine read their vote as one for Bush

When doing critical recounts repugs claim there is a terror alert and disallow any democrats from joining them in the "recount" process.

Voters-

Don't know the exact or approximate number, but LOTS of Democratic voters testified under oath or provided affidavits stating that their vote was taken away by one of the above methods. It will remain unknown how many others knew their vote was stolen but chose not to pursue it.

Now, I'm just some dumb schmuck from upstate New York who believes in fair play. If Obama has no concern over the above-stated FACTS, then he is no better than the repugs who did take away our votes. In addition, those whose votes were "not" taken need to reevaluate how they are thinking. If, by some fluke, they decided to register and vote for Kerry in Ohio, their vote would likely have been lost. So, in disenfranchising ANY voters, the repugs have disenfranchised us all.

Gonzogate should also be a giveaway as to how these guys operate. They attempt to sway elections by having U.S. Attorneys prosecute Dems on trumped on charges and ignore actual Repug crimes. These "public" servants are also asked to purge Democrats from the voter roles in any way they can think of (with Rove's help of course).I know, it could very well be a coincidence that many of us have been SCREAMING that they steal elections, then Gonzogate happens. But I don't think so.

Lastly, some people will still argue against the elections being stolen. For them I say: your ignorance does not a fair election make.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/08/where-does-the-politicization-of-justice-end/">Olberman on election fraud

[endarkenment]

75. A congressional election is not a statewide election.

Consequently, instead of chiselling a bit here and there, you have to steal an entire CD. See for example FLA 13.

[loudsue]

38. They most certainly did steal the '06 elections...just not as bad as they wanted.

I heard a panel of scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, political scientists, etc., at the American Association for the Advancement of Science convention in February, and they showed that the republicans stole another +/- 20 seats from the Democrats.

Rove didn't steal ENOUGH seats, but YES, they certainly DID steal enough votes in 2006 that are responsible for our anemic non-veto-proof majority in the Senate.

Obama is not now, nor will he EVER, do anything about protecting the right to vote. He MIGHT say something about black voters not having enough machines, but that's all you're ever going to get out of him as far as getting your right to vote back.

He's every bit as "beltway" as anyone.

Great smile, outstanding speaking style, very charismatic. All the more dangerous if he doesn't "get it".

:kick::kick::kick:

[elizm]

20. What books from your candidate do you suggest we read? n/t

[mnhtnbb]

25. I have not read John Edwards' books. I have read Elizabeth's

book, "Saving Graces". It is an intimate look into her life, but you do get
a sense of the devoted relationship she and John have together.

The books that I have read which have influenced my feelings about
what's important in this country and the issues that need to be addressed
are about the integrity of the voting process:

Mark Crispin Miller's
"Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them"

and the documentary: "Commander 'N Thief"

about poverty and work:

Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed"

about manipulating 9/11 to drum up support for an illegal and unjust war:

David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor"

I was against the Iraq War from the beginning; I was so virulently
anti-Bush after the theft of the 2000 election that I would not have believed
a word out of his mouth. I read a lot of books about what happened in 2000--among them:

Grand Theft 2000; Supreme Injustice; The Betrayal of America; A Badly Flawed Election

I also read Justin Frank's "Bush on the Couch".

I also recommend the new documentary "Soldiers Speak Out"

I have seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth".

On the healthcare side, I am a retired hospital administrator. I've been in favor of universal health care coverage in the U.S. for a long, long time.
I was very upset that Hillary botched her shot at it; I was NOT in favor
of the plan she cobbled together which left too much power in the hands of HMO's.

In terms of the economy, I think this country is headed for significant
problems. We can't continue to borrow and spend to blow up other countries.
We can't continue to off-shore our best middle-class jobs. We can't
favor corporations (huge golden parachutes for already obscenely paid CEO's) and penalize workers (who lose their pensions).

And finally, I'd recommend Jimmy Carter's book: "Our Endangered Values"
as well as Bill Moyers' collection of essays: "Moyers on America".

[loudsue]

40. I read both of Obama's books, mnht, and I agree with everything you said.

He's NOT the "dream candidate" if we are to ever get things straightened out in this country. He makes a good movie star, and probably a great senator, but we're in too fucking much trouble to train in some greenhorn in the Oval Office.

And he is DLC born & bred. He's not as far to the right as some of them, but he's a globalist & corporate-friendly senator all the way.

:kick::kick::kick:

[jcrew2001]

79. Obama is Trial by Fire - don't get burned

but maybe he'll get it right, like carter did.

