Hillary will rise again!

anneshirley

Thanks Susie,

I'm not surprised.  She's a politician and it's not good politics to have a roll call when every hand will be lifted against you if you do. I wish I could get my money back. Even worse, every day I get solicitations from the Obama campaign and when I try to unsubscribe it doesn't work.  Why would I expect it would?

For anyone in New York who feels like me, McKinney (Green Party) needs 15,000 signatures by August 16 to get on the ballot.  They're looking for petitioners ($15.00 an hour).  Nader is also looking for signatures but I think I'll join the women on this one. 

Loved the "Moses" bit that you posted on the other thread.  Ironic too, particularly the picture of Charleton Heston (a rabid pro-gun lobbyist).  Seems about right to me considering Obama's support of Scalia (and Heston) on guns in America.    

saluki

If it was anyone but McKinney I would look, but then, you knew that.

anneshirley

Susie. Yes, I did but it gets lonely at times.  Thank goodness some of you post once in a while so I'm not always talking to myself. At least my husband sees the world as I do.  But then we met in New York in front of the English consulate protesting its treatment of Bobby Sands.  Miguel barely spoke English at the time, yet he joined the line every day and would do a circle or two.  I thought of this today as Miguel had to see a doctor and I sat in.  He asked how we met. The doctor is 31 and had never heard of Bobby Sands. Distressing to realize how old we are.

I thought the Moses video better than the Hilton/Spears one.  I wonder which ad agency is putting these together?  I doubt the Moses one can be made into an TV ad though, as it might offend McCain's base, which is very religious. 

saluki

Yes, I Knew who Bobby Sands was but, i was still woefully uninformed about the Irish hunger strikes.  After seeing the movie Some Mother's Son, I was shocked.  I don't know how historically correct or simplistic the movie may have been, but so sad frustrating and enraging.

saluki

By the way The Confluence suspects Axlerods fingerprints are on the New York Daily News story and says its not true.

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/sweet-little-lies/

anneshirley

Susie, I'm really happy you posted the above.  I was very disappointed that Hillary would sign away her right to a roll call. . 

Shirley, if you're still reading, this is for you. Obama is talking about drilling off shore, but with restrictions.  Although some are calling it a flip flop, and I suppose it's true,  I agree with his decision to concede this one to McCain. Inflexibility on energy may help the Obama campaign distinguish itself from the McCain position, but it hardly helps those of us who are paying $5.50 a gallon for heating oil.  We definitely have to look at all options and not rotely say "no" to any of them, so good for him on this one. I know this is a big one for you, so I hope this change makes you feel better.   

Jaybird627

Anneshirley,

I read all of your posts with great interest. (re your comment a few posts above this one) Although I'm generally quite articulate in person when it comes to writing I'm either too long-winded or too succinct (neither of which make for good reading!) so I don't post here often but I do read so all please keep on posting.

My emotional self wants Hillary to stand up for herself, etc., but I realize that she must "support" Obama otherwise she won't have the backing of the Democratic party in the future, and they are currently her future unless she becomes and independent.

I think that Obama will win 1) because of the economy (people will believe his "change" speeches and vote for him based on that word)  and 2) McCain is old. Not too old for me as many leaders around the world are "old" but Americans don't like old and so Omama gets that point, too.

I still have to write-in Hillary's name because she is who I want as my next president but the Green Party sure is getting some (future) consideration form me.

Anonymous

The funny thing is I haven't seen Hillary doing squat for Obama's campaign.  Perhaps he doesn't want her to.  Strange just the same.

Anne, I have heard Obama say anything about off shore drilling.  He's doing a smart thing if he has changed his mind.  Seventy five percent of Americans want off shore drilling.  The country is hurting.  You are hurting.  And yes, we need to explore ALL energies.

I heard on the news that even tickets to Disney was going up.  No biggy, but everything's going up.  My dh went to the store yesterday.  He bought some Gain.  It cost $12.00!

Back to Obama.  When did you hear he's talking about off shore drilling?  Very recently.  Last thing I heard was inflate your tires and tune your cars.  Could it be that the repubs stayed in the Senate to protest that everyone went on vacation before Pelosi would put the bill on the floor to vote upon?  I hope Pelosi never runs for prez.  I thought Pelosi was the unifier.  She's not listening to us, the American people.  She's out to SAVE THE PANET. 

If you think about it oil is very important for the national secruity of this country.  We shouldn't be in the situation we are in today.  The, as Morris puts it, DO-NOTHING CONGRESS has done nothing for us.  What renewable energy have we got?  A little ethanol?  It will take years to get alternatives up and running.  I still say EVERYTHING should be done.  I'm not smart, but I think it's just common sense.

Shirley

ibcspouse

Just curious, does anybody know where Obama stands on the troop surge the Governor of IL has ordered for South Chicago.  He is sending in state troopers and or national guard to stop the violence.  Where did he stand on the ill equipted troops (police force) who are just now being given automatic weapons and better body armor.  Let's see he worked as a community organizer for southside for twenty years, a peace maker.  He served as state legislator representing that district, he is Senator from that state.  More young people killed by guns there than U S soldiers killed this year by guns in Iraq. 

Boy I want this man as commander in chief,   Sorry I'm not much of a liberal but do enjoy reading many of your well articulated arguments.  Am from Arkansas and Hillary could have turned this red state blue.

Rosemary44

Last night I was watching the baseball game, and the camera swept the crowd, and there they were, PUMAS, holding up their sign.  I wish I was there.  I don't think the announcer on TV knew what a PUMA is.  They must have an active group. 

I didn't think Hillary would give up the historic nature of having a roll call vote for herself.  I guess the Daily News was caught without checking their sources for accuracy.  In this campaign, what does accuracy have anything to do with reporting when there is pure love instead?

anneshirley

Obama said he would support off shore drilling, with restrictions, to a newspaper in Florida, yesterday I believe.  I notice that the cables don't give a lot of press to these types of changes, although I think it's a good one and also makes political sense.  It's mindless (and selfish) on both sides, digging in on energy, while we watch our neighbors going to every type of extreme to insure they'll be warm this winter.  One of the women at the medical office I visited yesterday told me she has no clue how she'll manage this winter.  She's a single mother with two young children and probably makes about $10-!5 an hour.  Maine is a special case as there's lots of poverty here and the winters are brutal.  Last year we had snow most of the winter and the temperatures were often below freezing.  Our representatives in office pretend they understand what their constituents go through, but they don't.  They're totally isolated from the world that they regulate.  Now they're off for a five week vacation.  How many of you out there get five week vacations, particularly when there is pressing business to finish? I've never worked for a company where I could take off on vacation leaving an important project unfinished.

Shirley, I doubt very much that Pelosi would ever be our president but one never knows as she's third in line.  Also, I'm surprised to find I agree with you. She's failed as a leader and that disappoints me greatly as I was so happy when she took office and, I admit, at least in part because she's a woman.  She has no talent for bringing folks together to get bills passed.  And to be completely honest, I hate what she did to Hillary.  My feeling is that she's one of those women who hate to see others of her own sex get ahead.  I could be very wrong, but that's how she strikes me.  

Rosemary44

Natural gas prices are also increasing although we supposedly have the most out there.  This is artificially keeping the prices high and going higher when they don't drill.  This should have been a no brainer for the dems, but now that their leader has spoken, they can all eat their words that I've been listening to on CSPAN. One after another, after another was proud to talk to the mic, denouncing drilling .  This should teach them all a lesson.  Wait long enough and their messiah will change his mind leaving them out there with just their own words to choke on.  Just words?

anneshirley

I just finished reading the following about the PUMA movement, of which I was surprisingly unaware until one of Obama's supporters mentioned it on this thread.  It would appear that my Hillary thread is actually one of PUMA's loose coalitions--not canons!. The following is an explanatory piece and expresses some of my own frustrations with recent happenings in the Democratic Party, although not all.  And I don't agree with many of the PUMA's who, regretfully, don't intend to vote for a Third Party but rather for McCain or not vote at all. But I'll continue to PUMA away on this thread.  I had a good laugh too when I realized what PUMA stood for--Party Unity My A$$.  I removed some of the references to websites from the following as I don't have permission to list the sites, and also because I disagree with a good bit of the anti-Obama vitriol displayed on some of the sites.  But I do agree with the anger directed towards the DNC, which is highly sexist and the reason why I am posting this piece.

.
Thanks for stopping by to read this.  There has been so much misinformation about PUMA floating around that I thought I would take a brief minute to clear some things up and at the same time explain why I became a PUMA.

Many Democrats, myself included, felt that the primary was unfair and problematic, and that the unchecked sexism was inexcusable.  In addition, the actions of a large sector of the supposed “progressive liberal” netroots/blogospere were, are and (I predict) will continue to be absolutely horrendous.  

The “progressive”/”liberal” blogosphere exploded on to the scene in the mid 1990s.  The Conservative Right controlld the mainstream media outlets and, therefore, only one side of the coin was getting their message out.  Fox News had more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, talk radio was completely and utterly dominated by the people like Limbaugh and Wilkow.  Air America was a total failure, and so the Left turned to the internet.

There was so much promise for the progressive liberal “netroots.”  It was exciting, it was fresh, it was new, and it was so interactive and real.  A technology driven grassroots wonderland where we could get our message out to thousands upon thousands of people, instantly, with feedback and discussion running rampant.  We finally had an outlet!

Then came 2007 and the beginning of the primary cycle, but something had changed.  Something was horribly wrong.

Instead of being a place of hope and promise for the left, the net became someplace ugly and divisive.  Obama’s supporters in the netroots began to swarm places and overpowering them.  They became rude and agressive…  divisive and accusatory…  angry and threatening. 

The aggressiveness and threats are even bleeding into real life now.  These are not just “net bullies” any more, and even if they were, this is not acceptable behavior from anyone, much less a self identified progressive liberal lefty?!?! 

The things that these “Obamatrons” are saying and doing are absolutely horrifying.  . . . What is going on? People are recieving death threats for supporting or not supporting a particular political candidate.  What country is this…  or even, what century is this?

Then there was the sexism.  The dispairty in which sexism was treated in comparison with racism was unbelievable. There were pundits on various news stations calling her “B**ch” or like “an ex-wife outide a divorce court” and even “castrating.” She would get confronted at rallies with signs that said “Iron My Shirt” and the like. Certain stores owned my major media networks sold “Hillary Nutcrackers.” Barack Obama himself would make comments about Hillary being “Periodically” down or her “claws” coming out. The comments coming from the various blogs and “netroots” standards were awful.  And yet, throughout all of this, there was hardly a peep of objection from anyone.

On the other hand, as soon as there was something that could possibly maybe be twisted into something that could have hinted at racism if you looked at it just right… everyone was all up in arms, Howard Dean would be on TV, the pundits would talk about it, and it would be news for a week.

Is racism wrong? Absolutely. Did it rear it’s ugly head during this campaign cycle? Yes.  The difference is that the sexism came from every direction and no one said anything.  Either that or they didn’t even notice, and I am not sure which is worse.

As a matter of fact, Howard Dean had a conversation with Cynthia Ruccia of Women For Fair Politics . . . asking her what the DNC could do to get her and the members of WFP back on board.  When she replied that he needed to address the sexism that had occurred during the primary, Dean actually responded “What sexism?”

Unforgivable.

And then there was the primary/caucus season itself.  Without even mentioning the unfairness of the caucus system, the allegations of improprieties, and the alleged acts of intimidation and manipulation… Michigan provides a perfect example of the problems with this primary season.

It is true, and even Clinton will admit, that everyone agreed that FL and MI would be stripped of all delegates. The problem is that in one of the closest and most historically important elections in US history, that we could not leave these millions of people out of the loop… especially since MI is full of “Reagan Dems” and FL is the quintessential swing state.  Leaving these people out and ignoring their votes would have damaged the party for decades.  This situation had to be remedied, and so the matter was turned over to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee.

What the Rules and Bylaws Committee did with Michigan was a travesty. The RBC awarded Obama the delegates represented by the people who voted for “Uncommitted” (which is a recognized status, not to mention the fact that those people who voted uncommitted were also doing a proxy vote for other candidates as well… Edwards, Biden, etc). These were votes he did not earn. Then the RBC went one step further and awarded Obama 4 delegates earned by Hillary Clinton. In the most literal sense, the RBC actually changed peoples votes!!!

It was after this event that a blogger on The Confluence blog made a snarky post about how they were done with the party and that they had a new party they belonged to… PUMA, which stood for Party Unity My A$$.

This caught on like wildfire, and it became a rallying cry. People all over the net adopted the term PUMA independently.

Then Will Bower and Diane Mantouvalos formed JustSayNoDeal as an umbrulla to provide all the PUMA people with a loose coalition.  At the same time and shortly after the JustSayNoDeal coalition was being formed, the various PACs, 527s and the like began to take shape.

The JustSayNoDeal Coalition is a group of hundreds of websites and bloggers representing MILLIONS of people (estimates range between 2 to 4 million), BUT one thing to keep in mind is that it is a loose coalition.

The fact that it is a coalition means that every group, and even every individual, under the banner has a different agenda, different opinions and different goals. Some want to get Hillary on the ballot, some hope for Hillary in 2012, some don’t like Hillary that much and actually supported Edwards or others, some want to vote for McCain, some want to stay home, some won’t vote for any Democrats, some will vote for Democrat down ticket but not for Obama… and so on.

So, here is the problem with anti-puma websites and people like Donna Brazille as well as their like-minded individuals…  they cannot seem to wrap their heads around the fact that it is a coalition, not a unified front with one message, so they take one statement that one person who identifies themselves as a “PUMA” and generalize it across the board. In addition, they take half truths then shade, stretch, simplify and omit to make us sound like the devil, when nothing could be further than the truth.

The truth of the matter is that the movement is not even about Hillary Clinton herself anymore. This also seems to be a difficult concept for the anti-puma groups to fathom.

Essentially there are two things that all PUMAs care about…

1. Democracy - 1 person 1 vote and the sanctity of that vote.

2. Equality - Our society and those that represent us should reject sexism as strongly as they reject racism.

And those two ideas, which are the principles upon which this country was founded, are far more important, essential and basic than any of the policy platforms of a particular candidate.  Those two principles are the foundation from which the policy platforms we care about spring, so without them, the policies are flimsy and meaningless.

We are not a “swiftboat” campaign, we are not “liars” and we are not “Republicans.”

We are Democrats that want our party back.

 

So there you go, a bit of history, a bit of explanation and a bit of ranting.

These are the reasons I am a PUMA,  hy I feel betrayed by my party and why I must “Just Say No Deal.”

And now I want to hear from you.  Tell me your story, your puma history, your declaration of pumahood…  why you ”just say no deal.”

I look forward to reading all your stories!

  

PUMA.

Me Again:  The writer is also correct about the ugliness that has been spawned by some of Obama's supporters. ( I can't speak for Hillary supporters as I didn't blog on Obama's website.)  Last winter I blogged on Hillary's website. I would write about issues, not personalities, usually about health care--my primary interest--and got some of the ugliest responses, all from Obama supporters, that I've ever read anywhere.  I can't  begin to describe them or the moderators would shut my thread down, and since I first blogged under my real name,  I received threats as well, including one that said "I know where you live." That's when I stopped blogging, so I guess it worked.  So in this repsect, what Texas Hill Country writes is true. 

 

AnnNYC

Anneshirley -- I wouldn't discount the possibility of anti-Obama "agents provocateurs" posing online as incredibly nasty "Obama supporters."  That's an old, old dirty trick -- and much easier to carry out online.

anneshirley

Believe me, Ann, they were not "agents."  The website was impossible to use after a while; more Obama supporters were posting there than Hillary supporters, and it was almost always nasty stuff with few exceptions.  None of the posters wanted to debate the merits of policy, but only to discuss Hillary's looks, Bill's girlfriends (a polite way of putting it) and Chelsea. The stuff was nasty--and sexist--and hardly something that a Hillary supporter would say, even to be provacative. Some of it may have come from Republicans, but most was not.  It was so ugly I wouldn't repeat any of it here. I was writing about the need for mandated universal health care, which one would think is an innocuous subject, but apparently not since I was supporting Clinton's policy, not Obama's. I was glad when Clinton pulled down the public blogging site as the stuff that got posted there didn't belong in a locker room.  Admittedly, some of  the posts, directed against Obama, were racist, but the site pulled that stuff off immediately, almost the minute it was posted. The serious Hillary supporters reported the racist rants to the webmaster immediately!  We didn't want Hillary to get tainted by it, and it certainly didn't represent any of our views. 

I'm not suggesting in any way that the Obama campaign supported this, just that it existed.  I  noticed in reading some of the PUMA sites (which is the main reason I pulled them from the piece I posted) that there's also lot of ugly stuff written about Obama (not racist but also not true) none of which I agree with.  I don't understand why either Hillary or Obama (or McCain) supporters feel it necessary to denigrate opposing candidates and their supporters--for example, making accusations of racism--when they should be talking about policy.  There's sufficient differences in policies, voting records, and experience to keep these threads going forever, and absolutely no need for the ugly stuff. 

I acknowledge that there are many out there, and on this board, who don't care that Obama has changed his views--frequently.  They still support him, and many refuse even to acknowledge his moves to the right.  I dislike his changes very much. I also dislike it when it's suggested, obliquely, that I'm a racist because I feel this way. I had the same reaction to Bill Clinton when he moved to the right.  I didn't vote for him in 1996, but voted third party.  And I was very vocal about why, as I am now with Obama.  So what was I back then, an anti-dentite? (Jerry Seinfield).

Obama supporters on this board, obviously not all, want to keep their thread pure, devoted solely to praising their candidate--hardly a political thread--but still it's their choice.  But if that's the purpose of the thread then it should stick to praising their candidate, not denigrating everyone else. It's disturbing to read posts insinuating all kinds of ugly stuff about other politicians and their supporters without any evidence to back up such accusations.  And if anyone dares to post something on the thread to correct the record or disagree (Beesie, for example), they're told to get lost. That's not reasonable dialogue and I suspect it goes a long way towards pushing  new supporters away rather than bringing them in. Some Obama supporters say they'll vote for him because he's the only one who will listen to other views and bring the country together, and then they proceed to do the opposite, shutting out everyone who disagrees with them.

The great irony, for me, is that on the original political thread, started by Susie, I said I was an independent until 1984 when I joined the Democratic Party to vote for Jesse Jackson.  Some Obama supporters jumped all over me, calling Jackson and me a racist.  And now I'm a racist because I don't support Obama.  And speaking of Jackson, I was listening to him speaking about the mortgage crisis as I was writing this.  The interviewer put forth my view, questioning why the public should bail out those in foreclosure since they were obligated, like the rest of us, to understand their loans and not purchase homes they couldn't afford.  Jackson is the first person who answered that criticism intelligently.  As he explained, blacks and Latinos in poor neighborhoods were unfairly targeted and even if some buyers were irresponsible in taking out loans they couldn't possibly pay back, their foreclosures are causing a downturn in price of their neighbors' homes, those who were responsible and are now also losing their homes.  I wonder why no one else is making this point when this discussion comes up on the various cable channels?  I'm glad he enlightened me.

anneshirley

This is amusing, although I don't know the whole truth, just what's been reported. Apparently, the UN has set its thermostats higher in the interests of energy conservation.  Yet, when reporters wandered, by accident, into the Secretary General's conference room, it was like an icebox.  I gather they were supposed to only visit his office, where he was sitting at his desk in shirtsleeves, sweating. Now his staff is claiming that the conference room wasn't set at a lower temperature than other rooms; it's a problem with an old AC system.  Hmm! 

A comment on off-shore drilling.  It would be less hypocritical if those who are against it would picket ships bringing in oil from other parts of the world and would themselves refuse to use such oil.  Someone, somewhere has to deal with the environmental damage caused by oil drilling. It seems somewhat self-centered to use oil from other lands and yet not permit drilling here.  As I remember, it was a ship travelling to the United States that polluted the beaches in Galicia, Spain a few years back.

I doubt there's a reasonable person still alive (other than some oil company executives) who wouldn't agree that we need sustainable, renewable energy, but until that happens let's stop ruining other people's backyards while keeping our own pristine.   

Member_of_the_Club

I have to wonder, like Ann, if these really offensive posts didn't come from Republicans and fringe Republicans at that.  There are some seriously scary folks out there, including people who congregate on websites saying that Obama is going to spark a race war and they have to arm themelves before he destroys the country.  Really scary stuff.

 I live in a sea of Obama supporters and I have never encountered anyone who would do that sort of offensive stuff.  I'm not saying they aren't out there, but I wonder how many are actually Obama supporters.  Most people I know were undecided at first and then picked Obama.  Even someone like me who strongly dislikes Hilary (and have for years, ever since I lobbied against the Clinton welfare reform bill and watched Hilary throw her old "friends" at the Children's Defense Fund over -- this after they allowed her to get mileage from them for the 9 months she worked there -- in order to support the elimination of the safety net for poor children) even I have always believed that she is highly intelligent and capable and would make an OK president.  If she had more of a moral compass, she would make an excellent president.  Had she gotten the nomination, I would have voted for her.

 My best friend is a Hillary supporter who volunteered for her campaign.  We maintained our friendship throughout.  It doesn't have to be ugly. 

Member_of_the_Club

I have to add, McKinney is a nut job.  A serious nutjob.  With so many capable women out there, why did they have to pick her?

Nader -- also a nutjob.  I have stories about lobbying alongside him and i can tell you that he doesn't care for any of the issues he is associated with, he consistently undermines efforts to promote them because of his need to feed his ego above all else.  This was full display in his previous runs for President. 

anneshirley

Member--You're one of the few Obama supporters on this board interested in talking about politics and not knee-jerking everything the man says, so I'm happy you're still posting here.   Like you, I have had many disagreements with Hillary (but mainly with Bill Clinton).  I understand that it's difficult for some women to see her without him. I don't have that problem.  I didn't start off supporting her, and I would have supported Obama (not happily) until he joined Scalia on the death penalty.  That was, as I've written before, the worse bit of pandering I've seen in a politician (or at least an electable politician).  Remember, even  Bill Clinton did most of his turns after he was in office.  Obama's are taking place even before he's the official nominee, so I have to ask what should we expect after he's in office?  What distrubs me is that so few Democrats are asking this same question.  

It's the nut jobs, or those who were called nut jobs, that bring forth change. Nader, pretty much acting alone, is responsible for so many of the consumer protections we now take for granted.  I suppose you could call McKinney a nut job, but she also refuses to take guff from anyone and she'll need that to get any recognition from the press in these days of Obamamania. Let's face it, the Green Party is too far left for this country to ever become the viable Third Party the country needs, but it's all I have this year.  And if I'm going to vote in protest, I'd rather vote for two women than two men.  Anyone who thinks he's (she's) capable of leading the world has a huge ego.  It goes with the job.

Those, like Obama, who hug the middle rarely initiate change, and Obama is doing a whole lot of hugging these days.  I can only suppose he has some principles from which he won't budge, but so far we have no indication of what they might be.  He lacks the courage to take a position, stick with it, and defend it.  I believe he'll win, and I'll acknowledge I was wrong about him if he initiates any meaningful changes during his time in office.  I don't believe he will. 

About the people who claimed to be Obama supporters on the Hillary thread. I'm not suggesting they represent the core of Obama supporters, but they were his supporters.  Reasonable people don't go to the opposition candidate's website to trash the candidate, using four letter words, sexual innuendo, etc., and I believe most of Obama's supporters are reasonable people, but certainly not all.  I have some experience of that. None of their posts were about policy; they all focussed on personal characteristics. No doubt some of Hillary supporters did the same to Obama--hopefully only a few. I would never have gone to Obama's official website to trash his wife or children; in fact I never went to his website beyond three visits to read up on his policies, so obviously they were fringe supporters.  And from their posts, I assumed they were all young and mainly male.  And none of them could spell. LOL No doubt some of them were also Rush's troops. 

I agree political discourse doesn't have to be ugly and shouldn't be. It's foolish to lose one's elegance over a politiical candidate.  In the end, none of them are worth it. 

anneshirley

Member, I've been thinking of your comment on Hillary's moral compass and thought it fair to question why you would think hers is impaired and Obama's is not.  I don't know if you read Bob Herbert's column on Obama's pandering, which I posted at the beginning of this thread, so I'm reposting it again.  Herbert expresses far better than I my disgust with Obama's changes in position.  My guess is you've heard an earful on this from your best friend!

Lurching With Abandon

Published: July 8, 2008

In one of the numbers from “Fiddler on the Roof,” Tevye sings, with a mixture of emotions: “We haven’t got the man ... we had when we began.”

Back in January when Barack Obama pulled off his stunning win in the Iowa caucuses, and people were lining up in the cold and snow for hours just to get a glimpse of him, there was a wide and growing belief — encouraged to the max by the candidate — that something new in American politics had arrived.

His brilliant, nationally televised victory speech in Des Moines sent a shiver of hope through much of the electorate. “The time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face,” said Senator Obama, “who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.”

Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of “is” is.

This is why so many of Senator Obama’s strongest supporters are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry at the candidate who is now emerging in the bright light of summer.

One issue or another might not have made much difference. Tacking toward the center in a general election is as common as kissing babies in a campaign, and lord knows the Democrats need to expand their coalition.

But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.

So there he was in Zanesville, Ohio, pandering to evangelicals by promising not just to maintain the Bush program of investing taxpayer dollars in religious-based initiatives, but to expand it. Separation of church and state? Forget about it.

And there he was, in the midst of an election campaign in which the makeup of the Supreme Court is as important as it has ever been, agreeing with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas that the death penalty could be imposed for crimes other than murder. What was the man thinking?

Thankfully, a majority on the court left the barbaric Scalia-Thomas-Obama (and John McCain) reasoning behind and held that capital punishment would apply only to homicides.

“What’s he doing?” is the most common question heard recently from Obama supporters.

For one thing, he’s taking his base for granted, apparently believing that such stalwart supporters as blacks, progressives and pumped-up younger voters will be with him no matter what. A taste of the backlash this can produce erupted on the candidate’s own Web site.

Thousands of Obama supporters flooded the site with protests over his decision to support an electronic surveillance bill that gives retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The senator had previously promised to filibuster the bill if it contained the immunity clause.

There has been a reluctance among blacks to openly criticize Senator Obama, the first black candidate with a real shot at the presidency. But behind the scenes, there is discontent among African-Americans, as well, over Mr. Obama’s move away from progressive issues, including his support of the Supreme Court’s decision affirming the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms.

There’s even concern that he’s doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq. But the senator denied that any significant change should be inferred from his comment that he would “continue to refine” his policy on the war.

Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.

He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.

Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.

Time flies and the Iowa caucuses seem a very long time ago.

 

anneshirley

I was just reading on one of our threads the same old, old nonsense about national health care systems.  Waits of six months to get diagnosed for cancer, for example.  Where did this person get this information, from the National Enquirer?  Usually these falsehoods come from someone they know who knows someone else, who knows someone else. Hearsay isn't allowed in our courts of law, and one can certainly see why.

We need a national health care system and we will get one eventually, but probably not until we're so in a hole that we may have to wait well more than six months for tests.  And here's my story, which is absolutely not hearsay.  I was living in a national health care country, Italy, in 2005, where in my village the mammogram truck came around every six months, so I didn't even have to make an appointment.  But I had left my films from previous tests in New York and, since I have (had) very dense breasts, I decided to wait until I returned home later that year to do my mammogram.  When I returned I waited until February 2006 (when I was eligible for Medicare) and then tried to make an appointment, in New York City of all places, where it seems they have hospitals, clinics, and cancer centers on every other block.  I first called my usual imaging center and was told there was a wait until late June (five months, please note), so I called every other (and no hyperbole here) center in New York and all the waits were longer.  End of story, I was diagnosed with cancer at the end of June.  But I'm still alive, and I doubt they would have found it in February, as it didn't show up on my mammogram or my sonogram (I detected the lump and at my husband's insistence went to see a breast surgeon who did a fine needle biopsy).  If it were up to my imagining center I would have waited another six months to investigate further.  I give this story to counter what was said by one of the posters on the Republican thread. 

And my sister-in-law, who lives in Catalunya, Spain gets a mammogram, from age of 40, every year.  One year she didn't go in for her appointment and they called her, and called her, and called her, until she finally went in.  She also lives in a country with a national health care system, but different from the one in Italy.  In fact, they're all different, with different rules, etc.so you can't translate one story into the truth about all systems.  Some are better than others, and they're all different from each other.  if I had to choose one for us, it would be the one in France (or Canada). France's system is rated number one in the world.  Last time I read up on it, we were rated in the thirties.    

I also read--Rosemary I think it was you--that the poor can get treated here by going into an emergency room. That's true, but only for some emergency rooms, not all, and it's true for emergencies only.  I couldn't have gone into an emergency room in Manhattan and demanded a mammogram because I felt a lump.  And if, in trying to treat severe stomach pain, for example, an emergency room finds the person has stomach cancer, the emergency room doesn't treat the patient.  She/he now has to find some way of getting treated, and although they may find some public health funding, it's hardly what someone with insurance will get. Imagine being diagnosed with cancer and before you get treatment you have to negotiate the bureacracy of finding someone to treat you.

