Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote?

by yellowdem1129, Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:25:41 PM EST

Subtitle: How Hillary won the Primary

Right now it seems that the political atmosphere is ripe for a Democratic sweep in November.  I was among the conventional thinkers early on in this decade who wouldn't have predicted it so soon and certainly not this way:  Republican implosion mostly because of George Bush.   Yet the issues that seem to motivate the most fervent anti-bush sentiment here and on the 'net are almost universally supported by "national democrats".   Those are the people who perceive that they have a future as a party leader.  

For example, no serious person thinks Hillary would have voted against FISA had she been the Dem. nominee in waiting, but freed from "responsibility" she panders to the left.

The main issue that propelled Obama to being on the cusp of our next POTUS was that he "had the judgement" to be against the Iraq War when all of the seasonsed and experienced politicians got it wrong.   They enabled Bush, while Obama "took a bold stand".

I didn't believe it for one minute during the primaries.  Many on the Hillary side tried to show the flip-flops in 2004 and 2006 when it wasn't certain where the politics were on the issue.

But now the question for all democrats is:

Does anyone serious still believe Obama would have opposed the 2002 war resolution?

The evidence all points to a resounding NO!

Every instinct he has shown has been toward being a mainstream democrat.

There hasn't been 1 issue where he is willing to stand on his own and fight it out.

Take the "talk with Iran w/o preconditions" bit.   Once his aides and Obama finished explaining and "refining", it is hardly "change" or radically different from Bush or the bulk  of the Democratic Party.

same on FISA
same on Guns
same on every single major issue.

What we are left with is quite simple:

A mainstream left-leaning democrat who doesn't want the liberal label, whose biggest selling point is that he has black skin.

This in and of itself  represents real change from our nation's history.

For any real democrat like me, the bottom line is Obama is not only acceptable, he is great for the party.

He will maximize black turnout while disarming fears of wild-eyed liberals.

That is why any betting person would wager on an Obama-democratic surge in November once he turns the Speech machine back on.

No way to do that now and maintain it for months and months through the Olympics and the rest.

But I think at the least Obama Primary supporters should apologize to people like me who tried to tell you:

he's playing the race card
he's a typical politician

You still won.  Obama has brought me and must of us home to the Dem party.

But come on, admit it,

If I told you what the Dem. nominee would do for  the month after the primary in terms of positions on issues and "values" they wanted to project,

you'd get depress because you'd think

Hillary won!

Well  in a way she did.
and that is good  for the party and our nation.




Tags: craig farmer, barrack obama, iraq war, newliberals (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 125 Comments :: Post a Comment


Yes. (2.00 / 6)

Yes.


by HSTruman on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:31:29 PM EST

Yes. (2.00 / 2)

Yes.


We want to see Ivana [Trump] because we are so desperate in Alaska for any semblance of glamour and culture. - Sarah Palin
by spacemanspiff on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:33:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. (2.00 / 1)

Yes


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:57:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. (2.00 / 1)

Guys, I think we're being to hasty here.  Let me sit back and think about it for a minute...

OK, yes.


I like baked beans.
by SpideyDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. (2.00 / 1)

Yes


by the mollusk on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:28:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. (none / 0)

Yes.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 12:26:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, yellowdem (2.00 / 6)

My day was a little shabby, but now I have your latest anti-Obama screed to look at, so I'm cheered a little.

What's "all the evidence" that Obama would have voted for the war?  A link, maybe?  A quote or voting record?  C'mon, give us something substantial besides "I told you so."

I don't think you've ever made a credible case against Obama in the dozens of diaries you've written, which is actually kinda sad.  Nobody likes to be thought of as non-credible.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:32:05 PM EST

Re: Oh, yellowdem (2.00 / 1)

Based on the poll's about Iraq with hind sight yes Obama and now Clinton would have voted against the AUMF in 2002

Senator's from the same state generally vote alike. Durbin and 22 OTHER SENATOR'S VOTED AGAINST THE WAR and so would Barack.


by BDM on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what world are you talking about? (2.00 / 2)

feintein yes boxer no
dodd no lieberman yes
kennedy no  kerry yes

need I go on?


by yellowdem1129 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:43:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

evidence? (2.00 / 1)

DVR the news from any day for the last month.

The context reads: Obama is normal like us rather than a left-winger.

-2nd amendment right to defend
-campaignfinance -he actually is going to use an advantage he has, rather  than making things fair for McCain
-Fisa--remember the promise to filibuster
-Iraq war funding/Iraq war "refinement"

Can't you be honest and admint, Hillary Clinton's way of being a Democrat won out?