[Tejanocrat]

29. I was also underwhelmed with "The Audacity of Hope," but there are more important issues which set

the comments from his book in context:

(1) No candidate in either party is more willing to take on the NRA and fight for regulations to do something about gun violence than Obama, and

(2) No candidate in either party is more willing to fight against the unjustly applied death penalty than Obama.

Whether or not you agree with Obama on these issues (I agree with one and disagree with the other), you can't characterize his positions on those issues as middle-of-the-road wishy washy moderate positions. Those are two real lightening rod issues, and Obama is not politically afraid to grab bold positions on those issues.

I'll cut Obama some slack for some groan-making statements in his book because he's taken some hard positions on tough issues and voted consistently with those positions.

[loudsue]

41. Those issues aren't CRITICAL to getting this country back on track.

I'm more concerned with the BIG PICTURE, than with the smaller things. And if a LOT of Americans don't get concerned about the BIG picture pretty soon, it's going to be WAY too late.


:kick::kick::kick:

[Tejanocrat]

48. Many at Va Tech think gun control is critical. Many on death row think the death penalty is critical

but that's not the point.

What is critical is that Obama has taken bold stands on two politically charged issues. What I hated about "The Audacity of Hope" was how blatantly it attempted to mischaracterize Obama as more moderate than his voting record. It was a spin job executed without much subtlety (can you tell I didn't like it much?). Obama is better than the wishy washy centrist who's the "main character" of "The Audacity of Hope." Much better!

[loudsue]

53. Wha??? He is the AUTHOR of The Audacity of Hope! It didn't "mischaracterize" him.

It WAS him!

:wtf:

:kick:

[Tejanocrat]

54. I know he's the author. I think "The Audacity of Hope" is an attempt to paint Obama as more moderate

than his voting record.

When I referred to Obama as the "main character" of "The Audacity of Hope" I was being sarcastic because the "Obama" in the book is much more moderate than the Obama who was voting in the Illinois Legislature or the US Senate.

I like the real Obama 100 times better.

[illinoisprogressive]

30. so you want a responsible person to cite all the conspiracy theories as fact???

[endarkenment]

37. just two of them nt.

[mnhtnbb]

49. No. I would like to have a serious investigation--not a Bushwashed

coverup--of how 9/11 happened. Plus I would like to see some accountability
for allowing it to happen--if it was all just 'unpredictable lucky terrorists'.

One more book I recommend that I left off my post #25 is Kristen Breitweiser's
"Wake-Up Call: The Political Education of a 9/11 Widow".

[Mass]

33. Because of course the other candidates talk favorably about socialism.

do not talk positively about Reagan bringing down the Soviet Union and ask questions about the official story of 9/11.

:sarcasm:

I am not enthused by Obama, but the more I see threads like yours, the more I feel enclined to consider him. Somebody who understands that the world is not black and white and who is not going to change his stand in order to be elected. I take right now, even if I do not agree with everything he stands for.

[endarkenment]

35. I have yet to read one of these candidate books.

There are so many other good interesting things to read, somehow I just never get there. Obama and Clinton are the official front runners in our unofficial system of mullah-blessed candidates. Neither of them are going to do or say or write or ghost-write anything that is out of the accepted mainstream orthodoxy.

[BeyondGeography]

42. And when he winds up on the ticket in one form or another

which he will, the Republicans will scream about how liberal he is.

Also, the DNC should pass a rule barring any nominee, top or bottom, from ever having lent any credence to the 9/11 tinfoil hat brigade.

[mnhtnbb]

44. "The 9/11 tinfoil hat brigade" Upon what do you base that assessment?

[endarkenment]

77. another lead headed coincidence theorist

It is all just serendipity.

[Capn Sunshine]

43. well, by all means, continue your pause

I found the Audacity of Hope rather uplifting. I wasn't looking for positions or possible negatives to be used against him however. I read it because it expresses a sentiment that I like: we should exploit our HOPE and turn it to ACTION.

Or, we could type on a keyboard about how someone isn't severe enough with dead and buried ex-presidents.

[w4rma]

45. What "action"?

Promote the DLC agenda and we'll all be "hopeful"?

Push DLC policies, they'll make Americans "happy"?

Ignorance is bliss, be "happy"?

Don't think about the hard problems, be "happy" and "hopeful" consumers?

