Obama claims Dems have been "hollering at republicans and engaging in petty partisan politics?"

[bigtree]

"Addressing voters in Wisconsin, Obama accused Clinton of lashing out at him as a cheap ploy to get ahead and of being so divisive that she couldn't pass her signature effort of health-care reform.

"Hollering at Republicans and engaging in petty partisan politics didn't help health care get done," he said."

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080216/NEWS0206/802160378/1009/NEWS02


Sure, he's probably trying to draw attention to the failed fight for national health care Hillary Clinton waged during her husband's term. Or likely trying to point to her advertising effort to draw distinctions between her plan and his own.

But, coupled with this 'outreach' with republicans Obama promises in his stump speeches, this statement reeks of appeasement to the despicable policies and practices the republicans have made their reason for being over the past few decades which responsible Democrats fought tooth and nail.

I can't imagine just what parts of their agenda he is planning on co-opting with his own. That's all he's going to accomplish with his kinder and gentler approach to dealing with the serial obstructionists. We've seen the results of these 'compromises' on basic rights or liberties, like the NCLB Act or the Patriot Act. We don't need someone who's so willing to offer a surrender on the debates of the past in which our party was correct in their aggressive condemnations, and offer those same obstructionists a platform to further and elevate their corporatism and obstinacy.

We need someone who's willing to stand up and fight the republican agenda, not someone promising he can change the fortune of our own platform and proposals by allowing the republicans cover and representation for their own in some centrist compromise.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. so...he is saying it is ok to attack Clinton, but Clinton should not be attacking Bush.

I thought we would leave the through the looking glass world when the neo-cons left.

[SoxFan]

2. Clap, Clap, Point, Point

[Evergreen Emerald]

49. I do not understand your response.

[Cameron27]

3. Yep,

Barack is the decider when it comes to who we need to be unitin' with. It's astonishing that any Democrat would push bipartisanship in a year when the Republican Party seems to be imploding. I know why THEY want to draft off the popularity Democtic Party, but not the reverse.

[sueragingroz]

20. yes!

But you see.... Obama can have it any which way from Sunday... remember?

[QC]

57. "It's astonishing that any Democrat ..."

Who says he's a Democrat?

[Birthmark]

4. Terrible candidate.

Just looks like four more years to me.

[bigtree]

6. He's a good, accomplished Democrat. Wrong on this approach, though.

[Birthmark]

8. Maybe.

But his approach will guarantee four more years of the same BS.

[juajen]

16. Yep, I fear he is a pug disguised as a dem.

I'm amazed that so many dems are accepting this totally unacceptable candidate. Is it because they fear they will be called "racist"? If this is the case, this is a rovian tactic. Our wonderful black leaders all over this country need to take another, deep look at this man, as they are the ones who need to see through him.

[Birthmark]

21. I seldom analyze motives

So I don't know why he's popular (almost pathologically so with a fair number of people). It could be any number of things.

[donsu]

5. there is no way in hell I would want to work with neo cons

they belong in prison

working with proven non neo con republicans might be OK

[MNDemNY]

7. We as Democrats MUST bend over (again) and take it from the republofucks.

FUCK bi-partisanship! I want a DEMOCRAT who will fight for US not bow down and give in for the sake of puppy-dogs and butterflies!

[BlackVelvet04]

18. But what about ponies.....

isn't it worth it for the ponies?

[kurth]

29. No ponies

Keep hollering and you don't get your soup either.

[BlackVelvet04]

40. damn it.

I WANT a pony!

[MNDemNY]

32. Biting ponies? I don't like them when they bite.

[Maribelle]

9. Why can we always tell when Obama is in a state that has an open primary? Pander much, Obama?

Obama has such a forked tongue.

[Cameron27]

12. He depends on those indy/repug

votes in the primaries and caucuses, but who can say whether they'll stick with him in the GE.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Hollering? Is he kidding me? He should hear the words that fly around THIS house whenever

one of those lying freakin' THUGS shows its face on our teevee! His ears would fall off!:grr:

Hollering?:rofl::rofl:

Hillary will fight those thugs. She's been been there, done THAT for YEARS! Tried, tested and TRUE!:thumbsup:

[DemGa]

11. Obama attacks Hillary for being attacked by Republicans --

this is his mainstay. I find it hard to believe people cannot see right through this fraud.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

25. it's the tinted glasses.....

