Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote?

Subtitle: How Hillary won the Primary

Right now it seems that the political atmosphere is ripe for a Democratic sweep in November.  I was among the conventional thinkers early on in this decade who wouldn't have predicted it so soon and certainly not this way:  Republican implosion mostly because of George Bush.   Yet the issues that seem to motivate the most fervent anti-bush sentiment here and on the 'net are almost universally supported by "national democrats".   Those are the people who perceive that they have a future as a party leader.  

For example, no serious person thinks Hillary would have voted against FISA had she been the Dem. nominee in waiting, but freed from "responsibility" she panders to the left.

The main issue that propelled Obama to being on the cusp of our next POTUS was that he "had the judgement" to be against the Iraq War when all of the seasonsed and experienced politicians got it wrong.   They enabled Bush, while Obama "took a bold stand".

I didn't believe it for one minute during the primaries.  Many on the Hillary side tried to show the flip-flops in 2004 and 2006 when it wasn't certain where the politics were on the issue.

But now the question for all democrats is:

Does anyone serious still believe Obama would have opposed the 2002 war resolution?

The evidence all points to a resounding NO!

Every instinct he has shown has been toward being a mainstream democrat.

There hasn't been 1 issue where he is willing to stand on his own and fight it out.

Take the "talk with Iran w/o preconditions" bit.   Once his aides and Obama finished explaining and "refining", it is hardly "change" or radically different from Bush or the bulk  of the Democratic Party.

same on FISA
same on Guns
same on every single major issue.

What we are left with is quite simple:

A mainstream left-leaning democrat who doesn't want the liberal label, whose biggest selling point is that he has black skin.

This in and of itself  represents real change from our nation's history.

For any real democrat like me, the bottom line is Obama is not only acceptable, he is great for the party.

He will maximize black turnout while disarming fears of wild-eyed liberals.

That is why any betting person would wager on an Obama-democratic surge in November once he turns the Speech machine back on.

No way to do that now and maintain it for months and months through the Olympics and the rest.

But I think at the least Obama Primary supporters should apologize to people like me who tried to tell you:

he's playing the race card
he's a typical politician

You still won.  Obama has brought me and must of us home to the Dem party.

But come on, admit it,

If I told you what the Dem. nominee would do for  the month after the primary in terms of positions on issues and "values" they wanted to project,

you'd get depress because you'd think

Hillary won!

Well  in a way she did.
and that is good  for the party and our nation.

Tags: Barrack Obama, craig farmer, Iraq War, newliberals (all tags)

Comments

121 Comments

Yes.

Yes.

by HSTruman 2008-07-10 11:31AM | 0 recs
Yes.

Yes.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-10 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes.

Yes

by kasjogren 2008-07-10 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes.

Guys, I think we're being to hasty here.  Let me sit back and think about it for a minute...

OK, yes.

by SpideyDem 2008-07-10 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes.

Yes

by the mollusk 2008-07-10 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes.

Yes.

by MeganLocke 2008-07-10 08:26PM | 0 recs
Oh, yellowdem

My day was a little shabby, but now I have your latest anti-Obama screed to look at, so I'm cheered a little.

What's "all the evidence" that Obama would have voted for the war?  A link, maybe?  A quote or voting record?  C'mon, give us something substantial besides "I told you so."

I don't think you've ever made a credible case against Obama in the dozens of diaries you've written, which is actually kinda sad.  Nobody likes to be thought of as non-credible.

by Dracomicron 2008-07-10 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, yellowdem

Based on the poll's about Iraq with hind sight yes Obama and now Clinton would have voted against the AUMF in 2002

Senator's from the same state generally vote alike. Durbin and 22 OTHER SENATOR'S VOTED AGAINST THE WAR and so would Barack.

by BDM 2008-07-10 11:39AM | 0 recs
what world are you talking about?

feintein yes boxer no
dodd no lieberman yes
kennedy no  kerry yes

need I go on?

by yellowdem1129 2008-07-10 11:43AM | 0 recs
evidence?

DVR the news from any day for the last month.

The context reads: Obama is normal like us rather than a left-winger.

-2nd amendment right to defend
-campaignfinance -he actually is going to use an advantage he has, rather  than making things fair for McCain
-Fisa--remember the promise to filibuster
-Iraq war funding/Iraq war "refinement"

Can't you be honest and admint, Hillary Clinton's way of being a Democrat won out?

I admit it is  better coming from obama because his real change is in his being an African American.

by yellowdem1129 2008-07-10 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: evidence?

I object to the "fair" for McCain comment, anyone not sleeping through the past 8 years knows that there is no way this current system that allows for all this sub groups is "fair". 2nd ammendment stance = A OK, he's for restrictions, very few people are for outright abolition. FISA, I agree with you with one caveat, no one fights losing fights in the middle of an election, it's a little silly.

by Dog Chains 2008-07-10 12:02PM | 0 recs
A black guy is going to be President -

Deal with it.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-07-10 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: evidence?

It's amusing to me that you take a few dozen words spoken recently about the second amendment to define Obama's position, but you ignore a number of actual votes he made on gun control in the past that define a very different position.

The Iraq war thing is bs too. He's not changed his position at all. He's going to seek advice of those on the ground to help him formulate a solid plan for withdrawal. Seeking advice doesn't mean you have to take it or all of it and seeking it doesn't mean change that his plan is withdraw the troops. I guess as a lefty I'm supposed to be happy if he'd said he'd ignore what any one else said and just did what he wanted without any sort of studied consideration? That sounds like Bush to me.

by Quinton 2008-07-10 12:25PM | 0 recs
For a Democrat planning ro run for Senate

from Illinois "Anti War" was a popular position to take in 2002 here is the evidence:

There is a false presumption on the part of the public and the media regarding the speech Sen. Obama made on Chicago lake front.

Let us go to the facts: Sen. Obama delivered his now famous "Iraq war speech" on October 2nd 2002. The Iraq war resolution was passed by the House of Representatives on October 10th and passed by the senate on October 11th. By October 2002 Obama had already made up his mind to run for the US Senate. He was well aware that the majority of the Illinois Democratic delegation was going to vote against the war resolution. In fact it is public record that 9 out of 12 Democrats in the Illinois delegation voted against the resolution. Here is the list:


Sen Dick Durbin- Rep Jerry Costello- Rep Danny Davis- Rep Lane Evans- Rep Luis Gutierrez Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr- Rep Bill Lipinski- Sen Bobby Rush- Rep Jan Schakowsky

by indydem99 2008-07-10 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: For a Democrat planning ro run for Senate

I'm not sure why you attached your comment to mine as it doesn't address anything I said, but... I've long said that taking the anti-war position was easy and a smart move for Obama to make to stand out in what was going to be a crowded senate primary and for the general election in a liberal state. You can check my comments dating back to the beginning of the presidential primary if ya like ;)

by Quinton 2008-07-10 01:04PM | 0 recs
evidence?

DVR the news from any day for the last month.

The context reads: Obama is normal like us rather than a left-winger.

-2nd amendment right to defend
-campaignfinance -he actually is going to use an advantage he has, rather  than making things fair for McCain
-Fisa--remember the promise to filibuster
-Iraq war funding/Iraq war "refinement"

Can't you be honest and admint, Hillary Clinton's way of being a Democrat won out?

I admit it is  better coming from obama because his real change is in his being an African American.

by yellowdem1129 2008-07-10 11:41AM | 0 recs
double-post aside...

2nd amendment right to defend

Not substantively different than previous positions.  He is pro-gun control but understands the 2nd amendment.

-campaignfinance -he actually is going to use an advantage he has, rather  than making things fair for McCain

There was never any "pledge" and the conditionals Obama originally put on public financing were not met by McCain, who hasn't acted on good faith on this issue even once (there is a lawsuit pending by the DNC on McCain's primary shenanigans).

-Fisa--remember the promise to filibuster

I do remember his promise regarding a different bill in December.  Conceding that the situation has changed makes him practical, not centrist or prone to abandon beliefs.

-Iraq war funding/Iraq war "refinement"

Dumb wingnut talking point.  His "refinement" has never significantly diverged from his original position, which was removing the troops in 16 months as a goal with allowances for responding to the situation on the ground.

Basically what you're suggesting is that Obama is abandoning his values by simply being practical and understanding that not everything is black and white.

I understand that some netroots are myopic on these issues, but I'd say the majority of us understand that nothing is ever perfect.  Except yellowdem1129's* silliness.

by Dracomicron 2008-07-10 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: evidence?

Can you be honest and admit that Obama won the nomination and that Hillary lost? These are Obama's stands on the issues. Just because Hillary agrees with him on most points doesn't give Hillary ownership of them. Hillary lost. Obama won. The statements and stances you are talking about are pretty much the same ones Obama has always held. That's one reason I supported him, because I agreed with him on a lot of issues. I also agreed with him on the war and on the use of diplomacy. I didn't agree with Hillary on her AUMF vote and on her 'obliterate' Iran comments. It's as simple as that. I'm sorry that you are only now coming to understand Obama. Perhaps you would have supported him instead of Hillary if you had done so sooner.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-10 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, yellowdem
Dracro is right on. Obama has won fair and square
Senator Clinton backs our candidate who in fact did oppose the war. We have his voting record. Let's see your evidence
by Politicalslave 2008-07-10 02:42PM | 0 recs
Bullsh*t diary.

A mainstream left-leaning democrat who doesn't want the liberal label, whose biggest selling point is that he has black skin.

This again? You've got to be f*cking kidding me.

by sricki 2008-07-10 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Bullsh*t diary.

Yikes.  Stay classy, yellowdem!

by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-10 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Bullsh*t diary.

It's commentary on the demographics.  Those numbers speak loud and clear.  There is no issue with pointing out demographics.

by ChitownDenny 2008-07-10 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Bullsh*t diary.

"whose biggest selling point is that he has black skin."

Yep, that constitutes "commentary on demographics."  Whatever...

by HSTruman 2008-07-10 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Bullsh*t diary.

You can Bill Clinton this point.  You can Geraldine Ferraro this point.  That makes you an attack dog; that doesn't make the point accurate.

by ChitownDenny 2008-07-10 12:04PM | 0 recs
What point?

In case you missed it:

It's is a HUGE LEAP OF LOGIC to believe that American black males go from Driving While Black to Preferred For President. From most incarcerated to "Here, have some nukes". I mean...what is the reasoning? You think some nice articulatin' is going to make people essentially offer up their daughters? What about the secret emails? What about the Obama-in-crosshairs magazine?

There is no path from reality to this Affirmative Action fantasy you want to push. 20% of a state admitted that that voted against the black dude. That's a fact against the AA theory. There is absolutely no evidence (Ferarro's rock-solid proof aside) FOR the assertion. None, in fact you have to ignore an amazing amount of evidence of bias AGAINST him.

Now do you see why it's baldly offensive? You CAN'T make that assertion from facts, it's by definition a statement of perception and bias.

by Neef 2008-07-10 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: What point?
"Now do you see why it's baldly offensive?"
No!
You're talking apples and oranges.  The demographics that supported Obama in the primary, as has been consistently pointed out, are the youth vote, the affluent Indie/Dem vote, and the AA vote.  So speaking to the demographics about one subset of demograpghics is offensive?  Well, if you want to make it offensive, it is, as we have witnessed and continue to do so.
by ChitownDenny 2008-07-10 12:49PM | 0 recs
There is a huge difference

between pointing out the demographics that support him (as you do) and asserting that "the best thing he has going for him is that he's black" or "he's only going to win because he's black".

It's an assertion that blackness alone wins the Oval Office. Even "brilliant black orator, who can triangulate his ass off" is reasonable (tho I'd disagree).

You're saying black is all it takes to be President.

by Neef 2008-07-10 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: There is a huge difference

Inartfullness is not racist.  Perhaps not you, but there are many who seek to capitalize on the distinction.

by ChitownDenny 2008-07-10 01:02PM | 0 recs
Where the distinction becomes important

is where people dismiss the dozen OTHER things that went into him being the Nominee. The intelligence, the oratory, the strategy, and yes to some of us - the integrity. Including his blackness isn't offensive, it's the dismissing of every damn thing else.

How many people in his situation have his life story? Harvard, Princeton, Author, Senator, Nominee. Yet his defining characteristic, the thing that has taken him to this point - is his skin color? Look, I am not one to be faux offended. But I hope you do see how jarring that mindset can sound.

by Neef 2008-07-10 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Where the distinction becomes important

I get it.  You like Obama.  Not saying anything wrong with that.  I, and many others, are saying he has to earn our vote.  But the context of this diary, IMO, speaks to the truth.  Smearing the context, whether artfully worded or not, does not change the context.

by ChitownDenny 2008-07-10 01:26PM | 0 recs
I'd like to think

all my points have at least conveyed sincerity. I am not "smearing" or intentionally misconstruing the diarist.

And please don't misunderstand. I respect that he needs to earn your vote. I can see you might feel he's inexperienced, or wishy-washy, or what have you. I'm irked when someone says he triangulated he way to the Nomination - but I am NOT offended.

I'm offended when a person who is where he is, is treated as simply a bag of lucky brown skin. Sorry man, that just isn't right.

by Neef 2008-07-10 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd like to think
Excellent comment.  
"I'm offended when a person who is where he is, is treated as simply a bag of lucky brown skin. Sorry man, that just isn't right."
If I thought Bill, Geraldine, or this diarist (who by the way is AA) espoused those sentiments, I'd be the first to troll all over those comments.  Personally, I think there is a distinction between discussing the demographics and racism.
by ChitownDenny 2008-07-10 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: There is a huge difference

President Sharpton,President Jesse Jackson and yes, President Alan Keys would all agree, being black is a FANTASTIC advantage.

by Darknesse 2008-07-10 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: There is a huge difference

That's like saying President Biden, President, Dodd, President Edwards, etc., this year, untold numbers from campaigns past, are appreciative for the advantage of being white.

by ChitownDenny 2008-07-10 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: There is a huge difference

No, it's like saying President Bush, President Clinton, President Bush, President Reagan, President Carter, President Ford, President Nixon, President Johnson (actually, he was Korean I believe), President Kennedy, President Eisenhauer, President Truman, President Roosevelt, President Hoover, President Coolidge (another Korean), President Harding, President Wilson, President Taft, President Roosevelt, President McKinley, President Cleveland............................... ....... ........................

are appreciative for the advantage of being white.

Except, as noted above, for the two Korean women who slipped in.

by MeganLocke 2008-07-10 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: What point?

I believe being the type of black person he has portrayed himself to be is a selling point.

There is a reason why blacks who were active in the civil rights era can never become POTUS.

by feelfree 2008-07-10 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: What point?

And what type of black person gets to be President?

One who's really not TOO black. Frankly. I think the terms were Articulate and Clean (that's mostly snark, I still love Joe).

Again, the Affirmative Action supposition is completely unsupported, and because it is so baldly out in left field, it comes off badly.

by Neef 2008-07-10 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: What point?


The types who sell themselves as relief from those so-called angry. black race-baiters like Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young and others.

So-called progressives have affirmed these type of black politicians by giving them labels such as the post-racial and/or transcending race.

by feelfree 2008-07-10 01:16PM | 0 recs
Jesse Jackson?

You mean "Hymietown" Jesse? Jesse the Cutter-of-Nuts?

There is a real generational divide in the AA community, much like among feminists. The "old guard" has seen too much, they ARE angry, and with cause. However, you won't get into the Oval Office being pissed at America.

The new generation (Obama, Ford, Patrick) doesn't "sell" themselves as post-racial, they see themselves that way.

by Neef 2008-07-10 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Jesse Jackson?

Yes the old guard shows up when an unarmed black male has been gunned down by the police and when a mother and her children are stuck on top of her roof in a flooded city. They speak openly about the discrimination in jobs, housing, healthcare, etc.

The new guard does nothing and says nothing.

by feelfree 2008-07-10 01:29PM | 0 recs
Why kill a good argument

with absolutes? "nothing"?

Please don't make me look up stuff from O's Chicago days, you KNOW he's done work for the community.

And let's not pretend Al Sharpton is a lot of places the cameras aren't.

by Neef 2008-07-10 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: What point?

There's a reason why ANYONE seen as a specific advocate for a minority group (save veterans) will even become President.

If Bush had run on being a great Evangelical, he would have lost. Being President is about handling everything.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: What point?

This rule only applies to black politicians.

I don't know why you would use Bush and evangelical example. There is a reason why stem cell research has been limited and why he has made extremely conservative appointments to SCOTUS.

by feelfree 2008-07-10 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Bullsh*t diary.

If you think that's a harmless demographic reference, fine.  I think you're ridiculous, but then again I firmly think that Geraldine Ferraro is a confirmed bigot at this point.  

I do not think that Bill Clinton is racist, by the way.  He merely made some inartful comments when he was angry that his wife had lost a primary.  I don't really fault the man for that.  This kind of stuff is different, as you're essentially saying that the only reason Obama won the primary is because he's black.  In addition to being objectively ridiculous to say, in light of the challenges that racial minorities continue to face in 2008, that's also an offensive statement that minimizes all of Obama's strengths and skills that have nothing to do with his race.    

But I digress.  Feel free to get back to defending Geraldine and explaining to us why Obama is so lucky that he's black.  

by HSTruman 2008-07-10 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Bullsh*t diary.

I agree.  In regards to Ferraro, had she only made these kind of statements towards Obama she MIGHT be provided some wiggle room for her comments.  The fact that she made similar remarks about Jesse Jackson while he was running tells me all I need to know about Ferraro's real feelings on the matter.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-10 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Bullsh*t diary.
"I think you're ridiculous."
Oh yeah?  You're mother wears combat boots.  How's that for discourse?  Grow up!
Now, replying to the rest of your comment;
I did not say anything about why Obama is the presumptive nominee.  Nevertheless, for you or anyone to ignore the AA vote that came out for him in overwhelming numbers (as is their legitimate right), is disingenous.
by ChitownDenny 2008-07-10 01:14PM | 0 recs
Well, in that case

Bill Clinton is lucky he's black too =)

by Neef 2008-07-10 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, in that case

Light skinned.

by ChitownDenny 2008-07-10 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Bullsh*t diary.

This thread started when you defended a comment that stated that Obama's skin color was his biggest selling point.  That sure seems to attribute race as the reason that he won the nomination.  As to Obama winning huge among african american voters, I suspect there was an element of pride involved with those numbers.  Just as there was with Senator Clinton winning huge margins among older women.  So what?  That's not a basis for saying that Senator Clinton was only a serious contender because she was a woman.  In point of fact, woman - like racial minorities - have to be BETTER candidates than a generic white man to even be in a position to run for the presidency.  That's the point I think you and this diarist are missing.  And it's a big point.  

And my mother wears hiking boots, not combat boots, just for the record.  She loves the outdoors.    

by HSTruman 2008-07-10 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Bullsh*t diary.

God I missed you...Don't you ever do that again:)

by hootie4170 2008-07-10 03:55PM | 0 recs
Oh, I'm sorry, hootie...

I'm back in town, but I'm not fully back on MyDD yet. I'm not very happy here right now. Yellowdem's diaries always piss me off, though, so I HAD to call him out on that particular line. Outrageous statements may occasionally grab my attention, but I will mostly be rec'ing, rating, and lurking -- I will respond to any direct comments, however.

By the way, I saw that diary you wrote for us. I would have missed it, but some of the other C4O's sent out an email. I wanted to say thank you. A lot of us have been treated poorly, which is part of the reason I don't want to be here much anymore. They've called me a faux Clintonista and a concern troll, and I was offended. Silly reason to leave, but I don't have enough patience to waste on those people. Your diary was wonderful, though, much appreciated, and much needed.

For the record, I missed you too. MyDD still has quite a few good people, and you're definitely one of them. Hopefully I won't be on sabbatical for too long.

by sricki 2008-07-10 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, I'm sorry, hootie...

I will try and hold the fort down...

by hootie4170 2008-07-10 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, I'm sorry, hootie...

Take a breather and come back when you feel like it, but don't take too long.  Your diaries and comments are missed.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-10 08:39PM | 0 recs
typical politician IMO

nothing new

by soyousay 2008-07-10 11:38AM | 0 recs
Die Hard quote time:

Holly Gennero McClane: After all your posturing, all your speeches, you're nothing but a common thief.
Hans Gruber: I am an exceptional thief, Mrs. McClane.  And since I'm moving up to kidnapping, you should be more polite.

Seriously, there's nothing "typical" about Obama as a politician, but he is still a politician.

by Dracomicron 2008-07-10 11:43AM | 0 recs
name 1 thing not "typical'

where you could say,

can't believe he did that?

no political  benefit to that?

He must just really believe it.

Honestly, Obama presented himself as if he was McCain before this Presidential race.

McCain actually was "real change",then he changed back.

by yellowdem1129 2008-07-10 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: name 1 thing not "typical'

First of all, your challenge isn't really fair, since any position brings with it a host of advantages and disadvantages. The temporary suspension of the gas tax, for instance. As Jerome and others argued, it is a position that many voters instinctively support. However, economists and other experts unanimously dismiss the idea (even tax-hating libertarians at CATO).

So, it required a little political courage to resist supporting a temporary suspension of the gas tax (Obama could have easily adopted Hillary's position since he had supported a similar suspension as a state senator, though he did not vote for it the second time it was proposed in the Illinois senate). On the other hand, there were potential advantages to opposing a suspension, as Obama could use such opposition to bolster his anti-pander creditials. But, given the difficulty of convincing ordinary voters--by citing/reciting sophisticated economic arguments--that a gas tax is a bad idea convinces me that his position was a more courageous one than the alternative.

All that said, I would note that Obama voted against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because of his worries that it would compromise abortion rights (the IL version lacked certain language included in the federal version, which passed almost unanimously). That was a very risky move (for someone with higher political ambitions, which he clearly did at the time) with little political benefit.

by DPW 2008-07-10 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: name 1 thing not "typical'

the born live act is a good example.

I doubt if he would do it today.

That's the point.

by yellowdem1129 2008-07-10 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Die Hard quote time:

OK...He's exceptional at re-positioning but a typical politician when it comes to not standing his ground. What is "his ground" anyway? :D

by soyousay 2008-07-10 11:47AM | 0 recs
Good question

What is "his ground" anyway? :D

You're the one suggesting that he's not holding it, so it's up to you to define it. :P

by Dracomicron 2008-07-10 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Good question

I can't because he doesn't hold it.

by soyousay 2008-07-10 11:52AM | 0 recs
Obama is an astronaut?

I prefer "supernaut!"

+cue guitar riff+

by Dracomicron 2008-07-10 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Good question

I used to think he was a John Kerry type elitist, but according to Sen. Obama, he never was and I wasn't listening.

So I think he is actually defining his true ground  now andholding it, which is a moderate democrat who is making an effort to do what's right.

The real change is to be a black democrat rather than a white republican.

I bring in black because I don't think he would  win without it.  Democrat because it is our year.

other than that, he's no
Russ Feingold
Barbara Lee
Bob Kerrey
Barney Frank
Harold Ford

I named people who have stood for things unpopular and thus get criticized.

by yellowdem1129 2008-07-10 11:55AM | 0 recs
"John Kerry type elitist"

Oh, bite me.

We get enough of that from admitted right-wingers without you shovelling that at us.

You know what Obama's "real change" is?  He's going to win the presidency.  Lord knows we have enough problems with that as it is.  You love DLC sellout Harold Ford, but he can't even win his congressional spot in a landslide Democratic year.  Its galling that you'd even list him with Russ Feingold.

Obama's stances have always been somewhat centrist, with an emphasis on actual solutions that work.  Those of us who actually do research on our candidate's selling points instead of just what can be used to attack the opposition knew this for months before this supposed "swing to the center."

by Dracomicron 2008-07-10 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: "John Kerry type elitist"

You make the mistake of assuming they actually want him to win. Most would never admit it, but they don't.

by vcalzone 2008-07-10 01:33PM | 0 recs
That much is clear

Humoring them makes the inevitable idiotic admissions worthwhile.  Sometimes.

by Dracomicron 2008-07-10 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Good question

God, I hope he's no Harold Ford. You obviously don't have a clue about Ford other than from his appearances on the talk shows. Ford lost his election bid, because people perceive him as coming from a family full of corrupt politicians. The Repugs ran racist ads, but those wouldn't have been enough if it wasn't for the taint of corruption. Harold Ford's uncle and mentor is on trial for corruption in Nashville, TN right now. Another relative, Edmund Ford was on trial in May on a  bribery charge. There are other members of the family that have also been charged with corruption. The people in Tennessee are well aware of those connections and rightfully rejected Ford.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-10 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose

I am a yellow dog democrat and you sir or lady are not one.

by Spanky 2008-07-10 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose

google my  yellowdem1129, craig farmer,  newliberals, etc.

you'll see years of me working within the democratic party for reform.

agree/disagree

I'm a yellowdog dem.

I vote straight Dem in Maryland.

like it or not, our nominee is more like me than you:

a black male
common sense values (apparently)
democrat

by yellowdem1129 2008-07-10 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose

how are you a newliberal when you are a centrist-right and anti-gay?

Is that an oxymoron?

And why do you keep referring to Fiengold, Dodd, etc. as if you respect these people, they are not your type at all.  And if you are legitimate, why are you always trashing Obama, don't you want a democrat to win?

by KLRinLA 2008-07-10 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war

Let the flaming begin, because:  Rec'd!

by ChitownDenny 2008-07-10 11:45AM | 0 recs
Guessing Games

Guessing games are fun, but they are still guessing games.

How Obama would have voted as a Senator on AUMF don't know don't care. How Hillary would have voted on FISA if she were the nominee. Don't know don't care. Apples and oranges

All in all I find your diary intellectually weak to the extreme.

by jsfox 2008-07-10 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

Seriously. I get that he is a politician. I get that this is politics. I differ with the political parties lack of balls with various votes including the war vote, including the FISA vote etc.  But I get the politics of it all, which is why Clinton's vote didn't offend since she has a HISTORY that I can base what her future actions will be. Obama does not which means votes like this cause me more concern.  He isn't a practiced politician yet so I don't know how far he will carry these actions...  All I can do is vote for him & hope for the best.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote
Hillary's voting history is about 8 years long, Obama's starts back in 1997 when he was in the Illinois Senate.
So he's actually got a longer voting record than she does.
And you can look at that voting record and see that he is and has always been a centrist, who works with both parties to pass legislation. He's always been for fair trade, he's always supported a woman's right to choose, he supports nuclear power, he is against the war, but has voted for funding every single time, just as Hillary has.
He did change his stance on FISA, but frankly, that is something that we can deal with later, after he is president.
And you're right, he is a very good politician- he gets along with both Republicans and Democrats, and I think in the long run that will work very much in our favor, especially in terms of withdrawing from Iraq and maybe with health care (though I think that's going to be a big fight, I remember what Hillary had to deal with).
And the alternative (4 more years of Bush policies) is simply unacceptable.
by skohayes 2008-07-10 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

I actually didn't say he was a GOOD politician - I said he is playing politics - I get why it is being done - but I think he may be fumbling. I don't think he will win over those this vote is meant to appeal to in his attempt to APPEAR centrist (he will not be perceived that way at all) & he will lose people in the Democratic base who are looking for a reason to vote for him but view him with skepticism.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-11 03:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

If you're not any good at playing the game, you don't get anything done.
And apparently his votes on FISA and the other issues he's been talking about have had a positive effect on his poll numbers:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has done a far more effective job than Republican John McCain in recent weeks moving himself to the middle in the minds of voters, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys.

During the Primary campaign season, Obama was viewed as politically liberal by an ever-increasing number of voters that grew to 67% by early June. However, since clinching the nomination, he has reversed that trend and is now seen as liberal by only 56%.

Twenty-two percent (22%) characterize the Democrat as Very Liberal, down from 36% early last month.

McCain similarly has been seen as politically conservative by more and more voters, also hitting 67% a month ago, but he is still viewed that way by 66%. While19% saw him as Very Conservative in early June, that figure now has risen to 28%.

The Democratic candidate is viewed as a political moderate by 27%, up from 22% three weeks earlier, while McCain is seen as a moderate by 23%, down from 26% in the survey at the beginning of June.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/mood_of_america/voters_perce ive_obama_moving_to_the_middle

And yes, he's pissed some of the hard progressives off with his vote on FISA, but most are still going to vote for him.
He actually moved left for the primary and is now going back to more of his centrist views, and now more voters are seeing him as less of a "radical liberal" (which is a good thing, IMO).

by skohayes 2008-07-11 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

Right - I don't believe he is good at playing the game - I think he is trying to hard to be something to everyone & in the end he will be nothing to no one.  

by jrsygrl 2008-08-10 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: She's a practiced politican?

Sen. Jackson, Jr. has held elective office longer than Obama.  Mayor Daley has held elective office longer than Obama.  Is number of years in elective office the criteria or accomplishments on the national scene the criteria?

by ChitownDenny 2008-07-10 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know

Wrong - Clinton is not comparable to an empty dress first lady. For Christ sakes she was profiled in 1969 by Life Magazine as a major up & comer politically...She has had major impact on our political scene for the past three decades both from a party & a legal perspective. What about her fricking landmark involvement in the Watergate hearings???  The GOP has had their sights on her specifically & smearing her for DECADES b/c of the political threat she posed & impact she had...

Seriously the fact that people dismiss this is disturbing. Of course I know people also forget easily too - it is human & unfortunate.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-11 03:41AM | 0 recs
Eye of the beholder

A mainstream left-leaning democrat who doesn't want the liberal label, whose biggest selling point is that he has black skin.

Nice. Here's a couple more selling points:

1) One of the greatest current orators, already credited with several historic speeches, and able to energize thousands. Obviously, YOU see that shit every day, I do not.

2) Not just liberal, but reasonably populist:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/200 8/07/09/obama_moves_to_the_populist/

3) Not just populist, but an actual uniter who can't suffer stupid. This one alone seals my deal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinio n/10collins.html?ref=opinion

4) A Democrat who's running to make the entire MAP more Democratic. Dean gets credit for the 50-state strat, but Obama is hardly average for following it.

5) A Dem with a creditable, if not overwhelming, chance to win the WH. The way you people talk we have winning Dems pouring out of our ears. I guess Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, McGovern were all sub-average. Yeah.

To recap: You see affirmative action. Some of us see a lot more.

by Neef 2008-07-10 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Eye of the beholder

Wow, loved that NYT link- everybody read that!!

by skohayes 2008-07-10 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

Bub buh buh?
Bub buh buh.
Bub buh buh?
Bub buh buh.
Bub buh buh?
Bub buh buh.
Bub buh buh?
Bub buh buh.
Bub buh buh?

The above was more productive than this diary.

by bosdcla14 2008-07-10 12:26PM | 0 recs
once AGAIN with the demands for apoligies

"But I think at the least Obama Primary supporters should apologize to people like me who tried to tell you:

he's playing the race card
he's a typical politician"

You want me to apologize to whom for what?

Man, the Hillary crowd and their NEVER-ENDING demands for apologies?

How DO you poor folks make it through your life, without having some kind of crying jag, hissy fit, or complete breakdown is beyond me.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-10 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: once AGAIN with the demands for apoligies

"How DO you poor folks make it through your life, without having some kind of crying jag, hissy fit, or complete breakdown is beyond me."

They obviously don't.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-10 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: once AGAIN with the demands for apoligies

""The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson"

Based on your rudeness here, by your own standard, you fail to measure up as a man. Might want to work on meeting the same standards you try to judge others by.

by RedstateLib 2008-07-10 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: once AGAIN with the demands for apoligies

That quote doesn't mean you have to praise people for saying or doing stupid things. I call them like I see them. I don't feel guilty about pointing out something I think is obvious.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-10 02:38PM | 0 recs
My anwer

Read Gail Collins's NYT column this morning.  You obviously don't understand Barack Obama.

by Brad G 2008-07-10 12:40PM | 0 recs
What happens in 2012?

When President Obama still has combat troops in Iraq?  Will his anti-war supporters say that is okay, or will they sit home and make him a 1 termer?

by dpANDREWS 2008-07-10 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: What happens in 2012?

"My Mind Has Changed: I Cannot Vote for Obama, Ever
by dpANDREWS, Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:47:28 PM EST"

What, not getting enough attention at NoQuarter?

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-10 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: What happens in 2012?

[citation needed]

Either break out your crystal ball/time machine or shut yer trap.

by Dracomicron 2008-07-10 12:57PM | 0 recs
See, this sort of reaching

implies that people will find even hypothetical criticisms of the man.

by Neef 2008-07-10 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

Obama himself said he does not know how he would of voted on the Resolution, so the people who are saying 'yes' really don't know Obama. Makes me wonder...

by RJEvans 2008-07-10 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

He said he couldn't say so because he didn't get to read the intelligence the Senate did. He stated clearly that based on what he knew at the time, he would have voted no.

Have we learned anything after the AUMF that would have made a Senator more likely to vote for it? Nope.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

Well, let's discuss this.  I don't think that he would've voted for it, but it's impossible to determine whether he would've or not.  I will also grant that if Clinton were the nominee, there's no gaurantee that she would've voted for FISA bill.

All we have is what there votes and position were at the time.  I will also grant to Clinton that the war vote was a difficult decision on her part, as was FISA for Obama.  It's lamost as if their espective positions were switched.

What do you think?

by NewOaklandDem 2008-07-10 01:03PM | 0 recs
I always saw the Clinton AUMF vote

as a disadvantage in the Election, not as a moral lapse. A LOT of people believed we needed to go in, she may have been voting her conscience.

But I agree AUMF = FISA, as far as ideological balls and chains go.

by Neef 2008-07-10 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I always saw the Clinton AUMF vote

Yeah, she probably would've had the same problems that Kerry had on the issue.  I also think she probably would've been able to overcome them too.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-07-10 01:35PM | 0 recs
I hope they're not equal

The scope of AUMF in terms of actual damage done is far, far beyond what's suggested in the new FISA bill... I hope.  I also hope that the damage can be mitigated once we get Bush the hell out of there.

by Dracomicron 2008-07-10 01:44PM | 0 recs
Granted

but you can only be held responsible for the information you have at the time, right?

by Neef 2008-07-10 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Granted

Sure.

I'm not really going to get into guessing games, though.

Obama = proven anti-Iraq war sentiment circa 2002
Clinton = proven pro-Iraq war sentiment circa 2003
McCain = proven pro-Iraq war sentiment circa 1994 or so

by Dracomicron 2008-07-10 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope they're not equal

Well, I'd say equal in therms of political impact, but as for damage to the country, we'll have to wait and see.  Unfortunately.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-07-10 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope they're not equal

Uh...as far as damage to a bunch of now dead people I think that's no contest.

I said it before and I'll say it now. Anyone who stuck their finger to the wind and decided that to remain viable for the Presidency had to vote yes on granting war power on Iraq effectively decided "What's a few thousand soldier and civilian's lives compared to my glorious political career?".

Period.

End of story.

And it deserved to be the end of their political advancement. Much to my personal satisfaction, turned out it was the end of their political advancement.

by ElitistJohn 2008-07-10 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope they're not equal

I agree that at this point in time the AUMF is far, far worse.  But we won't be able to gauge the impact of FISA for decades.  I hope it's not as bad, because I don't like people dying for the actions of fools and misanthropes.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-07-10 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope they're not equal

What, the new FISA bill allows the President to spy on anyone without warrants or oversight?

by KLRinLA 2008-07-10 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope they're not equal

Eh, I think that we can agree that they're both very, very bad, and parsing thier badness is like asking someone if cutting their arm off hurts worse than cutting their leg off.  It dosen't matter, they both fucking hurt bad.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-07-10 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope they're not equal

I kind of thought that the problem with the bill was the immunity provision, not the rest of it.  Therefore, the harm is in the past and it is not going to continue, thus it is not going to ever be worse than AUMF, by any stretch of the imagination.

That is my point.  Disclaimer: I am not saying I am accurate b/c honestly  I have been focused only on the immunity provison, but I thought I heard that besides the immunity, it was essentially the same as before (1978 FISA) which was fine and consitutional.

by KLRinLA 2008-07-10 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

As you say, there is no way to know in these hypothetical situations.  But I do believe that Obama would have voted for authorization, just as I believe that Clinton ultimately did so out of political calculation.

These people are were/are vying to become the most powerful human being on the planet.  Sadly, that's the single most important fact about them when considering their motivations.  Just to get into their shoes involves a long process that selects for people who are ambitious, ruthless, and ultimately self-serving above all else.  That's just the cold reality of politics.

When the stakes are high enough, people like Obama and Clinton are going to consider their political careers first.  Can you think of a single instance in which either embraced a position that, at that point in time given their immediate near term political objectives, was potentially career-suicidal simply because they thought it was the right thing to do?   I can't.

The only way I think Obama votes against authorization in 2003 is if he has the foresight to believe that the "conventional wisdom" was completely wrong and that voting against the bill was the politically savvy thing to do.  Its easy to forget that the conventional wisdom that you couldn't oppose the bill and be a serious presidential candidate in the future was very widespread and very influenced by the experience of someone like Sam Nunn, who went from a very strong future presidential candidate to total non-factor simply because he opposed the first gulf war.  In my opinion, if Obama believes the conventional wisdom, there is simply no way someone like him decides to fall on his sword out of principle.

by Fuzzy Dunlop 2008-07-10 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

I'd still like to think that he would've opposed the AUMF, but what you propose is certianly plausible.  I think the case is that there are those who forget that the candidates are vying for power and popularity, and if they want to be on the national stage, as you wrote, they cannot oppose the conventional wisdom.

I also think that this is why Feingold wouldn't run for president - given his vote on the Patriot Act.  Poltical courage and principal is rarely rewarded.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-07-10 01:47PM | 0 recs
I think that, and I stand by it.
For example, no serious person thinks Hillary would have voted against FISA had she been the Dem. nominee in waiting, but freed from "responsibility" she panders to the left.

 Though I don't think she was pandering, I do think she would have voted differently had she still been running for President. Senators can afford to make stands on principle. They represent their home state. They make decisions for their constituents, not the US population as a whole. Obama is running for President. He felt he needed to vote a certain way to demonstrate bipartisanship. He was wrong about it, but it was still something that Hillary would have done had she won the nomination. Just as Obama would have likely voted against it if she had won.
by vcalzone 2008-07-10 01:27PM | 0 recs
Not sure....

Not sure about the posters question.

But I AM SURE if Ken Griffey, Randy Johnson and Alex Rodrigues would have stayed with the Mariners, we would have won a number of world series by now.

(I still can't believe they let Randy go..IDIOTS!)

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-10 02:36PM | 0 recs
yay!

wah!! good thing i just finished building my time machine! now we can all go back to the primaries and recast our votes for HILLARY!! and she will be the nominee! and then that scary flip-floppin black man will lose! yay! I knew that damn time machine would come in handy eventually!

whos first?!

by alyssa chaos 2008-07-10 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: yay!

TOO LATE, YOU ARE CONDEMNED FOREVER, WILL VOTE FOR MCCAIN!!!!  EVEN THOUGH MCCAIN SAID THAT HE'D STILL DO IRAQ EVEN IF NEW THERE WERE NO THREAT OF WMDS BEFORE HAND!!!!

by KLRinLA 2008-07-10 03:01PM | 0 recs
As Usual

Someone takes a huge dump, photographs it, posts it online and it makes the Rec list.

I want that two minutes of my life back.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-07-10 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: As Usual

Hey there! Did you make it back to North Carolina okay?

by skohayes 2008-07-10 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: As Usual

Yes, we did. Until we find a place we'll be at my mother-in-law's house. So I can't spend much time posting while we get things settled. I learned I'm going to 3rd Brigade with 82nd Airborne, which rumor has it is deploying to Iraq in November. Other than that I'm just dealing with in processing and trying to get my body back into shape from being on recruiter duty. So tomorrow I'm hitting the pavement again. I hope all is well with you.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-07-11 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe

i believe obama would have "had pizza" w/monica. but he wasn't there so,................................

get the point?

by citizendave 2008-07-10 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote
AH...
Obama was already looking for the Senate in 2004 back in 2002. The safe move would be to go along.
He did not.
Sorry if I believe our illegal invasion of Iraq has been more harmful than a FISA that will be revisited next year..and will end up in the SCOTUS
Don't get me wrong..My sign here in Denver directed at Dems will be about FISA..
I hope folks watched yesterday's video with Russ.
Russ understands Obama's vote.
by nogo postal 2008-07-10 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

This is a recommended diary?

Obama's position on talking with Iran may be no different from Hillary's or the mainstream Democratic stance on foreign policy, but it's a heck of a lot better than Bush's.  At least the Bush from  the earlier part of his term, before he somehow slipped and allowed the State Department to start pursuing a more rational Clinton-era policy of engagement with North Korea.  I'll certainly take a mainstream Democratic position from Obama over a "What does he want to talk to them about?" position from McCain.

As for the Iraq War vote, I'd say I'm about 80% confident that Obama would have voted for the war if he was actually in the Senate - although I'm sure he would have given an awesome "I don't actually want war speech" in the fine tradition of having it both ways.  (You know, kind of like Hillary did.)  BUT THE PRIMARY IS OVER!

by Steve M 2008-07-10 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

"But now the question for all democrats is:

Does anyone serious still believe Obama would have opposed the 2002 war resolution?

The evidence all points to a resounding NO!"

this logic has a tune...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpFOQXujc Zo

by nogo postal 2008-07-10 03:32PM | 0 recs
Nope, sorry.

If 32 Senators and a majority of House Democrats could vote against the authorization, there's no reason to believe that Obama would go against his own statements at the time and vote for it.  Clearly, many Democrats didn't feel there was risk for voting against it, so why would a senator from Blue Illinois do so.

You're taking a few votes that the left doesn't like to make a guess at something that you'll never know.  Here's the only thing we do know: Hillary supported AUMF, Obama didn't. Period.

by mikeinsf 2008-07-10 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

I have my doubts.

by Drummond 2008-07-10 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote

To everyone who said 'YES', here's some refreshment for you.

by rankles 2008-07-10 11:57PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads