Barack Obama, on Democrats

This is what he writes in his new book.

"We Democrats are just, well, confused," Obama writes. He goes on. "Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction. In reaction to a war that is ill-conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action.

"In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems. In reaction to religious overreach, we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our policies with a larger meaning."

Yes, that means you, if you are a registered D.  Obama thinks you are confused, reactionary, anti-military action, anti-market, secularist, and amoral.  And he didn't include the dodgy 'some' this time.  He just said that this is what Democrats are.

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)



Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

If he had used qualifier "some," he'd be on firm ground.  Perspective varies.  Of course, where I live, if you're a Democrat, a few folks wonder why you're so conservative.

by InigoMontoya 2006-09-15 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Some Democrats are child abusers.

It's undeniably true, but I'm not sure I'd expect an elected Democratic official to be writing abut it.

by BingoL 2006-09-15 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

I wish folks like Obama would realize that a leader can be fiercely partisan and popular at the same time. Have they never heard of Franklin Roosevelt? Or Ronald Reagan?

And it's not just about popularity.  Extremely partisan presidents can actually manage to get things done - for good, e.g. FDR, LBJ; or ill, e.g. George W. Bush.  (W has gotten passed most every big thing he's pushed - Budget-Busting tax cuts, No Child Left ed reform, No Drugs Left Medicare plan, DHS behemoth, Iraq fiasco). Can you imagine W ever saying something like "Republicans are confused", even at times like this when he is at odds with some of them?

Partisanship itself is not good or bad - it's what you do with it that matters.  To be geeky, partisanship is a powerful thing - it's the Force.  And a leader - if that's what Obama wants to be - better learn how to use it.

by Rob in Vermont 2006-09-15 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

I don't think he has a problem with being partisan, he is partisan, the problem he has is that we suck at being partisan.

by Demeric 2006-09-15 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

he is partisan

Not so much, as I understand the word.

What a partisan uses his/her time and energy (and if s/he has it, fame) to do is to articulate and push for the things their party stands for - hence the name, "partisan"; a partisan stands up for their party by showing how their party's principles and record of accomplishment have strengthened the country; and a partisan contrasts this to the principles and record of the opposing party, showing how they have weakened the country.

What a partisan most certainly does NOT do is spend their time/energy/fame taking shots at their own party.

by Rob in Vermont 2006-09-15 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

(W has gotten passed most every big thing he's pushed - Budget-Busting tax cuts, No Child Left ed reform, No Drugs Left Medicare plan, DHS behemoth, Iraq fiasco).

Bush got all those things from a Democratic Senate eager to please. Oddly, his own Republicans have blocked him at every major turn since then.

by Sitkah 2006-09-15 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Oddly, your comment highlights the best things some Republicans have done and the worst things some Democrats have done.

Rule #1 for partisans on our side should be: don't make such comments. (Reagan called it the Eleventh Commandment.)

Oh, but you say, why shouldn't we say everything that pops into our head, if we value free speech? Because it's not a partisan thing to do, that's why. Because it's not always helpful. Because it's sometimes  counterproductive.


by Rob in Vermont 2006-09-15 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

I'm not sure what you're trying say, so I won't respond to it.

by Sitkah 2006-09-15 09:03PM | 0 recs
Don't try to construe his meaning

He's clearly talking about the Party-- in fact he says "Democratic Party." Everything he says is sadly true.

Why are you picking a fight with Obama? He's on our side, you know.

by Smedley Hirkum 2006-09-15 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't try to construe his meaning

So you agree that the Democratic Party appears suspicious of all military action? Resists efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems? Equates tolerance with secularism? And forfeits the moral language that would help infuse our policies with a larger meaning?

That's all true?

by BingoL 2006-09-15 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't try to construe his meaning

Oh, and it's precisely the people who are 'on our side' who we must smack down for promoting this sort of right-wing narrative.

I don't expect Cheney to prefer not to push anti-Democratic messages. I do expect that of Obama.

by BingoL 2006-09-15 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't try to construe his meaning

Yes. The key word is APPEARS. He doesn't say that we ARE. Republicans have effectively pinned these labels on Democrats, and instead of disputing them we have run away.

by Smedley Hirkum 2006-09-15 01:34PM | 0 recs

I now realize that HE didn't say appears, that was you. But the point remains: Democrats could use traditionally conservative rhetorical devices for our gain.

by Smedley Hirkum 2006-09-15 01:36PM | 0 recs
Less process, more action!

So let him go ahead and use them. I hope he uses them well, and perhaps those who agree with his points will follow suit. But to insult his fellow Democrats is entirely the wrong move, even if he is sincere in his beliefs.

by jnfr 2006-09-15 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Oops

How?  I don't see it.  That's why everyone on this thread is talking about 'framing.'  If you buy into their rhetorical devices, then you're going to buy their conclusions.

One of my favorites, as a quick example, is "tax relief."  It's just two words, but it sells the various ideas that taxes are high, so high to be burdensome, and that taxes should be reduced.  If your a Democrat and you're talking about "tax relief," you're boned.

by Reece 2006-09-15 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't try to construe his meaning


by Demeric 2006-09-15 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't try to construe his meaning

He's clearly talking about the Party-- in fact he says "Democratic Party." Everything he says is sadly true.

The point is, he's doing what the DLC has been doing since the 80s.  Makeing himself look good, by making the Party look bad.  I don't dislike him, but if he continues these speaches I could turn against him.  Someone with his appeal should be working on improving the party image and creating some Illinois coattails.

Everything he said is NOT true.  While I may agree with the premise of Democratic party becoming reactionary, I disagree with the rest.  The Party does not resist market efforts just because, we only do it when the market has failed us(energy, healthcare, etc..)  The party is not suspicious of all military action, it supported Kosova and Afghanistan.  We do not equate tolerance with secularism.  It is Republicans that equate acceptance with tolerance.

