I'm curious as to how some on the left are taking Obama's speech today.

I thought it was great. I found him to be sincere and I agreed with him 100%. I couldn't find one point of contention.

Yet, he appears to have stepped on some progressive toes by condemning the actions of the left during the 60s and by condemning Moveon's General Betray-us ad.

To me, this speech will help cement his status as a centrist, something most of us paying attention have known all along.

You know the truth that McCain's POW and Navy pilot days do not mean he is qualified to be President.

Obama is again proving to me that he is a political coward. What a disappointment!

Thank you in advance. :hi:

If he didn't do this, perhaps you shouldn't smear him as a political coward? :shrug:

That's the most gentle rejection in the history of politics if you ask me. What, did you expect Obama to fully embrace the statement? Even with MSM trying to brew up a controversy? They were even showing McCain POW footage on MSNBC. I think that Obama struck the write chord between distancing himself from the comment just enough and making sure it didn't derail his campaign, because that's how the MSM was trying to portray the comment. I think that Obama did a great job of ending this fake controversy in a way that keeps the prospect of Clark as V.P. alive.

You don't start shit just to start shit--if Obama had fully embraced this you can expect there would be a shitstorm of epic proportions.

McCain would have been on TV 24/7 decrying Obama's "insult", lackeys (er...spokesmen) for his campaign would be falling all over themselves to call Obama an elitist snob who hates the military. Talking heads would be screeching "WHAT EXPERIENCE DOES OBAMA HAVE GUYZ? MCCAIN IS OUR GOD HE WAS A MILITARY MAN BLARGGGGHH BLAH BLAH TORTURED BLAH BLAH NEGRO ELITIST BLAH BLAH" and we would have to once again combat the bullshit experience talking point.

No. You don't pick a fight unless it's necessary.

They just love to drum up gaffes and controversies beyond what they should be.

There is at least a perceived, if not real, difference in a politician saying something negative about McCain's military service, whether true or not, and a retired four star general and NATO commander saying something negative about McCain's military service.

General Clark didn't say anything that Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, Sam Seder, and a lot of people on this board haven't also said. But because he IS a general, the statement carries a little more weight coming from him.

And that's why I'm happy that he said it. :evilgrin:

This is the game at it's best! Way to play it WES AND BARACK!!

So, what's your point?

no negatives.

I loved this visual for the personalized part of the speech - "One of my earliest memories is of sitting on my grandfather’s shoulders and watching the astronauts come to shore in Hawaii. I remember the cheers and small flags that people waved, and my grandfather explaining how we Americans could do anything we set our minds to do. That’s my idea of America."

From the right (Hannity, etc): "How can we believe a word this man says? Obama doesn't actually believe the words his speech-writers wrote. His wife isn't even proud of America! He has been friendly with America-haters! WAAAH!"


From the left: (crickets)

I wish I had heard him deliver it. It's a beautiful speech.

I believe that this is a lifting of a stereotype that most progressives should welcome; that being a liberal means not honoring the Armed Forces.

This was a blanket indictment used by the right against the left for years now to paint them as not supportive to our country. It is one of the reasons that the military have been voting Republican in the majority for so long.....

I think that this speech addressed that preconceived notion, and that is a good thing.

I do not, for an instant believe that the counter-culture, or any significant part of it, was "blaming America for all that was wrong with the world." That's nonsense. To point to the wrong-headed and destructive behavior of our government abroad is NOT "all that was wrong" but merely that for which WE are responsible.

Nor do I regard the original flag-burning as "attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself – by burning flags". It was not. It was pointing the finger at a government that itself was DESECRATING that flag.

Oh well. :shrug:

Of course I will still vote for him, but his kind of politics rely too much on people's goodwill and hopes rather than reality. I really didn't get the point of this speech today. I don't like his framing of the "counter culture" of the 60s and so forth. His language about flag burning not so much either. Now he defends McSame's qualifications to be president against the opinion of a decorated Democratic retired General who actually served in Vietnam.

He might as well have said, "I know Senator McCain is qualified to be president and Senator Obama has a speech...that I am giving right now."

Gosh. He just failed an important test.

What next? He refuses to fight back and that is not how you win presidential elections in 2008. Yes, I'm down with change, but I am down with substantive change not just a change in rhetoric.

As a Kucinich supporter, I've never been deluded about Obama's more rightward-leaning ideological positions. He's a hair's breadth to the left of Clinton on economic issues and Edwards is slightly to Obama's left. All three are relatively conservative, middle-of-the-road on the social issues. Kucinich is clearly far more consistent with my own perspectives, both economically and socially.

Nonetheless, I see Obama as far, far better than McCain ... and, so far, deserving of my respect for a degree of integrity and character that's clearly superior to many or most inside the beltway.

I have and will have disagreements with him ... but they'll rarely be on points where I'm in agreement with McCain or any other GOPher. Thus, pointing to those disagreements could only be regarded as "helping McCain" (as some might claim) by only the most intellectually-challenged.

where Obama was to the left of Clinton aside from the gasoline tax thing. She was to the left of him on health care, on social security, and on taxes overall.

I regard her stances (and track record) on Health Care, bankruptcy deform, and a host of other issues being slightly to the right (either deregulatory or in service) of Obama's.

But your antipathy toward Obama and support for Clinton has been very clear, so we don't need to fight the primary battles again.

As I've said many times, I regard the chart below to be VERY apt. (I'm not interested in rehashing it.)

On health care, to sight one, Hillary Clinton favors a mandate on all vs Obama only favoring a mandate on kids. That makes her to the left of him. Both of us would have presumedly preferred single payer, but hers is closer to that than his was. That isn't opinion and my alledged animus toward Obama isn't why her position was to the left of his. I know in Obama land, saying you hate Obama equates to facts, but on planet earth it doesn't.

Michigan, like many states, MANDATES insurance as a condition of driving a car. By itself, that's a 'welfare' provision for those insurance companies permitted to sell auto insurance in Michigan. There is no government auto insurance. Just corporations. (I'm not inclined to get into the quibbling about "greater good" and the financial protections of other drivers against the uninsured ... or the possible approach to offering such protections.)

It's my position that ANY legislation that REQUIRES a person to be a customer of some corporation is a right-wing (corporatist) piece of legislation, absent other provisions. Even when the funds are provided on the person's behalf by some assistance program, it still creates a revenue stream for a private corporation.

So, my post stands. It's OPINION! Mine is different than yours. Get it? :eyes:

There is government health insurance and the mandate is to either buy insurance privately, or through the government. Again, that isn't an opinion, it is a direct fact. It isn't like auto insurance and you know that full well. Sorry, but being an Obama supporter doesn't change the facts. Two plus two was four yesterday, it is four today, and will be four tomorrow. Similarly, Hillary's plan included public health insurance yesterday, it includes it today, and it will still have included it tomorrow.

Obama has to stop committing the Number 1 rhetorical sin of Democratic politicians -- using Right Wing frames.

and he succeeded. Big time.

stated that patriotism doesn't only mean one has to serve in the military....but that serving in the military is patriotic (and I agree that volunteering to go and get shot at does have to mean something). But that patriotism takes on many forms.

Did you hear the speech? If not, you should. If you did, then maybe you are way out there then, and understanding that there is a certain strategy that must be employed in winning a general election is foreign to you (since we have lost so many times) until I fear that anything that Obama does from this point on will not compute with you.

I'm at work and not near a TV.

You never said...

Was there one? :shrug:

local meetings all over the country both to get to know each other and to start organizing for the GE.

I notice that the people who seem to be the self appointed protectors of Barackism haven't told us their stories about the organizing meetings they presumably attended, since they are, they say, very interested in Barack being elected.

There are groupies and there are activists, I guess.

I think it was the groupies that most led to the charges of "cult" during the primaries. They seem to form an idealized version of Barack in their mind and if anyone says anything that threatens in any way that idealized version you can expect to be attacked, reprimanded, taken to task, etc.

The charge of not being consistent with their idealized view boils down, essential, to being accused of being unpatriotic.

It's a little more than ironic, when you think about it.

counterproductive. Which side are you on?

The reality is that there was simple truth in Obama's words. This is not just a matter of "right wing frames", it's reaching out to people on both ends of the spectrum.

Its arrogant, and foolish, to assume that one side is "100% right" and one side "100% wrong". I can't believe that even the most die-hard left wing liberal believes that there haven't been some unfair shots taken at both sides over the years.

It seems to me that many people want Obama to embrace the left point of view, without even acknowledging that the right exists and has valid concerns as well. Obama showed up today to speak about his, unfairly questioned, Patriotism. He tried to make peace with both sides and, truthfully, admitted to some unfairness coming from both sides.

How anybody could see this as negative astounds me.

it was scrubbed by the mods within twenty minutes. Must have been a DAMN good speech.

