The Obama Illusion

Last Exodus

cutback wrote:

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.

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

VictoryGin

WindNoSail wrote:

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.

El_Kabong

VictoryGin wrote:

Misleading Claim #3: Support for Other Democrats

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."

read the rest of the page too:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/061023-senator_obamas_office_responds_to_misleading_harpers_magazine_story/index.html

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

El_Kabong

trappedinmyradio wrote:

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

VictoryGin

El_Kabong wrote:

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.

SweetHarmonics

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

El_Kabong

VictoryGin wrote:

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?

norm

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.

VictoryGin

El_Kabong wrote:

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.)

El_Kabong wrote:

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.

El_Kabong

SweetHarmonics wrote:

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

El_Kabong

VictoryGin wrote:

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??

VictoryGin

El_Kabong wrote:

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??

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.

El_Kabong

VictoryGin wrote:

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???

VictoryGin

El_Kabong wrote:

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.

El_Kabong

VictoryGin wrote:

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.

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

VictoryGin

El_Kabong wrote:

just as there's a difference in the vote for fillibuster and the actual confirmation vote.

huh? i said obama voted against confirmation and for the filibuster. what's the problem there?

polaris

VictoryGin wrote:

huh? i said obama voted against confirmation and for the filibuster. what's the problem there?

is it time for a group paddle?

El_Kabong

VictoryGin wrote:

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...

SweetHarmonics

El_Kabong wrote:

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.