Let's be honest, "transformational" in Obama-speak means....

He will appoint rethugs to his cabinet, and kow tow to the rethugs in congress. Read what he says....

"Today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way," the senator declared. "Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions."

Sounds like Joe Lieberman, doesn't it? But it's not -- it's Obama.

How about a reality check on his position on the war, since many of you have forgotten reality (One year ago, Washington Post)

"His Iraq views are complicated and could require some tricky navigation in the months ahead. The Senate authorized the war in the fall of 2002, two years before Obama was elected. But although he opposed the conflict from the beginning, he has not endorsed a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops, a position forcefully advocated by Edwards.

According to his Senate Web site, Obama supports "a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and people of Iraq that ours is not an open-ended commitment." But his unwillingness to set a date has infuriated war opponents, who also fumed last year over Obama's support for the reelection campaign of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), one of President Bush's strongest allies on Iraq."

Oh fuck, there's Joe Lieberman again. Getting any clue yet on what kind of "transformation" we are in for?

But man, he's transformational(from the same article):

"Last week, Obama was quick to criticize Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops in Iraq, comparing the move to that of a gambler who increases his bet in a bid to cover his losses. Yet he has refused to back a proposal by some Democrats to require congressional authorization before additional troops are sent to Iraq."

But what does transformation man have to say about Clinton's vote on the Iran issue (you know, the vote he didn't show up for so you couldn't use it against him):

“Senator Clinton obviously in 2002 voted to authorize the war in Iraq,” Obama told ABC News’ Sunlen Miller. “And her willingness to once again extend to the president the benefit of the doubt I think indicates that she hasn’t fully learned some of the lessons that we saw back in 2002.”

What? But Barack, that can't be!! Just months prior you gave Bush ALL the benefit of the doubt by refusing to support legislation to reign him in.

I think it's pretty clear that in the context of Barack Obama, "Tranformational" = transforming the Democratic party into the complete spineless wuss party they have been moving to for 10 years now. "Transformation" = the end of fighting against the rethug agenda, and the institutionalization of DINO democrat.

I'll be voting for the candidate that wants to fight the rethug agenda, not the wussy that wants to "transform" our entire party into rethug lite.

"His Iraq views are complicated and could require some tricky navigation in the months ahead. The Senate authorized the war in the fall of 2002, two years before Obama was elected. But although he opposed the conflict from the beginning, he has not endorsed a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops, a position forcefully advocated by Edwards.

Obama.

She is the one that voted against the Afghan war. She is pre-eminent in recognizing who is more anti war than who is.

Here is what Obama has:
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

and from the Clinton camp:
The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.

They both sound like reasonable solutions to the problem.

That's how we've accomplished so many of our progressive sucesses in the last 2.5 years in Washington!!! :sarcasm:

Duke

You see - Reagan TRANSFORMED Democrats like Bill Clinton to accept his view of government as a good thing. Bill demonstrates that with his declaration from the SOTU speech - the most memorable line he EVER GAVE in any of his SOTU speeches.

Hopefully, Obama will TRANSFORM Republicans to accept Democratic view of governance in the same way Bill Clinton and other centrist Dems like Lieberman and Hillary accepted Reagan's view and incorporated it into their politics.

NOW do you understand EXACTLY what transormational politics MEANS?

someone's been thinking ahead! :)

Duke

.

x(

... even though he has little to no experience working in federal politics, hasn't shown the slightest leadership on getting us out of Iraq with his votes in congress, ducks out on key votes or votes present so they won't be used against him, whines like a baby on the campaign trail, and has the most freeper like supporters in the dem party (anybody catch that jerk Roland Martin on CNN last night?).

Yeah, right. Joe Lieberman is his mentor for a reason.

Why shouldn't we expect that a strong orator can do the same for Democrats and TRANSORM enough Republicans for a reversal of what Reagan started with Clinton-Lieberman wing of the Democratic party?

what are you willing to compromise on?

Abortion rights?
Gay marriage?
Perpetual war against terror?
Government wire tapping?
Gitmo?
Torture?

Just what are you willing to compromise with the republicans on?

Joe Lieberman. Not in a million years.

I'm not ready to make nice with the rabid dogs across the aisle.

Which candidate is that?

If it's Hillary, then she has the same position on Iraq. Except she voted to authorize it and defended that until she started running for President.

John is out, so it's Hillary for me. There is a REASON they hate her, you know. We don't need rethugs to win in Nov. I'm tired of these candidates that are too chicken to act like democrats. Obama is the epitomy of the empty suit and bullshit rhetoric.

There is a REASON you NEVER see rethugs campaigning on the promise of working with Dems.

the transformation. And you miss that he says he wants to "make government 'cool' again." And you miss that he has seen the effects of RW policies up close--closer than almost anyone--when he worked in community organizing. So no, he doesn't want to work toward a republicon agenda, but he does believe we can find common cause, as McCain-Feingold shows, or the effort of McCain and Kennedy to hammer out an immigration policy.

And his actions indicate something VERY different than his words.

Or should that be - Reagan-speak. hahaha

Sorry, I've seen what bipartisanship can do, and I'd rather not, thanks.

No argument here. That is one example. There are hundreds of examples of when it worked--just few from the bush years.

So was Welfare Reform. When you reach across the aisle, someone's principles get compromised. I'm tired of being that someone.

not a conservative one.

us that after 8 years of Bush we want to make peace with the GOP.

of the Democratic party.

The era of big government is over was Clinton's ACCEPTANCE of Reagan's governing philosophy.


Reagan TRANSFORMED Clinton Democrats.

Maybe Obama can TRANSFORM some Republicans to accept Democratic view of governance.

This isn't rocket science - it's basic Reading and Comprehension.

It helps if you're not easily spun.

:rofl: You do remember who is in power now and how they got there , non?

why not TRY to TRANSFORM at least Republican voters into following a Democrat's view of governance?

I sure do know how THEY got there.

It's because some Democrats closed the books on so many crimes of office by Reagan and Bush administrations and protected their secrecy and privilege throughout the 90s, leading directly to Bush2 and 9-11 and this Iraq war.

That's all.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

No more closed government Democrats for me.

Does s this mean they won't steal elections anymore? From those voters that actually don't count- according to both Kerry and Obama? tea cups, tears - what a nice fantasy...

president at least ATTEMPTS to transform the nation BACK to the left politically?

Or do you prefer we stick with the Dems who were TRANSFORMED by Reagan and protected his and Bush1's legacies by closing the books on all their illegal operations?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Isn't that the bottom line?

And why negate that at LEAST a Democrat wants to TRY and do the same for Democratic governing philosophy?

I think anyone who wants more of the same accepotance of Reagan's governing philosophy is irrational. Besides, who really WANTS secrecy and privilege to be continued, this time with the crimes of Bushboy added in?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


I would've figured you for the open government type of Democrat.

The Nineties show us that she WON'T fight against the Right.

That's why rethugs hate her. Get it now?

BTW - if they kicked Repug ass so well, show me the fights either Clinton took on the last 7 years to oppose Bush's reign?

In fact, I can recall many issues that Clintons gave COVER to Bush over the last 7 years and even where Bill encouraged other Dems in DC to support Bush's decisions. But can't name ONE where they led a fight up against Bush and Rove.

increasing the "smaller government" of the Reagan years? NAFTA? Telecommunications reform? DOMA? Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

.

OR when they EXPANDED the death penalty(at a time when the crime rate was plummeting anyway)and when they screwed the workers by forcing NAFTA through in the name of corporate power.

You can't do stuff like that and STILL claim to be on the good side.

Have you been asleep for the past 7 years? Where have they been? Bill's now an honorary member ofthe Bush family and Hillary was and still is pro-outsourcing and pro-corporate/anti-worker.
That's some real impressive asskicking, there.

while weapon inspections were WORKING to show force was NOT needed? On Downing Street Memos? Leading filibuster of Alito? On Iraq withdrawal?

No? neither did I.

But evidently SOME delusional Dems are certain that only Clintons have opposed Bush and the Repubs - I'd like to see ONE speck of proof.

Not because pols don't go out for beers after congress adjurns for the day.

I am glad to see this in print, my concern is that this is way to glib and simplistic.

You can have all of the repugs you want in your admin. but there are big areas of difference between party policies.

So, actually, the country wants change not reconcilliation.

:puke: (BTW, something JFK would NOT have done, I don't think)

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html
Shouldn't THAT matter? Considering what it has cost this nation in the longterm....shouldn't THAT matter?

... in terms of delivering on the Republican-lite agenda. NAFTA, welfare reform, voting for the Iraq war, ...