Obama isn't President yet so he can't speak out AGAINST this admin.'s Israel/Palestine position...

So doesn't it make sense to assume he DOESN'T agree with Bush on his refusal to demand a cease-fire? Afterall, if Obama DID agree with Bush, he could've easily said that he stands firmly with Bush and Israel on this issue. His silence speaks volumes-that he'll NOT continue Bush's policy re: Israel (IMO). So he has to wait 'til Jan. 20th to speak out.

I started this thread after reading threads saying Obama is wrong for not speaking out NOW.

It does make sense.

harm in SAYING so. But if he DIDN'T agree with it, and SAID so NOW, could you imagine the havoc it would cause?

in the region, and promise to work to achieve it. It does not look good for him to say nothing. You're creating a strawman.

admin.'s, that would cause havoc. What doesn't look good would be for him to send a conflicting message from this admin.'s.

in a couple of weeks

She's gonna need to pack em real soon...

and, if he agreed with Bush's position, then he would have no reason not to echo Bush's sentiments in a public statement.

:hi:

Obama spoke out on Mumbai because he pretty much agreed with the official consensus.
If he agreed with Bush on this, he would have said so. But he doesn't want a bifurcated policy for the US, so he is waiting until he is in office.

I'm glad you and some others agree with me. So many people are talking like Obama is president NOW. :hi:

Why, exactly, can't he speak about it?

What YOU say can't be construed as a declaration of intent on behalf of the nation taking effect as soon as you take office. You expressing an opposing opinion on current, ongoing foreign policy matters wouldn't constitute active interference in the ability of the current sitting president to exercise his authority as the leader of the nation.

If Obama went out after Bush said the U.S. is doing one thing and basically told the world "forget him, I'm just going to undo everything he said in three weeks anyway" he's actively undermining the administration's current foreign policy activities. Now, we all think that wouldn't be such a bad thing on the merits considering that foreign policy sucks, but it's still a huge no-no. Hell, I'd think a decent argument could be made that it would be illegal if he pushed it.

would have a few more implications on the international relations scene than you opening yours.

as there is can only be one Commander-In-Chief at a time.

If Bush sees things one way and sends his State Department officials to the ME for talks or gives our military orders, or directs the UN Ambassador to make certain statements to UN members,

and yet Pres. Elect Obama sees things differently, and says so....then Pres. Bush and any action he might take becomes Moot, as does anything anyone that is under his administration says or does.

that would be considered as having undermined the current administration which ethically cannot be done by an upcoming Administration. There is a reason that Obama is called President Elect, and not President at this time. There is also a reason that there is a date certain as well as a time certain as to when power actually is passed on from one administration to another.

It's established Presidential protocol.

Again.

administration on foreign policy!

So I don't see it as being about a Hook....it's about the timing of these actions, and what powers Obama actually has as of today. Perhaps events were timed during the transition precisely for a reason, but that wouldn't be Obama's doing.

The point is that if Obama was to say something that differs with any significance to what Bush has said, all hell would break loose...and the media would start questionning Obama's judgment without any relation to what he actually would have said.

Obama didn't run for this job to attempt from the sideline to run this country. Being on the sideline makes him less powerful and therefore less effective.

After the many years that Israel and Palistinians have gone after each other, the 16 days left prior to Obama taking the helm as President, can only be interpreted as being Obama's fault by those who will alway make everything that happens be Obama's fault.

Obama's responsibility as not yet President and therefore not yet Commander in Chief is to the United States first, and not to a war going on between Israel and the Palistinians.

I've been out of uniform for 20 years and find it offensive.

Thank you for your service, perhaps? :shrug:

But beyond my sincere appreciation, I'm guessing that what I'm saying has more to do with the facts than with your feelings of being offended. The fact that there can only be one person at a time with the title and the duties that come with it, in terms of commanding the military into harms way?

It's a term I wish only soldiers during wartime would use.

You made a statement, and I responded without meaning any personal offense.

I'm sorry if you didn't like the term that I used.....
But it is a term used by many Americans without hesitation,
and so unfortunately, your wish, unbeknowns to me, shouldn't have been my command.

something, unlike yours, to the other leaders of the world.

When presidents-elect speak on foreign policy during the transition period it has a tendency to come back and bite them in the ass when they actually take office. If Obama were to speak during the transition, people at the State Department or the Pentagon could go to the media and say that they disagree with him because he isn't their boss yet. That would send a signal to the rest of the world that the United States government isn't united behind the new president.

during his transistion period. I think we are just so devoid of leadership by Shrub at this point, he is way worse then his father.

I was a baby during Carter, but that doesn't count, I don't remember him. But I take it Shrub is easily one of the worst if not the worst president we have ever had and one hell of a lame duck.

These mental gymnastics are similar to the celestial mechanics that Catholic Astronomers used to refute Copernicus and still have an earth-centric universe. Sure, they "proved" it, but it relied upon planets going along on their course until a point where they stopped cold and then reversed course. It all works fine if you already "KNOW" the conclusion. If you have faith and hope for the change and know that it's all going to be different than the traditional doublespeak, it makes perfect sense.