I wasn't pissed about this until I just wrote this rebuttal and relized that Obama reinforced the Republican talking points about Democrats.  

Here is how Obama should've written his statements to address his critiques without reinforcing Republican talking points.

"We Democrats are just, well, confused.  Democrats don't know how to oppose an ill conceived war without APPEARING unpatriotic.  Democrats need to reclaim the patriotism and remind people that Dissent of government is the highest form of patriotism.

Democrats need to publicly aknowledge that in general, the market is a good thing and only goods that are neccesary to life such as energy, food, and healthcare should be regulated.  Then only, if the market has already failed.

Finally, Religions Democrats(Which is nearly all Democrats) are confused on the role of religion in political discussions.  They think that Separation of Church and State means that the politicians shouldn't bring up their religion.  However Democrats need to talk about their personal religion without imposing it on others."

That's how you get a point across without bashing Brand 'D'.

by maddogg 2006-09-15 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't try to construe his meaning

Haven't I seen Stoller say similar things about the Party?

by De Re Rustica 2006-09-15 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't try to construe his meaning

There is a paradox at work here. You or I could say the same thing, effectively as Obama did. But, hopefully, we wouldn't say it that way at all. You don't ever push the "dazed and confused" perspective. Actually, as I consider the thing, I do not think Matt has ever had a message remotely like this. This one looks to be calculated to just do the Republican's work for them.

by blues 2006-09-15 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't try to construe his meaning

Uh, not that I ever recall...I think Stoller has only said this type of thing about Democrats who say this type of thing.

I simply cannot fathom why Obama would continue to make comments about this. It's like he's so desperate to usher in this new era of introspective bipartisanship that he doesn't realize he's the only one marching in the parade.

Ugh! I wish Dems would stop with this whiney, counterproductive bullshit. It seems to rear its head every time one of them publishes another crappy book. Newsflash: if you spend all your time on the sidelines pretending to be this astute political observer, then you're not really in the game yourself, are you?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2006-09-15 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't try to construe his meaning

As long as the media laps this drivel up, folks like Obama can get "good" PR out of shitting on other Dems. It's frsutrating, but until we've changed the dominant media narrative, we're going to have to live with this. But in the meantime we can at least  make Obama & Co. realize that this kind of rhetoric isn't helping their fund drives.

by brainwave 2006-09-15 05:12PM | 0 recs

Obama needs to get with the program.  He's trying to figure out how to revitalize the democratic program in a republican dominated nation.  But the republicans have imploded and now dems rule and pub's drool.

by delmoi 2006-09-15 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't try to construe his meaning

This is the same party most of whose base supported the afghan invasion. So tell me, what the fuck is Obama talking about? I don't know many who got mad at out party members for that. All he is doing is reinforcing the right wing narrative again.

It is one thing to be independently honest, but at least he needs to base it on reality. If anything , the party has been to easy on war issues. I am pro death penalty. I am not your typical peace protestor, but even I find jumping into wars at the drop of a hat is idiotic for strategic reasons and humane reasons(i don't believe in collateral damage unless we are forced to act in last resort self defense).

by Pravin 2006-09-15 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't try to construe his meaning

yours is the best comment so far- it's not that he can't be independent its that he has to also be right in his analysis- and he is simply wrong.

by bruh21 2006-09-15 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Our side?
Yeah, just like the DLC is on OUR side. We have way too many Democrats who are Republican lite. Lieberman was just first.
by dkmich 2006-09-16 03:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

The point is he's throwing people under the bus for no reason.

Is he anti-establishment, I don't think so. Which group of democrats is he referring to?

I know people thought Dean did the same thing, but this is completely different. All this guy has is bipartisan appeal and he uses it to tar and feather dems.

This is not the kind of talk that sparks a national dialogue. Why not just adopt the entire list of Repub talking points to attack dems with?

I'd like to hear an explanation from an Obama fan.

by ugottabkidding 2006-09-15 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

He's right. The Party has become the party of reaction. If we don't win this November, it will be because the party hasn't come up with any original ideas. Granted, this is because the dems have no power, but they should still have a unified message.

In Crashing the Gate, Kos says the same thing. If you ask a random person on the street what the Republican party stands for in just a few words, everyone will say "Lower taxes, small government, strong on national defense" because they are so effective at framing issues. Ask someone what the Dems stand for and people will have quite a bit more trouble. Democrats need to be better at framing issues.

by Smedley Hirkum 2006-09-15 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Who cares if  politicians have 'orginal' ideas?   I care whether they back effective ideas that benefit society.  Giving a every tax paying household a flamingo is a original idea but a stupid one.  Fixing our health care system by learning from the success of other industrialized countries is a good idea.

Politics in this country is not a war ideas.  It's war of soundbites and denigrating your oppontnens.  Unfortunately, most Democratic politicians are inept at both.  

by Monkey In Chief 2006-09-15 01:50PM | 0 recs
Effective ideas that benefit society

are good too, and I'm sure the Dems have them. But what average person has heard any of these ideas?

by Smedley Hirkum 2006-09-15 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Obama might want to come up with some ideas instead of attacking his party.

by jbou 2006-09-15 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats


by Pravin 2006-09-15 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

apparently his original idea is to get a bunch of sychophant still enamoured of him to ignore he really isn't saying anything new

by bruh21 2006-09-15 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

He's doing it because he is going to run for President in 08, he makes his first visit to Iowa this weekend.

by jbou 2006-09-15 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

In know that Sen. Lieberman took Sen. Obama under his wing, but I didn't think that Joementum's habit of bashing fellow democrats would have rubbed off on Sen. Obama so quickly.

Lieberman became Obama's mentor when Obama was sworn into the Senate in 2005. They stayed close at Thursday night's event, too, entering the room together and working the crowd in tandem.

by LionelEHutz 2006-09-15 01:13PM | 0 recs
Yeah, that kinda disturbs me as well.

Yes, I understand what constructive criticism is...

But what Obama said doesn't sound like constructive criticism...

It sounds like another "Joementum" in the making.

I hope Obama doesn't ultimately follow that path.
He's a good guy with great potential...
He shouldn't throw it all away in pursuit of becoming the new Loserman.

by atdleft 2006-09-15 02:35PM | 0 recs
Obeimerman learns fast

Glad I waited until now to return the DLC err DCCC begging mailer that he put his name to until tonight.  I let them know I must be too "confused" to see how replacing Rs with DLCs is going to make the changes I want in Washington.

What a fucking tool he turned out to be.

by beemer 2006-09-15 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Some of my friends get a stiffy (even the women) when they contemplate an Obama presidency. Not me. Not for one single fucking moment. I'd vote for him if I had no other choice, but I'd hold my nose.

by Stoic 2006-09-15 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

It couldn't hurt to wait until you've actually read those quotes in context, no?

by MHS 2006-09-15 01:16PM | 0 recs
Perhaps Barack is confused

I'm not. Bleep him.

by molly bloom 2006-09-15 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Hmm, well, far be it for a politician to suggest how his Party and his fellow politicians can better connect with the voting public. That's what he's doing, you know. He's not attacking me and you personally.

by Southerner 2006-09-15 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

He's promoting a dangerous Republican narrative that they spent million to create. The Democrats "appear suspicious of all military action."

Do you think the Democratic Party appears suspicious of all military action?

The Democratic Party equates tolerance with secularism? Hey, maybe I do that, but does the Party? It's not just bullshit, it's bullshit that precisely echoes the right-wing noise machine's attacks.

Even if this stuff was intellectually justifiable (which I think it's clearly, clearly not), it's strategically nauseating.

by BingoL 2006-09-15 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

You bet Obama is spreading a Republican narrative about Democrats.

Democrats being critical of poorly planned military actions conceived in outright lies and perpetuated by manipulating information is a long, long way from appearing "suspicious of all military action."

What I was chalking up to early stumbles by Obama are beginning reveal a pattern. A disappointing pattern.

by irene adler 2006-09-15 03:36PM | 0 recs
He makes a very valid point

He's not saying don't oppose those Republican policies, he's saying be careful how you do it so you don't open yourself up to the kind of criticism Republicans have used so well against us in the past.  What we really need to be doing is comparing the way they govern with the ideals upon which this country was founded.  Then everyone will see pretty quickly who's right and who's wrong without opening ourselves to attack.

by Sean Robertson 2006-09-15 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: He makes a very valid point

Please, Obama is quickly becoming a Bill Clinton third way triangulating politician, and he is doing this so he can run in 08.

by jbou 2006-09-15 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: He makes a very valid point

Democrats are being rash?? Criticizing the iraq war is rash? Why do you think Repubicans get away with their rehtoric? because they keep forcefeeding the same idiotic points over and over. THe only reason why liberal opposition to the war gets ridiculed by some people despite the same people agreeing the war is stupid simply boils down to people like OBama giving such people an out to their conflict in logic(Bush's war is stupid, his handling is stupid, but he is better than democraats on the war despite the democrats not running this war). People's thinking on the republicans vs democrats on the war has not caught up to their thinking on republican messing up this war because dems like Lieberman give them comfort in their long held notions about weak democrats.

by Pravin 2006-09-15 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: He makes a very valid point

are the majority of the American peo also rash?

by bruh21 2006-09-15 06:29PM | 0 recs
Rats On A Wedding Cake

Where do they get these Obama types? I wrote a post that was very critical of Al Franken. But now, via Buzzflash, I find on Court TV's Radar site:

By John Cook   09/13/06 ---
Air America Stiffs Al Franken

Janeane Garofalo, who quit her job as co-host of the network's evening show Majority Report in July, says her paychecks had been arriving on-time, and that her departure had nothing to do with the network's finances. But she didn't have kind words for the "radio suits"--guys like interim CEO Jim Wiggett, network president Gary Krantz, and president of programming Jon Sinton--who have been running the place into the ground.

"They've been making bad decisions since the day I got there," Garofalo says. The network's staff, Garofalo says, is tireless and committed to the cause of progressive radio. "And then you have a handful of business people with no politics whatsoever. I can't fathom the decisions they make."

In maybe the majority of progressive organizations, I come upon these insane "suits." Nader's Raiders had the in their canvasing operation. Many current progressive operations have them. Well, I've run some things like that myself, and I found no need to be some kind of a bigshot. No need to wear any suits either. I flee from these idiots whenever I encounter them. Nothing they ever do ever has the slightest effectiveness. Obama is one of these strange folks, by all appearances. These people could mess up a damn wet dream.

Nothing they do will ever have any effectiveness. they are as helpful as rats on a wedding cake.

by blues 2006-09-15 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Rats On A Wedding Cake


Got to.  I get them in my non-progressive corporate job.

I've got this semi-impressive title of Product Manager.  Really just glorified clerk.  No one works for me, I don't manage anyone.  I guess I manage a product, but that's a combination of just doing the clerk work that no one else in the company wants to do, and begging other people to do the stuff I need to have happen.

But many of my co-product managers want to dress in suits and act like they are some sort of important person.  And act like the decisive manager insisting on immediate action, etc.  

And everyone thinks I'm a bit weird because I wear blue jeans, keep my beard and ponytail (what's left that the bald spot hasn't consumed!), and generally lean back in my chair and put my feet up and take a relaxed attitude.

And strangest of all, I try to treat other people as human beings deserving respect, I try to say please when I ask someone to do something and thank you when someone does do something.  I try not to tell other people how to do their job (unless I need to), and generally try to respect that other people need to do their job and need the dignity of being given the responsibility of deciding how best to do their own job.

So I'm quite the weirdo in the corporate world. :)

But I'm laughing that the same "suits" that plague my job seem to plague progressive organizations.

Of course, here its the pm's who wear the suits who get promoted.  Oh well, I'm pretty convinced that most organizations choose their people who make their decisions by who wears the fanciest clothes to work.  Doesn't mean they have a clue as to what they are doing.  In fact I'm convinced that most of the people who wear suits to work really don't have a clue as to what they are doing and are wearing the suit to try to con people into believing otherwise.

by COBear 2006-09-15 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Rats On A Wedding Cake

I always would opt for the organization that promotes people for effectiveness, not image. After all George W. Bush got elected by wearing cowboy hats and blue shirts. The first thing he did in the White House was tighten up the "dress code." And I didn't even get to the effectiveness part. Maybe better not to even mention it.

by blues 2006-09-15 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Rats On A Wedding Cake

It's funny how Obama attacks the dems who get things right like anti iraq war stnce, but does nothing to attack the Bob Shrum or Laura Schwarz or that screechy Susan Estrich type consultants to the party. People who are actually incompetent and contribute to our losses. If Lieberman wins, he owes it aall to the incumbency factor. The guy was incapable of getting much crossover vote in a national election.

by Pravin 2006-09-15 05:06PM | 0 recs
We should be...

..."suspicious of all military action."

Military action may be right.  It may be wrong.

But we should always question it.  It means killing people.

by EricJaffa 2006-09-15 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: We should be...

See folks. Now that sure wasn't so hard.

by blues 2006-09-15 02:14PM | 0 recs
Obama - Talking Down to the Wrong People

Obama should have said what you just said.

Military action may be right.  It may be wrong.

But we should always question it.  It means killing people.

Instead, Obama said the opposite. Apparently, now that I've been lied to about Iraq by President Bush and the rest of the Republican Party I should trust their judgement on Iran and other military adventures.

For a large portion of the electorate that is just not going to happen.

Obama may be progressive 99 days out of 100 but on that hundredth day he sure manages to come up with some brand-destroying quotes. Does Obama not understand the important fact that as citizens we must ALWAYS carefully consider whether military action is warranted? Even when provoked military action may not be in our own best interests yet the puffed-chest macho types are too cowardly to appear "Weak on Terror" (Trademark RNC) to admit that simple fact to the American people.

Obama's condescending words aside, I have no intention of being led like a lamb while Bush, Lieberman, and the rest of the neocons lead us into war with Iran!

by Curt Matlock 2006-09-15 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: We should be...

I don't think going into Afghanistan really was worth a moment's debate.

Of course, Bush screwed the pooch there, too, first by letting OBL get away at Tora Bora and then by treating Afghanistan with malicious neglect because he was so hot to invade Iraq so that he could wave his willy around the Middle East to out do his father.

By virtually every metric--opium production, ability of the central government to raise taxes and provide services, and ability of the central government to control the warlord militias, Afghanistan is getting worse, not better.  

Most of the public isn't paying attention and it's not a story that lends itself well to a sixty-second sound bite.

by InigoMontoya 2006-09-16 01:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

If he's trying to position himself, he just did.  Right out of any national office.  He can stay the hell in Washington and his home state, but don't bother coming to North Carolina because we don't need some beltway bureaucrat selling talking points that are polished and shined by the right-wing nutbags.

Look for Obama to become the next Fox News Democrat.

anti-military, bah!

by Robert P 2006-09-15 01:32PM | 0 recs
I think the Obama's of the party

believe the "real" fight is against the so-called Middle Road Republicans (e.g., McCain, Giuliani, Whitman) who are also arguing this exact kind of message, but from the other side.  Which would make anyone with a pulse above 30 bpm the enemy of consensus. Those folks seem to think that the key to winning is to stand up and say that the party has been taken over by people who push to extremes--pass out Ambien instead of campaign lit and you win.

So, there could be a real rising chorus from both sides to passionately claim the non-passionate non-extreme.  It's ridiculous.  

I mean... to be blunt, here:  people are freakin' dying.  Lots of people.  If at any time Americans had an obligation to get angry, that time would be right now (four years ago, actually).

Mostly, I find it crazy that when American soldiers are sitting ducks in what has been proven to be a war based on lies--which has subsequently tipped the Middle East into a pointless and endless bloodbath--that a junior senator from Illinois should stand up and tell the country to just settle down.  There's a patronizing attitude in Obama's speeches,lately, that I just don't get.  In his autobiography, he seemed to make the point that the key to good organizing was listening to others--but the more he speaks as a Senator, the more he sounds like the stern father quieting the flock.  

I just wish he would get a clue because he's obviously talented. You can't stand up, turn to the most active and most engaged members of the party and say, "Oh, settle down."  If temperment is a value you want to promote, there has simply got to be a better way to do it.  

Who knows what this guy is up to.  I saw him on Blitzer yesterday, and when Wolf asked him if he had plans to run for President he just smiled and said there was alot on his plate.   It made me wonder if he doesn't have a plan already to be a VP pick for HRC.  That would be my guess at this stage--a guess without much value, but a guess.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-09-15 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I think the Obama's of the party

How in the world does anyone think of McCain as a "middle of the road" republican?  Yikes, if Democrats think that, then the Dems need to work really hard very soon teaching people who McCain really is.  He's always been a very hard-right-wing Arizona Republican.  He occiasionally disagrees with Bush, but that doesn't make him middle of the road.

He has specific reasons for the points he disagrees with Bush.  On campaign finance reform, its because he got his hand caught in the cookie jar himself.  Go read about the Keating 5 during the savings and loan scandal. He has to support some reform just to keep his career alive.  On torturing prisoners, he has the unique experience of having been a prisoner under torture for five years.

But yikes, please don't mistake McCain for a "middle of the road" Republican.

by COBear 2006-09-15 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I think the Obama's of the party

It's not really about what I think, or you think--but about how they are presented to the public.

These basic metaphors that define certain candidates as 'middle' will be very difficult to dislodge once they are set.  Already the right has spent millions in casting our lead candidates as 'extreme' when we have spent virtually nothing trying to do the same to their candidates.

So it's going to be a very difficult challenge to define them as extreme once the categories and logic of the 'middle' have been asigned.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-09-15 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I think the Obama's of the party

Well, in that case maybe it would help if posters on Democratic blogs weren't helping to spread the misleading message that McCain is centrist.

And to that end, when I see it I'm certainly going to point out the fallacy in that.

If we don't do that much, then we are just accepting the corporate media message that right-wing (McCain, Lieberman, etc) is really centrist and that the truly centrist is really radical. And as you point out, if that is accepted, then we've probably already lost the next election.

And of course, if we let the corporate media define everyone without challenge, anything truly "left" is just completely off the radar, unmentionable, and subject to attack and derision if it does every make it into the public discourse

by COBear 2006-09-15 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Gee, if the Anointed One says so, then I suppose Rummy was right: Democrats who oppose Bush are morally confused, Islamo-fascist loving, Nazi appeasers. Barack "Joementum" Obama is no progressive and no Democrat.

by fafnir 2006-09-15 01:39PM | 0 recs
A big difference

Lieberman was criticizing Democrats' policies, while Obama is simply criticizing how we communicate our policies. This is constructive criticism, not Lieberman saying that Democrats are helping terrorists.

by Smedley Hirkum 2006-09-15 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Maybe what he is saying is that the Democrats won't be able to win until they are true to themselves and their ideals and not just reacting to what the Repugs are doing.

It is and has been my position that the Democrats spend all of their time reacting to the issues that have been framed by the Repugs.

Instead, they need to quit worrying about what the polls are saying (since we all know they can be manipulated) and instead pick a position and stand by it. -dems-arent-blameless.aspx

Posted by the Lemming Herder at Don't Be A Lemming!

by Lemming Herder 2006-09-15 01:41PM | 0 recs
Crackpot Centrism

is what I'd call Sen. Obama's perspective (with all due credit to C. Wright Mills).

Sen. Obama seems to think he can split the difference between the Thugs' insane stereotypes of liberals and rightwing platitudes.

He can't.  It's like the Pope thinking himself broad-minded, because he thinks only some non-Catholic religions are inherently evil.

by baked potato 2006-09-15 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

To me, the key point of this is that he is repeating a rather constant message that we hear from the leadership of the Democratic Party.

That is, they don't want to hear what the party members think.  In fact the party members are supposed to sit down and shut up.  They want our money to finance their campaigns.  They want us to show up at campaign headquarters and stuff envelopes or man the phones or stand at intersections holding a sign.  And we are supposed to meakly vote for whomever the Democratic leadership has chosen as our candidate on election day.  

But that's it.  We aren't supposed to think.  We are supposed to propose policy, nor think or comment on the policy that the leadership of the party has chosen.  We really aren't even supposed to have a say in who the Democratic candidates are, as the party leadership seems to now abhor primary campaigns and seems to work at all costs to make sure their chosen candidates don't face that particular hurdle.

Its clear from this that Obama has no respect at all for what the people of this country think.  He's obviously joined the mindset that believes they get to be the deciders and the rest of us are just supposed to obey.

And everyone wonders why I instantly groaned and the notion that this guy might run for Pres or VP.  Yuck!

by COBear 2006-09-15 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats
Now I know why he and Joe Lieberman became such fast friends.  I guess he's only telling us this because he cares.
America's Least Wanted
by budpaul 2006-09-15 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Matt, Obama does not call Dems "reactionary." He calls the Democratic Party the party of "reaction." There's a big difference.

Secondly, Obama is an incredibly thoughtful and eloquent man, and to make a sweeping judgment of him based on the few sentences provided above is in no way fair, or intellectually honest.

Thirdly, Obama is one of the most responsive Senators we've got (I'm an IL resident, and proud to have him and Durbin as my senators). I'd suggest reaching out to Obama explaining your concerns and offering him a platform on MyDD to respond. He takes criticism very seriously because  UNLIKE Lieberman (I'm looking at you LionelEHutz), he takes seriously his job as a representative with constituents whose concerns matter to him. Please write to him.

Finally, this post is little more than an ad hominem attack on Obama. Let's reserve that for the Repugnicans.

by Swan 2006-09-15 02:01PM | 0 recs
rumor has it they have already talked about it.

Or at least she brought up the idea to him.

So did snort guffaw Biden!


by neutron 2006-09-15 02:05PM | 0 recs
this is lame, however...

there are a lot of people that, thanks to Republican frames and a lack of articulate focus will be eating this up.

It's a savvy move on his part, but just another part that shows his much he's become part of the establishment.


by neutron 2006-09-15 02:06PM | 0 recs
Who gets to say "we"?

Matt Stoller and . . . who?  Is there a list?  I don't want to get out of line and use a pronoun clearly reserved for others.

by Drew 2006-09-15 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Please. Are you seriously suggesting that you can divine the content of his entire book from the few sentences posted here?

by Swan 2006-09-15 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

I think that on some level he does have a point. There are some on the left who look askance and get angry at any mention of religion whatsoever. These are the people who whine about the Pledge of Allegiance, the Soledad Cross, and "In God We Trust" on the money. These folks get angry when any Democrat makes any slight mention of faith.

I think that the point he is making, though, is that Democrats are perceived as being hostile to the military/intelligence communities and religion by too many people in too many parts of the country. I don't see what is so offensive to his comments.

Obama is making a point. I think that the party does need to change the negative percpetions that many Americans in the interior, south, plains, and rocky mountain west have of it.

by jiacinto 2006-09-15 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

how is he going to change anything by repeating REpublican points?

by bruh21 2006-09-15 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Quite a few Democrats are skittish about just about any military action; certainly the Party is perceived as being anti-military in some to those in the military if you don't believe it.  And watch the discussion when any aspect of "faith" comes up:  more than a few vocal  Democrats are the anti-religious mirror images of the Dobsons et al.

Ideally, I don't believe in either stance.  Pragmatically, I think they're both stupid.  In the Kerry campaign, the group I worked with in SoCal had some people who were genuinely surprised that Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. were active Democrats and pro-Kerry.  The fact that it was a surprise is a problem.

by InigoMontoya 2006-09-15 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

What Democrat is as extreme an anti religious person as Dobson is an extreme religious person? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but i can name the Christian right's list of fanatics.

by jbou 2006-09-15 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

There not any organized anti-religious organization per se but there are numerous anti-religious folk among Democratic activists.  I'm not saying they're a majority or even a large minority.  But they are very vocal and they create an image.  Just read any thread on Kos or MyDD when threads involving Democrats speaking about religion come up.

by InigoMontoya 2006-09-15 04:52PM | 0 recs
you got me...

those folks on the internets really have a whole lot of influence over the country, more so then the Dobson Falwell types. Come on, your initial comparison didn't hold water, the left has been painted anti religious when it really isn't.

by jbou 2006-09-15 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Come on, that's the most rediculous false equivalence.  The Dobsonites have the ear of the President and most of his party.  The alleged fire-breathing atheists include a whopping total of zero elected officials and a few bloggers.

I'm one of those firebreathers you hear so much about in fact.  What's my controversial, christ-o-hating position?  I don't think religious views should be imposed on any person by their government and I don't think government should favor any religious view over another.  Yeah, I know it's fucking crazy, but that's my opinion.

by fwiffo 2006-09-15 09:11PM | 0 recs
Ultra-Left Separation of Church and Stater

I'm crazy ultra-liberal left that way too.

by Curt Matlock 2006-09-15 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

I have no problem with either of those positions.  However, there are Dems who go bugfuck any time a Dem even mentions religion positively.  There was a heated one about a month ago.

by InigoMontoya 2006-09-16 01:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

sorry, but i am NOT going to talk to members of the military for their perception of Democrats.  They are disproportionately (not all) from the South, were raised in conservative households, and are brainwashed.

YOU are reinforcing the narrative as well as Obama is.

by jgarcia 2006-09-15 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Bad attitude.  Peeling away some military votes--and Kerry actually got around 40 percent--can do nothing but help the Democratic party.  It's a struggle for some of them to understand that you can be against Iraq all the way without being anti-military...but some of them start to get it.  It's just not a quick sale.  

Using the "Fighting Dems" is also part of the narrative that Democrats can be anti-Iraq, anti-Bush but still pro-military.

by InigoMontoya 2006-09-16 01:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Obama is Democrat who tries to score political points with Republicans by attacking his own party -- A Zellocrat.

by Sitkah 2006-09-15 02:25PM | 0 recs
Trouble is...

... he's right. Whether you agree with him on the specific points he makes, he's right that the Dems have become defensive, prejudiced, single-issue folks.  That's why a number of us (probably a pretty big number) have dropped out and moved back to the left.  

I say this even though I'm not a fan of Barack who seems to be a buttkisser. If his fellow Dems once again react negatively to some pretty apt criticism  -- coming from within the Party where indeed this discussion should have been started years ago -- then they're going to look pretty weak and/or bent on self-destruction.

by Bean 2006-09-15 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Trouble is...

So sorry, but this sounds like such total bullshit. Especially since the Republicans haven't really won since at least Clinton. They have been wards of the court, which has only been changing their Diebolds.

by blues 2006-09-15 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Trouble is...

The latest "signature" I've just seen at a rightwing blog -- you know, the italicized phrase that ends every comment the commenter makes - is "Thank god for Diebold in November.!"

So you're somewhat right.  But not entirely.

by Bean 2006-09-16 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Some people are definitely very skittish about the way our military has been used, and the roles its been asked to perform.

Some people don't think its right to invade another country and to kill its people and topple its government.  Especially since the underlying reason is usually to help some corporation make more money.  

Some people would think we waste way too much of our national treasure on a military that doesn't really do much that truly "protects" American citizens.  After all, we really don't face any world power that can do us harm, and some people might guess that other nations like Russia and China might spend less on their military if the US wasn't a threat to them.  

And some people would argue that terrorism mainly isn't a military problem at all.  Its an intelligence and police problem that might occaisionally need special forces to help clear out a problem somewhere.  But B-2 bombers and aircraft carriers and armored divisions with Abhrams tanks don't do much to protect against terrorism.

Some people think the $10 billion to provide universal education, or the sums I think I've heard in the range of $30 billion to $50 billion to fight hunger or lack of water world wide might do more to "protect" Americans than the $500 billion we spend on the military or the $80 billion we spend on just the Iraq war.  Spending the money on tasks like these might just do more to keep people from becoming our enemies ... which might be more effective than asking our military to do the impossible and stop them.

Of course, the key question is, is there room for anyone who feels this way inside the Democratic Party.  The answer I seem to hear often, and that Obama is echoing, is that there is ... as long as we don't say what we believe, nor expect candidates who support our views.  As long as we stay quiet, and work to support candidates who take positions we don't agree with and vote for candidates who take positions we don't agree with, then we are welcome to be a part of the Democratic Party.

