HuffPost: "Is Barack ready for a fistfight? Why I am voting for Hillary"

[bidenista]

Blake Fleetwood takes a closer look at Barack:

Blake Fleetwood
Is Barack Ready For a Fistfight? Why I am Voting For Hillary
Posted February 4, 2008 | 06:44 PM (EST)

...When did he fight against the corporations in the Senate? When did he take on the banking interests, as they made bankruptcy more difficult for the poor and middle class? When did he stand up and courageously vote for a woman's right to choose? When did he take on the Health Care Establishment? Why did he register a "present" vote in the Senate when the Republicans and conservatives voted to censure Moveon.org?

I want to see political courage. Maybe this ambiguity, this I-am-the-savior-and-above-ordinary politics is the best strategy... Be a nebulous, empty vessel with messianic, uplifting speeches. Never say anything risky. Never do anything risky.

Obama is a mirror, a chameleon; he can be whatever you want him to be, which explains his great crossover appeal.

Like a motivational speaker, he is craftily catering to a younger generation which is looking for a quick fix. A UNITER - His election at this point would be tantamount to anointing Time's 2006 "Person Of The Year" - YOU. I am troubled by Obama's lack of enemies. This tells me something. At Harvard, when he was elected head of the Law Review, he was the compromise candidate; some said the candidate of the status quo. He voted "present" too many times in the Illinois legislature to make me comfortable. Shelby Steele, also of mixed race, wrote in Time recently that Obama is, "a bargainer, not a challenger."...

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/is-barack-ready-for-a-fis_b_84947.html

[Cant trust em]

1. When did Hillary fight against the neocons?

Oh wait, she didn't. She trusted George Bush to do whatever he wanted.

[BootinUp]

8. You call putting UN Inspectors in Iraq as

trusting anything Bush wanted to do. The fact is it was the best strategy for stopping a war that couldn't be stopped.

[Cant trust em]

21. Here is the key line

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

[BootinUp]

24. If you aren't interested in discussing the big picture thats fine. nt

[Nederland]

32. The Big Picture

The poster gave you a specific line in the IWR that Hillary voted for. It's a line that flat out refutes your previous post. No wonder you want to look at the big picture--once you dive into the details of your argument it falls apart.

[BootinUp]

42. Really- Want a shot at it?

Lets see if you can follow a little logic.

1. Bush and Cheney asserted their right to invade regardless of the IWR vote.

2. The country was scared out of its mind about WMD in Iraq and wanted the UN back in there and less that wanted a coalition to invade.

3. The Dems were going up before the voters in 3 weeks or less and would by most accounts have been slaughtered had they voted against the IWR.

4. A new Congress in January could have passed the IWR.

5. Bush could have invaded without it.

6. UN inspections could have lessened public and international (England) support for the war.

These are not made up things, they are real considerations that the Senators used to decide their vote.

[Nederland]

52. You merely prove my point with #3

Hillary was more interested in saving her own job than voting her conscience.

[Cant trust em]

55. Let's take this point by point

1. Bush and Cheney asserted their right to invade regardless of the IWR vote.
- If Bush wants to do it without congressional authorization I welcome him to do so. It gives Democrats more respectability and when we regain power we'll look even better.

2. The country was scared out of its mind about WMD in Iraq and wanted the UN back in there and less that wanted a coalition to invade.
- Despite the media's fear mongering, there was plenty of evidence that contradicted these claims.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1202533200&en=3ba6a348b7e142ba&ei=5070

3. The Dems were going up before the voters in 3 weeks or less and would by most accounts have been slaughtered had they voted against the IWR.
- I understand taking political cover, but to give away one of the central tenets of the Democratic Party to save your job is unconscionable. We are the anti-war party. That is something we need to stand up for. It should also be noted that of the 23 who voted against the IWR 16 are still in office. 3 have since retired (Graham, Jeffords, Sarbanes), 1 is now a Governor, 2 lost only to be replaced by anti-war democrats, and Paul Wellstone is deceased.

4. A new Congress in January could have passed the IWR.
- Then let them do it. The blood won't be on our hands.

5. Bush could have invaded without it.
- See previous answer.

6. UN inspections could have lessened public and international (England) support for the war.
- I don't fully understand this point, so maybe I've misread it. But it seems like that would be great. Lessening public opinion for a false war is what I want.

I look forward to hearing your responses.

[Cant trust em]

45. Show me what you've got

after reading the text of the resolution and Clinton's response to it I can't help but come to the conclusion that an inordinate amount of trust was put into the hands of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to make the case that diplomatic efforts had come to an end. These are men who philosophically stand against multinational orgnizations like the U.N. In their mind the case was always made. War was the obvious solution.

[BootinUp]

46. look up #42

[blm]

2. Yeah - we saw all the practice she's been getting in the last 7years against BushRove Rove. HAHAHAHA

Uh.....hmmmm....that's a LOT of RUST the machine has built up over the last 7 years, isn't it?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. He lost me at "voted present". More Clinton bullshit. No need to read further. nt

[depakid]

16. He makes a VERY valid point in context

He's asking when did Obama stand up and fight? Why did he vote "present" when the censure vote came up on moveon?

