Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dear HILLARY Supporters; promoting politics of Fear against Obama will not work!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:28 AM
Original message
Dear HILLARY Supporters; promoting politics of Fear against Obama will not work!
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 12:44 AM by FrenchieCat
The meme from this point on, it appears, coming from many of you Hillary supporters is that Democratic voters should be very afraid to vote for Barack! The reason? The Republicans "want" Barack Obama to run against. That's why they are voting for him! :scared:

It appears that many Hillary supporters are again attempting to take one of Baracks greatest strength and attempt to turn it into a weakness. You now want Voters to vote for your candidate, Hillary Clinton, out of fear that voting Obama will give the Republicans what they want.

You use absolutely no rationale as to why the Republicans would prefer the candidate who is currently beating Hillary Clinton. The candidate who has raised the most money in Candidate history, and who has fired up so many new voters.

Why don't you enlighten us and tell us why they, those mean ol' Republicans would "prefer" Barack Obama?

We would like to know the reasons why Obama would be such a "weak" candidate against Sen. John-25 years in the Senate - Keating 5- 73 years old Dinosaur- War hero- 100 years in Iraq - bomb bomb bomb Iran McCain.

Thank you for being courteous and civil in your response.

Obama Supporters, please do not hesistate in jumping in.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:31 AM
Original message
The "new meme"?
People have been saying that for months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. Can I get the rationale as to why this is the case, for months?
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. BRILLIANT POST!!!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. Crossover appeal is not a bad thing!
As McCain's flaws become more readily apparent, and the 'Iraq for 100 years' hangs around his neck like an albatross, thousands of rank-and-file repubs, sick of Bush as everyone else, will go to Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. If you're referring to the Peggy Noonan OP
you're way off the mark.

As I said the day of the Wisconsin primary, I think she's lost the nomination and, if I had my druthers, should pull out.

The post was not about scaring people away from voting for Barack. You apparently missed the entire point of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. No. I'm talking about the many posts right here on Du now........
in where Hillary supporters keep saying that "My friend's mother is a republican....and he said, they are voting for Obama now, but they will vote for McCain in November".

What I am plainly asking is Why do the Republicans "want" to run against Barack Obama? What is it that makes him easier to beat than Hillary Clinton, the known Republican's nemesis for years.

Thank you for your response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. What many posts are you referring to then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
33. here......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #11
37. This might be one of those that Frenchie is referring to:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
6. That stuff comes from both sides. Both have been portrayed as vulnerable against McCain
I argue that Obama is mostly a blank slate for the opposition to define, with most Americans much less aware of the particulars of his life and record as they are of Hillary Clinton.

There's the obvious wreck of McCain, but a candidate can end up running against themselves sometimes. Truth is, we just don't know how either of them will fare against opposition from the republican party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. So, as I read the boards tonight and find more than enough
of the "Republicans want him" post....those are the Hillary supporters I am addressing this post to.

You do not appear to be this kind of Hillary supporters. You seem to be a bit more neutral on this matter. But I do thank you for your response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. we have to have some confidence in our ability to fight for our nominee and win
. . . whoever that may be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. What Part Of "48% Negatives" Do You Not Grasp?
Hillary has too much baggage to beat even the weakest of the repug candidates in the GE. Just because you like her won't change that FACT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. that's after a withering campaign against the Clintons throughout her husband's two terms
What part of two-term presidency don't you understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. But what makes Barack Obama a "weaker" opponent for McCain?
That is my question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #20
31. I gave my answer on how I PERSONALLY see the choice.
Why do you need me to argue with your own circular premise? Just answer yourself and be done with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cottonseed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. Bingo! Great post.
After reading enough of these posts on DU telling us that we "don't even know what's coming", or that "he'll be savaged" for this and that reasons, one almost comes away feeling worried about who some Dems are going to support come the general.

I'm waiting for the fight, looking forward to it. I'm looking forward to crushing this consultant class in Washington. To watching them be attacked, ridiculed, and pushed aside by Americans sick of the derisive and cynical crap of the last few decades. Maybe it's a world some can't comprehend, who knows, but I for one am ready to have some damn common sense and humanity come back to politics and this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
8. "Thank you for being courteous and civil in your response."
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Answering the post would be good too.
Could you do that? Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. No, because I am not a HILLARY supporter
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 12:42 AM by Bluebear
I voted for Edwards in my state's primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AJH032 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
14. dear OBAMA supporters: constantly tearing down Clinton and her supporters will win you nothing
in November. You need our support, whether you want to admit it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. I am asking a fair question........
and awaiting a fair answer.

I am not talking to anyone who isn't promoting this tactic.

I am simply asking for the rationale for this.

Thus far, I haven't been given any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Vote In Pittsburgh Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #18
63. Your question is fair, but it could have been presented more graciously
For example, you could have used a different word than meme, omitted the scared face, and omitting claims of "absolutely no rationale."