But if we try to express what we believe, or try to get Democratic candidates that would advance our beliefs, then we get this sort of BS that Obama is spouting.

by COBear 2006-09-15 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

"Skittish" about the miltary hasn't been just about Iraq, which I agree is a catastrophic mistake.   But for some the skittishness includes Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia.  The latter is a sore point with me because Clinton failed to act much earlier due to GOP opposition.  The Siege of Sarajevo and the Massacre of Srebenica are two moral blots about which things would have gone differently had we intervened earlier.   In realpolitik terms, Bosnia would have been a very good opportunity to come in on the side of Muslims who were the unequivocal victims and relative "good guys"; instead, in the vacuum they got a lot of aid from groups similar to or related to Hezbollah, who reaped the ensuing gratitude.

by InigoMontoya 2006-09-15 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Senator Obama, stop complaining about your supporters, and start doing what we want!  What do you think we pay you for?  When did you become such an elitist?

P.S.  I can say "we", because I am from Illinois, and I cast my first ballot ever for Obama

by One Hand Clapping 2006-09-15 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

He's right. We suck at messaging and usually all we can say is that we don't like what those guys are doing or that those guys are wrong. Both are true, but we have got to be able to say what we think, what we want, and who we are, not just react. Look at the Washington Post today, how many f*ing slogan, hollow and inane and recycled are we going to trot out?

"Among the party's campaign slogans this year: "Culture of Corruption," "Culture of Cronyism," "Do-Nothing Congress," "Rubber-Stamp Congress," "Together, We Can Do Better," "Together, America Can Do Better" and, most recently, "Six for '06."" tent/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401575. html

We can say its just the press framing us poorly all we want but if we are just running around reacting we don't have much to offer.

by Demeric 2006-09-15 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

  Obama has been a bitter, bitter disappointment.

  It's one thing to chide Democrats -- we do it here all the time. It's quite another to use Republican frames to demean our party.

  The former strengthens our party. The latter weakens it.

  We've tried the Obama Doctrine for the last twelve years. It's been nothing but a disaster.

  Obama's been Beltwayfied. What a colossal waste.

by Master Jack 2006-09-15 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

I guess Obama isn't the second coming everybody hoped for.

by Linda R 2006-09-15 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats


by Demeric 2006-09-15 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

I think he is talking about his fellow democratic senators.  In that case I can't say I disagree.  If he's talking about me, he can suck my..well, nevermind.

by David in Burbank 2006-09-15 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

If he was scolding Democratic senators only, then it's a show of arrogance to imply that they are the only Democrats.

But I think Obama WAS scolding us ordinary Democrats. Senators don't go around criticizing their "colleagues" - rarely even those from the other party.

by Sitkah 2006-09-15 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Seriously?  What part of his statement applies to Democratic senators?  As far as I can tell, it's a complete and absolute straw man.

by fwiffo 2006-09-15 09:03PM | 0 recs
Barack Obama, Liebermann Democrat...
What a guy! And what a bunch of yokels on this thread. Yeah, you 'folks' defending him are yokels still living in the pre-ReThug dreamworld. Barack Obama is emblematic of the problem with the political class in this country. He's only concerned with one thing: Barack Obama. His class of politician all work for the same people. The rich enablers of the bankrupt Republican agenda known as the 'SuperRich'; progressives in the early 1900s called them the 'Upper Tenth'. Vocabulary changes; the reality does not. The rich discovered back then that it was easier to buy the politicians and then get them to give you the public's money than is was to sweat it out of the working poor. Sound familiar? The key point is that what Obama the Mama says is not true. Democrats do know what they want: An end to the Iraq debacle...which he voted for... A decent health-care system... The opportunity to get ahead...and not with bogus tax-cut scams... The opportunity for their children to get the best education in the world...something which is rapidly becoming impossible due to The Idiot's cutting of Pell grants...Dems allowed that to happen...gotta keep yer powder dry ya know. But you see these Democrats I am talking about... They are citizens; not Senators. Citizens don't park their armored limos in handicapped spaces...Citizens don't have free healthcare...citizens don't get to convert their campaign funds into a nice pile of cash for personal use when they leave office... Obama does. Obama is the worst sort of scum: A Republican in Democrat clothing. I have no interest in what he thinks or what he has to say. He can STFU! and go back to jerking Losermann off anytime now. He will not be missed becuase he has done nothing but be the window dressing dummy for 'folks' who want to show they ain't racists. I don't care about what color the man is; I care that he is as useful to the people of this nation and lips on a chicken. Which is not at all.
by Pericles 2006-09-15 05:01PM | 0 recs
nothing wrong with attacking democrats...

but I find it curious that Obama doesn't emulate the effective tactics of republicans who try to act independent in the northeast. Northeastern republicans generally do more than other repubs to attack the right wing, but then they will qualify that by including an attack on democrats too. It's like with Katrina and some repubs. "Yeah Bush was bad . All levels of government failed." Obama, who I disagree with on this war related opinion, could have at least have said "just as republicans overreact in jumping to war on almost every disagreement, maybe we should not be quick to oppose."

NOw I would not agree with it, but it would not sound as idiotic as the statement he made. And why doesn't the idiot at least explain clearly what instances he is referring to? He needs to back it up whenever he attacks his own party with solid evidence and care. But all he does is make a dumbass Liebermanish comment.

I get the whole point of objectivity. Look at my diaries. I have disagreed with the base here on blind public school support, but I do it without demonizing them as a group or even their thought process as a whole. I have attacked Blanco and Nagin without making it seem like it is a democratic only problem or something endemic to being a democrat.

You can be objective and criticize your party without weakening them. Too bad Obama is too stupid to know how to do that.