Since this is a Hillary thread, I'll repeat again, and again, that Hillary was my candidate first because of her health care plan.  Obama lacked the courage to back a mandated care plan, as political courage is not his forte--and this is true on many other of his previously held positions.  I'm waiting to see how long it takes for him to fold on those that still stand!  Drilling for oil is his most recent fold.  It makes political sense for him to support drilling (77% of Americans want it) but in my view also because we need to do everything until we can get to sustainable, renewable energy, including nuclear power, which supplies a good percentage of France's energy.  But I'm as sure as sure can be that the only reason Obama is changing his position is because of the polls and not because he rethought his position and decided that drilling for oil makes good sense.  Those of you who want a polls driven president, be assured you'll get one in November.

And since this is a political thread, anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post.  Just no name calling, please. 

P.S.  Just read somewhere that 15 Super Delegates have switched to Hillary in the last few weeks.  Not that many, but if things keep going as they are now, one never knows.  Fingers crossed! 

Rosemary44

Anne,

I thought it was a national law, if anyone walks into an emergency room they can't be turned away.  Here they'll treat the problem and send you on to a city hospital for further testing and such.  I thought they did that in N.Y. too. 

We really can't compare other Nations because we don't know the status of how many Drs are available here as opposed to other nations.  I never wait for anything where I live.  We do have a shortage of Onc's in my immediate area, so one Dr. gets all the business and still I don't wait to see him.  If I want to drive 30 mins away, I can have all the Onc's I want. 

Anyway, what I'm saying is, I imagine people thinking there will be 40+ million more with health care would overflow the Dr.s offices, but I would think that would be up to where you live.  I can see it causing a strain in large cities who might have a lot of un-insured people living there. 

Well, I will call you a name if I want.  You, you, you liberal you.

anneshirley

Rosemary--good one!  You left off the adjective, however.  It's "flaming liberal."  But I don't consider that name calling.  For me it's praise.

In New York it's city hospitals.  Or at least that was the case in the 1990's; it may have changed since then; it may be that all hospitals must treat conditions that are life threatening, such as gun wounds or accident victims--I don't know--but it's not true that all hospitals must treat you for anything.  Lots of folks go to emergency rooms for things like sore throats, flu, etc.

The important thing is that the emergency rooms won't be overflowing if everyone has health insurance.  One assumes they'll go to their doctors with sore throats and head colds.  Anyway, it works in many countries and there's no reason why it can't work in ours.  We have the ability, just not the will.  We need a president with the will to get us there. 

As you may have guessed, a national health care system is where my heart is; it's even more important to me than seeing the first woman president.  With luck, I'll see both while I'm still around. 

Rosemary44

Anne,

That's the one thing we do have in common, health care.  I have a great one, and I want everyone to enjoy what I have. 

One thought on the delegates changing over to Hillary, she was the first to call for drilling, and had she won the superdelegate votes, we would have legislation already because the dems would have taken her lead, as they're now doing with Obama.  This entire campaign might have been turned around on its head. 

Where did you get your info on the delegates changing their votes?

anneshirley

I believe it came in an email I received from the Hillary campaign coordinator in New York City.  She sends out an email about every other day with the latest news, and I believe she sent this info.  I'll have to check.  I believe it said 160 more super delegates to go. Don't get your hopes up.  I'm not.  It's a long shot, one of those 30,000 to one. 

With respect to that, this is what I just heard on CNN.  It was Obama who asked that the DNC seat Michigan and Florida with full credentials, and apparently, from the reporter's point of view, a huge slap in the face to Howard Dean, since Dean put his reputation on the line that these states had to be punished for holding their primaries early.  I gather the Obama campaign wants to cosy up to them before the general, and he feels he has nothing to lose by insisting the DNC seat the full delegation, since Hillary won't be getting a roll call (still not sure of this).  But it  also now puts future primary seasons in jeopardy (good), since other states will feel they can do something similar without consequence.  The current system is ridiculous and it also gave the nomination to an unheard of, unqualified candidate, so I hope we do have changes.  No more caucusses where 130 people in a red state can count more than millions of voters in blue states. It also makes Howard Dean and Donna Brazile look like fools.

From what I'm also hearing, from this same women, the Obama campaign has been ignoring many of the Democrats who put him where he is, and there's now uneasy rumblings, but quiet rumblings at this point.  They made their beds!--I'm full of cliches today.  But more shifts and deviations, and the rumblings will get louder.  They have egos too.  I'm trying to think of an adjective I can use to describe this behavior that won't open me up to various unnamed charges. Do  you think "perfidious" is acceptable?

Anneshirley

anneshirley

Rosemary, Off the election for a moment.  I just heard Texas is having 100 degree heat. And here in downeast Maine we've had our wood stove going two days straight.  And it's been raining and cloudy for more than a week.   Our grass is "as high as an elephant's eye."  And now the radio says it will continue this way, with the occasional sun shower, through the weekend.  Not sure which of of us is worse off.

Rosemary44

Anne,

Yes, we're usually above 100 during July and August.  I kinda like it for swimming, but when you try to walk in it, it feels like our skin is frying in only a few steps.  Early in the morning, its beautiful here.  Breezy and in the 80's,  quickly that changes.  By the way, Texas is one of the few States that added jobs this year.  Just thought I'd throw that in.

Edouard will be hitting us tomorrow morning.  There is so much to put away outside.  Then no A/C for days later.  The worst part, I'll have to drink out of plastic water bottles, yukkers.

Ok, back to politics, if I was suddenly given a full vote, that full vote would go directly to Hillary.  I'd show them.  Donna Brazile cracks me up, she didn't get the Paris/Britney ad.  It was  hilarious.  She asked if they were going to use stars, why not Denzel Washington?  Everyone looked at her. They wouldn't dare laugh.

You can also pick one of these: deceitful, disaffected, dishonest, disloyal, faithless, false, shifty, traitorous, treacherous, unfaithful, untrue, untrustworthy, venal

anneshirley

Good luck with Edouard.  I'll think of you, but let us know how you manage; that is if you can get on the internet. 

Denzel Washington would have been the opposite of what they were trying to convey. He has substance and is an excellent actor.  I heard Tom Cruise's name thrown out as well.  He would have worked for me but probably not most people. (Can't stand him!)  I really prefer the Moses commercial.  I don't know if there was an intentional subtext but Heston was a huge pro-gun advocate and I immediately saw him and Scalia and Obama as the Holy Trinity of guns.   I even imagined him holding a rifle in his hand. I know you don't agree with my views on gun control and I don't expect anyone else to have gotten that subtext from the Moses ad, and I doubt any of the ad makers intended it, but that was my take. 

I lost respect for Brazile, not because she's an Obama supporter, but because she denied she was his supporter when it was so obvious she was.  And she never stopped pushing the premise that Michigan and Florida had to be punished by losing some or all of their delegates.  I wonder what she'll say to this change.  Funny, though, I haven't seen her on any cable program in a while; she was everywhere during the primary.  

anneshirley

Just heard, John McCain is waiting to announce his veep pick until after Obama picks his.  It's much more calming not to have a horse in the race, as I can look at all these machinations with some objectivity.  So, do you think he's waiting to see if Obama picks a woman?  If he does, then McCain can't gain the upper hand by also picking a woman.  Now if Obama, with any intelligence--duh!--picks Hillary, who would McCain pick?  I say a very conservative veep to really energize the evangelicals (and it would also play on the dislike of Hillary), perhaps Cantor of Virginia, to attract Jewish voters in Florida.  But if Obama picks a man, maybe Bayh, then I think McCain will pick a woman, to try and capture some of those disaffected Hillary women.  But if he does pick a woman, I don't see how his pick can be very conservative or she won't attract the Hillary women, most of whom are strongly pro-choice.  No one ever mentions Olympia.  Wonder why?  Is it just because she's pro choice?  Have some guts, John. 

And it's politics all the time with both Democrats and Republicans.  Not a principle to be shared among them.  Each side is playing this energy crisis with no real intention of solving it, just getting votes in November.  I wonder what would happen if everyone stayed home on election day? 

Anonymous

Anne, if everyone stayed home in November you will most likely have to put up with a president whom you detest, DUBYA!  LOL

Yes, it's always politics as usual.  However, I'll defend McCain on his CHANGE...drilling for oil.  I think it's because I see him as a more honest candidate..I didn't say COMPLETELY honest.

As far as your example about getting your mammo...yes, it does often take weeks to months to have one ROUTINELY scheduled.  Just as making a doctors appointment that may be routine.  However, when I found my lump I called my PCP and he saw me the next day.  Then, his office set up my mammo and US the very next day.  Having a lump checked out and having a routine mammo is very different. 

My oncologist can get me a mammo appointment much faster than if I call.  She can get me an appointment with my gyn much quicker than I can even for a routine visit.

There are doctors who do not take Medicare or Medicaid.  They don't get paid enough from those bureaucracies.  I wonder how many young people would decide not to go to med school if we have national health care.  And, like Rosemary said, they're not enough doctors now.  I believe that's what's going on in some of the countries who have national health care which is why some medical procedures are delayed. 

I don't believe people who have very painful knee and hip problems want to wait up to 18 months to have a procedure they need done.  I have a friend who is getting ready to have both knees replaced next month.  I can't imagine how she could continue to work with bad knees.

I wish there was an easy answer.  I had wonderful insurance until this year.  You've already heard my complaint so, I won't rehash it. 

I would like to see people carry over their insurance to a different state.  I think McCain's plan is for that to happen.  Traci, who is in this board, moved to Texas.  Her insurance company won't take her there.  She has to go back to Florida to see her onc and I suppose get tests.  That's just plain wrong.

Insurance companies should not be allowed to make the huge profits they make and STILL tell our doctors or us what we need.  Most of the people sit behind a desk, with no medical experience, reading a freaking book and asking our docs why this and why that.  Like Nicki...her doc ordered an MRI because of some symptoms.  Her insurance wouldn't allow an MRI so instead she had to get a CT scan.  Her doctor tried to talk to them while she was getting her CT scan, but again they said NO.  The doc said if she had mets to the brain that it would show up on the MRI (I suppose better than the CT scan).  That is just one more example of how insurance has a hold over us WHEN we pay good premiums and high deductibles.

So yes, something needs to be done.  What?  Again, there are no easy answers.

Shirley