Hillary isn't evil and Obama is no saint

[jackson_dem]

The Obamite wailing and gnashing of teeth is ridiculous today. It is as if Edwards is considering endorsing Ted Bundy. :eyes: Hillary is damn good and not the evil caricature the rethugs have made her out to be since 1992. There are also some on the left who view her that way. Again, what are you smoking? Look at their fucking policies. THEY ARE THE SAME. Go to the DLC website. Yes! The D-L-C! The heart of the evil empire that Hillary and the Clenis embody. Look at the DLC's platform, look at their position papers. Then compare it to St. Obama's positions. You won't find any difference. If you are not already dead on the floor in shock, you can go to Hillary's website and compare her positions to St. Obama's. They are the same too! If Hillary and the DLC are corporate puppets then that means St. Obama must be too.

Getting past policy there is the mythology of Hillary being a corporate candidate and St. Obama being, well a saint. :wtf: Where do you think he got $162 million from?

Here are the numbers BEFORE St. Obama became the front runner and began raising $1 million a day and $62 million in two months. He must be ahead of Hillary in many, if not most of these categories. I'll include Edwards as a yardstick. These numbers include candidates from both parties.

Banks: 1) Clinton 2) Obama 8) Edwards
Health: 1) Clinton 2) Obama 6) Edwards
Hedge funds: 2) Clinton 3) Obama 7) Edwards
Insurance: 4) Clinton 5) Obama 8) Edwards
Lawyers: 1) Clinton 2) Edwards 3) Obama
Lobbyists: 1) Clinton 9) Obama 11) Edwards
Drug companies: 1) Clinton 2) Obama 10) Edwards (Obama is now #1 as Edwards revealed during the Nevada debate)
Securities/Investment: 1) Clinton 3) Obama 7) Edwards



Obama vs. Hillary is no epic struggle between good and evil, progressives versus conservatives. It is a battle over the fine print. Even where they differ om means they share the same goal (health care). Look past the obsession with the few mistakes of Clenis' term (I know, I know. NAFTA is the biggest one. Guess what! You're going to get more NAFTAs with EITHER Clinton or Obama. Deal with it. We had 8 candidates and they are the ones we chose) and look at what they actually do and propose doing.

Here is a flavor of what happens when you compare Obama, Hillary on the issues and then look at where the DLC stands.

Jackson_dem (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Feb-11-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Peru trade as a case study

DLC statement: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=900010&co...
Clinton statement: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=411...

I couldn't find an Obama statement but he, despite voting present like Hillary, also expressed his support for it and when asked about it during the South Carolina debate echoed the DLC/Clinton view. Contrast that to Edwards and Brown.

Edwards' statement opposing Peru trade: http://www.art-us.org/node/282
Sherrod Brown: "Congress (has) passed another job-killing trade agreement that will shut down our factories, hurt our communities, and send more unsafe food into our kitchens and consumer products into our children's bedrooms."

Brown, like the other freshmen Democrats elected to the Senate in 2006, understands something that Clinton and Obama are still missing. "Our current trade model chases short-term profits for the few, at the expense of long-term prosperity, health and safety for the many. It's a model that doesn't work. Look at our trade deficit, look at manufacturing job losses, look at wage stagnation, look at imported product recalls, look at forced labor, child labor, slave labor. Look what it does to communities," says the senator, who made changing trade policy a central issue in his successful challenge to Republican Senator Mike DeWine, as did other Democratic winners such as Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Claire McMaskill of Missouri, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, John Tester of Montana and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island – all of whom opposed the Peru deal.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=256831

jackson_dem (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Feb-11-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Oh here is an Obama statement which includes Obama lying about it

Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 03:08 PM by jackson_dem
He echoes the DLC, Clinton talking points.

-snip-

"Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter's protests to the contrary. He also affirmed his support for free trade."

The voter's "protests to the contrary" are exactly right. The AFL-CIO does not support the bill expanding NAFTA into Peru, and the much-trumpeted labor/environmental standards leave enforcement up to the Bush administration, rather than empowering third parties to enforce them (like corporations have the power to enforce investor rights provisions in these same trade agreements). Leaving enforcement to the Bush administration -- or any administration -- is the biggest loophole possible. It is precisely why corporate lobbyists have bragged to reporters that the standards are not enforceable.

Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress. His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project -- a Wall Street front group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues. His announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade policies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/breaking-oba...
"He was true to the Paul Wellstone tradition."--Barack Obama on John Edwards

[JKaiser]

1. Thanks!

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Obama Wants To Expand NAFTA?

Doesn't sound right. You have a link?

[jackson_dem]

3. He has the same position on NAFTA that Hillary does

They BOTH are free traders. Both will review NAFTA. The difference is Hillary will review ALL trade agreements. Hillary will also have a time-out for trade agreements, a long sought labor goal, although I don't have much faith in what she will do after the time-out. At least it gives some time to reflect unlike Obama.

[xultar]

6. It cracks me up when people use NAFTA as a reason to take Obama over Hillary.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. OK, So Do You Have The Elusive Proof That Obama Wants To Expand NAFTA

We know that Hillary was a backer of NAFTA and permanent "free" trade with China - an we know that Bill was the author of both.

[jackson_dem]

11. Hillary opposed NAFTA

No one said he will expand NAFTA. I said "expect more NAFTAs". Both will continue what has been the trend since Reagan and look to sign more "free" trade agreements.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Hill & Bill Were The Architects Of NAFTA

And permanent "almost-free" trade status for China.

[jackson_dem]

24. Hill opposed NAFTA

PNTR was supported by among others Kennedy and Leahy. What proof is there that Hill backed both? Another urban netroots legend? Just like the one about Obama being different than her?

[MannyGoldstein]

30. For Example

"I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico." - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584649,00.html

Actually, NAFTA was an absurd idea.

And permanenent "almost-free" trade with China, which Clinton embraced as a candidate, was even far, far worse than NAFTA. While we're at it, Clinton never saw an H1-B visa she didn't like.

[jackson_dem]

33. Is this a referndum?

You are a classic example of what I am talking about. Hillary is evil! Obama is not even questioned because he is assumed to be different because of "hope".

You are taking her comment out of context. She believes NAFTA as an idea was a good thing but must be tweaked. Just like St. Obama!

That was in 2000. It passed 83-15 including Kennedy and Leahy. It is the only trade agreement Edwards ever supported in his political career. Clearly many good folks at the time thought trade normalization with the world's most populous country was a good idea at the time. She will now review it. Obama won't.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. OK - So Show Me Where Obama Says That It Was A Good Idea

Should be easy fo you to find.

Look, I'm not convinced that Obama will be a great President - or even a good President. But it's unlikely that he'll be as awful as the Clintons.

[jackson_dem]

40. Obama's position on NAFTA is the same as Hillary

Neither will scrap it. What is implicit in this position is that both feel NAFTA is a good idea in principle. They both share the Bob Rubin view of "free trade". Where they differ is Hillary will at least review all trade agreements and will have a trade agreement time-out. This isn't great because we know she is still looking at everything from the lens of a free trader but at least we will get some progress out of it. It is hard to see the review not yielding any changes in at least a few agreements. Obama will review on NAFTA and has not called for a trade agreement time-out. That means Obama will keep the ball rolling with more Perus, more South Koreas, and yes, more NAFTAs. He supported CAFTA in principle as well. His objection to it was a phony one that gave him cover for casting a politically popular vote. He claimed he did so because labor leaders were not giving enough time to complain during Senate discussions. Notice what he didn't say. He didn't make a statement like Sherrod Brown did about Peru. He fundamentally agreed with the principles of CAFTA. He is a free trader as much as you and others can "hope" that he will "change" and not be. "Hope" is not a wise way to cast a vote. A lot of people did that in 2000...

[MannyGoldstein]

7. The OP Said That Obama Wants To Expand NAFTA

Saying he'll *review* it is a lot different than saying he wants to *expand* it.

As to reviewing it - the Clintons have a long, long history of truth problems - their words are meaningless. Obama, to my knowledge, does not have this problem.

[jackson_dem]

12. Look at his trade record (exactly like Hillary's!)

He wants to review only NAFTA. Hillary will review every trade agreement. She will also have a trade agreement time-out, a key labor goal. Obama won't.

Obama is as truthful as Hillary. Again we are seeing the "Obama is saint, Hillary is evil!" phenomenon in your post.

Can you explain t us the difference between the DLC and the two celebrities on trade?

