Obama says No to Impeachment!

[Pharaoh]

What's wrong with these people?




Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on impeaching President George W. Bush. I appreciate and share your high level of dissatisfaction and frustration with the President, his actions and his priorities. I disagree with him on many issues, ranging from the war in Iraq to the future of Social Security to funding our children's schools.

I support robust Congressional investigations into his administration and the highly questionable actions it has taken in areas such as domestic spying and the U.S. attorney firings. He has horribly mismanaged the rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. The Democratic Congress has achieved important progress this year, but we are still stymied by a President who is out of sync with the American people, vetoing legislation to responsibly get us out of Iraq and to support increased stem cell research.

America needs to move forward again, and I don't believe that continuing this era of bitter partisanship is the best course of action. As I travel the country campaigning, I hear the call for a new direction and a change in our politics, a thirst for something more. I don't believe impeachment answers this call. I believe if we begin impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunctional. We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus.

Instead, I will continue to move forward with a positive agenda in the Senate and on the campaign trail. I hope you will stay involved and work for progress on the issues that matter most to you. Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,


Barack Obama

[BonnieJW]

What is it with dems and impeachment?

Don't they know they are coming across as wimps to America???

[mmonk]

24. I don't know but I would like to know who is calling the shots for some of them

and who or what they are loyal to.

[liberalpragmatist]

48. Because they see it as fruitless

I can see both sides of the issue. On one hand, this White House clearly holds Congress in contempt, is breaking laws, has launched an arguably illegal war in Iraq with disastrous consequences and has approval ratings languishing the mid-to-upper 20s.

BUT, most constitutional scholars maintain that the bar to impeachment is so high that it's unlikely Bush's crimes rise to what courts interpret as "impeachable offenses."

You could argue - and I'm increasingly leaning towards this view - that we should impeach (at least Cheney) on principle. Do it to conduct a public humiliation - in this case, unlike Clinton's, genuinely deserved. No matter if he can't be removed from office.

The flip side of this is that there is a better chance of pigs flying than getting 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove either Cheney or Bush from office. Nada. It isn't going to happen.

And the argument is, why do it when there is no chance of successful removal from office?

[Yukari Yakumo]

52. And...

It'll enbolden the enemy (BuchCo & Rethugs) in the end.

[sui generis]

61. gosh, I guess bush would have to show up with a needle

in his arm, a straw in his nose and his dick in a dead baby duck, and some democrats still would parrot that crap.

How much is enough? Anything?

[Pharaoh]

62. Never say never

especially when it comes to pigs flying......................



<img src="">

[Usrename]

69. Of course they would be convicted if charges were brought.

Treason is cause for removal from office. No one in the Senate would be able to defend them once they were charged. That's just not what would happen. It also has little to do with why they have not been impeached.

The reason they haven't been impeached is because many in our own party leadership embrace the entire Bush Doctrine. They love the war, the tax-cuts for the rich, the new bankruptcy laws, you name it, right down the line. They are the ones we should be fragging, not Cindy Sheehan.

Lieberman is not all that unique in our party leadership. The only thing that is unique about him is that he has been exposed for what he is. There are more people like him in the leadership of the party than there are guys like Kucinich.

[liberalpragmatist]

87. There are an awful lot of Republican-dead-enders

... who WILL not vote to remove.

Can you seriously name more than a handful of Republican senators who *MIGHT* remove him from office? Hagel, maybe. And possibly Snowe, Collins, Specter, Warner, Voinovich, and Gordon Smith. But in all likelihood, you'd probably get no more than 1 or 2 of them. Quite possibly none.

[Usrename]

90. Honestly, I don't think it would ever make it to a vote.

There is no defense for their crimes. Everyone knows that. I don't see anyone standing up for them if charges are brought.

The days of blind allegiance to Bush are over. Now it's just a matter of finding a way to maneuver around the Democratic leadership somehow.

[davekriss]

139. AMEN, brother! (n.t)

[bvar22]

80. Force the Republic Senators to go ON RECORD!

Impeachment? BRING IT ON!

Force the Republics to go ON PUBLIC RECORD as supporting a president that only 25% of America supports....especially after clear, precise, irrefutable evidence is provided.

If 33 Republic Senators want to STAND UP IN Public and give bush* a BJ with the 2008 elections fast approaching...LET THEM stick their head in the noose!!!
Impeachment is a WIN/WIN for the Democrats no matter how the Snate vote goes.

My only worry about impeachment is that the Democrats will try too hard, and present too much evidence of too many crimes....muddy the issue. Better to pick one or two slam dunks and NOT overplay the presentation. Don't want another OJ.

Is Johnny Cochran still available?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Chalk up one...

In the "Waffle" column for the good senator.

[Strawman]

2. He forgot to capitalize "New Direction" for you

Like Pelosi did in her recent canned press release.

[Donnachaidh]

3. That candidate of change sure does toe the line. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

4. Wrong decision.

[BringEmOn]

5. Signed, Barack Rodham Obama

[EFerrari]

6. Closing the window. n/t

[JuniperLea]

66. No doubt...

I'm hearing them close all over...

[Bluebear]

7. "America needs to move forward again" = Get Over It.

Just as Bush said we need to "move on" from the Libby/Plame matter today.

[mmonk]

19. Not in my lifetime.

[Bluebear]

21. You said it. nt

[DearAbby]

119. Oh for sure...not while I am still warm

and breathing, will I "move on, get over it"

[AndyA]

8. Barack needs to understand that impeachment is his duty, not his option.

As a Congressman, he took an oath of office. Is he not in violation of his oath by ignoring crimes of this administration?

This whole attitude of "I don't want to do this, we're going to do this instead..." reminds me a bit too much of the attitude we've had in office since 2001.

[flyarm]

16. thank you , i could not agree more !! well i can't support him now!!

because i too believe it is his job to impeach..laws have been broken..who do we the people have other than senators and congress people to do the job of holding law breakers in our government accountable for those broken laws?????????

fly

[NYCGirl]

89. If that's your criteria, you can't support Al Gore, either.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1100316

[MonkeyFunk]

25. As a Senator

impeachment is neither a duty nor an option for him.

[Merlot]

42. Supporting it is an option

[rinsd]

85. Yeah being for conviction before the trial. That will show the public, its not about politics.

:eyes:

[AndyA]

49. That is correct, but CONVICTION will be up to him.

And these constant messages of "NO impeachment" do nothing to get the House moving, they just use it as another excuse: "It will never get conviction in the Senate, so it's just a waste of time."

People need to stop making excuses and look at the big picture. We have crooks and criminals running rampant over our rights and laws. It's up to Congress - both houses - to put a stop to it.

[Joe Fields]

88. Oh yes it is! The house may bring articles of impeachment

against Bush, and they may try the case, but the senate votes on it. It IS his duty, and if you think for one minute that, just because he is a senator, and not a congressman, that he holds no influence as to whether the democrats should go forward, then your understanding has to be limited. He can and should wield a lot of influence regarding impeachment. He just chooses not to. It IS a dereliction of duty, pure and simple.

[barbtries]

60. i'm with you

i could swear that congress is at this point in time - and for some time in fact - mandated by their oath to impeach the administration.
they flaunt and break the law
they cannot govern for shit
they are killing our children and countless innocent civilians
civil liberties
the environment
911

etcetera

[hfojvt]

148. I wonder why he didn't mention in the letter

that 'HE IS IN THE FU$%ING SENATE!!' and thus cannot bring articles of impeachment.

[jgraz]

9. Voters say No to Obama!

Buh bye, Barack. It was nice knowing ya.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. So, I say no to Obama.

[Az]

11. Excuse me Senator but do you hear us?

Or do you hear only that which paths the way for your political aspirations. We are sending you our hopes and opinions as clearly as we can. If you are listening then listen to us. Or is your mind already made up and you are ignoring what we are really saying and only playing political games?

[mmonk]

38. We are votes, nothing more.

One day we'll have to have the courage to withhold them. For politicians, it's all about their dreams.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. What's Hillary Clinton's take on the issue?

Edwards?

Gore?

[William769]

145. Why don't you start a thread and find out, instead of trying to detract from this one. NT

[Vanje]

13. This voter says "NO" to Obama

[muffin1]

14. Some friends and I were discussing

the reluctance of some in Congress to impeach. One of my buds said, "Well, Bush is so f*cking stupid, if we could get ONE person in Congress to tell him he'd been impeached, he might believe it and go ahead and leave". What do you think...would Kucinich be willing to put that to the test?:rofl:

[cboy4]

15. I have no use for him.

:thumbsdown:

[Pharaoh]

17. Perhaps I should email this thread

To good old (lets not make waves)Barack..............Bwahahaha!!!!

:spank:

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. Yes that is a good idea!

He needs to know how we feel.

[Truth2Tell]

18. highly questionable actions ??!!

CRIMINAL ACTIONS you mushy-headed dingbat!

A highly questionable action would be a primary vote for Obama.

[karlrschneider]

20. Grrrr

:puke:

[RufusEarl]

22. This line!

"I hope you will stay involved and work for progress on the issues that matter most to you. Thank you again for writing".

Impeaching Bu$h is what matters most to me!!!

[Jack Bone]

23. "Creeeeeeeeeeeek...."

That was the sound of my checkbook closing for the Obama 'o8 campaign...

[cureautismnow]

26. Wrong Answer.

Who will defend the Constitution of the United States from domestic enemies? Anyone? :mad:

[Dawgs]

27. Just another reason to support him.

Thanks for not listening to the "unrealistic" Democratic extremists.

[Colobo]

99. I'm with you.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Wimpy! Wimpy! Wimpy! Folks, we're fucked. Our so called leaders won't do their duty

to the constitution or the people.

A feel good agenda, eh?

Thanks for nothing, you phony!

[bdamomma]

116. they should be considered our servants not our leaders

we put them there, and we could damn well get them out.

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. Bye Bye Obama!

It was nice while it lasted.

[flyarm]

31. i just called his office ..and left a message..as an elected delegate in the State of Florida..

i can not and will not support him as long as he does not support the will of the American people and our laws..i said this administration has broken many of our laws..they lied this nation into an unjust war..and if he a senator does not think doing his job..as a representative of we the people..he needs to resign his job..and i can never support him..in any way!! Nor will i ask anyone in my area of Florida to support him..as i do rapid response in SW Florida for many strong democrats, as well as in my other state of NJ and i will hold him accountable as I WILL every other democrat that does not do their job..the job of the people ... to hold law breakers accountable with impeachment!

fly

[Stinky The Clown]

32. This fails to inspire me to vote for him

What **would** rise to an impeachable offense in the good senator's mind?

[MrMickeysMom]

33. Dear Senator Obama

Like the "dear player" letter in North Dallas Forty... "your option has not been picked up. Better luck in the future".

Sincerely,

People who are sane at this point

[Sapphire Blue]

34. Dear Senator Obama: Impeachment is NOT about "bitter partisanship"; it's about high crimes...

... and misdemeanors, both of which mr. bush is guilty.

[quiet.american]

39. HELLO! That's a line worthy of a Joe Lieberman. Say it ain't so, Obama! /t

[Sapphire Blue]

72. Yes, Obama's mentor taught him well.

[IChing]

35. "A new direction" cannot be taken when the vehicle of democracy and

accountability was involved with a head on
collision with this 16 wheeler truck
of Republican fascism.

[Merlot]

45. Great analogy. Now, just change the color of the car to blue!

[Pastiche423]

82. One blue car coming up...

[IChing]

83. Thanks Pastiche423 n/t

[never cry wolf]

36. Misleading subject line, he never said "No" to impeachment

He just said he didn't believe it was the best course. It's his personal opinion but I am sure if the party decided otherwise he would not actively fight against it and I am also sure if the house brought an impeachment charge for the senate to hear he would be more likely for vote guilty.

[Usrename]

46. Seems like a distinction without a difference to me.

And it's not all that surprising to me. He also thinks that filibusters are parlimentary tricks or devices that should not be used. He is sort of a crackpot on this stuff, if you ask me.

I don't think he's all that much different than the current group of thugs in the Whitehouse. At least as far as I can tell he doesn't want to distiguish himself from them on anything of substance, on anything that matters. Sure, he votes a certain way that is different than what he says, but words have consequences too, you know.