He praised the dissent of the left in the 60's just as much as he condemned the actions of a few.

I'm certain that most on the left would find far, far more in his speech that they agreed with than they disagreed with.

I wish someone would articulate what they mean by being progressive, or liberal or conservative or the much aligned center. What do people even think it means to be a democracy or even a republic. We constantly criticize one another for being liberal, progressive or conservative but we never explain what we mean by it or what we think it means.

Articulate what Obama said that wasn't "progressive" in your minds or was "center." We are like coiled snakes out here ready to strike at every sentence Obama says. Why is that? Most people think conservative is GWB's brand of conservative, it isn't and progressive isn't necessarily Clinton's brand of progressive. We seem to know what we don't want in the WH, what DO we want? Is it possible to constructively look at that? Most don't want the war or high gas and food prices, what do we want? and how will we get it? With McCain? That's a joke. Cut Obama some slack, it's not just about us anymore, it's about the world and the next president plus the people have to fit into that new world.

we DON'T.

I'm sure it might. But I understand why he had to give it.
:shrug:

He characterized flag-burning as an attack on the nation's symbols. It was NOT. I don't know why people can't think with other than their patellar reflexes, but the ORIGINAL symbolism of burning the flag was to protest the DESECRATION of the flag by elected politicians in government. The proper way to dispose of a flag that's soiled and stained is by burning it. THAT'S patriotic! If the protesters had stomped on it and thrown mud at it then THAT would have been an "attack on the nation's symbol." They didn't. They burned it. It was a clear accusation of desecration by government itself. The government doesn't own the symbol ... the PEOPLE do.

Clearly, however, he was 110% correct in saying "failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam ... remains a national shame to this day." Amen.

The right wing was (sadly) successful in smearing the meaning and intentions of those 60s protesters. They were called "communists" and "dirty hippies" and "traitors" and anything else you can think of ... merely for protesting the acts of our government that were antithetical to what we all perceived as our national values and the principles of justice. The right wing, of course, was engaging in the slavish jingoism of "America! Love it or leave it!" All one need do is read Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" to see this revisionist history in spades.

A symbolic act with respect to a symbol apparently requires a more nuanced mental capacity than many are able (or willing) to develop,

So, the right-wingers (and Birchers) were so successful in smearing the protests that, even today, people who call themselves "liberals" or (more chicken-heartedly) "progressives" buy into the disdain for flag-burning as a form of protest. It's tragic ... and betrays the despicable quality of political discourse that's been all-too-common for three decades.

The fact that the protests themselves became LESS about the values of our nation and MORE about covering one's own young ass from being subject to the draft - who cares who else gets killed? - is testimony to the power of waging a political 'war' of self-interest. Today, we even fail to see the pervasive "identity politics" (as the politics of self-interest) since we're so immersed in it. (It's been appalling.)

Just some Iranians who were obviously expressing their patriotic love of America. :eyes:



Does Bush have any more of those medals of freedom?

Do THOSE people look like "counter-culture" of the 60s? Is THAT an "original" flag-burning protest? Did you NOT read where I spoke of stomping on it and throwing mud at it being different?

:eyes:

The same action with the same result, only different intents. Only an idiot would argue that intent doesn't matter. :eyes:

Wear it. :shrug:

:rofl:

There's a difference of intent between disposing of an old flag (as the example that YOU used) vs. burning the flag in protest. You made the common mistake of equating the two as equally patriotic when the intents are completely different. It is not the action and end result that determines what symbolism should be ascribed to it, but the intent alone.

I offered a FACT regarding the counter-culture of the 60s and flag-burning. I lived through it. I was around at the time and associated with several instances. I'm TELLING you about the original symbolism associated with THOSE protests.

You're engaging in sophomoric bullshit. Where I used the terms "desecration" and "soiled" you twist and use the term "old." Wrong. I clearly described the SYMBOLISM and you want to disagree just to be disagreeable, it seems.

Like I say ... pull your head out and read what I posted. It wasn't about Iranians. It wasn't about dragging the American flag in the dirt. (Which is, after all, a piece of cloth. Made in China.) YOU are making the equivalence relationship apparently out of ignorance and intellectual sloth.

The right-wing spin on the original protests succeeded and you're demonstrating that very thing by equating later demonstrations in foreign countries (some of which may be VERY legitimate!) to the counter-culture protests of the 60s. Congratulations! You're carrying water for the fascists! In the 60s, they were protesting acts by our government that were contrary to our nations values and our Constitution. That's MY definition of patriotism. Dissent. The right wing attacked THEM as "dirty hippies" and "communists" and people bought into it. The symbolism WAS patriotic ... and your right-wing victimhood is noted.

