How much did Obama support Specter? Quite a bit, it turns out.

[freddie mertz]

These links tell the story.

(Thanks to zipplewrath for three of them.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs0cvwDLjow

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/plouffe-sends-email-for-specter.php#more

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/president-obamas-campaign-arm-tries-to-get-grassroots-democrats-to-defeat-fellow-progressive.html

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gp84hh

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/may18thforspecter?state=PA

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20100219_Sestak_says_he_was_offered_federal_job.html

We can debate the political wisdom and the consequences of this effort to support the man's election (for the first time) as a Democratic senator.

What we cannot debate is the FACT that the Obama political operation opposed Sestak from the start, and continued to work for Specter and against Sestak right up to the end.

The apparent fact that Obama et al decided in the 11th hour, when it was clear that specter was going down, not to appear at any new public events does not erase the rest of the record.

Thanks for reading.

Now let's get on with it and win this election against Toomey.

On edit: fixed links.

[tavalon]

1. That was the bargain they made with Specter

They actually followed through on a promise, something this administration has a somewhat spotty record on. I really don't have a problem with the fact that they supported Specter. I do hope this becomes a teachable moment (brought to them by the progressives wing of the Democratic party in Pennsylvania).

[freddie mertz]

3. I think it was a mistake. But we can differ on interpretation.

My only point is to try and set the record straight.

[DrToast]

55. No health care reform without Specter

[bvar22]

63. No Health Care Reform WITH Specter.

Oh, you mean the Health Insurance Profit Enhancement Bill?

[laughingliberal]

65. +1 nt

[niceypoo]

71. As of April 1st I started paying 40% more for insurance

...yet it pays for nothing except 'preventative' care, oh, and with a 6k$ yearly deductible. Simply put, I cannot afford to go to a doctor any longer.

The healthcare bill does nothing to stop scams by insurance company and thus is a toothless joke. Good riddance Specter.

[ima_sinnic]

84. that's awful! I'm still uninsured, but actually guess I prefer it that way

--and I won't be forgetting how we were tricked about "health care reform."
Seeing the drs and nurses being led out of Congress, and never a peep from Obama in their defense after his bullshit about "everybody would have a seat at the table," was a deal breaker for me. That was when I truly lost it and realized hope and change was nothing but bait and switch.

[polichick]

2. Oh stop it, you silly! You know the president was really pulling for...

...the candidate who won. ;)

[freddie mertz]

5. That is what some are claiming.

With no evidence whatsoever, I might add.

[polichick]

7. Let me guess - he was playing chess. nt

[freddie mertz]

8. I have actually seen that. No joke. nt.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[tavalon]

9. Nope, he was following through on a promise

If he was more consistent in that, he wouldn't have estranged so much of his base.

[ProSense]

4. Oh my. This clearly proves

that Sestak's win is a loss for Obama. If not, what's the point?

[freddie mertz]

6. Just setting the record straight. There has been some revisionism.

We can and should have different opinions on what it all means, but the facts should be respected as facts.

[tavalon]

10. Not a loss, a teachable moment.

[ProSense]

13. What exactly did you think was the lesson?

Sometimes your candidates wins, sometimes they lose?

In 2008, there was a Presidential primary. People, including politicians, lined up on both sides.

People support candidates for various reasons. They are typically not concerned about who anyone else is supporting. In this case, the President supported the incumbents.

[tavalon]

21. No, the teachable moment is that if you ignore your base,

your base can and will do what it thinks is best. Obama has lost a lot of his clout by ignoring the progressives in the party. We were his foot soldiers and we will be again in a heartbeat, if he starts listening and moves just a bit back to the left. We're not asking for a Kucinich kind of move, just a less Clintonian/Reaganest stance.

He can still win us back and he is really savvy - he knows how to do it. It's just the midterms are closer than they appear, so he's going to need to pull the candidate Obama out of the closet and remind us of just why we voted for him. I believe he can do it but it's going to require more than stirring speeches. Those speeches are amazing, but they haven't been followed up by much action and the Sestak win and the Lincoln runoff are shots across the bow.