[QC]

60. The chanting and sleep deprivation help, too. n/t

[jackson_dem]

82. Kool aid is very powerful

It is so powerful Obamites actually think Obama won't get those same attacks if he is the nominee!

[NJSecularist]

13. You forgot to include the rest of the line

"Hollering at Republicans and engaging in petty partisan politics didn't help health care get done," he said."

Being intellectually dishonest doesn't win you any points. :thumbsdown:

[Cameron27]

14. Maybe he ought to define

what he considers petty then, because the Democratic majority Congress hasn't had much success with their attempts at non-petty bipartisanship.

The next president is going to have to fight like hell for universal healthcare, and I don't think he's up for that fight.

[jackson_dem]

83. He backed down on health care in Illinois. Hillary fought for us in DC

Who can we trust to fight for us in the Oval Office?

[Yossariant]

15. The line is in the OP. Being dishonest doesn't win you any points.

[NJSecularist]

19. He was talking about one specific instance

The OP tried to overgeneralize and tried to paint Obama as somebody who says the Dems are the bad guys and not the Repugs. Which is completely untrue and something he has never said.

As I said, being intellectually dishonest doesn't win you points.

[bigtree]

34. If that were correct

then, only SOME Dems seem to be the 'bad guys', according to Obama's criticisms. If not, then which Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton's approach in Congress during that time does Obama condemn for their "hollering" and "petty partisanship?"

[NJSecularist]

39. He has lambasted Republicans almost daily

You must not be paying attention.

[bigtree]

42. while promising to 'work with them'. Which is true? Is his rhetoric false?

Is he condemning every other Democrat who took the same aggressive stances she's taken against the republicans?

[NJSecularist]

44. It's both.

Do you understand how the presidency works in relation to Congress? You need to work with both sides in order to get your policy initiaves past.

This isn't the fucking Senate. It's the Presidency. You can't expect to play partisan politics and ignore more than half of House and Senate when you try to get your major policy initiatives (i.e health care) into law. It just won't happen.

If Hillary thinks when she becomes president that she can ignore half the Congress and get her bill passed, it just isn't happening.

[bigtree]

50. He's going to face the same obstruction she will. Either he's going to stand and fight, or, fold

[jackson_dem]

84. His record suggests he will fold again

[rodeodance]

66. It was a broard paint brush comment from Obama--UNITY not!

[bigtree]

72. against all who stood with Hillary in support of health care reform

and those who stand with her against the republican obstruction now

[bigtree]

17. I took that statement by itself because it reflected on the other ones he's made

about how we got it wrong in the past with our approach to republicans, and that he's offering some new approach in which he'll be able to 'work with them'. The rest is, as I admitted, about his gripe with Hillary's health care attacks on him. But, he said this, and not in a vacuum. It reflects on his appeasing statements toward republicans he's made throughout the campaign.

[NJSecularist]

23. He has never made appeasing statements towards Republicans

EVER. Not once in his campaign.

[Cameron27]

28. His video re: Ronald Reagan,

and the 'excesses of the 60's and 70's' was a capitulation to RW voters in Nevada. So was his campaign spokesman's rant about 'the Democrats' Disease' on CNN.

[NJSecularist]

31. Oh bullshit.

His Ronald Reagan line has been blown out of proportion over and over again. He was repeatedly condoned Republican policies. Repeatedly. Find me a quote where he was applauded Republican policies. Please. Do it.

All he said is that Reagan united all Republicans and select Democrats in a way Bush 1, Clinton or GW Bush never did.

[Cameron27]

33. Bullshit yourself,

I watched the damned video and listened to him myself. While praising Reagan for whatever the hell he was praising him for, Obama also brought up the excesses of the 60's and 70's. I'm tired of the WORM's, what Obama really meant, excuses. His spokesman called the issues that prevent Democrats from getting elected; "the Democrats' Disease," and Obama never contradicted him.

[momster]

46. Just a hint

You mean condemned, I think, not condoned.

[bigtree]

30. I consider it appeasing when he rejects the 'approaches of the past' in favor of his promise

to 'work with republicans'. I don't know of ANY initiative or idea which ORIGINATED from republicans that they deserve a hearing on, much less a place alongside our own agenda. But, Barack insists there's something there for him to 'reach out' to. There is NOTHING to reach out to which resides with the present pack of corporatist obstructionists in the republican party.

[NJSecularist]

36. When has he ever said that?

When has ever specifically said he would reject the "approaches of the past to work with Republicans". By all means, show me where he said it.

[bigtree]

48. I was careful about those quotes. Let me offer more.

"In a speech this afternoon in central Iowa, Barack Obama seems to have widened his criticism of the politics of the past to encompass not only Hillary Clinton but John Kerry and Nobel Laureate Al Gore.

Making an argument for his electability, Obama said, "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000,"
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2007/12/obama_gore_kerry_alienated_hal.html

here he is a couple of days ago:

Obama ties Clinton to divisive 'politics of the past'

Associated Press

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday it is difficult for Hillary Rodham Clinton "to break out of the politics of the past," when the country was badly divided and Democrats lost control of Congress while her husband was president.

Responding to two Virginia voters who asked why they should choose him over Clinton, Obama at first praised her as "a capable person" and a "vast improvement" over President Bush. But he quickly pivoted to a forceful argument against the New York senator, saying the public sees her as part of a divisive political era when the government was gridlocked and Republicans prospered.

"I think it's very hard for Senator Clinton to break out of the politics of the past 15 years," Obama said.

"Senator Clinton starts off with 47 percent of the country against her," the Illinois senator told 3,000 people at a high school gym in Alexandria, Va., just outside Washington. "That's a hard place to start."

"Hillary and I both want universal health care," he said. "But unless we can put a working majority together, it doesn't matter what plan is adopted" because Congress will not pass it.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5529914.html

[NJSecularist]

51. So basically he never said what you are presenting to say he said

And you're just combining quotes together to make Obama worse than he actually he is.

[bigtree]

55. 'Politics of the past'/'Approaches of the past' What's the difference?

Nitpicking my words doesn't change Obama's condemnation of the (correct) aggressive approach of Hillary Clinton in confronting republican obstructionists -- an approach which, by the way, was also shared by the Democrats who supported her health care fight, then and now.

[BlackVelvet04]

22. He's gotten so cocky

and smarmy and full of shit that I can't stand to listen to him any more. It's kind of like listening to george bush.

[Raffi Ella]

52. omg,it is.

I just realized I have the same reaction to him as I do gwbush when he comes on T.V....I can't stand either of them.I turn the T.V. when ever either starts talking.

[BlackVelvet04]

56. Me, too...

the exact same reaction. I find myself yelling at the t.v. "quit lying".

[Raffi Ella]

64. ha!

Mumbling and stumbling and disparaging The Democratic Party just as g.w. does.


It always strikes me how he can't even really talk unless there is a freakin' teleprompter in front of him where he can put on his best MLK impersonation.

[BlackVelvet04]

67. Oh the MLK impersonation

is making me want to puke.

[in_cog_ni_to]

104. I agree! I told my husband the other day that if Obama wins this election I'll have to mute the

the teevee for another 4-8 YEARS ......again! Obama grates on my nerves just as much as the psycho-in-chief does.

[Armstead]

24. Bernie Sanders has made a similar point

This is from an interview Bernie Sanders gave during his run for the Senate.

Bernie is one of the staunchest progressives in Congress, but who also has the ability to attract voters that transcend the usual labels and party affiliations.

I think (hope) this is what Obama is trying to do in his campaign. This strategy is NOT a sellout to the Republicans or any version of triangulation.

(I do wish Obama were as committed to a real progressive message as Bernie. But in the context of mainstream Democratic politics, he's a lot closer.)


http://progressive.org/mag_intv1205

Q: Is this a particularly ripe moment for change?

Sanders: I think it is. Given the fact that poverty is growing, more and more Americans are losing health insurance, health care costs are going up, the middle class is shrinking, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, we have lost 2,000 soldiers in Iraq, we’re spending some $300 billion there, and Bush has no idea of an exit strategy. Add all of those things together and the real question should be asked, how is it conceivable that he is even at 40 percent?

That speaks to the weakness of the opposition. People do not like George Bush. But I think it’s fair to say that they are not flocking to the Democratic Party, or see the Democrats as a real alternative.

