Barack, Prove Them Wrong

I just got the word on how this race ended, with something that didn't surprise me, after Maureen Dowd had written that the party would prefer losing with Barack than winning with Hillary. Everyone knows by now that I'm a Hillary supporter who always felt great about my candidate. I see her as girl wonk, smartest girl in the class, hardest working and nicest, the one that cares about women and kids and sick people and those that are the 'least' among us, and don't get listened to. I was proud of her campaign that hit the high roads and avoided being small.  

But Barack has won, and now it seems the party may just want his money base and don't care so much if we lose with him.  Maureen often has the inside track, she heard that gossip before I did.  

So, I'd like to help Barack prove them wrong. I'd like Barack to show that he can win and be a decent president, and I'm here to help him.  How? Of course the easiest way is to select Hillary as his VP, listen to her and put her to work. but maybe his money men can't bear anyone named Clinton, much less a girl Clinton, getting in their way when it comes to reshaping Washington in terms of power and influence (no one thinks they do anything for free).  So if they prevent you from getting the most qualified and bestest and nicest and most knowledgeable vice president, cause, you know you do owe them a lot, do the next best thing, steal her.  

First off: stop being sooo depressing. HIllary made running for president look jolly and a kick in the pants. She rarely looked tired and she was always upbeat and optimistic about this goofy and diverse nation of ours. She recognized that the Bush years were bummers, and that we want a president who's cheerful and makes it look easy, even when we know it isn't. So, cheer up. You won, be happy and show it. Tell us how wowed you are and excited and totally grateful and pleased to get the nomination. Learn to give the warm look. You look nicer when you're speeching than up close, you need to look people in the eyes and smile with your mouth as well as with your eyes.   Touch them warmly, listen as if you're really listening, if you can't do it naturally, remember what your first new born daughter looked like and practice.  Looking off in space makes you look remote and removed.  Don't do that ever again, look ahead.  Start smiling. Learn to laugh. Irony is dead, it's depressing, silly is more cheery.  

Grab her ideas, we'll love it if you take all her ideas and credit her, and say they're great ideas and ask us which ones we like best and which ones we want soonest.

Grab her staff-in-waiting, she's prepared for years for this job, with the biggest group of professionals and experts ever lined up, to clean the biggest mess a sitting president was able to make, the bush mess. And steal her promise, promise to reverse bush and clean up his mess.  And tell us to hold you accountable.

Grab her plans. She knows every agency, who's in charge, who's a hack and who isn't, who knows how to motivate workers and who puts them off and makes them cranky and unproductive. She's got a bunch of retired professionals willing to come out of retirement to be caretaker heads of agencies.  Ask her for her plans, she's actually nice, she'd give you her plans.  Remember, she hasn't asked to be VP, she made no 'deals,' she got told that her support wasn't going to stick with her, so she decided to suspend, whatever the media who loves to blame her for anything and everything may have told you.

Start getting ready for day one.  I know you've been told that you don't actually need to win, they just want you running, but surprise them, make yourself as qualified as a guy can learn himself up to be. Get up to speed.  Start learning history. It was very silly of you to woo the Jewish voters by promising to keep Jerusalem undivided, you gave everyone the wrong idea with that gaffe, you need real foreign policy advisors, and I'd suggest you grab Hillary and her foreign policy advisors.

Start crediting your staff.  Start putting out multiple daily issue papers, like Hillary did, showing us just how you think the president should react to this or that, in real time. She showed her experience, didn't just say it.  We could all judge for ourselves, you should do that too.

Don't run negative on John McCain, he's a bubble boy, and a war hero and he has the sympathy vote.  You don't need to beat on an old tortured guy for being a bubble boy, you just need to make yourself as different from a bubble boy as possible. You need to get expansive, like Hillary, get real thinkers on board, you won, you can ask anyone you like for advice.  Go for it, it should be fun.  And it should look fun, start having fun.  

Get Caroline Kennedy off your VP search team. she's not qualified, she's just a nice person and the daughter of a late president. get qualified people on that committee, no hacks.

As a matter of fact, pay back no favors with jobs. let them sleep in the Lincoln bedroom after you win, don't give them jobs. Hire only real professionals and real experts, and if they don't perform, fire their butts and get in people that can get the job done.

These are just a few ideas, but enough to get you started. We know you had a lot of inside help to get this nomination, but you have it now, you're the only game in town, and even if they don't care if you win, everyone who wants the war to end cares.  You won, do your best to win the GE.  We have kids over there who should be home, bring home our troops.  



Display:


Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 8)

tips for Barack.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:07:03 PM EST

actually, he is getting some of Clinton's top team (none / 0)

Three Clinton negotiators -- all confidantes of the Senator and her husband -- have been dispatched to Chicago to spearhead this effort, a source told The Huffington Post. Bob Barnett, a powerhouse Washington lawyer, Cheryl Mills, another lawyer, and Minyon Moore, a political consultant, were meeting today to discuss three key areas of negotiations: what role Hillary Clinton will play at the Democratic convention in August, the nature of her involvement in Obama's general election campaign, and the Obama campaign's plans to help alleviate her campaign debt, which is believed to be around $30 million.


by slinkerwink on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:10:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (2.00 / 2)

far out, i hope someone sends him this diary. when he picked Caroline i was all, what?  What's that about?  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:12:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (none / 0)

Why shouldn't he pick her? She has a lifetime of political and public involvement and has written a number of books for the general public on rights and politics.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:14:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (2.00 / 2)

there are far more qualified people who didn't throw their high profile support to him? he's supposed to be not politics as usual.  There are a lot of experts he's never even met.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (none / 0)

How does his vetting team compare to those in the past, Anna? This one is certainly not inferior to those.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (2.00 / 1)

he should go retro now? I don't think so, but it's an idea, anyway.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (none / 0)

That's not what I said.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (2.00 / 1)

Um, I think being able to defeat the most recognized Democratic family in history says much more about his campaign decisions.


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (none / 0)

It would be useful to have people on his VP search team that actually supported him. If you put a Republican expert on there then they're just gonna offer you Kucinich, you put a bunch of Clinton supporters on they'll just say "Hillary is the best choice". You want some people who are going to look at the best options for Obama. People who supported him are going to do that.

Isn't this really obvious?


by grass on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:23:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (none / 0)

that's the George Bush idea, loyalty first. I like the Hillary idea, qualifications first.  i think Barack might like that one better too, if he thinks it over.  He went to Harvard, he must value being the best.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:21:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're talking about a woman who (none / 0)

not only hired Mark Penn, but gave him millions of dollars to bankrupt her campaign. Mark Penn!

Seriously, this comment is ridiculous


by 79blondini on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am sick of this shit (1.66 / 3)

What are YOUR qualifications that make you an expert on experience?

In your diary you repeat the absurd idea that Obama isn't experienced and Hillary is.

That is a TALKING POINT. There is no 'truth' to it.

What are the prerequisite qualifications for these positions you deem the people now holding them don't possess?


by Is This Snark on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:23:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am sick of this shit (none / 0)

temper temper


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:43:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (2.00 / 5)

Are you unaware of Caroline Kennedy's accomplishments?

An attorney, a writer, a chair and member of a variety of boards and commissions, she's gained respect not simply from her family name, but from the work she's put into a number of important liberal causes. Her books include volumes on protecting civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, as well as remembrances and poetry.

She's a very well-rounded, well-connected, and perceptive person; a woman who didn't just coast on her name, but made one for herself.

She brings to the selection process knowledge, perspective, and a creative sensibility that should offer a good balance to the rest of the team.

I'd think you would applaud her. Instead, you call her a hack.

Please.


"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." -- Dr. Horrible
by BobzCat on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:25:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (2.00 / 1)

Agreed. This might be the most unintentionally ironic criticism of Obama yet.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (2.00 / 2)

because she's the best? I don't think she's the best. I think there are real professionals and experts he could tap, someone he may not know personally but who has the chops for the task.


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:16:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (none / 0)

It's ironic because you're arguing that her accomplishments, while substantial, do not on their own merit warrant her position. Rather, you say, her name and familial relation to a famous politician is the primary means by which she has attained this position.

This was a criticism often levvied against Senator Clinton, and one you thoroughly objected to. Hence the irony.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually, he is getting some of (none / 0)

i only said she's not the best.  Why add meaning I didn't give?  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:45:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He will (1.00 / 1)

not need her.

It will be up to Hillary to move her voters if she wants to have any clout within the party.

If Hillary can't prove to the party these people really do support HER, then she has zero leverage going forward.

If you support Obama you will do so because Hillary asked you to not because he has paid you off with token gestures.