[MercutioATC]

4. Agreed. I'm not happy with either one...

...and it's important to remind people that though there are distinct differences between them, those differences are minor in the larger scheme of things.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. How about more posts like this & less hero worship!

[cali]

8. oh, stow your bile. No one says that Obama is a Saint and few

people here say Clinton is evil. You on the other hand do demonize Obama and say he's evil. Day in and day out. And there's been no gnashing of teeth or wailing about Edwards endorsing Clinton. If he endorses her, good for her and good for him. You're fabricating and spinning a tawdry narrative to suit your own less than decent purposes.

[jackson_dem]

13. MannyGoldstein didn't get the memo

[mtnsnake]

17. What a crock that is!

few people here say Clinton is evil

Wow, talk about rose colored glasses. Yikes

You on the other hand do demonize Obama and say he's evil. You're fabricating and spinning a tawdry narrative to suit your own less than decent purposes.

Oh bull doodey. Jackson-dem is doing nothing of the sort. The only one demonizing anyone is you right now.

Hey, the truth is hard to stomach sometimes, that's all there is to it.

[cali]

18. lol

The OP's becoming legendary for his antipathy toward Obama. The OP with the sneering references to Obamites and St. Obama should be a clue, snaky.

[tridim]

22. Who calls Obama a saint besides the OP?

I certainly haven't.

[jackson_dem]

26. Many people view him as one

Of course no one uses the word "saint" but they view him as if he is one. Hillary is evil, Obama is the saint. Even though they are basically the same!

[tridim]

29. Please don't make shit up. It's embarrassing to DU. nt

[jackson_dem]

34. You must be blind

[mtnsnake]

23. You can call it antipathy, but I call it fondness for the facts

Nothing wrong with a little enthusiasm either.

[mtnsnake]

10. Amazing! Thank you for posting this, jackson!

Wow! :thumbsup:

[Levgreee]

14. Hillary opposed NAFTA, yeah right. (proof that she didn't)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw

"I think on balance I think NAFTA has been good for New York, and America"

-Hillary Clinton

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Bingo.

Aren't you tired of revisionist history?

[jackson_dem]

35. That was in 1993?

She has the same position on NAFTA now that St. Obama has.

[Levgreee]

36. That was in 2004

[jackson_dem]

37. How does her position on NAFTA in 2004 and 2008 differ from free trader St. Obama?

Obama is getting a lot of votes now from folks upset at the Clenis over NAFTA. Maybe they should think for a moment about what St. Obama thinks about trade before blindly voting against Hillary because of the Clenis.

[sloppyjoe25s]

15. Those fundraising charts do prove a point however...

... that while Obama's fundraising is not "saint like" - it is CONSIDERABLY less Corporate and Lobbyist focussed than hers.

She tops most of the lists.

It's also a simple fact that Obama has the largest number of small donors ever in the history of the United States of America. Any Campaign ever. That speaks for something as well. Real average non-big money people like me can SEE authenticity, and will open our wallets even when we don't have much extra to give to the real-deal.

I'm heading over to pitch in another $35 right now! Go Barack!

[jackson_dem]

27. That was before he became the front runner

Look at the margins. He has already passed her in drug company money. He is raised $1 million a day. $62 million in two months. Who do you think is first now in most, perhaps all of those categories (except the lobbyist one and that is a total crock as the post showed. He gets cash from bundlers, executives, firms that lobby, spouses of lobbyists)? Even if he is not first in most of these categories the differences now must be negligible.

[Bongo Prophet]

16. Neither are saints, nor empty suits, nor cult leaders. Both are center-left dems.

Thanks for time putting together some real info for viewers to consider.
Please consider that it might be more effective without the "Obamite" name calling, as it detract from your main points.

The fact that you are building a case using info with links, so people can go lok for themselves is laudable, no matter the "side" of the argumant itself.
I commend you for that. It is a step toward comity here, an important goal if we want to win in November. :thumbsup:

[jackson_dem]

32. I don't intend it to be that

Is Edwaridan a bad thing too? WE Edwards supporters use it.

[Bongo Prophet]

41. Edwardian seems fine, as it is so neutral. And if it is a self-selected name, that is a factor too.

The power of names

I really appreciate you being thoughtful about it - in less sensitive times or venues, a very interesting conversation about group identity, etc. I am going to give it a go. It's a quick draft, and I may make an OP out of it. I gsther folks don't really think it is a big deal. Let me know what you think after reading and pondering a bit, okay?

To my knowledge there are no negative connotations associated with “Edwardians“ - they wore snappy clothes?
Rode in carriages? What?

Ms. Prophet is a strong Edwards supporter, and I was leaning that way myself.
But set aside for now all thoughts that may impede a distanced and objective analysis of marginalizing or dismissing individuals and groups through the art of tagging.


Consider the implications underlying the following comparisons. I only scratch the surface here, but you should get the general idea.

-----------------Suffixes-------------------

-bot (Obamabot, Hillbot) This implies non-thinking robotic support, and for Matrix fans, a cold killing machine ;)

-ton (Obamaton) Think Automaton. variation on robot. (A variant is -tron)

-ite (Obamite) Rhymes with and evokes association with Sodomite, Shiite, etc.
From my Oxford dictionary - often derogatory denoting followers of a movement, doctrine, etc. : Luddite | Trotskyite.

-ista (Clintonista) Think Sandinista, which to right wing is a very bad thing, indeed, or Feminista. Related to Feminazi. Implies authoritarianism.
Dictionary - forming nouns denoting a person associated with a particular activity, often with a derogatory intent : fashionista.

----------------Combinations and various “clever“ puns, etc------------------------------------

Billary, Shillary, shrillary, Hitlery - Often right wing in origin (of course, how coarse!) These all have pretty clear connotations.

Obamanation - The obvious homophone (read that carefully) is Abomination, a thing that causes disgust or hatred
This one has the advantage of sounding innocent, so that the user can feign innocence if offense is taken.

------------------- Character Associations and stereotypes ----------------------------

The crying thing - this is an obviously sexist angle, even when men cry (IOKIYAR -Boehner, Bush, Romney can cry. Muskie, Franken can not) It implies weakness, effeminate traits, or the extra angle of FAKE tears for some gain.
“Women can't be leaders. they too weak. She needs Bill to defend her. Some feminist. Those weren't real tears,”etc/

The Black man thing - there are several slurs that racists use, while hiding the fact that they are racist at all.
Accusation or just a mention of Shuck and Jive, the term “boy” and variants, drug peddler (even hope peddler hope=dope, get it? Racists do!) insinuations of govt help in their lives brings up Affirmative Action resentments (”They aren't REALLY talented, just got put ahead of a white person”) Cocaine and black men, Crack and Barack, Black men being lynched for cocaine and white women - there is a historical relationship in the very core of our drug laws...it is some nasty stuff.

Does anyone have to point out the slippery slope of accusations about “cult” behavior? I hope not, but some seem blind to all of these. The worst of the worst was Jake Tapper, using the term “Helter Skelter” the term Manson thought to mean an all out Race War. This goes with the “if those Obama cultists don't get their way, they will fill the streets” - invoking images of Watts and LA riots, etc-tapping into white fear.


-------------------------final thoughts-------------------------

Remember, the power to define others is power over others.


All of these names are meant to belittle, inflame, dismiss and lord power of definition over others, for the purpose of lessening their power to influence others. Who wants to be associated with an individual or group that is so disliked or laughed at or worse?

As you should be able to conclude from this; when name calling commences, any chance at respectful communication is not only lost, it is already over.



This is why I am much more concerned with the structure and tone of our debates than which candidate anyone supports. People are playing with fire, and, shockingly, many do not even realize it. Therefore, I encourage all of us to think before even typing such hateful and manipulative names. We have free speech, yes. But we also have responsibility to democracy.
And without communication, there can be no democracy. Without respect, there can be no justice.

as the saying goes: no justice, no peace.



That really should be enough to give you a “Marginalization 101” course. ;)

[thevoiceofreason]

20. After you look at and analyze your "complex" graphs

HRC is #1 as an industry suck-up, ain't she?

I guess she can say she's #1 in these polls, eh?

[jackson_dem]

28. She was in 2007

That was before Obama became the front runner who raises $1 million a day. Who do you think is first now? He passed her in drug money early in January.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. Hillary's Lobbyists stand out!!!!!!

look we are in America.

maybe you want to move to Sweden?

[Redstone]

25. And, of course, you won't engage in any juvenile name-calling.

Redstone

[robbedvoter]

39. Good info. I knew of the similarities when I started considering my choices.