[ProSense]

24. "Obama has lost a lot of his clout by ignoring the progressives in the party."

What nonsense.

The health care bill, financial reform and climate change are perfect examples. Obama is going to be judged on what Congress is able to pass. If anyone thinks that the bills coming out of Congress are going to please the progressives who have been attacking him as a liar and a sellout, they're kidding themselves.

[tavalon]

57. I stand by my statement

I also stand by the statement I made that Obama can get us back easily and I wrote a simple roadmap for that. I stand by that, too.

[niceypoo]

72. The professor and Mary Anne

...here on Shilligans isle.

[polichick]

14. Well, he loves teachable moments - let's hope this one isn't wasted. nt

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

12. I see you haven't thought hard or awakened yet. :)

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

22. Facts are facts - sorry you can't handle them. nt

[Radical Activist]

23. Your unrealistic expecation that big brother Obama can force Congress

to pass any progressive legislation your heart desires is not about "facts."

[polichick]

25. Stick to the facts - I've never said anything like that...

btw, this thread is about what you see as Obama's win. lol

[Radical Activist]

28. You say it

every time you portray any compromise as evidence that Obama isn't liberal. When you blame Obama for Congress passing legislation that's more conservative than what he first proposed. It suggests that you don't understand the legislative process.

[polichick]

29. You need to respond to the words someone uses - not to your projections. nt

[Radical Activist]

31. I am.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8370971&mesg_id=8371306

[polichick]

33. I don't see any words there that match what you've claimed above (#23)...

Now, back to this thread's topic...

FACTS.

[niceypoo]

73. Its called the 'bully pulpit'

Johnson used it to whip and beat Medicare/Medicaid through congress in the first six months of his administration. He didnt let the Liebermans and bluedogs of the day hijack and ruin it like Obama did with the healthcare bill.

[freddie mertz]

26. That is another topic, and worthy of serious debate.

This is about whether the support was there or not.

I think the Obama preference for Specter was genuine.

I do not think any chicanery went on or that they "really" wanted Sestak.

Until we have facts to dispute the extant narrative, we should accept the support they offered as genuine.

[Radical Activist]

27. And why is that so important to you?

You need to feel vindicated?

[polichick]

35. Already explained in #6 - it's about FACTS. nt

[Radical Activist]

39. It's about somebody getting his jollies rubbing it in. n/t

[laughingliberal]

66. Or another take could be:

That it's about hoping the President will realize Democrats are tired of electing Democrats who pass Republican legislation and will shift to the left a little.

[FrenchieCat]

38. It's about being divided, fighting, fussing, and being at each other's throat so

that we are too distracted to actually win shit, especially in November.

We are supposed to resent, suspect, distrust, and dislike the administration,
cause we should hate the government unless it does exactly what we say should be
done at all times about everything.


When folks want to stay busy arguing about this, you know they
ain't got shit else to do. :shrug:

I almost feel sorry for them.

[Radical Activist]

40. yep n/t

[AllentownJake]

49. The President supported Arlen as did I

Both of us were genuine in our support. Arlen lost, the President will support and work with Joe Sestak in the General Election.

What is the big deal if the President supported Arlen Specter genuinely.

I supported Arlen over his position on the Afghan withdraw and that while he was a Republican that he was pro-choice and in co-sponsored a card check bill during Bush's term in office.

:shrug:

[freddie mertz]

51. It's not an issue at all in and of itself.

Just that some folks are suggesting he didn't really support him.

That strikes me as a rewrite of history.

[AllentownJake]

61. Same folks who lecture me that the President isn't perfect

and go apeshit over any criticism?

[freddie mertz]

54. Not trying to tell you what to think or feel.

Just clarifying the record, because I thought some clarification was called for.

[freddie mertz]

69. It was an inter-party primary, which is "divided" be definition.

I agree that it is over and unity shall (and should) prevail.

What I object to is the insistence on rewriting history.

[niceypoo]

74. Primaries are about division, fighting, fussing and being at each others throats

That is how we choose our candidates. The conservadem lost. We won. EOM.

[Lord Helmet]

90. "we" won??? what did "you" win? a proxy contest against the president?

hilarious

[freddie mertz]

16. Not a pot shot. Just factual links.

You are free to have your own opinion on it.

I think it was a mistake, and I watched it from PA, where some people (I among them) were displeased by what they saw as "meddling" from DC.

Sestak even addressed that in his victory speech.

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=e7e14382-2cba-4bc7-9498-e6571092455f

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[waiting for hope]

15. K&R

Thanks freddie .. nothing like the facts. :thumbsup:

[gravity]

19. Obama will support Sestak now

I don't see what the problem is.

[freddie mertz]

20. No problem with that.

My problem is with the denial of history before it even gets cold.

I expect and welcome Obama's support for Sestak.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Dems won, Republicans lost!

That's all she needs to write.

[Dinger]

32. K & R freddie

[Jennicut]

34. And water is wet. The point is?

Obama gave support to Specter. Specter voted as a Dem and gave good votes to Obama. Obama followed through on his promise to support him. He may have actually (gasp) liked working with Specter. Obama could have used Specter's votes and then thrown him under the bus. Someone was going to have that position when Sestak decided to challenge Specter.

I think we need to get over it all and just get ready for Toomey.

[Teaser]

36. make me fucking care.

.

[jillan]

37. +1

[Dinger]

41. Make Me Fucking Not Care (nt)

[treestar]

42. So, many supported someone other than Obama and then voted for him

in the GE, because we are all Democrats, after all.

Besides, I am wondering if Sestak will be progressive enough for you, either. I can just see the demands to primary him, too as soon as he votes on a few things. (If he wins).

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[saracat]

47. "Come over here to post this" Are you seriously indicating that the OP doesn't have the same

right to post an opinion as those that agree with you? You can't believe someone would differ? People back losing candidates.The WH lost. What is so hard to get about that concept?

[AtomicKitten]

48. LOL. nt

[AllentownJake]

67. I find it funny

That I, one of the most hated people by a certain portion of this board voted for Arlen Specter, am fully willing to admit that I voted for Arlen, say my justifications, and that a certain segment of the board has to deny that Barack ever supported Arlen. I find it just as funny another segment thinks Sestak is a liberal.

Arlen has done a lot of good things over the years and Joe Sestak is a relatively unknown who has taken a decidedly pro-war escalation stance on many issues.

I find this whole race ridiculous. The people who were supporting Joe Sestak over Specter I disagree with, but this notion that Joe Sestak is a liberal or that different from Arlen I find mind boggling.

[saracat]

44. K+R

[BklnDem75]

46. So?

Presidents support incumbents in their parties. This isn't rocket science.

[Number23]

50. Here's what annoys me

When Scott Brown won in Massachusetts, people on this board SCREAMED that this was a loss for Obama and that it meant that the American public wanted him to "go left." (How in the Sam Hill the election of a Republican means that the populace wants you to "go left" obviously got lost in the need to claim that Obama was a "failure" at something yet again.)

Now that Sestak has won over Specter, the SAME DAMN PEOPLE are still screaming that this means that the public once again wants Obama to "go left" even though neither Sestak or Specter were in any hurry to capture the "liberal" label.

There are some on this board that would consider a meteor shower, a toothache, or a ham sandwich as proof that this President needs to "go left." It's really quite baffling and rather idiotic.

[freddie mertz]

53. There is a lot of spin.

Interpretations or claims of lessons learned are to be expected.

I just wanted to point out that the White House and the president supported Specter officially and consistently, contrary to some ridiculous claims to the contrary.

[laughingliberal]

60. Dramamine stock should be up. nt

[freddie mertz]

68. Indeed!

I posted this in an attempt to counter some of the more outrageous spinning.

Didn't do as much good as I had hoped...oh well....

[tallahasseedem]

56. +1

So, so true.

[Robb]

58. I applaud not only for what you say

...but for the return of "ham sandwich" to the political lexicon. :patriot:

[AllentownJake]

62. Well the country would be better served if the President

was a little more of a lefty.