With my contention that he ISN'T the brave voice of truth, he wouldn't say a thing about Bush's approach to this even if he DID agree. It would be foolish in his worldview to EVER state his position on anything unless dragged kicking and screaming to a microphone, and even then, he would quibble and provide plausible deniability to switch positions later without it being seen as switching positions.

Personally, I think this is so very, very important that it's best, polite and astute for Obama to not say anything, but that's more from a respect for the constitution and a desire to not have the rest of the world think we're spazzes or at each others throats; it's best right now to have the rest of the world wonder what's coming next, and have that happen while there's no backlash necessary from a vindictive wounded duck.

His silence doesn't confirm or deny ANYTHING. This is starry-eyed projection to endlessly bend nuancy reality to fit a heroic story of moral beauty and perfection.

This is politics. He's also waiting to see how it plays out.

This proves nothing more than that his supporters can massage and twist any action to prove the result they've already pronounced.

He's stuck right now, and he is probably doing the right thing, but it's not necessarily for these reasons, and it CERTAINLY doesn't prove that he's "against" Bush's policy on this.

the result they've already pronounced."

That pretty much sums YOU up. So you don't support Obama. Big whoop. Next...

on this and everything else, hey? :sarcasm:

getting a mistress pregnant and then running for president without telling all those donors he wasn't electable. :evilgrin:

There is a disturbing hatred of complexity in the human character, and people continue the same, sad pattern: fall in love with an individual, attribute all goodness to that person, abdicate personal power to the person and then feel betrayed by the lack of perfection.

If the implication here is that my opinions are completely dismissable because I supported someone who screwed up, then you'd better be prepared to stand by every action of Mr. Obama. He makes this a bit easier by being consistently cagey about where he actually stands on positions, and he keeps focusing on the misty future of dazzling vagueness, but he's going to be called to account for real and for a long time very soon. Does he have the chops for it?

If your hero (as denoted by your avatar) is so perfect, why can't you refute my accusations? Instead, you try to ridicule me and get others to follow along with you. That's a pathetic shortcut; if you're right, defend yourself, dammit. If your point is to build a groundswell of lampooning to embarrass me into silence, then think again. I endured the extreme assholiness of the worst of the Clark-barkers when they were the dominant force on this board, and I did the same with the Deanies.

You resort to facile, childish gainsaying, which doesn't reflect well on your position, it reveals your position as something you can't even begin to defend, so you have to resort to gleeful haranguing to please the rest of your clique. I may suck, but I sure as hell didn't plunge this into the nauseating realm of the infantile like you and one particular other poster did; I'm actually talking about tactics and policy, whereas you're just shouting down an opponent.

It takes two to teeter-totter, so I'll step off now and let you crash to the playground.

:rofl: :toast:

Almost makes me feel bad that she/he wasted all those paragraphs on me. Almost.

:toast:

S/he DOES go on! :hi:

:hi:

it makes for fun reading. :D :hi:

Why doncha go tell your Mom?

My troubles with Obama aren't simply that he got in the way of my candidate. My troubles with Obama are rooted in his political methods and what I perceive to be his true policies: corporate appeasement and a nasty taste for theocratic control.

To those so enrapt with the greatness of our President-Elect, it's nigh impossible to believe that anyone wouldn't be swept along unless it was because of some other bizarre fixation.

This is much like dealing with a religious proselyte, which is much of why I'm suspicious: a certain type of supporter is just absolutely convinced that if you just listen harder and more, you'll be brought into the faith, too. If only you'd see. No, no, listen more; you obviously haven't opened your heart yet. No, no...

The fact that you have to resort to dismissing someone who disagrees as a bitter partisan shows that you really can't defend Mr. Obama's actions. You have to fall back on ridicule more befitting a conservative to get the crowd to howl and humiliate an opponent into silence. It shows the sheer indefensibility of the tactics in question. He's probably doing the right thing--as I mentioned--by letting the sitting government deal with this unaccosted, but it doesn't PROVE squat, and it's de rigeur for a serial waffler.

Do you agree with the thread-starter here? Does Obama's typical fence-sitting silence PROVE that he's opposed to the storybook evil of George W. Bush in this situation? Is this poster correct? To me, it's not only ludicrous mental contortionism, but dangerous denial of reality and a worrisome need to quell ANY difference of opinion. If we abdicate ALL of our personal responsibility to this man and his team, we are making a huge mistake.

This DOES matter, doesn't it? That's the most dangerous hotspot on earth, and one that's NOT going to tidy itself up or be brought to the promised land easily. Yet, it's more important to slag a traditional foe to stop the inconvenient noise that doesn't fit with the orthodoxy.

And since we are discussing those who have spoken out - what has the future Secretary of State, senator from NY, had to say about things?

Okay, that is funny coming from someone that is lecturing others about their unhealthy support for the PE.

both 2004 and 2008. In 2004, the media actually blasted Senator Kerry in late February for not taking Edwards seriously enough as his last "serious" opponent - though Kerry had won 16 primaries of caucuses and Edwards one and Kerry was ahead in polls by double digits in all the big states voting in the first week of March. They objected that Kerry was attacking Bush and making the case for himself - ignoring Edwards. (Kerry won all those contests big losing just VT to Dean)

In 2005 and 2006, there was considerable positive coverage of both Elizabeth and John Edwards with the media calling him a serious contender - even though he never polled more than about 10 to 15%. He spent months dedicated to winning Iowa - and he clearly maxed out on the people, who would vote for him - well below the number needed. (Remember Iowa, WI and SC were his BEST states in 2004.) Until 2007, the media never went after his 180 degree shifts on issue after issue. (the war, bankruptcy, healthcare, where he argued in 2004 that the near universal healthcare platform Kerry had was "too ambiguous and expensive", the environment)

which makes that poster's looong posts slamming both Obama and his supporters not sound very intelligent despite his/her use of words.

Feel free to reread the nearby posts.

I don't know what Hillary Clinton has had to say; I hope it's very little. This is a terrible situation, and it shouldn't be used to count coup on the outgoing assholes, nor should it be used to present a confused front to the world.

The repulsive contention here is that Obama's silence somehow "proves" he's against Bush's position, while I see nothing of the sort. I think it's probably best to be quiet about it right now, but I don't see it as indicative of anything, and those who insist on silencing dissent by proclaiming loud and clear that zero equals one because they say so and have hope and faith and all that rot are doing nobody any favor.

They make the stalwart, rigid in-all-cases supporters like themselves seem silly--which they are--and they drag things down into the realm of religion, where opinions and "feelings" not only pass for reality, but outrank reality to such a degree that questioning them is some kind of calumny. He says he's good, so he's good. His greatest achievements are all ahead of him; some of us think that may remain the case forever as he positions himself for further positioning. This is precisely why I was so adamant against Hillary Clinton, but upon examination, Obama easily out-hillarys Hillary, and that just made me want to vomit.

If he has to continue dealing with dicks to position himself for that grand day when he'll stop doing it, what's to make anyone think that day will ever come? It's like Cheney saying we'll only detain people and curtail civil rights "for the duration", without copping to the fact that there will never, by definition, be an end to the war on terror. If he's going to make nice with the enemy so he can gain the footing to do good, then when does that go-gooding start? He just won a VERY decisive election and has comfortable margins in both houses of Congress. Let's see how he starts off.

Lack of action doesn't prove disagreement with current action, it just proves lack of action. Once again, though, I think that this is a time for silence from him, but that doesn't mean I like fence-sitting in general.

If people want to think that any disagreement with Obama's actions (or inactions) can only be due to disappointment over a rival's defeat, then they're due to have their addled brains rattled a bit. If they want to engage in bullying ridicule to try to silence their opponents, then they're due for a bit of ridicule in return and a call to defend themselves, their unquestionable perfection and their endorsement of lame and dishonest tactics.

you are do not know if they are correct or not. You can continue to try to prove yourself some internet intellect by demeaning their position but it proves nothing more than you would rather make fun of others than admit that they are just as likely to be correct as they are wrong. Obama either agrees with GWB or he disagrees.

You hold your belief and they hold theirs.

All the effort to ridicule others seems wasted but hey, if this is how you get off - go for it - more power to you.

the issue is too complicated to make political comments here - and HRC, Obama and Edwards were similarly quiet then. There are elements in the Jewish community speaking out - such as Brit Tzedek v'Shalom ( http://www.btvshalom.org/ ) There will be a live press conference on Wednesday dealing with the issue.

you say...."a certain type of supporter is just absolutely convinced that if you just listen harder and more, you'll be brought into the faith, too. If only you'd see. No, no, listen more; you obviously haven't opened your heart yet. No, no...

Sounds like you during the primaries swearing up and down there was a good reason John Edwards had been paid 1/2 million dollars for part time work at a Hedge Fund so that he could learn about them....although when it came election time, he was loudly railing against "corporate" interests. Or his perfectly timed "I'm sorry" for every vote he took while in the Senate. Or defending him for needing a non-green 20,000 square foot home, before deciding to change the lightbulbs....at least. Or how he went from pro-War to Anti-War in one election cycle. Or how he voted for the Bankruptcy bill before being against the Bankruptcy bill.

In fact, here's your justification as to why Edwards voted on the bankrupcy bill: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3906314&mesg_id=3907139

I could find this kind of twisting on every one of Edwards' bad votes, but I don't have the time to bother.

My point is simply that you have never supported Obama, but you certainly did do twisties for the one you cared about the most throughout these last 4 or 5 years.

Is your argument that my powers of observation are completely suspect, and thus not worthy of an airing?

No, I have never supported Obama except during the general election. I voted for him, I certainly engaged in some healthy debate with conservatives on his behalf, but I had the same misgivings I had about Clinton in '92. They were literally the same misgivings, too, and they played out more or less as expected back then.

How does any of this justify Obama's actions or somehow divine what he'd do if he were the C-in-C right now?

By the way, I still stand by that post you cite, and invite others to give it a read. It's a good example of how complex certain bills are. I also concede some of potential tactical expediency of it, but this seems to be lost in a world of black and white screaming. It's part of why I liked and still like the guy: he could admit a mistake.

If your contention is that my judgment is to be dismissed because of backing Edwards, then go ahead with your reign of error as self-appointed Commissar of What's Acceptable and have fun patting your fellow enforcers on the back. If your argument is that I'm on some vengeance kick ONLY because of that, there's really no evidence of it, and that aching need to paint all dissenters as sub-human bacterium doesn't play well. It's juvenile. I can't think of anyone who started more anti-Edwards threads than you did, so your opinion on the subject is quite clear.

Personally, I actually give a fuck about the future of my country and the rest of the world, but if you are unable to believe that it's not just some fixation against an individual, then so be it. As for extreme contortionism to justify a candidate's actions (or inactions) you're living in a glass house.

He campaigns for trade restrictions, yet votes for free trade. He loves the workers but immediately upon taking his seat sides with employers against employees' rights to sue. He's against the war, but funds it. He's a wise, negotiating statesman, but he wants to radically increase the war in Afghanistan, and even stomp into sovereign Pakistan if he sees fit. He loves the constitution but wants to increase FISA's reach. He's for the freedom of religion, as long as he gets to fund his own with more money than even Bush had the temerity to request. Then there's nuclear power, offshore drilling, wilderness oil production and other issues that he stands for behind the cloak of "comprehensive policy". Then there are vouchers. More religion. Everyone else is talking about gay marriage, so I'll just leave that alone, but I view it through the lens of his theocratic tendencies: God-hawking that DEMANDS no dissent. Then there's that Sense of the Senate of Iran that was SO evil that he had to hector Senator Clinton endlessly over, even when he typically ducked the vote.

Yes, I've got problems with the guy. Defend HIM, instead of dragging Edwards into this or attempting to silence opponents with something that has nothing to do with the issue at hand: Barack Obama's habit of evasion.

You ain't dissenting about anything in particular, rather how he does business and who he is.

Well, I've got news for you, the election is over, and so are the primaries.

We will succeed in restoring the United States, with or without you.
We didn't miss you during your absence during the GE, so no skin off the backs
of those who worked like hell to get him elected.

I'll be watching you be proven wrong in reference to Obama's character,
every single day for the next four years.

Too bad that Edwards failed so badly in the Character test, hey? Shows that my BS meter was adjusted appropriately, while yours was truly out of whack. In fact, it is perhaps better that you don't support President Barack Hussein Obama. If you did, it might make me take a second look as to his character.

and have to resort to character assassination of someone who disagrees with you.

The resounding triumph you enjoy in having your vastly superior powers of perception vindicated in comparison to mine speaks volumes about the ego involvement. My ticking off of his votes and actions are precisely those: votes and actions. The inference about character is to be drawn from them, but this was not some excoriation of personality with no substance, this was a response to an accusation of my willingness to overlook things and find an excuse for others. Once picking the ground and daring someone to play by your rules, you should at least be able to stoop to do what you demand from the contemptible when one of them answers your challenge.

Once again, it comes back to you: your superior powers of divination.

We should do what we can to influence this new administration. Truly, we need to let them take the wheel and give 'em a few breaks, but it's a TOUGH JOB, and they said they could do it.

It's also just REALLY hard to listen to things that are in such discord with the world as I'm seeing it. I just don't see Rahm Emmanuel picking up the phone and barking at our U.N. delegation to stop blocking Security Counsel votes. I certainly don't see a warranted silence being any kind of PROOF that they will follow a different course from the current pack of knaves.

You harangued me about endlessly defending, yet I often conceded some serious points and admitted misgivings. Your party line has NEVER wavered, so please answer that pretty damning list of corporate appeasement and religious encroachment. When it comes to overlooking problems, your record is much worse than mine.

The other posters engaging in this thread are doing the same thing, with the slight exception of the thread starter who is trying to quibble about whether "proof" is "proof" if lubricated up with a meek qualifier. At least that person has the decency to address the issue directly, although the character-assassination tack has been seized upon by this person, too. The others can't seem to really dispute the contention of convenient politickin' and seek to slag the messenger in hopes of killing the message with the shrapnel.

People change, and hopefully he's better than I think, but what I see is someone who very carefully avoided controversy, tried to be everything to everyone and played the field to get elected. It worked, but he now has to make an about-face and morph into an Executive in a hurry; he SAID he could do this job, and it's a horrible life-shortening grind of a job that literally destroys anyone who really tries to do it, so he'd better get crackin'. If he proves me wrong, I'll be very happy and will fall in with the parade with frank contrition, but if he continues as he has so far, I'll do what I can to nudge him and the team in what I feel to be the right direction. If he can't shed the past tactics, I'll do what I can, but I can be counted on to shut the fuck up in crises where too much dissent could hurt the party or progressivism itself.