I would also ask where was he during the Alito confirmation? Out rallying the troops against an appalling nomineee? or criticizing the Dems who actually had the courage to try to stop him?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. When has Clinton stood up and fought the neo-con agenda in the past 8 years?

She surely had a lot more clout to do so than Obama, yet she didn't. Shit, she votes for their agenda!

When has she stuck her neck out against this administration?

She sure was out on the forefront of banning flag burning, though. :thumbsup:

[depakid]

25. Never said she did

That doesn't obviate the fact that Obama hasn't, either....

[AmBlue]

29. Exactly why we NEED John Edwards...

There's a fistfight coming folks and neither of these two are up for it.

Mark. My. Words.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

30. But she has more experience and ability to get things done and she's a fighter!

So why hasn't she been doing it? :shrug:

[depakid]

33. It's a rehash of triangulation

and I don't like it any more than any other progressive does. On the other hand, when it comes to fighting the far right's smear campaigns- I trust that she will do that. She'll do what it takes.

What I've observed mirrors what's in the OP. Obama prefers concilliatory talk- or avoidance, to confrontation. This seems all too similar to the "high road" approaches that have cost Dems elections repeatedly in the past. While all of us would prefer to see that- the FACT is, it's a losing "strategy."

[mrreowwr_kittty]

40. Most politicians are confrontation-adverse.

I don't care if they're on the local school board or in the US Senate, your typical politician tries to avoid conflict as much as possible.

That's one of the reasons they use surrogates to attack each other.

[depakid]

44. Republicans don't seem to be....

and I haven't seen any indication that Obama's Senate record or from the campaign that his team will stand up to them or do what it takes to beat them back.

The reality is that if they don't, we're headed for a repeat of 2000 and 2004.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. Haven't seen any indication from hers either.

And she had way more clout to go up against them than probably anyone in the Dems. Yet, she chose to go along.

That's worse, IMHO.

[Usrename]

39. That first one, that's the wrong question.

The right questions are: Why would any serious legislator stoop so low as to vote for or against such a piece of dung censure bill in the first place? It should have been ignored if the Republicans had brought it to the floor. But then wait, OUR Democratic leadership in the Senate brought it to the floor. Why is that?

As for the Alito filibuster, even though Obama voted the right way in both votes (against cloture and against Alito) he said something that was very troubling to me at the time. Some words to the effect that the Democrats shouldn't resort to these parlimentary tactics just in order to prevail. As if the filibuster is some kind of trick, instead of it being the only protection there is against a majority completely run amok.

I was concerned about his remarks, not his votes, on Alito; I've never quite shaken that feeling about him. He's too smart by a long shot not to understand what it meant to the country, in fact the world, when Alito was seated on that bench. And somehow, with his remarks seeming to inhibit any real clarity on the issue, there Alito sits when 42 Senators voted that he was unfit for the job, and only 41 votes were necessary to stop him.

No one can give a satisfactory answer to how that happened. And Obama's contemporaneous remarks still trouble me. A lot. But I am willing to accept that he could easily know a lot more about this stuff than me. I just don't get it is all. Not even a little bit.

[AX10]

4. 1. I am suprised that Huffington allowed this on her site.

2. I agree with this article.

[BootinUp]

9. lol, yep.

[tabatha]

5. The comments on the article speak volumes.

[ursi]

6. I heard Hillary sling bullshit while she was in Nevada about reaching across the aisle

to welcome working with the other side. She doesn't know a fist fight except with Bill and her employees.

[Thrill]

7. Hillary fights? PLEASE. This is why I don't get her supporters

They whine about MSM not giving her a fair shake. But think that she can somehow get over the media and the Republican attack machine in the GE? Makes no sense to me. If you think the media treats her so unfairly, why the hell do you want her going up against McCain in the GE? A guy who the media absolutely loves.

[BootinUp]

11. Do you think she fought in 1993 for Universal Healthcare? nt

[speedoo]

10. The author of that stupid piece insults my intelligence.

Just like Hillary does.

[depakid]

17. Apparently there must not be much to insult

as what he seems to be asking for is critical thinking about Obama's actions....

[speedoo]

41. Apparently you are just another Hillbot.

I read the article, noted his questions, then saw an unnecessary attack on Obama ("mirror" "chameleon") and concluded anything the author had to say was not worth my time. And neither are you.

[C_U_L8R]

12. ummm. excuse me but

[SoxFan]

13. "Blake Fleetwood"?

I'm sorry, I can't get past the soap opera name.

What about his cousin, Dirk Squarejaw? Is he with Hillary, too?

[bidenista]

14. hah

A campaign which is being driven by its Oprah endorsement is hardly in a position to throw stones.

[BlackVelvet04]

20. LOL Now isn't that the truth........ n/t

[judaspriestess]

26. oh snap bidenista

:thumbsup:

[AX10]

51. The best comeback of this political season!

:thumbsup:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

22. LOL

:rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. GOMAMA!!!!