…
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

[elizm]

47. Perhaps you should look again at Edward's Senate voting record. n/t

[mnhtnbb]

51. By all means. Here's a great review of his record. Accessibility

for other candidates, too.


http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:nI_CiezSVTwJ:www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm+John+Edwards+Voting+Record&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

[mnhtnbb]

46. Ah, you're handle says it all, Capn Sunshine. Not that I don't appreciate

a beautiful sunrise over the ocean, which I may be enjoying from our house in Panama when Obama takes the oath of office in Jan. 09. Just saying...

[Capn Sunshine]

50. Panama?

There's like 150,000 Americans there now.
You mean you would leave if Obama is elected? Why?

btw the name is an old nickname from Nicaragua

[mnhtnbb]

52. No. We're probably leaving no matter who is elected.

Hubby and I started looking for a place abroad after election of 2004. We're building on Bastimentos in Bocas area. Definitely not thousands of Americans there, although there are a fair number of ex-pats in the area. I don't think
a Dem taking the WH is going to make a difference in our plans, although we'd sure feel a lot better about our sons staying here if Dems were in control of
WH and Congress.

[Morgana LaFey]

56. Thanks for saying so; you're not the first. I'll be saving my money,

but the analysis does track with my own observations on him: lightweight, severely lightweight and yes, far too DLC-ish.

[electron_blue]

57. I had the same reading as you. I think he's trying to win over as many republican

voters as possible, in addition to the Dems, figuring if he takes the high road, he may get more votes overall.

I had a very hard time pinning down his motivation. I didn't sense any driving force in his life.

[Laurab]

58. I just finished the book - your eye is far more critical than mine.

Did he try not to be too "liberal"? Probably. But what I got from the book was very reassuring to me, really. My fears about his lack of experience are gone. I didn't agree with everything Obama said, but I don't agree with anything ANY candidate says, and while I don't like taking part in the circular firing squad of our own candidates, I can't imagine either of the other "front runners" writing much differently about the things you posted to make your anti-Obama argument.

When I read the book, it made me like Obama more. He is a very intelligent, very educated, open-minded, and most important to me - thoughtful, man. He is willing to listen to other viewpoints and truly think about them. He accepts criticism, and admits when he's wrong. I think he would be smart enough to appoint the best people to the appropriate positions, and to actually listen to them, as Bill Clinton did. I don't think we'd have to worry about rash decisions or an imperial presidency, and he seemed very, very interested in what people had to say, whether or not they agreed with him.

I would encourage people to read the book, as well - it shows that there is far more to the man than "personality". Different people have different opinions, obviously, but I came away from reading it reassured.

He is no longer "charmed" by Bush - he talked about his early days as a Senator, and things changed as time went on, so I find that part of your OP rather misleading. I suppose I could go through the book and find a couple of things I disagreed with, but, again, there is NO one I'm going to agree with about everything.

There were a few things I felt he was somewhat naive about, but on the whole, and I think you should take the book as a whole, rather than cherry-picking the "intelligence", I believe most people would be surprised at the depth and intelligence of the man.

[calteacherguy]

60. I read the book as well and I agree.

The OP is cherry-picking a few issues out of context and not considering the whole.

[ripple]

62. Well said. n/t

[mmonk]

66. I've got it. I wanted to know more about him or how he would govern.

I still don't know anything. It's full of nice talk but with no defining substance. It's all political speak. I do not feel comfortable with our two front runners. I'm still waiting for them to convince me they are worth the job.

[CTLawGuy]

67. so to sum up

you are pissed Obama is not Kucinich?

[mmonk]

68. It might be better to fill in the gaps and address concerns

than to change the subject. I've gotten more out of his supporters than from him or any of his speeches or writings.

[mnhtnbb]

73. LOL. I wish Obama were a little less DLC and a little more leftish.

There is no doubt that he's an intelligent, thoughtful, extremely talented
man and would make a far better president than what we've put up with for the last 6 years.

That said, I am more drawn to both Al Gore and John Edwards, this time out.
(I was not an Edwards fan in 03--I was a confirmed Deaniac). One of the reasons
I like them both is that I think they've both become less politically calculating
and more likely to speak out and let the chips fall where they may.

In my ideal world, Gore would be at the top of the ticket with either
Edwards or Obama at #2.

On edit: BTW, Gore passed up Edwards for # 2 spot in favor of Lieberman,
according to Elizabeth's book. He also bypassed Kerry, who was in the running for #2. If only, huh?

[ShortnFiery]

70. Sure.

:eyes: Oh, HRC's people are in a full court press. HRC may very well win the Democratic Nomination but she will NOT win the Presidency. After all the "bad blood" and back-stabbing going on, I'll write in Kucinich if I must in the General Election. Bank on it ... no political elitism for HRC. :thumbsdown: