Obama: It took two days in the Senate to be called a sell-out

[Radical Activist]

It amazes me how eager and quick many on DU are to bash Obama and call him a sell-out, despite his long progressive record. I don't know their motivations but I think it says more about the attitude of the accusers that it says about Obama.

From the article...

http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/86483.asp

Published Saturday, May 20, 2006

WASHINGTON - In his upcoming book, Barack Obama recalls it took just two days after he was sworn in as the U.S. Senate's only black member for him to be accused of selling out.

Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, opposed certifying President Bush's re-election because of questionable results. But Obama took Bush's side.

"I would get my first big batch of phone calls and negative mail after this vote," Obama writes in "The Audacity of Hope: Reclaiming the American Dream." An excerpt was released Friday on his Web site, www.barackobama.com.

"I called back some of my disgruntled Democratic supporters, assuring them that yes, I was familiar with the problems in Ohio, and yes, I thought an investigation was in order; but yes, I still believed George Bush had won the election, and no, as far as I could tell I didn't think I had either sold out or been co-opted after a mere two days on the job."

[Mythsaje]

1. Well, he believed wrong...

And there WAS no investigation.

But, no, he wasn't a sell-out. He was just another sucker.

[Radical Activist]

2. And still no proof

that the problems in Ohio added up to the several hundred thousand votes Kerry lost by. Investigations are good, which Obama supported, but the hard truth is that Kerry ran a bad campaign and lost Ohio by a fairly wide margin.

[sandnsea]

7. Several hundred thousand?

Explain.

:popcorn:

[Radical Activist]

9. Over 100,000

My apologies for overstating the margin, which is still significant.

Bush 2,859,764

Kerry 2,741,165

Kerry lost Ohio by 118,559 votes.

[sandnsea]

12. 60,000

You move 60,000 of those votes to Kerry, he wins. He lost by a very small margin, and if everybody had gotten to vote who wanted to vote, he may well not have lost at all. So we have two guys who likely won, Gore and Kerry, trashed by Dems of all persuasions. It's crazy.

[oneold1-4u]

19. Just a reminder

Gore and Kerry were not the right people or the world would have ended before the US fell into this mire of utter futility. I sure hope that the Dems find the "right" leader before another party does, or the exodus from both parties may well change the nation. Consider that a Joe or Joan Brown or Beige from the Smith or Jones or Purple Party may well be the best choice of an honest american president and new world leader!

[sandnsea]

20. The world would have ended???

What?

Need more

:popcorn:

[progressivebydesign]

24. Huh? Gore and Kerry weren't the right ones???

Your post is kind of unreadable.. or not understandable. What are you saying? the world would end? Huh? AL Gore won.. what part of that don't you get?

[blm]

27. Then that person would have a record to prove it, right?

Show us WHO would be so honest they'd be a longtime advocate for public financing of campaigns.

Show us their submitted Iraq withdrawal plans.

Show us their record of exposing government corruption.

Show us their record on crucial environmental protection.

Then tell me the name that pops up the most.

[EconomicPatriot]

21. Investigation

Considering all the reports out of Ohio, there should have been an investigation before ANY Democrats voted to certify the election. Unfortunately, only Senator Barbara Boxer stood up.

[LincolnMcGrath]

3. How about less book-writing

And More Senator-ing.


:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

4. He looks pretty hard at work to me

judging by the releases on these sites.

http://obama.senate.gov/newsroom/
http://www.barackobama.com/press/

Is there something in particular you think he should be doing, or were you just looking for something to complain about?

[ecoalex]

11. Um...Kerry won Ohio,

The independent data shows Kerry won, look it up, and Gore won in 2000. Too bad so many buy the lie Obama included.It's the moderate at all cost Dem lies that keep Dems from forming a backbone, TOO BAD.For all that care.

[LincolnMcGrath]

54. I worked for him, so bugger off with your snipes.

Maybe, just maybe, he could complete a single term before a book deal?

Seems reasonable to me doesn't it? :shrug:

[Placebo]

6. Like what?

Give me an example where he neglected his senatorial duties because he had to go write his book.

[LincolnMcGrath]

55. Maybe he

could spend all his extra book time on Constituent Services? :shrug:

[Semblance]

5. Time

That's because it only took him two days to sell out. He also opposed the Alito filibuster, for which there was a large groundswell of support in the progressive blogosphere. He needs to listen more.

[Placebo]

8. "Listen more" or "Obey more"?

It seems to me that you become an enemy of the left and of the liberal blogs in particular the second you don't march in lockstep with their groupthink, it's one strike and you're out.

I also think people had unreasonably high hopes for Obama. I mean, he is only a freshman senator.

[omega minimo]

41. I would love to see

"It seems to me that you become an enemy of the left and of the liberal blogs in particular the second you don't march in lockstep with their groupthink, it's one strike and you're out"

I would love to see the Talking Points Memo that dropped this Rovian meme into the liberal punch bowl.

I don't know about you specifically, but it is usually used by people (and is phrased almost identically) who don't like to listen much. The nastiest examples of it on DU have been from people who accuse other of "lockstep" and "groupthink" but attack those who don't agree with THEIR "lockstep" and "groupthink."

Wherever it comes from, however it's used, it has a definite right wing slant.

[sandnsea]

10. That isn't accurate

He voted for the filibuster. He said Democrats needed to do a better job making the case to the American people about why these judges are bad and stop relying on procedural maneuvers.

http://www.supremecourtwatch.org/01_30_2006ChicagoTribuneobama.aspx

[Bjornsdotter]

13. Voted for Rice

He also voted for Rice, which angered a lot of people.

Cheers

[sandnsea]

15. He also wrote a book

which apparently angered a lot of people. So what the fuck. :shrug:

He probably eats meat, which angers a lot of people. I don't think he drives a Prius, which probably angers a lot of people.

OH MY FUCKING GOD, he's a human being and makes up his own mind, which in this political age, angers a lot of people.

[U4ikLefty]

26. That is simply a ridiculous comparison!!!

[sandnsea]

30. And OMFG "he voted for Rice"

is a comparison to what for what??? :shrug:

He wrote a book and suddenly he's attacked for things he didn't even support, and all the bullshit is supposed to be brushed off with "he voted for Rice"??? Well Russ Feingold voted for Rice, bfd.

I'm so sick of this stupid shit.

[U4ikLefty]

59. I can see you are sick by the way you are using silly comparisons.

There is no way to compare eating meat or driving a Prius to voting for Condi Rice.

You see the former two are his personal choices which have little overall effect on the public at large. Voting for Rice while acting a political representative for the Democratic Party is another choice altogether.

Feingold should be chastized for that vote as well. As should all stupid votes by our representatives.

[Susang]

63. I can see you are drunk by the way you are ignoring the point

And the time you posted your silly rejoinder.

sandnsea's comparison's are as valid as any. Anything a senator does (or does not do) will end up making somebody angry. Especially when held to ridiculously standards of conduct that no mortal could hope to achieve. But it's so much more fun to criticize, isn't it?

[U4ikLefty]

76. I can see you are a child molester by the way you are ignoring

the argument. The last sentence made as much sense as your stupid title. Maybe you should try to actually argue the point instead...but thanks for the insult, it shows I hit a nerve.

In fact, Obama's decision to appoint Rice is QUITE DIFFERENT, because HE represents US in the Senate.

I am not for criticizing Obama (or any other rep) for his PERSONAL choices, but for his votes.

...and the fact that you can't see that show how stupid/drunk/ignorant YOU are on this topic.

I like Obama as much as any other pogressive hopeful, but I refuse to hold my criticisms JUST because he is a supposed to be a progressive. Let him prove it by his votes & not his nice words.

[Bjornsdotter]

38. LOL

The Rice confirmation vote was a bit stronger than whether or not the man eats meat or drives a Prius.

As I recall, the boards here were on fire after the Rice vote; but I don't seem to recall the eating meat or non-Prius driving flames.

Cheers

[sandnsea]

49. Which has what to do with filibuster??

Absolutely nothing.

Obama was beat up over Rice and Feingold wasn't. Oh My God, I am so SHOCKED!!!!

Anybody can find anything to beat up a politican over, you pulled Rice out of your hat, and again, BFD.

Stupid Dem bashing garbage.

[Bjornsdotter]

56. Not sure why you are so hostile

I didn't pull Rice out of a hat, it really happened and as he is my senator it did concern me. It's not bashing when you are stating a fact....Obama voted to confirm Rice.

There are many things I like about Obama, but this was something I didn't like....yes, yes I know BFD. I'm not sure about Feingold being beat up or not, I was concerned about the person I helped put in office.

BTW, I never brought up the subject of filibuster.

Cheers

[sandnsea]

58. Right, you interjected Rice

After someone said he was against the filibuster and I corrected that. For some peculiar reason, you responded to me that he voted for Rice, as if that vote was proof of what a horrible guy he is since the filibuster point was wrong. But it isn't. It has as little to do with the overall character of Obama as him writing a book does. It's a vote. Feingold voted for Rice too. So what. It's a book. Barbara Boxer wrote a book too. BFD. People going to the most extraordinary lengths to bash Democrats makes me hostile.

[wndycty]

14. You are wrong he supported the filibuster. . .

. . .don't let the facts get in the way of your desire to bash Senator Obama.

[TAPat]

17. For which I find it very hard to even begin

to think about forgiving him. I am a constituent of his and had my say about the filibuster...

[sandnsea]

31. Did you say thank you?

Because he voted for the filibuster.

[davsand]

16. His last approval numbers here in Illinois are just fine.

Obama is doing just fine according to the Illinois polling numbers I saw a month or so ago. He had an approval rating that was something like 70%, from what I can recall...

I think Obama is the "real deal" and I think a lot of folks nationally shared that feeling during his Senate race and his speech in front of the Dem Convention.

I also think that some folks felt let down when he didn't do EXACTLY what they wanted him to immediately after he took office.

Something a lot of folks outside Illinois do not realize about Obama is that he's an amazingly effective legislator. He accomplished a hell of a lot in the Illinois Senate at a time when the GOP controlled it--and I am not talking about bullshit stuff, either. Some of the most progressive stuff to come out of Illinois government in twenty or thirty years came because of Obama.

You don't get that kind of stuff done in THAT environment unless you are working smart and working across party lines.

THAT is why I busted my ass to get Obama in the Senate, and THAT is why I am every bit as proud of him today as I was on election night.


Laura

[Placebo]

22. Finally! A voice of reason from one of Obama's constituents.

This fellow Illinoisan thanks you.

[PSPS]

18. All you have to do is listen to any Obama interview.

It is the very definition of "milquetoast." His two-day honeymoon was more than he deserved.

[Radical Activist]

29. Don't actions matter?

Can't someone use language that will appeal to both sides and be congenial with conservative colleagues without being a sell-out, as long as they stand up for progressive ideals?

I know some people think rhetoric matters more. Dean got a lot of credit for his language, but his moderate record as Governor never impressed me. Obama has the progressive record to back it up.

[progressivebydesign]

23. Sorry.. he was wrong. How could he say there were problems..

yet say that Bush was elected. Makes no sense. If there was irregularities in the ONE state that would have given Kerry victory, then Bush was not clearly elected. I like Obama, but I don't appreciate his logic.

[Radical Activist]

25. umm...

Just because there were problems doesn't mean those problems would have added up to the more than 100,000 additional votes Kerry would have needed to win. That's perfectly logical.

[sandnsea]

34. 60,000

It's funny when someone repeats information that's been corrected a week later or even a day later. But in the same thread?? What does it take to get people to care about the truth around here.

[Radical Activist]

43. that's spin

Kerry lost by more than 100,000 votes, not 60,000. The 60,000 requires that votes were stolen and could have been switched from Bush to Kerry.
On the other hand, if your argument is that the problem was people not having their vote counted in the first place, then Kerry needed nearly 120,000 additional votes, not 60,000. My statement is accurate.

[sandnsea]

44. It's math

If marbles are cast for you and beans are cast for me, and you have 100 more marbles than I have beans, you win. But if 51 of those marbles are beans and given to me, then I win. It has absolutely nothing to do with stolen votes. If 60,000 people had voted for Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have won. It's simple adding and subtracting math.