As many pundits pointed out, Obama beat the mighty Clinton machine and overcame huge odds because he built the best team in a very long time.

He can pick from the very best.

I would grab Trippy from Edwards, and Ickes from Hillary. And maybe some dedicated support staff. But that is it.


by Is This Snark on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

BTW, when did Maureen Dowd ever say that? Are you sure this is her view or was she quoting someone?

Please provide a link.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To sum up your advice: (2.00 / 3)

"Run like Hillary"

Yeah. That worked.


by grass on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:11:47 PM EST

Re: To sum up your advice: (2.00 / 1)

more like be her, she had the momentum, and he was losing his. he needs to make a mid course correction and do his best to win.  No more not-Clinton, it's time to be Clinton.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:14:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To sum up your advice: (2.00 / 2)

There was no momentum, Anna.  Momentum is a phenomena that exists early in a nominating campaign when people are learning about the candidates.  They split the last set of nominating contests largely based on demographic characteristics of the state.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:15:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's just crazy. Barack should just be Barack. (2.00 / 2)


by grass on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To sum up your advice: (2.00 / 2)

Clinton was Clinton and lost. Obama was Obama and won.

He needs to continue being Obama. Preferably a continuously improving Obama ofcourse, but certainly not Clinton.

As for "momentum", if you've seen tracks in the olympics, you'll see that when the frontrunner is far ahead and the second one has no chance of reaching them before the finishing line, the frontrunner won't give everything they have -- in those last few meters they'll slow down and it then seems to the audience the second runner is going faster and seemingly approaches the first one.

But it means nothing, other than the fact there was no reason for the frontrunner to strain themselves - they already had the victory.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:37:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not exactly (2.00 / 1)

Clinton was Clinton and lost. Obama was Obama and won.

Obama was not Clinton and the DNC gave it to him.


by SophieL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:33:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

Keep telling yourself that, SophieL. While the rest of us go about the business of electing a Democrat as our next President.

The best thing that could possibly happen for unity is dead-enders like you. Thanks!


by JoeW on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

that was just a fact check, no need to pretend, he's won it, however he won doesn't matter, he's it and we all need to help him win.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

It wasn't a fact check. Obama won because he won the majority of pledged delegates, the key metric for the nomination that the superdelegates were never going to overturn.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:34:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

that's like delusional, I thought you didn't want to be one of those kinds of people???


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:49:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

Delusional is the idea that the superdelegates gave it to him.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:52:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

Bullshit.

You can't claim that you want Obama to win and nonetheless still support the attitude that he somehow "stole" the nomination from Clinton.

You can't claim to support him with one side of your mouth and yet undermine him with the other side.

You mojoed a ludicrously wrongheaded comment that supports the concept that Obama somehow stole the nomination.

Not to mention the way you support a site such as No Quarter that's devoted to the defeat of Obama in November.

If you want to support Obama, then support him. For your advisement: implying or stating outright that he stole the nomination -- NOT supportive of him by defininition.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:25:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (2.00 / 1)

I didn't say that, what's with you guys? He won with the help of super-delegates who were free to choose either.  I don't have a problem with that win, but it isn't because of pledged delegates. You don't need to lie, that makes you look ashamed. If she'd won i sure would be glad that enough super's decided it for her, why not you?  This is silly, he won, who cares how.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:32:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

If there existed no superdelegates at all, he'd have won the nomination a month earlier.

The superdelegates merely confirmed the lead of the pledged delegates, they didn't contradict or overrule them.

Under these circumstances, to claim that the DNC "gave it to him" is an obscene lie in spirit, even if you can twist the words to claim its accurate in the letter.

And I'm done dealing with such disingenuousness. It was Hillary who was hoping and depending and urging the superdelegates to overturn the result  and GIVE her the nomination -- Obama was the opposite: he merely needed a handful of superdelegates to confirm the lead that the pledged delegates alone was giving the.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

it's sad for our nominee that you have to pretend he didn't need supers to go over the top.  It's too soon to rewrite history and it isn't necessary, he won, get used to it.  


by anna shane on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:46:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

You're still in your DENIAL stage of your grief process I see.

DNC had given Clinton a 100 superdelegate lead a year in advance. DNC had stacked the primaries in such a manner that well-known names would get an advantage. DNC even went out of its way to give delegates to Clinton from states that the Clinton supporters in the commitee themselves had unanimously agreed would not count.

DNC did everything in its power to give it to Clinton. The voters in the primaries and caucuses gave it to Obama -- and he had such a huge lead in pledged delegates that the superdelegates were forced to follow.

Your stupid nonsense is offensive. I'd suggest your keep it to yourself until you've reached atleast the "bargaining" stage of grief.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (1.00 / 0)

Get this straight, Barack won, it's not about bashing Hillary anymore, it's about him winning the GE now.  Get over it, you can't help him win the GE by bashing Hillary, he's won already. Repeat after me, Barack won.  Okay, you understand now?  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

Why don't you tell that to Sophie?

Since you supported Clinton, it may mean more if it comes from you, when you explain to her that Clinton didn't win, and Obama wasn't "handed" the nomination by the DNC unfairly.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (2.00 / 1)

she just gave a fact check, he won with the help of the party and super delegates, that's a fact, but he won, so what's the big deal, who cares how, he's won it.  Get over it, he's won won won.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

OBVIOUSLY, lots of people care about whether his win was legitimate or not.

How many people keep posting here that they won't vote for him because they believe his victory is supposedly illegitimate? Is it dozens?

If you disagree with them, then start trying to convince them otherwise.


by Aris Katsaris on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:44:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

of course it's legitimate, our party gets to make up rules and change them, they have that right.  It is not helpful to think you have to be deceptive or his win won't be legitimate. He really won, the way things work.  


by anna shane on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (1.00 / 0)

The DNC did not "give" Clinton 100 SDs. SDs choose for themselves.

You're in denial yourself if you don't think there's an anti-Clinton faction of the Democratic Party that did everything in their power to get Obama nominated--or more to the point, to keep it away from Clinton. This is the same faction that keeps giving us candidates that lose in general elections.

In fact, looking over some of your comments, it doesn't look like you are FOR Obama. It looks like you are just AGAINST Clinton. But the rest of us should just be good Democrats and unify for the sake of the party, right?

I think you're way out of line with the "stupid nonsense" comment and I won't be taking any suggestions from you anytime soon.


by SophieL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:48:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly (none / 0)

"SDs choose for themselves."

Yes, and the SDs of the DNC were going overwhelmingly for Clinton, more than a year before the first vote was cast.

"This is the same faction that keeps giving us candidates that lose in general elections."

Right... because Al Gore, the VP of Bill Clinton supposedly is part of the anti-Clinton faction. And Kerry supposedly belonged to this supposed Dean-Pelosi faction as well, even though he was one of Dean's opponents.

Whatever. Everything I said is still true -- the game was heavily and intentionally stacked in Hillary's favor in advance, and yet she played her cards so lousily that she still lost. Now you're spreading the smear that Obama didn't win the nomination, that he was handed it by the DNC -- a complete reversal of the truth, not that you give a bloody damn.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:14:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: anna (none / 0)

I thought you wanted someone who is ready from Day One.  How good is momentum at the end if you are not ready from Day One?


by Brad G on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:45:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: anna (none / 0)

yeah, she was better but he's our candidate, so who cares, he needs to get ready and he is in a position to grab all of her preliminary work.  Isn't that great, we get Barack and Hillary's hard work?  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: anna (none / 0)

Can you make a single post without bashing Obama?

The primaries are over.  What's the point?  I don't believe you can stop.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:56:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

With all due respect, your implication that Obama hasn't brought on Clinton folks is just wrong. He's already incorporated some into his advisory and political apparatuses.

BTW, why are you dissing Caroline Kennedy?  She's an attorney who has written a number of books on civil and privacy rights.

And Eric Holder -- another member of the vetting committee -- is from the Clinton administration. He was an Attorney General.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:12:55 PM EST

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

explain K-L to me and how Barack changed on that, or stop lecturing me on what I don't know. Bringing in some Clinton people is a good start. Why don't you think up advice for him rather than just taking up space?  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:15:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

What is your position on Kyl-Lieberman, Anna.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:16:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 1)

what is it, politicsmatters? have you found out yet?  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:19:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

You want to know what Kyl-Lieberman was? It was an attempt to label the Iranian revolutionary guard as terrorists in order to allow military strikes against them, essentially starting a war with Iran.

Thankfully it hasn't lead to anything.


by grass on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 1)

he was for that before he didn't vote, before he was against, but he's on a new page, catch up, he's for it again.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

Not true.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:43:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

The argument is faulty. First, as mentioned already, Obama is on record in favor of designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Second, even if Obama had not cosponsored the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, failing to state support for something on your Web site doesn't mean you therefore oppose it (and vice versa). Such reasoning constitutes a logical fallacy that philosophers call an argumentum ad ignorantiam, or an argument from ignorance. The fallacy occurs when someone asserts that the lack of evidence against a claim means that the claim is true. Should we conclude that because McCain's Web site says nothing about torturing kittens that he supports it? Of course not.

factcheck


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:48:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

"But the amendment did more than just urge the president to name new terrorist groups. It also expressed the sense that it is "a critical national interest" to prevent Iran from "turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force." Some Democrats, such as Jim Webb of Virginia, argued that the amendment "could be read as a back-door method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate."

Obama did not actually vote on the amendment - he was campaigning at the time. But he did publicly oppose it, calling it excessively provocative:

Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today."

The rest of the factcheck
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ soft_on_iran.html


by grass on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:55:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 1)

Neither did McCain..He didn't vote either


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you don't want me to just dismiss you as (none / 0)

a rather obnoxious ass, you might want to provide some links to all your assertions.

Oh, and another sure fire way to gain some credibility - stop posting at NQ. You will never find a greater hive of scum and villainy. Cept maybe Hillis44.org.. but even you wouldn't post there, would you?


by grass on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

So really this comes back to you not liking Obama? Is that where you were trying to take this conversation?

Incidentally, labeling a group "terrorists" in a speech and labeling them as such in a legislative statement that can be used to legitimize a military attack are very, very different things.  Before you try and bring the condescension about Obama's AIPAC remarks you might want to ponder that fact for a bit.  Your post raises some interesting points, but your comments on this thread just raise 'concerns.'


by Jay R on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 1)

I like him fine, always have, I really like Michelle and the kids, he wasn't my first choice, but now he's won and I burns me to think the party doesn't believe he can do it.  He needs all of us now.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:18:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

I know plenty of people in the party, I know absolutely none who think he can't do it.  Putting it bluntly: they see beating Clinton as the political equivalent of having climbed Everest.


by Jay R on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

I know many, many democrats who have considerable experience in politics who not only believe that he can win, but that he has a significantly better chance of winning than Hillary Clinton would have.  I'm one of them.

I have no idea how you can characterize the views of "the party" as not believing he can do it.  One Maureen Dowd column doesn't represent the prevailing wisdom of the party (and I just checked her site and didn't find anything that said "they'd rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton.")  So I'm really mystified by this thread.


by Headlight on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

Of course I know what it is. I was asking you what you think about it.  Do you support it? Was Clinton right in voting for it?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

Of course I know what it was. I was asking you what you think and why?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 1)

Please read Josh's economic speech on the front page....


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:14:01 PM EST

No tips for attacking Caroline Kennedy. (none / 0)

I trust Obama's management (it took him from zero to the nomination), and I'll trust them to find the best VP for his candidacy.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:15:25 PM EST

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

Start learning history?

What he heck are you talking about?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:17:26 PM EST

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 1)

what's funny is you don't know.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 1)

what's not funny is how little sense you make. Anna you really should take more time with your diaries and not post until you are able to get your point across. Otherwise it just reads like a Rosie O'Donnell rant.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Bill Clinton
by venician on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:25:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 1)

I'm a card?  Better than being depressing?  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:32:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 1)

Personally, I don't find a core message of hope and unity to be depressing.  But whatever.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (1.66 / 3)

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/author/anna s/

That's a racist hate site. How do you expect us to believe you're looking out for Obama's best interests when you've written hit diaries about him on a hate site that refers to African-Americans as gorillas, thugs, monkeys, and excrement?


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:19:17 PM EST

It's not racist or hate (2.00 / 1)

Are you one of Obama's propaganda bloggers?


by catfish2 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:25:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not racist or hate (none / 0)

And?


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hi, McCain troll and racism apologist. (2.00 / 0)

Might you be able to answer for Anna Shane why she diaries on a hate site?


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:26:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So it's confirmed - you're an astroturf (2.00 / 1)

blogger. Cool.

Yeah read about your plan - if anyone criticizes Obama, just call them a racist.


by catfish2 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So it's confirmed - you're an astroturf (2.00 / 1)

If we can agree on nothing else, can we at least agree that No Quarter is, in fact, a racist site?  

Larry Johnson is in fact a racist, and he runs a site where racist conversation is at the very least permitted and, given his own "contributions" to the discourse, encouraged.  That isn't an attempt to brand all Clinton supporters racist, or even to brand everyone on No Quarter racist.  

But I think that site's racism does require a response and objection from any and all of its contributors/commenters who aren't racist, to put their money where their mouth is and either stand up against racist hate speech or leave the site.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:58:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So it's confirmed - you're an astroturf (2.00 / 2)

no, he's not a racist. it's funny that some think Obama was so superior to Hillary that her voters were all either white women or racists.  it's weird, and depressing, and it's time to stop calling fellow Obama supporters names. Look, he needs to win the GE, and he needs all the help we can offer. Are you a secret troll, trying to get Hillary's supporters to vote pug? Won't work, too transparent.  McCain is a bubble boy, he  must not be allowed near any lethal weapons.  Or we're all at great risk. Go Obama!!!


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So it's confirmed - you're an astroturf (2.00 / 0)

I don't think all her voters are white women or racists.  I think Larry Johnson is a racist.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What makes him a racist? (2.00 / 1)

Tell me what evidence you have that Larry Johnson is a racist.

Lemme guess:

  1. He does not support Obama. Racist!
  2. He suspected Obama's associations would be a political liability. Racist!
  3. He does not find Obama qualified for the job of president. Racist!
Oh I know
4) Some commenters left comments on his site that you find racist, and Larry Johnson failed to delete them in time. Racist!


by catfish2 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:18:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not racist or hate (2.00 / 0)

Are you defending what gets written on that site?


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Bill Clinton
by venician on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not racist or hate (2.00 / 2)

no more than I defend what goes on here, i was just called a racist by firewall, I think his name is.  That's racist, and right here.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL. I didn't call you a racist; (2.00 / 0)

I did call you a troll who posts at hate sites while pretending to be concerned for the welfare of the Democratic nominee.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:24:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL. I didn't call you a racist; (2.00 / 1)

and I call you  stoooopid. So where do we go from here? How about an little unity, we're backing the same guy now.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:31:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL. I didn't call you a racist; (2.00 / 0)

If you want unity, you shouldn't be part of a site that's devoted to undermining the nominee.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL. I didn't call you a racist; (none / 0)

you just give me all the rules before I can vote for Obama, I'll post them at No Quarter.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Better yet...stop posting at No Quarter. (2.00 / 0)

But you won't, because you're fine with belonging to a hate site. Be proud, anna shane!


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 1)

If that's her, I am not responding to her anymore...Some of her diaries and comments are bad, just bad...


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:25:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 2)

It's her. Here are her diaries on MyDD:

http://anna-shane.mydd.com/

And here they are on No Quarter:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/author/anna s/

The "Jeering and Sneering" diary was her most recent cross-post.

She's a troll, and we need to stop engaging her here as long as she's an active participant at a hate site.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:29:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 1)

do your best firewall, I want our candidate to win.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:31:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 0)

If your candidate is John McCain, I've got bad news for you...

...those dehydrated babies won't be getting his hot water any time soon.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 1)

now what makes you think John would bring home our troops? This is more important than wars with me, you guys should be celebrating, another Hillary supporter wants him to win.  Look, he's won the nom, that's over, no more bashing, it's time to unify.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 2)

We don't need your No Quarter brand of unity.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 1)

i'll write to Barack and tell him you don't want be voting for him. I'm sure he'll be thrilled, not. I think he wants to win, i think he'll appreciate some sound advice.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:00:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 0)

Yep. He's just dying for your advice. The poor man just beat the inevitable one but he needs to hear from you about how he's not CHEERFUL enough.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:02:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please tell him. (2.00 / 0)

Attach the diaries you've written against him at No Quarter, and he might even send a personal thank you.

Leave the site if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you'll rightfully be regarded as a troll whenever you pretend to be interested in the welfare of Obama.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:02:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please tell him. (2.00 / 1)

he could learn more from some of my diaries that you claim are 'against him,' than a gazillion we hate hillary diaries that pass for pro-Obama here and at kos.  think about it.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:24:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please tell him. (none / 0)

What do you think he'll learn from this?

Comment by AF catfish | 2008-05-30 23:46:37

So with you. Tactical nukes are a horrid idea, but we can work this out with McCain. Obama - there is no telling what he will do.
Reply to this comment

Comment by Karen | 2008-05-30 23:49:05

WHAT HE WILL DO???
Reply to this comment

Comment by Karen | 2008-05-30 23:50:12

He will say --Can i please just finish my waffles???
Reply to this comment

Comment by Catsarepeopletoo | 2008-05-31 00:08:59

While he's eating his waffles, all the people lined up to pull his strings (the liberal elite, the Chicago operatives, the black liberationists, the Muslims like his cousin Odinga, and more) will be destroying America.

I'd bold the jaw-droppers, but I really wouldn't know where to begin.  And that's from your thread.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:07:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please tell him. (none / 0)

yep, critical comments are more useful than hate hillary comments, for sure.  


by anna shane on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:43:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 2)

Who's your candidate?  Posting here and at No Quarter sends some strong mixed messages..


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 1)

barack, of course, how insulting that you felt you had the right to question me.  Rude.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:24:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 0)

Since "No Quarter" seems solely devoted to pushing for the defeat of Obama in November, and you seem to be a diarist there, it was a more than fair question.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 0)

Then please start being the voice of reason and sanity over at No Quarter and stand up against the racist bile that is regularly spewed on that site.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 1)

I always do, if someone puts a racist comment in something I write, I tell them off.  That site lets more stuff stay up than most, but not forever, they take stuff down too.  No one likes racism.  It's not a place where readers can hide, the staff has to look things over. I like No Quarter, it's got a lot of different perspectives and you too can go on there and tell off racists.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:02:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post on No Quarter? (2.00 / 0)

"I like No Quarter, it's got a lot of different perspectives"

Really??? Can you tell me when was the last diary posted there that had a perspective favourable to Obama?

Or atleast any diary that acknowledged he won the nomination fairly rather than "stole" it?

And as for Larry Johnson himself, he was the main pusher of the 'Whitey' smear regarding Michelle Obama.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post? (2.00 / 2)

because the advise is sound?  I can't answer anymore, i've exceeded my posting comments limit, so you guys think about the changes Barack needs to make to be in a position to bring our troops home. one more idea, have him sign on the legislation banning private armies, and put that money into our own military, let them guard oversees interests that need guarding and pay us for the service.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post? (2.00 / 1)

NQ really?  Where's the tape?


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anna Shane, why do you post? (2.00 / 1)

too late, we have our nominee, now it better not exist, or he's going to have some angry vets to answer to.  he'd best be squeaky clean from here on out, and I hope he is.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 3)

I guess you want him to be just like Hillary...That's not what won him the primary.  

Where you see disinterest,  I see empathy and care.  

Where you see depression I see seriousness and an earnest concern about getting our country back on track.  

Where you see an unqualified candidate I see someone who isn't tied to corporate Washington and can provide real change.

Where you see a man uneducated on our history and I see a man who uses history as a guide.

Where you see his campaign going in a wrong direction I see a campaign that defeated, arguably, the most influential family in Democratic history.

Where you see weakness, I see strength.  


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:19:25 PM EST

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 1)

oh Anna
..It is only my opinion...but doncha think if the Obama campaign had it together enough to win the nomination they will have it together enough to win the GE?
"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:19:29 PM EST

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 1)

seems the DNC doesn't think so and doesn't care. Well, I care. We need a democrat elected, and he needs to win the GE. Try to help him, he has enough cheerleaders, don't you think?  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

Huh?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:48:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (none / 0)

What's your problem with Carolin Kennedy exactly?  

She may not be as politically involved, but I see her as filling in the shoes of Ted Kennedy who is not healthy enough to do the entire job right now.  She will no doubt consult with him and will bring great things to the VP search committe.

As for the rest of it, those positions that have merit are being examined and in some cases adopted, but please don't act as if Obama didn't have any plans or ideas of his own.  It just shows that you never bothered to research his positions.  If you'd like to learn a little of what he's already proposed I suggest you go to his website, it's all there.

Finally, Maureen Dowd is a hack and is flat out wrong about this.  People would not be backing Obama if they thought they were going to lose with him.  It is an absurd claim that people prefer to lose with Obama than win with Clinton.  The truth of the matter is that many say him as MORE electable and that is why he won.


by Why Not on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:22:18 PM EST

Re: Barack, Prove Them Wrong (2.00 / 1)

nothing, she's just not the best.  We deserve the best.  


by anna shane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:30:15 PM EST