...if Sharpton's so concerned about the war, why would he even consider supporting Hillary Clinton?

 Sharpton's points on Lieberman are well-taken, of course, but I'm looking for genuineness, not gamesmanship.

  And don't forget his concern-trolling of Dean's campaign in 2003...

Al Sharpton is jealous of Obama.  Lieberman supported Obama in his senate bid.  Obama just returned the favor.  The fact that Al Sharpton does not support Obama is a GOOD thing, Sharpton supported lieberman's opponent in 2006 AND he went down in FLAMES. Hopefully Al Sharpton will make a major endorsement of Hillary.

Writing the name "Duckworth" is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

I agree that Sharpton is a loon. I don't take him very seriously and his credibility in my eyes has been nonexistent because he refuses to apologize for the Tawana Brawley mess in which he was instrumental. But I also agree that he is raising some serious questions about Obama and should not be dismissed at hand.

But even bringing this up might piss off the Obama-for-Sainthood crowd.

Clinton and Edwards have had their positions examined by the left and right, media, and blogosphere going back a number of years. It will be interesting to see how Obama responds.

Can someone say "Sister Soulja"?  Sharpton can't even get a Democrat elected Mayor of New York City, so why would Obama give a rat's ass about his opinion?  

Does anyone know when Obama was in CT supporting Lieberman?  That I would love to have a tape of.

Since 2004 Al Sharpton CHEATED on his wife and got a divorce.....let him endorse Hillary.....she will automatically LOSE support.

Okay.  I meant to hit 'Rate All' instead of Post.  Sorry.  Can I delete my blank comment?  If so, how?

Anyway, on to Sharpton.  I lived in New York City in the 1980s and at the time I viewed Sharpton as a lose cannon and a bit of a nut.

Then, in 2004 when I was blogging the Democratic National Convention, we got all of the prepared speeches ahead of time.  You could read them, word for word along with the speaker on the stage.  Until Sharpton got up to speak.

I looked at his prepared text, and I listened to what he said.  They were completely different.  I thought maybe he was ad libbing for a little bit and would get to the speech.  When he had finished speaking, well over the alloted time, he hadn't said anything from the prepared speech.

A friend IMed me saying, after that speech, he could forgive Sharpton for his role in Tawana Brawley affair.  I have to agree.  The Sharpton that I saw in 2004 and then again is 2006 is brilliant.

When Sharpton came to campaign for Ned in 2006, my wife was Ned's scheduler and she ended up hanging out with Sharpton in Bridgeport.  Al Sharpton delivered an incredible speech at the Mt. Airy Church in Bridgeport Connecticut, and I'm convinced that his campaigning for Ned was a big help in Ned winning the primary.

Yeah, the Republicans stirred up some racism in Connecticut early in the general election after that, and it appears as if there are some people who want to repeat Republican talking points here as well.

Personally, I don't like to see Democrats attacking Democrats.  We need to save our attacks for the Republicans.  That said, I think challenging Tort Reform is within bounds.  In 2004, there were about 17,000 alcohol related fatalities.  Yet a study of preventable medical errors in hospitals, in 1999 estimated 44,000 to 99,000 patient deaths.

I'm not saying that malpractice cases are an effective deterrent to preventable medical errors, but I think it is fair to say that if we want to improve our health care, Tort Reform is really the wrong approach.

Yeah, Sharpton has some fiery speeches, but they are on the money and we should be listening more closely to what he says.

But then again, as I note in the title of this comment, that's just my two cents.

A lot of people wanted Obama on the ground in Connecticut to campaign with Lamont.  He did not go to Connecticut at all, for either Lieberman or Lamont, but after MUCH persuasion, he did send out a fundraising email.  However, I do believe Barbara Boxer actually went to campaign with Lieberman.  What does that say about her progressive politics and instincts?  

http://nedlamont.com/blog/1976/barack-ob ama-writes-emails

Barack Obama Writes Emails

(Barack Obama sent out an email to his CT list supporting Ned Lamont earlier today - Tim)

Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grassroots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election. He has a vision for his state and country, and his campaign has been about presenting that vision to Connecticut voters.

Ned Lamont and I share a commitment to bringing our troops home safely from Iraq, to achieving energy independence, to helping all our citizens realize the American dream, and to empowering the American people to reclaim their government. Ned Lamont's campaign is about delivering on these goals in Washington.

The November 7th election is right around the corner. Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign.

http://www.nedlamont.com/downthestretch

We all watched Ned's improbable primary victory two months ago. His campaign generated a record turnout that saw 30,000 new Democrats vote to change course at home and abroad.

Ned earned the Democratic Senate nomination through his hard work and clear message. And his victory paved the way for an entire crop of Democratic challengers to stand up and fight for the common good. Today the candidacies of Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy are integral to the Democrats' strategy to regain the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

A majority of Connecticut Democrats supported Ned Lamont in the August primary. I hope they will see this impressive movement through to the end by volunteering their time with Ned in these next two weeks.

http://www.nedlamont.com/downthestretch

Sincerely,

U.S. Senator Barack Obama

Read it on Lamont's blog.

Obama supported the Democrat Ned Lamont.

Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grassroots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election. He has a vision for his state and country, and his campaign has been about presenting that vision to Connecticut voters.

Ned Lamont and I share a commitment to bringing our troops home safely from Iraq, to achieving energy independence, to helping all our citizens realize the American dream, and to empowering the American people to reclaim their government. Ned Lamont's campaign is about delivering on these goals in Washington.

The November 7th election is right around the corner. Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign.

http://www.nedlamont.com/downthestretch

We all watched Ned's improbable primary victory two months ago. His campaign generated a record turnout that saw 30,000 new Democrats vote to change course at home and abroad.

Ned earned the Democratic Senate nomination through his hard work and clear message. And his victory paved the way for an entire crop of Democratic challengers to stand up and fight for the common good. Today the candidacies of Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy are integral to the Democrats' strategy to regain the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

A majority of Connecticut Democrats supported Ned Lamont in the August primary. I hope they will see this impressive movement through to the end by volunteering their time with Ned in these next two weeks.

http://www.nedlamont.com/downthestretch

Sincerely,

U.S. Senator Barack Obama

Now repeat after me...
Obama supported the Democrat Ned Lamont.

Obama supported the Democrat Ned Lamont.

Obama supported the Democrat Ned Lamont.

Obama supported the Democrat Ned Lamont.

Obama supported the Democrat Ned Lamont.

Obama supported the Democrat Ned Lamont.

Oh yeah, and Obama's "Hopefund" sent Ned Lamont $5,000.

I'm surprised at all the invective spewed against Sharpton. He's been one of the most vocal and well-spoken opponents of the war and against Bush policies (the whole range not just the war). He was great in the 2004 presidential debates.

Sharpton has continuously questioned Obama's dedication to an "urban agenda."  Sharpton is one of many progressives who view the Obama candidacy as a celebrity campaign that is light on substance and heavy on style.

"Where's the meat?  I see the sizzle, but that's just fat... where's the meat?"

And no, I don't think Sharpton asked that because he was hungry.  Of the major candidates, John Edwards has presented the most specific policies.  His focus on poverty and health care is closer to an "urban agenda" than anything Obama has proposed so far.

An answer to one question about Obama. He had some loyalty to Lieberman because Lieberman was assigned as his mentor when he was a freshman senator.

every member of congress gets a mentor. It would be useful to identify the mentors for every member of congress.

Oh god, not "robcentrist" again.  Great, with only one hand able to type (hurt shoulder and neck) and my fingers hurting from setting "rob" straigh yesterday I have to once again deal with the forces of mealy mouthed moderation that seek to castrate the Democratic Party.  A donkey without it's balls is...uh...an unhappy donkey!I

I like Obama. He is clearly my second favorite choice (actually my second choice is Mike Gravel because his $250 suit kicks ass and he says he can win with $10,000, plus he's nuckin' futz)  But look at the motivation for some of the positions he's taken.  

TORT REFORM - This is not a small issue.  The GOP is trying to use this issue to psuj for coporations and other entities to have limited responsiblity when they damage not only the environment but also human beings.  Obama voted this way for one reason.  It was repeatedly reproted and leaked by his staff that he voted this wau to show that he is "NOT BEHOLDEN TO THE PROPRESSIVE WING OF THE PARTY".  I remeber hearing about this and reading about it because it showed that maybe progressives were losing the fight for Barack Obama's political soul.

IRAQ- Once again, look at his motivation.  He backs down whenever the GOP threatens using the "L" word against him.  Watch his speech at the DNC winter meeting.  He starts to say something about the "liberal" label and then he stops himself.  It is towards the beginning.  Back to Iraq.  It is not just that he endorsed Lieberman it is how he did it.  He used the whole "don't be liberal" crap against fellow Democrats.  He said "I hope you have the good sense to re-elect Joe Lieberman."  You head it.  "Good sense".  As in "let's be sensible Democrats".  As in "voting for the Iraw War Resolution just gave the president authority, is is the SENSIBLE thing to do".  What a bunch of crap.  Also look at Obama anf Clinton vs. Edwards on Iraq post 2005.  Edwards was vocal in (and took a hit for)the Feingold Ammendment.  He supported Reed-Levin as well but thought Feingold's ammendment was the better of the two.  But Obama's staff made it clear that (like Hillary) he would vote only for Reed-Levin.  You want to guess why?  Once again he wanted to show his independence from our wing of the party.  Those behind the Draft Obama movement even sited this gutless vote as proof that he should be nominated! Huh?  He got the war right at the start.  Edwards did not.  But at least after the truth was 100% crystal clear to the entire world and there is no reason or excuse to avoid the truth Edwards has come around and been most vocal about the war.  Obama has backed down, even though time has proved he was right on the money, at the start.  I'm afraid that what we are witnessing is not the audacity of hope but the audacity of Barack Obama and his D.C. advisors that show that the Capitol Hill has had more effect on Obama than he has had on Capitol Hill.  Sharpton is not given enough credit.  he is right more often than he is given credit for, and he is great in a debate setting.  You can put him against Pat Buchanon, like when they talked about the war in lebanon and although Buchanon knew the names of every one involved and the year they were born and their favorite color Sharpton easily won the debate based on a simple truth, that unnecessary war is a moral outrage.  sharpton ahs a good point about Lieberman.  I will stand up for Obama for a second and point out that new Senators are assigned "mentors" so though Lieberman was his "mentor" Obama's true mentor, if he has one, is Senator Dick Durbin.  however Obama did fail the test with Obama.  So he eventually endorsed Lamont.  So what?  He was considering running for the presidency then (albeit quietly) and he knew that if he didn't he wouldn't get support from people who repeat that Obama endorsed Lamont in the end and think that's enough.  So Obama sent out a damn e-mail that he didn;t even write, big deal.  The election in CT was partly over Lieberman's Democratic credibility.  Bill Clinton kept him from getting destroyed in the primary. Obama was next door to CT and could have campaigned for Lamont, that would have hurt Lieberman's credentials in CT, but Obama didn't even though he had the day off.  Contrast that with Edwards.  He never endorsed Lieberman.  Then when Lamont won Edwards was the first major Dem to campaign for him.  I beleive he came back a second time as well.  Lastly look at Obama and the surge?  Why the hell does he always stop short of calling for cutting back the funding for the surge?  He is being hyper-political on his position on the war.  This is just like when he stopped short of saying that Bush's warrant free wiretapping was "illegal".  Edwards was asked the same question and he answered the question in one word - "Yes".  Talking about hope and a "new kind of politics" is great but hope only comes if you know that circumstances will change.  Edwards is far more willing to take action, and Obama is probably familiar with the scripture that says that "faith without works is dead".  Hope alone is not enough.  And D.C. pols are not going to all of a sudden embrace eachother if Obama wins.  If fact he has given the GOP a huge weapon to use against him.  Everytime he doesn't do what they want he will be hit with being a hypocrite.  Obama is obsessed with "consensus".  What we ned ar consensus builders, those who will boldly communicate our values and positions, build the party and fuel progressive policy. Obama has falled into the trap of accepting the conventional political wisdom.  He sold out on the warrantless wiretappin and he looks like he will do it again.  Polls about the issue were split, yet Obama backed down.  Am I being hard on him? Maybe a little.  But talking about how the whole red state / blue state thing is ridiculous, saying the word "hope" 3 times in every paragraph, and giving "on the one hand, on the other hand answers" about every issue under the sun is just not enough.  And those who dismiss his "sistah souljah" moment with Daily Kos ignore how out of his way he went to bring up the most well known "liberal" blog.  He said that he never reads anything that surprises him on Daily Kos.  It is a progressive blog.  If he wants spineless calculation when it comes to the biggest moral issue of our generation (Iraq), a Democratic leader trying to woo big business donors (like when they write in the Chicago Tribune about how they wish they could have voted for CAFTA, or when they vote for tort reform), and a Democratic leader who backs down from protecting civil liberties then he should look to his own voting record for the "surprises" he seeks.  Sure he had a lot of pressure on him early on.  But this is no way to handle it.  One more thing on tort reform, while frivolous lawsuits do exist they can be dealt with without taking awa the ability of truly wronged parties to be compensated.  It's about accountability.  Also anyone who brings up Iran should note that Edwards and Obama have identical positions.  Read Edwards in depth interview with Ezra Klein or watch his appearance on Meet the Press (as well as his appearnce on the Situation Room during the fighting in Lebanon, before the whole spat over his Iran remarks) and you will see that his position is consistent and that he has always called for the very sticks and carrots approach that progressive foreign policy voices have called for.  His suppot for Jim Webb's legislation is further proof of that.  Edwards got the war wrong in 2002 - mid 2005.  But who is getting it wrong right now?  We passed the point of no excuses.  While Edwards bucked his advisors and admitted his mistake Obama lets ex-Gephard and Daschle advisors (who already failed when their original bosses tried for, or thought about trying for, the White House) push him around.  This will piss some of you off but Barack Obama has lost a lot about what made us all love him in the first place. We all thought "future two term president" when he spoke at the DNC convention in 2004.  But Obama circa 2008 is not ready. He has not shown the ability to take the action this country needs.
I "hope" he comes around and I "hope" that in the by in 2016 either Obama or Deval Patrick (if they are the best candidates, and it looks like, except for Elliot Spitzer they just might be, although it's a long way away)become the first African American president because our country needs that wrong to be righted.  But more than we need history to be made we need historic change.  Edwards is the candidate of transformational change.  Change for all Americans of every color, gender, faith, and race.  Sharpton is speaking about his search for the candidate who will do that.  Two things need to happen in respect to the disaster in Iraq. 1 - It needs to end.  And Edwards is the candidate who has been most vocal about that.  If you listen to his plan he includes safe guards so that the Republicans can't pull the whole "the country will go to the terrorists" crap.  Our presence is an irritant there, we need to leave, and Edwards is shaping the debate on why and how we need to get out while Obama uses such an important issue to moderate himself. 2 - The war needs to be remembered as a mistake.  For the history books and for future generations.  Vietnam and Iraq were way too close to each other.  Our country needs to remember this as the moral and strategic disaster that it is.  The one upside to Edwards vote for the IWR (which was a massive and substantive mistake), if there is one, is that Edwards feels obligated to make it clear (which he has done over and over) tha the war was a mistake.  I think that Sharpton sees that both in terms of foreign policy and domestic policy Obama has tremendous potential but is not paying attention to his own message.  He's being careful and hyper-political.  Edwards on the other hand has added depth to his foreign policy resume and is speaking boldly about the need to take action, even befoe the election.  I may have drank the Edwards Kool-Aid but at least it's not watered down.  

Al Sharpton is an embarrassment to me and many in my generation of Americans of African decent. Many of us have expressed disgust in the fact that , all we ever hear about is what Al Sharpton did "back in the day". He has yet in my opinion to address issues facing my community today. Inequality in Housing , Employment , Education and Law Enforcement. He never wants to talk about Dead Beat Dads leaving Black women on Welfare. He never wants to talk about "why" all of a sudden , 50 % of the new cases for HIV are among woman if African decent and the sexual practices that done by Black men on the "down low" are what's contributing to the epidemic. He never wants to talk about the family environment that breeds incidents like the one last week where two Texas Teenagers were teaching two toddlers how to smoke weed. He never wants to condemn or talk about the music that's degrading to women. He never wants to talk about what the College Republicans are getting away with ( Racist Parties On Campus ) He never wants to talk about the wealthy within the Black Community reaching out . He never wants to talk about things like that. Instead, he wants to sit in a chair screaming in a mik and blaming the White Man for keeping us all down and there's no fault that rest with the Black men. It's always the White Mans fault. That's what he's been doing for the last several years, "Blaming Whitey" for everything.

His attacks against Barack Obama are so blatantly obvious, that a three year old can tell he's extremely jealous because Barack Obama is being embraced by America ; not just Black America, but America as a whole and he did it without pandering to any demographic. He has a universal message to all Americans and the youth are drawn to him and will bend over backwards to help him. Barack Obama is not running as a Black man. He's running as a Democrat for President. Al Sharpton ran as a Black man with all the "stereotypes" included and he turned American off faster than Barack Obama is turning them on. I will not be intimidated or instructed by Al Sharpton when it comes to my support of Barack Obama. I am my own person. I am not part of a herd of sheep. Older Blacks from the South might still be stuck in that mentality, but not the Black American youth.

Al Sharpton does not speak for me. He does not represent me and he has no authority over me. I do not call him my leader.I will not be swayed by his Uncle Tom -like slander against a fellow man. I will not be tricked with his false accusations about Lamont Lieberman when I have aces to You Tube and Blogs. I know the whole story so I don't care. I will not be made to stop supporting  Barack Obama just because Al Sharpton, a "self-appointed" Black Leader, tries to undermine him the same way that The two South Carolina Senators did when they were purchased for $ 200,000.00 and made to say " Barack Obama can't win because he's Black ". It didn't work then, it won't work now.

Al Sharpton is not my leader and I resent any such implication by anyone to the contrary.

Wow I made about a bazillion typos but my point is that Sharpton has a point.  You can still support Obama and recoginze truth, can't you?
We can argue over how big a deal of his support for Holy Joe is, but I think you can do more than just tell yourself that in the end Obama supported Lamont and that is good enough. I am as pro-Edwards as it gets and I'll admit that I have a huge problem with his vote on the IWR.  I didn't support him until he had repeatedly apologized for it.  I always liked him on eceonimic issues.  Another reason I didn;t support him was because I thought he was a member of the DLC but he wasn't, altough he was heavily courted.  he was called a "New Democrat" because he was from the south, he was more moderate then, and he reminded some of Clinton.  But DLC he was not.   My point is that we can both recognize truth and lies about our candidates.  We will argue over how big a deal certain things are, but reality is reality no matter who you support.

Edwards voted for the IWR - that was bad
He did not join the DLC as is commonly assumed - that is good

Obama was vocal in his early opposition the the war - that is great
He did not vote for the Banktruptcy Bill as is commonly assumed, although he did vote for "Tort Reform"

See, it's easy,

Sorry for all my typos. I am obviouisly, very upset.

:(

Hey FreedomofSpeech.  Clearly you have insight into the importance of Obama's candidacy that others do not.  But is calling Sharpton an "Uncle Tom" really necessary. You mentioned a lot of things in your post.  It is likely that Sharpton has addressed them at some point or would if you asked him.  Personal ambition may play a role in his criticsim of Obama but the criticism is generally on  point, regardless of Sharpton's motivation.  Sharpton cannot speak to everyone's concerns every time he speaks.  And if you think Obama is going to be more likely to address these issues than Sharpton I am sorry but you are mistaken.  You can make up your own mind without Sharpton telling youw what to do but to assume that any criticism of Obama is from self-serving jealous people is not in synch with reality.  Some Obama supporters are extremely sensitive when he is criticized.  I understand that his candidacy is important but I am tired of his supporters who act like he is the perfect candidate.  In fact, he is becoming increasingly flawed.  Forget his middle name, where he went to school and his religion.  I'm talking about his ability to be the president the country needs.  We need political courage.  I don't think that saying that he appears to lack the very political courage we need in any way makes me a Republican sympathizer or anything else than a proud liberal Democrat who wants his party to nominate the candidate that will take action in a way that best represent and communicates their values.  Obama sure can commuinicate, but is he rady to take action?  I remain unconvinced.

Backing Lieberman, writing about CAFTA, voting for tort reform, it was all a wink and a nod to the very donors who bankroll the DLC (I'll give Obama credit, in 2004 when he still appeared to have his bearings he firmly but quietly denied their efforts to recruit him).  Sure, money is required for president.  But if Obama where to speak the truth that we all know he knows about issues like Iraq I woul guess that he would make up in smaller donations (that he is already recieving in unprecedented numbers) whatever he would lose in corporate donations.  Obama has a huge advantage because he got the war completely right at the start.  He was dead on.  But backing away from truth is just as bad as not recognizing it to begin with.

Obama knew Lieberman enough to know what he would do with respect to the war.  Obama knew that Lieberman's true colors were crazy neocon brown (brown of course because it is the color of what they are full of).  But Obama did not want to be grouped in with people like us.  Notice how evangelicals are given respect and reverence on Hardball.  They are asked what they are looking for, and allowed to express themselves without every question being a Russert-esque "gotcha" moment.  When is the last time the progressive wing of the Democratic Party was treated that way?  Our party gets Steve McMahon and Hillary's deceptive communications guyHoward Wolfson (in some cultures "Howard Wolfson", when properly translated means "penis wrinkle").  McMahon is asked straigh up what the party is going to do about Iraq and he says "I don't know" while laughing.  Thanks man.  Obama, by embracing Lieberman was trying to prevent himself from being grouped in with the "fringe".  Never mind that we are the heat and soul of the party.  If our presidential candidates run from us do you really think the media will give us respect?  Presidential camdidates alone cannot fix this, but if they ran towards us half as much as the GOP run towards theit base our party would be a lot better off.  We need to nominate the person who will have the future of the party in mind.  Edwards mirrors the message that was sucessful in 2006 the best.  I also beleive that he has given the most recognition to the netroots.  And to boot, if you look at the totality of 2008 polling (his superior perfomrance goes back to the inception of 08' polling) you will see that he is by far the most electible Democrat.  

The Lieberman episode was about bucking the establishment when it mattered the most.  Obama failed that test, miserably.  If we are going to reclaim the party (which must come before we can fully take back the country) the establishment will need to be confronted.  Actually it's more about progressive / action vs. centrist / do-nothing IMHO but the point is that powerful entities in the party will need to be faced down.  Obama has shown that he's not up for that.  Edwards has shunned both the DC press and the party's elite but he's still in an excellent position.  He could be more than a nominee, he could be the prototype for how a Democrat is supposed to run for president.  You know, putting the interests of the people ahead of the intersts of the powerful.  Gotta go.  See you on the flism flasm "robmoderate".

Sharpton's been in Clinton's pocket from day one. How obvious it is.

But, Obama is catching problems because of his disrespecting his pastor. It's a problem for Obama in the Black Blogosphere.

As someone who has been defending Obama in the Black Blogosphere, I had no defense of this action.

One last thing.  The 11th commandemnt thing, you know where that came from.  Ronald Reagan.  Sharpton wne tafter Obama on matters of policy.  Important ones at that.  According to that thingking Lamont should have never challenged Lieberman.  And speaking of Lieberman, he is the poster boy for breaking the 11th commnadment.  Same goes for Hillary who said that some Democrats don't take the "war on terror" seriously.  Whether Obama would have turned the race is not the point.  Sometimes Hail Mary's work in politics.  At least the appearance could have kept the war issue at the forefront and that would have helped Democrats everywhere.

If Sharpton is jealous then he needs to make sure that he doesn't let it color his public statements about Obama.  There are some that think that Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Shrily Chisom, and other did a lot to break down walls that could have kept Obama from being able to be the huge political star that he is.  Sharpton, though he has had his moments on less than clarity, has worked really hard.  He does want the civil rights movement to be re-energized.  That would be a great thing for all Americans. Our party has swept a lot of important issue (the death penalty among then) under the rug so that certain candidates could appear "tough on crime" when the very measures they enacted only make crime (and criminals) worse.  Many of us would be jealous in Sharpton's shoes, but don't assume that he is soley motivated bt jealousy.  And let's not pretend that challeging those in our own party over substantive issues is a bad thing.  Speaking of commandemnts, isn't their one about not killing?  Yep, there is.  And look at where it is placed, I wonder if it is important? Hmmm.  I'm agnostic but some one needs to remind Lieberman to read the commandments over.  Iraq posed no threat but Holy Joe pushed for war.  It was proved that he was wrong and he stil pushed.  Obama knew that Joe was still pushing yet he backed him anyway.  Guilt by association?  You bet.

Okay,

I have had enough of Non Blacks pretending or assuming they speak for all Black people, so I will say just this and then, I'm done.

You do not know us or speak for us and I highly doubt that you sit on Black Blogs ( Like there's just so many) defending Barack Obama to other Blacks. That doesn't even make sense.

I don't believe that at all and you will possibly post a million things to refute that. May even Google some and Post the link to convince me.

But , please, if you want Black Americans to take you seriously and have dialogue with you, stop lying about stuff and stop telling us what we think and want because we don't do it to you and every time you do it, you are blatantly disrespecting the Black Community.

I know the demographics on this website are predominantly one race , one gender and one age group which explains why it's a website that supports Edwards who is in the same demographic . An audience member asked the MyDD person that question on CSpan and he said.

" That's just how it is on this one. There's a lot of other ones out there that you can go to . Also, you can start your own Blog if you want"

So, my question is , why the obsession with Blacks and Barack Obama ? If almost everyone here is a middle aged White male, why the obsession with Barack Obama? I know this might be the last time I get to post here because I'm sure what I'm saying doesn't make people feel comfortable. Just like what they are saying about Blacks makes me feel uncomfortable, but you can get away with it and I can't for obvious reasons.

But ask yourselves , why are you so obsessed with defining and dissecting what's going on in the mind of Black voters? Why do you think you even know? Why do you think you have the authority to tell Black people what we are thinking and what we want?

Think about it. You don't!

Yes I am an Edwards supporter but this is like my 3rd day posting on this blog.  I don't know any other progressive bloggers.  I am involved with an organization of grassroots Edwards supporters but we pushed back the launch of our blog by 2 weeks because we want input from grassroots Democrats.  IMHO the blogosphere seems evenly split between Edwards and Obama, with maybe a small edge to Edwards but much of that is perception because of the Daily Kos poll.  I beleive that the netroots should solidify itself behind Edwards but it is laughable to argue that this blog is biased.  Obama raised these problems on his own.  Edwards got hammered when he poured it too thick at the Hezrilya conference and until his full position on Iran was made clear through the Ezra Klein interview and other forums many where calling Edwards a neocon in disquise.  So to say that Obama gets harsh treatment is off base.  More importantly, I never told you what to think or what you were thinking.  I acknolwedged gereral circumstances surrounding his candidacy and I beleive that I made a point to state that you are (like everyone else) compeletely capable of making up your own mind.  Though I think you are allowin gyourself to be blinded by your support for Obama (no candidate is perfect) I would never wish to insinuate that you are not able to determine what or how you are thining. Though I disagree with your assesment of things I am genuinely sorry if I offended you.  I sipmly stated that calling Sharpton an "Uncle Tom" was off base.  Other things I wrote were more about general attitudes towards Obama's canidacy, not yours.  

Wow, I neve said I knew what black people are thinking.  I said that his candidacy is important.  Which it is.  And not jsut because of his skin color, though that is a reason.  You shouldn't jump all over white people when they simply recognize that electing an African-American would be a good thing.  His candidacy is important because he is a political phenom, he has only 2 years in the Senate and he has a serious shot at the presidency, he is involved in the most open presidential race in a long time, and he went from junior Senator to presidential candidate and a "rock star" in a very short time.  This isn't entirely about race, and again I was talking about the elderly white lady in Iowa who thinks Obama resembles bobby Kennedy just as much as I was describing the black man who likes Obama because he was right about the war from the get go.  I think I made it clear that I don't speak for anyone but myself.  If I didn't before I just did.  Accusing me of thinking that I somehow understand what motivates a black person or any person for that matter is ridiculous.  I don't think that at all.  This is just a distraction.  I am sorry if I offended you but the truth remains, Obama sold out on the Lieberman race.  You can accuse me of thinking that Eva Longeria is about to walk into my room naked and that is not going to change.  Trying to shield your candidate by accusing me of being disrespectful is pretty desperate , don't you think?  

For the record, now that I have read the last line of your post I don't think I have the authority to tell you to do anything.  As far as accusing me of playing the race card (which I swear I never intended to convey), it was you who attacked Sharpton with the "Uncle Tom" comment.  It was you who went for the racial jugular.  Sharpton may be flawed but who made you the decider of racial purity?  No one has the right to judge anyone else's "blackness" or "whiteness" or anythingness.  I don't have the right to do it to you and you don't have the right to do it to Sharpton.  Disagree with him? Alright, go after him based on the facts.  You don't this because the facts back up Sharpton's underlying point that Obama is showing signs of selling out.  Lieberman was a big red flag.  There I made my point without going after anyone's race.  Now you try.

On a slightly different note

I like Obama a lot; he's same good stands like his vote against the bankrupty bill and his position against the war in 2002. I wasn't aware though of obama's support of med mal tort reform and his comments about trial lawyers.

That's kind of a shame. He should know better than to fall for "lawyers are responsible for high health care costs" line. We have an overburdened health care system where doctors spend too little time with their patients and make too many mistakes.

Obama was great at the start. But then..

- No vote on Kerry - Feingold

• Yes Vote on Tort Reform with GOP talking points to boot
  
• Op-Ed accusing straw men in the Democratic Party of being "protectionists" (of course like Hillary's accusation that some in the party do not take the "war on terror" seriously he would not name names)complete with sign to the worse aspects of big business that deep down he "wished I could vote for CAFTA".  Sirota hit him on this and he deserved it.
  
• His "Sistah Souljah" moment.  He used Daily Kos as a straw man.  He sure loves those invisible Democrats who he is trying to show everyone hs is not like.  How is this crap good for anyone but him?  Thanks for re-enforcing ridiculous assumptions about the party Barack!
  
• His constand "on one hand, on another hand" answers.  The middle of the road is where chickens get run over.  The worst was when he took 5 minutes to explain whether Bush's warrantless wiretapping (which bipartisan organizations agreed was definitely illegal) was illegal.  In the end he chickened out (pun intended).  
  
• He is too afraid to say the words "cut funding" to say that anything that should be done to stop the surge should be done.  

We are not dealing with the same Barack Obama that we all hoped would lead the charge to reclaim the party when we firs saw him almost 3 years ago.  He has declined substantitally.  Not just in his policy positions, but in his reasoning for making his choices.  We are at a point where confrontation is necessary.  GOP spin must be dealt with, not tacitly endorsed.
Sorry, Obama is not the guy.  Reclaiming the party...who has called for us to do that...who is willing to take action to fufill the promise we all thought Obama made (in his defense all of this was forced on him...Obama isnot ready to lead the party...Edwards is.

Some of you need to spare me the outrage over Sharpton. Politicians have compromised so much dealing with the likes of AIPAC. And Obama is too good to deal with Sharpton? And this time, it's not like Sharpton is even offbase. You take out the Tawana Brawley case, and sharpton is generall more right than wrong in his public statements. And even if some many not agree, please don't tell me it's principle to not deal with him. It is stupid for Obama to make this a distraction. He should have nipped this in the bud a long time ago. Feed into Sharpton's ego. String him along the way Clinton did with Jesse Jackson in 1992.

Obama has talked the talk great. We already know he is a smart guy. But does he have the will to do back up his views. But he needs to fucking follow through with actions at swome point. Talking against the war is well and good. But he hasn't done shit in terms of being a difference maker on this issue. It is not just enough to say I am agvainst the war. What did he do to help other candidates who shared the same ideas? Has he tried to persuade a single other politician to change his ways? Has he preached to anyone about the follies of the war in a convincing manner or does he just make cursory anti war statements.

Lyndon Johnson didnt have very progressive views, but guess what, he pushed through civil rights legislations with probably more force than even Kennedy would have.

Obama supported Lieberman in the primary but endorsed Lamont in the final election, so this article is misleading.

Like many of you I share the concern that he didn't really do much of anything for Lamont beyond the endorsement, but that's not the same thing by a long shot.

You say Obama supported anti-progressives like Tammy Duckworth.  Stoller, you have an adversity to winning. Obama wants to win, everywhere!!

Sharpton just wants some attention.  Obama doesn't need his endorsement or Sharpton's finance base.

"Obama supported Lieberman in the primary but endorsed Lamont in the final election, so this article is misleading."

the is a bullshit statement worthy of a republican cultist. Sure the vichy dems paid lip service to Lamont support during the post-primary election because Lamont was THE DEMOCRAT in the election, but their support was clearly prefunctory as they continued to handle their pet republican LIEberman with kid gloves, terrified that their pet would piss on them - which LIEberman subsequently has done in spades as well as pissing all over the voters of Connecticut who he lied to profusely.
.

This little spat between Obama and Sharpton has got nothing to do with Lieberman.  What this is about is who the HNIC.  Sharpton is threatened by Obama.  The Reverend knows he cannot push Obama around by simply threatening to cry racism everytime Obama does not give Sharpton what he wants.  Sharpton knows most other Democrats (Dean and Hillary) are scared to be called a racist so they will put up with Sharpton's bullshit.

First, it ain't about Sharpton; it's about Obama.  Let's focus.

Second, let's agree that Mr. Obama is relatively new to the national stage, has a thin record on national issues and oozes charisma, which can influence even seasoned political observers.

Third, let's also agree that there's a tendency for even the most cynical (realistic?) of us to project our own values on the blank canvas of an attractive newcomer who says the right things.

That said, IMHO, the assertion in the original post -- that Mr. O is "certainly progressive in his policy sympathies" --- conflicts with the evidence offered of by Matt and others of Mr. O's actual conduct.  

Positioning for a Democratic Presidential nomination may require the appearance of progressivism, but it requires no dedication to or even genuine sympathy for progressive principles in order to spout them.  Nominally "progressive principles" are where the nomination lies, and talk is cheap. So I normally discount any politician's profession of progressive platitudes.

The facts by which Mr. Stoller does seem troubled are that Mr. O has repeatedly done, and occasionally said, things that seem inconsistent with his professed progressive principles.  

Adopting coded Republican talking points on "tort reform" does not seem to come from "progressive principles".  When that comes from an articulate Harvard law grad, it cannot be easily excused as mere messaging ignorance.  

Local progressives in his homestate do not see Mr. Obama's forceful intervention for Duckworth over grassroots progressive Cegelis as consistent with a commitment to progressive principles.

Apart from an early and cost-free statement against the war, what has Mr. Obama so far DONE that evidences any commitment to the principles that this community cherishes, and the willingness to incur any career risk for the sake of those principles?  

I, for one, am still waiting for a candidate to EARN my support this year.