Obama = Lieberman: Americans "do not think George Bush is mean-spirited"

http://obama.senate.gov/blog/050930-tone_truth_and_the_democratic_party/index.html

Obama on his own website: "Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced..."

Yeah, that George Bush, who made fun of a deathrow inmate by saying "Please don't kill me." Naw, he's not mean-spirited at all!

Yeah, that George Bush, the one who let thousands of people in New Orleans die on national TV after Katrina. Naw, he's not prejudiced at all!

Do you agree with Obama?

I for one am getting a bit tired of Obama disagreeing with progressives and agreeing with conservatives. I thought that was Lieberman's job.

For more Liebermanish quotes from Obama's website, read the previous paragraph, just before his apology for Bush, where Obama debunks four progressive "storylines" or myths.

Or read the discussion here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3995321&mesg_id=3995321

Because he's beginning to draw mass corporate support. I'm not against him, but I hope he knows the tight rope he's walking. There's the kind of hope that drives the civil rights movement, and there's the kind of hope that keeps you coming back to the republican casino after you lose again and again and again.

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

"and well, you know, is no way to go through life."

Just give it up.

Care to try again?

Please note all my posts in this thread, cali.

They contain facts.

You might want to try this approach. Use some facts in your posts. Instead of calling the poster "ignorant".

And Barack Obama has shown a willingness to sit down at the negotiating table, not only for corporate support but for votes from conservative independants. The simple reality is he is that he's walking a centrist path. I'm not saying its bad, but its the truth.

I'm not buying it. That stuff has effect in places that care about expensive TV ad campaigns. Why would corporate and conservative types in Iowa caucus for Obama instead of a genuinely corporate Romney or fundie Huckabee. There are Republicans out there.

he's also getting the most small donations of anyone else in this race.

and realizes that you're really taking this out of context. It's one thing to criticize our candidates, but I really don't think you need to be so disingenuous about it.

Here's three paragraphs from the linked material, a post that Obama wrote to DailyKos in the wake of John Roberts' confirmation to the SCOTUS:

"According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee."

Now, as you can see, it's not Obama saying that it's a myth that there is such a thing as a rabidly partisan Republican Party. What he's saying is that most non-political junkies don't see it that way.

Sorry for my posting too many links to your favorite candidate's website. I didn't realize that was a no-no. Sorry if I'm exposing what Obama really thinks.

Can't have that now can we? Just like Obama can't have people asking him questions after his speeches. But his speeches are way cool aren't they!

But don't you worry now, he's the rider and your the wave and he's a hoper and not a fighter and Oprah endorsed him!

Never mind that 30 economists endorsed Edwards. What do they know?

Anyways, the economy is great! Never mind that some economists are starting to compare 2008 to 1929. Celebrity is much more important than competence. And being a charmer is more important than being a fighter.

I just don't consider misleading partial quotes to be valid scrutiny. That's all.

GFY.

I heard it on Fox News or sumthin.

are truly frightening.

him based on "hope" "change" media coverage, "rockstar" status, etc?
If you support him based on his actual positions, I disagree with you, but am not scared.....otherwise, yes.

Where's that speech?

I think Obama was right, most Americans don't think Bush is mean-spirited. Even Bill Clinton. They're wrong, but it's still the reality of what Americans think.

They elected him twice.

big difference.

Bushco did not make me feel very good for the last 7 years, and the idea of embracing such horrible people makes me shudder.

"I'm not ready to make nice!"

Be my guest.

A small, vocal minority of authoritarian losers are tearing our country apart, and we're supposed to get along with them? I don't think so.

TRAITOR!!! into the faces of Republican voters?

I've converted a few by showing them what lurks behind the curtain. Once they figure out how much they're getting screwed, the smart ones ask me how the establishment losers can be undermined.

I know you were exaggerating, but if a lot more people were a lot more vocal, soldiers might not be dying and scaring kindergarteners in Iraq:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3129909

The right wing DOES NOT CARE WHAT WE THINK. They think we are the worst kind of traitors. Embrace those hedgehogs at your peril.

did you know that?

I don't see why it's desirable for us to embrace a bunch of people who would happily lynch us, given the chance. I don't see how "compromising" with them will help fix the mess they put us in.

Would you like to enlighten me on how this would work, perhaps?

What, do you think it would be rude to do so?

If you saw some guy knock down an old lady on the street and grab her purse, would it be rude to yell "thief".

My, you're demure.

I prefer to prosecute criminals -- not treat them with delicatesse.

sorry folks, I AM seriously afraid and not in any way comforted that Obama is strong enough to be POTUS. Plus, he has become increasingly more RW than ever before. I can't supply specific links, but I have heard his speeches, and he DOES sound so much like Mr. LIE-berman!

I'm FAAAR from ready to make nice! But, depending on what happens in the next month or two, I will either be DONE with this election or my wish for something better will come true. But, since Americans seem to be seeing nothing short of a "rock star" as possibly the next POTUS, I must say I had thought we had learned something over these past 7 years.

We shall see. I'm NO McCain supporter, but I have tried to imagine Obama debating him and I don't think I even want to watch it. Then you have others like Romney, Guilliani and the rest, and still I CAN NOT picture Obama holding his own with them. I'm not saying this to be mean, I just truly think he needs much more time before getting elected to the highest office in this land!

But the, it's America... and it seems we have many more followers than leaders!

isn't very well informed.

not mean spirited, are benefiting from that spirit; therefore, those folks are extremly comfortable. Very comfortable people will not "rock" the boat.

WE don't. We still haven't a clue how Obama thinks. But we do know who he's catering to and it ain't us. So the "progressives" on his bandwagon may be in for a hard fall. But I'm sure they'll have it justified in a trice.

saying exactly that?

I remember scratching my head, because I think the guy is as mean as they come, but then I hang out on DU a lot and know too much.

Obama does not = Lieberman. Clinton does not = Rove. Edwards does not = Ambulance Chaser.

The human mind is a powerful tool. Through power of selected editing and liberal associative linking any proposition can be argued using "facts".

This whole forum seems to be collapsing into a singularity of bullshit

They both think it's cool and clever to diss their constituents.

It is a "singularity of bullshit" for Obama to say that "Americans...don't believe that George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced" after Bush made fun of death-row inmates and let Katrina victims die and did all the other dozens of things he did.

And if you focus on the Americans who dislike Bush (and not on Bush himself), it is a "singularity of bullshit" for Obama to undercut those Americans -- Americans who would presumably be his supporters.

And this IS very Lieberman-like. Lieberman made a name for himself by attacking progressives and Democrats. Obama is doing this same thing on his website.

How many times have you ever heard a Republican stick up for a Dem? How many times have you heard a Republican say "Americans don't believe Al Gore lied about inventing the internet" or "Americans don't believe Dean screamed"? Why do we have to keep putting up with Dems supporting Republicans in this Liebermanlike fashion, when the Republicans never return the favor?

I think Obama is deluded and a lightweight and acting very Lieberman-like by spouting right-wing talking points (dissing Krugman, dissing trial lawyers, supporting Donnie McClurkin, buying into the phony Social Security "crisis", promising to "negotiate" with insurance companies instead of getting them the hell out of our healthcare system).

Obama has a pattern already of attacking progressives and adopting neo-con talking points, and I think it's time to use the L-word on him.

Obama = Lieberman.

By the way, you are welcome to support your argument with specific points like I just did.

Unless, of course, you're just the wave and he's the rider and you're a hoper and a charmer and not a fighter.

What's the next lesson, professor?

nt

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

You might want to include, you know, an actual ARGUMENT in your posting.

Isn't there a rule on DU against just calling someone "ignorant" or an "asshole" and "stupid" in your post?

I mean, it's probably ok to call somone "ignorant" and "asshole" and "stupid" in a post -- if it's part of a larger post.

But you've got a couple posts up in this thread where that's your whole post! Just calling the other person "ignorant" or "asshole" or "stupid".

Now, the OP posted a quote from Obama, and said that they disagreed with it.

You have retorted with a couple of very brief posts where you just say "ignorant" and "asshole" and "stupid" with no further elaboration.

If you don't address the points in a person's post, and instead attack the person, this is called an "ad hominem" argument. I'm not sure if it's allowed on DU, but I know it's generally frowned upon in debating.

But, I must say, your tactics are VERY revealing as to the personality of Obama supporters. You just keep riding that wave now, ok. You just keep charming and hoping all your problems way. Don't think of voting for Edwards either! Because the media told you you don't like him, and he's a fighter anyways. Yeah, who wants a fighter after a bunch of criminals tried to take over our goverment. Hopers and charmers are SOOO much more effective than fighters (and trial lawyers!) when it comes to dealing with corrupt corporations and criminals!

I'm not impressed with him and as a Lieberman opponent I find his bi-partisan or non-partisan rhetoric Liebermanesque.

...and Lieberman = Cheney and Cheney = Darth Vader and Darth Vader = Anakin Skywalker.

OH MY GOD. BARACK OBAMA IS ANAKIN SKYWALKER!!!!11!1

...and not ONLY do I think - but I KNOW George bu$h is mean-spirited and prejudiced.

:mad:

:wtf:

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent.

The bolded part was left out. I think this posters agenda is clear. Hoping people will be lazy and accept is cut out of context. You know when someone leaves out "but..." plus everything after it ... the quote is out of contexts...

I know that many people here would love to fight the 2000 election until the rapture comes along (any day now!), but really my interests lie with putting forward real policies that affect real human lives.

I know that some follow politics like others follow the NFL, but I never lose track of what is at stake.

Yes, I believe George Bush is pretty much the most evil person in the first world, and certainly the most dangerous, but I care much more about health care and energy reform, quality education and infrastructure, and a "war on terror" based on fostering hope in the Middle East than I do about making sure everybody knows what a prick our current President is.

Sad, but true.

Sure, we'd love to see "bipartisanship" -- i.e., reasonable people working together to solve our common problems.

But in the last elections the electorate said one thing LOUD and CLEAR: These people are NUTS. Oppose them! Stop them! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2753090">Make them go away !
The only path to a "new politics" and "change" is through an all out fight against the fascists. ONLY impeachment is capable of stopping them. Only impeachment is capable of giving the electorate what it wants.

Obama's "message" is a message of appeasement. He has won support by default. He has foolishly and utterly failed to tap into the mother lode of anger, energy, and action that is seething throughout the electorate. His "happy talk" and "let's all get along" crap is so wrongheaded it turns my stomach.

Of course, if he wins the nomination, I'll work for him. But instead of being inspired to action, I'll be doggedly putting whatever energy I can muster into the effort because at least we have a shot at reaching him and knocking some sense into his head -- of forcing him to confront reality that it is impossible to simultaneously "make nice" and fight to enforce our common contract -- the United States Constitution.

Unfortunately, I fear that his failure to confront the reality of our national crisis -- failure to say "No More! Now is the time to FIGHT!" -- will keep many who would otherwise give their time and money on the sidelines.

Edwards has also failed to sound the call to arms on impeachment, but at least he seems to recognize the need to fight the fasicsts. I view him as the most "reachable" of the viable candidates. He's hasn't been quite as immersed in the insular and bizzaro world of the beltway as the others. I sure hope he does well tonight. (I'd love to see Kucinich make a strong showing too, but although he's the only one I've actively supported to date, he is not currently on the "viable" list.)

Hillary can't do it and 2-America's Johnny can't do it.
Bi-Partisanship may be beneficial to the country but not
necessarily to the extreme left or the extreme right.

drinking too much Beltway kool-aid.