[Radical Activist]

46. If you want to claim

that Kerry lost because he didn't convince 60,000 people to vote for him instead of Bush, then I agree and the statement is accurate.

If the argument is that Kerry lost the election by only 60,000 votes because it was stolen, that argument is only valid if someone took 60,000 Kerry votes and somehow made them Bush votes. If the argument is that it was stolen because Kerry votes weren't counted, then it would take nearly 120,000. That's why its misleading to talk about 60,000 votes if the argument is that the election was stolen.

[sandnsea]

48. You agree the number is 60,000

Good. It's not hundreds of thousands or over a hundred thousand, it's 60,000. That's why the number 60,000 is the subject of my post #12. That was the basis of every post to you, I never even said anything about stolen votes. I said if everybody who wanted to vote had been able to vote, it may well have been over 60,000. But the point was always the 60,000, which you seem to be having a really hard time with.

[Radical Activist]

61. You seem to be having a hard time with 120,000.

Apparently, your argument is that if "everybody who wanted to vote had been able to vote" then Kerry would have won. That means additional votes that were not party of the election totals. Would 60,000 votes be enough to accomplish that? Let's look at the math...

Actual Ohio Results:
Bush 2,859,764

Kerry 2,741,165

Kerry losses by 118,559 votes.

Let's ad 60,000 votes to Kerry assuming people were turned away at the polls. The new results would be:

Bush 2,859,764
Kerry 2,801,765

Kerry STILL LOSES by 57,999 votes.

60,000 is only enough if you switch 60,000 Bush votes to the Kerry column, but you aren't talking about that. You're talking about people not being allowed to vote. It would take 119,000 new voters to give Kerry a victory. Its basic math. If 60,000 Kerry voters were turned away on election day, Kerry still lost.

Now, is there proof that 60,000 votes were stolen from Kerry and then given to Bush? That's the only scenario where the 60,000 number is at all relevant.

[sandnsea]

67. No, it's MATH

Bush 2,859,764

Kerry 2,741,165

Kerry losses by 118,559 votes.

60,000 of THOSE people vote for Kerry instead of Bush.

Bush loses 60,000.
2799,764

Kerry gains 60,000
2,801,165

Kerry wins. He lost by 60,000 votes. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Of the people who were able to vote, if 60,000 had voted for Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have won. That's all I was every really talking about. You're the one who went off on the stolen vote tangent.

Although you are right, if we're talking completely new voters, it would take 120,000 to beat Bush. But I think wins and losses are usually counted in terms of the universe of votes cast.

[Radical Activist]

69. Completely new voters is what you argued.

You twice wrote about people who were not allowed to vote. If you're arguing that Kerry lost because people weren't allowed to vote then it takes 120,000 not 60,000.

In post 12 you wrote: "if everybody had gotten to vote who wanted to vote, he may well not have lost at all." Completely new voters is the argument you made, twice. That takes 120,000.

[sandnsea]

72. First, I corrected your hundreds of thousands

I said it wasn't hundreds of thousands. You came back with the 120,000. I said no, it's 60,000. You went off on stolen votes.

Yes, I was wrong about totally new votes, people who didn't get a chance to vote. But that wasn't my main point which I said several times. The point is Kerry lost by 60,000 votes - not hundreds of thousands, not 120,000. If 60,000 voters had chosen Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have won. It isn't a talking point, it isn't stolen election, it's plain and simple math. That's all.

[The Straight Story]

78. Maybe since he saw Kerry concede he just played along

Kerry was the Dem candidate, conceded, and things move on.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. His vote to recommend Rice's confirmation out of committee didn't endear

him to me.

[Susang]

64. Do you live in Illinois?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

66. No, I don't live in Illinois, but if he does run for higher office, my

vote will(?) count.

[saltpoint]

32. There will be a President Obama. Not in 2008 but in one of the

next elections afterward during the lifetimes of most DUers.

State party chairs are slobbering over him this spring for the fundraisers and annual dinners and events, and properly so.

The Senate is not a logical venue to look for 100% ideological alignment. It's about compromise and exchanges of degrees of acceptable limits. It's supposed to be that way. Obama was a state senator in Illinois, now U.S. Senator. He's a high-profile and significantly talented man. If he were a Rethug, we'd fear his influence and chances because he is THAT talented.