Q: So what’s your message to progressives?

Sanders: We have got to change the political culture in America. We need a political revolution. That means we are working on politics not just three weeks before an election but 365 days a year. We have to develop a strong economic message which says every American is entitled to health care through a national health care program. And we’re not going to allow these large corporations to push through trade agreements which allow them to throw Americans out on the street and run to China. We’re not going to give tax breaks to billionaires and then cut back on the needs of our elderly or poor or kids or education. We’re not going to privatize Social Security—in fact, we’re going to strengthen it. We’re going to provide quality education for every kid in America, from preschool through college. We have to take on these corporate leaders who are selling out the American people, whose allegiance is now much more to China than it is to the United States. If we have the courage to take these people on, I think we can overwhelm Bush and his friends.

Why is it that two-thirds of white, rural men voted Republican? Why? That’s what we have to address. That’s crazy. These people are working longer and longer hours. They can’t afford to pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas. They’re losing their jobs. So why do they vote for President Bush? And the Republican Party? We’ve got to address this.

It’s very easy to make fun of George Bush, but that ain’t going to do it. What we have to do is knock on doors and go into communities where there are people who disagree with us on certain issues.

And we have to talk to them. They’re our friends. They’re our allies. They’re our co-workers. We can’t see them as enemies.

That’s easier said than done.

All over this country you have progressive communities like Madison and Burlington, but we’ve got to go well, well, well outside of those communities. We’ve got to go to the rural areas. We’ve got to go where a lot of working people are voting Republican.

We just can’t talk to each other. That’s too easy.

[rug]

26. What's wrong with hollering at Republicans?

[kurth]

27. People, please speak gently to Repugs

and they will respond to your kindness.

[Raffi Ella]

35. Oh Obama ever the naive Jr. Senator

showing just how unprepared and unqualified he is.Again.


If he thinks the Republicans are gonna sit in a circle and sing Kumba yeah with him should he get elected then GOOD LORD is he in for a shock.

Or maybe it's just that he doesn't plan on bringing anything to the table that Republicans would have a problem with? doesn't plan to anger them by pushing a Progressive agenda....?

Hillary Clinton is a fierce Democrat who fought hard for Universal and HE is slamming HER nose in the mud that it didn't get passed when the Republicans were SO So so so so Nasty and prevented it altogether!?

Oh what a nice guy that Obama,to a Fellow Democrat No less.Glorifying RayGun and disparaging the First Lady over trying to push an aggressive Progressive Agenda...tsk tsk.That Hillary!Pushing a Progressive Agenda!!She is such a divisive figure!How dare she push a Progressive Agenda!!


AND!he just pulled the Harry & Louise scare commercial out of the Republican Play book...


Is Obama a Democrat?Or Not?

[Cameron27]

37. He's an Obamacan

get with the program.

[Raffi Ella]

47. oh,right.

He needs to define what that means.Is it Joe Lieberman-like?Cuz it sure as hell is the opposite of Kucinich-like whom D.U. just looooooved only a few short months ago.


I wish his followers would take their fucking blinders off and wake the fuck up.HOW the hell does he get away with demoralizing long held Progressive ideas while glorifying Republicans like he does!????

[ErnestoG]

75. As opposed to the dumbshit Senator who voted for IWR?

[Barack_America]

38. Why accomplish any legislation for the benefit of the American people...

When fighting is so much more fun.

The American people know that this is a battle between good and evil and not about helping to make their lives easier. The American people don't expect accomplishments.

[Cameron27]

41. Democrats will never

get progressive legislation passed without a fight, thinking otherwise is just naive.

[Barack_America]

53. But they'll never get anything done...

...If they step in swinging. Politics today is all about looking like you're the sensible one, fighting for the people, and that it's the *other* guy who's dragging you in the mud. Obama understands that. It's all about looking conciliatory, not acting that way.

[jackson_dem]

87. The only legislation Obama has passed in DC is to rename a post office

If he had this magic ability to get the rethugs to go along with him he would have proven it in the past 2 years...