However, I can understand why it is hard to be courteous. People who claim that Republicans are voting for Obama to throw the election DO use absolutely no rational. Their argument is, to me, extremely illogical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
16. HEY FC--tell your Obamakiddies to stop posting threads demanding Hillary
step aside for the sake of the party/country. Talk about the politics of fear!!


Deal??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. I don't control Obama supporters anymore than you control
Hillary supporters.

(Note, that I am not mushing all Hillary supporters together, or calling them out of their names other than what is considered a respectable moniker--Hillary supporters)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #19
40. point taken--but my main point stands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #40
54. Why don't you be the first to apologize
every time I head Obamite, Obamination, Obamakiddies, etc etc, it just makes my blood pressure go up.

We are not cult members.

Not all of us are young.

We don't like being called names anymore than you like being called Hillbots or HillShills.

Stop it and apologize.

(As for all Obama supporters here, take heed, I don't like calling Hillary supporters names either!).

We are all Democrats. Some support Hillary, some support Obama, some support neither. Let's leave it at that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. "Obamakiddies"? Condescending much?
The OP said Hillary supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. poster has frequently referred to obama supporters as
'obamababies' and 'obamacrybabies' because apparently snarking at young voters at every opportunity is an amusing pastime for him/her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. yah--somedays thos obamacritters are so annoying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. always insulting and condescending.
making fun of young voters, yet your own immaturity is obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #32
79. You have not figured out that those endearing names are for immature. bye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #79
93. i've figured that out alright.
and at long last...to the ignore list with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #28
35. I asked that it be kept civil and courteous.
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 12:57 AM by FrenchieCat
Are you able to do this?

And thus far, you haven't answered the OP question.

Could you, please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. ah sweetie you no like??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #25
38. Again, I requested civility.
Are you able to do this? If not, could you please stop posting in this thread? I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErnestoG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #38
65. You must be kidding.
The Hillar would rather go down in flames and take everyone with them than cede that position for their Entitled One.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #25
47. It reflects poorly on on your candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #25
74. No poopy head, me no like!
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 02:01 AM by ProSense
Your comments are among the most moronic on this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #16
34. Have you looked at the polls lately?
You are losing your sense of fair play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErnestoG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #16
52. Why don't you tell your Entitlement Queen to move aside?
In fact, demand it for country and unity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazBerryBeret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
22. Great Post FC....
the way I see it, Obama was born in the 60s to a teenage mom, black child in a white family, dad leaving when he was young...I imagine he's had some fights growing up. I'm pretty sure he can handle it, or he wouldn't be where he is today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
23. I see no need to denigrate McCain's service to the nation. On to your question.
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 12:52 AM by Skip Intro

Obama supporters here were saying the same thing a few months ago.

I believe the repukes would rather have an Obama to run against than a Hillary. I have no doubt of that. Why, because he'd be far easier to beat. Dem primaries are not crystal balls into the GE. There are republicans, a lot of em. The flag-waving, call a Dem anti-American and sympathetic to terrorists strategy has worked for the repukes over and over again. They'll use it this time too. I'll let you consider the ways Obama is vulnerable to those kinds of attacks.

I see no need to denigrate McCain's service to the nation. He is a war hero. Slandering that will definitely result in a repuke landslide should Obama be the nom, and it should, and that's what they effn' did to Cleland and Kerry. I want no part of that.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #23
36. WTF? While we're at it let's not denigrate Bush's!
It's becoming clear that McCain is a highly unethical and a liar.

That has nothing to do with his military service, and everything to do with a reputation earned.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. Hahahahaha!
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 12:59 AM by Major Hogwash
Please, we'll lose the all-important anti-Kerry vote!

LoL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #36
41. From the OP: "73 years old Dinosaur- War hero"
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 01:03 AM by Skip Intro

That para in full:

------------------------
We would like to know the reasons why Obama would be such a "weak" candidate against Sen. John-25 years in the Senate - Keating 5- 73 years old Dinosaur- War hero- 100 years in Iraq - bomb bomb bomb Iran McCain
------------------------


Not exaclty touting his military record, is it?

Sure you're in the right thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. "War Hero." Yes, and the rest is spot on! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. Ah, a clarification.
well, I guess that's big of you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. The clarification is for your benefit. My previous comment stands. n/t
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 01:08 AM by ProSense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #50
58. Was appropriate, nonetheless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #46
51. I don't see you contributing to the conversation....by throwing out
accusations of denigration against McCain's military service. That Denigration is simply not there. Anything else about McCain is fair play....in particular if it is something he has done or said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #41
49. I don't have to "Tout" his military record.......
but I am not denigrating it.