I admit it is  better coming from obama because his real change is in his being an African American.


by yellowdem1129 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:41:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: evidence? (none / 0)

I object to the "fair" for McCain comment, anyone not sleeping through the past 8 years knows that there is no way this current system that allows for all this sub groups is "fair". 2nd ammendment stance = A OK, he's for restrictions, very few people are for outright abolition. FISA, I agree with you with one caveat, no one fights losing fights in the middle of an election, it's a little silly.


by Dog Chains on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:02:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A black guy is going to be President - (2.00 / 2)

Deal with it.


by johnnyappleseed on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:23:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: evidence? (2.00 / 2)

It's amusing to me that you take a few dozen words spoken recently about the second amendment to define Obama's position, but you ignore a number of actual votes he made on gun control in the past that define a very different position.

The Iraq war thing is bs too. He's not changed his position at all. He's going to seek advice of those on the ground to help him formulate a solid plan for withdrawal. Seeking advice doesn't mean you have to take it or all of it and seeking it doesn't mean change that his plan is withdraw the troops. I guess as a lefty I'm supposed to be happy if he'd said he'd ignore what any one else said and just did what he wanted without any sort of studied consideration? That sounds like Bush to me.


by Quinton on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:25:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For a Democrat planning ro run for Senate (2.00 / 1)

from Illinois "Anti War" was a popular position to take in 2002 here is the evidence:

There is a false presumption on the part of the public and the media regarding the speech Sen. Obama made on Chicago lake front.

Let us go to the facts: Sen. Obama delivered his now famous "Iraq war speech" on October 2nd 2002. The Iraq war resolution was passed by the House of Representatives on October 10th and passed by the senate on October 11th. By October 2002 Obama had already made up his mind to run for the US Senate. He was well aware that the majority of the Illinois Democratic delegation was going to vote against the war resolution. In fact it is public record that 9 out of 12 Democrats in the Illinois delegation voted against the resolution. Here is the list:


Sen Dick Durbin- Rep Jerry Costello- Rep Danny Davis- Rep Lane Evans- Rep Luis Gutierrez Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr- Rep Bill Lipinski- Sen Bobby Rush- Rep Jan Schakowsky


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:46:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For a Democrat planning ro run for Senate (none / 0)

I'm not sure why you attached your comment to mine as it doesn't address anything I said, but... I've long said that taking the anti-war position was easy and a smart move for Obama to make to stand out in what was going to be a crowded senate primary and for the general election in a liberal state. You can check my comments dating back to the beginning of the presidential primary if ya like ;)


by Quinton on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

evidence? (2.00 / 1)

DVR the news from any day for the last month.

The context reads: Obama is normal like us rather than a left-winger.

-2nd amendment right to defend
-campaignfinance -he actually is going to use an advantage he has, rather  than making things fair for McCain
-Fisa--remember the promise to filibuster
-Iraq war funding/Iraq war "refinement"

Can't you be honest and admint, Hillary Clinton's way of being a Democrat won out?

I admit it is  better coming from obama because his real change is in his being an African American.


by yellowdem1129 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:41:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

double-post aside... (2.00 / 10)

2nd amendment right to defend

Not substantively different than previous positions.  He is pro-gun control but understands the 2nd amendment.

-campaignfinance -he actually is going to use an advantage he has, rather  than making things fair for McCain

There was never any "pledge" and the conditionals Obama originally put on public financing were not met by McCain, who hasn't acted on good faith on this issue even once (there is a lawsuit pending by the DNC on McCain's primary shenanigans).

-Fisa--remember the promise to filibuster

I do remember his promise regarding a different bill in December.  Conceding that the situation has changed makes him practical, not centrist or prone to abandon beliefs.

-Iraq war funding/Iraq war "refinement"

Dumb wingnut talking point.  His "refinement" has never significantly diverged from his original position, which was removing the troops in 16 months as a goal with allowances for responding to the situation on the ground.

Basically what you're suggesting is that Obama is abandoning his values by simply being practical and understanding that not everything is black and white.

I understand that some netroots are myopic on these issues, but I'd say the majority of us understand that nothing is ever perfect.  Except yellowdem1129's* silliness.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:01:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: evidence? (none / 0)

Can you be honest and admit that Obama won the nomination and that Hillary lost? These are Obama's stands on the issues. Just because Hillary agrees with him on most points doesn't give Hillary ownership of them. Hillary lost. Obama won. The statements and stances you are talking about are pretty much the same ones Obama has always held. That's one reason I supported him, because I agreed with him on a lot of issues. I also agreed with him on the war and on the use of diplomacy. I didn't agree with Hillary on her AUMF vote and on her 'obliterate' Iran comments. It's as simple as that. I'm sorry that you are only now coming to understand Obama. Perhaps you would have supported him instead of Hillary if you had done so sooner.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:16:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, yellowdem (none / 0)

Dracro is right on. Obama has won fair and square
Senator Clinton backs our candidate who in fact did oppose the war. We have his voting record. Let's see your evidence
by Politicalslave on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bullsh*t diary. (2.00 / 11)

A mainstream left-leaning democrat who doesn't want the liberal label, whose biggest selling point is that he has black skin.