[John Q. Citizen]

51. Guilty of what? Being a Repo? Obama doesn't sound like he's aware that bush broke the law.

[xiamiam]

65. politics...politics as usual...i say no to obama...and anyone else who doesnt get it...nt

[Pharaoh]

58. Flip

Flop............

[peace13]

37. Would somebody please call my Momma

and have her look for my backbone? Love, Barack

[grace0418]

40. And Obama was going to be my choice if Gore doesn't run.

Ooookay, so once again I'll be holding my nose and voting for someone who's "better than the alternative."

Will I ever get to be excited about a candidate in my lifetime? I mean, one with a chance of winning?

This sucks.

[liberalpragmatist]

43. Has Gore endorsed impeaching Bush?

Just asking.

[grace0418]

47. Good question. At least so far I haven't heard him come out and say impeachment

is never gonna happen (not that he would have any power over it).

Yeah, already I was pinning my hopes on candidates who haven't said too much that turns me completely off. Which is not nearly as good as getting excited about a candidate's definitive plan. I'm so tired of this election already.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. Come on over to Kucinich. At least he's got a plan, ethics and a spine.

[grace0418]

67. He just doesn't have a chance outside of "loony liberals" like us. I know, I know,

I've heard all the arguments about why we should support people like Kucinich. And I do like a lot of his ideas. In fact, when I took one of those surveys about "who fits your politics the best" his name was #1 for me. I do support the guy, I just know there isn't a chance in hell of him winning.

The thing that I liked about Obama (who is by no means my ideal candidate), was that he got regular people excited. People in my life (coworkers, extended family, acquaintances, etc.) who would never talk about politics are suddenly interested and excited because they like Obama. I know it's similar to the whole "I'd like to drink beer with Bush" but certainly MUCH more benign. If Obama won the nomination I'd still vote for him over any sack of shit the GOP dumps on their ballot, I'm just not pleased about that impeachment statement.

If it were his child murdered in Bush's war for NOTHING, would he be so willing to get over it and move past it?

[John Q. Citizen]

75. You might say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.....

It starts with you, you know?

You can vote your heart in the primaries and it doesn't cost you a thing.

I can't find a heck of a lot of differences (or change) in any of the 3 so-called top tier candidates. They all seem to support an American empire, none will call the war/occupation criminal, none will hold bush accountible.

We can pretend that Obama Rodham Edwards is a agent of change or we can face the truth; it's going to be more of the same with a patina of new.

If everyone who feels like you do would vote for Kucinich his chances would improve immensly.

Perhaps you will join us?

[grace0418]

77. I hear ya, but I personally think that HRC is much worse than Obama. So I am voting against

her as much as I am vote for someone else in the primaries. Sorry all you HRC fans, that's just my opinion. It's not just her platform and ideas, but also the fact that I believe she would bring Republican voters out from under every rock to vote against "that bitch!" I think the vitriol against her will make the smearing of Gore and the swift-boating of Kerry look like a child's birthday party by comparison. That's what really scares me about her winning the nomination.

I'd hate to have a smaller scale version of the Nader syndrome, where Obama loses the nom by a hair and I voted for Kucinich (this is assuming Gore doesn't run) because I didn't think it would cost me anything. Sorry, but I just don't think enough people think like me to make much of a difference in Dennis' chances. And frankly, I'd be terrified if he *did* somehow win the nomination, because beyond us hard-core folks nobody knows who the heck he is. It would be like handing the presidency to the GOP because people will vote for that "actor-guy". *shudder*

I totally support your dream JQC, but I'm focusing on our current nightmare and how to get out of it.

[Individualist]

98. If people will ignore the "not electable" meme and vote their consciences,

he has an excellent chance of being the nominee.

[grace0418]

112. Okay, so say he's the nominee. Then what?

Even if we ignore the meme how do we convince the rest of America that he's the right choice?

I'm sorry but lots of people are really stupid and will vote for an actor they recognize from some crime show or that "9/11 Mayor" over a "funny-looking" guy they've never heard of before. Do you think Ahnold got elected because people liked his platform or because people thought it was cool to vote for the Terminator? It's not like Dems are guaranteed a victory in 2008 just because we think everyone should be thoroughly sick of the Republicans by now.

It's not enough for him to have a chance at being the nominee.

[Individualist]

113. Then he gets more media coverage, and Americans get to see a man with integrity.

[grace0418]

133. Sure, but they won't see a man they want to have a beer with, or that they want

to see on television, or that they think is attractive, or that they think is an exciting speaker. Let's face it, Americans can be quite shallow, celebrity-obsessed, and gullible. If integrity meant anything to them, would George Bush have ever even gotten enough votes make the election theft remotely plausible? Especially the second time around?

[NYCGirl]

117. Gore on impeachment:

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1100316

[Usrename]

59. That's a good question.

No one that I'm aware of, except Conyers and some of his crowd, have ever even mentioned what a dangerous proposition it is to contemplate impeaching these monsters. There are a few who have been watching that think they will not go along quietly if something like that were to be brought forward. It's a real problem, it seems. We know that they have no compunction about outing CIA officers, and follows that they have no sense of patriotism or conscience that would cause them to go along with another authority like Congress if they were impeached. They could hurl Bush under the bus, he has no political value at 20% approval, but what does that really change?

[NYCGirl]

121. Here's Gore on impeachment:

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1100316

[Merlot]

41. I have "dissatisfaction and frustration" with my phone company

With this *administration I have anger, disgust, and disbelief. I am enraged tha they're getting away with all these crimes. Every day it's another lie, another insult to the American people. This has gone so much farther than "bitter partisanship."

I am SO beyond dissatisfaction and frustration.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barbtries]

50. and i say no to obama

that was easy

[wiggs]

54. If no impeachment then you have to do everything in your power to..

...stop constitutional abuses, defund illegal programs and offices, stop signing statements, fix voting issues, hamstring the criminals from doing more damage, stop old wars and possible new ones, get troops out of harms way, fix broken regulatory agencies, stop inappropriate influence on government by corporations, indict those who have broken the law, get to the bottom of NSA wiretapping, begin to address global warming, focus on conservation and alternative energy, begin repairing a severely damaged reputation in the world, replace unqualified cronies in government with qualified ones before there are more disasters worsened by incompetence and corruption, find out why the letter from Niger was forged and foisted on the American public, get adults to discuss Israel/Palestine issues, ungag Sibel, close Guantanamo, find those responsible for Abu Ghraib, stop torture now, fix NCLB, stop manipulating and diminishing science, address crippling deficits by rolling back unprecedented tax cuts for wealthy, etc, etc, etc....

Maybe impeachment is easier after all....one stone, dozens of birds.

[cascadiance]

55. His and other Dems definition of "bipartisanship" is supporting the people and corporate donors...

... NOT trying to be what some people would misconstrue as between "the right" and "the left". His corporate donors and DLC leadership tell him that he needs to stay away from impeachment, or else they'll yank their support to get his books widely distributed, etc.

We are living in a time when there are certain issues that there ISN'T a bipartisan stance on! There's a CORRECT stance, and a WRONG stance. Impeachment is one of those issues! We don't need to elect surrenderers...

[geomon666]

56. What's the point of having investigations....

if you're not going to prosecute any wrong doing? Does this make sense to anybody? "We're going to investigate but we're not going to hold him accountable for any wrong doing." That's what they're saying.

[mmonk]

64. Pacification of the constitution supporters.

To pretend they are doing something meaningful to get us to shut up and vote for them in 08 as we always do.

[Rude Horner]

57. Maybe the people should just start breaking laws

and then when we're caught, we can just say that it's time to move on.

I don't understand why our representatives don't see this is a critical issue. The President has broken laws. His administration has broken laws. Since when is that something that we are just supposed to ignore?

The Democrats in charge are making a HUGE mistake in not pursuing this. I don't know if they've drunk the Kool-Aid, but they seem convinced that if they pursue impeachement, they will pay a big political price. I think they'd be surprised at the support they get. And if they don't pursue impeachement against Bush, after all he's done, they are setting a HUGE precedent for future years. I mean, if Bush can't be impeached with all his crimes, then what the hell is it going to take for anyone else to be impeached? Murder with the knife in his/her hand?

I'd bet 10 years salary that if this was a democratic president, the Repubs would pursue impeachement. Noooooo doubt about it.

[Amonester]

Not Murder with the knife in his/her hand: a BJ/?? will do.

Just that. :sarcasm:

Note
Sorry for the '??' (I dunno how that would be called for the '/her' side). :p

[robinlynne]

63. Seems to me this is completely in line with obama's self-portrayal. "the nice guy"

He is running as the gentle nice peaceful guy who will gently stop all the fighting. That is how I always perceived him. It is the principle reason I do not support him, and, I think, the principle reason some of my friends do support him.

[NotGivingUp]

68. serious crimes have been committed...he doesn't want to impeach...and he thinks he's gonna be

president? screw him. he is complicit.

[progressoid]

70. Not surprising. As a candidate, it would look completely self-serving to go after *

Politically, this is wise.

And no, I haven't decided who to support yet.

[Bluebear]

71. Just curious, why self-serving? Bush will not be his opponent. nt

[progressoid]

129. Could be perceived as an attention ploy or campaign gimmick perhaps.

I recall some grumblings like that when Kucinich went after Cheney

[AntiFascist]

73. Unfortunately we are continuing to move backward, not forward...

Bush has told Congress to back off, and Obama is one who obeys his master.

[mmonk]

74. Betrayed.

[rudy23]

76. See ya, Obama. Hello, Kucinich.

If you announce that you refuse to get into a tit-for-tat, the Repukes are going to keep going for the "tit*", knowing you refuse to give them the "tat".





* I could not find a way to keep the structure of my "tit for tat" argument, and find a way around this ententdre

[William769]

78. ...

[William769]

92. Anyone notice whats missing from this thread?

[Pharaoh]

94. What?

[William769]

95. Hint.

Look at who's not posting.

[Pharaoh]

96. I have no clue?

but then again I've had a couple margaritas.........

[Lugnut]

79. Okee dokee

That helps me narrow down my choices.

[Swamp Rat]

81. "Rather than attending to the people's business" you concentrate on your political campaign.

No vote for you Obama. You are obviously just another dysfunctional politician.

Investigations without serious consequences end up in the graveyard of empty, political rhetoric.

[Poppa]

84. Obama

And this spineless character wants me to support him for
president? With his lack of nerve he'd fit right in there with
Polosi and Reid. It is so frustrating to have people like
Obama and the current congressional Democratic
"leadership"  to continue to ignore the wishes of
most of the members of our party and not initiate articles of
impeachment on Bush and Cheney. By not making them accountable
for their actions, they are simply giving agiving Bush and
Cheney a pass to continue destroying this country. 

[Harry Monroe]

86. Barack, you just lost my support

And BTW, GO TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!

[followthemoney]

91. Freedom and democracy deserve more than a quick fix and ...

heads down looking the other way when a bully comes along and tells you the new rules are in and the old rules don't matter anymore. Elected people have pulled that before and no good comes of it.

For the sake of this nation and the world these people must pay if it takes ten years. Ten years from now this same crew will be pulling the same shit citing today's lawlessness as a precedent if nothing is done.

[Zodiak]

93. Sorry Obama, I'm not buying.

And that is too bad....I had such hope for him.

What annoys me is the partisanship argument. As many good DUers have pointed out above, this is not an issue of partisanship, but law and dangerous precedent.

I propose that Obama is using a different defiition of partisanship that applies to the beltway, but not to the People. I think that the People define partisanship as "placing your party and your personal power above what is good for the country.". In the beltway, it means Democrats listening to liberals. (not Republicans listening to freakazoid, knuckledragging, christofascists...that's ignored)

The frame is what pisses me off. 50% of this country is behind impeachment right now according to Rasmussen. That would include pretty much all Democrats and quite a few independents. And the numbers are trending strongly positive. It is a monumentally stupid strategy for the Democrats to ignore this groundswell. It is IGNORING THE PEOPLE that will be seen as partisanship because everyone knows the Democrats are laying on their hands until the 2008 election.

Who is advising these people? They should be fired.

[karash]

97. .

Why is anyone surprised that Barack Obama (TM) would spew nothing but duckspeak when asked a serious question?

