Happy 4th of July

by Todd Beeton, Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:54:21 PM EDT

How's your fourth going? Consider this an open thread...

Update [2008-7-4 19:1:7 by Josh Orton]: As you bbq and watch fireworks with friends and family, be sure to keep the radar up for the latest zombie lie - that Obama changed his Iraq position. He didn't. Josh Marshall walks through the lost distinction between strategy and tactics in more detail over at TPM. But here's the short version: Obama's strategy is to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home, but he'll listen to commanders' advice about how. That's it. McCain's campaign has been (successfully) pitching reporters on the idea that Obama's strategy on Iraq has somehow shifted fundamentally.

It hasn't. Obama wants to end the war; McCain has no plan to.

Rinse, repeat.

Tags: 4th of July, Open Thread (all tags)

  • 65 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

65 Comments

Shadow_head_small
July 4 insanity

It has been totally crazy here today.

Here is the summary:  Many Democrats are upset with Obama for his lurch to the right.  They express their disappointment via diaries.  They are quickly denounced as concern trolls even though they are right (at least on FISA).  They are angered with being unfairly denounced as trolls and retaliate with diaries explaining that dissent is healthy and/or snark diaries.  Its been lively.

Come back tomorrow for the rinse/repeat.

by CAchemist 2008-07-04 01:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: July 4 insanity

I hate to ask this, but it seems like someone needs to;

Why isn't anybody talking about Clinton skipping the vote?  There seem to be a lot of her former supporters up in arms about Obama, but she did pretty much what he did; nothing.

by Capt America 2008-07-04 03:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Get over it! She's not the nominee.... you can no

longer accuse her of anything - you have the candidate you wished for - you're stuck with him -live with it and leave her out of it!!!

by suzieg 2008-07-04 03:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Get over it! She's not the nominee.... you can

So her failing to secure the nomination relieves her of any responsibility as a Senator?

What a joke.

by Capt America 2008-07-04 03:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Get over it! She's not the nominee.... you can

well, it would look bad if she took the opposite position of Obama here.  People would scream bloody murder about her trying to "undermine his candidacy" or some tripe like that.

by colebiancardi 2008-07-04 04:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Get over it! She's not the nominee.... you can

Be that as it may (and you're probably right, I hadn't thought about that to be honest) it seems like if she was the Ubercrat that she's been painted to be around here by some, she'd be stepping up.

I keep hearing people talk about Clinton for AG or supreme court justice.  If she's really gunning for one of those, now would be an excellent time to step up and show some spine.

by Capt America 2008-07-04 04:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Get over it! She's not the nominee.... you can

If you want to call me a troll, than go ahead because I don't pay attention to those labels.

I normally don't comment or post on any blog sites.

I have voted consistantly democrate. If I had no choice given, e.g. no democrate on particular contest or uncontested election which is very common in South Carolina, I write-in the name of known democrate from the area instead of letting it go without any vote against the republican.

Now to the point here about HRC not voting against it and skipping the vote - She is no longer the candidate for president, she is no longer the nominee. Now her concern is to support the Democrate nominee, i.e. Obama the best way she can, and still represent the wishes of people of NY whom she represents as a senator. Therefore, best option for her would be to not to vote, and than shows the neutral position without opposing the Obama's vote for FISA.

Now on FISA - If this changes to FISA were allowed to expired by defeating it or by fillbuster, than FISA would have revert back to its original form. Original FISA never expires unless Congress passes the law to override it. Law as presented by Pelosi and gang and to which Obama agreed to was not to override original FISA but to make changes to it. Original FISA requires Govt. to get warrant. This new FISA provides same loop hole as the changes under Patriot Act - warrantless spying on US citizen's conversation.

Before trying to start flaming this, please go and read all three version - Original FISA, Patriot Act and this new changes.

Obama had a choice during primary instead of now to clarify his position but he intentionally did not!

Where I stand - after unity I was almost ready to climb on unity band wagon but I paused to see where he moves, and now it is clear how I would vote.

I know that in both house of US Congress Democrates will have majority - in US Senate most likely fillbuster proof majority. Therefore, if Democrate leadership has any guts they will not allow any one like Scalia, Thomas and Alito to be confirmed to Supreme Court, and so Roe is safe. Many liberal agenda is safe.

Obama, not his supporter on DKos or HuffPost or here on MyDD, stll have 3+ months to convince me why shall I vote for him and not to vote for any candidate or not to vote by write in or not to vote for third party or not to vote for McCain!!!

by PK 2008-07-05 05:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Get over it!

Therefore, if Democrate leadership has any guts they will not allow any one like Scalia, Thomas and Alito to be confirmed to Supreme Court, and so Roe is safe. Many liberal agenda is safe.

That's quite a chance you're taking with other people's lives.
You do realize our Democratic majority in the House are the ones who passed this FISA bill, right?
And Russ Feingold was one of the ones who supported the nomination of John Roberts in a 78-22 vote in the Senate? One of our most progressive senators?

Yet you're going to vote for McCain in the hopes that our Democratic majority will completely change their tune in 2009?

Wow.

by skohayes 2008-07-05 08:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Blind to the truth

Here's Obama press release from 2007:

Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Printable Format

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tommy Vietor or Robert Gibbs, 202-228-5511
Date: January 30, 2007

Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops
Goal to Redeploy All Combat Brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's dangerous and ill-conceived escalation of the Iraq war, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home.

"Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence."

The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President's failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

"The American people have been asked to be patient too many times, too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent," Obama said. "It's time for a policy that can bring a responsible end to this war and bring our troops home."

I find it incredible that Obama is trying to backtrack on this now.

I AM impatient.  I've been impatient since 2004.  He said there's no military solution -- fine -- I agree -- get out now without preconditions.

by strongerthandirt 2008-07-05 04:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
no change in position on Iraq

There is NO change in position.

   OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SAID HE WILL LISTEN TO COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND IN IMPLEMENTING HIS POLICY

   June 2008: Obama: I've Consistently Said That I Will Consult With Military Commanders On The Ground And Be Open To The Possibility Of Tactical Adjustments.  Obama said, "I've also consistently said that I will consult with military commanders on the ground and that we will always be open to the possibility of tactical adjustments. The important thing is to send a clear signal to the Iraqi people and most importantly to the Iraqi leadership that the U.S. occupation in Iraq is finite, it is gonna be coming to a foreseeable end." [MSNBC, 6/16/08]

   March 2008: Obama Said He Would Give Senior Military Leaders Opinions Great Weight In Implementing His Iraq Plan But As Commander In Chief Would Make His Own Assessment Of The Situation.  Obama was asked "what weight will you give to the counsel of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] commander, the combatant commander on the ground in Iraq and current intelligence chiefs on the ground in Iraq regarding an immediate phased withdrawal?"  Obama said, "I will give their counsel great weight. But, as commander in chief, it is my responsibility to make my own assessment of the situation. We must send a clear signal to the Iraqi political leadership that we are leaving Iraq on a timeline. Doing so will put pressure on those leaders to begin to resolve the political impasse at the heart of this civil war. But I also want to be clear about another thing. I am worried our Army is overstretched and that we have asked an awful lot from our military families. Many in our senior military leadership are worried about a plan that will keep 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq for the foreseeable future. So, as commander in chief, I will also have to take into consideration the counsel of other senior military leaders who may be concerned that Iraq is undercutting our ability to confront other security challenges." [Washington Post, 3/2/08]

   March 2008: Obama Said The Size Of The Residual Force Will Depend On Consultation With Military Commanders And "Will Depend On The Circumstances On The Ground."  Obama said, "The precise size of the residual force will depend on consultations with our military commanders and will depend on the circumstances on the ground, including the willingness of the Iraqi government to move toward political accommodation. But let me be clear on one thing: I will end this war, and there will be far fewer Americans in Iraq conducting a much more limited set of missions that include counterterrorism and protection of our embassy and U.S. civilians." [Washington Post, 3/2/08]

   November 2007: Obama Said He Would Leave Residual Troops In Iraq Based On The Levels Of Violence, "It's Not My Job To Specify Troop Levels."  Obama said, "If we see a serious effort by the Iraqi leadership to arrive at an agreement and an accommodation and you've seen continued reductions of violence, then you need one level of troop protection for the embassy...If things have gone to hell in a hand basket then you need another ... It's not my job to specify troop levels. My job is to tell our commanders on the ground, `Here's your mission. Protect our embassy, protect our diplomats and our humanitarian workers in the area and make sure al Qaeda in Iraq, or other terrorist organizations inside of Iraq are not re-establishing bases there."  [Fosters, 11/28/07]

   November 2007: Obama Said U.S. Has To Make Sure "We Are Not Just Willy-Nilly Removing Troops" And That It May "Take A Little Bit Longer" In Some Areas Where There Is Less Stability.  "According to all the reports, we should have been well along our way in getting the Iraqi security forces to be more functional. We then have another 16 months after that to adjust the withdrawal and make sure that we are withdrawing from those areas, based on advice from the military officers in the field, those places where we are secured, made progress and we're not just willy-nilly removing troops, but we're making a determination - in this region we see some stability. We've had cooperation from local tribal leaders and local officials, so we can afford to remove troops here. Here, we've still got problems, it's going to take a little bit longer. Maybe those are the last areas to pull out."  [New York Times, 11/1/07]

   November 2007: Obama: "If The Commanders Tell Me They Need X, Y And Z, In Order To Accomplish The Very Narrow Mission That I've Laid Out, Than I Will Take That Into Consideration."  "You raise a series of legitimate questions. As commander in chief, I'm not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I'm not going to have a situation where our efforts can't be successful. We will structure those forces so they can be successful. We would still have human intelligence capabilities on the ground. Some of them would be civilian, as opposed to military, some would be operating out of our bases as well as our signal intelligence...But listen, I am not going to set up our troops for failure and I'm going to do something half-baked. If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I've laid out, than I will take that into consideration."  [New York Times, 11/1/07]

   November 2007: Obama: "Even Something As Simple As Protecting Our Embassy Is Going To Dependent On What Is The Security In Baghdad...If There Is Some Sense Of Security, Then That Means One Level Of Force. If You Continue To Have Significant Sectarian Conflict, That Means Another." "I have not ascribed particular numbers to that and I won't for precisely the reason I was just talking to Michael about. I want to talk to military folks on the ground, No. 1. No. 2, a lot of it depends on what's happened on the political front and the diplomatic front. Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another, but this is an area where Senator Clinton and I do have a significant contrast."  [New York Times, 11/1/07]
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/the-que stion-is.html

by politicsmatters 2008-07-05 05:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Blind to the truth
Dude, what part of that is different? Because here's what I see there...
commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008,

Granted, that is 9 months, not 16, but Obama was shooting for negotiation here, not setting the policy, an area in which he'd have to overshoot his goal.
The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

Did you miss this part?!
by vcalzone 2008-07-05 01:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ummm ...

Let's look at the reality of the FISA issue:  

There simply weren't 41 Senators willing to risk their political careers, and vote against cloture on the "compromise."  Had Obama not backed down from his FISA pledge and there weren't 41 votes against cloture, the media could have easily caricatured Barack Obama as some weak, quixiotic liberal unable to unite his own party and therefore someone with poor leadership qualities incapable of becoming an effective president.

Were there 41 Senators willing to back the Feingold/Dodd/Leahy position on FISA, Barack Obama would have spent an awful lot of time and political capital convincing Senators to risk their political careers when there are 150,000 troops in a place where a war should never have been waged; when we have lost 291,000 jobs in the last six months; and when there are 45 million Americans without health insurance.  The media again could have questioned his priorities, his sense of direction, and his leadership qualities.

You have to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.  You have to know when you need to take one for the team.  That's what the FISA cave was all about.

by Brad G 2008-07-04 04:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ummm ...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2 008/06/21/obama/

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive s/individual/2008_06/013956.php

http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/29/wh istleblower-fisa-compromise-advances-pol ice-state-agenda/

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislat io.html

Based on Pual Kane in the WaPo "The Trail" on 6/20 -

Obama sought to walk the fine political line - that he is weak on foreign policy.

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129. - What happens if he don't get elected and McCain gets elected? His role as a senator is to assure that what law senate passes is prudent for US Public irrespective who is president, and not taking granted 3+ months before the election that he is already selected by people as the next President.
This is a reversal of Obama's position from Feb. 12 when he was locked in a fight for the Democratic nomination with Hillary.
In Feb. Obama missed the vote FISA bill. He issued a statement "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty." - So what changed? Is he no longer proud to stand with Dodd, Feingold and grassroot movement?
Sens. Dodd, Feingold and Leahy - all Obama backers - continues to oppose the new legislation. According to these senior lawmakers new version of the FISA law -- crafted after four months of intense negotiations between White House aides and congressional leaders -- provides insufficient court review of the pending 40 lawsuits against the telecommunications companies alleging privacy invasion for their participation in a warrantless wiretapping program after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"The immunity outcome is predetermined," Feingold wrote in a memo on 6/20.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued that a provision in the new law reaffirmed that FISA, and that act's courts, gives the final say over government spying.
"It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law," Obama said today. - What type of bs is this? - read below statement from Sen. Specter . - This provision was already part of the 1978 FISA Act which is not expired and has no expiration date. The Act which was expiring was Patriot Act which gutless Democratic Leadership - same Pelosi, Reid, etc. had supported and voted for!!! This new act gives the immunity to telcos which Bush wanted all along and Obama was claiming to oppose it! Is it possible that he wants this power for himself (as he assumes that he is already shoe-in in November!) so that he can spy on us Socially Liberals as he will not need us in 2012?
Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the most prominent Republican opponent of the compromise bill, issued a statement today calling that exclusivity provision "meaningless because that specific provision is now in [the] 1978 act." Specter said Bush just ignored existing law in starting the warrantless surveillance program.
As I said on my previous post in response to "Capt America - Re: Get over it! She's not the nominee.... you can "  ---
Obama had a choice during primary instead of now to clarify his position but he intentionally did not!
Where I stand - after unity I was almost ready to climb on unity band wagon but I paused to see where he moves, and now it is clear how I would vote.
I know that in both house of US Congress Democrates will have majority - in US Senate most likely fillbuster proof majority. Therefore, if Democrate leadership has any guts they will not allow any one like Scalia, Thomas and Alito to be confirmed to Supreme Court, and so Roe is safe. Many liberal agenda is safe.
Obama, not his supporter on DKos or HuffPost or here on MyDD, stll have 3+ months to convince me why shall I vote for him and not to vote for any candidate or not to vote by write in or not to vote for third party or not to vote for McCain!!!

by PK 2008-07-05 06:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ummm ...

We don't even need another candidate like Scalia to lose abortion, we only need to have Ginsburg replaced by someone just SLIGHTLY to the right of Kennedy on the issue. That's not just possible, it is likely with McCain. So you have confidence in the Senate to stand up against McCain? THE VERY SAME SENATE WHO HAS PUSHED THROUGH FISA TWICE ALREADY?!

FOOL!!!!! Your way of thinking is short-sighted, dangerous, disingenuous and stubborn as a mule. Yeah, let's punish Obama for refusing to stay in a politically damaging and losing position by voting for the people who made that position a losing one to begin with.

by vcalzone 2008-07-05 02:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

[nothing says America like grilling dead animals and playing with low grade explosives.]

Happy 4th o' July- dont set yourselves on fire.

by alyssa chaos 2008-07-04 01:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

It's crazy here in Kansas- the average person can buy the same types of fireworks that are restricted to licensed experts in other states, so the fireworks show will be all over town.
My next door neighbors even have a homemade cannon.
Should be a fun night!

by skohayes 2008-07-04 02:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

a cannon? shit! sounds fun-

I dont know if its worse than rotton neighborhood kids aiming roman candles at cars and people- those little f*ckers got me last year; aimed one at my back and started my jacket on fire [hence the 'dont start yourselves on fire' warning]

But im packing this year.they best watch out! revenge is a dish best served a year later-  

by alyssa chaos 2008-07-04 02:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

egh. working today, until 8, but fireworks don't start downtown here until 9, so it's not tooooooo terrible.

by zcflint05 2008-07-04 01:20PM | 0 recs
Eatapeach
Re: Happy 4th of July


by bored now 2008-07-04 01:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

Lots of Obama supporters are in denial about his recent flip flops, from FISA, to guns, to religion, now, the war, and now he is going to go to a NASCAR race. Now the convention is going to be cut short because the Obama campaign is afrais that McCain might stifle his bounce. This doesn't sound like a winning a candidate, but I'm probably one of those bitter people in this country who are uneducated and uninformed.

by bsavage 2008-07-04 01:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July
You're right, you are one of those people.
Now, what are you going to do about it?
by skohayes 2008-07-04 02:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Denial?
I don't know about you and bitter, but it may take more political experience and observation than some of Obama's critics have to see clearly what's happening.
Most of the criticism I have read is rooted in black and white thinking.  You're either for one of the issues or against it.  
Politics is made up of greys.
When Obama becomes president, among other things, he will take a look at the political capital he has to spend, the personnell he has, the possibilities for achievement and the situations at the moment, as he plans how to proceed on the various policies he has proposed.  He'll set priorities then.  To do otherwise would not be very good leadership or administering.
by hawkseye 2008-07-04 03:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
you forgot about abortion rights! he's against it

now if you have mental distress!

by suzieg 2008-07-04 03:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Flip-flop on the war?

Because Barack Obama has said something like this:  

The surge has been working, and this war was the right war to wage.  I now believe America's occupation in Iraq is central to a successful Middle East policy, and will plan troop withdrawals according to this mission -- even if it may take 100 years.

Come on.

by Brad G 2008-07-04 03:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

I had not heard about the NASCAR thing. That could be pretty foolish. It's a political minefield and requires seriously top-notch press and image control. Better than he got when he went bowling.

PLAN IT OUT, FOLKS! Don't put him in a NASCAR jacket, don't let him say ANYTHING that makes it seem like he's already a fan, don't expect anything other than boos and/or indifference.

He could come out pretty well if he stands by those rules and remembers that he is there as a beggar on his hands and knees, NOT as an attempt to prove anything to anybody. He should go in a group with some of his NASCAR fan supporters, and those supporters should be consulted OVER AND OVER for how to react. He should wear his sunglasses, too, they make him look badass.

by vcalzone 2008-07-05 02:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This country was founded on dissent

We should do or be no less, than if we do not respectfully tolerate dissent on this site, with diaries or comments.

Let's personify, exemplify our forefathers, show by our class, by trying to exhibit tolerant behavior with dissent as this day implies and requires.

It would be unpatriotic to do less.

by dcrolg 2008-07-04 02:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Dissent if fine

although it's usually reserved for leaders after they have been elected.  The thing that irritates me is not when someone says 'I disagree with Obama's position on such and such' but when they follow it up with 'He's throwing everyone under the bus' or some such conclusion.  I see that as mudslinging rather than dissent and believe it should be reserved for the opposition during an election.

Many people here seem to disagree with me and think it should be open season to take potshots at our own party's candidate.  I see it as helping the opposition and trying to lose.

But that's just me...I really, really want to win this year.  I've been waiting 8 years for the Dems to win the presidency back.

by GFORD 2008-07-04 03:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Save some Fireworks for the 4th of November

When America closes the book on it's most radical, incompetent and reckless leader.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-07-04 02:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
they are right (at least on FISA).

Republicans Attack Obama on Flip-Flop -- They're Right!

Who would you rather agree with....

Jonathan Alter explains Obama's position on FISA

I'll agree with a reasonable liberal rather than the McTroll crowd.

by Beren 2008-07-04 03:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: they are right (at least on FISA).

You obviosly didn't read this morning's NYT ed. Alter has been carrying a torch for Obama for months. I'll go with the NYT which is not exactly a conservative paper.

by ottovbvs 2008-07-04 03:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You obviosly didn't read this morning's NYT ed

I haven't read the NYT since they helped sell Bush's WMD Disaster.

by Beren 2008-07-04 03:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You obviosly didn't read this morning's NYT ed

The essential silliness of this comment shows that you are indeed a true believer. Obviously backtracking on a withdrawal from Iraq concerns you not at all. I think you'll find it concerns many in the Democratic party.    

by ottovbvs 2008-07-04 03:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
he's no longer trustworthy!

by suzieg 2008-07-04 03:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You obviosly didn't read this morning's NYT ed

The reason, "backtracking on a withdrawal from Iraq" doesn't concern is because it's a bullshit mischaracterization.

And the only people it concerns are fools and McTrolls.

by Beren 2008-07-04 10:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You obviosly didn't read this morning's NYT ed

Even Republicans don't believe that Obama won't pull troops out.

by vcalzone 2008-07-05 02:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It was the "concern" du jour.

For the past couple of days it's been FISA.

I'm sure a new one will come up on Monday after the press has its daily conference call with McBush's propagandists and then disseminates the taking points to Obamaphobes and McTrolls to be posted here and elsewhere.

by Beren 2008-07-05 02:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Lots of Obama supporters are in denial

Lot's of former hillary supporters are in denial. They think it's still primary season and attacking Obama will help her get the nomination. Either that or they just can't break their old habit of pissing on the rug.

by Beren 2008-07-04 03:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It takes an Obama denier to find a Clinton denier.

by suzieg 2008-07-04 03:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Take your pick.

There's nothing to deny about Obama. He's the Democratic nominee. There are only two groups now. Those who support him and those who support McSame.

by Beren 2008-07-04 10:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
what about the Obama supporters

who still keep spreading lies and bashing Bill Clinton? We will not stand for our only two term Democratic President since FDR, and amongst few such as Cleveland, Wilson, and FDR to be bashed and his successes belittle and even lied about. If it weren't for Bill Clinton improving our electoral college average by over 150 electoral votes by showing that the Democratic Party is in touch with America, especially with welfare and crime, Obama would still be in Illinois. Obama made it from Illinois because Bill Clinton made it a solid blue state, after 6 straight elections voting Republican.

by Lakrosse 2008-07-04 11:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
If yoo're foolish enough ...

to put a chip on your shoulder, someone will knock it off.

This really isn't the time to bring up Bill Clinton's economic record here. Go post it on A GOP blog and defend it to death there where it might do some good.

The spate of "pro-clinton" diaries here have but one purpose: to provoke arguments by indirectly attacking Obama and his supporters.

And that's just McTrollish since it benefits no one but McCreep.

by Beren 2008-07-04 11:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Lots of Obama supporters are in denial

Based on his work in IL I had a feeling that what he says is "Just WORDS", and his actions does not support those words!!!

I am still waiting for him to prove me wrong by his actions, and so far he has proved me right or rather more and more disappointed me by changing his position since claiming the nomination!!!

So it is not I who is denial but those who would try to find any slim excuse to justify his change in position from his promises "not just words" during primary!

He don't need to convince you or likes of you but he still need to convinve me and people like me by his actions to vote for him in next 3+ months!

He may say that he does not need our votes but remember in 2000 Gore - he should be our nominee this year but unfortunately he decided not to seek the office of US President - could have won the presidency if not for those few hundred votes in FL!

by PK 2008-07-05 06:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Lots of Obama supporters are in denial

You don't know jack about Obama or his record -- just the garbage that has been spoon fed to you by the Hillary and McSame campaigns.

As for convincing, "the likes of you," there are cranks in every election who will vote against themselves beyond all reason and good judgement. You each think you are the one who decides every election, but you are nothing.

It's your vote to do with as you will. Go ahead and shove it up your own ass if you want.

by Beren 2008-07-05 07:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
respectfully tolerate dissent on this site

Respectfully tolerate dissent disrespectful intolerance?

No thanks.

by Beren 2008-07-04 03:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Telling the truth is intolerance? Have some more

Kool-Aid!

by suzieg 2008-07-04 03:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Kool-Aid!

Cultist.

by Beren 2008-07-04 10:41PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

But unfortunately that NOT what he originally SAID. And that gave the media and McCain the chance to pounce. And on top of all his other reversals a pattern seems to be emerging. I'm a democrat and I want our people out of Iraq asap. They are doing no good and in fact making any improvement of our position impossible. Once you buy into the weaselling you are buying into the Bush and McCain position.    

by ottovbvs 2008-07-04 03:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

The attacks on Obama keep coming from the same people who supported Hillary (or perhaps McBush) during the primaries. If they think Hillary wouldn't have already veered completely back into her former NeoCon mode they are either crazy, in denial, or just playing the same old game of dishonesty.

I'm not going to play tit for tat with them on their denouncements du jour since they aren't interested in facts or reasonable explanations anyway. I'll just remind everyone to always consider the source.

by Beren 2008-07-04 03:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

Hillary's not the nominee, Obama is and he's the one actually veering into neocon territory not Hillary. The dishonesty here is coming from you in speculating what Clinton would or would not do.

by ottovbvs 2008-07-04 03:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

"Obama is and he's the one actually veering into neocon territory not Hillary"

You obviously wouldn't know a Neocon if one bit you on the ass.

And the only dishonsty is you denying that you're anything but a McTroll.

by Beren 2008-07-04 10:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I seem to remember him saying

the during the debates, when asked, that he would of course listen to the generals on the ground.  He said we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in...it's part of his stump speech.

by GFORD 2008-07-04 03:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Smoke and mirrors - If he was REALLY against

the war, he would have taken to the streets of Chicago along with all the protesters if not leading the protest against it but he was too chicken to put his political ambitions in jeopardy - the guy is a fake, the worse kind possible. He's just proven in the past 3 weeks that he'll say and do anything to get elected - what courage! No backbone whatsoever and no core beliefs and the reason why he'll lose the presidency!

by suzieg 2008-07-04 03:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Smoke and mirrors - If he was REALLY against

happy 4th of july!!!

For the Horde!!!

by Xris 2008-07-04 11:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Smoke and mirrors - If he was REALLY against

If he was really against the war, he would have taken gasoline and torched himself in the park. What a fake!!!

In other words, you are full of it.

by politicsmatters 2008-07-05 05:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

by blueflorida 2008-07-04 03:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

Awesome!

by kmwray 2008-07-04 07:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Obama at Harvard...

and supporting Harvey Gantt against Jesse Helms in the brutal 1990 race.  Too bad that Helms will not be around in November to see it happen.

You might be interested in this article about ties between McCain people (including Charlie Black) and the Jesse Helms campaign of 1990, including the famous "white hands" ad, one of the most racist political ads in modern times:

http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/ne ws/article/with-mccain-advisers-obama-su pporters-fear-repeat-of-racially-charged -1990-1245

by mboehm 2008-07-05 06:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

Matt Stoller and others kings of the blogosphere supported Obama largely, if not entirely, because of his 2002 speech on Iraq--a speech on which Obama provided ZERO leadership once he landed in the Senate.

Stoller and his brethren bludgeoned Hillary Clinton mercilessly for any recognition on her part that things might get complicated.

Can we at least have an acknowlegement that Obama conned his way into the hearts of a lot of liberals?  

by Upstate Dem 2008-07-04 04:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Obama said this hundreds of thousands of times

No, he has said the same thing over and over -- Being as careful getting out as careless getting in.

I heard him say it at a rally in February.

And "careful getting out careless getting in" comes up with 290,00 hits on Google"
http://www.google.com/search?q=careful+g etting+out+careless+getting+in&ie=ut f-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mo zilla:en-US:official&client=firefox- a

by politicsmatters 2008-07-05 05:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Obama wants to end the war?

WTF?

You have not been paying attention.

Boy, are you in for a rude awakening.

by neaguy 2008-07-04 05:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July
I don't trust Obama.  I don't trust McCain.  
Happy 4th!!!
by easyE 2008-07-04 08:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

McCain's campaign has been (successfully) pitching reporters on the idea that Obama's strategy on Iraq has somehow shifted fundamentally.

And this site is rife with McTrolls pitching it.

When are ya gonna take out the McTrash that's stinkin' this joint up?

by Beren 2008-07-04 10:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The ABC money quote

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Democrati cDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=3

You can read the whole thing, but to me he says the pullout commitment is firm.

And his website, which is the bait for all those million he collected, had not even a whiff of compromise.

I believe you are not being honest about this.

by strongerthandirt 2008-07-05 04:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You're just incorrect

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones and Domenico Montanaro
FARGO, N.D. -- Obama said he had not changed his position regarding Iraq troop withdrawals, but that he could "refine" his policy after assessing the situation there.

This, of course, echoes what Obama said at the Sept. 26 NBC News/MSNBC debate from Dartmouth, N.H., (see full transcript at link) when neither he nor Clinton nor Edwards would commit to having troops out by 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible," Obama said then. "We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office, which it appears there may be unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable, if there's no timetable, then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there.

"I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."

At a brief press conference on the tarmac here Thursday, the presumptive Democratic nominee said his plan to withdraw troops within 16 months had always been dependent on the facts on the ground and that he would "do a  thorough assessment" of the situation when he visits Iraq, a trip he has said he wants to make before the election.

"My position has not changed but keep in mind what that original position was. I have always said that I will listen to commanders on the ground; I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability," he said. "That assessment has not changed and when I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

by politicsmatters 2008-07-05 05:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Happy 4th of July

I think too many of us have been living in the reality-based world for too long. We don't seem to understand that it's not what REALLY happened that matters, it's what the MSM SAYS really happened. Did Obama flip-flop on the war? On FISA? On abortion rights? No point in arguing about it. The MSM says he did, so he did.

I said a long time ago that a lot of us were going to be stunned when the MSM dropped its fake love affair with Obama and got down to its real agenda of electing John McCain. So, here it is, guys. SURPRISE!

This is the reality with which we now have to deal.

by Not the only Dem in KS 2008-07-05 07:26AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------