[blogslut]

43. Hillary's Kevorkian crack

Flashback 1993:

Indeed, the only verbal blow landed all day was landed by Mrs. Clinton. Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the third-ranking Republican in the House and a staunch critic of the plan, told her he would do his best "to make the debate, the legislative process, as exciting as possible."

She replied with a smile, "I'm sure you will do that, Mr. Armey."

He said, "We'll do the best we can."

She said, "You, and Dr. Kevorkian," bringing startled laughter in the committee room.

link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE2D61530F933A0575AC0A965958260

How is Hillary going to handle the diplomatic responsibilities of president when she can't even rise above the grumblings of Dick Armey?

[QC]

61. Yes, Dick Armey would have supported universal health care if only

Hillary had spoken to him kindly.

What a lost opportunity!

[blogslut]

65. And her invective helped?

Look, Dick said some nasty things before the hearing and Hillary responded in kind. The problem is, she did it before the House. She did it when she didn't have to. She did it because she couldn't move past the fact the man said something mean about her. She did it out of revenge.

I don't want a vengeful, petty president. I've had 8 years of that. I want a president willing to rise above the muck and get things done.

[QC]

68. I don't want a doormat president.

Perhaps you do. That is your choice, and you just might get what you want.

BTW, were you around then? Do you have any first hand knowledge of how the GOP and Big Business Inc. reacted to the health care debate? I'm getting the distinct sense that for many of Obama's fans here, things like Hillarycare and DADT are part of a very distant past of which they have no direct knowledge.

[blogslut]

69. Yes

I remember it well. I was quite pissed at the concerted effort to shut out her program. I was also pissed at their stonewalling of Gore's efforts to streamline government.

In turn, I was later pissed when Bill sold out the poor and the GLBT community in order to win a second term.

I stopped lionizing politicians long before Bill Clinton came along.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

45. Obama certainly seems to care more about those repukes then his own party's ideals....but....

he did say that "Ronald Reagan and the GOP were the party of ideas"

[Riley133]

70. But he may be responding to....

the voters who say they want to vote for him just because he is the only one they feel can work with the Republicans and, after all, many Republican political figures have said they've liked him and want to see him succeed.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

71. oh I bet they do...they want him to get the nom cuz they know they can beat him

[JCMach1]

54. All I can say is

:grr:

[sueragingroz]

58. This kind of reminds me of

http://bp2.blogger.com/_n7RltmTdk-g/RrsWsn_f4dI/AAAAAAAABMs/-FCF7zuzXZw/s320/Chamberlain+and+Churchill.jpg

[ProgressIn2008]

59. Does this man really think the Repub agenda is "petty partisan politics"? Damn.

What, and when we fought it, that was just petty partisan politics, too?

Damn.

[rodeodance]

62. That was a divisive attack from the UNITY candidate. Shame on him.

[stillcool]

63. requires reading but what they hey.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html


Dear Black Commentator:
------------------
>>I do think a broader question remains on the table. What is the best strategy for building majority support for a progressive agenda, and for reversing the rightward drift of this country?

One important part of that strategy - and on this I think we agree - is for progressives within the Democratic Party to describe our core values (e.g. racial justice, civil liberties, opportunity for the many, and not just the few) in clear, unambiguous terms.

A second part of that strategy - and again, I think we agree here - is to stake out clear positions on issues that put those values into action (e.g. the need for universal health care), and to stand up for those values when they are under assault (e.g. opposition to the Patriot Act).

But the third part of this part of the equation – and on this we may disagree – must be to gain converts to our positions. My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, isn’t to scold people for their lack of ideological purity. It’s to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better. Thus, while I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn’t keep me from reaching out to NRA members who are worried about their lack of health insurance. I favor affirmative action, but I’m still going after the votes of white union members who oppose affirmative action, because I think I can convince them that it’s Bush’s economic agenda, and not affirmative action, that is eroding their job security and stagnating their wages. And while I may object to the misogyny and materialism of much of rap culture, I’m still going to spend the time reaching out to a hip-hop generation in search of a future.

In other words, I believe that politics in any democracy is a game of addition, not subtraction. And I believe deeply enough in the decency of the American people to think that progressives can build a winning majority in this country, so long as we’re not afraid to speak the truth, and so long as we don’t write off big chunks of the electorate just because they don’t agree with us on every issue.