And he's going to be on our party's marquee for decades to come.

My hat's off to Obama. Long may he run.

[Placebo]

35. "The Senate is not a logical venue...

to look for 100% ideological alignment."

Bingo.

[saltpoint]

36. Placebo, I defer to your Illinois registration and

powers of observance on Sen. Obama, and I add that I'm glad to hear from a constituent of the man on his effectiveness and ability to inspire.

Those things matter to constituents and even to us out here in other states. I listened to Obama's address at the Democratic Convention in Boston and

it

blew

me

away.

Since then Bush has been mangling English faster and far worse than anything his father ever could manage, and his father was no slouch at it.

I long for a day when language again is at the disposal of a U.S. president. We would all be the better for it, and Senator Obama is a true contender with just such gifts.

[Placebo]

37. Not to mention, Obama isn't trying to be a national leader.

It's not as though he's made great promises to the nation and has failed to deliver. He is a freshman senator working for the people of Illinois. It seems as though most people on DU who can't stand him anymore are from other states and feel betrayed. But why, I ask? Obama never promised to be anything more than an effective legislator, and by all accounts, he has been just that. Illinoisans love him and that's what matters, and regardless of the prevailing views expressed on DU, I can almost guarantee that the majority of democrats like him too.

[saltpoint]

39. That's a close read, I think. I don't think he deserves the

treatment he sometimes gets, and there are a lot of Democrats in Oklahoma or Texas or Alabama or Wyoming or Idaho who would LEAP WITH JOY to have a man like Obama represent them in the U.S. Senate.

[omega minimo]

40. Ah. Wise Old Crusoe mentions The Speech

"Those things matter to constituents and even to us out here in other states. I listened to Obama's address at the Democratic Convention in Boston and
it
blew
me
away."

It blew pretty much everyone away. The speech was smart, well-crafted and effective and it was also VERY simple. All he really did was remind us of the fundamentals that Americans think they believe in and of a time (not that long ago) that we related to each other AS A NATION, as people with something in common. And it blew people's minds!! They were jumping up and down!

Then he arrived in the U.S. Senate. On Jan. 6, 2005, Sen. Tubbs-Jones and Sen. Boxer stood up for the fundamentals that Americans think they believe in and for the future of the nation. Obama had a choice-- to be a hero/legend or a player. He made his choice.

Someone here says "Obama isn't trying to be a national leader. It's not as though he's made great promises to the nation and has failed to deliver."

The only "promise" was in the sense of his promise (potential) to be legendary for decades to come-- for making that speech, reminding Democrats of our values and our commonwealth, for blowing minds open and for standing up for the American people when the election was stolen (again).

:hi:

[saltpoint]

42. hello omega minimo. Yes, the speech. And the power of

a talented writer to use language for uplift.

No one rushed him on that podium in Boston. It was a clear stretch of road and he was invited to floor it. He did.

In the U.S. Senate, 99 other people are always present or present-behind-the-scenes making concerted efforts to gouge flesh from each others' bones. If I alone could choose a benevolent dictator who would enforce the most far-reaching altruism humanly imaginable, I would do it.

But we are left with our existing institutions, including the Senate, and there is going to be compromise and disagreement, and occasionally disillusionment and betrayal. I am characterizing the body, the chamber there. The body is designed to have the capacity for all these things. Obama's intellect and range or temperament does not halt at the door of the chamber, but it is subject to at least 99 other versions of the same issues. The addage is that neither law nor sausage should be observed in their making. A podium address is sometimes a zipless fuck. Legislation is too often an orgy of eunichs.

The tilt on DU tends toward asking individual senators to shoulder sole blame for end-product legislation or a given vote. By that measure, I should reject Senator Feingold, owing to his vote for John Ashcroft? That's absurd. Greg Maddox gives up a lot of homeruns, not because he is a poor pitcher but because he is an outstanding pitcher and his pitches are almost always around the strike zone.

