Of the announced candidates, who do you think has the best shot at winning and would you vote for him/her?
If I had to choose amongst the announced candidates I wouldn't vote. Its an even worse set of options than in 04. Hillary and Obama are the best the Democratic party has to offer? A freshman senator and a former first lady???!! You must be kidding me. The democrats seem as clueless as always and may actually find myself voting Republican if the field doesnt change.
I don't view opinion pieces as dumbing anything down. I've read plenty of pieces praising Obama and I've read many posts here prasing him. This whole board is an opinion piece. I don't see a problem with sharing an opinion piece that tells how other left leaners are feeling about him especially when the vibe here often is that the guy is the answer, when i just don't see it. I don't expect anyone to read this and grasp on to this one piece for all they need to know... because that would be dumb. It's simply putting an alternate view out there. If people choose to take it as the holy truth and nothing else then thats their stupidity. It made some good points and I see no problem with it being posted.
the thing that really set me off about the article is that is wasn't framed as an "opinion piece." it was framed as fact about why obama is an illusion. and what was even more irritating is that it took little quotes from various sources to paint a very specifc picture that the author wanted to paint. and if you actually look at everything he took in the original context---well, there's a whole lot more and you'll find information contrary to the claims he makes--in his own sources! how insulting! like he thinks his readers are too lazy to check his sources and just go by 'talking points' he declares. the original piece was entirely misleading, and purposefully. and it was really poorly written.
i didn't get a chance to respond to another one of your posts--but, that's great you support kucinich. i'm not saying you shouldn't. i supported him in the past because i believed in him too. what i don't support is smear pieces trying to pass as fact, when if you just do a little research, you can see the author's agenda.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
VG, that was quite well done. The point that I stated and you have proven with lots of effort is that when people seek out to trash a candidate, it isn't that hard to do. There are plenty of bad sources of less than truthful information out there to mislead voters.
After reading your post, it makes me wonder who added Obama's name to that list? Was it all part of plan to deliver him up as 'an illusion' and not a real progressive?
oh there's so much more about that article . . . but anyway, i don't know who put the name on the list. and that's a great question.
oh and by the way, the whole progressive label is another huge discussion we could have. it seems the label is more placed upon him instead of him declaring himself as one overall . . . it's interesting.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Harper's Magazine says Obama only gives funds to moderate, establishment Democrats, failing to note that Obama has donated to every Senate Democrat running for office in 2006. Harper's says "Obama's PAC has given to candidates that have been carefully culled and selected by the Democratic establishment on the basis of their marketability as palatable 'moderates'-even when they are facing more progressive and equally viable challengers." Harper's cites as examples Obama's political donations to Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, and Tammy Duckworth over Christine Cegelis. [page 37]
Fact:
Obama donated to every Democratic Senator running for reelection and then contributed to Ned Lamont after he won the primary. Harper's takes exception to Obama's decision to donate money to Senator Lieberman, but fails to note that Obama endorsed Ned Lamont and gave him $5,000 the day after Lamont won the nomination. Obama also donated money to every Senate Democrat up for reelection and to every Democratic challenger in a closely contested Senate race, including Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Amy Klobuchar.
Harper's Magazine misrepresents Tammy Duckworth's position on Iraq. Harper's also implies that Duckworth is a pro-war candidate, noting "When asked about her stand on the Iraq war by a reporter, Duckworth had replied, 'There is good and bad in everything.'" [page 37-38] Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran, says on her website "invading Iraq was a mistake."
ummm, hate to break it to you but the article i posted never made this claim...what it said was:
"Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont."
which is true, his PAC gave money to Lamnonts campaign AFTER he won the primary...which would've happened no matter which (D) won! the PAC was made primarily to fund Democratic Senate runs!! he certainly didn't campaign for any of them or offer them any support other than a donation from his PAC. but when it was the primaries who did he support? the progressives or the politics as usual crowd?
"Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races"
which is also true
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
anyone who looks at a voting record based on ONE piece of information from the bill voted on is being deceived and is tryin to deceive others by passing that information on as something that should be used to refute someone's stance on issues. there is so much that goes into those votes and so much that is being voted on than just that ONE thing.
this seems to be going against someone because they are not as progressive or as left as you want them to be. it doesn't take progressive or left to be a good president...it takes SENSE. everyone knows that bush didn't have it in 2000...and still, even moreso, in 2004...
obama, at least, has some sense.
anyway, i wouldn't vote for him...is gore going to run?
normally i would agree about voting records, however...
voting to reauthorize the patriot act - kinda hard to get around that one or say it was b/c of some unrelated rider...
saying the military should stay until the insurgency is defeated - kinda speaks for itself about timetables
saying we need to keep a permanent presence there - also speaks for itself
being for attacking iran - again, speaks for itself
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
ummm, hate to break it to you but the article i posted never made this claim...what it said was:
"Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont."
which is true, his PAC gave money to Lamnonts campaign AFTER he won the primary...which would've happened no matter which (D) won! the PAC was made primarily to fund Democratic Senate runs!! he certainly didn't campaign for any of them or offer them any support other than a donation from his PAC. but when it was the primaries who did he support? the progressives or the politics as usual crowd?
"Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races"
which is also true
yeah but the point was there is a whole lot more to the picture-- the author would have you think he only supports mainstream dems by his whole statements, when in fact he supported them all. sure some of his statements are true (but very misleading intentionally), but they're little snippets taken to paint what he wants you to see, and if you don't take such a narrow view, his view, you can see more of the picture which is a bit different than this horribly written article.
surely you're familiar with these tactics since you fight against them when they come from the other side.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
I don't view opinion pieces as dumbing anything down. I've read plenty of pieces praising Obama and I've read many posts here prasing him. This whole board is an opinion piece. I don't see a problem with sharing an opinion piece that tells how other left leaners are feeling about him especially when the vibe here often is that the guy is the answer, when i just don't see it. I don't expect anyone to read this and grasp on to this one piece for all they need to know... because that would be dumb. It's simply putting an alternate view out there. If people choose to take it as the holy truth and nothing else then thats their stupidity. It made some good points and I see no problem with it being posted.
Maureen Dowd is a "respected" writer who offers up opinion pieces with deft regularity. She has been proven time and time again to be, at the very least, intellectually dishonest yet her work gets printed as a viable press piece. This type of "alternate view" is nothing more than a generic cynical POV that relies on fantasy over fact, all funded by a large corporation with an ax to grind.
If these pieces were factually accurate and provided support for their claims, then it's healthy debate. When these pieces contain made-up bullshit, they need to be called out as such. Carville and Begala can do much better.
Also, message-boarding and paid propaganda pieces are completely different animals.
yeah but the point was there is a whole lot more to the picture-- the author would have you think he only supports mainstream dems by his whole statements, when in fact he supported them all. sure some of his statements are true (but very misleading intentionally), but they're little snippets taken to paint what he wants you to see, and if you don't take such a narrow view, his view, you can see more of the picture which is a bit different than this horribly written article.
surely you're familiar with these tactics since you fight against them when they come from the other side.
the point is the article didn't say what you said it did. yes, his PAC <set up to fund Democratic Senate races created a year or 2 before the 06 race> gave money to some of htese candidates, but that is all he did for them. he didn't offer any public support, he didn't campaign for any of them, like he did for leiberman...he was even on his book tour for some of this, he could've swung over and campaigned for lamont or some others, but he didn't. the only ones he did stuff like that for were the mainstream dems. they would've gotten this money regardless, all a candidate needed to do to ge this $ was win the primary then they woudl get the $ regardless of who they were or their stances, just as long as there was a D next to their name and they won the primary.
so, again, why wouldn't he campaing or publicly support these more progressive dems? why only offer that to the ones like lieberman?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
He was in LA yesterday and this morning I'm listening to the news and they are playing sound bites and I was a little turned off. Everything I heard sounded like every other politician trying to get elected. Granted these were probably taken out of context, but I had hoped for more from him than typical politics.
the point is the article didn't say what you said it did.
excuse me? i've been making the point the whole time that that 'article' is terribly written and full of statments pulled from other sources out of context, and when you look at each source and the whole picture--it's a bit different. i'm saying the article is a crafted smear piece designed to only give a negative picture. the 'writer' used that style to mislead, which i think is so insulting because it's different when you go to the source (like he thought his readers would just take this as truth without checking his sources? i mean he even listed them!). perhaps you've missed the long-ass posts with more context dealing with the content of the first two paragraphs (after editorial intro) of your zmag 'article'. my other point was that when this 'writer' just pulls statements to tie them together to paint his own picture to pass off as truth, it's very curious what he leaves out (i.e. donated to liberman but didn't mention donating to everyone--inc. lamont, saying he discouraged filibuster of alito, yet didn't mention obama voted against confirmation and for filibuster, etc. etc.)
yes, his PAC <set up to fund Democratic Senate races created a year or 2 before the 06 race> gave money to some of htese candidates, but that is all he did for them. he didn't offer any public support, he didn't campaign for any of them, like he did for leiberman...he was even on his book tour for some of this, he could've swung over and campaigned for lamont or some others, but he didn't. the only ones he did stuff like that for were the mainstream dems. they would've gotten this money regardless, all a candidate needed to do to ge this $ was win the primary then they woudl get the $ regardless of who they were or their stances, just as long as there was a D next to their name and they won the primary.
so, again, why wouldn't he campaing or publicly support these more progressive dems? why only offer that to the ones like lieberman?
well, why don't you write him and ask? there are easily accessible email addresses you could use. i can't answer for him off the top of my head, but i'd take a little guess that maybe he didn't campaign for every single senator because he also had to do his job, which is not stumping for every single dem up for election. perhaps he did for lieberman because that was his assigned mentor. and i would guess that he donated to every dem because that is what he could do, while still doing his own job, and i'm also guessing he did that because he wanted to see a dem majority in congress.
whatever. you seem pretty rigid in your thinking so i don't even know if it's worth my time. it seems like regardless, you have your mind made up.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Maureen Dowd is a "respected" writer who offers up opinion pieces with deft regularity. She has been proven time and time again to be, at the very least, intellectually dishonest yet her work gets printed as a viable press piece. This type of "alternate view" is nothing more than a generic cynical POV that relies on fantasy over fact, all funded by a large corporation with an ax to grind.
If these pieces were factually accurate and provided support for their claims, then it's healthy debate. When these pieces contain made-up bullshit, they need to be called out as such. Carville and Begala can do much better.