As far as it being a loss for the President, that only happens if Sestak loses, because Pat Toomey, will not do anything with this President regardless of what the President wants to do.

[harun]

80. Elections aren't always about the specific positions or parties of the

individuals. Sometimes they are the voters rejecting or approving a larger course.

Electing Obama, for example, was sending the message to Washington that we wanted change.

Electing Brown and nominating Sestak was sending a message to Obama that we want change.

When B*sh was running for President he told Cheney he wanted to take the system as far right as law allowed. When Obama hired Rahm he was basically committing himself to take the system as far right as the Dem Left would allow and still vote for him. I cannot name one bone Obama has thrown the Left. I can name bones throne to the Right by B*sh all day.

So when people say they want Obama to "go left" it isn't that hard to understand they want some of there issues addressed. Not just having Obama not be as bad as B*sh.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[amborin]

59. this tells a story, too:

"Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, collected $18 million working less than three years at Wall Street outfit Wasserstein-Perella. I don’t think, after googling the firm, that anyone has adequately explained just what Wasserstein-Perella is. (I was writing about this stuff back in the late 1980s, so I know.) Bruce Wasserstein was one of the top leveraged buyout bandits of the 1980s, when America’s industrial companies were literally asset stripped and ripped apart. The amount of human misery Bruce Wasserstein caused with his "financial engineering" in former industrial towns from Akron to Zanesville is simply beyond imagination, but not exaggeration. After making a few billion ripping apart our country’s industrial base and looting pension funds, Wasserstein became head of Lazard Freres, the secretive but extremely powerful international private banking firm....."

snip



http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/11/813139/-Ta ... ;-I-add-some-history-

[bvar22]

64. K&R for the facts.

:patriot:

[Writer]

70. What blows me away is that you actually spent this much time putting together those articles...

just for providing yourself - and a few others - the sensation that this carries some sort of real, concrete political meaning.

Man, if this is what constitutes political discourse within the party, then I really need to pull away from the computer and go enjoy the beautiful weather we're having, because that has far more meaning than the pettiness of figuring out whether Obama "supported" the loser in a single state's Democratic primary.

[niceypoo]

75. The 'loser' was a republican

...the liberal won. Nothing to see here folks, everybody move along now...

[BklnDem75]

76. The 'losers' are the ones trying to run a victory lap

over something so meaningless. If so called liberals don't understand why the president would show support for Dem incumbents, then it's no wonder the country has moved further right in the last 50 years.

[niceypoo]

77. There is a pattern here

Specter wasnt a Dem incumbent, he is a lifelong republican who ran to the Democratic side for political reasons, not out of any core conviction. The Democrats won a victory in this primary, sorry you feel that makes them 'losers.'

[BklnDem75]

79. A Dem vote is a Dem vote whether you like it or not

I'm glad Sestak won but I won't overlook the fact that Obama's support for Spector will yield yes votes instead of no for the rest of the year. The 'losers' are the ones who want to stick to their purity crap. They can take that back to their dwindling clubhouse.

[niceypoo]

81. There is no 'purity' movement in the Democratic party

That is a fake straw man argument used to attack any Democrat who disagrees with Obama on anything.

[BklnDem75]

83. Yet your only argument is 'he's no real Democrat'

Say what you want about Specter, in the end, his votes since switching has been pretty solid, unlike some liberals who get a free pass for voting with the opposition.

[niceypoo]

85. My arguement is that he is a Democrat for reasons of political expediency

...rather than core convictions. Good riddance.

[BklnDem75]

87. Once again, who cares?

There was no negative in Obama's decision.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[BeyondGeography]

82. How much did a reliable vote from a former Repug help the Democratic agenda?

Quite a bit...

[WI_DEM]

86. It really doesn't matter who he supported because now he is behind the winner of the primary

and he'll work to get him elected too.

[Nikki Stone1]

88. /

/

[NJmaverick]

89. these posts are just getting sadder and more pathetic