Would I have preferred to have Obama stand with Boxer? I would have, yes. And 98 other senators as well. Those senators did not phone me up that week for my input, although I wrote to some 90 of them to express my views. That's my responsibility. I'm yet to see incontrovertible evidence that Kerry-Edwards won in Ohio, even if my bones and blood tell me they did. I'll name names of counties: Warren, Butler, Cuyahoga, and maybe others. But I have no Exhibit 1 or 2 or 3 in my pocket. Neither did attorneys for Kerry-Edwards, and so the history books record Ohio as a red state in 2004.

If you date somebody somebody else doesn't like, it's your business and nobody else's. You have your reasons. There may be a visible reason, but it's likely not the only motivation or incentive, and likely never as simple as someone else affirming or knocking your decision. Large bodies, especially the U.S. Senate, share at least one thing with personal relationships: what is visible to others may not be the only variable in the mix. You don't get pure, aligned ideological agreeement in a body comprised of both Jeff Sessions AND Barack Obama.


:hi:

[omega minimo]

45. All right. Well put. And BO made his choice-- not for me to judge

I will say tho, that if he HAD stood up for American people to demand a verified election and electoral count (that was the re-beginning of the end btw and we may "quibble" over who "won" but goddammit only 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! people stood up and the American people belched and farted and rolled over and went back to :boring: )..............

.........if he had stood up it would have been consistent with the "talent" "uplift" and message of his speech. To not do so paints that speech as more opportunistic rhetoric than American integrity.

Barack Obama is not Mr. Smith. "If I alone could choose a benevolent dictator who would enforce the most far-reaching altruism humanly imaginable, I would do it." Your beautiful comment touches at the core of American experiment, wherein we are each that "benevolent dictator" that fulfills the promise.

"Large bodies, especially the U.S. Senate, share at least one thing with personal relationships: what is visible to others may not be the only variable in the mix. You don't get pure, aligned ideological agreeement in a body comprised of both Jeff Sessions AND Barack Obama."

The question now is why are the Congress members more afraid of standing up for the Constitution and nation than they are of the damage that is being done to both?

:toast: :evilfrown:

[saltpoint]

47. Americans going back to sleep after the election dispute in Ohio...

... strikes me as the darkest and most despairing outcomes. Not at DU or Kos or other progressive communities, but people in Hayes, Kansas and Pierre, South Dakota, etc.

It's my sense that voters who would not see to their own preparation as citizens to be informed voters, and who do not apply even basic critical thinking to that preparation, went back to sleep exactly as you say they did, in part because they are interested in the privilege of citizenship without the responsibilities, and also in part because they wanted to punish the smart guy.

Smart kids in school score higher on spelling tests and wreck the grading curve for everybody else. As adults, the high scorers get the same reception Gene Kelly's reporter character gets in INHERIT THE WIND. ("I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread.")

They took Bush's side against Gore because Gore was the smart guy. Same with Kerry. I'm not opening the argument that Gore or Kerry ran perfect campaigns, but just saying that many red voters rejected their candidacies because they thought Dubya was good enough, regular enough, true enough & tough enough for the job, and besides they didn't want any smarty-pants environmentalist like Gore or some New England sophisto like Kerry telling them to allow blacks and gays in their churches and schools.

I sensed a low-down, dirty-souled, mean-spiritedness in red voters' (maybe people generally, but CERTAINLY red voters especially) rejection of Gore and Kerry. And that those elections were both disputed revealed (for me at least) that it wasn't just a legal question but also a 'fuck you' from the anti-intellectual vein in U.S. life.

[omega minimo]

53. "wasn't just a legal question but...a 'fuck you' from...anti-intellectual"

"And that those elections were both disputed revealed (for me at least) that it wasn't just a legal question but also a 'fuck you' from the anti-intellectual vein in U.S. life. "

"I'm not opening the argument that Gore or Kerry ran perfect campaigns, but just saying that many red voters rejected their candidacies because they thought Dubya was good enough, regular enough, true enough & tough enough for the job, and besides they didn't want any smarty-pants environmentalist like Gore or some New England sophisto like Kerry telling them to allow blacks and gays in their churches and schools."

Yep-- that's the danger in letting the Handlers strangle the personas of men like Gore and Kerry in their focus-group framing slogan bullshit. Both of them-- and Edwards-- presumably have learned that lesson. Democratic Party leaders learned it?