This again? You've got to be f*cking kidding me.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST

Re: Bullsh*t diary. (2.00 / 2)

Yikes.  Stay classy, yellowdem!


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullsh*t diary. (2.00 / 1)

It's commentary on the demographics.  Those numbers speak loud and clear.  There is no issue with pointing out demographics.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:47:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullsh*t diary. (2.00 / 2)

"whose biggest selling point is that he has black skin."

Yep, that constitutes "commentary on demographics."  Whatever...


by HSTruman on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:59:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullsh*t diary. (2.00 / 1)

You can Bill Clinton this point.  You can Geraldine Ferraro this point.  That makes you an attack dog; that doesn't make the point accurate.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:04:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What point? (2.00 / 2)

In case you missed it:

It's is a HUGE LEAP OF LOGIC to believe that American black males go from Driving While Black to Preferred For President. From most incarcerated to "Here, have some nukes". I mean...what is the reasoning? You think some nice articulatin' is going to make people essentially offer up their daughters? What about the secret emails? What about the Obama-in-crosshairs magazine?

There is no path from reality to this Affirmative Action fantasy you want to push. 20% of a state admitted that that voted against the black dude. That's a fact against the AA theory. There is absolutely no evidence (Ferarro's rock-solid proof aside) FOR the assertion. None, in fact you have to ignore an amazing amount of evidence of bias AGAINST him.

Now do you see why it's baldly offensive? You CAN'T make that assertion from facts, it's by definition a statement of perception and bias.


by Neef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What point? (2.00 / 1)

"Now do you see why it's baldly offensive?"
No!
You're talking apples and oranges.  The demographics that supported Obama in the primary, as has been consistently pointed out, are the youth vote, the affluent Indie/Dem vote, and the AA vote.  So speaking to the demographics about one subset of demograpghics is offensive?  Well, if you want to make it offensive, it is, as we have witnessed and continue to do so.
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is a huge difference (2.00 / 1)

between pointing out the demographics that support him (as you do) and asserting that "the best thing he has going for him is that he's black" or "he's only going to win because he's black".

It's an assertion that blackness alone wins the Oval Office. Even "brilliant black orator, who can triangulate his ass off" is reasonable (tho I'd disagree).

You're saying black is all it takes to be President.


by Neef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is a huge difference (2.00 / 1)

Inartfullness is not racist.  Perhaps not you, but there are many who seek to capitalize on the distinction.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where the distinction becomes important (2.00 / 1)

is where people dismiss the dozen OTHER things that went into him being the Nominee. The intelligence, the oratory, the strategy, and yes to some of us - the integrity. Including his blackness isn't offensive, it's the dismissing of every damn thing else.

How many people in his situation have his life story? Harvard, Princeton, Author, Senator, Nominee. Yet his defining characteristic, the thing that has taken him to this point - is his skin color? Look, I am not one to be faux offended. But I hope you do see how jarring that mindset can sound.


by Neef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where the distinction becomes important (2.00 / 1)

I get it.  You like Obama.  Not saying anything wrong with that.  I, and many others, are saying he has to earn our vote.  But the context of this diary, IMO, speaks to the truth.  Smearing the context, whether artfully worded or not, does not change the context.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:26:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd like to think (2.00 / 2)

all my points have at least conveyed sincerity. I am not "smearing" or intentionally misconstruing the diarist.

And please don't misunderstand. I respect that he needs to earn your vote. I can see you might feel he's inexperienced, or wishy-washy, or what have you. I'm irked when someone says he triangulated he way to the Nomination - but I am NOT offended.

I'm offended when a person who is where he is, is treated as simply a bag of lucky brown skin. Sorry man, that just isn't right.


by Neef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd like to think (2.00 / 2)

Excellent comment.  
"I'm offended when a person who is where he is, is treated as simply a bag of lucky brown skin. Sorry man, that just isn't right."
If I thought Bill, Geraldine, or this diarist (who by the way is AA) espoused those sentiments, I'd be the first to troll all over those comments.  Personally, I think there is a distinction between discussing the demographics and racism.
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is a huge difference (none / 0)

President Sharpton,President Jesse Jackson and yes, President Alan Keys would all agree, being black is a FANTASTIC advantage.


If you are not voting Obama, please let me know so I can replace your sorry ass with another new voter.
by Darknesse on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:52:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is a huge difference (none / 0)

That's like saying President Biden, President, Dodd, President Edwards, etc., this year, untold numbers from campaigns past, are appreciative for the advantage of being white.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is a huge difference (none / 0)

No, it's like saying President Bush, President Clinton, President Bush, President Reagan, President Carter, President Ford, President Nixon, President Johnson (actually, he was Korean I believe), President Kennedy, President Eisenhauer, President Truman, President Roosevelt, President Hoover, President Coolidge (another Korean), President Harding, President Wilson, President Taft, President Roosevelt, President McKinley, President Cleveland............................... ....... ........................

are appreciative for the advantage of being white.

Except, as noted above, for the two Korean women who slipped in.


by MeganLocke on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 12:32:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What point? (none / 0)

I believe being the type of black person he has portrayed himself to be is a selling point.

There is a reason why blacks who were active in the civil rights era can never become POTUS.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:50:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What point? (none / 0)

And what type of black person gets to be President?

One who's really not TOO black. Frankly. I think the terms were Articulate and Clean (that's mostly snark, I still love Joe).

Again, the Affirmative Action supposition is completely unsupported, and because it is so baldly out in left field, it comes off badly.


by Neef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:59:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What point? (none / 0)


The types who sell themselves as relief from those so-called angry. black race-baiters like Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young and others.

So-called progressives have affirmed these type of black politicians by giving them labels such as the post-racial and/or transcending race.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:16:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jesse Jackson? (none / 0)

You mean "Hymietown" Jesse? Jesse the Cutter-of-Nuts?

There is a real generational divide in the AA community, much like among feminists. The "old guard" has seen too much, they ARE angry, and with cause. However, you won't get into the Oval Office being pissed at America.

The new generation (Obama, Ford, Patrick) doesn't "sell" themselves as post-racial, they see themselves that way.


by Neef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:24:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jesse Jackson? (none / 0)

Yes the old guard shows up when an unarmed black male has been gunned down by the police and when a mother and her children are stuck on top of her roof in a flooded city. They speak openly about the discrimination in jobs, housing, healthcare, etc.

The new guard does nothing and says nothing.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why kill a good argument (none / 0)

with absolutes? "nothing"?

Please don't make me look up stuff from O's Chicago days, you KNOW he's done work for the community.

And let's not pretend Al Sharpton is a lot of places the cameras aren't.


by Neef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:41:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What point? (none / 0)

There's a reason why ANYONE seen as a specific advocate for a minority group (save veterans) will even become President.

If Bush had run on being a great Evangelical, he would have lost. Being President is about handling everything.


by Falsehood on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:59:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What point? (none / 0)

This rule only applies to black politicians.

I don't know why you would use Bush and evangelical example. There is a reason why stem cell research has been limited and why he has made extremely conservative appointments to SCOTUS.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:23:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullsh*t diary. (none / 0)

If you think that's a harmless demographic reference, fine.  I think you're ridiculous, but then again I firmly think that Geraldine Ferraro is a confirmed bigot at this point.  

I do not think that Bill Clinton is racist, by the way.  He merely made some inartful comments when he was angry that his wife had lost a primary.  I don't really fault the man for that.  This kind of stuff is different, as you're essentially saying that the only reason Obama won the primary is because he's black.  In addition to being objectively ridiculous to say, in light of the challenges that racial minorities continue to face in 2008, that's also an offensive statement that minimizes all of Obama's strengths and skills that have nothing to do with his race.    

But I digress.  Feel free to get back to defending Geraldine and explaining to us why Obama is so lucky that he's black.  


by HSTruman on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullsh*t diary. (none / 0)

I agree.  In regards to Ferraro, had she only made these kind of statements towards Obama she MIGHT be provided some wiggle room for her comments.  The fact that she made similar remarks about Jesse Jackson while he was running tells me all I need to know about Ferraro's real feelings on the matter.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullsh*t diary. (2.00 / 1)

"I think you're ridiculous."
Oh yeah?  You're mother wears combat boots.  How's that for discourse?  Grow up!
Now, replying to the rest of your comment;
I did not say anything about why Obama is the presumptive nominee.  Nevertheless, for you or anyone to ignore the AA vote that came out for him in overwhelming numbers (as is their legitimate right), is disingenous.
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, in that case (none / 0)

Bill Clinton is lucky he's black too =)


by Neef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, in that case (2.00 / 2)

Light skinned.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:30:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullsh*t diary. (2.00 / 2)

This thread started when you defended a comment that stated that Obama's skin color was his biggest selling point.  That sure seems to attribute race as the reason that he won the nomination.  As to Obama winning huge among african american voters, I suspect there was an element of pride involved with those numbers.  Just as there was with Senator Clinton winning huge margins among older women.  So what?  That's not a basis for saying that Senator Clinton was only a serious contender because she was a woman.  In point of fact, woman - like racial minorities - have to be BETTER candidates than a generic white man to even be in a position to run for the presidency.  That's the point I think you and this diarist are missing.  And it's a big point.  