Also, message-boarding and paid propaganda pieces are completely different animals.
then isn't it just as intellectually dishonest for his office to say he supported ALL the dems? he set up a PAC a year or 2 before the senate race created solely to give $ to democrats in senate races. he didn't publicly support some of these ppl, in fact he helped campaing for some of their opponents in the primaries
the way they paint it is he was right there behind them, he wasn't. he helped raise $ for senate races it's not that he gave the money to ned lamont, he gave the money to the democrat that won the connecticut primary. supporting them would be campaigning or doing someting public for them
and maybe the talk of his handlers and all was a bit too much...but what is being disputed? that he says he never joined the DLC? what are you saying is inaccurate? did he really vote against reauthorizing the patriot act? did he really not call wellstone a 'gadlfy'? was he only joking about war w/ iran? shoudl we care about the the bloated health industry when talking about universal health care, should their jobs mean more than our health? did he really support murthas withdrawl plan <note plan, as in not all at once>? did he really mean to vote against condi rice? what was this 'poor wording' in the amendment capping credit card interest rates at 30% that made him vote against it? why did he take an antiwar speech off his site? did he really mean to vote against the tort reform bill?
so far all we have is the article says he was in the DLC, he says not and some claim HARPER'S magazine, which wasn't repeated in this article, made.....?
the main troubling point is he doesn't seem liek he cares to explain himself, you can hide behind thing like 'i didn't like the language of the bill' or something, well, WHAT language did you not like!? other politicians have no problem saying 'i didn't like a, b and c so i voted against it'
a lot of the claims were supported, again, the only claims disputed are the DLC, which his name was on their list at one time but i guess it could be possible it was done w/o his consent, and some claim some other magazine made and no one even brought up...
it may have been an 'opinion piece' but it brought up things that needed to be brought up concerning the image he puts out and what he's actually done and said
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
excuse me? i've been making the point the whole time that that 'article' is terribly written and full of statments pulled from other sources out of context, and when you look at each source and the whole picture--it's a bit different. i'm saying the article is a crafted smear piece designed to only give a negative picture. the 'writer' used that style to mislead, which i think is so insulting because it's different when you go to the source (like he thought his readers would just take this as truth without checking his sources? i mean he even listed them!). perhaps you've missed the long-ass posts with more context dealing with the content of the first two paragraphs (after editorial intro) of your zmag 'article'. my other point was that when this 'writer' just pulls statements to tie them together to paint his own picture to pass off as truth, it's very curious what he leaves out (i.e. donated to liberman but didn't mention donating to everyone--inc. lamont, saying he discouraged filibuster of alito, yet didn't mention obama voted against confirmation and for filibuster, etc. etc.)
well, why don't you write him and ask? there are easily accessible email addresses you could use. i can't answer for him off the top of my head, but i'd take a little guess that maybe he didn't campaign for every single senator because he also had to do his job, which is not stumping for every single dem up for election. perhaps he did for lieberman because that was his assigned mentor. and i would guess that he donated to every dem because that is what he could do, while still doing his own job, and i'm also guessing he did that because he wanted to see a dem majority in congress.
whatever. you seem pretty rigid in your thinking so i don't even know if it's worth my time. it seems like regardless, you have your mind made up.
you're excused
the point was you brought up this claim/fact thing...the only problem was the 'claim' was made in Harpers magazine, not this article. all the article said was he campaigned for and support lieberman as well as other dems like him. how hard/time consuming is it to record a radio or tv spot for a candidate? I'm X and i urge you to support Y in the election' wow, my whole day is now gone b/c of that! :rolleyes: having a political action committee you created a year or 2 before give money to who it was created to give to ie the democrat nominee for senate, is not the same as giving real support. he didn't support ned lamont, he supported the democratic nominee. there is a difference
and it's funny how quick you are to turn on someone the minute they don't agree w/ you...tell me, again, who's the rigid one??
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
the point was you brought up this claim/fact thing...the only problem was the 'claim' was made in Harpers magazine, not this article. all the article said was he campaigned for and support lieberman as well as other dems like him. how hard/time consuming is it to record a radio or tv spot for a candidate? I'm X and i urge you to support Y in the election' wow, my whole day is now gone b/c of that! :rolleyes: having a political action committee you created a year or 2 before give money to who it was created to give to ie the democrat nominee for senate, is not the same as giving real support. he didn't support ned lamont, he supported the democratic nominee. there is a difference
and it's funny how quick you are to turn on someone the minute they don't agree w/ you...tell me, again, who's the rigid one??
i'm turning on you because i'm questioning the misleading article? huh.
anyway, i posted the response to the harper's article because it addressed the same issue i had with the zmag article, which i've already mentioned many times.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
i'm turning on you because i'm questioning the misleading article? huh.
anyway, i posted the response to the harper's article because it addressed the same issue i had with the zmag article, which i've already mentioned many times.
no, you turned on me by calling me rigid minded, i haven't called you any names. by your definition, then, you are just as rigid minded as what you are accusing me of! huh
it didn't address the same issue, i've already mentioned this, too. the zmag article said:
"he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races"
all of this is TRUE
what the harpers article, which no one but you brought up, said was:
"Harper's Magazine says Obama only gives funds to moderate, establishment Democrats...."
surely you can spot the differences in these 2, can't you? just as there's a difference in the vote for fillibuster and the actual confirmation vote.
so what is false about the zmag statement???
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no, you turned on me by calling me rigid minded, i haven't called you any names. by your definition, then, you are just as rigid minded as what you are accusing me of! huh
it didn't address the same issue, i've already mentioned this, too. the zmag article said:
"he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races"
all of this is TRUE
what the harpers article, which no one but you brought up, said was:
"Harper's Magazine says Obama only gives funds to moderate, establishment Democrats...."
surely you can spot the differences in these 2, can't you?
so what is false about the zmag statement???
oh my god. i'm done after this.
where did i say obama never gave money to lieberman or any moderates? i never said that was false. what i keep repeating over and over and over is that the article is misleading and only takes small pieces out of context to paint a certain picture. and when you look at the missing info, the picture changes.
both zmag and harpers mention the obama support to moderates--especially lieberman. great. but what they both leave out is the support to all democrats. they were both trying to paint the picture he only supports moderates by not mentioning he supported all democrats.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
where did i say obama never gave money to lieberman or any moderates? i never said that was false. what i keep repeating over and over and over is that the article is misleading and only takes small pieces out of context to paint a certain picture. and when you look at the missing info, the picture changes.
both zmag and harpers mention the obama support to moderates--especially lieberman. great. but what they both leave out is the support to all democrats. they were both trying to paint the picture he only supports moderates by not mentioning he supported all democrats.
then stop bringing harpers claim up!!!!!
the zmag article specificially mentions primaries...so you brought up the harpers article in order to debunk this claim...err FACT and they were saying 2 entirely different things....the zmag article says PRIMARY, the harpres article says ONLY
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
huh? i said obama voted against confirmation and for the filibuster. what's the problem there?
b/c there's a difference. you're saying ppl will think the fillibuster means the confirmation vote. you said them saying he voted agaisnt the fillibuster was misleading b/c it didn't mention he voted against the confirmation...those are 2 separate votes and i'm sure ppl are smart enough to realize this, just as they can realize primaries are different from the general election
now, can you answer my questions about how the article was misleading about those stances i have already asked about? while it may be an opinion piece, it doesn't change the fact that he took those stances, made those votes, made those comments...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
it may have been an 'opinion piece' but it brought up things that needed to be brought up concerning the image he puts out and what he's actually done and said
Show me a candidate that has been more open about his life and political stances than Obama. I don't see why I'm supposed to believe these Op/Eds over his books, podcasts, etc....
Every single point brought against him comes off like a huge distorted reach in the grand scheme of things. Petty sniping and throwing out accusations based on manipulated details are elementary tactics that destroy credibility in the process. Context is avoided like the plague in these overspun hit pieces and it directly reflect the degree of desperation of the other side.
IMO these petty attacks do nothing but bolster Sen. Obama's claims about the status quo in DC and in turn make him a better candidate with each passing day.
b/c there's a difference. you're saying ppl will think the fillibuster means the confirmation vote. you said them saying he voted agaisnt the fillibuster was misleading b/c it didn't mention he voted against the confirmation...those are 2 separate votes and i'm sure ppl are smart enough to realize this, just as they can realize primaries are different from the general election
now, can you answer my questions about how the article was misleading about those stances i have already asked about? while it may be an opinion piece, it doesn't change the fact that he took those stances, made those votes, made those comments...
no that is NOT what i'm saying and frankly i don't know what to say anymore because clearly i can't get my point across even though i've repeated it over and over and over. how did you get that filibuster means the confirmation vote out anything i said? of course i know they're two different things and that was my point. my point, once again is that the "article" didn't mention that but they mentioned this:
"Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. "
the "article" said he criticized efforts to filibuster and my point was that OBAMA VOTED FOR THE FILIBUSTER AND AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION IN THE FIRST PLACE. because the "article" didn't mention those two things, they try to make him look "less progressive" by just saying he criticized efforts to enact filibuster.
i'm so done with this. i have an amazing amount of work to do and can't go in circles anymore. happy birthday.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Every single point brought against him comes off like a huge distorted reach in the grand scheme of things. Petty sniping and throwing out accusations based on manipulated details are elementary tactics that destroy credibility in the process. Context is avoided like the plague in these overspun hit pieces and it directly reflect the degree of desperation of the other side.
IMO these petty attacks do nothing but bolster Sen. Obama's claims about the status quo in DC and in turn make him a better candidate with each passing day.
it's so sad. why is this happening--because they're afraid he could actually win?
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
ya know, their are ppl who are taking this waaaaaaay to personally. if you get this bent out of shape and take things this personal just b/c i i disagree w/ the stances of a politician you like you seriously need to take a step back and get a fucking grip and drop the reactionary mentality of attacking anyone who doesn't support him
ok, so this is a spin piece, right?
first a quote from obama
"You should always assume that when I cast a vote or make a statement it is because it is what I believe in"
was it spin that obama:
voted to reautorize the patriot act? no, that's reality
voted for the tort reform bill? no, that, too, is reality
voted to confirm condeleeza rice? nope, that is reality, as well
did he give real support to politicians like lieberman instead of and against actual progressives <or are you saying leiberman IS a progressive> or that he only gave the bare minimal support after the 'politics as usual' dems lost their primaries? no, he did that, too
seems to be more geared towards globalization? nope
against a single payer health care sytem and that we need to think of ppl like kaiser when making a health plan? no, that's from his own mouth
that he criticized efforts to fillibuster the alito vote? nope, he criticized
opposed the amendment that would cap credit card interest rates at 30%? no, he opposed it
" one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinquish the insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home."
what's interesting is that the author leaves out that obama voted against the confirmation of alito, and for the filibuster of alito.
for your entertainment:
so? did it imply he voted for alito? no, it said he criticized the fillibuster, voted against the fillibuster...just b/c he voted against alito doesn't erase this, try as you might.
i'm not too aware of the hamilton project, they might be evil but this doesn't sound so bad to me:
first, it was obvious what you meant by the 'evil' comment :rolleyes:
maybe you should go to the world bank or the wto's site, i'm sure their policies look real pretty, too
but what does the creater of the hamilton project think about it?
'His program consists mostly of familiar ideas that might soften the pain for displaced workers. But I doubt the Hamilton proposals will do much, if anything, to reduce the global forces that are depressing incomes for half or more of the American workforce. Even Rubin is uncertain. When I ask if his agenda will have any effect at all on the global convergence of wages -- the top falling gradually toward the rising bottom -- he says: "Well, I think that's a question to which nobody knows the answer. I think the proposals and approach we are proposing are the way to get the best possible outcome for the United States in a complicated world. ... But whether that's going to stop the global convergence of wages, I don't know the answer to that. I would guess the answer is no." '
no?? wht do others think of these proposals?
'"We need to review the Rubin agenda that's led to millions of lost jobs and declining standard of living for the middle class," said United Steelworkers President Leo Girard. "It's an agenda that has been very good for Citigroup and the financial community because they've been able to finance the relocation of jobs and refinance the trade deficits." '
' "The strategy you propose offers little, in my view, to either bolster economic growth or address the stagnating wages and living standards of American working families," Trumka wrote in a Feb. 7 letter to Rubin. "I am simply astonished that you would suggest such a politically toxic agenda for the Democratic Party." '
"It's commendable they observe this problem of the struggle of people trying to make a living and the stagnation of wages and growing inequality," said Ron Blackwell, chief economist for the AFL-CIO, who also attended this month's meeting with Rubin. "But the policies they are proposing aren't proportional to the problems."
For example, Blackwell says the notion of wage insurance is a Band-Aid that doesn't get to the root of declining wages and working conditions as a result of trade agreements that make it attractive for companies to send jobs overseas.
Rubin's central objective, however, is to control the terms of debate: to address the economic disparities globalization has generated but without disturbing anything fundamental in the global system itself.
btw, the guy who made this runs citigroup, right? weren't they involved in the enron scandal as well as other shady dealings? isn't he a free trade guru?? didn't he ask the treasury dept to aid enron?
yes, we all know what HARPERS said, however this is not the same thing as the article I actually posted said, what the article i posted said was ALL FACTUAL
Obama is telling the truth--he's not opposed to structural changes at all. However, he appears to be interested in fighting only for those changes that fit within the existing boundaries of what's considered mainstream in Washington, instead of using his platform to redefine those boundaries. This posture comes even as polls consistently show that Washington's definition of mainstream is divorced from the rest of the country's (for example, politicians' refusal to debate the war even as polls show that Americans want the troops home).
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Show me a candidate that has been more open about his life and political stances than Obama. I don't see why I'm supposed to believe these Op/Eds over his books, podcasts, etc....
Every single point brought against him comes off like a huge distorted reach in the grand scheme of things. Petty sniping and throwing out accusations based on manipulated details are elementary tactics that destroy credibility in the process. Context is avoided like the plague in these overspun hit pieces and it directly reflect the degree of desperation of the other side.
IMO these petty attacks do nothing but bolster Sen. Obama's claims about the status quo in DC and in turn make him a better candidate with each passing day.
well, kucinich, for one...hell, even newt gingrich is more open!!!
you think reauthorizing the patriot act and voting for condi rice is petty? what was manipulated in my last reply?
can you plz list out obama's stances on things? i mean you're saying it's all out there and so open about it <and yet he won't tell his stances to project vote smart> or do i need to read his book to know his stances? and don't say 'hes for nationalized health care!' i want REAL stances. see, like when kucinich talks about iraq he as an actual plan, a list of how to get there, not just saying some sound bite for the media. we already know obama's plan for iraq:
-stabilize iraq
-defeat the insurgency
-leave, but not totally, keep some military there
but is #2 common knowledge, or is it just the soundbites that he's agaisnt the war <while he talks about how the iraq war is dangerous b/c it makes us want to be isolationist and reject our global responsabilites>
and it's funny what you say his claims about the status quo are when thats exatcly who he gives his support to!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
ya know, their are ppl who are taking this waaaaaaay to personally. if you get this bent out of shape and take things this personal just b/c i i disagree w/ the stances of a politician you like you seriously need to take a step back and get a fucking grip and drop the reactionary mentality of attacking anyone who doesn't support him)
um, this isn't about you. this is about the what i consider to be the misleading zmag article. my level of frustration is due to what must be a complete lack on my part to articulate that.
i'm so done with this. i have an amazing amount of work to do and can't go in circles anymore. happy birthday.
thanks for the sincere birthday wishes. it was nice u could put aside personal politics and be...i dunno.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Do we have threads started for each candidate that can be kept going until the election so people can research the candidate from info we all add to it before they decide? Not a discussion thread I guess...just compiling information, articles, links? Anyone up for that?
well, kucinich, for one...hell, even newt gingrich is more open!!!
you think reauthorizing the patriot act and voting for condi rice is petty? what was manipulated in my last reply?
can you plz list out obama's stances on things? i mean you're saying it's all out there and so open about it <and yet he won't tell his stances to project vote smart> or do i need to read his book to know his stances? and don't say 'hes for nationalized health care!' i want REAL stances. see, like when kucinich talks about iraq he as an actual plan, a list of how to get there, not just saying some sound bite for the media. we already know obama's plan for iraq:
-stabilize iraq
-defeat the insurgency
-leave, but not totally, keep some military there
but is #2 common knowledge, or is it just the soundbites that he's agaisnt the war <while he talks about how the iraq war is dangerous b/c it makes us want to be isolationist and reject our global responsabilites>
and it's funny what you say his claims about the status quo are when thats exatcly who he gives his support to!
eh, what are you whining about? the green party will run another candidate so you don't have to worry about whatever moderate candidate the dems run.
Do we have threads started for each candidate that can be kept going until the election so people can research the candidate from info we all add to it before they decide? Not a discussion thread I guess...just compiling information, articles, links? Anyone up for that?
Comments
the thing that really set me off about the article is that is wasn't framed as an "opinion piece." it was framed as fact about why obama is an illusion. and what was even more irritating is that it took little quotes from various sources to paint a very specifc picture that the author wanted to paint. and if you actually look at everything he took in the original context---well, there's a whole lot more and you'll find information contrary to the claims he makes--in his own sources! how insulting! like he thinks his readers are too lazy to check his sources and just go by 'talking points' he declares. the original piece was entirely misleading, and purposefully. and it was really poorly written.
i didn't get a chance to respond to another one of your posts--but, that's great you support kucinich. i'm not saying you shouldn't. i supported him in the past because i believed in him too. what i don't support is smear pieces trying to pass as fact, when if you just do a little research, you can see the author's agenda.
cross the river to the eastside
oh there's so much more about that article . . . but anyway, i don't know who put the name on the list. and that's a great question.
oh and by the way, the whole progressive label is another huge discussion we could have. it seems the label is more placed upon him instead of him declaring himself as one overall . . . it's interesting.
cross the river to the eastside
ummm, hate to break it to you but the article i posted never made this claim...what it said was:
"Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont."
which is true, his PAC gave money to Lamnonts campaign AFTER he won the primary...which would've happened no matter which (D) won! the PAC was made primarily to fund Democratic Senate runs!! he certainly didn't campaign for any of them or offer them any support other than a donation from his PAC. but when it was the primaries who did he support? the progressives or the politics as usual crowd?
"Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races"
which is also true
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
normally i would agree about voting records, however...
voting to reauthorize the patriot act - kinda hard to get around that one or say it was b/c of some unrelated rider...
saying the military should stay until the insurgency is defeated - kinda speaks for itself about timetables
saying we need to keep a permanent presence there - also speaks for itself
being for attacking iran - again, speaks for itself
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
yeah but the point was there is a whole lot more to the picture-- the author would have you think he only supports mainstream dems by his whole statements, when in fact he supported them all. sure some of his statements are true (but very misleading intentionally), but they're little snippets taken to paint what he wants you to see, and if you don't take such a narrow view, his view, you can see more of the picture which is a bit different than this horribly written article.
surely you're familiar with these tactics since you fight against them when they come from the other side.
cross the river to the eastside
Maureen Dowd is a "respected" writer who offers up opinion pieces with deft regularity. She has been proven time and time again to be, at the very least, intellectually dishonest yet her work gets printed as a viable press piece. This type of "alternate view" is nothing more than a generic cynical POV that relies on fantasy over fact, all funded by a large corporation with an ax to grind.
If these pieces were factually accurate and provided support for their claims, then it's healthy debate. When these pieces contain made-up bullshit, they need to be called out as such. Carville and Begala can do much better.
Also, message-boarding and paid propaganda pieces are completely different animals.
the point is the article didn't say what you said it did. yes, his PAC <set up to fund Democratic Senate races created a year or 2 before the 06 race> gave money to some of htese candidates, but that is all he did for them. he didn't offer any public support, he didn't campaign for any of them, like he did for leiberman...he was even on his book tour for some of this, he could've swung over and campaigned for lamont or some others, but he didn't. the only ones he did stuff like that for were the mainstream dems. they would've gotten this money regardless, all a candidate needed to do to ge this $ was win the primary then they woudl get the $ regardless of who they were or their stances, just as long as there was a D next to their name and they won the primary.
so, again, why wouldn't he campaing or publicly support these more progressive dems? why only offer that to the ones like lieberman?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
excuse me? i've been making the point the whole time that that 'article' is terribly written and full of statments pulled from other sources out of context, and when you look at each source and the whole picture--it's a bit different. i'm saying the article is a crafted smear piece designed to only give a negative picture. the 'writer' used that style to mislead, which i think is so insulting because it's different when you go to the source (like he thought his readers would just take this as truth without checking his sources? i mean he even listed them!). perhaps you've missed the long-ass posts with more context dealing with the content of the first two paragraphs (after editorial intro) of your zmag 'article'. my other point was that when this 'writer' just pulls statements to tie them together to paint his own picture to pass off as truth, it's very curious what he leaves out (i.e. donated to liberman but didn't mention donating to everyone--inc. lamont, saying he discouraged filibuster of alito, yet didn't mention obama voted against confirmation and for filibuster, etc. etc.)
well, why don't you write him and ask? there are easily accessible email addresses you could use. i can't answer for him off the top of my head, but i'd take a little guess that maybe he didn't campaign for every single senator because he also had to do his job, which is not stumping for every single dem up for election. perhaps he did for lieberman because that was his assigned mentor. and i would guess that he donated to every dem because that is what he could do, while still doing his own job, and i'm also guessing he did that because he wanted to see a dem majority in congress.
whatever. you seem pretty rigid in your thinking so i don't even know if it's worth my time. it seems like regardless, you have your mind made up.
