Obama believes Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Libby, and Wolfowitz are noble, patriotic souls?

This explains his alliance with war criminal Colin Powell. :eyes: I found this in a leftist analysis of his book. It is an eye-opener, although I do not agree with the entire article. We need to move beyond the smallness of our politics, move past flashy consultant massaged rhetoric and start discussing what candidates actually believe and stand for.

==From his friendly remarks about Bush, including an anecdote in which he shares a joke with the president and his passing (but significant) remark that “I assume he and members of his Administration are trying to do what they think is best for the country,” to his attack on the Democratic Party for running away “from a debate about values,” to his convoluted support for the attacks on constitutional rights since September 11, 2001 (“I acknowledge that even the wisest president and most prudent Congress would struggle to balance the critical demands of our collective security against the equally compelling need to uphold civil liberties”), to his endorsement of the death penalty, Obama tacks most consistently toward the right.==

More about the Mystery Candidate in his own words:

==A few pages later, he criticizes the “smallness of our politics,” observing that, “In distilled form, though, the explanations of both the right and the left have become mirror images of each other. They are stories of conspiracy, of America being hijacked by an evil cabal...==

Psst...he means the progressives who think PNAC hijacked our foreign policy under Bush. Yes ladies and gentlemen. Who means YOU. The netroots!

==Unpleasantly enough, in The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s ideological attack on New Deal liberalism takes the form of a rejection of his own mother’s outlook. He first explains his own “curious relationship to the sixties” and goes on to refer condescendingly to his mother as “an unreconstructed liberal” and to “her incorrigible, sweet-natured romanticism...her heart a time capsule filled with images of the space program, the Peace Corps and Freedom Rides, Mahalia Jackson and Joan Baez.”==

==Just so there will be no misunderstanding, Obama continues, using the code words of the extreme right: Reagan’s message “spoke to the failure of liberal government,” government at every level had become “too cavalier about spending taxpayer money.... A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities.... Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster,” etc.==

==A conversation with Robert Rubin, the former Goldman Sachs executive and treasury secretary under Clinton, convinces him that “We can try to slow globalization, but we can’t stop it.”==

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/obam-f14.shtml

Obama's base is very opposed to Clintoism. Well, one illuminating quote from the book that was not included in this article praised Clinton's Third Way thinking (pg. 34). If you look past the rhetoric, past the mythology, and to his platform you can see why he thinks the DLC's Third Way was great.

:sarcasm:

:eyes:

It is pretty straightforward. Besides, if he wants to "unite" us, do you really expect him to ascribe malevolent motives to people still supported by tens of millions of Americans?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

was "on the table" , several weeks back
Sorry bub, you just moved below Mike Gravel on my choice list.

please provide link or video please.

Stephanopoulos: You've also said that with Social Security everything should be on the table.

Obama: Yes.

Stephanopoulos: Raising the retirement age?

Obama: Everything should be on the table.

Stephanopoulos: Raising payroll taxes?

Obama: Everything should be on the table....

Stephanopoulos: Partial privatization?

Obama: Privatization is not something I would consider.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/05/obama_on_the_table.html

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/obama_brushes_a.html
Sorry, but here it is... I watch Traitor George so rarely, I forgot it was him asking....

>>
STEPHANOPOULOS: You've also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.
OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising the retirement age?

OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.

Um, no.

Let's stop the hero worship and look at what he actually stands for. Were these statements in his book? I don't see Obamians disputing that...

He didn't say all the misleading characterizations you make about those quotes. This post is disgusting and dishonest.

but hey, if you can smear Obama via an wrongheaded analysis of his words, hack away, Karl.

Thanks for doing the work of getting this found and out.

This is highly legitimate as a basis for evaluation. Let's nail it down from a couple of other
sources. I wrote about the Brzezinski testimony in early February, where he outlined the Bush plan
to provoke a war with Iran. It was a stunner. Barry Grey of the same publication was at the
hearing. He not only reported Brzezinski's statements but questioned him. Not the same reporter but
the same news group. It was accurate reporting and they were first out of the gate.


We're way to far along the road to disaster to have someone who apologizes for the war criminals and
who disparages conspiracy accusations against them. Did they do this as autonomous actors in the
same fucking administration.

If true, it's totally unacceptable, entirely, as an attitude of a candidate of my party.

Sorry about that. Regardless of this report, he doesn't even have remotely enough experience to
stand in that job. It requires someone ready to rock from day one. That's what the public will think.

This election is about competence.

The world that we know is ending, quickly, due to climate change. Very rapidly. No time to fool
around.

...and hey, I find the New Deal an inspiration.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat

We need to become the party of FDR and LBJ again. Enough of DLC Third Way Republican-lite DINOs!

Every post by draft_mario_cuomo is an attack on Obama. Are they really that desperate that they think arguing with about 100 members on DU is going to make a difference?

:sarcasm:

This is a democracy. This is a Democratic, not a Dick Cheney board. We have a campaign going on. The primaries will begin in 6 months. We need to move beyond the smallness of our politics and examine what candidates actually stand for, not vote for them based on personality and Madison Avenue marketing.

The Obama supporters are unique. Only they seek to silence dissent. Obama needs scrutiny the most because he has a short record and is the most unknown candidate. Even many of his supporters don't know what he stands for.

It is very, very telling that not a single Obama supporter has disputed the quotes in the article. Surely many Obama supporters here have read his book. If these quotes were fabricated there would have been a legion of Obama supporters saying that...

What is this garbage about "they"? There is no vast conspiracy against Barack Christ. He is simply being scrutinized like every other candidate in American history.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/edwa-m07.shtml

The John Edwards campaign: A representative of the American ruling elite postures as a working class populist

Here's a review of Hillary Clinton's book:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/clin-j10.shtml

And another on Mrs. Clinton:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/clin-j11.shtml

right?

Project much?

When you use these type of tactics it reminds some here of the B*sh/R^ve tactics. Don't take statements out of context and try to manipulate people with it. I must say that I am disappointed in your recent obsession with Obama. You seem to be one of very few Edwards supporters to use dirty tactics. I as an Obama supporter have defended Edwards. Hell, I like Edwards and he is a VERY close second to Obama in my book. However, having to defend Obama from Edwards supporters does NOTHING to tilt me toward Edwards.

I don't see you trying to refute Obama's own words.

That is telling. If these quotes were fabrications there would have been a swarm of Obama supporters pointing that out.

rather than picking and choosing quotes that you think suit your argument, while ignoring quotes that do not.

:puke:

The only thing in the quoted text that sounds like the DLC is “We can try to slow globalization, but we can’t stop it.” And that is probably true.

What all of this shows, though, is Obama isn't the person many of his supporters believe him to be. Some of you may recall the flack a few year back on whether Obama was or wasn't a DLC member. What some of you may not remember is a post that was (unfortunately) deleted in a big flame fest over the situation where a DUer claimed first hand knowledge that Obama had, indeed, filled out the paperwork to be included in the DLC's new Dem directory.

Now, I can't entertain calls for "proof" of this because I don't have first hand knowledge of it myself and the post, as I said, was gobbled up in deleted subthread of a long thread. You can choose to believe it or not. However, I do know that to be included on that list, elected officials are given a questionnaire to fill out regarding their political leanings on a number of issues. Elected officials are not put there accidentally.

Therefore, it has always been my contention that, although not an official DLC member, Obama is most definitely a new Democrat. And, based on his close friendship with both Joe Lieberman and fellow Chicago official Rahm Emanuel, I believe it should be obvious to anyone - pro and anti-DLCers alike.

That is the elephant in the room. Obama is more of a cult figure than a normal candidate. I think this is why you see Obama fans recoil in horror whenever someone dares to question him or show any facts about him that contradict their myth. They, as Jack Nicholson, would say, can't handle the truth...

==I do disagree with you equating all of this to third way philosophy, though==

Hmmm...we'll have to have a discussion of this someday (I don't want the Obama thought police to come after me for daring to question the Great Leader too much). I think what is clear, though, is that Obama is far closer to DLC Third Way thinking than the thinking of many of his netroots supporters.

==Therefore, it has always been my contention that, although not an official DLC member, Obama is most definitely a new Democrat. And, based on his close friendship with both Joe Lieberman and fellow Chicago official Rahm Emanuel, I believe it should be obvious to anyone - pro and anti-DLCers alike.==

I agree completely. It is obvious--but Obama fans refuse to look at anything that contradicts the Official Story. :eyes:

because she has befriended Brownback and even attends his weekly prayer meetings (probably not so much lately, for obvious reasons).

A friendship does not translate into identical (or even similar) political philosophies. Hell, look at HW Bush and Bill Clinton.

As for the post from way back when, if it was only one post and it was deleted, I question the veracity of whatever link posted. As we well know, any juicy *gotcha* information tends to multiply pretty quickly here. Sorry, I don't buy it.

What about his other DLCesque statements, such as those in the OP, as well as his Third Way platform for president?

fat.

who posts every Obama hit piece he can find...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:rofl:

we could post 10 articles a day and still not catch up with the Obamamaniacs!

WSWS is not reliable.

;)

Next.

Are these quotes accurate or are they fabricated? Are they in his book?

I'm disputing the loaded manner in which this piece characterizes the material they claim comes from Obama's book. You may as well have posted something from World Nut Daily...and asked me to confirm or deny the "truthiness". Bah.

a nominee! This is getting to be waaaaaay too much for me! Every SINGLE DAY, more attacks, more smears and more negative crap about our OWN candidates!

I'm OUTTA HERE!! Have fun!

Elections are not love-fests and for the timid. We need to thoroughly vet our candidates--particularly an unknown one--so we can chose the best possible nominee. If we happily skip our way to the convention without truly examining our nominee we will be in for a rude awakening when the Republicans start looking at his or her record.

You are asking everyone what words they are challenging, and I am trying to tell you. Does it say in Obama's book that he believes Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Libby, and Wolfowitz are noble, patriotic souls?

it does not seem to be in the quotations cited, so maybe it's somewhere else?

I believe the complimentary language or words to that effect, may be containd here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

connected to Rummy or the others in there. The O.P. is making a specific claim and is supporting it only with vague snippets from various sources. If it was presented as an opinion open for debate it would be one thing, but the O.P. repeatedly defends the claim by challenging others about the specificity of quoted words, and yet these words are not quoted anywhere.

Let's have the discussion of the candidates views and positions, but we don't need to make things up to do it. From what I can tell this is just a dishonest attack.

If you want to get things done and be able to work with the other party then you don't question their motives or patriotism. Its a courtesy any good leader should extend to those of the opposite party.

Do you really like it when Bush and his cronies question the patriotism of Democrats? If not, then you would be a hypocrite to expect Obama to do the same thing to Republicans.

Obama has a great deal to say about issues in his book. Why don't you read it for yourself instead of a slanted hatchet job summary. You'll find that its very progressive and the attacks you're making are ridiculous.

I'll look past YOUR rhetoric to the record of a man who was known as one of the most liberal members of the State Senate in a very liberal state. You're making a fool of yourself to those who have actually read the book and know how progressive it is.

Surely if the article took things out of context they would have pointed that out.

==Obama has a great deal to say about issues in his book. Why don't you read it for yourself instead of a slanted hatchet job summary.==

I read the part about Reagan and his praise of Clinton's Third Way. The Reagan portion of the book tracks with the article, so I don't doubt the veracity of the article until I see someone show otherwise...

==I'll look past YOUR rhetoric to the record of a man who was known as one of the most liberal members of the State Senate in a very liberal state.==

He is now running for president. How about looking at his platform? I posted a thread asking if there was a difference between HRC's platform and Obama's platform. Not a single--I repeat--not a single difference was posted by Obama supporters. Obama supporters love to paint HRC as a Republican-lite DLC corporate shill. Yet they seem oblivious to his platform. If HRC indeed is all those things, then so is Obama because he is running on essentially the same Third Way platform!

My chief concern with Obama is that most of his supporters think he is someone he is not. They think he is some sort of electable Kucinich when in reality he is HRC without the experience. These supporters then criticize HRC for the very things Obama is. A classic example is the lynching of HRC on outsourcing last week by Obama supporters while not a single Obama supporter noted that Obama's position on the issue is identical to HRC's!

Obama was up to 20% in the polls before he said a word about what he intended to do as president. That is both impressive and downright scary. That reveals most of his support, perhaps not most of his support among DU'ers, who are a highly informed sub-set of the population, but most of his support among the general population is based on personality and image, not his platform. After all, how could he be at 20% before he had a platform? :crazy:

As to the civility argument, that would ordinarily hold water but we have his alliance with Colin Powell, a war criminal. That suggests it was more than civility. He actually believed it.

you would also know about Obama's criticism of Reagan and his discussion of how the political paradigm is changing. That's the context of what you're quoting.

I disagree with your argument that Obama's support is based on personality and image. I think there's a crowd in the netroots passing along a certain meme about Obama that will be repeated no matter how many detailed, progressive policy positions Obama continues to release as a candidate. I think those who claim Obama is too moderate are the ones who are being too intellectually lazy to find out who the real Obama is.

The things you're writing about Obama remind me of what I wrote about Dean last time. The difference is that Dean had a moderate record as Governor and changed during the primary election, while Obama has a career record of being a strong progressive. Some people can't seem to understand that using language that unites people and appeals to all voters doesn't mean you've sold out your values. Its how elections are won.

Its kind of sad that Kucinich supporters have to convince themselves that Obama is more conservative than he truly is in order to justify their support for Dennis. Very weak.

.. such rules NEVER apply to Republicans, who call us traitors and worse at every turn.

I'm sorry, the milquetoast way has not worked. It is not working. We live in a WWE world, the electorate is no longer interested in mamby-pamby bullshit fake ass comity.

Get a clue already.

and ugly all the time drives people away from politics and makes them not vote. That's good for the Republicans and that's why they do it. Its bad for the Democrats.

... to be nasty to stand their ground. The electorate couldn't be more clear in their desire to see someone stand up to this administration.

Claiming that they are all just great guys while they piss on the constitution, thumb their noses at the will of the people and engage in endless criminal behavior is not winning the Democrats anything at all.

A REAL FRIGGING DEMOCRAT AND NOT A DLCer!

Can you defend your candidate for 2008 rather than shoot others down?

Boo Barack after that shit.

...who are trying to do what they think is best for the country (so he thinks they are patriots). I think 99% of DU disagrees with that!

What could be wrong with anyone saying that those guys believe themselves to be doing what they think is right? That does not preclude them from being completely delusional, or at odds with what everyone ELSE believes is right. It most certainly does NOT automatically mean that HE believes they are patriots. At best you could say that Obama might believe that those guys believe themselves to be patriots. And I'm not even finding where he says the neocons are good people anyway, let alone "noble".

But that wasn't really the point anyway was it. It's just to connect the words "Obama" and "neocon" and kick the thread enough so that people get tired of reading the comments and only remember the initial association. It's a real shame that we can't have honest discussions of candidates without berserkers flying around trying to destroy anything in sight by any means imaginable. A lot of people will spend a lot of time challenging and correcting the disingenuous and dishonest work of a few who take no responsibility for the damage to the process they do on purpose.

... of folks considering the POSSIBILITY that the neocon cabal really thinks they are doing what is best for America. I've noticed over time that the human mind has INFINITE CAPACITY to RATIONALIZE any action that will create an advantage for one's self. Trust me, Hitler himself was SURE that what he was doing was good for human kind.

But, I hope Obama won't mind if I make my own value judgments about actions that people take. And heartily disagree with his own.

nt

through a right or left prism, he is just speaking common sense, and has a grasp of history, as well as a keen political instinct. These views are what we need now, IMO, and are what will win the general election. I am tired of the polarization.

Edit--the Socialist website--yeah, I'd take that as Gospel.:sarcasm:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/edwa-m07.shtml


I only posted a small portion of the article, because I don't find the source to be anywhere close to objective. Still, it might provide some interesting reading for you d_m_c, since you obviously hold them in higher regard than I do. :hi:

No is disputing that he said those things. ;)

Also, care to dispute the *facts* in the Edwards article?