All of which explains why I’m not likely to launch blanket denunciations of the DLC or any other faction within the Democratic Party. I intend to engage DLC members, just like I intend to engage everybody else that I can during the next year of campaigning, in a conversation about the direction our country needs to take to give ordinary working families a fair shake. In some instances, I may even agree with DLC positions: their insistence on the value of national service, or the need to harden domestic targets like chemical plants from potential terrorist attack, to cite a few examples I just pulled from the DLC web-site, make sense to me. Where I disagree with them – and, as we have already discussed, I disagree with them strongly on a lot of major issues - I intend to let them know, firmly and without equivocation, just why I think they are wrong.

To some, this approach may appear naïve; to others, it may appear that I’m headed down a path of dangerous compromise. All I can tell you is that in my twenty years as an organizer, civil rights lawyer, and state senator, I’ve always trusted my moral compass, and have thus far avoided compromising my core values for the sake of ambition or expedience. Hopefully, by listening to the people I seek to serve, and with the occasional jab from friendly critics like The Black Commentator, I can stay on that course, and ultimately do some good as the next U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois.

Sincerely,

State Senator Barack Obama

Candidate for the U.S. Senate

[bigtree]

73. Obama didn't spell out where he thinks Democrats have 'hollered and engaged in petty politics"

. . . or, even, where his rival has done so.

[stillcool]

79. whatever...

it doesn't matter what I post about what he has said or done. You will look and you will find something to twist and turn and mold into something you can rail against. I'm done. I think I have learned all I can from these silly games.

[bigtree]

81. He made the statement. "hollering at republicans and engaging in petty partisan politics"

didn't help health care get done," he said.

Who is he saying did that "hollering" and engaged in "petty partisan politics?" Who? Hillary Clinton? What about the other Democrats who stood with her in those fights against republican obstruction? Were they also wrong to stand up and fight for what they believed in? Were they engaging in petty partisan politics?

[ErnestoG]

74. Hard to say he's wrong, isn't it.

Especially since it's been so glaringly obvious. Look, don't hate the guy when he speaks a clear truth. If you have policy difference with him, spell it out.

[DemGa]

76. What "clear truth" are talking about?...nt

[ErnestoG]

77. The one at the top of the thread.

[bigtree]

78. Show me the "hollering" and "petty partisanship" he says Democrats engaged in

What were these Democrats fighting against? Who were they fighting? Doesn't that matter, at all?

Will Obama ever be partisan? Some things shouldn't be negotiated away.

[jackson_dem]

88. Look at his record. Has he ever not backed down in a fight?

He claims he has magical superpowers that allow him to get the rethugs to discard their beliefs and go along with him. Why hasn't he proven this with results in Washington? One bill written by him has been passed and that "changed" the name of a post office! He is either lying to voters or really full of himself.

[ErnestoG]

92. He never voted for IWR like your candidate did.

[jackson_dem]

97. He voted to fund the war (until he began running for president), did nothing to end the war

He actually voted against withdrawal by voting against Kerry's withdrawal bill in 2006.

[jillan]

80. Did he mention that her "hollering" helped get us S-chip?

Nah - I bet he forgot that little detail.

[AZBlue]

85. Yeah, a divided and insulating approach has worked so well for us.

:sarcasm:

I can't STAND the kind of attitude shown in the OP. It's beyond all reason and logic. It's unbelievable that anyone who is able enough to turn on a computer and use a keyboard would think this way. As if hurling insults, back-stabbing and constant bickering is the way to change anything at all in this country.

[bigtree]

89. It's not like the warmongeres and the corporatists are actually killing folks

or destroying the planet, or robbing us blind . . .

[AZBlue]

95. And you think every single member of the GOP fits into those categories?

I'm sorry.

[bigtree]

99. Every one of them who supported Bush's agenda, yes. Every God damned one of them.

And, it's amazing to hear someone covering for them on this board, just to fit in with your candidates' promise to pull his punches.

[stevietheman]

86. I suspect Obama is merely campaigning as a centrist... then when he gets in...

he'll be the 100% liberal he actually is in the Senate.

Works for me.