The fact that he is older than dirt and has been parked in the senate 25 years...and has had major scandals like The Keating 5, and believes in 100 years war in Iraq and has sang Bomb Bomb Iran has nothing to do with his military service. But then, you knew that....right? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #49
57. Please
you list his "war hero" title along with several things that are derogatory to him. Fine, I'm no McCain fan, have at him - I lost all respect for him when he faitfully backed bush on almost everything. But I'm not gonna pretend I didn't see "war hero" listed among those scandals. It is plainly there.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #57
75. Are you just not going to respond to this, FC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #23
42. Why would Obama be easier to beat.
You have not answered this....other than to say that he just would.

What does Flag Waving have to do with it? Please explain. Why don't you tell me why Obama is vunerable to "those types" of attacks? Don't let me consider it......go ahead and spell it out.

Just note that Obama has raised the most money, and is beating Hillary Clinton. So why would he be so easy to beat?

Who is "slantering" McCain. Please explain this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Vote In Pittsburgh Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #42
56. There is no evidence to support this view n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #42
66. See posts 57 and 64.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Vote In Pittsburgh Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #23
55. No significant evidence exists for your claim
Your argument is that Obama can be portrayed as "anti-American," and this would make him lose the election. In other words, you "have no doubt" that the republicans will successfully convince many independents that Obama is "anti-American." After all, for the Republicans to win the election, independent, swing voters will have to vote for McCain.

Clearly, few independents currently believe Obama is anti-American. Also, no facts indicate a large number of independents will be brainwashed. Most evidence brought up by Hillary supporters are stories such as "my best friend republican is voting for Obama" or "someone called in to my local radio talk show and said to vote for Obama." The remaining "evidence" is that Karl Rove successfully swiftboated Kerry, so he will be able to swiftboat Obama. This last claim is silly because Rove is just as able to swiftboat Hillary. In fact, attacks on Clinton have proved more successful; Obama would be leading in delegates even if we didn't count open primaries.

Finally, while there is no substantive evidence for Hillary being more electable, there IS substantive evidence for Obama being more electable. All polls show that Clinton is perceived as having higher negatives among independents and republicans. They also show that more people are willing to vote for Obama in the GE than for Clinton. You can discount the polls as meaningless if you want, and you would probably be wrong, but even discounting these polls, no substantive evidence supports your argument. This is why humiliatingly few Obama supporters and undecided voters believe your claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #55
64. Welcome to DU. To the point - KERRY was vulnerable to that line of attack.
I have no doubt, as I think I said, that they will use that line of attack. Yes, I think he's vulnerable too. Yes, there is a pic of him not holding his hand over his heart while the pledge was being delivered. Yes, he seems almost anxious to meet with our enemies. Yes, his wife did say she had no reason to feel proud of this nation before Obama ran for president. Not seeing how this kinda stuff could be used to fuel such a line of attacks from the repukes is, for me, akin to fantasy.

Dem primaries are not an indication of how the electorate will vote in Nov. Do you really think we have a shot at Utah?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Vote In Pittsburgh Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #64
67. It will fuel a line of attacks, but so far we have seen them fail
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 01:50 AM by I Vote In Pittsburgh
Repukes love to go after the anti-American stuff. Noone is denying that repukes will use this as an attack, but most believe it will be ineffective. The attacks have already begun. Cindy McCain and John McCain took stabs at Michelle for her "anti-American" comments. Many have seen the picture of Obama not saluting the flag. Many know his middle name is "hussein." So far, it has had no noticeable impact on independents. The central argument against Obama's electability is that these attacks will be successful in the GE. The evidence, which consists of Rove's "successful" swiftboating of Kerry's war hero status, is unconvincing to most.

I actually believe Rove's effectiveness is exaggerated way too often. I don't think Rove's attack machine was the primary factor in 2004. I am especially sure of this as it applies to people around my age (18-22). I was a college freshman during the Kerry-Bush race, and college students did not vote in that election because they were attracted to neither candidate. We watched the debates. We attended his rally right here at CMU. We were more informed than you think, but the truth is, Kerry was hugely uninspiring to my generation. It had little to do with Rove; the main criticism was that Kerry was running an "I'm not Bush" campaign. A South Park - which has liberal writers and appeals to people under 30 - episode at the time got great ratings. The plot was an election race between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #64
76. Another vulnerability to add to Obama's list:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #64
81. That wasn't pledging the flag........that was the singing the National Athem.....
and Barack is singing the anthem in the video that exists (for which the pic is one frame of), which is what one is supposed to do.

Maybe one should ask if the rest of those in the pic are unpatriotic for not singing the national Anthem....while Barack is clearly mouthing each word?

Plus, there is also video footage from C-Span of Obama leading the Pledge of the Allegiance. What are they gonna do about that? :shrug:

Sure they will attack....but they will only illustrate the politics of hate. Just like Barack is able to call out Hillary to the public....even if she didn't want that to happen.


I hate the pink Tu-Tu wearing Democrats! They are so fucking scared of the GOP....it ain't even funny. And those pink Tu-tu wearing Democrats is exactly why the Right Wing used to be so successful. I'm glad that their days are numbered. They have fucked us up, up to this point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. In one frame you can tell he's "clearly mouthing each word?"
that is indeed amazaing

yes, they will use "the politics of hate" - they are masters (although, some Obama supporters here seem like masters as well).

it's not so much being afraid of your enemy, as it is knowing your enemy -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #82
84. Your pink Tu-Tu is showing........
guess that's why your candidate voted for war. Too scared to do otherwise!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. Instead of insulting me, why not reply to post 57?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #23
59. All polling that indicates otherwise to the contrary.
There is no logic to the argument that the repukes WANT to run against Obama rather than Clinton. None. Nor is there any evidence (other than some republicans voting for Obama in open primaries, which might be for many reasons) to the contrary.

The one candidate that would energize THEIR base is Hillary Clinton.

The one candidate that McCain consistently beats in national poll after national poll is Hillary Clinton.

The one candidate that apparently has NO problem raising tons of cash is Barack Obama.

So, other than southern racists and people too stupid to understand that he is NOT Osama nor Saddam Hussein, nor is he Muslim... those people who AREN'T voting for Hillary either... what segment of the Republican base will come out to vote against Obama that wouldn't vote against Hillary???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paperbag_ princess Donating Member (286 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #23
89. bingo!
I also think that in the GE the argument that Obama does not have neccessary experience to lead in a real crisis will begin to take hold with the indies.....and creating long lists of legislation that he put forth in Illinois isn't going to cut it...nor is his community organizer experience going to ease anyone's nerves.

The average voter will just be learning about his lack of a record in the Senate....most people have no clue about that.

People want to feel proud of their nation...(whether it is justified or not)...
People want to feel safe in their beds at night...(whether it is a false security or not)

If we can't tap into that ....we have a hard time winning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
26. I thought fearmongering was a BUSH tactic!
Well, no sense in discussing that issue with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
27. Every, and I mean every, Rebublican activist I've talked to in the past year
Was practically salivating over the prospect of running against Clinton. I know quite a few of them, because I'm pretty involved in local politics. They are shitting bricks over a popular, likable candidate like Obama running. Make no mistake. They wanted to run against Clinton because they knew they'd get their base out. I'm in Arizona. John McCain Ground Zero. They are scared of Obama here. That should tell you something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoldieAZ49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #27
53. in AZ also, agreed HRC was the candidate they have waited to run against for years
They have watched what did not work for Hillary running against Obama


Prosense:
I also don't think going after McCain as unethical or a liar is going to work, he is not seen that way, not here and not by Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #53
60. You are right. Just go after him as too old and crazy.
HRC won by less than 8%, when all was said and done, in a state with a large population of retirees and Hispanics. If we had open Presidential primaries, Obama would have won.

McCain is HATED by the Republican machine here. He couldn't even get elected as a State Committeeperson here. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070305/blumenthal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoldieAZ49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #60
96. Good article, thank you
I know he barely got the vote in the super T primary, but not about this district.

illegal immigration/border/amnesty has become a problem for him in his home state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenDavid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
29. Why do Republicans like Obama?
By Ron Walters

It first hit me when I saw William Kristol, the prominent Neoconservative editor of the Weekly Standard making a vigorous defense of the progress of Barack Obama's campaign.Then, it was conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks lauding Obama's chances over Hilary Clinton. This view was cinched by the recent release of a Pew Poll, which showed that Republicans in the survey prefer Obama and Edwards to Clinton.

I wondered what was going on: was it that conservative, Republican-leaning pundits and party members were being objective about the fact that Barack Obama had the chance to be the "first legitimate" candidate who could actually win the presidency, whether he was just "likeable," or whether they were setting him up.

They could have been setting him up because they truly believed that he could not win, and thus was the weaker candidate who make a good target and they would prefer to run against him than a traditional white male or even a female.

I say "even a female" because of course there are also many Republicans who are aware of front-runner Hilary Clinton's high negatives and would secretly want to run against her. Chief among them is candidate Rudolph Giuliani who mentions her negatively with almost every breath. But in his maiden article as a Newsweek pundit, Karl Rove took her on as someone who dared to run in the general election with the highest negatives of all candidates, if she should win the Democratic nomination.

My suspicion about the Republican love of Obama is grounded in the belief that they can't be serious about favoring a Black candidate when their operatives run political operations designed to keep Black voters away from the polls by any means necessary.

Republicans run "ballot security" programs all over the country, where they check the credentials of Blacks to see if they are eligible to vote; they screen and purge Black voters from rolls where they are in charge; they pass voter ID legislation in legislatures where they are dominant to make it difficult for Blacks to vote. So, why would they favor Obama?

Yes, there is merit in the theory that many Republicans are shrewd enough to want Obama to win the nomination to insure the possibility that a Republican will win the election. They are betting on the racist feelings of many whites against electing a Black person to the highest office in the land, expressing their disbelief in the polls suggesting that the majority of whites would now vote for a qualified Black candidate. They are also betting that this racist strain is responsible for the difference in some polls between whites who say they will vote for a Black candidate and then don't.

So, I also think that Republicans have confidence, based on the historical record, that they know how to handle a Black candidate in a campaign setting. All you have to do is look at the Senate contest in Tennessee in 2006 that featured an African-American candidate, Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. and Robert Corker. In the final days, Corker unleashed an add that featured a young White woman bidding Ford to "come hither" for a date, something that is frowned upon publicly, but historically practiced in private with a vengeance.

Then, there was the famous add in the Senate race of Jesse Helms in 1990 against African-American, Harvey Gantt, where a Black hand was featured covering a White hand, with the voice-over suggesting that Affirmative Action would take away hard-won white gains. The most famous, of course, was Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential campaign where a Black convict, Willie Horton was used in an add by George H.W. Bush to suggest that Dukakis' weekend furlough program was a "revolving door," since Horton participated in a murder upon release. The point is that all of these ads were perpetrated by Republicans and all of them had an affect upon voters.

Right now, according to the polls, if you wanted to vote for someone in the primaries who might win the general election, you would vote for either Barack Obama or John Edwards, since they have wide leads against both Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney, while Hilary has only a light lead against them. But you might also consider the possibility that this is a set-up, especially for Obama.

Dr. Ron Walters is the Distinguished Leadership Scholar, Director of the African American Leadership Center and Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland College Park.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #29
43. Please edit to cut down your paragraphs per DU rules and provide a link.
That's part of being civil and courteous.

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #43
68. link:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #29
44. Take that entire article....
...and substitute the words "black" and "African American" with "Catholic"... and substitute the word "Obama" with "Kennedy" and the article would work in 1960.

It was also be just as false.


In 1960, LBJ supporters were floating out similar whispered threats to Democrats saying "America is not ready to elect a Catholic.... look what happened in the 1920s to Al Smith (the first Catholic candidate)".

They were wrong... America was ready.


In 2008.... YOU are wrong. America is ready.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #29
48. Because the 6% to 9% of them who will vote in the GE, as they're doing in the primary,
prefer him to the Republican candidates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
30. I see nothing to fear
We have a great candidate that is getting more people interested in politics than I can ever remember. Even if he somehow does not become our next President, he can at least be thanked for doing that. That said, he WILL be Inaugurated next January! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue State Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
61. I have seen this same tactic ever since...
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 01:43 AM by ingin
the first major open primary contest in S. Carolina in which it became apparent that Indie's and Republicans were crossing over to vote for Obama.

There has been a conservative effort by some, (as far as I've seen not from the Clinton Campaign). The huge wins in such contests have been marginalized by many Clinton supporters using this very fact.

As a matter of fact, I do see a half truth in this "meme". I believe that there is a growing minority withing the Republican party that hopes for an Obama nomination. But it is not for the reasons promoted my the more militant supporters of Clinton's candidacy.

Many moderate Republicans, disillusioned by the neo-conservative movement that has taken over their party, are humbled by the respect they perceive coming from Obama and his surrogates. They know that Obama doesn't represent their core social and economic ideals, but are willing to overlook this simply because they do not feel as though they are being talked down to.

Considering their options, and how bent over they felt after the Bush administration, an up front honesty from a candidate trumps their other two choices; firebrand disrespect from a Clinton Campaign, or bald-faced liars from any Republican garnering support from the old GOP guard.

This pattern also ring in my ear concerning Clinton and the old Guard GOP and the neo-cons. Now I admit, this is only conjecture, but don't be surprised when the GOP and the Neo-Cons start saying that they wished they had Clinton over Obama. This has already begun in the far reaches of the right-wing.

Coulter and Rush have already said as much, though it was expressed publicly as an anti-Mc Cain sentiment. But if you use the same "math" as those "Obamacan Retractors", it could be said that the outward backslapping of Obama by the likes of Luntz and Buchanan could be an attempt to scare Democrats into the arms of the Clinton camp. Their possible logic would be that a Clinton/DLC administration would be more sympathetic to the neo-conservative wing of the Republican party.

This I do know, their will be no easy path for any Democrat in '08. So before you go into that voting booth, use your head, so that when you get into that booth, you can use your heart.

on edit I reworded this "though not visible to me, by Clinton's campaign I may have missed something" in paragraph 2 so that it made sense, and would not be misconstruded)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Vote In Pittsburgh Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #61
69. How did it become apparent? We are looking for facts
So far people just assume that Republicans are switching over because "Obama is the weaker candidate." You have to prove that Republicans believe this, and you also have to give meaningful evidence of them switching over. You can't just say it is true and use anecdotal evidence and expect us to believe you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. Reread the post........because poster is saying what you are saying.....
that some Republicans don't feel they have any where to turn, and they respect the Obama campaign.

