I'm sure they are. After all, they also endorsed Ron Paul and Cynthia McKinney. But I wish Obama and his supporters would pay more attention to the criticism that some of us keep repeating:
The cost of his soaring rhetoric is a disappointing lack of specific plans. It can be hard at times to tell exactly what Obama stands for, exactly how he plans to carry out his ambitious goals. His stump speeches are riddled with words like change and exhortations to a new approach to politics, but he doesn't talk much, for example, about how to address the gap between the rich and the poor, or how to tackle urban crime and poverty, or whether Israel should stop building settlements in the occupied territories. In fact, our biggest problem with Obama is that he talks as if all the nation needs to do is come together in some sort of grand coalition of Democrats and Republicans, of "blue states and red states." But some of us have no interest in making common cause with the religious right or Dick Cheney or Halliburton or Don Fisher. There are forces and interests in the United States that need to be opposed, defeated, consigned to the dustbin of history, and for all of Obama's talk of unity, we worry that he lacks the interest in or ability to take on a tough, bloody fight against an entrenched political foe.
In fact, our biggest problem with Obama is that he talks as if all the nation needs to do is come together in some sort of grand coalition of Democrats and Republicans, of "blue states and red states." But some of us have no interest in making common cause with the religious right or Dick Cheney or Halliburton or Don Fisher. There are forces and interests in the United States that need to be opposed, defeated, consigned to the dustbin of history, and for all of Obama's talk of unity, we worry that he lacks the interest in or ability to take on a tough, bloody fight against an entrenched political foe.
Keep in mind that, as you said, this is from an endorsement.
Did you read the Ron Paul endorsement:
He clearly shouldn't be president. But he won't -- Paul isn't going to win the nomination. So it's worthwhile endorsing him as a protest vote for two reasons. His presence on the ballot serves to show up some of the hypocrisies of the rest of the GOP field -- and he is absolutely correct and insightful on one of the most important issues of the day: the war.
Disagreeing that something is a negative does not mean we don't see things. I hear them, I see it, I don't agree with it. When you are a community organizer you learn to be tenacious is a much different way, but not less effective, than a courtroom lawyer. Clinton fought for us for Health Care and failed miserably not because she didn't have the guts for the fight, she lacked the skill. Edwards in his new populist skin claims to be ready to take on the entrenched corporate interests in a bloody fight but where outside of the courtroom has he shown an ability to win? He accomplished near fuck-all as a Senator and as a Populist he hasn't even been able to beat back the media. All he's done is flail about, angry and ineffective. So don't mischaracterize my skepticism of what the Guardian guards against a refusal about anything other than thinking they are wrong, and that the skills learned as a community organizer are a lot more effective in fighting special interests who rely on bad faith than playing their game and swinging wildly when you have a glass chin.
And we discussed yesterday the fact that Obama's tough ethics bill lasted about 2 days in Congress before he was forced to accept Harry Reid's watered-down substitute. That's how things tend to play out. I simply don't see Obama as having the magic ability to prevail on controversial issues where others don't.
There's nothing "magic" about it. One, he way more than any other candidate is looking to bring the populace into the process to directly be able to claim a mandate and a mandate which won't just disappear after election day. He has been fighting this ethics thing pretty much on his own within the Party. There are just a handful of Senators on his side which is where his ability to enlist across the aisle was crucial. Apparently you're even more naive than I am if you think this task wasn't handed to a Junior Senator by the Dem caucus without a healthy dose of skepticism anything would be accomplished. The entrenched interests on Ethics are the middle of each Party, not just the Republicans. Getting anything passed was quite an accomplishment. It's not magic, it's being better suited both by his skill and his experience for a style of politics which is more effective than direct in-your-face confrontation.
I remember the same "getting anything passed was quite an accomplishment" rhetoric from you when Obama took that universal health care bill in Illinois, talked with all the lobbyists about their concerns, and then turned it into a bill to create a study group.
The idea is supposed to be to defeat the entrenched interests, not to give them whatever they want. I know, I know, when he's President it's going to be totally different.
The fight will just begin when he's President. None of us are under any illusions about that. But the fact is that he's shown more of any ability to fight and win these battles than either of his opponents, and I'm not particularly certain which side Hillary is even on.
To be fair, the "how" is missing from all of the Democratic big three. Edwards plan, for example, essentially requires ushering in huge Democratic majorities so we can accomplish change over the dead corpse of what used to be the GOP. If that's possible I'm all for it, but I'm not sure about how we're going to destroy the GOP to that extent. Other than "working hard," I haven't seen much explanation from Senator Clinton regarding how she's going to get her policies passed either.
who thinks Obama is not specific on issues has not visted his site and seen in incredible details his proposals for hundreds of issues.
Oh please. Everyone has tons of white papers on their website. You're completely missing the point.