[Vidar]

100. I would have taken him as second or third choice, but no more.

[Colobo]

101. Impeachment won't happen, and I'm glad my candidate is aware of it.

Wasting energy on that is not worth it. We need a fresh start.

[tom_paine]

102. Then I say no to Obama.

[sellitman]

103. Nobama!

You just lost any chance you had of me voting for you in the primary.

It's about that oath you took to uphold the Constitution.

You just broke that oath.

Shame on you and shame on your supporters.

[bemildred]

104. That's it for Obama, impeachment IS moving forward in a postive way.

The only positive way there is, and then put the SOBs in jail, too. What could be more positive than Cheney in a striped suit?

[Dark]

105. What the fuck does Obama have to do with impeachment? He's in the SENATE.

The House handles impeachment.

[PBass]

120. Exactly, Obama is way down the line, when it comes to impeachment.

Obama can't take the lead on impeachment, NONE of the presidential candidates can be expected to do it. It would look like they're "trying to steal the job".

Start with Congress, start with the House Judiciary Committee, start with your district's Rep. Call them and email them regularly. If the House takes action, I will be satisfied. Let the Senate vote against it if they want. Let history show who voted for, and who voted against. But for Gods sake, the House Democrats must take action, even if the Senate fails to convict because of partisan protection of the president. Let history show that, too.

I just don't expect Obama, Clinton, Edward or Pelosi to take the spokesman's position on the issue.

[Balbus]

106. I bet he's on Cindy's shit-list also.

[Atman]

107. Well, mark him off my list of potentials

I'll still vote for him if he is somehow nominated, but I doubt he'll be nominated. I won't be supporting him for the nomination. I'm still waiting.

.

[Terri S]

108. Funny .. everyone picks on Obama

and yet every other candidate was asked at the debate to raise their hands if they are for impeachment. Only Kucinich raised his hand. Awhile back a blogger had followed around all the candidates at some appearance..I didn't save the link..and asked them all whether they supported impeachment. Same response. So if this is what is going to cause everyone to 'write off' a candidate, it looks like Kucinich is going to be who everyone votes for.

I wonder if anyone has ever asked Gore? I don't recall ever seeing it anywhere .. no reason anyone would, I guess, but it would be interesting to see his answer.

[bemildred]

109. Oh, I like him, actually.

He has said good stuff. But that doesn't mean he gets a free ride when we disagree. Voters aren't supposed to shutup, that isn't how democracy works.

[Terri S]

125. I disagree with him on this too

but I just find it strange that I don't see many claiming to 'write off' all the rest of the dems who feel the same way, is all. Personally I'm enraged at the whole 'off the table' bunch.

What in my post suggested I was telling anyone to shut up or that I don't know how democracy works? :shrug:

[bemildred]

127. Sorry, I won't bother to explain myself next time.

I was not saying anything about your post. I was just explaining why I belabor politicians when I disagree with them, like Obama in this case.

[lonestarnot]

110. Tit for fucking tat political circus is better than a war with Iran!

Son of a bitch! (Not you Obama!) Tie the motherfuckers up in red tape and hearings to keep them distracted for a change.

[earth mom]

111. Told ya all so about Obama. He's more conservative than some want to admit.

:eyes:

[Atman]

114. And he thinks COAL is green energy.

I like him less and less the more I know about him.

.

[bbgrunt]

115. Obama has definitely sullied his "rock star" image.

[book_worm]

118. I was high on Obama when he first got in, but he has disappointed me

as have most of the others. I guess the Dem I'm feeling closest too (if it's not Gore) is Edwards.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

122. Is Moving Forward the new talking point? First Obama and then Shrub today? eom

[in_cog_ni_to]

123. I received that same email today. Obama just lost my Primary vote.

After everything these thugs have done, "moving forward with a positive agenda" just doesn't fucking cut it for me.

Either support Impeachment or forget my vote.

I couldn't delete that freakin' email fast enough! Man, does he piss me off!

[dysfunctional press]

124. "America needs to move forward again..."

that's the same logic clinton used to excuse iran-contra and investigations into poppy's xmas pardons of the weinberger 7...

the corporatists ALWAYS look out for their own.

obama makes me want to puke.

[AntiFascist]

149. at least Hillary is starting to make more noise about opposing the war....

where does Obama, who's looking more and more like a corporate shill, stand there?

[dysfunctional press]

150. hillary is an even bigger shill for corporations-

just ask the insurance lobby.

they're BOTH dlc corporatists, and NEITHER one will EVER get my vote for president.

[philosophie_en_rose]

126. *cue the fan club*

Naturally, they're going to say Obama is an "Uncle Tom" for being part of the party of slavery. :eyes:

But maybe Obama wants to do more than hold up this country up with revenge fantasies.

[Imagevision]

128. Obama,Hillary,Gore would prefer to allow the current self-destruct mechanism that

is sure to cause more negative exposure and possibilities for a Dem to be occupying the WH. in 08.
If there were impeachment proceedings going on how much media exposure would be lost and actually effect the outcome for the next President being elected. No impeachment, the timing is simply off!

[Pharaoh]

137. They need to be held accountable

that is the bottom line, screw politics, this is about criminal behavior at the highest level!!

[LittleClarkie]

130. Waiting to hear from Russ Feingold on the same issue

I wrote him yesterday. If I hear back I'll post it too.

[Swamp Rat]

131. Me too.

I really like Russ. He one of our best senators.

[LittleClarkie]

132. I wonder if he answered in-state questions first before out of state

I guess we'll find out.

[tomp]

134. to quote napolean dynamite.....

...."Idiot!"

as if impeaching, convicting, and imprisoning bush/cheney, etc. wasn't "the people's business". you mean, barack, if you don't impeach you're not going to be involved in politics. who does this guy think we are to talk down to us this way?

this guy is so run-of-the-mill, status quo, business-as-usual i don't know what any of you see in him.

[Senator]

135. He Just Called A Majority of Americans "Circus" Freaks

And dismissed their demand that Our Constitution be defended from this war criminal regime as trivial "tit-for-tat."

He's hearing "the call for a new direction and a change in our politics, a thirst for something more" all right.

And that direction is away from him and his pablum spewing, top down, patronizing manipulation of the public/electorate. That thirst is for leaders who are willing to DO SOMETHING to confront these neofascist American Haters.

That's the "issue that matters most" to more and more of us each day.

Obama has secured his place on the wrong side of it.

====

[deacon]

136. Then I'm switching to Kucinich n/t

[Pharaoh]

138. Unless Gore gets in

It's Kucinich all the way ;o)

[mod mom]

140. VERY disappointing!

[WillyT]

141. Obama Wants To Play Nice...

Not me.

:mad:

[Vinca]

142. It may be late in the game, it may seem like a waste of time, but

DAMN - in 100 years when a kid reads history I want him to know we didn't just sit around twiddling our thumbs while the idiot in the White House ran roughshod over our Constitution and turned a deaf ear to the people. Obama will not get my New Hampshire primary vote.

[Cass]

143. He says he supports "robust investigations" but what does that accomplish

when they thumb their nose at subpeonas? How does he intend to accomplish oversight on the Administration?

Why couldn't he say if its determined by the "robust investigations" he supports that Bush broke the law then the laws of the nation must be upheld? Upholding the rule of law shouldn't be an optional thing to do.

[truebrit71]

144. *sigh* AGAIN with this 'middle-way' crap...Not very impressive Senator...

...not impressive at all...

[bvar22]

146. bvar22 says "NO" to Obama.

that is all.
:patriot:

[G_j]

147. the issue is an "...era of bitter partisanship"? No It Is HIGH CRIMES!!

:argh:

[tbyg52]

151. You know what *really* bugged me about this email

which I received also.

You cannot reply to the address it came from. [e-mail]

Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but that just struck me as "you asked, I answered, now shut up."

Edited to say that as I was processing the email neglected since Sunday, I found another one with an address that doesn't say "no-reply." So I changed the title to "Impeachment" and I replied as follows:

Woo hoo, an address that might take replies.

I really resented receiving an answer to my questions on impeachment of Cheney and Bush from [e-mail] . What does that mean, "shut up"?

I strongly suspect you do not correctly understand the situation in our country regarding the Bush/Cheney cabal. I am not a lawyer, but I have read the Constitution.

Please reconsider your position on impeachment.