He does not deserve my respect. He is an intellectual midget judging by his public statements in the last couple of years. He is a panderer.

by Pravin 2006-09-15 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Obama is positioning himself as a new kind of new Democrat, hip to bipartisanship, not beholden to the Party leaders or rhetoric, someone who can appeal to all sorts of voters, someone who can think out of the special interest box.  Someone who could be elected president.

Barrack Obama=Bill Clinton=Joe Lieberman

personal ambition over promotion of Democratic Party principles and interests.

by Thaddeus 2006-09-15 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't he wait 'til after November?

I don't necessarily agree with him, but I guess he could say what he wants.


He's just giving ammo to the GOP.

by Bush Bites 2006-09-15 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

It's sad

And a funny position for him to stake out

The more power Dems reacquire, the more we'll see solid, good things coming out of our govt

The list of what can be done and is widely agreed upon and would be done if Dems had power is quite long at this point

There's no real reason for him to take this position unless he feels he can't run and win in the future except with something more like an independent bid

And that's sad

by jimpol 2006-09-15 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

The Senate recently passed another $63 million for more of Bush's wars with unanimous consent.

The vote was 98-0.

I don't see any confusion - all hat, no cattle.

by Seldom Seen Smith 2006-09-15 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

billion. My bad.

by Seldom Seen Smith 2006-09-15 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Who let him write a book?

by Reece 2006-09-15 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Barack Obama continues his brave war on the army of straw men making up the Democratic party - and he seems to be losing!

He wrote that he felt "ashamed" that he misrepresented the views of a pro-lifer.  I'd like him to feel a little goddamn shame for misrepresenting my views and those of every Democrat I know.  Who the hell does he think he is?

by fwiffo 2006-09-15 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Obama hasn't been that progressive since he entered office. With this comment about how the lefty democrats are bad, he reminds me of Lieberman.

A year or so ago, US PIRG had an environmental award cermony that Obama attended. He gave a speech where he basically informed us that he wasn't going to be voting with the environmental community all the time.

A day or two later, he nearly voted FOR Bush's Clear Skies Act in the Senate EPW committee. Clear Skies would have completly gutted the Clean Air Act, and was one of the worst pieces of legislation to come out of the White House. Obama never committed to voting against it and led us to believe, up to the last moment, that he was a swing. So he's not used to taking stands on issues, I'm not suprised he thinks those who do are "reactive."

by cdale77 2006-09-16 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

I really hate to be rude,  but FUCK Obama (sometimes rude is called for)and all these silly ass Democrats that think they can ingraciate themselves with "Moderate" voters by bashing thier own party. Fuck 'em all. Just like Hillary, it will be a cold day in hell when one of these creeps gets my vote.

by Henk 2006-09-16 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

No. I'm not suggesting I can divine Obama's meaning from the scant few sentences quoted above. THAT'S THE POINT. That's precisely why I'm calling you out (and Stoller, for that matter).

The knee-jerk condemnation Obama got on this page based on just a few sentances quoted in an article from a demonstrably right-wing paper (that might just be cherry picking quotes to pull out of context) tells me Obama might have struck a nerve with some folks.

Why is Obama NOT deserving of the benefit of the doubt?

Bill Clinton took a terrible and utterly un-progressive plan by Newt Gingrich to "reform" welfare, tweaked it slightly and made it the centerpiece of his his second term (not to mention his presidential legacy). Clinton is NOT a progressive, and yet Stoller makes a post fawning over his optimism and wonkiness. Why the double standard?

by Swan 2006-09-16 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

Wow, we are pretty quick to lynch our own out here, aren't we?  So what if he didn't say "some Democrats"?  Is anyone really so dense to think that he actually means each and every individual Democrat?

God, you're so quick to point out the absence of the qualifier "some" but you're completely oblivious to the qualifier "appear".  He's about talking about our party image, and our general failure to communicate a coherent idealogy outside of our many disagreements with the Republican agenda.  Does anyone here really think we don't have a problem with our image, or that this problem can best be fixed by simply pretending it doesn't exist?  Even if you don't think it's the same problem Obama identifies, why can't you just chill out and listen to what he says rather than using hyperbole to stir up an angry mob?

by Ryan Anderson 2006-09-16 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Obama, on Democrats

"There is a real timidity and weakness in terms of Democrats being willing to stand up to this error of American foreign policy" -Russ Feingold 2005/10/10/feingold/index.html?pn=2

Ouch, Feingold just said that each and every registered Democrat is timid and weak and unwilling to take a stand on the war.  

C'mon, Matt.  Be reasonable.  Just because you disagree with Obama's message, or even think it's harmful/counterproductive, you can't possibly think the last paragraph of your post is a fair representation of what he said.  Saying that we "appear" to be suspecious of all military action is quivalent to him calling us all anti-military.  Saying that we've sacraficed "the moral language" isn't the same thing as calling us amoral.  And hell, just because he said "Democrats" instead of "some Democrats" doesn't mean he's talking about each of us as individuals, just as that it an unfair assumption with the Feingold quote up above.

by Ryan Anderson 2006-09-16 01:22PM | 0 recs

Saying that we "appear" to be suspicious of all military action is not equivalent to saying we're anti-military. what that sentence should have said.

by Ryan Anderson 2006-09-16 01:25PM | 0 recs
Barack Obama = All Hat and No Cattle

It has been amazing to see how many people from all sides all see Barack Obama as something special, just because he's...Barack Obama.

What does this guy actually DO? He's a great talker, everyone projects on him all sorts o' progressive "hope" but as far as I can tell, he's nothing more than yet another lightweight politico who enjoys some cover because of his bio but is nothing more than a lightweight who believes his own hype.....and copies talking points from Lieberman.

by Schadelmann 2006-09-16 03:55PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads