Barack Obama did more than most to get a Democratic Senate and House

by Democraticavenger, Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:06:56 PM EST

Nothing drives me more nuts than this idea that some how Barack Obama is not really a Democratic team player or that he runs down the Democratic brand.In 2006 there was an election and Democrats won massively but one of the reason for that was the tireless work of many Democrats elected officials, no one nationally did more, nor could do more than Barack Obama.
But don't take my word for it. The following are links to some of the different campaigns that Barack Obama campaigned for while his own seat was not up for election at all.

McCaskill
http://www.archcitychronicle.com/archive s/001469.php

Webb
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/106/28700 8039_0936580537.jpg

Ford
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Compo nents/Photos/061105/061105_TennSenate_Fo rd_hmed_7p.hmedium.jpg

Whitehouse
http://www.projo.com/photos/20061105/ja_ 1105_whitehouse_11-05-06_472N3V2.jpg

Sanders and Welch
http://vermontdailybriefing.com/wp-conte nt/my-images/obama2.jpg

Klobuchar and Walz
http://www.indee.info/PHOTOS/06/WALZtim6 .jpeg

Cantwell and Burner
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/200 61026/450WASH_SENATE_WAET105_66856632610 2006.jpg

Cardin
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/photo/2006/09/27/PH2006092702102 .jpg

Ellsworth and Hill
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/photo/2006/11/07/PH2006110701766 .jpg

Menendez
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/ny region/13jersey.html

Casey
http://www.bobcasey.com/blog/view/?id=15 3

Brown
http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov /uploaded_images/obama_cincy-733580.jpg

I am sure there are many more. This is just a start.  Two things to note. First  he played well enough that Ellsworth and Hill wanted him to come. Second he went to every Senate race but Montana where I am not sure he was wanted. This is a far better scorecard of what a candidate  has done to help the Democratic Brand and Party than how many times you say Democrat or Progressive in your e-mails. Barack Obama style may not be yours but that doesn't make it any less good or effective. He clearly is a proud progressive and Democrat and it doesn't need to be said over and over again.




Tags: Barack, Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 113 Comments :: Post a Comment


And Look How Many Won (3.00 / 1)

This is why the attacks , petty beyond belief , are just not going to stick. All it does is energize Obama supporters to keep rebutting with the lies with the truth. So, hey. It's all good.

Thanks for posting this.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:13:52 PM EST

Big error in diary! (none / 0)

>>>>Second he went to every Senate race but Montana where I am not sure he was wanted

He was wanted in Connecticut - but refused to be seen publicly with Lamont.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Pettiness (3.00 / 1)

ridiculous pettiness


by Democraticavenger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:17:36 PM EST

Why did you omit LIEberman?? (3.00 / 5)

Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer  |  March 31, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. --U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connect icut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_s tate_democrats_throws_support_behind_lie berman


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why did you omit LIEberman?? (none / 0)

Ok, I'm an Obama supporter, but why would someone troll rate this? Troll rating this is just as poor as troll rating the person who pointed out that Singer's claims about using the word "Democrat" were false.

Obama did do much (and way more than Hillary) to benefit Congressional Dems, and for that he should be applauded, but he also supported Joe, for which he should not be applauded.


better luck next universe
by thenew on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why did you omit LIEberman?? (none / 0)

In the general election, Obama supported Lamont - the Democrat.

Many anti-Obama fanatics will repeat the lie over and over that "Obama supported Lieberman".


by faithfull on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:26:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why did you omit LIEberman?? (none / 0)

Well, Obama did support Lieberman in the primary, and he was pretty half-hearted in support of Lamont.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:02:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thenew - Thanks for standing up for Truth (none / 0)

>>>>The following are links to some of the different campaigns that Barack Obama campaigned for while his own seat was not up for election at all.

The diarist listed several campaigns where Obama was PHYSICALLY present to PUBLICLY campaign with candidates. But - he refused to stand with Lamont or be seen with him PUBLICLY - which would have meant more to a millionaire candidate than Obama's $5K and 300 emails sent to CT Dems 2 weeks before the election.
Yes - that matters to me because Lieberman promised if he were elected, he'd initiate a Katrina investigation. Then as soon as he was elected - he reneged - claiming he didn't want to embarrass Bush.
But didn't Obama suspect he would renege? After all - the 2006 GOP senate "report" on Katrina, led by ranking member Lieberman, was largely seen as giving Bush a pass - and Lieberman and other Dem senators didn't even gripe about Bush refusing to turn over documentation.
So - here we are - 2 years later - and people are still suffering while the Katrina contractor$ have been well paid!!  In a Democratic government, the Senate would perform an investigation into the corrruption surrounding Katrina. But Lieberman rules! The End.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:33:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why did you omit LIEberman?? (3.00 / 1)

Yes, BEFORE the Conneticut primary.  When Joe Lieberman was the incumbant, and Lamont did not win yet.

Please post it accurately.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why did you omit LIEberman?? (none / 0)

Please post the pics of Obama standing publicly with Lamont.
We already have the pics of JoeBama standing PUBLICLY with Lieberman, endorsing him in the presence of 1700 CT Dems - and Lamont.

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:34:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama DID NOT support Lieberman in the general (none / 0)

election.

He technically did support Lamont in the general, albeit not enthusiatically. Reader can see the account by Tim Tagaris on what happened in the fall of 2006 in the CT-Sen race here: CT-Sen: So You Wanna Know What Really Happened?.


by NuevoLiberal on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:04:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why did you omit LIEberman?? (none / 0)

First, no way this comment should be troll rated. You really get under their skin Anne!! I rated you a 3 to try and make up for it, plus you raise a valid point.

Second, to be fair I will give Obama his due credit. He did help a lot of Democratic candidates in the past election. I am pretty sure he came to Ky too, but all but Yarmuth (who has been awesome) got beat. So, anybody else's supporters can't say Obama didn't help.

Third, to be equally as fair, I think Obama's support for Lieberman shows he is not as anti-war as his supporters want to believe. Sure, he "opposed the war from the start", but when an anti-war candidate was running against staunchly pro-war Lieberman in a primary, who did Obama support? Maybe he did oppose it from the start but continually voting to continue it and adamantly supporting a hawk like Lieberman against anti-war Lamont negated that in my mind.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Obama was really that anti-war, he would've begged the voters of CT to support Lamont in the general AND primary elections. Just my take.


by RDemocrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:02:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why did you omit LIEberman?? (none / 0)

First of all, he was invited by the Conn. Democratic Party and during his speech brought up the War as the elephant in the room and made clear the differences he had with Joe on the War.


by Doug Tuesday on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:12:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why did you omit LIEberman?? (none / 0)

Well, if those differences were so great why did he not support Lamont in the primary, that is all I am asking!!


by RDemocrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:56:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why did you omit LIEberman?? (none / 0)

He was put in a difficult position by the State Party.  And maybe Lamont didn't impress him.  I don't know.   But I think it's a little too much to blame Lamont's loss on Obama.  The guy won the primary and immediately took off on vacation, and from what I've read ran a poor campaign once he got the nomination.  Obama didn't campaign for Joe, he gave Lamont money, he endorsed him, and let the voters of Connecticut decide.  


by Doug Tuesday on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:24:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And come to think of it (none / 0)

How many of you are ready not to support Big Al Gore if he runs?  He made Joe his VP choice, for Christ sakes.  


by Doug Tuesday on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:30:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And come to think of it (none / 0)

Edwards is my choice period. Al Gore or no.


by RDemocrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 12:52:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Senator Lamont thanks Barack (3.00 / 1)

Obama for all his help.  


by littafi on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:33:56 PM EST

Re: Senator Lamont thanks Barack (none / 0)

Obama loses my vote for not getting Pederson, Ford, Darcy Burner, Larry Kissel, and all the other candidates he endorsed (as he did Lamont) into office to.

Stupid.


by faithfull on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:27:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mattered? (none / 0)

Do you think it would have mattered? Honestly?


by Democraticavenger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:35:15 PM EST

Re: Mattered? (none / 0)

Obama was the most sought after democrat for campaigning with democratic senators and challengers in the 2006 election cycle.


by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mattered? (3.00 / 0)

some people here would intrpret that as meaning he hates the democratic party.    Which makes me wonder sometimes if many of these diaries are being written by republicans... it does make me wonder sometimes.


by soros on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:46:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting attack. (3.00 / 1)

So, is Jerome also a Republican?  Thou shalt not examine Barack Obama; thou must believe.  Give me a break.  If I don't worship him, am I a Republican now?

This is the whole problem.  I am a Democrat.  I bow before no man.  


by littafi on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:03:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very dramatic (3.00 / 1)


by horizonr on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:08:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting attack. (none / 0)

i didn't mention anybodys names, you did.


by soros on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting attack. (3.00 / 2)

This is farce.

You wrote "Which makes me wonder sometimes if many of these diaries are being written by republicans... it does make me wonder sometimes."

I certainly felt alluded to.

Have the courage of your accusations.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:15:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting attack. (none / 0)

I don't pay much attention to the names, but what is hard to ignore is the pattern of FUD thrown at certain democratic candidates.   If I wanted to call certain users out by name I would, keyboard warriors and republican operatives don't scare me in the least.


by soros on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:27:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0)

that you do not pay much attention.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:30:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting attack. (none / 0)

Yes - I've noticed a Bushie-ness about Obama and Hillary supporters -
s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the Truth to fit their image of their candidate.
Currently, circulating on the net is the lie that Lieberman isn't Obama's mentor, Durbin is. This is qualified with "Obama has only had lunch with Lieberman once." LOL
Now Hillary supporters are circulating a video of Kate Michelman's few seconds of complimenting Hillary - while omitting the part of her numerous reasons for supporting John Edwards because of his committment to womens' rights and issues.
It appears they've reached the worshipping stage and are engaged in
"fixing the facts." Yikes!
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:46:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a lie? (none / 0)

What's your proof?


by Adam B on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 10:00:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a lie? (none / 0)

I gave the facts I remembered - but need to begin documenting them because there are others.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 04:28:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a lie? (none / 0)

You gave conclusions, not facts.


by Adam B on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:40:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a lie? (none / 0)

No - in fact one of them was provided by you or another Obama supporter at DK.
Remember Katherine? She's the one who wrote that Lieberman couldn't possibly be Obama's mentor, because they'd only had lunch together one time!
Now - who is going to believe that rationale?
Jeeeez!

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a lie? (none / 0)

That's not a rationale; that's a fact.  


by Adam B on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a lie? (none / 0)

But my point is - it doesn't matter about the lunch. Nor whether they had chicken salad or caviar.
Obama endorsed a candidate, identified as his mentor - in the presence of 1700 Dem leaders and activists - so - the lunch is inconsequential.

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a lie? (none / 0)

In other words, "it doesn't matter if he was actually his mentor, because one time, he said he was"?


by Adam B on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:01:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a lie? (none / 0)

No - it means - if Obama were to become President - which is highly unlikely - Lieberman would be in his cabinet or at least a close advi$or.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 11:50:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a lie? (none / 0)

Ba$ed on what?  Other than global warming, on what issues have they worked together in the Senate in three years?


by Adam B on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 09:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a lie? (none / 0)

Electing Lieberman was a major goal for Obama.
You know - Lieberman - the senator who promised to conduct an investigation into contractor$ corruption that has left thousands of Katrina victims still in desperate conditions.
Why aren't Obama supporters urging Obama to come down hard on Lieberman for reneging on his promised investigation?
Why aren't Hillary supporters urging the same of Hillary?
John Edwards is the only candidate who seems to be committed to Katrina survivors and as president will demand daily updates.
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:16:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a lie? (none / 0)

It was such a major goal that Obama endorsed Lieberman's opponent in the general election, gave him the maximum amount of money he could legally and encouraged his supporters to do the same.


by Adam B on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:50:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As one of the diarists in question (3.00 / 2)

Let me assure you I am a Democrat.

I was formerly the FPer at daily kos known as Armando.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:13:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mattered? (3.00 / 3)

Actually Kerry, Clark and Edwards rallied with more candidates and proposals than Obama.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mattered? (none / 0)

He had the most requests than any other democrat for election cycle 2006. He went into areas of states that many democrats would not go in or have requested the main line democrats to campaign because of fear that it would hurt their campaign.


by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mattered? (none / 0)

Give me a citation on this.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mattered? (none / 0)

That one is hard to cite because no one tracks requests. I don't know who did more travel but cleary Obama was very widely requested.


by Democraticavenger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:38:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NY Times (none / 0)

I pasted this in Jerome's other thread, it's a full article on the demand for Obama around the country in the fall of '06 from the NY Times:
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has become the prize catch of the midterm campaign. More sought after than virtually every other Democrat, Mr. Obama was fully booked, long ago, on a schedule to take him across a large swath of the country to help his party try to win control of Congress.

