Enough with the 'Obama is pro-war' nonsense!

by James Gatz, Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:48:34 PM EST

I just read Vox Populi's diary on Obama entitled "Obama does it again 'Democrats hate the troops'" and I've just about had it up to here with this circular firing squad bullshit.

I like Barack Obama. I also like John Edwards. And Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and to a lesser extent I can even live with Joe Biden or Hilllary Clinton. They're all about 100 times better than any Republican candidate, and when they make statements about their preferred policies on various issues (such as the war in Iraq), we should keep in mind that they all feel as we do in most ways: the war was a mistake in the first place (all but Clinton), has been terribly managed (all, period), and needs to be ended (all, again), with or without achieving an impossible victory.

And yet supporters of some of the trailing candidates, especially Edwards supporters but some others I'm sure as well, feel the need to slime leading candidates fairly or unfairly with the BS lie that they're pro-war. Vox Populi's latest slime is flat-out wrong on its face, as you'll see below:

This latest anti-Obama diary quotes Sen. Obama as follows:

"I am not yet at the point where I am prepared to say that I am going to cut off funding, partly because I spent a lot of time in Iowa, in Illinois, in small communities where every town hall meeting I have I meet with a mother whose son or daughter is in Iraq and they are concerned not only about getting them home but also concerned about getting them home safely and making sure they've got the night vision goggles and the armor and so forth," he told Wolf Blitzer.

then he goes on to say:

'What Senator Obama is saying is that it is irresponsible to withdraw funding for the war.' [RIGHT SO FAR - most responsible people can realize that a sudden halt in funding for troops already in the field could be disasterous, especially with a Comander in Chief who insists on keeping them there regardless of their state of supply. This is why DEMOCRATS in both houses opted for a timeline of withdrawal, instead of an abrupt cut-off]

Vox continues:
'He is implying that Democrats who support defunding are not giving proper body armor and equipment to the soldiers on the ground.'
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Obama is saying just the opposite of this - BUSH is the bastard who is refusing to sign the Democratically supported supplemental with a timeline. BUSH is the bastard who is endangering our troops, both by refusing to support them today and refusing to bring them home in the next year. BUSH is the bastard 'playing chicken with the troops'.

BUSH is the bastard who Obama's comments are directed towards, as you could clearly tell if you heard him say on MoveOn's virtual town hall that he A. Wants Bush to sign the supplemental, B. is "committed to finding 67 votes to override Bush's veto' if Bush doesn't sign, C. wants to "ratchet up the pressure on Bush" to agree to a timeline for withdrawal, and D. is looking into "giving the President a shorter leash" with regard to the next supplemental if Bush vetos the first and can't be overriden.

Where in there do you get the crazy goddamn idea that Obama blames Democrats for the war, or for not doing enough for our troops. Or that he is opposed to ending it in the swiftest reasonable way. Look again at the quote that Vox Populi used, with new emphasis:

"I am not yet at the point where I am prepared to say that I am going to cut off funding, partly because I spent a lot of time in Iowa, in Illinois, in small communities where every town hall meeting I have I meet with a mother whose son or daughter is in Iraq and THEY ARE CONCERNED NOT ONLY ABOUT GETTING THEM HOME BUT ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING THEM HOME SAFELY and making sure they've got the night vision goggles and the armor and so forth," he told Wolf Blitzer.

You don't think he's thinking about, you know, GETTING THEM HOME?

Stop spouting lies about Democrats. Stop assuming that every time a Democrat disagrees with a particular policy position, he's targeting other Democrats. The enemy here is Bush and the Republicans, and I've had it with supposedly partisan progressive Democrats who seem more interested in bashing the leading progressive Democratic candidate.

I learned this in kindergarten, so I'll teach you now: if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.  


Poll
Is Obama pro-war?
Yes, Pro-War
No, Anti-War

Votes: 48
Results : Vote Link : Polls


Tags: Obama, Iraq (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 128 Comments :: Post a Comment


Tip Jar (3.00 / 5)

Can you believe that smears of Democratic candidates get promoted to 'recommended diaries' as much as they do?


by James Gatz on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:50:15 PM EST

You are either with us (none / 0)

Or you are with.... the neo-cons!


by Stewieeeee on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:55:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are either with us (3.00 / 0)

Yeah, and apparently 'us' needs to be the John Edwards fan club! The only thing that would convince some people that Barack Obama is a progressive would be if he endorsed Edwards! Being just as progressive on every issue doesn't cut it.


by James Gatz on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:59:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can be an activist (none / 0)

When you're not holding office.

Good for Edwards.


by Stewieeeee on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (3.00 / 3)

Barack is clearly anti-war, but I strongly disagree with his style and strategy.  He isn't a fighter.  He is a negotiator.  I want a fighter.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:59:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (3.00 / 1)

I can appreciate that critique, but I honestly think he is a fighter on the campaign trail and in his life, but in the Senate one has to be a negotiator to get anything done. You consider just how much more of a 'fighter' John Edwards seems to be today than when he was in the Senate - a time when he was far less consistant in his support of progressive causes then Barack Obama has ever been.


by James Gatz on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:02:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards... (none / 0)

does have some momentum around being anti-war...but if he thinks his apology in 2005 is the end of the story, he's wrong.

Just wait...the hypocrite stories will be written, as it becomes clear he's top tier.  I hope Edwards is prepared with a good answer.


by rashomon on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A vast majority of Americans supported the war (none / 0)

And now oppose it.

If that's hipocrisy, tens of millions of Americans are guilty.


by Cyt on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 02:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (3.00 / 1)

Did you read the Boston Globe piece a couple months ago about his time as editor of the Harvard Law Review?  The same kind of style that he is exhibiting now he did back then too.  That's why I know I don't like his style.

And John was probably the best Southern Democrat we had in the Senate at the time.  Barack is from effing Chicago, which votes as Democratic as San Francisco, and Illinois, a pretty solid blue state.  He can afford to be more progressive.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (3.00 / 1)

My wife read that article in the NYT Sunday, do you have a link.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (none / 0)

Here ya go:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/article s/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_v oice/

He comes off really well, just not my kind of leader for the situation we're in.  Some of it actually reminded me of what I've read about FDR, though.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:24:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The key discussion to have... (3.00 / 2)

gets right to your comment about "my kind of leader".  How do you define leadership?  Is it more important to "stand up and fight" or to redefine progressive politics in such a way to provide a unifying vision for the country?

IMHO, I don't think it's bad that we're starting to see the contrast...between Edwards as a more vocal partisan and Obama with a more inclusive vision.  Elections (and primaries particularly) are about defining where we as a party want to go.  Nothing bad about that.

Some folks (like BTD over at TalkLeft) seem to think the "politics of contrast" is the only way to go.  I happen to believe that's just a Rovian approach from the polar opposite view...and we've seen how effective that approach is.


by rashomon on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The key discussion to have... (3.00 / 1)

I agree, this is a discussion we must have.  I think that at another time, Barack will be just the leader we need.  Not now.  Now, we need to forge a new Democratic era.  And historically, we have done that with intense ideological and party partisanship, under Jackson and FDR (both pretty populistic), that is how Democrats established two eras of Democratic dominance.
As I said, at another time we will need someone more like Barack.  I just don't think that time is now.  And hopefully we'll be able to push him a little farther against free trade by then.

And it needn't be dirty politics like Rove's; it needn't require that all of our policies and actions be about politics, as they are with Rove.  It is a fighting spirit.  It is a willingness to fight for what we believe in.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The key discussion to have... (3.00 / 1)

I agree that we need to forge a new Democratic era, or more accurately, a new Progressive era, and that's why I like Obama a bit more than Edwards, really. It's not like there's enough of a sliver of daylight between them on the issues to have a preference, it's got to be about rhetoric.

Obama, to me, seems to generally say: "I'm not a radical partisan. I believe in mainstream values, like ending the war in Iraq, bringing healthcare to all Americans, slowing global warming through alternative energies and acheiving energy independence, and fostering a society in which everyone has an equal chance to succeed."

Edwards seems to me to say something more like: "I reject mainstream values. I believe in progressive values like ending the war in Iraq, bringing healthcare to all Americans, slowing global warming through alternative energies and acheiving energy independence, and fostering a society in which everyone has an equal chance to succeed."

Perhaps that's an unfair analysis, and I apologize if any Edwards supporters think it is. I don't mean to knock your guy at all.

But if you think that's fair, then the question comes down to which is more likely to bring about a new 'Progressive era': a candidate who stands for Progressive causes and values and declares that they ARE mainstream and have the backing of the majority of Americans, or a candidate who stands for the same causes and values but suggests they are NOT mainstream but only supported by a select group of core progressives?

