Barack Obama: NOT The Candidate His Supporters Believe Him To Be

This is a good post that touches on some key points. Obama supporters tend to oppose the DLC and HRC because she epitomizes the DLC. They also believe Obama is the antithesis to the DLC and the anti-Clinton. A classic example was the controversy over outsourcing. HRC was crucified as being a pro-corporate, pro-outsourcing DLC shill while Obama was implicitly hailed as fighting against those very things. In reality, Obama has an identical position to HRC on outsourcing and trade. Obama supporters, caught up in the marketing and personality, apparently were unaware of this. Once you look through the blue smoke and mirrors Obama is identical to HRC on the issues. If HRC is so bad then so is Obama when he stands for the same things. We have met the enemy. It is us.

==This post was written by Red State Donkey on 19 June, 2007 (07:42) | All News, US Politics, Blogosphere News, 2008 Election Coverage 653 Views

I like Barrack Obama and wouldn’t have a problem voting for him in the general election if he won the Democratic nomination. But after spending a great deal of time on various “progressive” blogs and websites where his support runs deep, it has become obvious Obama is not the man the left believes him to be.

Cavorting With The Enemy

If one entity has been the adversary of the modern “progressive” movement, it’s the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, the think tank that got Bill Clinton elected. This may surprise many people who might think the Republican party is the left’s enemy, but consider this: “Progressives” view the DLC as a barrier to them taking power. In their minds, if the DLC disappeared there would be nothing hindering a glorious leftwing revolution in the United States. Given a choice between themselves and the Republicans, they believe, Americans would pick “progressives” over conservatives every time. They just have to eliminate that pesky centrist think tank!

The reason the left despises the “Bill Clinton wing” of the Democratic party is because of their embrace of free market capitalism, competition, and entrepreneurship. The DLC is shunned because they believe many New Deal and Great Society social programs no longer work as they were designed to and should be reworked or shelved completely. The DLC is labeled “Republican lite” by the left because they take corporate and lobbyist money to compete with Republicans, and they believe in a strong military.

But what really gets the left’s goat in regards to the DLC is their willingness to work across the aisle, to compromise with the opposition party, in the spirit of progress. After all, that is the true definition of politics. And the left hates it! So who does the left turn to to lead their charge? Barack Obama.

Not Who You Think He Is

Obama is the left’s “great white hope,” except he’s black. He’s the “progressive” being tapped to be the Hillary slayer of 2008. But there are problems buried deep in the pages of his book “Audacity of Hope,” a secret that threatens to rip away the image the left blogosphere has given him: He’s the enemy.

Starting on page 10 of Audacity of Hope, Obama proudly proclaims he believes “in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised….”

Just like the DLC!

He states, “I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military.”

Just like the DLC.

Several pages later, Obama laments the polarization of our political system, calling it the “smallness of our politics.” He states, in an obvious slam to the very faction of the Democratic party who supports him, “In distilled form, though, the explanations of both the right and the left have become mirror images of each other. They are stories of conspiracy, of America being hijacked by an evil cabal…. A government that truly represents these Americans (those “who are going about their business every day”)—that truly serves these Americans—will require a different kind of politics.”

Say it with me… just like the DLC!

Obama also criticizes the Democratic party for being weak on moral values, he speaks of the naivety of the 60s “progressive” movement, he endorses the death penalty, and, what may be the most lethal stab to the heart of his netroots base, declares “a lot of liberal rhetoric… value(s) rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities…. Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster.”

Ouch! While the DLC certainly is on board with those concepts, they wouldn’t go so far as to pile adoration onto Ronald Reagan!

If you think you’re seeing some very definitive third-way thinking with Obama, you are correct. But it doesn’t end with the utterances in his book. During first quarter fundraising, Obama declared he’d take no lobbyist or corporate money. It was later revealed he had. Finally, during the first Democratic debate in South Carolina this year, Obama gave an answer on the topic of abortion straight out of the DLC’s “safe, rare, and legal” playbook.

Does all this mean Obama is bad candidate? Absolutely not. Most of this would make me more likely to vote for him. What it reveals, though, is a certain hypocrisy on the left. The candidate they’ve latched onto, who is taking policy advice from Colin Powell as a matter of fact, is the mirror image of what they claim to despise.==

http://www.bloggernews.net/17906

Obama wants to "get along" with everyone else. We can't do that at this time. We need a warrior!

and the will of the people.

The difference is HRC has experience and the Clintons have a proven record of fighting back against the right-wing machine.

Why do you think he was at 20% in the polls before he said a word about what he would do as president?

Why do you think he was at 20% in the polls before he said a word about what he would do as president?

you just weren't listening.

That is quite a feat! As early as November of 2006 he was in the 20's in some polls.

Obama was unknown when he was polling in the 20's...even right now it isn't clear what he stands for.

keynote speech at the convention.

I agree with what you said. I'm not going to insult any other candidates here; we have an excellent group of people to choose from. But I was a kid when JFK ran, and even though I don't remember the issues he ran on, I do remember hearing his speeches and seeing him speak in person. No other candidate since then has made me feel like that until Barack Obama. He talks TO people, not AT them. I'm very excited about his candidacy, his freshness, his idealism and what this could mean for this country. For the first time in a very long time, I feel HOPE.

2008." It's very evocative, and I admire it every time you post.

Who would be an outstanding president.

:yourock:

There certainly are not any differences between HRC and Obama's platforms, aside from on health care--where it is Obama who is more DLC than the DLCer! :rofl:

that most don't want to acknowledge or talk about. Without a doubt, Obama is very well spoken and charismatic. And he does have a reasonably good handle on many major issues (though he's not my first choice, i wouldn't have a problem voting for him in the primary if my first choice was no longer viable or in the race).

The thing that i think draws many (not all, by any means) people to him is that he's a well spoken and charismatic black man, who doesn't constantly remind you of his race. This is (as far as i can remember) a first in presidential politics. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton remind people too much of their race, and this is offputting to many otherwise non-political suburban voters. Obama appeals to people just as a person, and this subconcious "white guilt" draws a lot of people to him without ever really examining his stance on the issues.

That said, there are certainly people, including most on DU, that like Obama based purely on the issues. If that's what you believe, go for it. Anyway, I know i might get flamed for this for being 'racist' or something, but it's just something i've been thinking about for awhile.

I like Edwards myself,but it's obvious that the OP was pissed about something and has taken it on himself to be the Obama Destroyer.How this will help Edwards at all is beyond me.If anything the obsession is so unbecoming that it'll help Obama.

don't just needlessly tear down his opponent. That serves no one.

nt

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

how much further down the rabbit hole can he go?


:rofl:

I posted another, not-so-flattering piece about his candidate from the same site in that thread. After all, if he finds it such a credible source, he might want to read what they're saying about his guy. ;-)

So you are saying Obama's own words in his book are not credible? :rofl:

As I mentioned in another thread, perhaps you should actually read the book, rather than cherry-picking quotes that suit your agenda- all while ignoring quotes that don't.

And no, an unidentified blogger is not a credible source, IMHO.

Why? Because the reality is he is a Third Way DLCer. Like HRC. Look at their platforms. They are identical, except Obama is more DLC than DLC icon HRC on health care. :rofl:

when he was in office. Obama has never been in the DLC to my knowledge.

I don't care about either of them - I don't have a candidate as of yet - but facts is facts.

and James Webb was an official in the Reagan administration. The moral of the story? People change. Edwards is hardly DLC now. DLCers don't favor $15 billion a year plans to eradicate poverty, $8 billion a year to provide universal access to college, etc. One of the chief objections the DLC had to "Old Democrats", one that Obama apparently shares if you read his book and his criticism of "Old Democrats", is they favored "big government." The DLC favors incremental steps to achieve progressive goals. The Clinton administration was a perfect example of this.

:shrug:

Not that it matters. This DLC blah blah blah is your world, not mine.

simply because you didn't do your homework.

He covers all of the topics you've thrown out in numerous threads, minus the innuendo, and in a manner that explains his policy approaches. He also has a knack for explaining progressive initiatives in a manner that most people can relate to, rather than seeming like ‘crazy liberal ideas’. All of this without poll-testing- THAT, my friend, is a leader.

You really should take a harder look at your own candidate. If you think he can still win either the primary or the general, despite spending four years campaigning, I would suggest you don’t understand human nature all that much. If you think it’s actually productive for you to prop up Hillary in an effort to beat Obama down, you don’t understand human nature at all, particularly the attitudes of voters that don’t happen to frequent DU.

Perhaps your candidate should have written a book in his spare time. Hell, I would love to know how he made the decision to CO-SPONSOR the IWR, without bothering to read the NIE.

I saw him when he came to the Carter Center in Atlanta few months back, just before he announced. Shook his hand, heard him speak. To be honest, both my colleague and i were thoroughly underwhelmed. We wanted like him but...the style over substance effect was simply too much for my taste.

How bad of him! He should have wrote a book to make millions more instead of trying to help deal with poverty. Poverty, that issue some candidates don't address.

rather than attacking first and asking questions later? I have no interest in doing your homework for you.

Is anyone disputing that he actually said these things? :rofl:

Let's start with the contention that the DLC gets Democrats elected.

The DLC couldn't get an FDR/JFK ticket elected. Clinton got Clinton elected. He put the DLC in charge of the party, and we promptly lost both houses of Congress for the entire time the DLC was in control. As soon as an actual Democrat (Dean) was put in charge we won back both houses.

The other things are on the order of "Devout Buddhists are vegetarians. Hitler was a vegetarian. See!!! Buddhists are Hitlers!!!"

etc.

"He put the DLC in charge of the party, and we promptly lost both houses of Congress"

Yes because the two huge Congressional scandals that were primarily amongst Democrats and an on message, disciplined GOP had nothing to do with it :eyes:

"for the entire time the DLC was in control"

We had net wins every election until 2002 including unprecendented pickups in the midterms of his 2nd term.

"As soon as an actual Democrat (Dean) was put in charge we won back both houses."

Dean deserves credit for what he was done but again this superficial analysis that ignores huge scandals on the GOP side as a factor. More newly elected Democrats joined the Blue Dogs or New Democrats than the Progressive caucus.

But why am I reading what you have to say about winning and losing elections...aren't you a Kucinich supporter?

Not a Kucinich supporter, for President anyhow.

Note also that the DLC's handpicked candidates did worse than the other candidates in '06. Face it - the DLC is subject to Truman's Law:

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time" - Harry S. Truman, actual Democrat

Because he would be much more at home in the DLC camp than elsewhere.

It's true and it matters.

which says it all.

;)

Pray tell.

Ron Paul is also against the war. Does that make him a progressive?

Man, you got the labels going on.

But you really should attach "crypto" or "pseudo" as that will make it sound even more ominous. :evilgrin:

The problem is when you are posing as something else and your supporters are unaware of it. The fact is many Obama supporters, particularly many of his netroots supporters, think he is not a Third Way Democrat. They think he is closer to Kucinich than HRC when in reality he is HRC! :rofl:

As to him being Hillary... Whatever.

You know the Official Story: HRC=DLC corporate shill with neocon-lite foreign policy views. Obama: progressive, the anti-HRC (and by extension the anti-DLC candidate).

== As to him being Hillary... Whatever. ==

What differences are there between their platforms, aside from BO being more DLC than HRC on health care?

They have identical platforms. The only difference is on health care where Obama is more DLC than the DLCer. :rofl:

just wow

It seems the only differences are on flag burning and health care. On the former BO is more progressive but on the more important issue he is more DLC than HRC.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

I also appreciate your desire to focus on specific issues that should be of interest to all progressives, both inside and outside of the Democratic Party. My views on universal health care, the unilateral use of force in Iraq, and NAFTA are in fact what you might expect given my previous history and voting record.

I favor universal health care for all Americans, and intend to introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end in the U.S. Senate, just as I have at the state level. My campaign is also developing a series of interim proposals – such as an expansion of the successful SCHIP program – so that we can immediately provide more coverage to uninsured children and their families.

I would have voted against the October 10th congressional resolution authorizing the President to use unilateral force against Iraq. I believe that we could have effectively neutralized Iraq with a rigorous, multilateral inspection regime backed by coalition forces. Nothing since the end of the formal fighting has led me to reconsider this stance; indeed, the inability of Saddam Hussein to mount even token resistance to American forces, the failure to discover any significant, deployable arsenals of biological or chemical weapons inside Iraq, and the on-going turmoil currently taking place in post-war Iraq, have only strengthened my views on the subject.

And although I believe that free trade - when also fair - can benefit workers in both rich and poor nations, I think that the current NAFTA regime lacks the worker and environmental protections that are necessary for the long-term prosperity of both America and its trading partners. I would therefore favor, at minimum, a significant renegotiation of NAFTA and the terms of the President’s fast track authority.

You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC. That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC. As I stated in my previous letter, I agreed to be listed as “100 to watch” by the DLC. That’s been the extent of my contact with them. It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC also listed me in their “New Democrat” directory. Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.

MUCH MORE AT LINK

==I favor universal health care for all Americans==

That rhetoric has been debunked. He said this but when he proposed his plan it was a Third Way plan that will leave at least 15 million people uninsured.

==And although I believe that free trade - when also fair - can benefit workers in both rich and poor nations, I think that the current NAFTA regime lacks the worker and environmental protections that are necessary for the long-term prosperity of both America and its trading partners. I would therefore favor, at minimum, a significant renegotiation of NAFTA and the terms of the President’s fast track authority.==

Like HRC...

"the sky is blue," you'd say, "See! He's DLC because he agrees with Clinton!" But then, of course, Edwards is a real, card-carrying member of the DLC, just like Clinton.

:crazy:

Platforms are statements of what candidates intend to do as president. If candidates intend to do essentially the same things it is logical that they share the same philosophy.

Edwards is no longer a member of the DLC. I give you a list of key areas where Edwards' platform differs from the DLC's philosophy and HRC's thinking (HRC is a classic DLCer). It isn't hard to do. I notice, though, that Obama supporters can't do the same. Why? Because there is nothing they can point to...

And don't give me that bullshit about how the media is after him — he's gotten a pass on most everything.

6/12-18/2003

1) Lieberman 21
2) Gephardt 17
3) Kerry 13
4) Graham 7
4) Dean 7
6) Edwards 6
6) Sharpton 6
8) Moseley Braun 5

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem2.htm

Obama isn't DLC but he really is. Edwards is DLC but he really isn't... :eyes: indeed!

Does that mean he still is a DLC hawk? Of course not. After the 2000 campaign the DLC actually criticized Gore. For what? Running a populist campaign. Hmmm..sound familiar?

Edwards is similar to Gore in their evolution. It should be noted, though, that Edwards was a political novice when he was a DLCer. Clearly, as he learned more about politics and the issues facing Americans he shifted away from the DLC.

I have explained how Edwards platform is not DLC. For some odd reason Obama supporters have not done the same... ;)

What happens once he's elected? Outsourcing will continue. We will not make a FULL withdrawal from Iraq. Insurance companies will still rule and bleed us dry. The drug war will continue wasting our money. Education costs will still be skyrocketing.

The difference? Maybe Europe will like us more.

I've been having a LOT of car trouble lately and could really use the extra $$

(I don't even need to win the whole thing - although I would do really go things with it if I did!)

He is pro-corporate on trade; he has stated he will not fully withdraw from Iraq and will continue military operations in Iraq indefinitely; he is more DLC than Hillary Clinton on health care; he is more DLC on college affordability than Biden. And so on.

No sign of Obama. In fact, if you search, you may find this quote:

“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC.”

Oh, Ruh Roh. Lookie who's here --->

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

Not that it matters much to me who is in and who is out of the DLC. Just thought it important to clarify the truth around here. We're verging really close to "Truthiness" Land...

Using facts is really mean. Try truthiness next time.

How about some common sense? If platform A is based on the DLC's Third Way ideology and platform X is identical to platform A, platform X is based on Third Way principles.

For example, Obama was against the war from the get-go. The DLC were big supporters.

It is hard to put things in the past into a platform. Platforms are what candidates run on for a position. They consist of their positions on the issues and what they intend to do if elected. On Iraq he has exactly the same position HRC does.

Your post is very telling. All you can point to is one issue. So Obama is DLC on economic issues, trade, the role of government a(bearing in mind the DLC is progressive on social issues), etc.?

Obama has never formally joined the DLC but a quick look at his platform--which is identical to the woman in that photo--reveals that he shares the Third Way ideology of the DLC. Indeed, on pg. 34 of his book he praises Clinton's Third Way style of governing.

If you read the book in context instead of posting intentionally misleading bullshit you'll see that Obama doesn't accept the triangulation approach. He condemns it as well.

Can't a person say at least a few good things about Clinton without being exactly like Clinton? I guess not when someone like you has an ax to grind and a casual relationship with the truth.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

His platform is HRC's platform. Do you believe HRC is not running on a Third Way platform?

He is also willing to call attention to "white priviledge" in those words.

Plenty of white people do so, but credibility is shakey when they talk about what goes on in the life of disaffected when they have been living within the white male network that is the highest level of power in this country for long enough to be seperated from the grassroots.

Obama has aspired to join, but takes time to observe. He also comes clean in no uncertain terms. There is something to be said for that.

It's definitely an entertaining mental exercise to contexualize and define the work of an author for our own purposes, but it's not objective, or measurable until you sit down and have a conversation to hash out what the author meant.

Injecting one's own meaning is kind of like interpreting other people's dreams.

Ever hear of Reagan Democrats? People responded to Reagan. Obama offers his own thoughts on why. Disagree if you want, but be careful how much you read into it. A lot of people agreed with him. I don't know how old you are, but I remember how that rhetoric turned my dad into a Republican pretty much for good.

Then there's this dust up about Colin Powell speaking with "the enemy," when in truth it falls in line with what he said he would do.

Fact: Colin Powell is an educated person who has had experience on the other side of the aisle.
Fact: Obama has said that he wanted to gather information from many sources.

Fact: "Policy advice" is a vague term. Is it possible that Obama is learning from mistakes via Powell?

Why is it that people don't just simply have opinions here? Everything is so serious already and I've got to agree so conspiratorial.

I am not sure there is an ENEMY.
Barak Obama seems to many to be refreshing changfe from the same old, same old. He comes with a younger perspective, perhaps idealistic even. Many young people admire him for that. He has a very smart wife, and is extremely smart himself. He is a father of young children, an Editor of the Harvard Law Review, a brilliant black/white man, who has faced adversity and conquered it!
This man has accomplished so much in his life, and loes America, and it's values, that he may be Just What We Need!
We will never know, until we give him a chance!!!

:hi:

full of shit and spin things Obama has said. Aside from the Socialist site, you've also posted links to militant sites like Black Agenda Report as if they're factual. You post whatever trash you can find that attacks Obama no matter where it comes from...and that my friend is the perfect definition of what it means to be a troll. Not liking another candidate is one thing, spending hours on end to tear a person down is obssessive and odd...

Black thinkers who don't toe your political line are MILITANT? I don't think your guy Obama wants you to go THERE.

There must be a reason for that (unless no Obama supporters have read his book)...

No one "deserves" a chance to be president because of a great life story.

A great life story has nothing to do with a person's ideology. Bill Clinton had a great story and he was a DLCer. John McCain has a great story and he is a conservative Republican. The fact that Obama has a great story does not mean he doesn't share the DLC's Third Way philosophy.

The Democratic Leadership has done a very poor job of it the past 7 years.

I thought dems were different from repukes and did not line up to be toy soliders who won't say something/ Howard Dean has made the same critique.
And guess what! Powell talks to both sides and to alot of pols. Obama is one of many.
DMC: Get a life.

Period.

Obama has plenty of time to educate the common herd...

The point is they both share the same Third Way philosophy.

An entire thread of outrage, protest, and adolescent sneering.

I'm interested in hearing someone actually dispute that Obama has said, or written in his book, what this poster is claiming.

Is it a matter of "ignoring" what doesn't fit the picture created, or of "re-spinning" so that statements don't really mean what they say?

Is there some reason that I should not evaluate a politician, or a candidate, by his words?

==Is it a matter of "ignoring" what doesn't fit the picture created==

Like cult members, it seems they automatically dismiss anything that doesn't fit the Official Story. As you have seen, both in this thread and wyldwolf's thread on Obama being a DLC-type "New Democrat", no one actually disputes that Obama has said these things. No one offers any evidence to show why he is not a Third Way Democrat. No one explains why, if HRC is a "pro-corporate shill" for her Third Way views, why Obama isn't even though he is running on the essentially the same platform. All you hear is what you described and juvenile reactions similar to the reaction of a child when he or she is told Santa Clause does not exist for the first time...

I'm not really sure because all you seem to want to do is bash Obama. If Edwards is your candidate, and DLCers are like the scourge in your world, how do you explain away this

--->

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=251080

and this -->

Member of Democratic Leadership Council.
Edwards is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council:

Mission
The DLC’s mission is to promote public debate within the Democratic Party and the public at large about national and international policy and political issues. Specifically, as the founding organization of the New Democrat movement, the DLC’s goal is to modernize the progressive tradition in American politics for the 21st Century by advancing a set of innovative ideas for governing through a national network of elected officials and community leaders.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/John_Edwards_Principles_+_Values.htm

So why perpetuate the lie and keep digging your "hole of delusion" deeper?

The point? People change. Edwards, thankfully, is no longer a DLC'er. DLCers don't propose $15 billion a year plans to eradicate poverty, $8 billion a year to provide universal access to college, a universal health care plan that covers everyone, repealing NAFTA, etc.

none of them are MY candidate, for many reasons to be found in this thread.

I know you weren't asking me. I just thought I'd point out that the DLC comparison dmc makes in this thread is obvious and valid to non-HRC and Edwards supporters.

For me, it's not about slowing down the competition. It's simply about truth in advertising. Looking clearly at where each candidate actually stands, outside of whatever impassioned speeches they give that don't have to be backed up by actual action.

You've done an outstanding job dmc reinforcing the points made earlier today by WW on another thread, with one exception:

==Like cult members==

No one has taken offense or denied the label of "cult member." So, I believe it's a fair assumption all are in agreement and cult members it is..

It's been proven OB is promoting DLC ideology just as Hillary but OB doesn't seem to be scoring any points significant enough to raise his poll numbers. Yet, Hillary numbers continue going skyward.

Why do you suppose Hillary's numbers are so much higher than OBs in spite of similar ideology?

I think the reason HRC does better than Obama is if a DLCer wants things to get done it is best to have a DLCer with experience and a proven record of results. They know HRC will deliver; Obama may not. Look at how much even Bill Clinton struggled in his first two years because of his Washington inexperience--and he had 12 years of experience as governor. Obama also lacks a real record in primetime to examine. Since past performance is the best predicator of future performance, it is best keeping BO a DLC plan B.

For the record, I have no problem with DLCers. We need them in our party. We especially need them to win in red states. I just happen to disagree with the DLC philosophy. The problem is that many anti-DLC progressives are supporting Obama without realizing that he is a Third Way Democrat himself. He even praised Clinton's Third Way in his book! (pg. 34)

and I have nothing negative to say about him because I haven't really paid attention to his campaign.

The observation I made about similar ideologies producing dissimilar poll results sort of occurred to me while reading your thread and why I wanted to make note of it. I'm going to put it in even simpler words and say, Hillary is more successful in promoting her programs because she is authentic and genuine in her beliefs.

What I've seen and heard of Obama's flowery words and the reason they ring hollow is because the programs he's promoting are just recited text. There isn't a three dimensional concept propelling his words to the audience. Where Hillary is projecting a vision, a three dimensional thought seamlessly transcends to her audience.

This is a huge obstacle for Obama to overcome, I don't think he can at this point in time, because the old reinforcing meme..."it's the experience stupid " doesn't exist in cliff notes.

The fact is that Obama's record in the Illinois Senate and in the US Senate does not fit the pattern of DLC - while Edward's one term does. Edwards voted for the bankrupcy bill in 2001! In 2004, in late February, he argued that John Kerry's health care and other programs were budget breakers.

In 2008, he is packaged as nearly the opposite end of the Democratic spectrum of positions from 2004 and that was more liberal than what he actually did in the Senate.

I am not yet a supporter of any candidate, but this entire thread is a blatant attempt to mischaracterize Obama. Oddly - you are saying that Obama is not what his platform says he is - though it is consistent with his history in elected office and as a advocate working in a poor area of Chicago. Meanwhile, you take Edwards as true to his 2008 platform words - though they are at variance with his Senate actions and his 2004 platform.

Theres no mischaracterization at all- Obama's voting record mirrors Hillary's exactly, with the exception of one vote, where Obama voted with Republicans. An excerpt in Obama's book, where he agrees with Bill Clinton's Third Way is proof of that.

You can take your denial up here with Wyldwolf if you still are unconvinced.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3325889

why not?

which is false on it's own merits. If you read through the thread (carefully) you will find the whole premise of the OP (that Obama is a DLCer) soundly debunked.

There's really no need to work through the silly string of out of context quotes in order to contradict a case that was never made to begin with.

That is why his platform is identical to HRC's. Obama supporters themselves crow about how DLC and corporate HRC is...

No one has disputed any quote from his book included in any thread here. What you hear is "they are out of context" but you note that you never hear anyone explain what the "real context" was...

no one has disputed it- I don't count the hot air from the usual suspects as relevant.

Obama, was an advocate for Chicago's poor, a civil rights lawyer, and worked on things like Ethics and Health Care in the Illinois Senate. He was not DLC then and did not join the DLC, unlike Edwards, who the op is supporting.

Obama's entire life matchs the things he has in his platform. A consistency that Edwards does NOT have - his 2008 platform is very different from his 2004 platform. He was apolitical enough (the best interpretation) to not remember if he voted for McGovern or Nixon. He had no political involvement till he was in his late 40s! Then he was a DLC Senator - a conservative Democrat who voted for the bankrupcy bill.

With Obama, one gets the sense that his views are his own. Not unwavering nor all held with the same fervor nor even always agreeable. But his own. Part of that is that he writes his own books and much of his own speeches. With Clinton, one gets very much the sense that the views she expresses are scripted, carefully couched by a well-honed team for the political needs of the moment.

This is a subtle issue. All politicians do a degree of the latter. And there is the important question of the degree to which people are correctly evaluating what they see.

Nonetheless, character is an important issue. And one that will weigh especially heavily in the 2008 campaign, both the primaries and the general election. I suspect that we will shoot ourselves in the foot if we nominate Clinton. I could be wrong. But that is still my sense. Elections are not entirely about issues. Especially presidential elections.

:hippie:

That helps explain why BO was in the 20's in the polls before he said a word about what he would do as president.

Despite this, Obama supporters continue to act as if there is some huge ideological chasm between him and HRC. HRC is portrayed as a DLC corporate shill with neocon-lite views. Obama has the same views yet the very same people portray him as a progressive messiah, the anti-HRC/anti-DLC. Instead of the mythology we should debate electability and style for the substance between the two is the same.

The problem that they have not overcome is that they are a minority, a small minority with regard to the nation as a whole, and a significant minority within Democratic ranks, but a minority nonetheless. That makes it very difficult for them to elect a president who will satisfy them. The nominees most likely to satisfy progressives are the ones most likely to lose a general election. The nominees that veer progressive to get their support in the primary will veer to the center for the general election.

It's tempting to view progressives in the same relation to the Democratic Party as the religious right is to the Republican. The difference is that I suspect the religious right has more numbers, more cohesion, and because of that, more influence. Nonetheless, the religious right would kvetch about the leading candidates, and would love for the GOP to nominate Brownback or Hunter.

I'd like for them to nominate Brownback, also. :evilgrin:

:hippie:

Obama has clearly staked out a centrist corporate friendly faith based position. He is not and has never been a progressive. Blasting away at his not being on the left is an interesting tactic, completely dishonest, but interesting.

Oh by the way the DLC is centrist only if the center is way over on the right. But then again right left and center are pretty well meaningless in american politics. There are only rightwing parties at the moment. The ruling party is the Corporatist War Party. It spans the leadership of both de facto institutionalized political parties. Its hold on power is at this point pretty secure: witness how they easily rode out the 2006 election, and how once again all the officially annointed presidential candidates are from their camp.

So I spit on your Corporate Creep candidate, whomever that might be, it is all tweedledum tweedledee. My only hope is that we progressives, those of us still on the left, can work to get real Democrats through the primaries and build a solid progressive wing of the party that can slowly regain control from the corporate asshats. I'll back one of the un-annointed Democrats in the presidential primaries and then reluctantly vote for Hilobamwards.

It's all in the take. But the HRC cheerleaders are demonstrating, by posting this crap, that they are short on actual ideas and long on crap flinging.

The basic premise they are selling here is that classic "Oh Yeah??" argument to overcome objections to their intransigent thesis that "Hillary is inevitable".

"Oh Yeah? Well YOUR guy is as bad as Hillary!!"

Oh yeah?? Well YOUR guy is DLC , or ust the same as DLC!!"
(never mind that he insisted his name be removed from the DLC supporters list they were pimping all over town)

Do these proponents of logic remind you of anything? Anything at all? Vaguely?

Remember the Kerry Campaign? "We're not Bush"? Oh yeah? Voted for it before I voted against it?

Oh Yeah? Our guy windsurfs, but your guy crashed his bike!

Oh Yeah? Swiftboats? Your guy was a draft dodger!

Oh Yeah? Iraq? We can fight a war better than that! ( don't mention withdrawal)

Bottom line, they wanted to appear as close to the republicans as possible while still staying democrat. THAT they insisted, was the key to victory. They viciously attacked on these boards and elsewhere, anyone who thought this was no way to run a campaign.

Guess what? They're back. They all work for Hillary. Yeah. DLC triangulation, smear and attack your own, and cozy up to the middle voter.

The sequel.

There you have it folks. They don't understand our support of Obama, of Edwards, of Bill Richardson. Who all have by virtue of being Democrats, intersected somewhere philosophically with the DLC. Let me explain for not the last time, I'm sure.

It's all about a change. About a not Bush, Not Clinton, chance at turning things around. Because if you think your tried ass way of running an election or politics as usual inside the beltway is going to win, you have totally missed the message of the American electorate the past 12 years.

So support Hillary, just understand why I don't and won't.

each other.

Shame...i would have hoped for better from "our side."

Ok. Then what? Obama supporters should accept reality and stop pretending that he is some sort of progressive messiah. They criticize HRC for her views even when Obama has the same views, on issues ranging from outsourcing to Iraq. :wtf:

==Bottom line, they wanted to appear as close to the republicans as possible while still staying democrat. THAT they insisted, was the key to victory.==

==DLC triangulation==

These are premises of "DLCism." Obama shares them. If you accept these as DLC pillars, what does it say that Obama's platform is the same as DLCer HRC's?

==It's all about a change.==

Change? This is an example of what I am talking about. HRC and Bo have the same platforms yet BO is marketed, and perceived by his supporters, as a "change" candidate while BO supporters paint HRC as a status quo candidate. How can this be when they have the same positions on the issues?

Oh wait, that's part of the problem.

DMC, I don't think they'll get it. You're right. It's a cult mentality.

Look at "welfare reform." The DLC got more Republican support for it, I believe, than Democratic support.

Obama is smart. "Unity" is a great way of selling the Third Way. He can justify his Third Way governance by saying he "had" to compromise in order to achieve "unity."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

some see it half empty, others see it half full...same glass

I have no idea what you've posted because my post was addressed to dmc not you-
How do I know it's you? You're the only posters I have on ignore...and it's a blessing!

Yet, you criticize us. Who is the real hypocrite?


IT IS YOU

Summary of article: "OMG, Obama isn't a Kucinich-clone ideological purist and therefore evil, OMG. :eyes:

Stupid fucking hit piece, with a load of paranoia to boot.

are you going to post one of these every day?

organizers?

THe question is whether his ideology is that of the DLC. His platform, which mirrors HRC's, suggests he does.

In his conclusion to The Audacity of Hope Obama stresses FDR, and in particular his four freedoms: the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear. These are the base of the New Deal and are the base of Obama's campaign. Stop quoting him out of context and putting up hit pieces like this.

How the fuck do you know what I believe. Your single comeback is that HRC and Obama are the same. That is a fucking asinine statement and can not be backed up. Are their voting records similar, yes, as are the majority of Dems in the Senate. Stop the Republican BULLSHIT FUCKING STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS. Look, between the two of them they have over 50% of the potential vote. If not one of them someone like one of them will win the nomination. Edwards is making a political move to the left to try to pick up votes. HRC did the same by moving to the right after 911. So of the three which one should I trust to be true to what they are saying? Only one hasn't fully compromised his or her values for political gain. Might he later, YES! But you tell me which path should I chose, one that has historically ended in a swamp or one that may not?

debating which mundane hypocrisy is better.

He is pretty much who I thought he was. And that's why he has a GREAT chance to unite America and be an outstanding president.

"I lean DLC and I back a DLC-leaning type candidate in Edwards. I think it's silly for Obama supporters to think he's so far left of Edwards and the DLC when he really isn't."

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't really have a sense of Obama, other than his manner, which I like fine. Why do I feel unclear about him, though?

His seems like the kind of candidacy that is about projections.

Maybe it's just me.

Obama has been liberal his entire career.

and with what conviction, and with what willingness to challenge the way things are.

I choose Edwards, who has always been a progressive thinker - it just that he's recently decided he will not be constrained by consultants.

I'm of the same generation - and I think everyone I know is crystal clear on that. Edwards was not even political until he ran for Congress. Obama was progressive since at least the point he left law school and worked as a civil rights lawyer and advocate on the South side of Chicago.

You're including the time he acted moderate as a Senator and former head of the DLC. That's a long time to pretend you're something you aren't. I can't say I admire that in a person.

I remember Obama's speech at the 2004 convention. I cheered. I really believed that Obama would bring something NEW and IMPROVED to the Democratic Party. He still has charisma, and I love to listen to him speak. He speaks of wonderful, inspiring broad visions of "freedom" and "liberty".
My problem is in the details. So far, the FACTS are:

FACT:
*Obama does NOT support real Universal Healthcare. He supports Mandatory Health Insurance and calls it Universal Healthcare (same as HRC).

FACT:
*He says he is Anti-War, but pledges to continue the Occupation and Privatization of Iraq under the exact same military goals as the Bush administration (fight the terrorists, train the Iraqis). But somehow, he will bring some of the troops home at some future date (same as HRC).

FACT:
*He says he is opposed to the corrupting influence of Corporate money, but has collected more money from Wall St than Clinton or Rudi (beating them in their own backyard).

It is NOT possible to argue with the above FACTS.
I look at these FACTS, and I have reservations with Obama's so called Progressive credentials.

Obama aides said they believe that everyone would buy health insurance if it were affordable enough, achieving universal care. If some Americans are still uninsured after a few years into the plan, Obama would reconsider how to get to 100 percent, the advisers said.

That's where he differs with Democratic rival John Edwards, the only other candidate who has laid out a specific plan. Edwards eventually would require every American to get health insurance, much like state requirements that drivers have auto insurance. Obama would only require that children be covered.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/29/obama.health.ap/index.html

I stand correctred.
Obama's plan does NOT have a "mandatory" requirement (yet).

Edward's plan extends Medicare eligibility to all, and allows Private "For Profit" Insurance carriers to compete with Medicare.(I would love to see that competition).

Kucinich has also offered a comprehensive Universal Healthcare Plan....Medicare for All.

But children will be mandatory regardless.

Obama's plan would get affordable healthcare to everyone who wants and needs it. It also depends less on the private sector health insurance industry than some other plans, which I like. That makes him progressive.

Your claim that Obama has "the exact same military goals as the Bush administration" is offensive and moronic. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim that Bush and Obama have the same goals in Iraq? I know you have a candidate you're defending but an ugly smear like that is a bigger load of crap than most people can handle. Obama put out a plan to get out of Iraq by March of next year and let's face the fact that even if we adopt Kucinich's plan to pull out now that we have a responsibility to help restore Iraq, which means some kind of presence. Facing that reality doesn't make one less progressive.

All candidates raise money. That's how our system works. All you're telling me is that Obama is a progressive who can raise enough money to win, and its about time we found one of those. And exactly what contributions are from "wall street?" Care to provide a link to prove he has the most from that specific group?

I don't find your "facts" particularly damning to Obama at all.

I'm surprised you didn't know this, but if all you do sling bullshit around anonymous BBS and buy into someone's campaign props and image spin, then I guess you would miss the important stuff.

Here is your link you requested:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701688.html

If you do some work, you will find out that Obama is sleeping with the Big Money Boys.
If you look beyond the hype, you will find that Obama is in a dead heat with Hillary for the most Republican Democratic candidate.

He DOES have a nice smile, and he CAN deliver a flowery, inspiring speech full of broad platitudes about the way things should be, but when you look for statements of POSITION on ISSUES (few and far between), Obama is a long way from progressive.

I DON'T have a candidate I'm defending. I am not a camp follower, blind faith groupie, or candidate cult member. I AM campaigning for the Democratic Party to move in a Progressive (Domestic "Working American" Economic Issues, Pro-LABOR, Anti-Iraq War, cut the Defense Budget) direction. I WILL fight for those candidates who support THOSE ISSUES. I will shine a light of truth on those candidates who will move AWAY from those issues.

Question: Why does someone with your screen name and avatar defend such a Pro-War Big Money candidate? You DO know that Obama has pledged to continue the Occupation of Iraq to protect the PSA's (look it up).


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.




cheers!

Has Wall Street in her back pocket. She also has the DLC riding her coat tails. Hillary is the worst candidate out there. She can not make a decision and stick with it. She is for something then she is not for it depending on who is in the audience. Obama is for the middle class. Not Wall Street like Clinton.

:dem:

The OP starts with the assumption that Obama supporters are misinformed about Obama's views. That IS a load.

The OP also assumes that most Obama suppoters think he is to the left of other candidates. That is complete nonsene.

I wouldn't mind getting your take on that, draft. Who is the real John Edwards and at which point in time was he pretending to be either more liberal or moderate than he really is?

It looks like there are two options:

1) He was a spineless flake as a Senator who acted moderate to get elected in North Carolina and suck up to the party establishment, or

2) He's pretending to be more liberal now because he sees it as the best way to become President.

Which is is?

If I come at this from a "progressive" perspective, I would have to say Edwards was completely duped twice in his short public service career - once when he joined the DLC and again when he voted for the war. As a progressive, I don't want someone that easily mislead running the country.

If I come at this from a DLCer/centrist perspective, Edwards was brilliant young centrist mind who really wants to be president. Like most candidates do when they run, he's tacking left (pandering.) The only difference is he's tacking WAY left. As a DLCer/centrist, I understand the routine nature of presidential primary campaigns and I'm confident Edwards would strongly resemble the Senator he was if he won the presidency. But there are better and more experienced choices in my camp...