In stops with candidates in Minnesota and Wisconsin over two days at the beginning of this week, Mr. Obama helped draw large crowds and intense news media attention to earnest but otherwise nondescript rallies...
Mr. Obama, who has campaigned for Mr. Ford and plans to do so again, is also one of the top donors to federal candidates from his federal political action committee. He has given $374,000 to federal candidates in this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is more than even Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, whose PAC donated $252,500, and Senator John Kerry, whose PAC has given $82,600. (All three of them have also helped candidates in other, sometimes more valuable ways, like headlining fund-raising events and lending lists of donor e-mail addresses.) Mr. Obama has also been featured prominently in the Democrats' direct mail campaigns.
While Clinton gathered $10 million in extra cash in her Senate account for her presidential run, Obama ended up with only $50,000 in his Senate bank account for a run.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

what has that got to do with the question raised by that diary about obama's strategy now. some of you seem to think citing these things excuses other behaviors that aren't as savory. it simply doesn't and comes across as if you are trying to ignore the point being raised by using red herrings.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:44:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

People were claiming in the threads of Jerome's post that Obama is only dedicated to his own candidacy and wasn't interested in building up the party. That just isn't the case. Fall '06 is a great example of Obama being successful fighting for Democrats.
As for Obama's behavior now and the claims that he isn't talking about a progressive majority or about the Democratic party, I think this just about says it all.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

i read both BDM's post and what peo said in jerome's post- for the most part, the debate is as I frame it-about what will grow the party? you can disagree with us about what we think will grow it, but at least make sure you are disagreeing with what we are saying versus just arguing strawmen of what you feel we are saying.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:43:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

In Jerome's thread, Philgoblue wrote: "2. Obama didn't work his butt off. How many candidates did he support in person? How many ballot proposals did he help? And why, when he was sitting in New York, just a few miles from Conneticut, did he refuse to help Ned Lamont?"
And others have regularly asserted that Obama's support is akin to a celebrity cult totally devoid of a focus on progressive goals, substance, or working to help elect Democrats.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

what was the central thrust of jerome's diary or for that matter of BDM's. you are being obstuse here. you know that going off of some random comment by a poster as an excuse to claim people are wrong is just a false framing of what was said.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:25:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

I'm taking issue with a certain argument for which that "random comment" was representative --- that argument being that Obama hasn't been committed to the Democratic Party and wants to 'move beyond' all party politics. I'm not taking issue with all people for all time.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:54:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

Where I take issue with Jerome is that it's remotely accurate that we see "the avoidance of anything that relates to the Democratic Party by Barack Obama" or "Obama's avoidance of aligning with the Democratic Party as a partisan."
I don't think that's the role of Obama's rhetoric at all. It's demonstrably false, as this diary and Lovingj's video compilation show.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

to which Big Tent Democratic responded by giving examples of what is meant by Obama running away from the brand in his diary. And no you aren't answerig the questions raised- you are trying to go around it. The problem you face is that we see the slight of hand and we are calling you on it.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

Big Tent D didn't remotely make the case that Obama is running away from the brand. It's laughable to insist that Obama is implying that: "The fight for the minimum wage was "bickering," or "The fight for universal heathcare is "bickering." This is demonstrably false for two reasons: (a) Obama isn't running away from the brand but has embraced it and fought for it --- as this diary and others have shown, and as I have repeated to you now multiple times; (b) his whole strategy focuses on making the minimum wage and health-care the center of a new policy agenda.
You consistently lump Obama supporters together.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:45:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

stating that he didnt maket he case doesn't prove he didn't. this is getting silly. good luck because i frankly dont want to argue with someoen who is closed minded on their candidate anymore.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

by the way- the central point that many of you who support obama think you , whether you say it or not, are too smart by half. you make statements as if its the first time we have heard such language or approaches. i don't believe you actually think we aren't able to understand. i think that's a reflection of the sometimes naive way you view politics. you say things like new or different, and it's like you just don't get that we have heard that before. obama is one man. he ain't going to do anything new unless he builds a brand in the form of the democratic party. that's why being partisan is important. you can't do anything until you are partisan because its a chicken and egg situation. you can only get a record of being a progressive by not having the GOP block you, which means what comes first is being a partisan Democrat. Only after you have changed the nature of the debate can you become someone who is willing negotiate- on your own terms, not theirs. becuase their terms are things like consigning us to the dustbins of history.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:47:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

I don't agree with the premise that Obama is somehow rejecting party politics. His speeches aren't about how we should all just get along, they're about building a movement (i.e. arousing public interest) towards achieving progressive goals, and he feels like our political system has gotten in the way --- it needs to be re-grounded on practical issues like health care, education, and poverty.
His "Why not? Why not have universal health care? Why not have a living wage?" is all rhetoric aimed at 'changing the nature of the debate.'
No, this rhetoric isn't particularly new, it's just that Obama does it better than anyone else. Other candidate's supporters complain about this, but I do think a large part of Obama's appeal is his ability to speak more persuasively about these issues to new audiences than any Democrat in a while.
Obama has worked hard to elect Democrats and to expand a progressive majority, and he recognizes that progressive ideals are going to require a healthy majority.
Obama's bipartisanship isn't aimed as much at Republican politicians so much as at disaffected moderate and independent voters --- who polls show for the last decade have mostly agreed with Dems on health care and poverty but just haven't voted that way.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:49:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

His speeches are a rorshacks test meaning they are whatever you want them to be. Thats why others will be able to define him so easily. Of course you see what you want to see in his speeches- he's very good at wordsmith and someone like you who needs to believe in hope will find it. none of which is to say he's not  a true progressive or that he doesn't care, but it also a politician just like all other politicians, and this is his strategy. I find it fascnating you can't even admit it.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:24:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

His speeches have laid out an unapologetically progressive agenda and he pushes for that agenda by trying to reset our politics by having a rhetoric focused on common-sense, practical solutions that polls show a healthy majority of Americans agree on: a living wage, universal health care, poverty, etc. He's trying to move the center of the debate.
I've said four times now that this isn't particularly new, but that Obama just does it better than most.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:49:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

he's not going to as you say "reset" our politics. He's one man.  and everything you list except for hrc everyother democrat is saying exactly the same things. the question isn't what, it's how. so you keep listing the what all you want, and i will keep asking you the same question - how?


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:54:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

I think his rhetoric, his frame, however you want to put it, his way of approaching problems, is the most effective. We can disagree about who we think will be the most effective spokesperson for the Democratic party. That's fine.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

uhm- okay. so you do realize that was the whole point of BDM's diary and Armstrong's. You do realize that historically speaking you arguement of post partisan whatever has failed?


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

I've said repeatedly that Armstrong and BMD don't understand what Obama means by a new politics if they think it consists in running down the Democratic brand or getting rid of political parties.
It's simply about a new politics (centered on practical progressive policy-making), not no politics.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

but you do- okay. thanks for playing, but maybe with you ability to hear dog whistles you can tell the rest us lowlies why we are hearing what we are hearing.


by bruh21 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 08:45:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

And yes, he also wants to restore some civility to the process and some perspective, and complains about slash and burn politics (Obama complains bitterly about the right's use like Flag Burning amendments that serve no practical purpose than to sow strife)--- because those things just distract us from passing a real agenda.
I also completely disagree with you about the history. There have always been periods of more or less competency in government, presidents who were better or worse at building coalitions and moving legislation --- periods where a lot of progressive goals were accomplished like the enfranchisement of new groups, the addition of new layers to the social net, etc.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

so he's going to unilaterally restore civility all by his lonesome. Where will the GOP when all this is occuring?


by bruh21 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 08:46:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

I don't agree. Just because he gets more air time from the MSM doesn't mean he does it better. John Edwards doesn't just talk about these things in speeches, he lays out detailed policy proposals he would pursue if elected. He does a better job at not just talking about, but solving these problems.


by RDemocrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:06:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

Edwards has been running for a while and has had a long time to prepare his agenda --- there's nothing wrong with that, but Obama got in this pretty abruptly and is rolling out his policy proposals piece by piece. Take a look at the rec'd diary on his urban poverty agenda.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 05:05:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

by the way- i am too old for all of this. meaning i've seen too many elections to believe this kind of rhectoric obama's putting out anymore. i want someone ready to jump in the muck, and accept the fact he or she is going to have to jump in muck. i support edwards above obama for this reason. people have been impugning edwards' character but here's the kicker- he has been the only one this term so far who has said we will have to make sacrifices. not sacrifices in democrats give up our principles but sacrifices as in what will be needed to get healthcare. when asked the questiona bout would he balance budget over reforming healthcare. he said something that is shocking to me. he said he would choose healthcare over balancing the budget. this is something a democrat hasn't said outwardly and openly in a long time. that when balancing priorities he may choose a liberal priority that will actually make sure and increase stability of the economy over the chimera of balancing the budget in teh short term by cutting taxes while cutting benefits.

he could have gone with the safe easy answers. indeed, for all the flack that edwards has been given- people are missing something- there is a smart and safe easy way he could have choosen to go after 2004. indeed, that path was ready made for him. He choose one that wasn't. He did something that wasn't safe and he has asked us to sacrfice as a country. Right now obama's strategy hasn't asked us in full to do anything.

