Right... Because the man himself had nothing to do with it at all did he?
is met with a vicious caricature of the stated position?
It makes it virtually impossible to have a reasoned debate.
And the longer his supporters short-circuit the possibility of a reasoned debate, the more they confirm the suspicions of his critics--or even those who simply have honest doubts.
1) Because at that point, Stoller's crap had gotten me so pissed off that cheeky sarcasm was all I had left. In hindsite, it was uncalled for and I apologize and would delete it if I could.
2) The Obama detractors are just as guilty as the supporters in the lack of debate... unless you consider calling Obama a pandering hack as several on here have done a constructive debate.
Sure, it's my fault.
I've asked them to address his routine mischaracterization of progressives, past and present.
I've asked about his vote to confirm CondiLies.
I've asked about his vote on the Bankruptcy bill.
I've asked his support for the Iraq Study Group, with its support for privatizing Iraq's oil.
I've presented data showing that his Senate voting record is that of a moderate liberal, not a progressive.
I've questioned his analysis that polarization is a matter of rhetoric, rather than underlying economic realities.
None of this has been responded to. My comparison of Obama's Senate record to Edwards' has been responded to--but that has been all about Edwards, not Obama.
So, no, (1) It's not true that both sides are equally lacking in substance. We're not. And
(2) The burden of proof is on you. You're saying that he has substance. You have the obligation to back that up with examples.
The fact that this never even occurs to you is evidence of how much you have unconsciously been infected by the rightwing habit of "proof"-by-assertion. This is deeply dangerous for all of us. I could easily live with an Obama candidacy and presidency, if his supporters were critical supporters, but I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever so far.
The difference between Obama and Dean could not be clearer, it seems to me.
I thought I was done here, but I decided to read through one last time, and I have to add this one more thing:
Obama did not -- NOT -- vote for the Bankruptcy bill. Here is the vote. Check for yourself. Also, he voted against cloture on the Bankruptcy Bill: see here.
I don't know how the myth that he voted for the Bankruptcy Bill got started, but it's just false.
It just occurred to me why the "Obama has no substance, he's just a pretty face with nothing behind him, and he'll probably turn out to be a Republican in disguise" thing bugs me, apart from its being, well, false: it is more or less exactly what people used to say about Wes Clark. It wasn't true of Clark -- when people were saying it, he actually had some pretty impressive positions out there that no one had gone to the trouble of looking up before they started repeating the "ooh, he's just a pretty resume" mantra. And it's not true of Obama.
We are not naive.
I know that others have called Obama just a pretty face, but that has never been my criticism of him.
My criticism has to do with false credentials as a progressive, based on what he's actually done in the Senate. Is he a better Hillary Clinton? Yes, he's a better Hillary Clinton. Is he a better, more consensus-building Paul Wellstone or Russ Feingold? No, he is not a better Paul Wellstone or Russ Feingold.
However, I do criticize his supporters along the pretty face lines, because that's what their support is based on.
I appreaciate the fact that you are atypical. But so far, you are very atypical.
Thanks -- and I agree with you that the cloture vote was the important one. But why is that relevant here, since he voted against cloture ( = for the filibuster) as well?
Did he go out and fight for it?
I dunno. Why don't you take over the research on this one?
If you are supporting him, you should be able to answer these questions.
OK, the non-snarky version:
I can find out relatively easily whether or not Obama voted for the Bankruptcy Bill (no) and whether he cared enough to vote against cloture, rather than voting for cloture and then against the bill so that he could claim to have voted against it while not having supported it when it really counted. (He voted against cloture, so he did support it when it really counted.)
I am not in DC working on the Hill, so I wasn't around when the fights were happening. Thus, I have to rely on press reports to tell me who "really fought against" a given bill. Those press reports might tell me about the activities of the people the Senate Democrats designated as point people on the bill, but they might not.
If Obama was not the point person on the bill, what would his "really fighting against it" consist in, above and beyond the votes? Presumably his having tried to persuade other Senators to support it. Is there any reason to think that those conversations would have made it into any source available to me, a random citizen? Not that I can see.
It is, I think, incumbent on all of us to try to find the facts behind our assertions. Since I am not, in fact, a supporter of Obama, I don't think it's specially incumbent on me to find out the facts about him -- the only reason I ever got into this argument was that I had run across some facts while doing other things. But I think it is clearly not incumbent on me to be able to answer any question anyone can come up with, whether or not there's any reason to think that I could possibly find out the answer. And knowing how hard Obama pushed for something, as distinct from how he voted, is one of those things I don't see any way to find out about.
So let me ask anyone who thinks I should be able to answer this question: do you have any concrete reason to think that he did not fight hard against the Bankruptcy Bill?
Note: in the comment above, I dropped a 'not' from this sentence: "Presumably his having tried to persuade other Senators to support it." NOT to support it.
Note to self: proofreading is your friend.
I suck at proof reading and I am a lawyer.
actually if you wanted to know you could figure it out. but the question is do you want to know? that's my problem with the discussion. when people want to go deeper, and critique him for things he has said, or ideals he expoused, there seems to be this roadblock. It reminds me of the discussion about how to treat the South as a region which often switch by some from being a question of should there be a South only strategy which has dominated both parties for 150 years or so, or should there be a multi regional strategy, the debate normal shifts into pretending one is having an abandon the South conversation. It really feels, whether the posters intend it or not, manipulative, and it contributes to my feelings that this is a lot of hype. When I hear that this guy is so great, I want concrete stories and examples as proof. THis really isn't about Obama- it's about Kerry and Gore, and all the others who were hyped before Obama. No more hype, more substance. That's about all I am saying.
who helped get him elected. I really don't think he emerges out of the primay pack without the overwhelming support of the grassroots that he enjoyed in that election.
That, once elected, he decided he could get ahead faster by listening to and cozying up with the "we don't want nobody nobody sent" crowd is the sad/ironic thing. And it shows in the way he talks now. In 2004 he was almost as forthright as Howard Dean. Today, half the time he sounds like John Kerry.
