This is your "moderate" Obama.

speechlesstx · Oct 30, 2008, 02:38 PM

...or as at least one poster here calls him, a "centrist." Did you know Obama had a diary with the Kossacks? Oh yes, and this is some of what he had to say:

Quote:

* Barack Obama's diary :: ::

I read with interest your recent discussion regarding my comments on the floor during the debate on John Roberts' nomination. I don't get a chance to follow blog traffic as regularly as I would like, and rarely get the time to participate in the discussions. I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.

Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it's precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.

There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. [b]I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people...

...I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority...

...Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist."

Let me translate, "cool it guys or we won't be able to get that progressive majority to enact our progressive agenda. We don't have to move to the middle, just tone it down until we can get control and move this country 'progressively' forward."

This guy is no moderate.

speechlesstx · Oct 31, 2008, 05:31 AM

A few things here, first I had to consider the alternatives, The Goracle and Lurch. 'Nuff said on that.

Besides the fact I'm a conservative and would never vote for the most liberal senator in congress, I have to consider the alternative now. Do I want someone who has - in spite of everyone's sudden flip-flop on their opinion of him - served his country honorably for most of his life, IS his own man, has the experience, has the character, has worked across party lines to get things done whether we liked it or not, won't try to take the country radically in one direction, knows what national security means, and is the most transparent of the two candidates. Or, do I vote for an illusion. I know what I'm getting with McCain and it isn't just more of the "McSame" as you much as you want everyone to believe that.

Obama has done nothing but talk pretty, has a whopping 140 some odd days of senate experience, a long history of radical associations, won't come clean about anything - in fact has put it off limits, can't keep his story straight on his big tax cuts, can't explain the math on how he'll give those tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes while promising a trillion dollars in new spending, and whose wife thinks he can fix our broken souls. And to boot, a vote for Obama is a vote to give complete control over our government to one party.

I think the choice is pretty darn clear, vote for someone who has the experience and integrity for the job or vote for someone because it feels good.

tomder55 · Oct 31, 2008, 05:33 AM

Snoozeweek's headline article last week (eligible for fantasy of the year awards ) is that Obama would govern from the center .

Meacham: We're a Conservative Country | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

I agree with Steve that this shift to the right is traditional Presidential election strategy. But clearly Obama studied the 2006 elections carefully and has been using it's template.

He says he believes in a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
He now says he opposes late-term abortion.
He suddenly is a devotee of using faith-based institutions to deliver public services.
He now says that he won't raise Social Security taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. In the primary, he said he'd eliminate the threshold entirely.
He claims he is opposed to the Fairness Doctrine .
Now he says he's going to consult with the military before pulling out of Iraq.Before the campaign he had firm deadline dates.

The fact is that the Congress will be setting the agenda for an Obama Presidency . Speaker Madam Mimi and Harry Reid have a long list of quasi-socialists "progressive" agendas that have been blocked by Republican resistance and in some cases by the very Blue Dog Democrats they enlisted to win in 2006 ,only to betray .
The only way the radical agenda will be blocked under an Obama Presidency (at least until 2010) would be a coalition of the Blue Dog Democrats and the remaining Republicans in the House and Senate.
That is not likely .

tomder55 · Oct 31, 2008, 05:35 AM

Under President Bush the jihadists have not attacked inside the US since 2001 . I'll take some McSame on that record .

speechlesstx · Oct 31, 2008, 10:35 AM

Remember me mentioning voting for the illusion that is Obama?

Quote:

Bill Clinton: Obama Got Lots of Help on Economic Crisis Response

Barack Obama cultivated the image of a cool and collected leader during the height of the economic crisis last month, when lawmakers on Capitol Hill scrambled to draft a workable bailout package after a meltdown on Wall Street.

And when John McCain suspended his campaign to dive head first into the fray, Obama's campaign accused the Republican of being "unsteady."

But to hear Bill Clinton tell it, the Democratic nominee didn't quite have a handle on the situation himself.

"I haven't cleared this with him and he may even be mad at me for saying this so close to the election, but I know what else he said to his economic advisers (during the crisis)," Clinton told the crowd at a Wednesday night rally with Obama in Florida. "He said, 'Tell me what the right thing to do is. What's the right thing for America? Don't tell me what's popular. You tell me what's right -- I'll figure out how to sell it.'"

No one can fault the guy for seeking input from his advisors, but I want more from a president than a guy that figures out "how to sell it," especially one that calls his opponent "unsteady" on the same issue he himself doesn't understand. McCain has a long record of doing things instead of writing letters and selling himself.

excon · Oct 31, 2008, 10:43 AM

Hello Steve:

I ain't looking for no moderation. I'm looking for radicalism.

excon

ZoeMarie · Oct 31, 2008, 11:01 AM

I still don't see any positive McCain posts...

tomder55 · Oct 31, 2008, 11:22 AM

but all the Obots know this election is about Obama.

ZoeMarie · Oct 31, 2008, 11:35 AM

you know why? because all of McCains ad campaigns have made it that way. they don't say what he himself is going to do get this country out of the hole that it's in. They just bash Obama. Has he done any ads that he talks about himself and what he will do? because I haven't seen one.

tomder55 · Oct 31, 2008, 11:59 AM

well you see it's like this . McCain has a long public service history and what you see is what you get. His admirable public record is readily available .

Obama on the other hand has a paper thin resume and has succeeded in either shredding or otherwise keeping it from public perusal.

That is why the election is about Obama . We know where McCain stands.

NeedKarma · Oct 31, 2008, 12:01 PM

Nope tom, that's not excuse for constant attack ads, no excuse at all. McCain's campaign was a vile piece of work.



At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you will be able to: Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+ topics. Accept money for answers that you provide. Communicate privately with other members (PM). See fewer ads. Sign Up!