Saying all of this- both me are politicians. neither walk on water. I expecte both to make mistakes. This is about obama's mistaken tactics ans strategies- not the man or whether he is progressive or not. I would sya the same of HRC who I have a different critique of.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

Obama isn't as naive as people think he is. He's been through partisan fights. He spent most of his time in the Illinois legislature under a Republican majority and a Republican governor, and he rose up through Chicago politics.
I also disagree that Obama isn't willing to make tough choices. He can certainly be bold on policy. He has said for example that on reforming social security, all options will have to be on the table: raising the retirement age, upping payroll taxes, finding revenue, etc. --- to achieve solvency.
It's pretty apparent that this conversation isn't going anywhere.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

A hint - you aren't doing Obama any favors by reminding people of Obama's "all options are on the table" comment about Social Security. You're undermining your own position, in fact.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:45:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

Thanks for that reply bruh21. You stated the case much better than I could. Very excellent comment!!


by RDemocrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:09:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

one final by the way- if i didn't make it clear. if you want to see whether a politician is truly calling for something 'different' check to see if they are requiring all americans to make a sacrifice for the greater good or simply the democrats.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:36:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times (none / 0)

Agreed. Whether you like Edwards or not if you do not admit that he is not sugar-coating things, and is actually taking tough stands that many consider political suicide, you just aren't watching the same primary as me. We need a Pres. who won't compromise our ideals but fight for them!! If not, we might as well just have a Repug, because like under Clinton, we will achieve very little of a Democratic agenda!!


by RDemocrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:12:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: reality versus image (none / 0)

one final thought- this is the question I asked before- who do you think you are building consensus with? who are you going to be post partisan with? when the healthcare bill he wants to promote comes up- who do you think you are going to convince with this rhectoric? do you think the american electorate beleives this stuff? really believes it? not just say they believe it and vote differently anyhow. i offer you the example of negative ads. people say they just hate them. but guess what- the annegberg school long ago proved these ads are highly effective. they were highly effective in 2006 as well. that's the reality versus the image.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:50:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mattered? (none / 0)

Link?


by faithfull on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Most sought after ... (none / 0)

Well, then in fairness you ought to back off your condemnation of Senator Obama.

He was needed all over.
He was a very, very limited resource.
He went where he felt he could do the most good.

Sorry it wasn't to Connecticut to campaign for Lamont.

It's sad that your guy lost.
But Lamont-Lieberman was not the center of the world for most of us and he, Obama, worked very hard for the Democratic party in 2006.


by chicago jeff on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most sought after ... (none / 0)

Cmon Jeff, if he really believed all that anti-war rhetoric, why would he not support the anti-war Lamont in the primary? This is legitimate!! Millions of Democrats everywhere were sorely disappointed that Lieberman won that primary!! It wasn't just in CT!! He should have to answer for a very bad decision, just like Edwards has had to answer for his. I wonder if Obama will apolegize for supporting Lieberman? I doubt it!!


by RDemocrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:15:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most sought after ... (none / 0)

You appear to be mixing up separate issues.  On the first, the anti-war rhetoric, there's very obviously a difference between the policy of not going into Iraq in the first place as opposed to the best way to get out.  You prevent heart disease with exercise and diet; you go to the ER for cardiac catheterization when it's too late to prevent the heart attack.  

On the second, Lamont-Lieberman, there certainly is a point to be made.  For whatever reason, most Congressional Democrats were slow and inaccurate (IMO) in their response to Lieberman's alliance with Bush on Iraq.  Not just Obama.  Of course Obama and the rest were not so absorbed or consumed by Lieberman-Lamont so I'm not surprised that it wasn't handled well.  It's easy when Lamont is your guy to see Lieberman for what he is and act accordingly. (And no, people outside of Ct. who followed Lieberman-Lamont closely weren't "typical" Democrats.)

At any rate, what I would ask for is more care in judging.  You suggest Obama didn't really believe "all that anti-war rhetoric" but give a problematic rationale for that.  That doesn't prove you "wrong" or "bad" as a Democrat; but in exactly the same way, I think we owe it to ourselves and candidates to avoid overstating our criticisms.


by chicago jeff on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 02:51:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Right and it helped. (none / 0)

He was with Claire McCaskill the Sunday before the election and I think Jim Webb the day of?


by Democraticavenger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:50:23 PM EST

Re: Right and it helped. (none / 0)

True, he was with McCaskill the night before at a rally with LOCAL politicians and activists.  It was on C-Span.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right and it helped. (none / 0)

That was the citation answer.


by Democraticavenger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right and it helped. (none / 0)

All the local Dems and statewide elected Dems were there because it was a big event to kick off the GOTV weekend. As a result, there was a huge crowd there. I won't deny that Obama was part of the draw, but Bill Clinton in his appearance at the Pageant probably did more for McCaskill than Obama did.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:07:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama did more than most to get a Democ (none / 0)

But aiding other Democrats with visits, donations, and endorsements is expected.  That's an entry condition for consideration as a Democrat.  It is not enough.  It's taking credit for the easy things you should do.

(mea culpa, I recently accused Senator Clinton of not helping others; there is some truth to that in earlier years, particularly within NYS.  But she was very helpful to other candidates in 2006, I claimed otherwise and  I was wrong).

So, back the point: Those links to photo ops do not prove much to me.

The question is: What does he SAY at those events?  How does he describe the current political landscape?  How does he present to his audiences the challenges we face?  How does he develop the identity of the Democratic Party?

More important, now that he is standing on his own as a Presidential candidate, how does he describe the party now?

I think some folks who claim he only and significantly tarnishes the party overstate their case.  But there is more than a nugget of truth in the criticism.  You may feel that framing is helpful - I don't - but please do not pretend those links answer the issue being debated.

You are correct: Those actions matter.  But current words also matter.


"We live entangled of webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC
by Trond Jacobsen on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:51:43 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama did more than most to get a Democ (none / 0)

Then why wasn't Clinton out on the campaign trail as much as Obama or Edwards.

They wanted this guy, because they thought it would help their campaigns. Especially in Southern MO, VA and OH.

dONOT DISMISS HIS ROLE IN 2006 ELECTION, IT WAS HUGE.


by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:12:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama did more than most to get a Democ (none / 0)

He did help. I don't deny that. The Lieberman/Lamont primary was a signature one, one that took guts to come down on the side of Lamont. Spin it how you want but in that particular case Obama failed!!


by RDemocrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:17:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards More? Prove (3.00 / 0)

Edwards more? prove it also, tommorrow I will talk about money, which cleary has Obama outpace Edwards and Clark. Also the title says most. Edwards did more than Obama using all metrics is hard to prove? I am happy to call it a tie, but just don't argue Obama doesn't care about Democrats.


by Democraticavenger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:53:18 PM EST

Re: Edwards More? Prove (none / 0)

It's harder to find out how much Edwards raised, because he raised money directly for candidates, rather than raising the money for his own PAC, then distributing it. He also appeared a lot to raise money and awareness for local Dems running at the state level.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:12:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He was very helpful (none / 0)

I think, if what he is saying wasn't helpful, he would not be wanted? The range of where he was wanted is also valuable. I think some of his best speeches were the ones he gave at these events. But what do I know?


by Democraticavenger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:55:16 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama did more (none / 0)

This is apples and oranges.

While it is admirable and absolutely worth bringing up in defense of Obama, it is NOT an answer to the critique of Obama's political style.

Let me be clear as I think I have been throughout - I do not for a moment question Obama's progressive credentials, they are there for all to see.

HE will be a progressive President, maybe even in 2009.

But this is relevant but not a response to the critque.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:11:45 PM EST

To be honest (3.00 / 2)

I think the critique is innane.  Barack Obama has the potential to have the country vote in a massive progressive Democratic Majority, but think they are doing it in the name of  non-partisan-progress.  He doesn't scare anyone the way Hillary does and since on most of the issues, most of the country argees with us, we don't need to be divisive.  I think Bill Clinton said it best, they need a divided America and we don't. Obama's tone and tenor is exactly right. Bloggers and all are great for tearing down the otherside, but Presidential candidates are supposed to be inspiring to most Americans.
 
by Democraticavenger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:29:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To be honest (none / 0)

That is not addressing the substance of my critique.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To be honest (none / 0)

I don't even get what the critique, without quoting from others tell me why Barack Obama's approach will fail to win, or fail to govern effectively?


by Democraticavenger on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:41:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To be honest (none / 0)

you don't get historical analysis, anecdote, other races by comparison, others who have used obama's strategy? what do you mean you don't get it?


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:46:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To be honest (none / 0)

If you clicked the link on my diary it would provide you the litany.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:15:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama did more (none / 0)

So exactly what are you questioning then?


by aiko on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama did more (none / 0)

In my diary I provide a link to my detailed critiques.

To address them, they would need to be read.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:32:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop it. (3.00 / 0)

We shouldn't fall for the bait.  The idea behind much of what goes on here is not sincere.  It's dirty tricks.  It is quite obvious the idea is to get Edwards and Obama supporters to attack each other, to get the real sense of a brokered convention coming our way.  It is manipulation to a Nth degree and it shows the problems with privately owned and operated blogs and their manipulative ability to take free speech and frame it.  If we participate, then we should be aware, and resist the temptation to go in the direction offered.


by Doug Tuesday on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:31:59 PM EST

EXACTLY, (3.00 / 0)

there was a diary on DKos, about Obama giving Edwards a smackdown on poverty.  A totally ridiculous diary, as Obama did not do such.  It was written to divide and flame, and I stated as such.  I think both camps have more in common, than NOT.  


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:39:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop it. (none / 0)

I agree with you 100%.   I have grown very tired of the antagonism.  I must resist the temptation to engage. However, I would love to discuss strategy without the hate.
(btw, this is really just a two-person race.)
by aiko on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop it. (none / 0)

Hillary and who?


Waiting for the Glorious Train Wreck.
by Rooktoven on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:20:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop it. (none / 0)

What are you smoking?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack Obama (none / 0)

Obama was by far the most requested democrat on the campaign trail while Hillary was being rejected by some democrats who ran in swing states and districts...

Brad Ellthworth of Indiana is the perfect example of a democrat that failed Hillary in his district would hurt him more then help since his district tilts slightly to the right.


by JaeHood on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:09:58 PM EST

typoz..failed=felt (none / 0)

..


by JaeHood on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:10:54 PM EST

Obama does NOT have a good track record (none / 0)

He hasn't had an opponent to beat, besides the one he lost in Chicago.

He campaigned for Joe Lieberman in CT, and Ned Lamont won the Primary. (Long Live the Republicans, they stuck with Joe and he got in on the Genergal)

The Pederson-AZ, Ford Jr-TN, all lost too.  

Nope Obama is not a Democratic draw.


by LindaSFNM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (3.00 / 1)

We picked up six Senate seats in '06, of the six Obama campaigned in five (excluding Tester in Montana). Tim Kaine was sufficiently impressed with Obama campaigning in Virginia for Webb that he decided to endorse him early this year. And McCaskill has showered praise on Obama for coming out. Read the NYTimes article I posted above.
Obama also turned out to help candidates for Governor and the House.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree strongly. (none / 0)

He is too Conservative, that does not make for drawing in the Democrats.

Another example, that if we get one of these top tier candidates as the Dem nominee, they will then cost us another election.  The folks won't be turning up for the Dem and therefore will not be helping the Democratic ticket.

Like a young lady I saw at the Farmers Market this weekend who approached us when she saw our Al Gore buttons, she said she sure hopes he gets in, because he is our only chance...and the democrats only chance.  She said that the Dem's are making the Repubs look good.  I don't think I can go that far, but the point is, here we go with not a clear choice.  The lesser of two evils and when you have folks acting like Republicans but wear a D, people are more likely to vote for the REAL thing.


by LindaSFNM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:36:05 PM EST

Too conservative on what? (none / 0)

Obama has one of the most progressive voting records in the US Senate. Check out the diary on the recommended list about his urban poverty agenda.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too conservative on what? (none / 0)

This poster is just clueless..Just ignore him or her...Probably a redstater.


by JaeHood on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too conservative on what? (none / 0)

The campaign hasn't gone as expected.  Obama was supposed to gather enough support to mess up Edwards but never outraise Clinton.  They were counting on a Clinton inevitability fear at this point to create a huge draft Gore grassroots momentum.  Things haven't gone as planned so now they're coming out of the woodwork.  


by Doug Tuesday on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too conservative on what? (none / 0)

Ignoring Redstaters is what got us this horrible President, and the previous do-nothing good Repug Congress. If we ignore redstaters again, this next election is going to be a huge disappointment to all of us.

I would just like to say being from a state that has been both red and blue, that it takes one hell of a Democrat to stand up in a red state and fight for our party. Definately not one to be ignored!!!


by RDemocrat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:21:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop with the Republican Meme (none / 0)

"Lesser of 2 Evils" is the Republican critique of Progressive government.  

There's nothing evil about Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Kucinich ... etc.  They disagree a bit with each other and they disagree with you.  Gore, I'll bet, disagrees with you.  And that lady at the market.

Doesn't make any of you evil.
It does mean you have to make choices.
And if you're honest, you'll accept that you just might be wrong.  Or that Obama might just be wrong on some things but right -- and worth listening to -- on others.

Obama acting like a Republican?  Heck, I could say you're acting like a Republican.  

So, how do we move forward?

I think Obama's answer makes some sense.
Be progressive instead of just shouting that you are.  Or trying to prove it in superficial ways.  


by chicago jeff on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:53:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.