Before Nov. 2004, MoveOn was very actively organizing nationwide meetings. After the election, they went silent.

The week after the election, the media blackedout any news about election "irregularities" and editorials demonized anyone raising questions.

After Jan. 6, 2005, the discussion was over on DU, limited to the Elections forum and further limited by the focus on charts and graphs, statisical analysis, etc. There wasn't much of any other type of discussion. The attitude was, let's work toward "Next Time."

It's wasn't just Red staters that went to sleep.

[saltpoint]

62. I'm tardy to this response, omega minimo, but wanted to ask you if

you thought the period between the close of the 2004 vote and say, the last few months have been an incubation period for Red State Christians, during which they have begun to re-evaluate their commitment to a man like George Bush.

By their roots ye shall know them... and Dubya's roots appear now -- even to thick-as-a-brick fundies -- to be unsuitable for the task at hand. Fundies are enjoined by their saviour to the higher expressions of being human, and so-called black centers and rationalizations for torture coming from Alberto Gonzales and John Bolton and Dick Cheney et al may be starting to unravel fundies' sense of who they should be hanging out with.

Please don't ask me why it takes this long for them to do any re-eavaluating.

A very few of them, finally, are beginning to see the little freak for his gross incompetencies and ethical emptiness. He's somebody they wouldn't hang with at their church socials. It takes eons for truth to trickle through the brains of fundamentalists, if it ever does. But part of that falling approval rating may be from the few sentient beings out there across the plains of crucifixion. And Bush is certainly deserving of abandonment by the groups he has previously deceived.

It's a rare day that I serve as carnival barker for spiritualist groups, but of the many out there I prefer the dedicated progressives to the heads-up-our-asses reactionaries. There's a group called the Network of Spiritual Progressives who are trying to yank various spiritual traditions out of the hands of the fundies. It's at:

www.spiritualprogressives.org, and I think it's out of Berkeley, CA. Not sure.

Anyway, on the red state problem, I'm eager to see if fundametanlists can update their files or if another GOP yahoo like Huckabee or Allen or Brownback just takes up where Dubya left off.

[omega minimo]

75. All I know about that is they do what they're told

:hi:

[leesa]

33. It's not hard to see.

[mtnsnake]

50. Someone like Obama comes along once every 20 years or so

and it's hard to believe what a bashing this guy takes here on this forum.

The man inspires like no one else we currently have. With a little time and a little nurturing, we're looking at a future 8 years of President Obama someday soon.

[wtmusic]

52. He needs more time. He's a freshman Senator. Some experience will help.

What's hard to believe is the slack people cut him for being noncommittal (they're much harder on Hillary--why?) I didn't realize courage came from "nurturing".

Maybe you're inspired, but I'm not. The US is burning, and Obama's fiddling on the roof.

[Orsino]

51. Senators are co-opted long before they take office...

...by the simple fact of corporate campaign donations. They have to represent dollars, rather than people.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. I Think Obama's Awesome. I Do Believe He Will Be President Someday.

I'm damn proud of him.

[AtomicKitten]

60. since I heard him give the keynote address at the Dem Convention in 2004

I too have believed he will be president some day. It is unfortunate some are too blind to see one of the brightest stars to the left of the aisle.

[jmatthan]

65. Obama is all talk

He even cut off access to himself by email when he started getting negative fedback to his actions.

That was just months into his Senatorship.

I personally do not think he ever was a Democrat - at least his voting record does not say he is.

(And I am not an American and I do not live in America - so I see him on the international stage as a Republican lite.)

[never cry wolf]

71. Funny, I got an email from him

I recall we sparred about 6 weeks ago regarding Obama's speech to the Associated Press and certain misinterpretations of what he said regarding Social Security. I emailed a link to that thread to Obama's Office and received the below in return. Whether or not it was written by a staffer, I cannot say but there certainly was email correspondence with his office at the very least.