This is serious business now, and my interpretation of loyalty is not unblinking, lock-step pagentry. Your point seems to be far too dominated by your personal need to be acclaimed as correct, and that's not to benefit anyone else, that's for you.

nothing is happening, although you don't know one way or the other.

you said...."I just don't see Rahm Emmanuel picking up the phone and barking at our U.N. delegation to stop blocking Security Counsel votes." --so what in the fuck is that supposed to mean? You think he's gonna pose for pictures for you to see?

and this sheerly ridiculous rant of yours...."he SAID he could do this job, and it's a horrible life-shortening grind of a job that literally destroys anyone who really tries to do it, so he'd better get crackin'." --January 20th can't come soon enough for those of us who understand that things will be different under an Obama administration, even as those of you who wish it won't be so.

and tee-hee-hee to your...."if he continues as he has so far...." --He got elected, and if he continues as he has so far, he will be a great President, despite your wish otherwise.

and you go on (and on, and on)..."Your point seems to be far too dominated by your personal need to be acclaimed as correct, and that's not to benefit anyone else..." --Wrong! I participate because I want to. Being acclaimed correct is neither here nor there and is relative....as all opinions are. Personally I don't care much for what you have to say anymore, because it is always so negative and derrogatory, until it leaves nothing to debate....simply leaves most shaking their heads how anyone could employ so many words and still end up saying nothing of any redeemable value....other than spitting on other DUers.

Again-if he AGREED with Bush there would be NO harm in saying he agrees with him. As a matter of fact, it would signal to the world that HIS policy on this issue will be the same as Bush's. By staying silent, it signals that he probably DOESN'T agree with Bush's policy. And if he DID publicly send out a different message than the current administration's, the Palestinians would start quoting Obama saying HIS word is worth more than BUSH'S, since Bush is on the way out.

But in the Obama-haters' world, I see how you would think the way you do.

And since I know you were an EDWARDS supporter, you really have no room to be so critical of Obama. Edwards was a co-sponsor of the IWR and then turned 180 degrees against it as soon as he started running for office. And how about his desire to forego public funding, saying he chose to do so to keep up with Hillary and Obama's fundraising, but only after he failed to raise anywhere NEAR the money he had hoped, he flipped to taking PUBLIC financing, and "challenged" both Hillary and Obama to do the same, claiming the presidency can't be bought? Oh-and then there's the little thing about his cheating on his cancer-stricken wife! PLEASE.

My contention is, repeatedly, that he will avoid making any stand whenever possible. He may very well intend to follow the same, exact policy as Bush but is thankful that he doesn't have to stand up and be counted and hopes it'll all blow over.

Your contention is based on a different opinion of him than I hold. Mine is that he is a serial maneuverer and stands for whatever is best to be seen standing for at that particular place and time, while still hedging his bets and making sure he can stand for the opposite without being held to his words too much.

His silence doesn't SIGNAL that he's opposed to the policy; it just shows that he's silent. He's doing the right thing, and he may very well be doing it for the right reason, so no wedges can be driven in and so no blame can be put on him and his administration. It's also a very dangerous time and people's lives are at stake. I've said a few times already that his chosen course is probably the best, and even that it might be from the right motivation, but it doesn't prove a damned thing about what he's planning.

What does Edwards have to do with this? My support for him is raised SIMPLY to dismiss my judgment and attempt to ridicule and humiliate me into some kind of silence. That's sub-juvenile. Bringing up his cheating on a sick wife is sheer ugliness: you're attempting to portray me as someone who has no honor and APPROVES OF SUCH THINGS. I don't. Such chickenshit accusations of guilt by association are not fit for civil discourse. Rather, it reflects on the desperation and searing need to silence dissent at any shrill cost. If his policies are above reproach, then defend them and stop relying on the recurring refrain of his truer supporters and himself: that things are so because he says they're so or they say they're so. That, once again, is religion speaking: statement is proof of fact. He's good, therefore he's good in everything, and all who question are bad and "haters".

Your defense of his actions as proof of his difference of approach is completely unfounded. It would be a complete change of approach for him to take a stand when not forced to, especially on something of grave import.

Let's see how it develops, but shouting things doesn't make them so.

"He's good, therefore he's good in everything, and all who question are bad and 'haters'," or anything similar. You're repeating the RW meme that Obama supporters "worship him" and "think he can do no wrong" and are "fanatics." I've never said, nor seen anyone ELSE say Obama's good in everything, perfect, etc.

You continually claim he's vague, sitting on the fence, etc. By not commenting on Bush's policy re: Israel invading Gaza, ut does NOT mean he's sitting on the fence. It means he's doing the appropriate thing by not disagreeing with him. He spoke out against the Mumbai attacks because he agreed with Bush. So, like I said, I ASSUME he's NOT speaking out on THIS because he DOESN'T agree with Bush. I never said it PROVES he doesn't agree with Bush.

And I commented on your support of Edwards because you stuck up for everything he did, including his convenient changes in positions, his explanations of his "mistakes" (the hedge fund issue that FrenchieCat linked to), etc. If it had been OBAMA who did all those things, I can bet you would not have excused him like that.

How is doing nothing proof of some great industriousness?

No, by not commenting on Bush's policy he's not doing anything, he's doing NOTHING. Actually, as I keep saying, this is a time to do nothing.