[cottonseed]

18. Boy. I can see steam rising from this one.

nt

[Stand and Fight]

23. Excellent article...

Don't agree with all his points, but I definitely don't see Obama as a fighter and that is most troubling. I know and -- for the most part -- like what I get with Hillary.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

27. Okay, I went back and read it after viewing some of the comments

There's a curious sort of disconnect in Fleetwood's reasoning: On the one hand, Obama is too poetic and amorphous for him, and hasn't done enough to fight entrenched interests. On the other, he offers no examples of anything Clinton has done to that end. The only time he cited anything she'd done in the Senate was her IWR vote, which he offered a totally lame justification for. His only specific example of a policy was to cite Paul Phony Liberal Clinton Crony Krugman's criticism of Obama's healthcare plan. Finally, his rational for supporting her is based on the feeling that he can "trust" her.

This is typical of many Clinton supporters I know who derisively dismiss Obama as having no substance. Yet very often they are unable to articulate anything specific that Clinton has done in the past that would merit the confidence they place in her ability to get things done and change a corrupt system. There's no there, there. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of things she's done but most of her supporters can't say what they are. Or they rattle off a list of Bill Clinton's accomplishments. Obama does have a substantial record of achievements, both in and out of elected office.


There was one comment by a Clinton supporter that kinda creeped me out, and typifies the attitude of entitled arrogance I often encounter:

...Hillary represents the wing of the Democratic party that is grounded in American Pragmatism. She is where voters always are in the general election. We ought to support her...

WTF? I thought primaries were where we got to decide whom we support.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Like Black people, young people and college educated people

are not part of the Democratic party? :wtf:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

31. Apparently not. nt

[LonelyLRLiberal]

34. I think Obama is naive.

The Pukes aren't going to be sweet-talked into working cooperatively with any Dem president - they'll have to be forced to go along, or else they'll have to be outvoted by a strong Dem majority in the House and Senate.

I'll support Obama if he ends up being the nominee, but I prefer Hillary just because I think she understands the ball-busting needed to make things happen. I do have reservations about Hillary, though.

I hope we get them both on the ticket.

[jackson_dem]

35. No one can answer the main question raised by the article?

When did Barack fight in Washington? The corporations and msm love him. Why?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

36. the nub

[DrFunkenstein]

37. Apparently, The Most Liberal Voting Record in the Senate Doesn't Mean Much

But if you support Clinton because you believe in bankruptcy reform, maybe you should do some homework. And maybe Blake Fleetwood might want to check where all those health care lobbyist checks have been going for the last decade.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. he was in the senate 1 year...his 2nd year he has been absent on the campaign trial....

he was absent for 1/3 of the votes that they base their data on...your claim is hilarious

[jackson_dem]

49. How is his voting record more liberal than Hillary's?

And on what issues is it more liberal?

[sofeisty]

43. The nice guy who makes us feel good...

He's not ready for a fight. I've said numerous times, if he were running at the end of Clinton's terms and simply had to babysit the peace and prosperity we were experiencing during the 2000 election then he would have been the PERFECT candidate. Sorry, Al Gore. All he needed to do was help people to continue to feel good, hopeful, and united.

Unfortunately, we are at a crisis economically, geopolitically, and in our social issues such as education and health care. We need someone who will kick some ass and not worry about making friends, a legacy, or maintaining an image. We need someone who will push back the agenda that was forced on us with equal force in order to correct the many wrongs that agenda has created.

The sad part of this is that it truly seems to me the past few years we've been so conditioned to see what inspires us, amuses us, and what entertains us as of more value than something of substance. I call this the American Idol effect. Talented folks might get overlooked if they don't have the goods that the masses want to see be it something outrageous or something beautiful. It's all about what appeals to and what captures our attention NOW and not about what type of substance the folks on these shows have long term...

see the list of 'idols' that have obtained contracts after being on the show and end up dumped after the novelty of them wears off. Or when they are forced to produce something of deeper substance than what got them their fifteen minutes.

The folks who buy this as entertainment are not the deepest thinkers on the planet. I'm thinking of someone I know who is 40 and downloads ringtones of the most recent Idols on her cell phone. She is a conservative/independent who is very interested in Obama. When asked why she just says he inspires her and makes her feel 'good' and hopeful. (Imagine my eyes rolling right now) She can't name one of his policies or anything he's running on. She just has a good feeling about him.

This sentiment is what is going to enable Obama to be handed the keys to the WH. I find it scary beyond belief. And if you really want to get alarmed then Google George W. Bush quotes and see how much his campaign of 2000 sounds like Obama's.

[AX10]

50. The only difference is....

I wonder if Obama can win the GE using Bush's tired rhetoric.

[Evergreen Emerald]

48. I love this article. It is exaclty how I think about what is going on

[Iceburg]

53. Couldn't agree more. BO needs to quit riding around in the Liberal Limo and do some real work/nt

[BigDDem]

54. He's not ready for a pillow fight, much less a fistfight.

All fluff, no spine.