Obama: "The Fierce Urgency of Now"

Nate Willems, a thoughtful Iowa-based Edwards supporter and occasional blogger on MyDD, offered his take on Obama's problem a couple weeks ago.  It is an extremely apt criticism:

The Obama Campaign is presently obsessed with the issue of "experience" and I think they are ever so slightly off the mark with this.  Everything I have heard from them recently - from the way the Obama pollster framed the questions I was asked when they called me yesterday to the focus on his judgment and foresight in opposing the war in Iraq - comes back to rebutting the idea that he does not have enough experience.

It is not experience that would get me to caucus for him; my candidate of choice, John Edwards, does not have that much foreign policy experience.  Senator Clinton does not have that much foreign policy experience.  Obama is not going to get people like my Dad, who value experience above all else, anyway; he has already decided to caucus for Biden.

The focus of the Obama campaign should be to convince Democrats that now, and not some point in the future, is the time to elect him President. I think there was an anecdote from the 1960 Wisconsin primary campaign where an older woman protested to John Kennedy, "but Senator, you are so young." Kennedy replied, "No.  My time is now."

That is the way I would approach it.  People have this idea that Obama is young, has a bright future, and even if they decide to support somebody else right now, they will have the opportunity to choose him later.  I think that this, and not the idea of experience, is the biggest obstacle Senator Obama faces.


Obama's campaign has focused so heavily on the question of experience, on making the case for the value of Obama's kind of experience as a legislator, constitutional law professor, and community organizer, when the real problem they need to address is a question of timing.  Voters have been wondering, "Why now?  Why this particular moment in history?  If you can do this in four years or eight years, why now?  Why not wait?"

That might have all changed today.  Obama delivered a barnraiser of a speech in South Carolina, heavily promoted by his advisers as "definitional" and citing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s phrase about "the fierce urgency of now." It is hands-down the best speech Obama has given in a long time, and I'm hoping that it is the debut of a new stump speech.  It builds the case for the pressing nature of his candidacy.

According to CNN, Obama was fired up, speaking "with an energy he sometimes lacks on the stump and played to the enthusiasm of the audience."

I've provided the full text of the speech after the jump:

One year from now, you will have the chance to walk into a voting booth, pull back the curtain, and choose the next President of the United States.

Here's the good news: for the first time in a long time, the name George Bush will not appear on the ballot. The name Dick Cheney will not appear on the ballot. The era of Scooter Libby justice, and Brownie incompetence, and the Karl Rove politics of fear and cynicism will be over.

But the question you will have to ask yourselves when you pick up your ballot a year from today is, "What next?" How do we repair the enormous damage of these dismal years and recapture that sense of common purpose that has seen America through our toughest times?

I'm running for President because I believe we find ourselves in a moment of great challenge and great promise ––– a moment that comes along once in a generation.

It's a moment of challenge because America is less safe and less respected than at any time in recent history. We are more dependent on oil from dictators and closer to the day when climate change becomes a climate catastrophe.

In the midst of great prosperity, families all across this country feel further from the American Dream. You know this from your own lives. Most Americans are working harder for less and paying more for health care and college than ever before. It's harder to save. Harder to retire. And the policies of the last seven years have added to that unfairness.

George Bush said whatever the politics of the moment required in order to get elected in 2000. And those seven years of broken promises have left the American people with less trust in their leaders and less faith in their government than they have in years.

We were promised compassion and conservatism but we got Katrina and wiretaps.

We were promised a uniter, but we got a divider who couldn't even lead the half of the country who voted for him.

We were promised a kinder, gentler Washington but got a town that's more bitter, secretive, and corrupt than ever before. And the only mission ever accomplished was using fear and falsehoods to take us to a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.

This catastrophic failure of leadership has led us to a moment where it's not just Democrats who are listening to what we have to say, but Independents and Republicans who have never been more disillusioned with what the state of our leadership in Washington has done to this country.

That's why this is also a moment of great promise. It's a chance to turn the page by offering the American people a fundamentally different choice in 2008 ––– not just in the policies we offer, but in the kind of leadership we offer. It's a chance to come together and finally solve the challenges that were made worse by George Bush, but existed long before he took office ––– challenges like health care and energy and education that we haven't met for decades because of a political system in Washington that has failed the American people.

And that's what this debate in our party right now is all about.

Much has been said about the exchanges between Senator Clinton and myself this week. Now, understand that Hillary Clinton is a colleague and a friend. She's also a skilled politician, and she's run what Washington would call a "textbook" campaign. But the problem is the textbook itself.

It's a textbook that's all about winning elections, but says nothing about how to bring the country together to solve problems. As we saw in the debate last week, it encourages vague, calculated answers to suit the politics of the moment, instead of clear, consistent principles about how you would lead America. It teaches you that you can promise progress for everyday people while striking a bargain with the very special interests who crowd them out.

Now, Senator Clinton is certainly not the only one in Washington to play this game. It's gone on for years, and I understand the reasoning behind it. It's a game that usually gets politicians where they need to go. But I don't believe it gets America where we need to go. When it comes to issues like war and diplomacy; energy and health care, I don't believe we can bring about real change if all we do is change our positions based on what's popular or politically convenient. If we are going to seize this moment of challenge and promise, the American people deserve more when they head to the voting booth in 2008.

I believe that our party has made the most difference in people's lives and the life of this country when we have led not by polls but by principle; not by calculation but by conviction; when we've been able to summon the entire nation to a common purpose ––– a higher purpose. That's how Roosevelt led us through war and lifted us from depression. It's how Kennedy called on a new generation to ask what they could do for America. And I am running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States because that's the kind of leadership America needs right now.

I don't pretend to be a perfect man, and I will not be a perfect President. But I am in this race because I believe that if we want to break from the failures of the past and finally make progress as a country, we can't keep telling different people what we think they want to hear ––– we have to tell every American what they need to know. We have to be honest about the challenges we face.

When I called for higher fuel standards so we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I didn't say it to some environmental group in California ––– I said it in front of automakers in Detroit. When I called for corporate responsibility so that middle-class Americans could get a tax cut, I said it in front of CEOs on Wall Street. And when I was invited to speak out against George Bush's plan to invade Iraq as a Senate candidate five years ago, I didn't listen to those who warned me that it was politically risky position to take, I listened to my gut, and I said loud and clear that this was the wrong war at the wrong time and Congress should stand up and say so.

That's the kind of leadership we need right now. That's why I'm this race. Because I don't think you should settle for a President who's only there for you when it's easy or convenient or popular––– I think you deserve a President who's willing to fight for you every hour of every day for the next four years.

That's the change we can offer in 2008 ––– not change as a slogan, but change we can believe in.

One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race ––– and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House. Because real change isn't another four years of defending lobbyists who don't represent real Americans ––– it's standing with working Americans who have seen their jobs disappear and their wages decline and their hope for the future slip further and further away. That's the change we can offer in 2008.

When I am President, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break. I won't wait ten years to raise the minimum wage ––– I'll raise it to keep pace every single year. And if American workers are being denied their right to organize when I'm in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States.

One year from now, we can stop campaigning on the outrage of 47 million uninsured Americans and finally start doing something about it. I reformed health care in Illinois, and I didn't do it alone ––– I did it by reaching out to Democrats and Republicans. We took on the insurance industry, and we won. That's how I'll pass a universal health care bill that allows every American to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress get for themselves and cuts every family's premiums by up to $2500. And mark my words ––– I will sign this bill by the end of my first term as President. That's the change we can offer in 2008.

One year from now, we can stop sending our children down corridors of shame and start putting them on a pathway to success. When I am President, we will stop passing bills called No Child Left Behind that leave the money behind and start making real investments in education from cradle to adulthood. That means early childhood education. That means recruiting an army of new teachers, and paying them better, and supporting them more so they're not just teaching to test, but teaching to teach. And it means finally putting a college education within reach of every American. That's the change we can offer in 2008.

One year from now, we can stop sending hundreds of millions of dollars to dictators for their oil while we melt the polar ice caps in the bargain. I will raise our fuel standards, and put a cap on carbon emissions to reduce then 80% by 2050. We'll tell polluters that they have to pay for their pollution, because they don't own the skies, the American people own the skies. And we'll use the money to invest in the clean, renewable fuels that are our future. That's the change we can offer in 2008.

In this election, we have the chance to turn the page on the last six years of being told that the only way for Democrats to look tough on national security is to talk, and act, and vote like George Bush Republicans.

When I'm your nominee, my opponent won't be able to say that I was for the war in Iraq before I was against it; or that I supported an extension of the Iraq war into Iran; or that I support the Bush-Cheney diplomacy of not talking to leaders we don't like. And he won't be able to say that I flip-flopped on something as fundamental as whether our nation should use torture. Because we are not a nation that makes excuses for torture, we are a nation that rejects it. That's the change we can offer in 2008.

When I am President, I will end this war in Iraq. I will bring our troops home within sixteen months. I'll finish the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And I will lead the world against the common threats of the 21st century ––– nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what Democrats must stand for, and that's what America must stand for. And I'll be a President who finally sends a message to the black, white, and brown faces beyond our shores; from the halls of power to the huts of Africa that says, "You matter to America. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."

America, our moment is now.  Now is our chance to turn the page.  Now is our chance to write a new chapter.

I am in this race because I don't want to see us spend the next year re-fighting the Washington battles of the 1990s. I don't want to pit Blue America against Red America, I want to lead a United States of America. I don't want this election to be about the past, because if it's about the future, we all win. If this election is about whether or not to end this war, or pass universal health care, or make more college affordable, it won't just be a Democratic victory; it will be an American victory.

That's the victory this country needs right now. This election and this moment are too important to settle for what we already know. The time has come to reach for what we know is possible.

I am not running for this office to fulfill any long-held plans or because I believe it is somehow owed to me. I never expected to be here, and I always knew the journey would be improbable. I've never been on one that wasn't.

I am running because of what Dr. King called "the fierce urgency of now." I am running because I do believe there's such a thing as being too late. And that hour is almost here.

I'm running because I don't want to wake up one morning four years from now, and turn on one of those cable talk shows, and see that Washington is still stuck in the same food fight it's been in for over a decade. I don't want to see that more Americans lost their health care and fell into bankruptcy because we let the insurance industry spend millions to stop us for yet another year. I don't want to see that.

I don't want to see that the oceans rose another few inches and the planet has reached the point of no return because we couldn't find a way to stop ourselves from buying oil from dictators. I don't want to see that.

I don't want to see that we risked more American lives in another misguided war because no one had the judgment to ask the tough questions before we sent our troops to fight. I don't want to see that.

I don't want to see homeless veterans on the street. I don't want to send another generation of children through corridors of shame. I don't want this future for my daughters and I do not accept this future for America. It is time to turn the page.

I run for the presidency for the same reason I drove halfway across the country over two decades ago to bring jobs to the jobless and hope to the hopeless on the streets of Chicago; for the same reason I stood up for justice and equality as a civil rights lawyer; for the same reason I've fought for Illinois families for over a decade. Because I will never forget that the only reason I am standing here today is because someone, somewhere stood up when it wasn't popular, when it was risky; when it was hard. And because that someone stood up, a few more did. And then a few thousand. And then a few million. And together, they changed the world.

That's why I run in this election. I run to give my children and their children the same chances that someone, somewhere gave me. I run so that a year from today, there is a chance that the world will look at America differently, and that America will look at itself differently. And I run to keep the promise of the United States of America alive for all those who still hunger for opportunity and thirst for equality and long to believe again.

That is the change that's possible in this election. That is the moment I want to seize as President. And I ask you all to join me in this journey. Thank you.

 

Tags: Barack Obama, President 2008, South Carolina (all tags)

Comments

49 Comments

Re: Strongest Obama Speech Yet:

" that I supported an extension of the Iraq war into Iran; or that I support the Bush-Cheney diplomacy of not talking to leaders we don't like. "

- That is a knowing fradulent misrepresentation , if i wanted to be less diplomatic about it I would have called it a lie .

She never supported an extension of the war into iraq and she has called for diplomacy without conditions with iran.

otherwise could have been a good speech . Stick to the truth and stop fabricating things.

by lori 2007-11-03 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Strongest Obama Speech Yet:

Sorry supported the extension of the iraq war into iran , and she has consisitently railed against bush's lack of diplomacy with iran.

by lori 2007-11-03 09:59AM | 0 recs
Obama wants to talk to our enemies w/o

preconditions.  Hillary wants to continue the Bush/Cheney legacy of not talking to our enemies, as thought that is some sort of 'punishment.'  She is afraid of being used for propaganda.