These are the same Republicans who wouldn't have any problems voting for a Colin Powell...something Hillary supporters don't like to think about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Vote In Pittsburgh Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #70
72. Oops!
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 02:02 AM by I Vote In Pittsburgh
:blush:
I apologize for my hideous lapse in reading comprehension!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
62. I feel that I have made a real effort to improve my tone with some of the
Clinton supporters. This is the most intellectually dishones tact that some of them are taking. The numbers that the democrats are putting up represent a seismic earth tremor. These arguments are like saying that those shots taken from the moon were really taken in a studio somewhere. It moves the debate into conspiracy and all of our shared values are undermined.


I understand how frustrating it is to be so invested in someone and then lose. But undermining the truly historical events that are happening will not change how anybody views them, only how people who promote crack pot theories are viewd.

Thank you Frenchie for this. I had not seen this thread when I started this one http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4722738
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #62
71. Excellent pics on that thread!
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #62
87. THAT thread offers no proof at ALL
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 06:05 AM by mtnester
it was a hyped up false OP title to get people to look at rally pics. There is nothing WRONG with rally pics....except when you post a thread title stating Proof of Republican voting crossover and offer rally pics as your proof.

And before poo is slung at me from anyone, I am one of those undecided voters who will make up my mind 3/4...probably in the voting booth.


edit for spelling typo only
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countmyvote4real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:01 AM
Response to Original message
73. Enough already.
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 02:07 AM by countmyvote4real
We all want change. Obama has the momentum and the most delegates. Senator Clinton knows that, too. It was all too apparent by her closing remarks in the Austin pageant.

I am an Edwards supporter that made peace with the options left on the table.

It's time for us all to move on to attacking the VP choice of the front runner. This is a great opportunity for us all to put down our knives and pick them back up again to bloody our party. I say this because HRC had a stunning close to the Austin pageant. I think that she knows she is not the change most of us are seeking.

In our hearts we all know that our preferred candidate can do better than the * regime. Frankly, I'd like for most of the Democratic candidates to remain in the Senate. That's all that barely remains on our side.

Then again, MAYBE Obama can open up some progressive vacancies in the Senate with some DINO appointments to cabinet positions.

Right. It's not going to happen. Still, it is time to move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
casus belli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
77. Never met a boxer....
...who didn't "want" the opponent he ended up fighting against. That doesn't mean they will win. If the Republicans want to run against Obama, then let them say they chose the candidate who beat them in a landslide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mares Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 03:07 AM
Response to Original message
78. Dear Obama & Clinton supporters..
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 03:08 AM by mares
This Edwards supporter isn't voting for either of your candidates. I'm sick to death of both of them. I have known that Clinton was a corporate stooge for several years now. Just based on her voting record, and her willing indifference.. even my daughter said from the get go that she would never vote for her. After Edwards put his campaign on hold, I had hopes that Obama would commit to Edwards platform, but he hasn't. Lip service isn't a commitment. The more I learn about him, the worse I feel.

I think they both are as bad as McCain. At this point I and other Edwards supporters I network with don't place much hope in a decent democrat being elected to the whitehouse. We're commiting to focusing on replacing bad members of congress. I'll be writing John Edwards name on the ballot in RI, and others around the country have done so and will continue to.

I don't believe either Obama or Clinton would offer Edwards the VP position, they don't respect him and during the primary treated him shabbily.

As things stand the MSM can take all of them down, and they are easily controlled or blackmailed by the corporate and powerful interests. Any of them would be as bad as Bush.

All I can say is I wish Edwards would get back in this race, because he is the ONLY decent candidate, the only REAL democrat in the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #78
80. Welcome. I respect your decision to do the write in. From what I hear on
this boar (and outside this board)----many others will do that also


either for edwards-or for clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #78
83. Lip service? What exactly had Edwards "done" in reference to his
own Platform? What "action" did he ever take?

Here is what Obama accomplished--

Obama's Global Poverty Act of 2007, just passed out of committee

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.
http://obama.senate.gov /


what people are saying about this bill:
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1302.html#usercomments

http://www.fantasycongress.com/legislation/S.2433



Legislation would aim to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," said Senator Obama. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere. I commend Chairman Biden and Ranking Member Lugar for supporting this bill and moving it forward quickly."

"Poverty, hunger, and disease will be among the most serious challenges confronting the world in the 21st century," Senator Hagel said. "This legislation provides the President of the United States the framework and resources to help implement a comprehensive policy to reduce global poverty. It is the human condition that has always driven the great events of history. This is a responsibility of all citizens of the world."
http://obama.senate.gov/press/080213-obama_hagel_can_1 /

---------------------

MORE



Judge Him by His Laws
By Charles Peters
Friday, January 4, 2008; A21

...Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there -- and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. <>

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.
This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.
Obama had his work cut out for him.
<>
The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
---------
Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor

and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure").

Obama's commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303_pf.html
-------------------------------

Ethics and Lobbying Reform
Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has been a leader in fighting for open and honest government. During his first year as an Illinois State Senator, he helped lead the fight to pass Illinois' first ethics reform bill in 25 years. As a U.S. Senator, he has spearheaded the effort to clean up Washington in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Senator Obama is one of the authors of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (S. 2180). The bill would lengthen the cooling off period to two years for lawmakers and staff who seek to become lobbyists, and it would require immediate disclosure as soon as any job negotiations begin.

The bill would open conference committee meetings to the public and require that all bills be posted on the Internet for 24 hours before they can be voted on by the Senate. Finally, the bill would end all lobbyist-funded gifts, meals, and travel and strengthen the Senate office that monitors lobbyist disclosure forms.

In addition, Senator Obama has sponsored three other ethics-related bills:

The Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission Act (S. 2259)The bill would create an outside ethics commission to receive complaints from the public on alleged ethics violations by members of Congress, staff, and lobbyists. The commission would have the authority to investigate complaints and present public findings of fact about possible violations to the House and Senate Ethics Committee and Justice Department. By taking the initial fact finding out of the hands of members of Congress, who are often reluctant to investigate their colleagues, the bill ensures prompt and fair disposition of public complaints.

To avoid manipulation of the commission for political purposes, any person filing a complaint that they knew to be false would be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment. No complaints could be filed against a member of Congress for 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.

The bill has been widely endorsed by reform groups. According to Common Cause, "this legislation would do more to reform ethics and lobbying than any other piece of legislation introduced thus far because it goes to the heart of the problem: enforcement."

Public Citizen praised Senator Obama "for having the courage to challenge the business-as-usual environment on Capitol Hill and introduce far-reaching legislation." Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington stated: "This is the first bill that deals seriously with the lack of oversight and enforcement in the existing congressional ethics process. . . . This bill will help restore Americans' confidence in the integrity of Congress.

The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act (S. 2261)
The bill would shed light on the almost 16,000 earmarks that were included in spending bills in 2005. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists.

The Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act (The CLEAN UP Act) (S. 2179)

The bill aims to improve public access to information about all legislation, including conference reports and appropriations legislation, in particular after hurried, end-of-session negotiations. Conference committee meetings and deliberations would have to be open to the public or televised, and conference reports would have to identify changes made to the bill from the House and Senate versions. Finally, no bill could be considered by the full Senate unless the measure has been made available to all Senators and the general public on the Internet for at least 72 hours.

Health Care
The United States is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, yet more than 45 million Americans have no health insurance. Too many hard-working Americans cannot afford their medical bills, and thus, health-related issues are the number one cause for personal bankruptcy. Too many employers are finding it difficult to offer the coverage their employees need.

Promoting affordable, accessible, and high-quality health care was a priority for Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate and is a priority for him in the United States Senate. He believes firmly that health care should be a right for everyone, not a privilege for the few.


Destroying Surplus and Unguarded Conventional Weapons
After visiting weapons stockpiles in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, Senators Lugar and Obama introduced S. 2566, which would expand the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons.

Sex Offenders

Senator Obama cosponsored Dru's Law (S. 792) which creates a nationwide sex offender database and requires greater monitoring of sex offenders upon their release from prison. The bill passed the Senate on July 28, 2005.

He also cosponsored the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. This bill increases the penalties for sex crimes against children under the age of 12, and creates a national Internet site known as the National Sex Offender Public Registry. The bill will also provide grants to local law enforcement to assist in preventing and investigating sex crimes against minors.

Violence Against Women Act
Senator Obama cosponsored extension of Violence Against Women Act (S. 1197), which passed the Senate on October 4, 2005, and was signed into law. The Act provides increased funds to law enforcement to combat violence against women. It also establishes a sexual assault services program and provides grants for education programs to prevent domestic violence and encourage reporting of abuses.

The Senate Immigration Bill
Senator Obama played a key role in the crafting of the immigration reform bill that the Senate passed in May 2006. The bill, which President Bush supports, would provide more funds and technology for border security and prevent employers from skirting our laws by hiring illegal immigrants. The bill also would provide immigrants who are now contributing and responsible members of society an opportunity to remain in the country and earn citizenship. But not all illegal immigrants would be guaranteed the right to remain in the U.S. under this proposal; they would first have to pay a substantial fine and back taxes, learn English, satisfy a work requirement, and pass a criminal background check.

Senator Obama offered three amendments that were included in the Senate bill. The first amendment strengthens the requirement that a job be offered at a prevailing wage to American workers before it is offered to a guestworker. The second amendment makes it simple, but mandatory, for employers to verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States. And the third amendment authorizes $3 million a year for the FBI to improve the speed and accuracy of the background checks required for immigrants seeking to become citizens.



Drinking Water Security
Senator Obama drafted an amendment, which was included in the Safe Drinking Water Act, which passed the EPW Committee on July 20, 2005. The Obama amendment would provide $37.5 million over the next five years to protect the country's drinking water from a terrorist attack. It also instructs Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control to develop the tools needed by drinking water systems to detect and respond to the introduction of biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants by terrorists.


Greater Funding for Veterans Health Care
As early as February 2005, Senator Obama warned of a shortfall in the VA budget. Four months later, the VA reported that in fact it had more than a $1 billion shortfall. Senator Obama cosponsored a bill that led to a $1.5 billion increase in veterans' medical care. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, Senator Obama cosponsored measures that would have provided additional funding increases for veterans.

In September 2006, Senator Obama introduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act (S. 3988) to improve the VA’s planning process to avoid budget shortfalls in the future. The bill requires the VA and the Department of Defense to work together and share data so that we know precisely how many troops will be returning home and entering the VA system.

Homeless Veterans
Every year, 400,000 veterans across the country, including an estimated 38,000 in Chicago, spend some time living on the streets. Senator Obama has been a leader in fighting homelessness among veterans. He authored the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) (S. 1180) to strengthen and expand federal homeless veteran programs that serve over 100,000 homeless veterans annually. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, Senator Obama passed an amendment to increase funding for homeless veterans programs by $40 million. These funds would benefit programs that provide food, clothing, mental health and substance abuse counseling, and employment and housing assistance to homeless veterans.

In June 2006, Senator Obama introduced the Homes for Heroes Act (S. 3475), which would expand access to long-term affordable housing for homeless veterans by setting aside $225 million to purchase, build or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans. The legislation would also greatly expand existing veterans rental assistance programs and create a new office within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to coordinate services to homeless veterans.

Food for Recovering Soldiers
Senator Obama introduced an amendment that became law providing food services to wounded veterans receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services at military hospitals. Previously, service members receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services in a medical hospital for more than 90 days were required to pay for their meals.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and TBI
Senator Obama fought a VA proposal that would have required a reexamination of all PTSD cases in which full benefits were granted. He and Senator Durbin passed an amendment that has become law preventing the VA from conducting a review of cases, without first providing Congress with a complete report regarding the implementation of such review. In November 2005, the VA announced that it was abandoning its planned review.

Senator Obama passed an amendment to ensure that all service members returning from Iraq are properly screened for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). TBI is being called the signature injury of the Iraq war. The blast from improvised explosive devices can jar the brain, causing bruising or permanent damage. Concussions can have huge health effects including slowed thinking, headaches, memory loss, sleep disturbance, attention and concentration deficits, and irritability.

Easing the Transition to the VA
Senator Obama passed an amendment that became law requiring the Department of Defense (DOD) to report to Congress on the delayed development of an electronic medical records system compatible with the VA's electronic medical records system. DOD's delay in developing such a system has created obstacles for service members transitioning into the VA health care system.

In September 2006, Senator Obama introduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act (S. 3988) which would help veterans transition from the DOD health system to the VA system by extending the window in which new veterans can get mental health care from two years to five years. The Lane Evans bill also would improve transition services for members of the National Guard and Reserves.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #78
90. Welcome to DU, mares
:hi:

We've heard this song before, though :nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 04:57 AM
Response to Original message
86. There's only 11 days left.
And then, perhaps, she will quit the race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
88. The politics of stupidity works much better with Obamites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #88
91. Calling names and talking silly earns you
no respect.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #91
92. True. But citing facts and being rational don't seem to do the trick, either.
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 07:32 AM by Perry Logan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doni_georgia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
94. Hillary DUers seem hell bent on scorched earth policy
If they aren't saying Barack stands no chance against republicans. Then they are accusing Barack of lying about his mom and family upbringing, or accusing him of being an elitist for going to Ivy League schools (something their own candidate did). For Christ's sake people look what you are doing! Thank god the Clinton campaign isn't one tenth as nasty as her supporters here on DU have been.

Here's how I see it:

The republicans have been wanting to run against Hillary for years. They have been planning for this since Bill got out of office. Hell - many of their attacks on Bill when he was in the White House was because of their hatred for Hillary. She could unite the republican party in a way none of their lack luster candidates have been able to do.

Barack has a unique background for an American presidential candidate. That is a given. The small-minded bigots of the world will try to use this against him, but let's face it - these people would never vote for a black man (or a white woman) anyway.

Barack Obama went to Ivy League schools. Well, every President I since Regan has gone to Ivy League schools. Ivy League schools have produced a large number of US presidents.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both had blessed, privileged lives compared to many people in this country, but neither of them come from "privilege" in the sense of Bush privilege. You do not have to be rich to go to Ivy League schools. Sure, it helps, but look at the money they give out to people who would never be able to afford to go there otherwise. My own daughter has her hopes set on an Ivy League school, and if she gets in she is going. Are we rich - HA! Not even close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
95. Kick
Saturday morning reminder. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 05:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC