Why the Democratic Party is unfit to occupy the White House.

[Michael Tee]

<<Don't forget his now consistent dissing of anything and everything Rev Wright, not to mention Phleger, and his continued support of funding the war, with not a hint of any leigslation to stop it.  At least we know the BS doesn't stop with Israel>>

All true but irrelevant for the same reason that the AIPAC pledges are irrelevant.  Those of us who believe in Obama (or, more accurately, are willing to take a chance on him) were captured by the early Obama and can take in our stride any concessions he has had to make as the front-runner.

[Rich]

>>or, more accurately, are willing to take a chance on him<<

What chance is it you are taking ... exactly? You're Canadian, correct? Other than over the top America hating, what exactly is it you're investing in Obama? You can invest nothing. You can only stand on the sideline and root. Could it be your wish for the downfall of American power and prestige would best be facilitated by Obama and that's why you're rooting him?

That's my guess anyway.

[sirs]

<<Don't forget his now consistent dissing of anything and everything Rev Wright, not to mention Phleger, and his continued support of funding the war, with not a hint of any leigslation to stop it.  At least we know the BS doesn't stop with Israel>>

All true but irrelevant for the same reason that the AIPAC pledges are irrelevant.  

I love it.  It's only relevent if it happens to be a Republican.  But if it's a Dem, complete pass.  Priceless

[Michael Tee]

<<I love it.  It's only relevent if it happens to be a Republican.  But if it's a Dem, complete pass.  Priceless>>

Actually, sirs, I wasn't talking about a Republican, was I?  I believe my point was that some of the stuff Obama said in the later stages of his campaign could be discounted.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if McCain, in the later stages of HIS campaign, were similarly to move towards the centre and away from earlier, polarizing statements. 

That seems to be SOP for any national politician.

[sirs]

<<I love it.  It's only relevent if it happens to be a Republican.  But if it's a Dem, complete pass.  Priceless>>

Actually, sirs, I wasn't talking about a Republican, was I?  

Yet it's precisely the same type of criticisms you'd be leveling at any Republican, when they too offer their support of Israel, offer their support of continued funding of the war, etc., etc., etc.

I believe my point was that some of the stuff Obama said in the later stages of his campaign could be discounted.

Why?  Was he lying then, or is he lying now??  Is that your point?  Or is it what I called Xo on before, where you get to pick and choose which rhetoric you decide is truthful vs what's just kissing arse BS.  Based on......how much kool-aide has been ingested?  How convenient

[Rich]

>>That seems to be SOP for any national politician.<<

In this case it appears McCain is doing just the opposite. When he should be shoring up the base for support he's actively courting democrats and middle of the roaders. He looks to be working from the outside in. Will it work? Are Mrs. Clinton's supporters that pissed off? I doubt it.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yet it's precisely the same type of criticisms you'd be leveling at any Republican, when they too offer their support of Israel, offer their support of continued funding of the war, etc., etc., etc.>>

Sorry, but I don't intend to get into a debate with you about comments I "would be" making about Republicans.  When I make the comments, if I make them, that would be the time to debate them.


<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 01:31:34 PM
I believe my point was that some of the stuff Obama said in the later stages of his campaign could be discounted.

<<Why?  Was he lying then, or is he lying now??  Is that your point?  Or is it what I called Xo on before, where you get to pick and choose which rhetoric you decide is truthful vs what's just kissing arse BS. >>

More like the latter, actually.  The rhetoric at the start of Obama's campaign impressed me favourably.  The later stuff is (IMHO) just ass-kissing BS that every American politician has to go through with regard to the Israel Lobby if he or she wants to get elected.  Sad but true.

<< Based on......how much kool-aide has been ingested? >> 

That's a legitimate question.  Speaking for myself, it's based on:
1.  Obama has a natural black constituency at his base that he must answer to, and it has little or no interest in the promotion of Zionist ideals and a lot of natural sympathy for the Palestinians.
2.  Obama has also acquired an essential constituency of liberal internationalists and non-militarist, non-fascist youth voters, and they have zero interest in promoting Zionism and lost of natural sympathy for the Palestinians.
3.  Obama will never win over the hard-core pro-fascist, pro-militarist, pro-War and  racist voters so there is no gain for him on that front by embracing their ideals and their causes.
4.  Obama has developed a web-based financing machine that makes him independent of AIPAC and Israel-Lobby financial support and thus can afford to distance himself from them financially even though it is obviously expedient for him to avoid attracting their ire.  As long as he is able to present himself as not hostile to Israel, they will be forced to divide their largesse between him and his Republican  rival, rather than throwing it all to McCain.  This is more a question of denying funds to one's opponent, rather than grabbing more for oneself.

There may be other reasons I can't think of right now but those are substantial reasons why I feel that Obama's original rhetoric about major changes could have been sincere, in which case the present move to the so-called "centre" would have to be what you so delicately referred to as "ass-kissing BS."

[Michael Tee]

<<In this case it appears McCain is doing just the opposite. When he should be shoring up the base for support he's actively courting democrats and middle of the roaders. >>

Probably because McCain doesn't have a base to shore up.  The "conservative coalition" is fractured and his only hope is the moderates and the undecideds.

<<He looks to be working from the outside in. Will it work? >>

Are you kidding?  Nothing can help him - - he's fucked.  He's a loser tied to a loser.  This is not a Republican year.  Don't you remember the last three special elections?

<<Are Mrs. Clinton's supporters that pissed off? I doubt it.>>

Me too.  Like they would vote for a guy who has already promised, albeit in code, to pack the Supreme Court with anti-abortion conservative activists so that Roe v. Wade could be overturned.

[sirs]

I believe my point was that some of the stuff Obama said in the later stages of his campaign could be discounted.

<<Why?  Was he lying then, or is he lying now??  Is that your point?  Or is it what I called Xo on before, where you get to pick and choose which rhetoric you decide is truthful vs what's just kissing arse BS. >>

More like the latter, actually.  The rhetoric at the start of Obama's campaign impressed me favourably.  The later stuff is (IMHO) just ass-kissing BS that every American politician has to go through with regard to the Israel Lobby if he or she wants to get elected. 

Well, since we get to pick & choose, I'm seeing it as the latter stuff being the truth.  It was all the early stuff he was using to kiss up to the liberal base with the necessary BS, to pull the likes of you in, hook, line, and sinker, and get himself nominated.  How's it feel to be so used?   

[Michael Tee]

<<Well, since we get to pick & choose, I'm seeing it as the latter stuff being the truth.  It was all the early stuff he was using to kiss up to the liberal base with the necessary BS, to pull the likes of you in, hook, line, and sinker, and get himself nominated.  How's it feel to be so used?   >>

Well, if it happens, it won't be as bad as it would have been if I had bought into it hook, line and sinker from the beginning.  But in fact, from the first time I saw him, cynic that I am, I figured this could be either a new direction or another con job.  I'm aware of both possibilities and I can only hope.  With the other two, there's not even a possibility of change - - so I'm willing to take a chance on Obama.  Won't be the first time I was fooled - - Clinton did pretty much the same thing, so did JFK.  Only JFK was smart enough to know he was headed down a dead-end street and tried to change course, which unfortunately cost  him his life.

Fool the liberals too many times and eventually there won't be a Democratic Party.  The gotta deliver the real goods at least once in a lifetime.

[sirs]

<<Well, since we get to pick & choose, I'm seeing it as the latter stuff being the truth.  It was all the early stuff he was using to kiss up to the liberal base with the necessary BS, to pull the likes of you in, hook, line, and sinker, and get himself nominated.  How's it feel to be so used?   >>

Well, if it happens, it won't be as bad as it would have been if I had bought into it hook, line and sinker from the beginning.

 

Well I'm glad to hear that.  So, while our troops continue to get funded, our military presence remains in Iraq, and Isreal continues to get our full military & financial support, I'm glad you'll be ok with that

Fool the liberals too many times and eventually there won't be a Democratic Party.  The gotta deliver the real goods at least once in a lifetime.

You would think.  Well, at least you have that minum wage thing as the big time goods delivery, you can hang your hat on

[Michael Tee]

<<Well I'm glad to hear that.  So, while our troops continue to get funded, our military presence remains in Iraq, and Isreal continues to get our full military & financial support, I'm glad you'll be ok with that>>

No, I never said I'd be OK with that.  I said that it wouldn't be as bad as if I'd bought into the whole story without reservation.

<<You would think.  Well, at least you have that minum wage thing as the big time goods delivery, you can hang your hat on>>

Pathetic.  Nowhere near enough.  I'm looking ahead to the elimination of war as a means of advancing American policy and of fascism and militarism as mainstays of any U.S. government.  An end to torture, secret torture chambers and arbitrary arrest.  As bare minimum demands on any U.S. government.

[Plane]

I wonder if promises made in code and with a wink are more likely to be kept than promises explicitly stated?

[sirs]

<<So, while our troops continue to get funded, our military presence remains in Iraq, and Isreal continues to get our full military & financial support, I'm glad you'll be ok with that....Well, at least you have that minum wage thing as the big time goods delivery, you can hang your hat on>>

No, I never said I'd be OK with that.  I said that it wouldn't be as bad as if I'd bought into the whole story without reservation....I'm looking ahead to the elimination of war as a means of advancing American policy and of fascism and militarism as mainstays of any U.S. government.  An end to torture, secret torture chambers and arbitrary arrest.  As bare minimum demands on any U.S. government.

Good luck with that

[Michael Tee]

<<I wonder if promises made in code and with a wink are more likely to be kept than promises explicitly stated?>>

When all's said and done, it depends only on who's making them.