It seems apparent that you're not at all personally familiar with the 60s counter-culture. (And by that I DON'T mean the 70s drones who merely copied the styles and fashions. The vast majority of those folks didn't have a clue.) Well, do yourself a favor and try to learn something other than the crap peddled by Robert Bork ("Slouching Towards Gomorrah") and his kin.

and place for everything, let's get him elected first then deal with Clarke type scenario's later...

Evaluation of the "Left" and the "Right" are left to the listener/reader.

Mainly because it was a genuine statement on American patriotism and so much loftier than simpleton labels of left, center and so forth. It echoed the brilliant message of his seminal 2004 convention speech.

I agree with their goals, but they only shoot Democrats and progressives in the foot with their tactics.

Petraeus is a politician in an Army uniform.

Newspaper advertisements are short lived, but the reaction extended the shelf life considerably.

Obama is playing to win. Its about time.

"Still, what is striking about today's patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s – in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself – by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day."


Obama is correct. It's time to hang up "the psycho-drama of the Baby Boomer Era" (his words, I believe, in his first book) and adopt a pragmatic approach to handling disagreement in our country.

We need to stop labeling our philosophical enemies as subhuman and embrace that, while they don't hold the same beliefs that we hold, that they are in fact still Americans, and we need to fight to unite the nation instead of relying on false dichotomies to craft political identities.

But to parse this further, not only is the above an inevitability, but it is also something that we all need to work to push aside... at least long enough to fix some of our problems.

It was Bill Clinton's singular contribution that he recognized that the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems.

He understood the falseness of the choices being presented to Americans. He saw that government spending and regulation could serve as vital ingredients and not inhibitors to growth, and how markets and fiscal responsibility could help promote social justice. He recognized that societal and personal responsibility were needed to combat poverty. Clinton's third way went beyond splitting the difference. It tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of Americans.

By the end of his presidency, his policies enjoyed broad support. That he failed, despite a booming economy, to translate popular policies into a governing coalition said something about the demographic difficulties Democrats were facing and the structural advantages Republicans enjoyed in the Senate.

--- Barack Obama

The Audacity of Hope

and I think it highlights the fact that Obama no longer pushes the "anti-Boomer" meme because doing so would be political suicide.

It seems that he believes that Clinton had the right idea but failed to solidify it.

This is definitely a transitional political era.

BTW: Check out my long missive on Generation X.

"...That he failed, despite a booming economy, to translate popular policies into a governing coalition said something about the demographic difficulties Democrats were facing.."

Think: Massive southern gerrymandering by the GOP between 1992 and 1994

I just got home from class. What what I've seen here, it seems to have been fine. TahitiNut's points are well taken, I think. Not sure why he's going after the 60s counter-culture, unless it's to prop up his centrist creds, which it probably is.

a speech, except for your post.

I'm a leftist, probably way further left than Obama. But I also understand the realities of running for president in this great country of ours. And cementing his status as a centrist is something he has to do. He is not running as Bush lite, thank goodness. But he has to bring independents and even some republicans on board.

So, I thought his speech was great.

I agree with you 100% and myself, am a proud lefty

Check his record! He made that transparently clear the first time he appeared on the national scene with his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

His position on a whole range of issues are classic centrist - just like Sen. Clinton. I cannot think of any significant domestic issues where Sen. Obama's positions were in anyway to the left of Sen. Clinton. Their Senate voting records are roughly equivalent. On foreign policy the people advising him are more of a traditional hawkish type, while Sen. Clinton gives more of an indication of feeling affinity with those who advocate ideologically based interventionism. But neither are doves or left-wing in their outlook. They both support increases in military spending.

Although, I would say that his earlier record as a community organizer and Illinois State Senator was somewhat to the moderate left.

Still, I don't see anything about his patriotism speech that was specifically centrist that most liberals and many on the left would not say. George McGovern could just as well have given the same speech.

This person on the left didn't listen to his speech; I rarely do. I don't need to hear more from him to know that he's a centrist. That's why I thought the Obama/Clinton primary wars were so ludicrous.

I do read transcripts to make sure I stay informed; I read quicker, and more efficiently, than I listen.

He stepped on my toes more than a year ago; my feet are numb at this point.