Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Peril of Obama

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
 
PinkTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:15 PM
Original message
The Peril of Obama
From the April issue of the Atlantic, available online -- the original post on this was archived, and I wanted to comment:

"To rely on illusions is to risk disillusionment. If Obama the dream candidate becomes Obama the real president, he’ll be forced to pick sides, make compromises, and turn “hope” and “change” into policies some people like and some people don’t. Or, like the movie star governor of California, he might choose instead to preserve his glamour by letting others set the agenda. Either way, his face won’t make America’s worries disappear, and his cool, polite manner won’t eliminate political disagreements. Some of his supporters will feel disappointed, even betrayed. The result could be a backlash, heightened partisan conflict, and a failed presidency. George W. Bush ran as a uniter, and Jimmy Carter promised national renewal."

This is precisely my fear about Obama; that he will be, like Kennedy, a failure in the White House. Now let the fun begin.

Oh, and here's the link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200804u/obamas-glamour/2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Peril Of Hillary
Another corporate sponsored President at a time when we most need to put the corporations back on a leash in order to put our country back on track after 28 years of corporate sponsored Presidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Symarip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Shhhh....
Reality doesn't count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. The OP would rather have the Bosnian Sniper Liar..
how pathetic.

"Why Hillary’s Lies are Important"

- March 24, 2008, 9:53PM
Hillary Clinton has been caught in a series of lies and misrepresentations during the primary campaign. To some of her supporters, these lies may seem trivial and insignificant and even politics-as-usual. However, please consider the serious impact of these lies by placing them in the context of the past seven years of the Bush Administration and the legacy of expanded executive power that he leaves behind. In particular, consider the dangerous message that the Clinton campaign sends by employing similar tactics to achieve her political goals.

1. The Florida and Michigan Primaries / The Delegate Count
Hillary agreed to honor the DNC’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates after their primaries were moved up into January in express violation of the DNC rules. She did not change her position on the validity of these primaries until she found herself unexpectedly behind in the delegate count and desperately needed to claim the delegates that she had won in these unsanctioned contests. As her chances of winning the nomination became increasingly slim in recent weeks, we have been presented with threatening and desperate lines of reasoning for why these primary results should count as is. At the same time, Clinton and her surrogates continue to propose different metrics for determining who should win the nomination even though there is and has been a clearly defined process in place for several decades.

Please think about the implications of changing election rules after the fact. We have suffered through at least one stolen presidential election and the manipulation of untold numbers of Congressional and state elections through various vote tampering and voter intimidation schemes used by the Republicans and their allies. The American people (and especially Democratic voters) have lost faith in the integrity of the election process. The Clinton strategy to continually change the rules for determining the Democratic Party nominee sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to increasingly un-Democratic elections in the future if it is allowed to succeed. If anything, we need more transparency and methods of accountability in our elections in order to repair the damage done in recent years and to restore our confidence in the Government.

2. The Bosnia Fabrication / Exaggerated Experience Claims
Hillary fabricated a story about a dangerous, life-risking visit to Bosnia in order to gain stature as an experienced negotiator in international conflicts and war. While this type of embellishment can seem almost comical, it represents a willingness to distort reality in order to influence the public perception. This is the same type of distortion that the Bush administration used to justify the war in Iraq, although the magnitude of the lie is certainly on a different scale. The Bush administration falsified reports, cherry-picked intelligence, used unreliable sources, and employed fear-mongering tactics to convince the American public that our safety was at risk and as such, you were either with us or with the terrorists. The lies used by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeachable offenses and should be condemned by all Americans. Sadly, the Clinton campaign seems to have shown a shocking willingness to employ the same tactics to create a more favorable reality and to rely on divide-and-conquer rhetoric to weaken opposition. Her attempts to frighten the American people by conjuring up 3 AM phone calls are bad enough, but her vote of confidence in John McCain over Barack Obama should be seen as treason against the Democratic Party.

3. NAFTA
Hillary lied about her position on NAFTA and used her lies in a calculated way to influence the Ohio primary. Recently released White House documents confirm that Hillary had been an active proponent of NAFTA prior to its passage, and she has continued to support it publicly in her speeches and memoir. However, while campaigning in Ohio, she claimed to have been privately against NAFTA during the Clinton presidency and believes that it should be rewritten to protect American jobs and workers. This type of maneuvering is reminiscent of the behind-closed-doors policy-making that the Bush administration has used during the past seven years. Specifically, Bush and Cheney have made policy decisions without providing transparency to Congress or the public, and President Bush has repeatedly ignored the rule of law by issuing signing statements and disregarding the parts of the laws that he doesn’t agree with. If we cannot trust Hillary to be truthful about her positions on critical legislative issues now, how can we trust that she will be truthful as president?

These are just three examples that illustrate the concerns we should have with a candidate who demonstrates a sense of entitlement to the nomination and is willing to lie, misrepresent, threaten, and divide in order to obtain the nomination. President Bush and the neoconservative movement have greatly harmed this country by the creation of an imperial-like presidency. This election is not just about whether a Democrat or Republican wins but if the checks and balances are restored to the three branches of government. The framers of the Constitution were in such fear of an imperial president that mechanisms for impeachment are prominently and explicitly included in the Constitution. If Hillary Clinton is willing to use lies and deceit to win the Democratic nomination, what assurances do we have that she will not continue to use them once she is president?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/why-h ...

<snip>

"Her response to being caught lying to a military audience, when she invented a story about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, was to say it wasn't surprising she got some things wrong, seeing how she spoke millions of words every day. What a magnificent idea, that if you say lots of words some of them are bound to be fantastic lies. So if you listen carefully to horse-racing commentators they say things like "And it's Teddy's Boy still leading three furlongs out as they come up to the fourth last fence with Nip and Tuck two lengths behind by the way I fought a tiger once, punched it clean out and they're all safely over."

<lots more>
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/article3 ...

"It's not that lying to pad the resume, avoid Indictment or to advance her political fortune is anything new for Hillary Clinton. She famously said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (debunked); she told New Yorkers she was a Yankee fan when she lived in Chicago (debunked); she told rural New Yorkers that she was a "duck hunter" (debunked); she claimed that her daughter Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center at the time of the 9/11 attack (debunked by Chelsea herself.) And, those subpoenaed Rose Law billing records just happened to show up one day on a hallway table in the most monitored home in America!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ordinarily I wouldn't want to see one pary control but I think for Obama..
it is neccessary. We might see something like the Gingrich revolution come in in 2010.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. I love these articles: Change is hard and nearly impossible to achieve
so vote for Hillary (and her lies and lobbyists) or McCain (and continue Bush's policies)?

Say it: President Obama.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loveangelc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. Since when was Kennedy a failure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scriptor Ignotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Bay of Pigs maybe?
but I don't think his entire Presidency or its legacy is defined as a failure by many scholars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newmajority Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. You know who was in charge of the Bay of Pigs fiasco? (CIA operation)
Here's two hints...

1) The boats involved in the operation were named "Houston", "Barbara" and "Zapata".

2) His son (the one with a brain) took over his criminal operations in Florida when he moved to Washington DC.

Like most invasions sponsored by this particular criminal and his offspring, that one was a failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scriptor Ignotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-10-08 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. Allen Dulles?
jk. where did you hear that Bush was involved with Bay of Pigs? I hadn't heard that before. I googled around but didn't see anything that looked too credible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. That's what I was wondering
I say check the source. Five to one odds this writer also thinks FDR was the antichrist, Nixon wasn't that bad, and Reagan was the best of the century
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. I guess we'll find out, because he is our nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenDavid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. you give me the 8 years this country enjoyed under Bill Clinton
and HRC can do the same, hell yes, I will take HRC anyday over the one trick pony obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. The economy, unfortunately, is out of tricks
There can't be another dot com bubble or another real estate bubble. We may not survive a continuation of the policies of the last 30 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I believe that HRC can do better than her husband.
If she can bring th peace and prosperity of the 90's back, that is great.
She will also tackle the problems of monopolies, and stagnating wages as well as being real healthcare reform and bring jobs back home!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Symarip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Ponies?
I'm in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kukesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Hopefully, your pony will do more than one trick. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PerfectSage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. So what is the likelihood of HRC getting oil down Bill Clinton levels?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The good old days are over. Welcome to the wonderful world of superpower shit's creek without a paddle. Be realistic. Even a superior candidate like Barack Obama, won't save you, from Bush/neo con geopolitical/grand strategic clusterfucks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newmajority Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. Most of the 1990's economy was due to the technology explosion
Edited on Wed Apr-09-08 10:56 PM by newmajority
And what didn't die off in the "dot com bust" at the end of the decade, was outsourced to India earlier this decade. Courtesy of "free" trade agreements backed by Clinton and the DLC.

Hillary couldn't possibly duplicate those conditions (nor could Obama, for that matter)because they had nothing to do with Bill Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-10-08 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #7
28. Hillary is not Bill, and this isn't the '90s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. But consider the alternative.
Do you really advocate a candidate who can't motivate people? Do you want a candidate that doesn't make people question the status quo, even at the risk of failure?

In my opinion, this country needs a President who can motivate people to become engaged in the process...somebody who can encourage them to reach for something better. Yes, this comes with a risk of failure and disappointment, but it's absolutely critical if we're going to set a new course.

The issues presented in the OP are real, but the alternative is, IMO, a greater danger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
10. lol
I'm asceered. Seriously.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PerfectSage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
12. What kind of "fears" did you have about Dumbfuck Dubya?
I had "fucking idiot" fears. I've got more respect for Obama's intellect than I ever had for WJC. I respected WJC's intellect.

The only appropriate fear at this point is that neither McCain,HRC or BHO can handle the tipping point of the end of America as a superpower. Even a moran can figure out it's over. Too bad neo "clusterfuck" cons don't have the IQ of a moran.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. Virginia Postrel?
sigh.

Have fun with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I haven't heard of her...
although after visiting her site, I can understand why.

Good Question
"Do Democrats--whether in the rank and file or in the egghead brigades--really think that Pennsylvania's (or Ohio's, of Michigan's) lack of industrial jobs has anything to do with Colombia? Or even NAFTA for that matter? For starters, manufacturing employment peaked in the U.S. in 1979."

That's Nick Gillespie in a detailed post on the Dems' depressing embrace of anti-trade demagoguery. The comments suggest that Hit & Run readers are just as susceptible as Clinton and Obama, and more passionate.

UPDATE: This WaPost editorial points to a pattern: "Yet another Democratic adviser is in trouble for having more common sense that his candidate -- or at least, more than his candidate has the courage to admit having."
Written by Virginia - Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - Link/Printer-friendly


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aussie leftie Donating Member (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
19. I agree
Many of the Obama supporters say that Obama will be the new Kennedy. I remember when Kennedy was president, and to tell you the truth, he really didn't do that much. At the behest of Martin Luther King he commenced reforms on racial discrimination. He had the nickname of "Jack the Zipper", and for good reason.

For the people who rubbish Bill Clinton for being a "serial bonker", don't forget, he was only the student. JFK was the master.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KaptBunnyPants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
22. Dumb. If Obama wins, the Democratic Party will have strong majorities in Congress.
They can't even find people willing to run in many of these contests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
24. Obama win=strong majorities in both house and senate
I don't see how we can go wrong with that.

Clinton, on the other hand, could not get her much lauded HC plan past a DEMOCRATIC congress, let alone a repug one (which she would most likely face if elected.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoldieAZ49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
25. Obama already said he was going to disappoint some if not all
hence my sig line


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 Sat Apr 20th 2024, 08:44 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