[LordJFT]

90. om, Obama's stances on issues are actually more liberal than Hillary's

He's just smart enough not to do the whole lets fight the republicans thing

[bigtree]

91. He's done nothing but holler in this speech I'm watching on C-span

[LordJFT]

93. well let me know when you wanna stop your baseless criticisms and talk about issues :hi:

[bigtree]

94. This thread is about Obama's baseless criticism

let me know when you're ready to talk about that.

[LordJFT]

96. the thread title makes it sound like he's accusing all dems of partisan bickering

but he's actually just accusing Hillary, who I'm sorry to say does not represent the whole democratic primary.

[bigtree]

98. You may want to represent her as all alone in those fights, but good Democrats stood with her

and fought against the republican obstruction. Good Democrats are standing, TODAY, with Hillary Clinton as she FIGHTS against republican obstruction to make universal coverage a reality.

It's just nonsense to single her out as "hollering and engaging in petty partisan politics", when the majority of our party has waged the EXACT same battle. I don't know what Obama's talking about when he comes out and declares that Democrats got the 'politics of the past' wrong. It's just not credible for him to come up behind those fights and struggles and declare that he has some 'NEW" way which involves "working with republicans".

Look at what our present majority is doing. If anything, they need to be MORE aggressive in pressing our Democratic agenda. NOTHING important on the table is in need of more Democratic cooperation. The republican majority doesn't want to cooperate. They don't want to see our agenda advance. To suggest that 'working with' the republicans is some change in direction is an unfair slap at those Democrats who stood with Hillary Clinton and others as they worked to overcome the republican obstinacy.

Obama is insulting EVERYONE who has waged these battles in the past. What arrogance, to suggest that some sort of appeasement is the way to health care reform. If he wants to get ANYTHING done and past the republican obstruction he will have to 'holler'. He will have to be 'partisan', because there is no republican agenda which is worth co-opting or representing alongside of our own.

Republicans aren't going to relinquish power willingly. He will have to fight for it. So, it's ridiculous and dishonest for him to suggest that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats who stood with her and fought for health care reform were the problem. And he's unconvincing in his insistence that these things can be obtained without a fight, or that there aren't those who's actions and intentions need "demonizing" (as he's criticized in the past.)

[LordJFT]

100. It seems to me Obama wants to do more to stop republican obstruction

While Hillary has put forth legislation banning flag-burning, Obama has consistently opposed such abuses to the constitution. Whereas Hillary wants to keep the wage cap at $97,500 for ss taxes Obama wants people to pay the tax on their whole income. While Obama's committed to repealing all of DOMA, Hillary's only agreed to repeal part of it. While Obama voted for a bill to ban dropping cluster-bombs in areas with children, Hillary voted against it. Obama opposed Kyl-Lieberman (yes he should have showed up for the vote but he was a running a campaign), which Hillary voted for. Obama talks of unity because it is a smart selling point with independents, but it seems to me he's more committed to fighting for liberal causes than Hillary.

[bigtree]

102. The point is that he's either bullshitting about unifying and trashing Clinton for no reason

for being aggressive . . . planning to scrap that 'unity' approach for an unapologetic, partisan stance. Or, he's going to be an appeaser.

I think it's interesting that you believe that he's going to get anything worth a damn done coalescing with the present pack of republicans in Congress. They won't give up their power by just having Obama inspire them. He needs to be accountable for his promises. Either he's going to mollycoddle them like he's indicating with his criticisms of "petty partisan politics" of the past, or he's going to stand and fight like Hillary Clinton promises.

[MadBadger]

101. Both sides have...thats why there is so many frickin republicans.

[MadBadger]

105. I Meant Independents BTW

[Mezzo]

103. This is what scares me about him...

I fear his trying to 'reach across the aisle' is politico speak for giving them a reach around.

I don't want reconciliation with the republicans. I want them to take no for an answer. Their policies have failed miserably, and should not be incorporated into a dem administration.

It's ok if you want to hate me now.

[bigtree]

106. this was the collective attitude of DU until Obama started preaching his unity message

and his many of his supporters here were forced to bend to the middle of the road.

[hayu_lol]

107. Seems to me just the other day...

the good Bi-Partisan Repugs walked out en masse to protest the 'reaching across the aisle to do something for the people.'

Obama just loves his Repug friends...including all the onew who voted for him in the Dem's open primaries.

What is Obama, a Republican or a Democrat?