WHERE..Was THIS Story (2ndof2) When Edwards Was IN The Race? Ah, Waiting For Edwards To Succumb...

[DaLittle Kitty]

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/20/Opinion/...

tampabay.com
Obama talks change but offers none

By Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post Writers Group
Published February 20, 2008

WASHINGTON

It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner, precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion.

It is, I now think, mistaken.

As a journalist, I harbor serious doubt about each of the likely nominees. But with Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I feel that I'm dealing with known quantities. They've been in the public arena for years; their views, values and temperaments have received enormous scrutiny. By contrast, newcomer Obama is largely a stage presence defined mostly by his powerful rhetoric. The trouble, at least for me, is the huge and deceptive gap between his captivating oratory and his actual views.

The subtext of Obama's campaign is that his own life narrative - to become the first African-American president, a huge milestone in the nation's journey from slavery - can serve as a metaphor for other political stalemates. Great impasses can be broken with sufficient good will, intelligence and energy. "It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white," he says. Along with millions of others, I find this a powerful appeal.

But on inspection, the metaphor is a mirage. :bounce: READ THAT AGAIN..... A MIRAGE!!!! Substance... The HARD Stuff... WHERE IS IT? WHERE WAS IT?

ANSWER... IT NEVER WAS.....

Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation's ills.

It requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. :eyes: :think: Ah but it is too late for that....


If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems.

***** POINTS WHICH I HAVE MADE REPEATEDLY IN THIS FORUM... WHEN THE RACE STILL OFFERED ALTERNATIVES TO CHOOSE FROM... i.e., John Edwards!


By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails. Americans "are tired of hearing promises made and 10-point plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change," he recently said. Shortly thereafter, he outlined an economic plan of at least 12 points that, among other things, would:

- Provide a $1,000 tax cut for most two-earner families ($500 for singles).

- Create a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit for every year of college.

- Expand the child care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 and "double spending on quality afterschool programs."

- Enact an "energy plan" that would invest $150-billion in 10 years to create a "green energy sector."

Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they're standard goodie-bag politics: something for everyone.

They're so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing him of plagiarizing. With existing budget deficits and the costs of Obama's "universal health plan," the odds of enacting his full package are slim. BTW Obama's so-called Health plan IS... Decidedly... "UN- Universal"!

A favorite Obama line is that he will tell "the American people not just what they want to hear, but what we need to know." Well, he hasn't so far.


Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering and inconsistency. Clinton and McCain do.

The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also... HIS CAMPAIGNS CENTRAL THEME! :think: :bounce: Ah but it is too late...

He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue - immigration, the economy, global warming - he has offered boilerplate policies that "evade" the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion. "WHERE'S THE B E E F?" To coin a phrase from the past w/ political implications.... AHhhhh But NOW... It IS TOOOOOO LATE... Just as I predicted in: This IS... Corporatist Nation 1 and 2!

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the press corps - preoccupied with the political "horse race" - has treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. NONSENSE...A WEAK EXCUSE by Mr. Samuelson on behalf of his "esteemed" colleagues sic......

This charade of a historic race has been contrived, planned and executed well in advance of the actual campaign itself. Hillary's gang... McCauliffe et al, bear much of the responsibility w/ front loaded contests etc., all designed to insure Hillary an "easy skate" but it appears at this juncture to have... backfired!


(The "Mesmerized" Press postulated by Mr. Samuelson is a WEAK EXCUSE FOR THE PURPOSEFULLY MANUFACTURED EFFORT BY THE CORPORATE PRESS TO IGNORE AND SINK ALL OTHER COMPETITORS... UNIQUELY Singled out by the MSM for political decapitation was of course... John Edwards!) America will.... in the end feel like this... :rofl:

He (Obama), seems to have "hypnotized" much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.

I ONLY wish people would have thought about this when something could still have been done about this... :think: Ah, but it is too late now for that......

[LakeSamish706]

1. Ok, as an Edwards supporter as well... I don't understand your post at this time...

Edwards dropped out and nothing is going to change that. As far as I am concerned the next best candidate is Obama and not Clinton.... I have to say that originally my first choice was not Edwards but Kucinich and he didn't make it.... So my choice now as I said is Obama...

[DaLittle Kitty]

2. Fine.. I am Addressing The CORRUPT Process That Has Been This Primary Election... Controlled By The

Mass Media... Voice of Corporate America... That is my point... The Corporatists are choosing your/our nominee via their very sophisticated propaganda effort. look beyond the candidates... There is ONLY ONE Party... and that party is the MONEY Party... Not the fascist charade that is the false competition between the Republicans and the Democrats... It is ALL a big charade for the consumption of the masses. :think:

[avrdream]

3. Now THAT was even better than your OP.

Why does Corporate America want Barack, though?

Is he going to be a puppet for them, just like Dubya was?

[AdHocSolver]

4. Corporate America wants Clinton, but prefer Obama to Edwards. John could take them on and beat them.

Making the Democratic contest a two-person horse race was done to marginalize John Edwards (my first choice from the beginning, and my preferred choice even now).

Edwards has been battle-hardened in taking on the corporations. He beat them again and again by appealing to juries of "ordinary" citizens to support the interests of his clients over the corporations.

The corporations' primary goal was to marginalize Edwards. In Iowa, the MSM ignored John after the debate even though everyone considered him the uncontested winner. The MSM ignored Edwards after the caucuses even though he beat Clinton.

Clinton is corporate through and through. Husband Bill pushed through NAFTA, deregulated the media, and pounded the final nail in the coffin of repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Obama may have good intentions, but he seems to have little insight into the shark mentality of the corporations. I suspect the corporations feel that they can live with an Obama presidency, since they can "help" Obama deal with "reality" after he takes office.

At any rate, McCain is a royal kiss ass, I don't trust Clinton, and the only candidate really popular with the general public is Barack Obama.

[Hutzpa]

7. Well you haven't been here long

enough, so you won't know this.....but anyway, 2004 Edwards was suppose to be the guy
for the Democratic party,(veep) he talked the talk, walk the walk, did everything right,

then onto the last huddle, he tripped, living us all looking dumb, Cheney took him apart
in the debates, could not muster any challenge whatsoever, it was a disappointment.

Fastfoward to 2008, after 2004 election, Edwards dedicated his life and his family to
2008 election, he was the first to have an office in Iowa, before Hillary and Obama
decided to run, now, my question is this, what was Edwards doing all those times he spent
up there in Iowa?

He had the advantage, the same media whom you seem to put the blame on could not have
enough of him, so what happens, I hear you asking....:shrug: well beats me.

So do some research and you should be able to find your answers, that is if you're
a democrats/liberals as you claim to be.

[DaLittle Kitty]

11. Spokane... Please Read POST #2 and GET INFORMED!

:)

[karynnj]

16. Spokane's makes much more sense than #2

You are making Edwards into what you want him to be. Edwards was a media darling in 2004. The NYT even had an op-ed in the last week of February saying that we knew the Democratic nominee would be John, but it was not clear whether it would be Kerry or Edwards. Now, this was written the week before SuperTuesday - Kerry had won 16 primaries and Edwards 1 - SC. Kerry was ahead by double digits - over by 20 points in the polls of the big states the next week - and the media was STILL pushing Edwards as an alternative! (SuperTuesday ended it when Kerry won all the states except VT (Dean won) and mathematically became the de facto nominee.)

Edwards got nice coverage in 2006, when his and Elizabeth's books came out and at the end of year when they started the campaign in New Orleans. Their coverage changed when they became clearly the third candidate and they started attacking Congress and the other candidates.

[DaLittle Kitty]

10. Agree W/ Most of What You Said... Obama Will Never Win However, But would be Highly MALLEABLE If...

He did win ... Remember this is the primary... wait until the general when... ALL the stops are pulled out! Obama BTW is as Corporately OWNED as ANYBODY as well... Goldman Sachs... I'll post a little ditty that talks about that in this thread for your review... It should be disheartening to all the followers of Barack were they to read it....

[DaLittle Kitty]

12. Details On Republicans "Influencing" The Democratic Presidential Primary To "Select" Obama!

MyDD :: Obama Unmasked & Gamed

Obama Unmasked & Gamed

by linfar, Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:33:26 PM EST
Links at end

Robert Creamer, who pleaded guilty of bank fraud and failure to pay federal taxes in Aug, 2005, and who spent the second half of 2006 living at the Federal Corectional Institute in Terre Haute, Indiana, taught at "Camp Obama" in 2007. His job: to instruct interns and volunteers in political organizing--the very abuses of which sent him to jail.

What did Creamer teach at Obama's week long politial training camp? INSPIRATION!! And he lectured that there are only two groups of voters who decide the outcomes of elections. So these are the targets of communiation that can be affected by political campaigns. They are "persuadables" and "mobilizables."

According to Creamer in an article which appeared yesterday in the Huffington Post, "persuadables" are voters who are switch hitters, they will vote either party, but they always vote. The deal is that they have to be persuaded to vote for your candidate. "Mobilizables" don't have to be persuaded. But they often don't vote. They have to be "inspired" to vote.

He then gives examples of Obama's message which targets these groups:

That we're all in this together

You're not all in this alone

Unity not division

Hope not fear

Creamer has little respect for issues. Forget 10 point plans. Stick with inspiration.

Unfortunately, while the carefully nurtured political gambit of Inspiration with a capital I has surely succeeded; and it does match for cynicism anything out of the Karl Rove playbook, the Republicans have gamed the effort.

Rove was another step ahead of Obama.

Forty percent of the Obama voters in Iowa were Republicans. Obama will tell you his "inspiration" message is working. Republican operatives tell a different story.There is a very successful GOP strategy to take out Hillary in the democratic primaries that is capitalizing on the Obama strategy.

Former Senator Lincoln Chafee, the most famous vote for John Bolton to become Ambassador to the United Nations and who was defeated for re-election in the 2006 mid-term elections in Rhode Island by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, publicly endorsed Obama last week. The Rhode Island primary is March 4. Chafee joins a long list of Republicans who have either endorsed the junior senator outright or praised him mightily. Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative and co-founder of the New American Century, a group which called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, has praised Obama fulsomely.

But more importantly there is a nationwide roster of Republican party activists who have backed Obama and then brought their constituents along with them to vote Independent or cross party lines to vote for Obama. This is a fact of this primary season.

The pattern is so widespread that one has to wonder what is going on?

Obama, via his now obvious campaign strategy outlined above, would have us believe that his cross party appeal is bringing in tons of new voters. Men and women, he asserts, who are abandoning their party to vote for him. And some Democratic Party officials and activists are supporting Obama based on this assertion. Who doesn't want a candidate who can bring in masses of new voters? Nancy Pelosi it has been rumored, impressed by this vote-getting ability, is considering endorsing Obama.

But what if Obama is not actually bringing in tons of new voters? What if Republicans have organized to cross party lines or vote independent with one goal in mind: to defeat Senator Clinton. And what if this strategy was developed by top level Republican party functionaries-- including Karl Rove-- who believe Clinton will be the more formidable opponent in the general election?

Anecdotal evidence in support of a Republican manipulation is everywhere. Remember the recent Obama win in Maryland? Nicole Price, the Maryland political director of Obama's campaign told the Washington Times that when she arrived in the state to ramp up the campaign. She found "a home-grown campaign already thriving." Republicans backing Obama had put more yard signs in Maryland than in South Carolina and they had paid for the signs "themselves." The Times also noted that in Louisiana, where he won by a wide margin, exit polls showed that Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary favored Mr. Obama 3-1 over Clinton. About 5 percent of the voters in the Democratic primary said they were Republicans.

According to the Washington Times story, Daniel B., Chance, a retired oil man, voted for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Maryland Republican primary in the morning. He then spent the afternoon making calls from the phone bank at the Obama campaign's Baltimore County Headquarters in Towson.

The critical point here is this: what is a loyal Huckabee supporter doing making calls for Obama?

Moreover, the Huckabee supporter joined a large mix of either Republicans like himself or Democrat for-a-day Republican converts who were also making calls on behalf of Obama.

Besides this anecdotal evidence, are there any hard facts which support a widespread Republican manipulation of the Democratic primaries? Time magazine reports,

"Rank and file Republicans in red states have switched their party registrations to vote in Democratic primaries."

In Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th. And according to CNN in Iowa 44 percent of those voting for Obama were Republican.

Joe Conason in Salon in late December wrote,

"In the weeks since Karl Rove offered his unsolicited advice on how to defeat Hillary Clinton in the pages of the Financial Times, right wing expressions of support for Obama have become increasingly conspicuous and voluble."

These include opinion makers like the Weekly Standard, William Kristol who endorsed Obama in a NY Times editorial and George Will. Three major fundraisers for the President have now given money to Obama. The Weekly Standard ran a cover story in early December that according to Conason "literally swooned" over Obama. This story was written by Stephen Hays, Dick Cheney's admiring biographer and according to Conason "the last journalist on earth who still believes that Saddam Hussein was allied with al_Qaida."

The broadcast media apparently not immune itself to the "inspiration message manipulation" of voter emotion has also displayed an fawning adulation of Obama. For example one only need consider Chris Mathews saying he got a thrill in his leg over Obama. And this must be contrasted with a deplorable bias and outright prejudice against Clinton. Karl Rove citing polling data declared,

"There is no candidate on record, a front-runner for a party's nomination, who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has."

And like little sprouts off the main tree all the broadcast networks began hammering home the idea that "the voters don't like her." Over and over and over again adjectives such as "unlikeable," "divisive," and "polarizing," have been repeated about Clinton in an avalanche of negative press. This repetion cannot help but remind one of the way "weapons of mass destruction" were repeated ad nauseum in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. And very much like that media orchestrated campaign or the one that buried Al Gore, both of which were based on so much false and perjured evidence, nowhere is it understood, let alone reported, that Rove based that original assessment on interviews with conservative voters.

There are here and there in the public square a few who are questioning what appears to be a mindless adoration of Obama's message of hope. And often times this is based on what appear to be amazing contradictions in his stated positions on those apparently "non-inspriing" issues.

Here are a some of these questions:

How do you believe in someone who says he'll agree to public campaign financing and now is taking it back?

How do you believe in someone who claimed not to have PACs and now is found to have donated more than 4 times what Clinton did to Super Delegates?

How do you believe in someone who says he's for gun control in one state and against it in another state?

How do you believe in someone who claims not to be playing the race card and then gets caught circulating a memo detailing how to do just that?

How do you believe in someone who sends Jesse Jackson Jr. to intimidate black candidates who support Clinton?

The blogger who wrote this cracked me up and I close with it now because it is just so perfect:

There is a sucker born every minute, I hear.
I just didn't realize they'd all join up at once and chant, "Yes We Can!"

Links: http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/why-inspiration-will-make_b_86844.html http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1680192,00.html http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080212/NATION/108597255/0 http://www.salon.com/opinion/consason/2007/12/21/right_and_obama/print.html


Tags: Barack Obama, Robert Creamer, Hillary Clinton, Karl Rove, Republicans, Lincoln Chafee, Maryland (all tags)

[DaLittle Kitty]

8. Barack Has Some Real Baggage Issues That Are Being Held Back Until He Is The Nominee

Republicans working and contributing to Obama on a broad scale... Get reallll... This is a joke... While I believe that both of our remaining candidates are fatally flawed for the General Election contest, the Republicans believe that Barack is the "easier mark" of the two.... He will wilt under the withering fire of the general election tactics that will be employed by the RIGHT. Obama has purpOSEFULLY not been tested so as to keep his flaws and weaknesses hidden until it is too late...

[Johnny__Motown]

5. good luck with that, and welcome to American Politics,

[Hutzpa]

6. This type of blabbing gets me all worked up,

if you take the time to search you will find the answers, since you're too lazy to do
that, you use the best thing you have going for you and that Cynicism - which is a
sorry kind of wisdom. Google should be your best friend, if not, here read this,
that is, if you can:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4678548#4678587

once you've finished, I'm sure you should have a different opinion then.

Good Luck.

[DaLittle Kitty]

9. Who IS Lazy Here? Ain't me... I've been where few of the folks here have ever ventured...

Anyone else here ever run for Federal office in a general election?

Trust me it IS an experience... THAT PROVIDES MAJOR INSIGHTS ON HOW ANY real threat to the status quo establishment is treated. THEY WILL PULL OUT ALLLLLLLLLL THE STOPS to keep the "go along get alongs bought and paid for flacks" of EITHER party in office...

Elected Democrats even will stand up for Republican incumbents to keep the Republican in office... though I have yet to see Republican office holders do the same to fend off a threatening Democratic challenger attempting to unseat a Republican incumbent!


FUNNY how that works... NOT both ways.......

[DaLittle Kitty]

13. A Healthy Dose of Cynicism Is Required To Find The Truth... Blind Following Is For Chumps!

Open thine eyes and thoust will see... :eyes:

[karynnj]

17. Did you ever use that healthy dose of cynicism when

testing whether you trusted Edwards?

[DaLittle Kitty]

18. Why YES Of Course and The Facts Are That He Passes Where The Other Two Fail

On a number of important points... First and foremost... Who will take on Corporate America?

Well given that the other two have taken more $$$$$$ each individually and of course combined than ANY other candidates from WALL STREET should tell you who won that one... As a health professional, Edwards Health Plan provided a PATHWAY to SINGLE payer... neither of the other two do...

Energy No Coal No Nuc's fer Edwards... The other two are bought and paid for by First Big Nuclear... Obama... Exelon Corp., Hillary NRG Corp... Obama for Coal Big time Hillary as well supports coal though to a slightly lesser degree... Bottom line... who was most likely to follow through on his promises and potential... John Edwards... There's much more but you get the idea...

and of course THIS is why the voice of Corporate America the MSM BANISHED John Edwards voice from the campaign... :think:

[karynnj]

19. Give me one solid action JRE took in his 6 years in Congress

against the corporations. As to nuclear - he voted FOR Yucca mountain.

Obama stood up to Schumer and Reid and got more teeth in the ethics bill than they wanted. That is REAL.

As to single payer - I do see a possible way to get to real single payer in Obama's plan. He uses Kerry's idea of catastrophic re-insurance. The idea is to greatly lower the cost of insurance by having all costs above $50,000 paid for by a single pool. (If you think about it that pool is single payer) This was called the single best idea in 2004. If it worked as many economists and even businessmen admitted it would, it would lead to a lower total cost for insurance. It would not take a genius, to suggest that lowering the limit below $50,000 would produce additional savings. Gradually, that re-insurance becomes the real insurance - and at some point, people could opt to purchase just that and the threshold becomes the deductible. (this is not something I've read - the mathematics and the economics are obvious.)

Another thing to think of is that Obama's 2008 healthcare plan is far more progressive than Edwards' 2004 one. (In 2004, Edwards called Kerry's plan to expensive) If you look at Edwards and Obama over more than the last 2 years, you may find that Obama who worked with people in need on the South side of Chicago has a consistent history of wanting to make things fairer for people.

[Blondiegrrl]

14. Well of course Obama's platform is similar to that of other Democrats

There's nothing magical or surreal about him. Contrary to what the bashers would like to think, his supporters don't expect him to walk on water. I do prefer his health care plan to Hillary's and Edwards' plans. I'm also impressed that Obama is beholden to the average Joe Q. Public and looks down his nose at lobbyist money. But for the most part, yeah, he's a typical Democrat.

But -- unlike many of the other candidates -- he's not a crook, an arrogant asshole or a douchebag. That sets him head and shoulders above the pack, in my opinion.

[DaLittle Kitty]

15. Think Again Oh Drinker of The Koolaid... What Health Care Plan? and Can Anyone Say Rezko?

Lots more to come of the real estate deals etc and beyond... at the proper time.......