If president, he would consult with Republicans like Tom Coburn. You know, the “lesbians hide in school bathrooms” Senator from Oklahoma. The guy who protested NBC showing “Schindler’s List” because it had full frontal nudity in the concentration camp scenes.
Here’s Coburn’s latest:
Citing a concern over the Second Amendment rights of veterans, U.S. Senator Tom Coburn has placed a hold on a bill that calls for the development of a program to address the group's high suicide rates.
Aaron Cooper, a spokesman for the Oklahoma Republican, says Coburn's primary concern with the bill is that information that veterans might provide during mental health screenings could be shared among agencies.
Cooper says that information could be used to infringe upon the rights of veterans to own guns.
Doesn’t matter what Obama would “consult” with Coburn about. The fact that, in order to prove he’s oh-so-bipartisan, he links himself to one of the biggest nut cases to ever sit in the US Senate (think about that for a second) is enough to reveal his capacity for rational judgment and touch with reality. Yet again, the man proves he’s just not ready for prime time.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Monday, August 27, 2007
All You Need to Know about Obama
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Dingellsaurus
The Christian Science Monitor calls out the cynical and backhanded ploy of John Dingell (D-GM) to use a mega gasoline tax to shortcircuit real economizing standards on the US auto industry. Good stuff on the newly discovered fossil, Dingellsaurus, which sounds like it might also have DNA evolved into Barack Obama.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Only 554 days to go...
Barack Obama has officially become both not authentically black enough, and super-authentic. Well done, Senator Obama.
Meanwhile, "hate is starting to turn off the Christians." Or so says Dana B. I think it's in no way turning off the "Christians" who have made their name on TV as "moral values" watchdogs; instead it's already fully turned off the real-life Christians who have paid attention to more than one or two of their Bible readings.
And finally, if Rudy were a surgeon, it would be okay for him to milk "[his] reputation [formed during a deadly disaster] for crass [careerist] gain is, obviously, despicable", right? Or something like that?
And since I haven't done it in a while...the latest odds:
Obama 45%
Hillary 37%
Edwards 16%
Other 2%
And...
Rudy 36%
Romney 34%
McCain 16%
Other 14%
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Only 559 days to go...
Gotta love Obama slamming (and mocking) Rudy with this remark:
Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics. America’s mayor should know that when it comes to 9/11 and fighting terrorists, America is united.The poll numbers favor Dems on so many issues right now...we better see this attitude and bite continue. Via the same link, Edwards piles on Rudy as well...
As far as the facts are concerned, the current Republican administration led us into a war in Iraq that has made us less safe and undermined the fight against al Qaeda. If that's the 'Republican' way to fight terror, Giuliani should know that the American people are looking for a better plan.Oh, and John McCain is officially running for president. Feel the excitement!! Wait, you didn't feel it? You should. Just thinking about how much his soul he's already sold...there's no telling what he's capable of now that his name is actually in the hat!
Monday, April 09, 2007
Only 575 days to go...
Over at HuffPo, Bruno Giussani has an interesting take on the role of the Internet in the 2008 election.
[T]he campaign up to 2008 will be wild. The tools are still too new, the possibilities too exciting, and a politically mature usage of them will take time to settle in.You know my take on it. I do think personality is going to play a huge role, and not only because of the Internet (which was somewhat his point). I have the feeling people are growing desperate for authenticity, which is why Obama and Edwards combined to raise about $40 million in the first quarter...and why Guiliani is leading Republicans.
Which means that 2008 -- boosted by California moving their primary to February, which changes the whole dynamics -- will probably be a campaign hitched to personality and authenticity, not to policies. That's the only signal that may emerge from the growing noise: leadership. How will this person respond in a crisis? Can I trust him or her to take the right decisions? Empathy and warmth will trump any carefully drafted social-security reform plan. Because with the message blurred by its own multiplicity, the messenger will become the (only) message.
And I have the impression that that's the way Barack Obama and John Edwards are shaping their campaign.
Of course, Guiliani isn’t actually even 1% genuine and authentic, but it seems he still has the aura...for now, at least...
Thursday, April 05, 2007
579 Days to Go...
Last night I endured considerable babbling from the television pundits about Barack Obama’s first quarter fundraising results. Consensus among the bobbleheads is that all those little people who gave nickles and dimes to Sen. Obama instead of Sen. Clinton must be (a) angry with her because of the war, or (b) still suffering Clinton fatigue. Or both.I’m not going to disagree with any of that—it’s all true. However, there’s still one more reason why Obama got donations from 100,000 people or whatever it was: he’s the first truly inspiring personality (who couldn’t quickly be labeled as ‘crazy,’ anyway) since, what, Bill Clinton? JFK? There are still tons of doubts and unknowns about Obama, and I'm not really sure that I like his stances in some areas, but as I've said before...he actually has a healthy amount charisma, and he's shown that he doesn't mind being a wonky guy who learns quickly. I think he'll develop into a pretty decent candidate over the next few months. I hope he does, anyway.
I think both are a factor, but I think there’s another factor the bobbleheads are missing.
For the past few bleeping years the pundits have been telling us that Sen. Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. No doubt about it. She’s got all this money, all these connections, a killer political organization — nay, a machine — behind her. Whether the Democratic Party base wanted her to be the candidate was never questioned. She was who we were going to get, like it or not.
People are tired of Hillary, and people are being tired of told that Hillary was going to be the nominee no matter what, but simply being “someone other than Hillary” isn’t why Obama raised that much, and for all his faults, it’s an insult to him to think that his own personality and qualifications didn’t have something to do with it.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Only 580 days to go...
Dana B. has an interesting thought about the "Kos primary" and the netroots' effect on the 2008 race as a whole. It's a unique view, though I'm kinda confused...
Four years ago Markos Moulitsas (left) was a common blogger. Like me (and many others) he became an early fan of Howard Dean, and in the summer was hired as an Internet consultant to the campaign. His suggestions were not followed, he was let go in the fall, and the rest, as they say, is history....Kos is as influential as ever, yet Obama raised $7 million off of the internet without him. Kinda contradictory, though Obama's surge is very encouraging overall. We all know about the famed blogroll purge and Amnesty Day and all that (you can read the latest about that the ongoing silliness here...somebody's getting pissy), but I think this proves that the concept of the 'long tail' where the big names in a field--music, books, blogs, etc.--are still the big names, but there are so many other voices out there that the big names cannot dominate simply because they raise their voice. That's a very good thing.
Today his site, DailyKos, and fellow consultant Jerome Armstrong's MyDD are the largest Democratic Party clubhouses on the Internet. They are both best-selling authors, and their communities (not blogs, communities) are where new liberal ideas are tried out, where Netroots consensus is built on politics and policy.
Markos himself has not chosen a candidate (although it won't be Hillary Clinton). He has tried, in this cycle, to act as a reporter, although one with an obvious point-of-view and some self-awareness of his influence. Thus his recent attack on Barack Obama is important, and may have done more than Elizabeth Edwards' cancer diagnosis to raise John Edwards' profile among the Netroots.
Then we have today's news. Obama's $25 million campaign haul, from 100,000 people, $6.9 million from the Internet alone, 100,000 total donors. It's a sign of significant grassroots support, as well as institutional support. Obama has become the Tiger Woods of the Democratic field.
Now, I know a lot of middling blogs have seen their hits drop since the blogroll purge (our own hits have dropped about 30% in the last couple of months, but that has infinitely more to do with less people googling La Fea Mas Bella than it does blogroll purges...since, you know, we weren't on any major blogrolls), but this shows that the smaller voices in the blogosphere still have a voice of some sort.
And meanwhile, I got to listen to Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert on the evening news tonight, telling me how absolutely shocking it is that someone else actually raised some money this quarter and that--clutch the pearls--Hillary isn't the runaway Democratic favorite. Good times.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Hillary, Obama, Gays, and a New Low Post!
In the newest Low Post, Taibbi takes on Hillary’s unforgiveable “Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude” comment regarding homosexuality’s immorality (and Obama’s getting slaughtered for uttering an obvious truth).
Let me get this straight. Hillary Clinton wants the most powerful office in the world, but she can't make her own decision about the morality of homosexuality? She's got to "leave that to others"?He then goes on to talk about the worthless pile of crap that is the DLC and their constant need to appease ignorant bigots...like they’re ever going to vote for a Democrat anyway. He’s preaching to the choir, of course, but it always seems worth reading.
When I read this, I thought to myself: Man, this woman has been living with Bill Clinton way too long. Fifteen years after the 1992 campaign, she's trying to smoke the gay pipe (!) without inhaling. She's just said that homosexuality isn't a choice, that it's something "you are" at birth. If that's what she believes, how could she possibly believe homosexuality is immoral? And if that is what she believes, how could she possibly not answer that question forthrightly? How could she duck Tapper's question there?
There are times, of course, when a politician may be excused for not answering a sticky political question. As the flap over Barack Obama's views about Palestine proved this week, people are not always rational and/or forgiving in the face of political candor. If an Obama can't make a simple declarative factual statement about the suffering of the Palestinian people without being gored on the AIPAC trident and whaled on in a host of heated talk-show segments, it's hard to blame some politicians for keeping their mouths shut when politically controversial topics arise.
...
But that crap doesn't fly with this gay-rights issue. In this case there is no future performance in office one is safeguarding with a careful, poll-tested answer. In this case the very act of answering the question is policy. When you're trying to combat bigotry and ignorance, you need to demonstrate actual human leadership, not computerized hedging. By punting the issue of the morality of homosexuality, Hillary dignifies the question. And let's all be clear about what's going on here. It was the word "morality" that had Hillary spooked.
Every time Hillary says something horrifically poll-tested and approved by the DLC and James Carville (which, let’s be honest, is at least once a week), I more quickly come to the realization of how much we need Obama* to win. For a number of reasons, he’s the only horse in the race that can both a) serve as the populist force America needs right now (Edwards can do that too), and b) show the world that we regret what’s happened over the last eight years (Edwards can almost do that, but not quite...not yet, anyway).
While I do think Obama has a really good shot to win, there’s still a long battle ahead. Obama was introduced to presidential politics and word-parsing recently when he pointed out something that everybody knows as true—that Palestinians are suffering big-time—and got slaughtered by it, to the point that he had to backtrack and give the standard “We’ll continue to fully support Israel” line.
You mean somebody other than Israelis might be suffering? And...lawdy...we might want to acknowledge it?? Gee, let me find some pearls to clutch. What was he thinking saying something crazy like that? But anyway, that’s the way it is when you’re running for President (as a Democrat, anyway). To some degree, I agree with Taibbi when he says that with the price you pay by being honest, it’s almost understandable when a candidate just goes ahead and toes the party line (in this case, Israel = nothing but good, Palestinians = nothing but evil). That it’s not surprising doesn’t make it okay, as Ali Abunimah summarized below. It’s a long way before the primaries...I still want to aim for idealism and reality in a candidate instead of going into “best of a bunch mediocre options” mode...
If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.But to me, Obama* is still the only hope. Hillary is just unbearable at this point. She’s smart, and I’m sure she’d do a better job than a lot of others if she were elected president, but god...the only thing worse than her poll-tested middle-ground I-think-you’re-too-stupid-to-understand-what-I-actually-think statements is when she actually tries to be ‘real.’ Did you hear the accent she adopted when she was speaking in Selma the other day? Does it get any more condescending-sounding than that? I don’t even think she was meaning to do it. I think that was her “in her element,” and she still sounded like she was trying way too hard.
Only if enough people know what Obama and his competitors stand for, and organize to compel them to pay attention to their concerns can there be any hope of altering the disastrous course of U.S. policy in the Middle East. It is at best a very long-term project that cannot substitute for support for the growing campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions needed to hold Israel accountable for its escalating violence and solidifying apartheid.
And that’s the primary reason that she can’t be elected. Perception matters, and if Hillary wins, it will look like Democrats and/or Americans are fine with the same-old-same-old of electing politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouth, then create new sides, and talk out of those sides too. The world will continue to think that nothing has changed, even though her stances on issues are (when they’re not exactly the same, anyway) better than Bush’s. Sadly, at best Obama* might only be 10-15% different/better than Hillary or anybody else, and while that does fill me with a bit of a “Why do I even care then?” spirit, that 10% really can matter, especially as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
In other words, Mr. Obama*, I really really want to care and feel passionate about a candidate, and you* are the only hope at the moment. Aim higher.
* Any time you see Obama’s name, you can put “(or maybe Edwards)” in parentheses. He honestly probably has the best ideas at the moment, but I just don’t see him getting off the ground. His only hope, though, is it’s March 2007. Ten months before the primary season. Lots and lots will happen between now and then. But until I see him taking off, it’s Hillary vs Obama.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
I admit it...
...while my favorite of the 2008 candidates is Bill Richardson (he's more conservative than me, but he's a negotiator, and he gets things done...occasionally that's a good thing...), I'm starting to get pretty fond of Obama. Not necessarily Obama the Office Holder (yet), but Obama the Speaker (via Corrente).
“Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we’d be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we’re in the last throes. I’m sure he forecast sun today,” Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. “When Dick Cheney says it’s a good thing, you know that you’ve probably got some big problems.”How hard is it to say things like that and still come off as likeable? Not hard at all. When Kerry or Hillary or even (to an extent) John Edwards take a poke at Bush or Cheney, it comes across as "My advisors told me it's okay to say that, and polls say people think it might be funny." When Obama says it, it has an infinitely more natural feel.
Plus, of course, the jab has the added effect of being 10000% right. And Cheney seems to be on a crusade to prove it right on a daily basis now (via C&L).
Vice President Cheney is going out of his way to make it clear that he doesn't think he has anything to apologize for.The other thing about the Obama article is, like lambert said, Obama drew 16,000 in Texas in the rain. I almost pointed out that even our president wouldn't draw that in Texas, but then I remembered that any event of his would be limited to people who had at least $1,000,000 and signed a loyalty oath, so that comparison doesn't even apply. Bottom line is, Hillary still has the connections, but Obama has the people. And unfortunately for Edwards, Obama has everything he has (charm, populist feel), only more. New odds (as I seem to be giving every time I post now):
In an unprecedented display of public verbosity from the typically taciturn vice president, Cheney spoke for the second time in three days with ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl. During today's 22-minute interview in a Sydney restaurant, Cheney showed no sign of backing down from controversy. Rather, he:
* Repeated and amplified his opinion that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's proposed course in Iraq would validate al Qaeda. (After Cheney's last interview with Karl, Pelosi called upon President Bush to repudiate the comments.)
* Refused to acknowledge any failure of U.S. policy in Iraq.
* Stood by his 1991 prediction that an invasion of Iraq would result in a quagmire -- but said that 9/11 changed the dynamics such that it had to be done anyway.
* Expressed pride in having done "some very controversial things" since 9/11 that he said have averted further terrorist attacks within our borders.
* Said it was "probably inaccurate" to call him an all-powerful vice president.
* Refused to address any of the serious accusations leveled against him during the course of the trial of his former chief of staff, Scooter Libby.
* Refused to rule out military action against Iran.
Obama 40%
Hillary 35%
Edwards 15%
Anybody else 10%
Hopefully whoever wins picks Richardson as their running mate.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Keep talking, James...
Seriously, somebody take the mic away from James Carville. I'm sure he's got quite the death grip on it, and tugging it away from him will be harder than it looks (thin but wiry), but...he's just not in any way, shape, or form relevant to the national discussion any longer. And this crap is just speeding up the inevitable.
There was James Carville on CNN's Situation Room, desperately trying to explain why Sen. Clinton voted for the war, even though other senators who had been given the same faulty intel she had, voted against it: "But they weren't from New York," he said. "Their state wasn't hit. They didn't have to deal with the grief of these 3,000 people."Apparently, according to James Carville, the only way to appear tough is to tie 9/11 to Iraq. Well guess what, James...you’re done. People want 'smart and strong in your convictions', not 'tough for tough’s sake.'
Then again...
Keep talking, James. Every time you open your mouth, you bring Hillary down even worse than her vote for Iraq does.
This may be naive optimism talking, but I'm really starting to think that Hillary has about a 10-15% chance, at best, of scoring the Dem nod. Maybe even less than that. She can amass the biggest war chest in the history of the world, and I just don't think it's going to happen. As BooMan has pointed out (h/t Avedon), there are severe hints of Muskie bleeding through. Now, I was not alive in 1972 (though I have read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail...that counts, right?), so I’ll leave that commentary to others, but there are two tremendous factors working against Hillary at the moment.
1. She has absolutely no sense of “realness” to her whatsoever. I have no doubt that she stands for (mostly) the right things, and let’s be honest—I’d vote for her against Sellout McCain or Manwhore Guiliani, but she just can’t open her mouth at this point without betraying a sense of political calculation. She has more charisma (somehow) than John Kerry, but she also has an even bigger hint of calculation, and she’s just taken too damn many positions on too many damn issues to inspire people like a certain other candidate is/will. Which leads to...
2. Obamania. Not saying he’s Bobby Kennedy II, but...what was the line from American President? “They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand”? Well...people are so desperate for a Bobby II that they’re seeing what they want to see in him. And who knows...he might actually be the real thing. If he can get through the next 11 months or so without a DeanScream-esque misstep, I think the nomination’s his (sans a change in the game, like if Gore decides to run or something).
The press (and his opponents) can go on and on about his inexperience as a disadvantage, but I honestly think that works to his advantage. He doesn’t have any votes to defend, and that will help him considerably. I don’t personally know what I think of Obama yet (too much touchy feely talk about "coming together," but he still might be the best horse in the race...other than Chris Dodd, of course...but I’m not sure it matters. Four years ago, people were drawn to Howard Dean because he was speaking truth to power. He was the only one saying what thousands of voters were thinking. People are not drawn to Obama for the same reasons, but if he establishes himself in the netroots (and let’s face it, Edwards’ blogger issue can only help that), then I cannot even imagine how much money he will raise. Hillary can get all the big money she wants—people have never been, and will never be, as jazzed to be in her presence as people are for Obama right now. I haven’t seen anything like this, especially this early in the campaign, and at this point, I’d say he’s got about a 60% chance of winning the nod. And if he does, I think he destroys his Republican counterpart. Imagine how old John McCain will seem next to Obama? All it’s going to take is for him not to screw up (and maybe for Al Gore to not enter the race). Then again, plenty of strong-looking candidates have screwed up in the past. This is politics, after all.
And then again, exactly four years ago I thought John Kerry didn't have a shot either, and for a lot of the exact same reasons. So really...whaddo I know? All I know is, James Carville should keep talking. It helps certain Democrats, but not in the way he thinks it does.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)