Before Obama became a senator, I was 100% FOR him. When he became a senator, he lost me. Here's why:

"Just one month into his term, the former civil rights lawyer defied the Democrats
and voted for the class-action “reform” bill. Opposed by most major civil rights
and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the
public as a way to stop “frivolous” lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the
bill’s real objective was to protect corporate abusers. A few weeks later, though he
voted against the credit-card-industry-written bankruptcy bill, Obama also voted
against an amendment that would have capped credit-card interest rates at a
whopping 30 percent (he defends his vote by claiming the amendment was poorly written).

Then there is the Iraq War. Obama says that during his 2004 election campaign he
“loudly and vigorously” opposed the war. As The New Yorker noted, “many had been drawn
initially by Obama’s early opposition to the invasion.” But “when his speech at the
antiwar rally in 2002 was quietly removed from his campaign Web site,” the magazine
reported, “activists found that to be an ominous sign”–one that foreshadowed Obama’s
first months in the Senate. Indeed, through much of 2005, Obama said little about Iraq,
displaying a noticeable deference to Washington’s bipartisan foreign policy elite,
which had pushed the war. One of Obama’s first votes as a senator was to confirm
Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her integral role in pushing the now-
debunked propaganda about Iraq’s WMD.

Just as Ned Lamont’s antiwar primary campaign against prowar Connecticut Senator
Joe Lieberman was gaining momentum, Obama traveled to the state to endorse Lieberman.
Like the Duckworth endorsement, Obama’s move was timed to derail an insurgent, grassroots
candidate. To progressives this may seem surprising, given Obama’s progressive image. But
remember, according to the New York Times it is Lieberman–one of the most conservative,
prowar Democrats in Washington–who is “Obama’s mentor in the Senate as part of a
program in which freshman senators are paired with incumbents.”

(emphasis added)

SOURCE: http://davidsirota.com/index.php/mr-obama-goes-to-washington/

---

It really is odd. I honestly admired Barack. I even transcribed his 2004 speech to the convention
and sent it to all my friends. I had such high hopes for him. Guess I just feel really disappointed.

That will be Barack Obama.

If you can't support him, you don't belong here.

In my book, there is no such thing as a perfect politician.
Plain and simple, he is not a messiah, nor is Hillary.
These people are politicians. I wish him the best if
he makes it. I pray and hope that he keeps his commitments.
I will get down on the floor and prostrate myself to the
great gods of democratic underground if he turns out to be
the greatest president ever. Man, if there EVER was a
time when I wish I were wrong -- THIS IS IT. Only time will tell.

it sounded something like this.....to keep the light away from me I'll just say I'll
vote for the nominee no matter what.

How are we suppose to know that, besides you telling us that is what
you will do...eh!

eventually we will all come together and line up behind the nominee,
it has been a very long primary and when you get a member of your own
party touting a Republican theme you start questioning statements and
events.

Just had to be certain we are on the same page and not get carried
away when the time comes as you know folks here have been stating
that they will vote for John McCain.

Nothing personal...

He's under no obligation to vote for Obama if he chooses not to. It's a democracy, remember?

First we had people calling for the banning of anyone who said - SAID - they were angry and not going to vote for the nominee. I think that if people want to say that to let off steam, especially in the midst of a heated primary, we should be tolerant of that myself. Everyone, or virtually everyone, always comes around to vote for the nominee, and demands for loyalty tests would never persuade anyone anyway, so what is the point?

But now it is not even sufficient that a person "pledge" - good God what is this a secret society or blood pact? - to vote for the nominee. Their loyalty is brought into question anyway. That is a clever and subtle form of ad hominem attack - seeking to destroy the messenger rather than respond to the message.

We have the secret ballot in this country, and it is no one's business how anyone else votes. It may even be against the law to demand of a person how they are going to vote and make their membership or participation in an organization contingent on that. But in any case, we of course can have no way of knowing for sure how a person votes or is going to vote, and it is chilling that there would be anyone who has a problem with that.

I think that if someone is promoting a candidate that is not a Democrat, that can be a problem and management has rules about that. But to demand that a person prove or demonstrate their loyalty? That is very un-Democratic.

we don't have to look any further than what is happening right now,
gas price, foreclosure, economy, price of oil, jobs etc..... so
when someone makes a statement that is considered suspect I think
they need to get called on it




Yes I do know that it is the right of every citizen to exercises their
right to vote and at the same time be discreet, but the OP was not being
discreet he was insinuating that McCain might be an option because Obama
has lost him, by the way I DO NOT want to know how this individual votes
but since the OP finds themselves on a Democratic forum that engages in
an open discussion it is fitting to point out flaws when you see then,
hence the reason why we engage in an open discussion, otherwise we will
all be in a closet hiding our feelings.

Now, if we can all get past our inner most deep down bigotry we can overcome
our differences which in turn will help us to override our divisive judgments

I don't see the OP promoting McCain.

Why do you seem to want to cut down the nominee?

Do you just like getting a reaction that much?

Seriously, why post this?

n/t

if you chose to criticize Clinton. Although criticizing either one is not helpful. period. If I remember the post correct. you claimed that he was the nominee. I was pointing out that he wasn't... yet. He probably will be soon, but he isn't yet. And even when he is the nominee, the most dangerous thing we can do is to never question or criticize. We must question and criticize if we want a prayer of putting him into the White House.

You say:

"And even when he is the nominee, the most dangerous thing we can do is to never question or criticize. We must question and criticize if we want a prayer of putting him into the White House."

If that is what you want, you will need to go elsewhere. There will be plenty of criticism of Obama during the GE, but not here at DU. Not here.

Even Skinner has stated on this board that criticism of the candidate will be accepted, because constructive criticism IS helpful. It IS what we need. And since Skinner owns this place, I think HE would be the person to tell me whether I am or am not welcome here. Since he also believes that constructive criticism is important... I think that is pretty much the final word on what can be said here on DU. What is NOT okay to appear on DU are those that merely bash the nominee and are not trying to make him stronger. I would never do that. I like Obama and plan to support him entirely, though he has weaknesses, and flaws. We NEED to discuss those so that we can work around them. To not discuss those things makes us vulnerable, hides our heads in the sand, and leaves us open to the repubs.

of the Democratic nominee is accepted, I have not seen or read that.
Skinner would never say such a thing because he knows how important
this election is and what is at stake.

Skinner saying that is like giving an opening to so-called Republicans in
Democratic clothing to undermine and destroy our candidate just like they
did with Kerry.

So my friend, I think your statement should be revised, be very careful of
what you say.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4798898


and here is the exact quote:

"As usual, we will continue to permit constructive criticism of the Democratic nominee and of other Democratic candidates and officeholders. We will also continue to permit sincere, non-disruptive expressions of ambivalence toward the nominee. But we will not permit politically motivated attacks designed to tear down the Democratic presidential nominee."


And he is correct. As I stated in my post CONSTRUCTIVE critcism IS important. I was ALWAYS the kid in class who had to raise his hand, because if you ignore an issue it will just come back to bite you. I agree, it is important we win this november. That is why we have to honest about WHOEVER the nominee is, we HAVE to discuss his weaknesses, only then can we fix/find a way around those weaknesses. For example, we KNOW that Obama is going to have hard time winning in Florida, Ohio, etc. If we ignore that and do nothing we will fail, but if we acknowledge that and step up our game plan in places like NC to supplement those losses... then we have increased our chances of winning again. To fix a problem you first must be honest about it, to say that we wont ever provide any form of criticism is dangerous... it leads to losing.

Skinner said constructive criticism as oppose to outright criticism
there is a difference.

re-read my post. I even said that it was NOT okay to flat out bash the nominee. It is in my interest as well that we win the GE and am not trying to do anything but help. Please read my posts before responding. I said clearly constructive criticism. I think there are things we should worry about, and appropriate ways to address them.

For example, Obama's lack of experience = problem (for the general public). Easy way to address this = State Obama's record AND point out that if people don't feel like that qualifies as enough experience they should remember that he will be appointing a vast cabinet filled with experienced individuals who will guide him. But if we ignore the issue, and do not find the problems before the republicans do then we are in bad shape.

I did clearly state, before you commented, that I supported constructive criticism and not bashing. My fear is that some people here do not wish to hear ANY criticism... and that is scary. I have criticism of both Barack AND Hillary. If you can't think of anything to criticize about a candidate, that shows a problem in and of itself.

People here often share their thought processes.
I'm sure I'm not the only one on DU who entertained
these thoughts.

People all over DU are SWAMPING the board with 'their'
realities - regardless of how Hillary people are hurt or not.
Several posters on DU have asked me personally why I am not
in favor of Obama.

So, I took an honest look and this post is what I came up with.

Rest assured, once Obama is declared the official nominee,
I will fall in line with the rest of you.

has to offer. What happened with that? Can't you try to find a little more hope?

I trust the guy. I FEEL his sincerity. I would dearly love it if I could get that across to a good person like you. So tough in this atmosphere, restricted by the black words on a white computer screen coming from a disembodied boogieman (that I have become on DU) named Bonobo.

I have had moments where I can see why people like Obama.
I have occasionally felt the "magic."
I don't hate him. There is a LOT to like about him.

But this is not a popularity contest.
If I met him at the office, we could probably be best friends.
Still, in my heart of hearts, I feel like he will be every bit
as much of a corporatist as Hillary.

The MAIN reason I am voting for Hillary is not because I am
in love with her. It is because I feel she has the best
shot for the general election. However, I don't have a closed
mind. If some bright and knowledgeable person here can break
it down state-by-state how Barack will win, I'm listening.

I don't hate Obama supporters. I admire their fervor. It reminds
me of the '60s. I have fond memories of that period. I love
their enthusiasm.

Maybe I've just become 'jaded'... I just don't think Obama has 'presidential timber."

have you been following local re-election and elections, I can get a list for
you, see how many new Democratic congress seats have been won so far.

The most recent one is in Louisiana 6th district (this is from the top of my head
I could be wrong) but this individual just won a Republican district and all through
the country thats whats been happening.

IMO this alone should give you an idea of the mark of the man, people are responding
even from other individuals running for election or re-election.

Please do some research.

it is still called DEMOCRATIC underground.

He's an artist and every room has a different theme. This would go great in his catholic room.

/nm

He's the leader of the party now. So you need to get over it or get out.

Huh?

(I am an Obama voter, btw.)

Of all the kiss my ass Obama sucks maybe I'll vote for him if you guys be nice.

Voting blackmail...get behind our nominee or leave.

When they earn my vote, they'll get it.

:)

Oh yeah, Bush!!!!!

will get out of this biased forum; and will get out of the GE process too. If the Obama camp think they can beat McCain in the GE; go for it without the help of the Clinton supporters; that's for sure.

I don't want to vote for either of them, really, but I voted for Obama in the primary, and will vote for him in the GE.

The fact that Obama's candidacy hasn't been killed off completely by a media complicit with the corporate oligarchy is proof enough that they know, ultimately, he's in their pocket. But at least he's not a founding member of the DLC.

Nader was right folks. Nader was right. Deal with it.

It isn't any of that stuff, so what has he done that's so great?

then kept still about it until he had a chance to fund it, voted to fund it all the way up until Hillary voted against funding it.

IWR my ass. If That's what they are voting on the basis of, they aren't voting on the basis of anything.

got nothing to do with Obama being good or bad or anything at all, Obama is payback for Clinton voting for the IWR.

were Kerry supporters who denigrated Dean because he "only" spoke out against the war and didn't have to make the tough choice actual senators faced in 2002. If you can explain that one to me I'd very much appreciate it.


I agree with you in spirit, and Clinton's remarks on Iran pushed me into "supporting" him more than her. But I also don't really get how the hell Obama became the savior of the left back when there were actually more liberal candidates in the race. :shrug:

and repubs.

He's still the most progressive candidate when put up against Edwards and Clinton.

for the nomination. I mean, that's the impression you give.

Not some vague innuendo about being 'silent' about it.

And he opposed the Credit Card cap vote because he wanted 25 percent - which is less than 30 if you are paying attention.

And linking Obama to Lieberman is hysterical considering her behavior the last 2 months. Liebreman and Clinton are practically competing to be McCain's running mate.

I suggest you write in Hillary, and then post about it repeatedly.

If all the dems were expected to vote straight idealist nothing would ever get done.

Barack as some terrific qualities, not the least of which he's no McSame. Get on board, and be thankful; it shouldn't be that hard after the last 8 years....

I just want a democrat in office. If he can pull this
off, I too will rejoice. However, IF he loses, you will
never hear the end of it.

:)

Clinton wasn't my first choice, it was Edwards. The feeling that I get with Obama is that hes full of himself. I would rather have seen him serve a longer apprenticeship in politics before going for the top job. I agreed with Geraldine Ferraro when she said that he wouldn't have got this far if he had been white.

There was a movie I had seen years ago, it was called "The Candidate" starring Robert Redford. It reminds me so much of Barack Obama. During the campaign he said all the right things, telling everyone what they wanted to hear. However, when he won the election, he was lost, didn't know what to do.

Given the choice between McCain and Obama however, I would choose Obama any day.

A guy full of hubris who manages to get enough people to vote him into office, but who's not prepared to handle the job once he gets it.

Of course Gerry was right, but she didn't express it properly. The party leaders would have told any other senator with a mere 2 years in office to sit down and wait until he had some actual experience before aiming for the top spot.

:crazy:

...you're against Obama because he defeated your candidate.

But I'm not voting for her for her personality.
The best years of my life were during the Clinton administration.
If anyone here can give me a state by state breakdown showing
how Obama will win the General Election, I will COMPLETELY
come over to your side.

I owe NO allegiance to Hillary other than I think she has a
better chance of winning the general election.

I'm just sayin --

There's a lot I like about Obama and there's a lot I don't like.
But no matter what -- I am voting for a democrat.
End of story.

Bill Clinton was president over a bubble. The internet boomed while he was in office, and we saw immediate short-terms from NAFTA. By the time 2001 rolled around, the internet blitz had cooled, and the NAFTA honeymoon was over and we found out we were amrried to a haddock.

I liked Bill Clinton, but I get the feeling that he was "just okay" and happened to luck out on timing. Sort of like Carter in reverse.

Illinois has NO problem with Obama. We elected him to Senate and he won our Presidential Primary too (kicked the shit out of Clinton, in fact...) I got REALLY tired of the crap posted about him as a Senator when it was almost always posted by somebody that didn't even live in Illinois.


YMMV.


Laura

His opponent was the lunatic nutjob, Alan Keyes. For pete's sake,
why did they even have a vote? Anyone could have won against that idiot.

And since you live in Illionis, you above all people should know how great
of an effect the Daley machine had in his career.

And just to give you a little bit more insight, Obama won that Primary because he ran smart--he focused on the places he could make inroads and minimized his time the areas where he couldn't. Hynes ran a good race against Obama, and lord knows Hull dropped a bundle to run but they still both lost. Everybody else was an "also ran."

Keyes was a joke, no doubt, but I will tel you that there WERE Keyes signs out. Some of them were in my County board District and that was most upsetting since my husband was running in that cycle. Talk about "Ham Sandwich" voters!

Again, YMMV.


Laura

1. The credit-card amendment rate cap was horseshit, and would have overridden lower state caps as written. Obama made the right call.
2. Clinton also voted for Rice. As did most everyone.
3. Most everyone endorsed Lieberman back when he was a Democrat.
4. Obama did not pick his "mentor." He was assigned Lieberman. Their "relationship" was nothing more than Lieberman showing him where the bathrooms were, when you showed up where, and where the paperwork went.

your OP is full of flaws.

However, if he wins the nomination, I will support him 100%.

The vast, vast majority of class cases involve federal law and/or interstate issues, therefore placing them under federal jurisdiction. These cases are almost always (99.99% of the time) removed to federal court after plaintiffs' attorneys erroneously file them in state court. I'm working on a notice of removal, AGAIN, this week, on a case that involves federal issues that was wrongly filed in state court. It's a costly and time-consuming process.

This legislation will actually streamline the process, unclog the overburdened state courts, and will have no net ill effect that I can see. It's more likely to speed up litigation, not prolong it.

As for the credit card bill he voted against--he was right about that (and I say this as an Edwards supporter). It was poorly written, and wasn't much of a "cap" at all. He's been quite clear that we need legislation along these lines, but with some real teeth to it.

Also, his support of Lieberman was a betrayal.

That's a very tiny practice niche. I just explained WHY it's good litigation; if you want to make an actual argument beyond "relatives disagree," I'm more than happy to debate this, because I actually know what the fuck I'm talking about. Do you?

support of Lieberman to be a betrayal as well, but I still love the way she votes on the issues that are important to me.

I'm an Obama supporter but I've never been more than lukewarm on him. Obama was actually my third choice of the candidates who were actually running (after Kucinich and Edwards). He's not perfect, he's sure as hell not as progressive as I'd like. So why am I supporting him?

The late, great Molly Ivins once said that in the primary, she voted to change the world and in the general, she voted for the lesser evil. I'm not allowed to vote in either case but that's largely why I support Obama. For all his faults, he's better (marginally, in some cases) than the alternatives.

n/t

only one has used every effort to divide us.

:sarcasm:

angry, insulted, and betrayed. While the issues, and the source, that bother you are not what has affected me, I can commiserate.