Dear Xxxxxx:

Thank you for writing to me about my speech to the Associated Press of April 3, 2006. I appreciate you sending the link, and your defense of our shared values. Here is the text of my remarks on Social Security from April, 2005: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050426-_a_hope_to_fulfill/index.html. This speech details my steadfast opposition to privatization of Social Security, and the people of Illinois can be assured that my position has not changed.

Of course, I cannot control everything that is said on blogs, nor would I want to. I am grateful for and humbled by the support I receive from around our great state, and I will always do my best to remain worthy of it. That said, principled opposition and debate keeps us sharp, and I know there will always be people who disagree with me.

Thank you again for writing, and for link. Please continue to communicate with me whenever you have concerns with matters pending before Congress.
Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

on edit: His voting record has him listed at about the 15th most progressive senator in a listing someone posted here not too long ago. His record in the Illinois Senate was certainly progressive. I also daresay that to most europeans and others all Dems would seem to be republican-lite.

on 2nd edit: He was rated the 14th most liberal voting record per the national journal. Not the most but more than over 2/3 of the dems.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004121M&sort=currentoffice

[jmatthan]

77. 2/3 of Dems are Republican lite, some not so lite!

As a person from his area you can email him.

I can email Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers Jr., Babara Boxer, etc. but Obama removed his open email addressas he got too many emails from liberals who disagreed with him.

If you shut yourself from the world, your mind gets closed.

Obama obviously only wants to hear what he likes to hear. But he wants people to hear what he wants to say!

Sorry, must disagree with you most strongly about Obama.

My impression - All Talk, stays.

[radio4progressives]

68. apparently, Obama sold out sometime on or before the campaign trail

I thought he was sensational at the DNC. That was the first time i laid eyes on him and heard him speak.

my faith and hope rocketed up to space after that speech, after he that vote in the Senate, all of that came crashing down like a lead balloon. And so many of his votes following that day were more of the same feeding thoughts that he had indeed sold out to the party elite and was a part of that establishment - that he really ain't no "outsider" to the ruling class at all.. coming into "politics through the back door" doesn't make you an outsider, it makes you someone with great clout, money and the ruling class machine behind your. That ain't no definition of an "outsider" which he asserts in his talks about his new book.

[Marr]

70. You know what- I think I'd take this as a clear sign that progressives

feel completely ignored by their government, not as a chance to take a broad swipe at 'the angry left'.

[peacebaby3]

73. I haven't agreed with Obama 100% but I can't think of anyone I have agreed

with 100%.

What I will say about Obama is that I live in a very conservative, "red" state and repukes here quake at the thought of Obama. Unless something changes, he is and should be the future of the Democratic Party. I've had several repukes that I know tell me that he is a real threat unless they can make him into a "loony librul" to the moderates.

I had teens, 15-17, whose parents consider themselves conservatives tell me that they really liked Obama and they were completely uninterested in the political process otherwise.

I'm a very proud LIBERAL, but one thing I have learned by being a member of DU is that visceral reactions definitely play a role on both sides of the political debate.

[hfojvt]

74. okay I read the excerpt from the book and I have a few problems

First, I note that the article you referenced took the book excerpt and used it to bash progressives - those shrill lunatics of the left who so quickly accused Obama of selling out.

Obama, in this excerpt, seems to frame the issue in such a way that puts him in a DLC position as opposed to, say, a DU or leftist blogosphere position.

"Not only did we disagree, but we disagreed vehemently, with partisans on each side of the divide unrestrained in the vitriol they hurled at opponents."

DU, or progressives, in that summation are "partisans on the left" the other side of the coin of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter. Granted, DU may have its share of bombastic name-callers, but in spite of the noise they make, I do not believe that represents the majority of DU. DU does not consist of "partisans ... unrestrained in ... vitriol" but, is, in general far more reasonable and fact based. In fact, most of the vitriol is a rational response to the audacity, perfidity and apparent freedom from accountability demonstrated by Republicans.

To pretend as if nothing is wrong seems to me to be "closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the calibre of disaster" that the BFEE represents. Which is apparently where Obama is.

[Superman Returns]

79. ...

people need to realize that if Dems operated exactly the way the members on DU think, it would not go over so well. Barak Obama is a man who will do great things, he is liberal but also reasonable and pragmatic. I support his decisions and have been happy with him so far.