So, not a lie.  A lie would be someone coming in here and accusing Obama of fabricating things or being untruthful, Lori.

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama wants to talk to our enemies w/o

that is a fabrication and any objective person knows that .

She has consistently attacked the Bush administrations lack of diplomcy with Iran and she has said she would have engage in vigorous diplomacy with Iran in her government , so to say she wants to continue Bush/Cheney policy is a total misrepresentation .

When did she support the extension of the iraq war into iran ?

I know he has said that his speech writers have given him speeches that stretched the truth and sometimes he had cancelled the lines out , apparently he didn't do that with those lines.

by lori 2007-11-03 10:09AM | 0 recs
Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

The one that says she will talk to our enemies or the one that says she would not?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Uh6J1GykqGU"&gt;&lt;/param&gt&lt;param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Uh6J1GykqGU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Also, she supported extending the Iraq war into Iran with her Kyl-Lieberman vote[as if you didn't already know that].  What was it her handlers said, that she has to 'run in general election' mode, or something like that?  Now quit spreading lies.

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 10:16AM | 0 recs
Huh, I thought we could post youtubes here

Oh well:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh6J1Gykq GU

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

she supported extending the Iraq war into Iran with her Kyl-Lieberman vote

- Thats just ridicolous .

How come we are not dropping bombs in Tehran now , nobody told me we bombed iran already.

Obama should have known better to put that in his speech , the speech in his entirety was good , but it doesn't do him any good to stretch the truth .

by lori 2007-11-03 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

The legislation contains specific language allowing for the use of Iraqi troops in Iran.

If you can't see a problem with that, then you've drank too much Kool-Aid.

Take your pathetic candidate sycophantry elsewhere.  You remind me much of Blind Bush Loyalist.

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

Yeah right if it was a vote for war with iran , what does it say about him , he ducked the vote.

Don't tell me when there was a vote as critical as a vote to go to war with iran , obama would rather be campaigning ? And he wants to be president ? A vote to declare war with another nation and he ducked it.

That doesn't look to good for him , does it ?

I wonder how Obama feels when those words are coming out of his mouth as he makes the speech.

He could have done without those lines but I can blame him , he is behind in the polls.

by lori 2007-11-03 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

can't.

by lori 2007-11-03 10:36AM | 0 recs
He didn't duck the vote

as you so fallaciously claim.  He wasn't given enough time to return to the Senate b/c he was in New Hampshire.  What is even more strange, especially if you take into account the fact that Reid's kid works for Hillary, is the fact that Reid said there would be no vote in the near future, and then held the vote very soon after that.

But you are spinning like a top.  You can't have it both ways.  First you say the vote is unimportant and that it doesn't allow for troops in Iraq to be used for Iran war.  Then you say the vote is important[and, as you claimed in your last comment "declares war on Iran"], in which case Hillary should be on your shitlist since she voted for it.  But something tells me you're not here to perform any sort of critical thinking, just blind candidate sycophantry.

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: He didn't duck the vote

if you can't recognize sarcarsm . Then houston definitely has a problem .

Actually cnn reported yesterday that every senator was informed the night before the vote , that it was coming up the next day .

cnn basically true water on that excuse .

get a grip of yourself.

the kyl vote wasn't a vote to start a war with iran and it shouldn't have been in the speech.

by lori 2007-11-03 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: He didn't duck the vote

No, I guess I don't recognize your brand of sarcasm.

On CNN:

Think about it - who could these "senior Democratic Senate
aides" be, and why leak this now?  One of two reasons - either to help
Hillary by weakening Obama on the issue she's weakest on, or to cover
Harry Reid's ass for his blatant pro-Hillary move of the vote.  That there really aren't any other reasons for this statement other than
these two, neither of which reflects well on Harry Reid or Hillary
Clinton, means that they really should be considered questionable at
best until a "senior Democratic Senate aide" grows the huevos to sign
his or her name next to the statement.

Fact is, as a Clintonite you would rather talk about anything other than Clinton's vote on Kyl-Lieberman, which is the most important issue at hand here.

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

What you're saying just isn't true.  Go on, quote that "specific language."

Senators Akaka, Cardin, Conrad, Durbin, Levin, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, and Stabenow all voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.  Each and every one of them voted against the Iraq war.  Is it truly your contention that these 10 Senators are also in favor of "expanding the Iraq war into Iran"?

Now go on, call me names like you did with Lori.  You still won't be right.

by Steve M 2007-11-03 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment contains language that sets forth an entirely new rationale for keeping US troops in Iraq and, if need be, for attacking Iranian forces. The problematic language in the resolution says that it is a "critical national interest of the United States" to counter Iran's influence among the Shia population of Iraq. Without a doubt, President Bush can cite that language as authorizing him to maintain and use US troops in Iraq for the purpose of containing Iran, curtailing Iran's influence in Iraq, and, if need be, to expand our troops' activities beyond Iraq's borders to pursue and attack Iranian forces.

Having seen what this Administration - with its expansive view of its Executive Power - has done in the past with Congressional resolutions, it is naive to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment without simultaneously seeking explicit assurances that the President will never cite the amendment as a legal basis for deploying US troops to counter Iranian influence whether in Iraq or Iran. In fact, just weeks earlier, the Senate agreed unanimously to a similar Iran-related amendment. In that amendment, however, the Senate made clear that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran." To a person familiar with the practices and principles governing interpretation of statutory language, the absence of such language in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is significant.

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

This was what you said earlier on with certainty ,

" Also, she supported extending the Iraq war into Iran with her Kyl-Lieberman vote ".

Now you are saying this;

" The Kyl-Lieberman amendment contains language that sets forth an entirely new rationale for keeping US troops in Iraq and, if need be, for attacking Iranian forces. The problematic language in the resolution says that it is a "critical national interest of the United States" to counter Iran's influence among the Shia population of Iraq. Without a doubt, President Bush can cite that language as authorizing him to maintain and use US troops in Iraq for the purpose of containing Iran, curtailing Iran's influence in Iraq, and, if need be, to expand our troops' activities beyond Iraq's borders to pursue and attack Iranian forces."

Very incoherent in my view.

by lori 2007-11-03 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

Keep telling yourself that.

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

Let's be clear here.  You said:

The legislation contains specific language allowing for the use of Iraqi troops in Iran.

When I asked you to cite that specific language, you responded:

The problematic language in the resolution says that it is a "critical national interest of the United States" to counter Iran's influence among the Shia population of Iraq.

I think everyone can see how drastically you've overstated the case.  Finding that the United States ought to "counter Iran's influence among the Shia population of Iraq" hardly qualifies as "specific language" authorizing "the use of troops in Iran."

Would it be better if the amendment had contained the standard language saying "nothing in this amendment shall be construed to authorize the use of force..."?  Of course it would have.  Does that mean that any amendment which fails to include that language CAN be construed to authorize the use of force?  Only in blog-land, in my experience.

I'd like to be very clear.  Is it your position that Senators Akaka, Cardin, Conrad, Durbin, Levin, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, and Stabenow all support "extending the Iraq war into Iran"?  If so, considering all these Senators had the good judgment to vote against the Iraq war in the first place, shouldn't you at least consider the possibility that you're misconstruing the meaning of the bill?

by Steve M 2007-11-03 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

Parsing my statments?

Here's what you left out:

Having seen what this Administration - with its expansive view of its Executive Power - has done in the past with Congressional resolutions, it is naive to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment without simultaneously seeking explicit assurances that the President will never cite the amendment as a legal basis for deploying US troops to counter Iranian influence whether in Iraq or Iran. In fact, just weeks earlier, the Senate agreed unanimously to a similar Iran-related amendment. In that amendment, however, the Senate made clear that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran." To a person familiar with the practices and principles governing interpretation of statutory language, the absence of such language in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is significant.

My point:  Hillary called her vote "a vote for diplomacy," just like she called her AUMF vote a "vote for diplomacy."  The fact is, most of the Democrat senate were fooled by Bush, and now it seems like most of them have been fooled again.  This only highlights the need for fundamental change.  Someone needs to tell Hillary that you can't give the president a blank check and expect him not to cash it.

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

Yes, I understand that your argument basically amounts to "if you give Bush an inch, he'll take a mile."  That doesn't change the fact that you said there was "specific language allowing for the use of Iraqi troops in Iran."

Your personal interpretation of the amendment is not the same as "specific language," no matter how confident you are that you're correct.

Let's recall one thing before we start getting too glib about the similarities between this amendment and the AUMF.  AUMF, of course, stands for "authorization of military force."  That is to say, you can argue until you're blue in the face that you were hoping Bush would use diplomacy first, but if you voted for it then you voted to authorize the use of military force, there's no question about it.

The AUMF certainly did not, as the Kyl-Lieberman amendment does, vaguely declare that the US has an "interest" in that part of the world and leave it at that.  I like to think anyone can see the difference.

Paradoxically, the more people argue that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was indistinguishable from a declaration of war against Iran, the more they enable Bush to treat it as exactly that.

by Steve M 2007-11-03 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Which Hillary is the real Hillary?

Haven't time to parse with you right now, only cuz I'm headed off to work for the rest of the night.  Just didn't want you to think I wasn't responding b/c of any sort of logical deficiency, just time constraints.  Talk at you later :)

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Strongest Obama Speech Yet

That's a very strong speech.  I hope someone will post video, Obama is amazing when he's on his game.

by Steve M 2007-11-03 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: &quot;The Fierce Urgency of Now&quot;

He'll be crushed by any GOP contender. No substance whatsoever. All lies and red meat. He is a fraud.

by prisonbreak 2007-11-03 10:19AM | 0 recs
TRed

for blatant lies and accusations of fraudulency.  And calling one of our good Democratic leaders a liar.  Why don't you go back to FreeRepublic?

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: TRed

Funny.  The many diaries in which Hillary Clinton is accused of being a liar and a fraud don't receive your attention.  Is it because she is not one of "our good Democratic leaders"?    Don't you think there is a lot of hypocrisy guiding this stuff, or how else to explain that others don't get Tred for making the exact same statements about Hillary?

by georgep 2007-11-03 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: &quot;The Fierce Urgency of Now&quot;

Taken out hiding because of blatant ratings abuse by several individuals.   CANDIDATES ARE FAIR GAME, people.  If we are going to be sensitive about our candidate being attacked, where are these same people when the attacks are against Hillary?  

by georgep 2007-11-03 02:14PM | 0 recs
I don't like it.

It's all about Hillary.  The thing is when voters start thinking about that booth, alot of them are going to see pulling the lever for Hillary as a fundamental change.  Trying to lump her in with the Bush/Cheney is a fools errand.  

by bookgrl 2007-11-03 10:30AM | 0 recs
It's easy to lump her in with Bush/Cheney

when she gives them exactly what they want by voting for Kyl-Lieberman.

Furthermore, how could one possibly see voting for Hillary as a fundamnetal change after 28 years of BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH?

Fact is, if we put her into office, our democracy will be nothing more than two competing family monarchies.

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 10:56AM | 0 recs
Oh my, I know you are an

Obama supporter, but if you can not see a)that voters already see Bush and his Dad as distinctly different than Bill Clinton, and b)that voters see Hillary as something different altogether, then I suggest you are not living in reality.

by bookgrl 2007-11-03 11:00AM | 0 recs
Yeah, cuz the Clinton years were SO much

different than a typical Republican administration.

Clinton:  "the era of big government is over"

And then throughout the last decade we see Bill palling around with Bush constantly, like they're best buds.

We are talking about FUNDAMENTAL change here, and voting in the same to families for over there decades does NOT qualify as fundamental change.

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 11:06AM | 0 recs
If anythig, Obama's policies are less

fundamentally different than Hillary's.  This is fluff.  This isn't an actual arguement.  You are talking about a couple of politicians that are exetremly close on the issue.  And, by the way, Bill Clinton spent most of his presindency undoing the damage of Reagan.  That's why he was so fricken popular.

by bookgrl 2007-11-03 11:18AM | 0 recs
Well, he didn't do a very good job then

because I still see the effects of the Reagan administration EVERYWHERE.  AND he had eight years to do it in.

On Obama offering fundamental change:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/pol itics/02obama.html?_r=1&ref=world&am p;pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

If Obama is trying to distinguish himself from other American leaders on the Middle East, he's doing a great job. His published views today on Iran are smart, measured and statesmanlike, in contrast, for example, to Bush's speech on terrorism last night, in which the president once again raised the specter of Muslim hoards crashing across our borders to destroy the American way of life.

Take notice: on Iran, at least, Obama is speaking a new kind of language for mainstream American politics. For nearly 30 years since the Iranian revolution kicked out a shah who had been installed by the CIA, American leaders have been too timid to engage in a constructive dialogue with Iran. That includes Hillary's husband, whose curiosity was aroused by the moderate Khatami but failed to rise to the challenge of how to achieve a diplomatic opening for the good of both countries.

Now Obama says he's willing to go to Iran to talk without preconditions, reward Iran with positive changes in behavior and demonstrate that the U.S. is not hellbent on regime change.


Obama's approach thus makes more sense: it's coherent, it's humble, it's realistic, it might produce important results, and it strengthens America's moral authority and political standing if it proposes tough action against a recklessly recalcitrant Iran down the line.

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, he didn't do a very good job then

Well, it's nice rhetorically, but it is also the Democratic line.

by bookgrl 2007-11-03 11:30AM | 0 recs
If that's so

then Hillary does not tow the Democratic line[she kind of tows the Republican line it seems], b/c there is fundamental difference between Hillary and Obama's positions on Foreign Policy.

So, according to your logic, I guess it comes down to if you want to vote for Obama-- a true Democratic Democrat, or Hillary a Republican "Democrat".

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, he didn't do a very good job then

I'll just make one point here, since you know I love to play both sides.

I don't personally think there's a huge difference between Hillary and Obama on foreign policy.  I think they'd both pretty much pursue the mainstream Democratic line and I'm fine with that.  But Hillary's campaign sort of brought this line of attack on themselves somewhat when they originally played the "naive and irresponsible" card.

You'll recall that that attack related to a relatively minor dispute over meeting with foreign leaders.  My opinion was that too much was being made of the disagreement and that there wasn't much difference between their positions, and I was kind of surprised at Hillary's decision to make a major argument out of it.

But whether I'm right or wrong, they can't have it both ways.  Either they're both mainstream Democrats on foreign policy, in which case the "naive and irresponsible" attack was a bit of an overstatement, or there really are major differences between them, in which case some people are obviously going to prefer Obama's side of the debate.

I hope I made this clear.  I frankly still don't understand what was with that particular attack at that particular time, but I do think it somewhat undermines the narrative that the differences between the Democrats in this race are relatively small.

by Steve M 2007-11-03 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: &quot;The Fierce Urgency of Now&quot;

Obama is going to WIN.

It is HIS TIME.

by win 2007-11-03 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: &quot;The Fierce Urgency of Now&quot;

The only urgency I see is someone trying to save their flagging campaign in the space of two months and lifting their polls numbers which stagnated 8 months ago and hasn't moved since.

by reasonwarrior 2007-11-03 10:45AM | 0 recs
reasonwarrior+MarkPenn=don't bother voting?

You should join up with Mark Penn and you could help push his inevitability argument.  Hell, noone should vote anyway, just annoint Hillary queen and be done with it.

Fact is, Hillary's in a statistical dead heat with Obama for Iowa, which in case you didn't know, is basically the most important state in the whole nation for deciding nominees.  Every candidate that wins there gets a 20 point bump in the polls just about every time and Iowa voters are none too happy with Hillary and her Kyl-Lieberman vote and her double-talk and unsavory campaign tactics.  The MSM built her up by holding her hand for the past several months and now they're going to tear her down.  It'll be fun for you to watch.

What was it Obama said:  "She's not the only Washington politican to declare 'mission accomplished' a little too soon."

by ReggieH 2007-11-03 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: reasonwarrior+MarkPenn=don't bother voting?

It will be fun to watch you proven dead-wrong (again.)  

Just show up here once in a while, win or lose,  not just once every 3 months, and not only when you think your candidate may be "on the upswing."

by georgep 2007-11-03 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: &quot;The Fierce Urgency of Now&quot;

Finally a stump speech that fits both the candidate and the campaign.  Well done.

by Ryan Anderson 2007-11-03 12:32PM | 0 recs
by rapcetera 2007-11-03 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's letter to Hillary Clinton...

This could become a big issue in Iowa if Clinton doesn't have her records released sooner.  Voters are going to remember that she hasn't been open with them when it comes time to vote.

by Namtrix 2007-11-03 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: "The Fierce Urgency of Now"

Very apt. Instead, they fell into him saying he was running for "commander in chief' instead of president; the sort of inane thing that spending $600K on polling messaging in a couple of quarters a year before the caucus brings you.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-11-03 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: &quot;The Fierce Urgency of Now&quot;

Jerome, for one of the 100 most influential liberals in America, you sure speak in tongues a lot.

by Steve M 2007-11-03 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: &quot;The Fierce Urgency of Now&quot;

Nate was correct about Obama's excessive harping on "experience,"  which was to the detriment of other messages he might have had to convey within that same mindshare.   I would also mention his excessive use of his 2002 AUMF vote.  I watched his PBS interview a few weeks back, and he was asked about it by Tavis Smiley.  He stated that he brings it up all the time because he finds that many people don't know about this, so he makes it a major point all the time, hoping that eventually it sinks in.    I think that, also, has been a mistake, because message repetition is not always the best way, especially when that message does not really resonate with voters.    The incessant repetetiveness has led to many people's eyes glazing over.  

Of course, he is now on this new track, but I have to agree with lori above:  Some of the claims Obama is making there are nothing short of disingenious, an absolute fabrication.   In no way can Obama credibly make the claim the Clinton supports extending the war from Iraq into Iran.  He is also absolutely wrong about his claim that Clinton has flip-flopped on whether our nation should use torture.    Highly disingenious.   A shame that Obama is now resorting to cheap lies to try to score points.   Very desperate, but I trust that intelligent people see through these lies and realize them for what they really are.  

I thought Obama a decent guy, yes, a politician's politician, but that is not always a bad thing.   But these disingenious statements that Clinton actually wants to EXTEND THE WAR FROM IRAQ INTO IRAN and that she was for torture at any point have shown me that he is willing to stoop very, very low, into the realm of the unacceptable and truth fudging.  IMHO shameful.      

by georgep 2007-11-03 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: &quot;The Fierce Urgency of Now&quot;

Google tells me that at one time, Hillary said it might be acceptable to torture in certain "imminent" circumstances.

At some point, she met with a bunch of generals who clued her in that, you know, that ticking time-bomb scenario never actually happens.

So she revised her position to be okay, we should not have a policy of using torture under any circumstances.

Those seem to be the facts as far as I can tell.

by Steve M 2007-11-03 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: &quot;The Fierce Urgency of Now&quot;

That seems like quite the stretch to me.  I  believe she was talking about a highly hypothetical case that is not realistic a all, armageddon meets purgatory type end of world stuff.   Even Tim Russert, who is certainly into "gotcha" tried to score points off Bill Clinton on torture, not Hillary, in the next to last debate.  

However you want to argue on that, the notion that Hillary Clinton wants to expand the war from Iraq to Iran is absolute junk and does not hold up to scrutiny.  I consider that as bold a lie as I have seen.  I guess we have indeed entered a new phase.  The phase of disingenious reasoning on the part of those lagging far behind.  

by georgep 2007-11-03 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: &quot;The Fierce Urgency of Now&quot;

I believe I took that on upthread somewhere, at great length.

Who would have thought, indeed, that Dick Durbin, Patty Murray and Jack Reed all want to expand the Iraq war into Iran?  Amazing, what you learn in politics.

by Steve M 2007-11-03 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: &quot;The Fierce Urgency of Now&quot;

Great speech.  This paragraph in particular:


When I'm your nominee, my opponent won't be able to say that I was for the war in Iraq before I was against it; or that I supported an extension of the Iraq war into Iran; or that I support the Bush-Cheney diplomacy of not talking to leaders we don't like. And he won't be able to say that I flip-flopped on something as fundamental as whether our nation should use torture. Because we are not a nation that makes excuses for torture, we are a nation that rejects it. That's the change we can offer in 2008.

This could be our strongest, clearest difference between Democrat and Republican.  We foolishly threw away both the War issue and clarity, when we didn't pick an anti-War candidate in 2004.  If we do it once again, go with a candidate who was for it before he/she was against it,  we do so at our peril.

by Piuma 2007-11-03 04:21PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


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