I think it's the first one, and that's essentially the high hope I have for a Barack Obama Presidency - Progressivism redefined as middle-of-the-road American, just like FDR did with Social Security, unemployment insurance, FDIC, farm aid, etc.


by James Gatz on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The key discussion to have... (3.00 / 2)

Obama, to me, seems to generally say: "I'm not a radical partisan. I believe in mainstream values, like ending the war in Iraq, bringing healthcare to all Americans, slowing global warming through alternative energies and acheiving energy independence, and fostering a society in which everyone has an equal chance to succeed."

Edwards seems to me to say something more like: "I reject mainstream values. I believe in progressive values like ending the war in Iraq, bringing healthcare to all Americans, slowing global warming through alternative energies and acheiving energy independence, and fostering a society in which everyone has an equal chance to succeed."

Actually, no. They are both saying that they promote mainstream values. But Obama frames issues in such a manner that implies that many Democrats who are more progressive than him are extreme, from trade to the war to views on religion. Edwards doesn't do that.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The key discussion to have... (none / 0)

As long as Barack is running on nonideological bipartisanship, he is not giving people a reason to vote for Democrats other than him.  As long as he is acting like we can work with the Republicans to accomplish our goals (which we can't, because they don't agree with us), he is legitimizing them and helping them appear mainstream.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The key discussion to have... (none / 0)

But Some Republicans do on some issues... and those on those specific issues are the ones he wants to work with.  This is the fundamental aspect of Obama's message that many Edwards supporters on here don't seem to get and then unintentionally mis...quote is the wrong word but wrongly explain might be... wrongly explain to others.  He has never said work with all Republicans.... he has said work with the ones who agree with you and don't be nasty about it.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The key discussion to have... (none / 0)

But we always do that.  We always have, we always will.  That's the way politics works.  If that is all Barack is talking about, then it's empty rhetoric.  But it isn't all he's talking about.  Go back upthread and read the article I posted, if you haven't already.  That's what is informing my opinion of his character.  that's why I feel that what you're talking about isn't all he is talking about.  If that makes sense.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:10:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The key discussion to have... (none / 0)

So then you might feel that Obama would philosophically be a good VP to Edwards; who would start your era as a fighter and then someone with Obama's leadership style would be better once its progressing in 8 years?


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The key discussion to have... (none / 0)

Hells yes.  That's exactly what I'm thinking.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:08:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The key discussion to have... (none / 0)

Exactly, drawing lines in the sand failed in the Middle East and fails at home.


by fisheye on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:41:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obviously not from Chicago (none / 0)

We vote Democratic but not necessarily Progressive


by Licorice on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obviously not from Chicago (none / 0)

Someone from a state like Illinois, and a city like Chicago, can afford to be more progressive than someone from North Carolina.  Are you really going to disagree with that?  Both Barack and Dick Durbin are among the most "liberal" members of the senate, according to most rankings.  And neither has to worry about re-election.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:41:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BUT NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH!!! (none / 0)

Mel Watt is one of the most progressive members of the House, and Brad Miller is a champion of many progressive issues. Edwards was my Senator when he voted for the war, so I take that one personally.

The question is...can someone in the Senate who trying to end the war and near the top of the Presidential race afford to be more progressive than a non-Senator who is lunging to the left to win the Democratic primary?


by faithfull on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

That's a very biased question.  I refuse to accept your frames.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards handed his seat to Richard Burr (none / 0)

Who is just to the right of satan.


by faithfull on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:45:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Handed? (3.00 / 1)

thats a ridiculous statement.


by okamichan13 on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:52:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Handed? (none / 0)

It was a rediculous move


by faithfull on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Handed? (none / 0)

You'd rather have a man you apparently despise as your senator than Burr?  Someone who-GASP-voted for the war?


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:33:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Handed? (none / 0)

No. I'd rather have a Democrat.


by faithfull on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 02:05:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See...now that's a great comment. (none / 0)

This is a perfectly fair critcism of Obama's approach.  I happen to disagree, but that's fine.  I just get tired of the "see...Obama's not really a progressive" crowd.


by rashomon on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:02:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I more in the (3.00 / 1)

I-really-don't-know-what-the-hell-he-is crowd.

Here's a metaphysical conundrum: Can you be a progressive if you don't run a progressive campaign?

Debate is good. Let the debate continue.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:32:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I more in the (none / 0)

Well, he can't be nonideological by trying to run a nonideological campaign.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I more in the (none / 0)

Yes you can.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I more in the (none / 0)

Obama had more than twice as many contributors as any other candidate last quarter. He IS running a progressive grassroots campaign. He just also has to work in the Senate, which Edwards gave up a long time ago in order to lunge to the left for the primary.


by faithfull on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I more in the (none / 0)

He's the only candidate with an ounce of humility. Being a big mouthed antagonist is not the definition of a progressive. He doesn't quiver about calling Rove out by his neocon name or calling Delay a bum, but he won't run on a polarizing platform because he doesn't buy into the wedge issues that manipulate the electorate. Look at the Republican candidates and tell me any of them really give a shit about pro life, the NRA or gay marriage. Giuliani is a firkin cross dresser. So who is gonna garner all those swing votes? A polariser or a unifier? The country has been crying out for unity for 6 long years.


by fisheye on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (3.00 / 1)

Doing everything he can to stop funding without some type of stipulation to give Democrats power with managing the war.  What a negotiater.  (Bush would refuse any stipulation) there isn't room for negotiating, and Obama is fighting.  If this were negotiating we'd have a compromise, but a compromise isn't acceptable by either party.  

As far as negotiating while in power, I can imagine his bipartisanship being like the Democratic congress promised.  Republicans can either help be a part of the solution or help be a problem.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (none / 0)

This is why I respect you.  I disagree with you, but at least you respect the candidate and his supporters.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:11:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (none / 0)

No,

We've had "hot heads" controlling our nation for too long. We need a president who knows what DIPLOMACY and COMPETANCE is. He's taking the mess created and actually dealing with it. We don't need a Bush Democrat.

Obama says, "We need to be as careful about getting out of this war than we were careless getting into this war"

PERIOD!

This nation already has a bad reputation of being hostile and given it's history , from the time they left England till this very day, America still has a bad reputation in the world and is not trusted. It's that distrust that breeds the hatred. It's that hatred that breeds terrorism. It's terrorism that threatens our national security.


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (none / 0)

I'm talking about fighting Republicans, who have ruined this country, and not foreigners.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (3.00 / 1)

What a joke.  Any attempt to deal with Obama and issues you define as a "smear."  I will not worship Barack Obama.  I will deal with issue differences.


by littafi on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:03:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (3.00 / 0)

Bull. The intent to smear is evident throughout, starting with titles of diaries like:

"Obama does it again: Democrats Hate the Troops"

You think that's how to discuss a policy disagreement?


by James Gatz on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You don't think it's (none / 0)

a legitmate issue for discussion that Obama is defending his position by using the GOP favorite and most powerful talking point?

Me thinks that Obama and his supporters might not be ready for Primetime.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't think it's (none / 0)

That diary is not how you start an adult starts a legitimate discussion.  Its what a spoiled kid would do.  

Me thinks you could use some lessions in human decency and manners.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:13:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lying about a Democrat (none / 0)

and implying that he said Democrats hate the troops...

yep...you guys are ready for primetime. Katie Couric is saving you a seat.


by faithfull on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't think it's (none / 0)

That's just the point - Obama never said this GOP talking point, and the diary in question attempts to saddle him with such an accusation. That's a lie, it's a smear, and it shouldn't be acceptable for us as progressives to allow this to this happen to any clearly progressive candidate - especially not from other supposedly loyal Dems on a pro-Democratic blog.  


by James Gatz on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

However, that clearly is not a claim ... (none / 0)

... that Obama is pro-Iraq-War, its a claim that Obama is pro-go-along-to-get-along.

You need to actually cite an instance of someone who claimed Obama was pro-War in order to have anybody that the diary is actually about. Otherwise its a combination of straw horse argument and "when did you stop beating your wife".

I far prefer the MoveOn.org question ... who will be more effective in ending the war ... than the oversimplistic, "Is Obama Pro-War or Anti-War" question.

Heck, even in the famous speech, Obama made clear that he is not anti-War generically, just anti-stupid-wars. That leaves open the possibility that he may be pro-smart-war.

But "anti-stupid-war, pro-smart-war" is not even made available in that poll.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:41:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: However, that clearly is not a claim ... (none / 0)

I wish everyone thought like you, and that MoveOn question were the one people were applying to our candidates. But if that were the case, then couldn't we all agree that these candidates are anti-war, and just disagree about how they are going about ending it?

I wish we could - but look at the response to the poll question - at least a dozen people have voted so far that Obama is, in fact, pro-war. How can you suggest that these people don't exist and this diary is opposing a strawman, when there are folks explicitly voting for that statement on this very page?


by James Gatz on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good. (none / 0)

Thats what we've been asking you to do.

Stop making up and promoting bullshit smear-pieces.


by faithfull on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (none / 0)

You really need to get off your high horse and try to actually understand what he said.  He never said that, as anyone who takes the time to comprehend what they are reading can see.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:14:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a dishonest title (none / 0)

James, can you name a single Democrat, or a single person on the planet, who has said Obama is pro-war?

If not, please at least change the title, although I'd prefer it if you take down your whole silly diary.

What is it that Obama supporters have against debate? I guess it's because their candidate doesn't hold up very well when there's a comparison.

Debate is good. Let the debate continue.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:25:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The whole thrust of Edwards online push (none / 0)

Has been that he is the anti-war candidate, and that  by voting for funding, Obama is somehow the pro-war candidate compared to Edwards (who many still like to forget put us there in the first place.)

Now, Vox has taken it to an extreme by snipping the quote of a fellow Democrat, who is criticizing Bush, and taking the entire thing out of context to imply that he hates the troops.

This is a fantastic diary, and hit the mark perfectly.


by faithfull on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The only people (none / 0)

who are using the term pro-war are Obama's supporters. You might want to stop using that term to describe your candidate.

All the Democratic candidates are opposed to the war, including Obama.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only people (none / 0)

That is such Bullshit.  There are several people on MyDD who have said that Obama not supporting funding makes him Pro-War.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope (none / 0)

people said he was undercutting the antiwar movement; no one said he was antiwar--huge difference.

Tell the truth.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:21:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope (none / 0)

No it isn't different.  And given the poll results, I am telling the truth.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:30:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope (none / 0)

Sorry, I have to post again... Your post is so just utterly wrong its not even funny.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only people (none / 0)

How'd you vote?


by faithfull on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:27:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Me? (none / 0)

I said antiwar, but I have to say it's amusing that the diarist put up this poll to prove a point, but all it's doing, really, is helping to perpetuate the idea that he's not antiwar enough, as if there's a question. But hey, don't look to me for advice on how to promote your guy. I support Edwards.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:58:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a dishonest title (none / 0)

Yes, Several did in Jerome's front page article.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a dishonest title (none / 0)

Look at the poll!


by James Gatz on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:36:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look It (none / 0)

I am a huge Obama believer.  I'm not going to spend time denigrating Edwards, or Clinton, cuz I kind of like them too.  And frankly, the political differences are not that great, and I don't care to psychoanalyze their personality differences.

But here's why I like Obama: the most important legacy of a President is the story s/he tells America about itself, because all policy and a great deal of social and cultural change flows from that.  

Obama is the only candidate I see who can tell an optimistic story of America as a great nation that is a beacon of hope, opportunity, and democracy.  He can redefine our national identity, build a grand coalition like FDR's or Reagan's, and give progressive the support we need to get things done.

It's the opposite of zero-sum political warfare.


by Obama CaliFan on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:59:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look It (none / 0)

"It's the opposite of zero-sum political warfare."
And that's how I've described the thinking of Obama supporters.  But FDR was pretty damn partisan.  I don't see how you build a coalition if you don't fight for it.
"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 07:07:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court (none / 0)

He also personally campaigned against senators who opposed him, from either party.

He was no political sissy.


by Cyt on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 02:22:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (none / 0)

I have been trying to figure out why the Edwards supporters are so hostile to Obama and I have to come to the conclusion that they believe Edwards should be in 2nd to Hillary Clinton and are mad Obama has upset the apple cart.  I can't come up with any other explanation since Obama is clearly a progressive.  

I haven't chosen a candidate yet although I am weighing Obama and Richardson right now.  I wish I could combine Obama's charisma with Richardson's resume but you can't create your own candidate.  

I have pretty much ruled out Edwards in the primary based on his poor performance against Cheney in 2004.  I was completely underwhelmed with him 3 years ago and can't get passed it.  I'd obviously support him and work hard for him if he won the nomination.


by John Mills on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 11:13:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip Jar (none / 0)

I don't see that Obama is clearly a progressive, but he does clearly prefer to aim low with his policies ... a lot like Edwards in 2004, when it comes down to it.

I see a lot of evidence to suggest he's better than Hillary, but whether that's just ahead of Hillary and Biden, or just behind Edwards and Gore, I haven't sorted out in my own mind. I expect the next six months will give Obama plenty of opportunities to make clear exactly how high he is willing to aim.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:25:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lots of pro-Edwards energy around here... (3.00 / 2)

Nothing wrong with the excitement some folks have for Edwards.  It is disappointing when some of the energy becomes anti-Obama.  I guess we're just going to have to live with Obama's "chicken" comment taken out of context for a while.