Here's your quote: "His silence speaks volumes-that he'll NOT continue Bush's policy re: Israel (IMO)." Fine, you add "in my opinion" to it, but it's cited as proof with a Obama-like qualifier to give wiggle room. You were citing this as proof of his intention; it SPEAKS VOLUMES, doesn't it? How could it be any less clear than if he actually came right out and said it? It bespeaks nothing. Like so much of what he does, it can be read however the reader wants to read it. He's PROUD of being a slate upon whom people write what they hope or dream; that's beyond bizarre to me, and dangerous and a bit undependable to boot.

He's like a really smart and educated version of Chauncey Gardner: he's whatever anyone wants him to be and he's just what they needed all along. Being Where? He's wherever you want him to be; the virtual Scarlet Pimpernel of progressive heaven-on-earth.

If it matters that much to you, go ahead and read my voluble posts about Edwards from 2001 onward. You'll find many moments where I express regrets with certain actions and votes. You won't find those from Frenchie about Obama. I live in a grey-area and somewhat analog world, unlike the piano-key world you seem to inhabit.

Gosh, why do so many different people suddenly start calling him out for being a glad-hander and a fence-sitter? It's hardly like it's only me. Watch his actions. Watch the REAL ones: things like votes and appointments, not the mute wisdom of sitting and saying nothing.

that I or ANY of Obama's supporters ever said, "He's good, therefore he's good in everything, and all who question are bad and 'haters'," or anything similar.

And I like how you selectively quoted my OP. I asked a question to people here and gave my opinion.

I asked, "So doesn't it make sense to assume he DOESN'T agree with Bush on his refusal to demand a cease-fire?" Of course YOU take his silence as "fence-sitting." I don't. Maybe he should just say whatever's popular and then apologize when it's proven to be UN-popular.

And why don't you go ahead and read my history of posts to see if I DID ever disagree with Obama's position on something before calling me and others "worshippers" in SO many words?

Your judgment leaves a lot to be desired.

Where are the quotation marks in my statement? I literally never said that anyone specifically SAID these words, and it's pretty obvious: I'm summarizing an approach. It's called subtext, and I will stand by the claim that many here are complete, knee-jerk acolytes to such a degree that questioning ANYTHING is some kind of ungodly high treason. This is the flavor of the reaction from the true, heaven-sent disciples: a vigorous attempt to slam ANY dissent and a ridiculous overpraising of everything he does. The heights of adulation this guy commands are truly impressive, and the nastiness leveled at others in his defense are across the board. Those who suggest things and criticize him are often met with undue hostility and attempts are made to shout them out of the forum. Hell, I expect some of this for myself, having been pretty consistently critical, but that leveled against the casual dissenter get mighty shrill.

Since it IS of such importance to you, out of duty to the concept of civil discourse, I redirect you to the post.

Now, let's get specific; here's the passage you quote:

"Rather, it reflects on the desperation and searing need to silence dissent at any shrill cost. If his policies are above reproach, then defend them and stop relying on the recurring refrain of his truer supporters and himself: that things are so because he says they're so or they say they're so. That, once again, is religion speaking: statement is proof of fact. He's good, therefore he's good in everything, and all who question are bad and "haters"."

How does this say that any supporters actually SAID those specific words? It doesn't say anything of the sort. It boggles the mind that someone who can compose a coherent sentence could even read that statement and think the writer's claiming that people actually SAID that. Are you playing games to whip up the imaginary crowd, or are you actually that incapable of reading clear prose? You seem able enough to express yourself; it's hard to believe you're either that unable to read or so slapdash in your writing that you wouldn't even reread before attacking. It's a characterization of a blinkered, paranoid mindset. Hell, if you'd cited the sentence with the colon where I suggest that his supporters say things are so because he says they're so, etc., you'd at least have a couple of toes or perhaps even a leg to stand on, but even this is pretty obvious abstraction.

You keep doing this: stating that I'm saying things I'm not and accusing me of ducking the question at hand. I don't like that approach to life; that's one of the principal reasons I have troubles with our President-Elect: he ducks, weaves, equivocates, qualifies, backtracks, allows others to say things for him so he can deny if necessary. He's the Baryshnikov of politics. Of course nobody out-and-out SAYS he's divine and perfect and everything he does is above reproach, but far too many have abdicated their free will and fallen into a hero-worship akin to the religion he keeps bringing up and evoking, and they clamp down hard on anyone raining on their processional.

Sorry about not heeding your request to respond to your demand, I simply thought it wasn't worth the response, since I didn't think you could possibly be thinking I meant that these words were spoken verbatim in public. In the future, I will obey your commands.

This approach is VERY obvious: the phrase "Obama-hater" is a "shut down" phrase. It's like "racist" or "homophobe": it's an attempt to literally destroy a person and tar every word or opinion they have as morally ugly and unfit for our company. It's hate speech itself. Stick with the contention at hand and argue the point, rather than attempt to shortcut the discourse by getting others to assassinate a person's character and equate them with untold infamy; otherwise, one is expecting some kind of privilege, and that's anti-pluralist.

Now, are you going to persist in claiming that I was saying that people actually SAID that statement, or are you going to persist as you've done before that you're being mistreated?

and said, "If his policies are above reproach, then defend them and stop relying on the recurring refrain of his truer supporters and himself: that things are so because he says they're so or they say they're so. That, once again, is religion speaking: statement is proof of fact. He's good, therefore he's good in everything, and all who question are bad and 'haters'."

So everything you said follows your premise that we, his "worshippers," find his policies "above reproach." I realize you said "IF..." but you obviously think we DO think so.

Then you said,

"Of course nobody out-and-out SAYS he's divine and perfect and everything he does is above reproach, but far too many have abdicated their free will and fallen into a hero-worship akin to the religion he keeps bringing up and evoking, and they clamp down hard on anyone raining on their processional."

FYI, not only am I not a hero-worshipper nor an Obama-worshipper, but I'm an atheist. I put faith in nobody and nothing. I judge by what I SEE. And what I see is obviously way different from what you see. Just as I could go on and on and on and on about your justifications of so many obviously wrong or sneaky things Edwards did, you go on and on and on about what you see as the same you think we are doing for Obama.

This is what I see and hear from many of the most stalwart Obama fanatics: he can do no wrong, and any questioning of his actions is some kind of calumny. I make no bones about it; there's a constant harping of infallibility and constant excuse-making that any pro-corporatist or pro-theocratic move is merely genius positioning for that grand day when he'll turn on his heels and completely change. I don't know what voting record you're looking at, but the one I see is accomodation larded with positioning and served up with constant, convenient evasion. Fine, maybe he's just the slickest maneuverer to ever slalom down the pike, but it's hard to get too worked up when the crux of the argument is that he's just lying to THEM while being truthful to US, even though his political career says otherwise.

What gives you a greater right to pipe up with your opinions? I'm not starting threads these days, yet you're starting thm over and over and over and with a pretty consistent theme: to gather the faithful to shout down the philistines who complain about his actions. What gives you a greater right to have your word heard when your word is consistently calling for us to trust an individual to come around to support some of our more cherished policies at some point? You're repeatedly rising and taking up a lot of the communal bandwidth to support a man, whereas I'm sucking up a lot of bytes to stand for liberal causes.

The reason I'm haranguing you about Obama is that you're constantly starting and feeding threads in support of him personally. You set the premise of the conversation; I'm merely differing from it. I'm playing by your rules; you just don't like it because I'm saying some things that are pretty hard to take and others are doing the same. If you don't like everything boiling down to the defense or support of an individual, stop starting threads defending an individual and daring anyone to contradict skewed observations. Some of us will take you up on the dare.

His cabinet choices are almost uniformly lousy. At least Richardson is backing out; he's a bumbling nincompoop of the first order and I hope he finds some nice, lucrative corporate home for the rest of his career.

You're having to seize the moment and start new threads to try and stomp out any brushfires of discontent because Obama and his team are doing so many lame, appeasing and downright conservative things. At least he came out resolutely for science. More power to him; that's a great and important step to take both actually and symbolically, but there's not much else to smile about right now.

You keep bringing up threads that are emotionally almost identical: how dare you idiots think he's doing so-and-so even when he actually IS doing more or less so-and-so. No, that's not a quote of yours, so please don't demand my support of it like you've done a few times already. This is exactly what you're doing: starting threads of outrage with emotional breast-beating at the sheer unfairness of people picking on his words, lack of words and actions. I'm only responding to you here, so don't rage that I'm somehow starting all this. He's getting heat because he deserves to get heat, and you're all in a snit because people won't bend to your will and stop seeing the things that you either refuse to see or simply dismiss as unimportant positioning.

The whole thing seems to be based on our trust that he's lying to the conservatives, and that when he gets in he'll fuck 'em over. There's a snickering, conspiratorial glee from many that he's just pulling the wool over THEIR eyes, while he's going to be OUR champion. Then, when things don't quite develop so well, the self-righteous rejoinder is that he never really promised all those things people suggested he had. That's the truest part of the approach, but it all falls apart when the original statements are brought up and it becomes more obvious that nebulousness and careful fence-sitting was the intent all along.

If more and more Tim Kaines and his ilk become the new face of the Democratic Party, it won't much matter if we DO get an unassailable majority and drive the Republicans to extinction. It won't really matter as we drive the stake into the heart of Liberalism whether we hang a "D" on the protruding stump; we'll have become a neo-feudal theocracy with "hope", and that's not a future I want to see come to pass.

You're the one defending an individual; I'm the one defending ideals. If you don't want to hear objections to the hagiography of this guy, stop starting so many threads with the same general thrust of stomping out all criticism and using flimsy positions and interpretations for cover.

We've got a sizeable majority in both houses and a populace ready for change. Why are he and his team timidly sucking up to corporatists and religious crazies for permission to continue to exist? What better time than now to actually push through some meaningful reforms and ESPECIALLY regulation?

Oh-and you go on to use the RW talking point that his supporters are "fanatics." There goes your credibility. Sorry he couldn't choose Edwards because Edwards proved to be what I suspected he was all along-a phony. Go wallow in your bitterness without me. I won't be responding to your boring rants any longer. :hi:

:spray:

Thank you. :D

:thumbsdown:

banky will make it all better;

up as it is with Bush right now, he's still the President and he and his SOS have to speak about the United States and what our role is in this mess.

but some people apparently blame him for not being the president yet.

His silence now does speak volumes. It signals no chance in US policy.

How in the world could he condemn Hamas NOW while the current admin. has NOT? Our country can't send mixed messages on foreign policy.

:hi:

:hi:

:hi: and a "holla" to my boy in your sig line! :D

Obama is 44!!! Woo-hoo!

:bounce: :hi:

? WOO HOO! :hi:

I love it!!!

:bounce:

I made it during the primaries. Remember Tellurian? I took his/her "Hillary is 44" thingy and changed it around. :D

over briefings Bush has given Obama. For some reason, I can't trust a single word from this administration.

which is why I had pause when Harry Reid said this morning on Meet the Press he stands firmly with the Bush administration regarding their stance in Israel.

I would have thought Harry would have been in line but this morning's MTP made me wonder.

but then again, Harry Reid is just a Senator. He's not the one who will make policy.

I dearly hope it is true.

afterall, he spoke out against the Mumbai attacks when he was on the same side as Bush, so it's my conclusion that he differs with Bush on this one which is why he's silent.

# Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. They support this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.

# Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He and Joe Biden believe strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.

# Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.

more: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/index.php#onisrael

He may consider this an act of aggression.

Sorry, but you can't be a "cafeteria Catholic" when it comes to the "one President at a time."

divided as a country to the rest of the world.

As has the rest of the economic discussions. Yet Obama has indeed spoken out about them on a regular basis.

The world is already looking towards Obama for American leadership, it's past time that he started providing it. No, he can't enact policy yet, but even a simple indication of where his priorities and position vis-a-vis the Middle East could do a whole lot right now, including stopping the violence.

It's past time that Obama stopped hiding behind the polite fig leaf of "one president at a time." The times are too dire for him to play that game, especially when many lives are at stake.

the world sees us on domestic issues. We HAVE to have only one voice re: foreign policy.

If PE Obama agreed with the bush*/neocon stance he would have come out and said so. I told Mr. Zola yesterday that the fact that he hasn't made a statement concurring with the bush* administration is an indication that he is not in agreement.

at least I'm not the only one. :hi:

I do hope he will remain silent until AFTER his Inauguration.

Consider that almost every Democrat has spoken against Bush's Iraq policy. The ONLY thing that is not allowed is Obama NEGOTIATING with the Israelis and Pakistanis now. That does not even preclude him speaking to them to get their respective sides of the conflict. It may be that the situation is very complex and he (or people he trusts) have been quietly working behind the scenes and think that better than a public call for a ceasefire. I would NOT assume anything from the fact that he has said nothing - even if he agrees, keeping that quiet gives him more flexibility.

The Iraq war is what-6 years old already? The whole Gaza situation is fluid and the leaders of the different sides would use Obama's words as leverage. At this point, the "one president at a time" position is appropriate if he feels differently than Bush about the situation.

have to take a pubic position which would be twisted because it would never be taken in its full complexity. Any simplistic response could be counterproductive. I hope that something is being conveyed behind the scenes - again, not phrased as "negotiations" which would be illegal.

I don't think any inference should be drawn from the silence. I do remember, on Lebanon, the most parallel situation, he was in the main stream - largely behind Israel. The only point where he was more to the "left" was on the cluster bomb vote where he (and Kerry) were the only then potential 2008 candidates who voted against cluster bombs - unlike HRC, Biden and Dodd.

If he agreed with the current admin., why wouldn't he?

with demands seeking a statement condemning Israel's assault on Gaza according to a piece in the Huffington Post by Max Blumenthal (about 6 paragraphs down) :shrug::

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/why-arent-more-americans_b_155194.html

admin.'s position.

Israel will conveniently wrap up their operation right before he takes office. So he isn't going to have to deal with that. It will take him a couple years to get the settlement worked out between the parties. That is fine if it actually gets done.

and I'm sure Israel did this now because they fear Obama may not be as pro-Israel as Bush. There's nothing Obama can do from his position now.

T'is fine by me.

I don't think Israel is doing this because they think Obama will be less pro-Israel. I think they just know it would make a huge problem for Obama and piss him off if they did this in say March. Obama will not be pro-violence with the Palestinians like B*sh is. He thought a show of force would magically bring everyone in line. Obviously that is moronic. Obama will not be for that but that really won't make him less "pro-Israel". The Israeli people will come out of a political solution much better off.

They know Obama will not continue the same lockstep policy as Bush. They also have an election coming up, all political.

as do many commentators on tv.

Please take a look...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=414035&mesg_id=414035

policies that reflect those beliefs.

But then I expect that we'll hear that he needs a second term in order to do anything....

The reason he hasn't said anything about the pogrom in Gaza is that he has his head so far up AIPAC's ass that he's quite unable to say a word on the matter.

if he DID have "his head so far up AIPAC's ass" he would've spoken out, agreeing with Bush/Israel.