cross the river to the eastside
then isn't it just as intellectually dishonest for his office to say he supported ALL the dems? he set up a PAC a year or 2 before the senate race created solely to give $ to democrats in senate races. he didn't publicly support some of these ppl, in fact he helped campaing for some of their opponents in the primaries
the way they paint it is he was right there behind them, he wasn't. he helped raise $ for senate races it's not that he gave the money to ned lamont, he gave the money to the democrat that won the connecticut primary. supporting them would be campaigning or doing someting public for them
and maybe the talk of his handlers and all was a bit too much...but what is being disputed? that he says he never joined the DLC? what are you saying is inaccurate? did he really vote against reauthorizing the patriot act? did he really not call wellstone a 'gadlfy'? was he only joking about war w/ iran? shoudl we care about the the bloated health industry when talking about universal health care, should their jobs mean more than our health? did he really support murthas withdrawl plan <note plan, as in not all at once>? did he really mean to vote against condi rice? what was this 'poor wording' in the amendment capping credit card interest rates at 30% that made him vote against it? why did he take an antiwar speech off his site? did he really mean to vote against the tort reform bill?
so far all we have is the article says he was in the DLC, he says not and some claim HARPER'S magazine, which wasn't repeated in this article, made.....?
the main troubling point is he doesn't seem liek he cares to explain himself, you can hide behind thing like 'i didn't like the language of the bill' or something, well, WHAT language did you not like!? other politicians have no problem saying 'i didn't like a, b and c so i voted against it'
a lot of the claims were supported, again, the only claims disputed are the DLC, which his name was on their list at one time but i guess it could be possible it was done w/o his consent, and some claim some other magazine made and no one even brought up...
it may have been an 'opinion piece' but it brought up things that needed to be brought up concerning the image he puts out and what he's actually done and said
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
you're excused
the point was you brought up this claim/fact thing...the only problem was the 'claim' was made in Harpers magazine, not this article. all the article said was he campaigned for and support lieberman as well as other dems like him. how hard/time consuming is it to record a radio or tv spot for a candidate? I'm X and i urge you to support Y in the election' wow, my whole day is now gone b/c of that! :rolleyes: having a political action committee you created a year or 2 before give money to who it was created to give to ie the democrat nominee for senate, is not the same as giving real support. he didn't support ned lamont, he supported the democratic nominee. there is a difference
and it's funny how quick you are to turn on someone the minute they don't agree w/ you...tell me, again, who's the rigid one??
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i'm turning on you because i'm questioning the misleading article? huh.
anyway, i posted the response to the harper's article because it addressed the same issue i had with the zmag article, which i've already mentioned many times.
cross the river to the eastside
no, you turned on me by calling me rigid minded, i haven't called you any names. by your definition, then, you are just as rigid minded as what you are accusing me of! huh
it didn't address the same issue, i've already mentioned this, too. the zmag article said:
"he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races"
all of this is TRUE
what the harpers article, which no one but you brought up, said was:
"Harper's Magazine says Obama only gives funds to moderate, establishment Democrats...."
surely you can spot the differences in these 2, can't you? just as there's a difference in the vote for fillibuster and the actual confirmation vote.
so what is false about the zmag statement???
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
oh my god. i'm done after this.
where did i say obama never gave money to lieberman or any moderates? i never said that was false. what i keep repeating over and over and over is that the article is misleading and only takes small pieces out of context to paint a certain picture. and when you look at the missing info, the picture changes.
both zmag and harpers mention the obama support to moderates--especially lieberman. great. but what they both leave out is the support to all democrats. they were both trying to paint the picture he only supports moderates by not mentioning he supported all democrats.
cross the river to the eastside
then stop bringing harpers claim up!!!!!
the zmag article specificially mentions primaries...so you brought up the harpers article in order to debunk this claim...err FACT and they were saying 2 entirely different things....the zmag article says PRIMARY, the harpres article says ONLY
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
huh? i said obama voted against confirmation and for the filibuster. what's the problem there?
cross the river to the eastside
is it time for a group paddle?
b/c there's a difference. you're saying ppl will think the fillibuster means the confirmation vote. you said them saying he voted agaisnt the fillibuster was misleading b/c it didn't mention he voted against the confirmation...those are 2 separate votes and i'm sure ppl are smart enough to realize this, just as they can realize primaries are different from the general election
now, can you answer my questions about how the article was misleading about those stances i have already asked about? while it may be an opinion piece, it doesn't change the fact that he took those stances, made those votes, made those comments...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Show me a candidate that has been more open about his life and political stances than Obama. I don't see why I'm supposed to believe these Op/Eds over his books, podcasts, etc....
Every single point brought against him comes off like a huge distorted reach in the grand scheme of things. Petty sniping and throwing out accusations based on manipulated details are elementary tactics that destroy credibility in the process. Context is avoided like the plague in these overspun hit pieces and it directly reflect the degree of desperation of the other side.
IMO these petty attacks do nothing but bolster Sen. Obama's claims about the status quo in DC and in turn make him a better candidate with each passing day.
no that is NOT what i'm saying and frankly i don't know what to say anymore because clearly i can't get my point across even though i've repeated it over and over and over. how did you get that filibuster means the confirmation vote out anything i said? of course i know they're two different things and that was my point. my point, once again is that the "article" didn't mention that but they mentioned this:
"Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. "
the "article" said he criticized efforts to filibuster and my point was that OBAMA VOTED FOR THE FILIBUSTER AND AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION IN THE FIRST PLACE. because the "article" didn't mention those two things, they try to make him look "less progressive" by just saying he criticized efforts to enact filibuster.
i'm so done with this. i have an amazing amount of work to do and can't go in circles anymore. happy birthday.
cross the river to the eastside
it's so sad. why is this happening--because they're afraid he could actually win?
cross the river to the eastside
ok, so this is a spin piece, right?
first a quote from obama
"You should always assume that when I cast a vote or make a statement it is because it is what I believe in"
was it spin that obama:
voted to reautorize the patriot act? no, that's reality
voted for the tort reform bill? no, that, too, is reality
voted to confirm condeleeza rice? nope, that is reality, as well
did he give real support to politicians like lieberman instead of and against actual progressives <or are you saying leiberman IS a progressive> or that he only gave the bare minimal support after the 'politics as usual' dems lost their primaries? no, he did that, too
seems to be more geared towards globalization? nope
against a single payer health care sytem and that we need to think of ppl like kaiser when making a health plan? no, that's from his own mouth
that he criticized efforts to fillibuster the alito vote? nope, he criticized
opposed the amendment that would cap credit card interest rates at 30%? no, he opposed it
what is his plan for iraq?
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward_in_iraq/index.html
" one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinquish the insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home."
ok, now let's look at the 'spin' :rolleyes:
so? did it imply he voted for alito? no, it said he criticized the fillibuster, voted against the fillibuster...just b/c he voted against alito doesn't erase this, try as you might.
first, it was obvious what you meant by the 'evil' comment :rolleyes:
maybe you should go to the world bank or the wto's site, i'm sure their policies look real pretty, too
but what does the creater of the hamilton project think about it?
'His program consists mostly of familiar ideas that might soften the pain for displaced workers. But I doubt the Hamilton proposals will do much, if anything, to reduce the global forces that are depressing incomes for half or more of the American workforce. Even Rubin is uncertain. When I ask if his agenda will have any effect at all on the global convergence of wages -- the top falling gradually toward the rising bottom -- he says: "Well, I think that's a question to which nobody knows the answer. I think the proposals and approach we are proposing are the way to get the best possible outcome for the United States in a complicated world. ... But whether that's going to stop the global convergence of wages, I don't know the answer to that. I would guess the answer is no." '
no?? wht do others think of these proposals?
'"We need to review the Rubin agenda that's led to millions of lost jobs and declining standard of living for the middle class," said United Steelworkers President Leo Girard. "It's an agenda that has been very good for Citigroup and the financial community because they've been able to finance the relocation of jobs and refinance the trade deficits." '
' "The strategy you propose offers little, in my view, to either bolster economic growth or address the stagnating wages and living standards of American working families," Trumka wrote in a Feb. 7 letter to Rubin. "I am simply astonished that you would suggest such a politically toxic agenda for the Democratic Party." '
"It's commendable they observe this problem of the struggle of people trying to make a living and the stagnation of wages and growing inequality," said Ron Blackwell, chief economist for the AFL-CIO, who also attended this month's meeting with Rubin. "But the policies they are proposing aren't proportional to the problems."
For example, Blackwell says the notion of wage insurance is a Band-Aid that doesn't get to the root of declining wages and working conditions as a result of trade agreements that make it attractive for companies to send jobs overseas.
Rubin's central objective, however, is to control the terms of debate: to address the economic disparities globalization has generated but without disturbing anything fundamental in the global system itself.
btw, the guy who made this runs citigroup, right? weren't they involved in the enron scandal as well as other shady dealings? isn't he a free trade guru?? didn't he ask the treasury dept to aid enron?
yes, we all know what HARPERS said, however this is not the same thing as the article I actually posted said, what the article i posted said was ALL FACTUAL
this, while also an opinion piece sums him nicely:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota/3
Obama is telling the truth--he's not opposed to structural changes at all. However, he appears to be interested in fighting only for those changes that fit within the existing boundaries of what's considered mainstream in Washington, instead of using his platform to redefine those boundaries. This posture comes even as polls consistently show that Washington's definition of mainstream is divorced from the rest of the country's (for example, politicians' refusal to debate the war even as polls show that Americans want the troops home).
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
well, kucinich, for one...hell, even newt gingrich is more open!!!
you think reauthorizing the patriot act and voting for condi rice is petty? what was manipulated in my last reply?
can you plz list out obama's stances on things? i mean you're saying it's all out there and so open about it <and yet he won't tell his stances to project vote smart> or do i need to read his book to know his stances? and don't say 'hes for nationalized health care!' i want REAL stances. see, like when kucinich talks about iraq he as an actual plan, a list of how to get there, not just saying some sound bite for the media. we already know obama's plan for iraq:
-stabilize iraq
-defeat the insurgency
-leave, but not totally, keep some military there
but is #2 common knowledge, or is it just the soundbites that he's agaisnt the war <while he talks about how the iraq war is dangerous b/c it makes us want to be isolationist and reject our global responsabilites>
and it's funny what you say his claims about the status quo are when thats exatcly who he gives his support to!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
um, this isn't about you. this is about the what i consider to be the misleading zmag article. my level of frustration is due to what must be a complete lack on my part to articulate that.
that was from two years ago. this has been posted before in other threads:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_plan_to_stop_escalation_of_iraq_war_begin_phased_redeployment_of_troops/index.html
cross the river to the eastside
thanks for the sincere birthday wishes. it was nice u could put aside personal politics and be...i dunno.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/obama_on_iraq_i.html
Do we have threads started for each candidate that can be kept going until the election so people can research the candidate from info we all add to it before they decide? Not a discussion thread I guess...just compiling information, articles, links? Anyone up for that?
Love,
Kat
eh, what are you whining about? the green party will run another candidate so you don't have to worry about whatever moderate candidate the dems run.
Good morning, Kat.
I'd be for that. Good idea.