It is interesting how specifically Edwards has been pushing the netroots buttons though, like with the reference to "Joe Lieberman" in his MoveOn speech.  He obviously sees an opening...


by rashomon on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:58:48 PM EST

Re: Lots of pro-Edwards energy around here... (none / 0)

I agree on all parts. Energy is fine, anti-Democratic hatred shouldn't be tolerated like it currently is, and John Edwards certainly knows how to court the netroots.


by James Gatz on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wake Up, Wake Up (3.00 / 1)

"out of context"?

How many times does he need to say it before you b elieve that it's what he means.

Take off the blinkers and step away.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:25:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh...I believe he means... (none / 0)

that he's not prepared to cut funding for the troops.  Which is a fair policy description.

The "chicken" part that I object to is the mischaracterization that Obama is somehow calling out Democrats for playing "chicken".  He hasn't done this and has reiterated several times that it's Bush's fault for the current stalemate...we have a reasonable proposal on the table.


by rashomon on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

33% of the voters on this poll? (none / 0)

they say Obama is pro-war.

They'll say anything.


by faithfull on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:28:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In what sense was Obama's 'chicken' ... (none / 0)

... comment taken out of context. The charge made against it was that it plays into the hands of the radical right wing Noise Machine. The way that it comes over when clipped out and spread around is the reason it was a mistake to say that.

As to whether it was more than a gaffe, and gave any deeper insight into Obama's views than more carefully prepared remarks, I personally doubt it, but time will tell.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is not pro-war. (none / 0)

That is a strawman argument of your own invention that you then attribute to Edwards supporters.  It is bullshit, man.

The problem is that Obama harms the antiwar movement with his votes and statements.  But no one said he is pro-war.  


by littafi on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:01:39 PM EST

Re: Obama is not pro-war. (none / 0)

Yeah, Vox Populi did, quoting Kucinich:

"Is voting to fund the war the same as reauthorizing it?  And can an office-holder vote to continue war and credibly call themselves anti-war?"

And he was hardly the first.

And what vote is it that has harmed the anti-war movement? His vote for the supplemental with a timeline attached mirrored the one he wrote into his Iraq plan?

If you want to talk about votes hurting the anti-war movement, perhaps SPONSORING a resolution to go to war in Iraq should be on your radar screen? And for the record, I don't think that makes Edwards pro-war or even a bad candidate for the anti-war movement: he's learned from it. I'm willing to have candidates who have sometimes done things I wouldn't have done myself, if on balance they've shown themselves to be strong progressives.


by James Gatz on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Remember the days... (3.00 / 2)

when Kucinich attacked Howard Dean as not being anti-war enough?  Good times...


by rashomon on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the days... (none / 0)

I sure do. I was with Dean then, and this recent campaign against Obama does have that exact same infuriating feel to it that I had in the winter of '03-'04.


by James Gatz on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the days... (3.00 / 1)

As I said in another thread last night, Kucinich is too self-righteous, and runs against the party just like Harold Ford and Joe Lieberman [used to].


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:16:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the days... (none / 0)

Well said, jallen, and let me point out that even though I'm aware you support a different candidate than I do, I've never felt that you broke the 11th commandment for Democrats. I wish your attitude would spread to other Edwards supporters  [I personally think that part of their hatred just stems from anxiety about him being in third in the polls, and feeling like he deserves first, which is understandable] who feel the need to QUOTE Kucinich's attacks on other Dems as long as the other Dems in question aren't Edwards.


by James Gatz on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:23:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the days... (3.00 / 0)

Thanks, but I've had some weak moments.  And yes, the anxiety over his position does play into it.  But it inevitably comes down to fights between well-meaning Democrats.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:26:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the days... (none / 0)

Who benefits from a fight between Edwards and Obama?

Cetainly not either the Obama or Edwards campaigns.

The Hillary folks probably lurk here and at Dkos while they munch their popcorn


by Sam I Am on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Both Edwards and Obama (none / 0)

because the best way to beat Hillary is with a progressive campaign. And the country, which needs a progressive candidate for president.

If Edwards weren't in the race, Obama would be free to nuzzle up against Hillary's right shoulder, which he's practically doing anyway. But as time rolls on, Edwards will pull Obama to the left, which is where he needs to be if he's the nominee.

Debate is good. Let the debate continue.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Both Edwards and Obama (none / 0)

What makes you think Obama would be to Hillary's right if Edwards wasn't in the race?  Please give me an example of when Obama has ever taken a position to Hilary's right?  I can though link you to a post on TPM Cafe that shows how Edward's votes in the Senate where often to the right of Hilary's.  


by butler on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:38:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry (none / 0)

I meant left shoulder. He's definitely not to the right of Hillary.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:49:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the days... (none / 0)

Or sit in the corner and say things like "Obama is anti-war" so as to make the Obama people freak out, as they are wont to do at even the tiniest hint of an insult against their candidate.


"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the days... (none / 0)

The constant fighting between the Obama and Edwards camps was totally predictable and pre-programmed.  IMO, it will only get worse from here before it gets better.  It is natural (and time proven) for the supporters of the two candidates following a frontrunner to fight for position by talking down the other candidate.   Notice how there are not many threads about Clinton anymore, her position for now is pretty clear.  Therefore, constant quibbling between Edwards and Obama camps, with the #2 slot in the campaign as the prize.    

As time passes (and if the alignment does not change) the quibbling will get worse, the pitch will go higher.  Edwards is very unlikely to be a VP candidate for Obama, and not much positive promises to come from going into the primary season at #3, so a way to scratch and claw his way to #2 has to be found.  Likewise, Obama can't afford to fall to #3, he has to hold onto #2 and perhaps close in on #1.   The method most often used by candidates or supporters (or both) is trying to tear the other candidate "down to size."   Nothing new, and not original.   The notion that "the two progressive" candidates should not harm each other is nonsense.   You get nothing from being #2, but it is a heck of a lot better than #3 for positioning.  

Politics, being politics, are always contentious, often heated, and never docile.   Especially amongst Democrats.    


by georgep on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 05:27:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the days... (none / 0)

What I object to is constantly saying that Edwards supporters hate Obama.  I don't. I and many others see Obama as their second choice.  Much of the criticism of Obama has been valid.  Once he starts rolling out his policy positions it may change.  

I think the reason people are supporting Edwards is they like his policies.  There has been a lot to cheer about for progressives in Edwards' campaign.  I can't think of any other reason to support him or Obama.  It took me a little while to get over Edwards AUMF vote, but he has convinced me.  Maybe not convinced others.  Other than saying Obama was right in 2002 and he has charisma I haven't had anything to get excited about as a progressive.  I am puzzled why Edwards is third in the polls but that requires analysis on how the general population chooses their preference.  And Edwards campaign has to deal with it to succeed.

I think Edwards is pushing the other candidates to clarify positions. This is a good thing for the campaign, candidates and the country.  


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 03:01:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the days... (none / 0)

Yeah, I suspect that the reason Edwards supporters support him is what you say - his policy positions. The question is why some of them spend their time attacking another candidate who holds nearly all of the same policy positions (there was a great diary weeks ago that ran down their exact votes and statements on over 100 bills/issues, and found only 4 or 5 differences, with Obama being to the left on all but one of those)?

I don't know for sure what it is (I suspect the reason it's mostly Edwards supporters against Obama and not the other way around is that Obama is ahead in polls - perhaps if Edwards were up some bitter Obama supporters would be smearing him), but regardless of the reason I just don't think we should tolerate it on pro-Democratic blogs.


by James Gatz on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:42:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the days... (none / 0)

Saying that the party isn't far enough to the left is wholly different than saying that the party isn't far enough to the right.  The latter strengthens the Republicans' talking points.  The latter weakens them.  Who takes Kucinich's whining seriously anyway?


"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:38:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the days... (none / 0)

Kucinich is Naderific.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:17:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember the days... (none / 0)

Well said about Kucinich.  He is a vanity candidate since he has absolutely no chance.


by John Mills on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 11:17:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not strongly anti-war. (3.00 / 2)

Kos was right: Obama has surrendered to Bush.  He is not pro-war but he is about to vote to fund it and he has opposed Kerry Bill, Murtha Bills, and now Reid-Feingold.  He is not strongly anti-war because he refuses to fight to end it.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not strongly anti-war. (none / 0)

He has never opposed a Murtha Bill (Murtha's in the House, he's in the Senate) and he has NOT come out against Reid-Feingold (contrary to some reports). We'll see how he votes when that bill comes to the floor, but right now I'd guess it's an odds-on bet that he'll vote in favor.


by James Gatz on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:25:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not strongly anti-war. (3.00 / 3)

James, the bottom line is that he isn't progressive enough for some of the netroots, and even when his anti-war votes are counted, the argument will be that he isn't using his platform/voice as a national leader to speak out against the war.  He isn't doing everything possible to help end the war as soon as possible.  That he is mis-managing his leadership.

Essentially they want him to become the leader of the anti-war effort using all of the power at his disposal.  It is a terribly high standard for a Democratic presidential candidate.  You and I know that Obama is not going to become the anti-war leader and arguing about it is a no win situation for Obama supporters.  

But this is where we are on the progressive left.


by aiko on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:40:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not strongly anti-war. (none / 0)

Yeah, but hopefully diaries like this one will make the reasonable Edwards supporters (there are some, after all) come to their senses and reject the outrageous sliming of Obama. I think I'm only a couple recs away from the list, so if you haven't, please do recommend this one.


by James Gatz on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good points... (none / 0)

It's incredible the standard that Obama is held to....but part of the problem is the ridiculous hype, which had to end at some point.

I'm glad that it's happening in April 2007.  I'm also glad that Obama is taking the time to link the pieces of an overall strategy together, rather than just tossing out the red-meat "out of Iraq today!"


by rashomon on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't you people get it? (3.00 / 1)

I'm gonna help you out here. His entire campaign, his entire claim to being the nominee is that he opposed the war. That's it. A single position. He hasn't even served a single term in the Senate, for Chrissakes. If he hadn't opposed the war at the outset, he wouldn't be here. So of course other candidates are gonna try to knock that stool out from under him, cause it's the only thing propping up his campaign. Once that goes...

That's why it's incredible that the Obama campaign let dwards and Dodd get to the left of him. Whatever the merits of their respective positions, you can't argue with the politics of the situation. He's really screwing up royally.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't you people get it? (none / 0)

I think that's fairly simplistic.  The war is what he is talking about most because a) it's the biggest issue in 2008 b) it helps him differentiate himself from nearly everybody else in the field, which is a politically intelligent thing to do and c) it is obvious after today that if he didn't talk about the war, you would accuse him of being complacent to the war and being Bush-lite.  So he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.


by KDJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:57:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Have to agree with this (none / 0)

and this is why people see a contradiction and hold him to a higher a standard. He basically invites people to hold him to a higher standard by always starting off with anti-war position in 2002.

and Kucinich mentioning that he's doesnt support defunding and has voted for funding the war every time is certainly fair game. It should be for anyone in the senate, just as criticism of Edwards vote in to authorize the war is fair.

You can't advertise yourself as the most anti-war candidate, then not be, and expect to get off lightly. You've got to explain the seeming contradiction, and so far, he's done a bad job.


by okamichan13 on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:59:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't you people get it? (none / 0)

Can you be any more patronizing?

Don't you people get it?  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:33:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

False (none / 0)

his entire claim to being the nominee has something to do with the fact that he is working to bring this war to an end. But he also speaks to a large part of America in ways that no other candidate is, on a large number of issues. He is built for a general election, and just because Edwards is lunging to the left for a primary doesn't mean Obama is going to try to score cheap political points by out-flanking him. Thats not Obama's style. And I appreciate that in a candidate.


by faithfull on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:31:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False (none / 0)

I appreciate that as well.  I think Edwards is a completely different candidate than he was the last go around, but I'll let people decide for themselves whether they feel it is genuine or not.


by KDJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 08:52:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't you people get it? (none / 0)

Well, if by screwing up royally you mean getting within 10 points of the recently presumptive nominee in poll averages, and raising a record-breaking amount for the primary in Q1, with a record-shattering number of donors, then yeah, he's screwing up pretty bad.


by James Gatz on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

By your logic... (none / 0)

the current supplemental that passed is also pro-war and not good enough, because it continues funding the war.


by rashomon on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh, your dishonesty continues (3.00 / 1)

Kucninich was questioning his antiwar bonifides, just as people do all the time (legitmately) to Edwards.

That's very different, and I suspect you know that. But I guess you're gonna stick with your bullshit strawman title.


by david mizner on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:41:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope (1.00 / 0)

Obama is not part of the antiwar movment.


by Stewieeeee on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:11:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not pro-war. (none / 0)

Right now the poll has 50% of the respondents calling Obama "pro-war". That's a lot of flesh for a strawman.


DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not pro-war. (none / 0)

I'm sorry, but saying he harms the anti-war movement is akin to saying he is Pro-war.  And people have said it on Mydd.  Not a lot, but there are some.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:29:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry but (none / 0)

if you can't see that there's a difference between saying Obama is pro-war and saying that he's using a GOP frame that hurts the antiwar movement, then, I'm not sure we can have an intelligent debate.

No one here, as of this secon