And my mother wears hiking boots, not combat boots, just for the record.  She loves the outdoors.    


by HSTruman on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullsh*t diary. (2.00 / 1)

God I missed you...Don't you ever do that again:)


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:55:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, I'm sorry, hootie... (2.00 / 2)

I'm back in town, but I'm not fully back on MyDD yet. I'm not very happy here right now. Yellowdem's diaries always piss me off, though, so I HAD to call him out on that particular line. Outrageous statements may occasionally grab my attention, but I will mostly be rec'ing, rating, and lurking -- I will respond to any direct comments, however.

By the way, I saw that diary you wrote for us. I would have missed it, but some of the other C4O's sent out an email. I wanted to say thank you. A lot of us have been treated poorly, which is part of the reason I don't want to be here much anymore. They've called me a faux Clintonista and a concern troll, and I was offended. Silly reason to leave, but I don't have enough patience to waste on those people. Your diary was wonderful, though, much appreciated, and much needed.

For the record, I missed you too. MyDD still has quite a few good people, and you're definitely one of them. Hopefully I won't be on sabbatical for too long.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:05:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, I'm sorry, hootie... (2.00 / 1)

I will try and hold the fort down...


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, I'm sorry, hootie... (2.00 / 1)

Take a breather and come back when you feel like it, but don't take too long.  Your diaries and comments are missed.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 12:39:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

typical politician IMO (2.00 / 2)

nothing new


by soyousay on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:38:41 PM EST

Die Hard quote time: (2.00 / 4)

Holly Gennero McClane: After all your posturing, all your speeches, you're nothing but a common thief.
Hans Gruber: I am an exceptional thief, Mrs. McClane.  And since I'm moving up to kidnapping, you should be more polite.

Seriously, there's nothing "typical" about Obama as a politician, but he is still a politician.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:43:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

name 1 thing not "typical' (2.00 / 2)

where you could say,

can't believe he did that?

no political  benefit to that?

He must just really believe it.

Honestly, Obama presented himself as if he was McCain before this Presidential race.

McCain actually was "real change",then he changed back.


by yellowdem1129 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:45:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: name 1 thing not "typical' (2.00 / 3)

First of all, your challenge isn't really fair, since any position brings with it a host of advantages and disadvantages. The temporary suspension of the gas tax, for instance. As Jerome and others argued, it is a position that many voters instinctively support. However, economists and other experts unanimously dismiss the idea (even tax-hating libertarians at CATO).

So, it required a little political courage to resist supporting a temporary suspension of the gas tax (Obama could have easily adopted Hillary's position since he had supported a similar suspension as a state senator, though he did not vote for it the second time it was proposed in the Illinois senate). On the other hand, there were potential advantages to opposing a suspension, as Obama could use such opposition to bolster his anti-pander creditials. But, given the difficulty of convincing ordinary voters--by citing/reciting sophisticated economic arguments--that a gas tax is a bad idea convinces me that his position was a more courageous one than the alternative.

All that said, I would note that Obama voted against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because of his worries that it would compromise abortion rights (the IL version lacked certain language included in the federal version, which passed almost unanimously). That was a very risky move (for someone with higher political ambitions, which he clearly did at the time) with little political benefit.


by DPW on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:26:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: name 1 thing not "typical' (none / 0)

the born live act is a good example.

I doubt if he would do it today.

That's the point.


by yellowdem1129 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Die Hard quote time: (2.00 / 2)

OK...He's exceptional at re-positioning but a typical politician when it comes to not standing his ground. What is "his ground" anyway? :D


by soyousay on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good question (2.00 / 2)

What is "his ground" anyway? :D

You're the one suggesting that he's not holding it, so it's up to you to define it. :P


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good question (2.00 / 1)

I can't because he doesn't hold it.


by soyousay on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is an astronaut? (2.00 / 1)

I prefer "supernaut!"

+cue guitar riff+


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good question (2.00 / 1)

I used to think he was a John Kerry type elitist, but according to Sen. Obama, he never was and I wasn't listening.

So I think he is actually defining his true ground  now andholding it, which is a moderate democrat who is making an effort to do what's right.

The real change is to be a black democrat rather than a white republican.

I bring in black because I don't think he would  win without it.  Democrat because it is our year.

other than that, he's no
Russ Feingold
Barbara Lee
Bob Kerrey
Barney Frank
Harold Ford

I named people who have stood for things unpopular and thus get criticized.


by yellowdem1129 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"John Kerry type elitist" (2.00 / 2)

Oh, bite me.

We get enough of that from admitted right-wingers without you shovelling that at us.

You know what Obama's "real change" is?  He's going to win the presidency.  Lord knows we have enough problems with that as it is.  You love DLC sellout Harold Ford, but he can't even win his congressional spot in a landslide Democratic year.  Its galling that you'd even list him with Russ Feingold.

Obama's stances have always been somewhat centrist, with an emphasis on actual solutions that work.  Those of us who actually do research on our candidate's selling points instead of just what can be used to attack the opposition knew this for months before this supposed "swing to the center."


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "John Kerry type elitist" (2.00 / 1)

You make the mistake of assuming they actually want him to win. Most would never admit it, but they don't.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That much is clear (none / 0)

Humoring them makes the inevitable idiotic admissions worthwhile.  Sometimes.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good question (2.00 / 2)

God, I hope he's no Harold Ford. You obviously don't have a clue about Ford other than from his appearances on the talk shows. Ford lost his election bid, because people perceive him as coming from a family full of corrupt politicians. The Repugs ran racist ads, but those wouldn't have been enough if it wasn't for the taint of corruption. Harold Ford's uncle and mentor is on trial for corruption in Nashville, TN right now. Another relative, Edmund Ford was on trial in May on a  bribery charge. There are other members of the family that have also been charged with corruption. The people in Tennessee are well aware of those connections and rightfully rejected Ford.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:36:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose (2.00 / 3)

I am a yellow dog democrat and you sir or lady are not one.


by Spanky on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:44:07 PM EST

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose (2.00 / 2)

google my  yellowdem1129, craig farmer,  newliberals, etc.

you'll see years of me working within the democratic party for reform.

agree/disagree

I'm a yellowdog dem.

I vote straight Dem in Maryland.

like it or not, our nominee is more like me than you:

a black male
common sense values (apparently)
democrat


by yellowdem1129 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:48:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose (none / 0)

how are you a newliberal when you are a centrist-right and anti-gay?

Is that an oxymoron?

And why do you keep referring to Fiengold, Dodd, etc. as if you respect these people, they are not your type at all.  And if you are legitimate, why are you always trashing Obama, don't you want a democrat to win?


Please don't associate moose with Palin, she likes to kill them.
by KLRinLA on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:53:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war (2.00 / 3)

Let the flaming begin, because:  Rec'd!


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:45:47 PM EST

Guessing Games (2.00 / 3)

Guessing games are fun, but they are still guessing games.

How Obama would have voted as a Senator on AUMF don't know don't care. How Hillary would have voted on FISA if she were the nominee. Don't know don't care. Apples and oranges

All in all I find your diary intellectually weak to the extreme.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:56:31 PM EST

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote (2.00 / 1)

Seriously. I get that he is a politician. I get that this is politics. I differ with the political parties lack of balls with various votes including the war vote, including the FISA vote etc.  But I get the politics of it all, which is why Clinton's vote didn't offend since she has a HISTORY that I can base what her future actions will be. Obama does not which means votes like this cause me more concern.  He isn't a practiced politician yet so I don't know how far he will carry these actions...  All I can do is vote for him & hope for the best.


by jrsygrl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:18:30 PM EST

She's a practiced politican? (none / 0)

She's held elected office less than he has.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:38:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's a practiced politican? (none / 0)

Sen. Jackson, Jr. has held elective office longer than Obama.  Mayor Daley has held elective office longer than Obama.  Is number of years in elective office the criteria or accomplishments on the national scene the criteria?


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know (2.00 / 1)

is it?

What makes her a more practiced politician than he? Because her name has been around longer? Because she's older? Is Laura Bush a politician? Nancy Reagan?

I'm not denying she's been in the game longer, but she hasn't been a politician per se until 2001, before that she was just an activist married to a politician.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know (none / 0)

Wrong - Clinton is not comparable to an empty dress first lady. For Christ sakes she was profiled in 1969 by Life Magazine as a major up & comer politically...She has had major impact on our political scene for the past three decades both from a party & a legal perspective. What about her fricking landmark involvement in the Watergate hearings???  The GOP has had their sights on her specifically & smearing her for DECADES b/c of the political threat she posed & impact she had...

Seriously the fact that people dismiss this is disturbing. Of course I know people also forget easily too - it is human & unfortunate.


by jrsygrl on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 07:41:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote (none / 0)

Hillary's voting history is about 8 years long, Obama's starts back in 1997 when he was in the Illinois Senate.
So he's actually got a longer voting record than she does.
And you can look at that voting record and see that he is and has always been a centrist, who works with both parties to pass legislation. He's always been for fair trade, he's always supported a woman's right to choose, he supports nuclear power, he is against the war, but has voted for funding every single time, just as Hillary has.
He did change his stance on FISA, but frankly, that is something that we can deal with later, after he is president.
And you're right, he is a very good politician- he gets along with both Republicans and Democrats, and I think in the long run that will work very much in our favor, especially in terms of withdrawing from Iraq and maybe with health care (though I think that's going to be a big fight, I remember what Hillary had to deal with).
And the alternative (4 more years of Bush policies) is simply unacceptable.
by skohayes on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote (none / 0)

I actually didn't say he was a GOOD politician - I said he is playing politics - I get why it is being done - but I think he may be fumbling. I don't think he will win over those this vote is meant to appeal to in his attempt to APPEAR centrist (he will not be perceived that way at all) & he will lose people in the Democratic base who are looking for a reason to vote for him but view him with skepticism.


by jrsygrl on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 07:43:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote (none / 0)

If you're not any good at playing the game, you don't get anything done.
And apparently his votes on FISA and the other issues he's been talking about have had a positive effect on his poll numbers:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has done a far more effective job than Republican John McCain in recent weeks moving himself to the middle in the minds of voters, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys.

During the Primary campaign season, Obama was viewed as politically liberal by an ever-increasing number of voters that grew to 67% by early June. However, since clinching the nomination, he has reversed that trend and is now seen as liberal by only 56%.

Twenty-two percent (22%) characterize the Democrat as Very Liberal, down from 36% early last month.

McCain similarly has been seen as politically conservative by more and more voters, also hitting 67% a month ago, but he is still viewed that way by 66%. While19% saw him as Very Conservative in early June, that figure now has risen to 28%.

The Democratic candidate is viewed as a political moderate by 27%, up from 22% three weeks earlier, while McCain is seen as a moderate by 23%, down from 26% in the survey at the beginning of June.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/mood_of_america/voters_perce ive_obama_moving_to_the_middle

And yes, he's pissed some of the hard progressives off with his vote on FISA, but most are still going to vote for him.
He actually moved left for the primary and is now going back to more of his centrist views, and now more voters are seeing him as less of a "radical liberal" (which is a good thing, IMO).


by skohayes on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 06:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote (none / 0)

Right - I don't believe he is good at playing the game - I think he is trying to hard to be something to everyone & in the end he will be nothing to no one.  


by jrsygrl on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:57:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Eye of the beholder (2.00 / 2)

A mainstream left-leaning democrat who doesn't want the liberal label, whose biggest selling point is that he has black skin.

Nice. Here's a couple more selling points:

1) One of the greatest current orators, already credited with several historic speeches, and able to energize thousands. Obviously, YOU see that shit every day, I do not.

2) Not just liberal, but reasonably populist:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/200 8/07/09/obama_moves_to_the_populist/

3) Not just populist, but an actual uniter who can't suffer stupid. This one alone seals my deal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinio n/10collins.html?ref=opinion

4) A Democrat who's running to make the entire MAP more Democratic. Dean gets credit for the 50-state strat, but Obama is hardly average for following it.

5) A Dem with a creditable, if not overwhelming, chance to win the WH. The way you people talk we have winning Dems pouring out of our ears. I guess Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, McGovern were all sub-average. Yeah.

To recap: You see affirmative action. Some of us see a lot more.


by Neef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:23:12 PM EST

Re: Eye of the beholder (none / 0)

Wow, loved that NYT link- everybody read that!!


by skohayes on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote (2.00 / 1)

Bub buh buh?
Bub buh buh.
Bub buh buh?
Bub buh buh.
Bub buh buh?
Bub buh buh.
Bub buh buh?
Bub buh buh.
Bub buh buh?

The above was more productive than this diary.


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:26:33 PM EST

once AGAIN with the demands for apoligies (2.00 / 1)

"But I think at the least Obama Primary supporters should apologize to people like me who tried to tell you:

he's playing the race card
he's a typical politician"

You want me to apologize to whom for what?

Man, the Hillary crowd and their NEVER-ENDING demands for apologies?

How DO you poor folks make it through your life, without having some kind of crying jag, hissy fit, or complete breakdown is beyond me.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:28:29 PM EST

Re: once AGAIN with the demands for apoligies (2.00 / 1)

"How DO you poor folks make it through your life, without having some kind of crying jag, hissy fit, or complete breakdown is beyond me."

They obviously don't.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: once AGAIN with the demands for apoligies (none / 0)

""The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson"

Based on your rudeness here, by your own standard, you fail to measure up as a man. Might want to work on meeting the same standards you try to judge others by.


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: once AGAIN with the demands for apoligies (none / 0)

That quote doesn't mean you have to praise people for saying or doing stupid things. I call them like I see them. I don't feel guilty about pointing out something I think is obvious.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:38:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My anwer (2.00 / 3)

Read Gail Collins's NYT column this morning.  You obviously don't understand Barack Obama.


by Brad G on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:40:11 PM EST

What happens in 2012? (2.00 / 2)

When President Obama still has combat troops in Iraq?  Will his anti-war supporters say that is okay, or will they sit home and make him a 1 termer?


by dpANDREWS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:44:18 PM EST

Re: What happens in 2012? (2.00 / 4)

"My Mind Has Changed: I Cannot Vote for Obama, Ever
by dpANDREWS, Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:47:28 PM EST"

What, not getting enough attention at NoQuarter?


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:54:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens in 2012? (none / 0)

[citation needed]

Either break out your crystal ball/time machine or shut yer trap.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:57:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See, this sort of reaching (none / 0)

implies that people will find even hypothetical criticisms of the man.


by Neef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

President Obama (none / 0)

is still going to have combat troops in Iraq, just as would President Clinton, President Edwards, President Richardson, President Biden, etc.

The question will be is he actively working to get them home or is he sitting around twiddling his thumbs waiting for a "victory"

They're not coming home fast or soon...get that into your head, all of you, fellow Obama's primary supporters included.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:37:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote (2.00 / 1)

Obama himself said he does not know how he would of voted on the Resolution, so the people who are saying 'yes' really don't know Obama. Makes me wonder...


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:46:48 PM EST

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote (2.00 / 1)

He said he couldn't say so because he didn't get to read the intelligence the Senate did. He stated clearly that based on what he knew at the time, he would have voted no.

Have we learned anything after the AUMF that would have made a Senator more likely to vote for it? Nope.


by Falsehood on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:02:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote (none / 0)

Well, let's discuss this.  I don't think that he would've voted for it, but it's impossible to determine whether he would've or not.  I will also grant that if Clinton were the nominee, there's no gaurantee that she would've voted for FISA bill.

All we have is what there votes and position were at the time.  I will also grant to Clinton that the war vote was a difficult decision on her part, as was FISA for Obama.  It's lamost as if their espective positions were switched.

What do you think?


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I always saw the Clinton AUMF vote (none / 0)

as a disadvantage in the Election, not as a moral lapse. A LOT of people believed we needed to go in, she may have been voting her conscience.

But I agree AUMF = FISA, as far as ideological balls and chains go.


by Neef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:27:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I always saw the Clinton AUMF vote (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, she probably would've had the same problems that Kerry had on the issue.  I also think she probably would've been able to overcome them too.


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:35:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hope they're not equal (none / 0)

The scope of AUMF in terms of actual damage done is far, far beyond what's suggested in the new FISA bill... I hope.  I also hope that the damage can be mitigated once we get Bush the hell out of there.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Granted (none / 0)

but you can only be held responsible for the information you have at the time, right?


by Neef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Granted (none / 0)

Sure.

I'm not really going to get into guessing games, though.

Obama = proven anti-Iraq war sentiment circa 2002
Clinton = proven pro-Iraq war sentiment circa 2003
McCain = proven pro-Iraq war sentiment circa 1994 or so


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope they're not equal (none / 0)

Well, I'd say equal in therms of political impact, but as for damage to the country, we'll have to wait and see.  Unfortunately.


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope they're not equal (none / 0)

Uh...as far as damage to a bunch of now dead people I think that's no contest.

I said it before and I'll say it now. Anyone who stuck their finger to the wind and decided that to remain viable for the Presidency had to vote yes on granting war power on Iraq effectively decided "What's a few thousand soldier and civilian's lives compared to my glorious political career?".

Period.

End of story.

And it deserved to be the end of their political advancement. Much to my personal satisfaction, turned out it was the end of their political advancement.


by ElitistJohn on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:08:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope they're not equal (none / 0)

I agree that at this point in time the AUMF is far, far worse.  But we won't be able to gauge the impact of FISA for decades.  I hope it's not as bad, because I don't like people dying for the actions of fools and misanthropes.


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:19:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope they're not equal (none / 0)

What, the new FISA bill allows the President to spy on anyone without warrants or oversight?


Please don't associate moose with Palin, she likes to kill them.
by KLRinLA on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:59:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope they're not equal (none / 0)

Eh, I think that we can agree that they're both very, very bad, and parsing thier badness is like asking someone if cutting their arm off hurts worse than cutting their leg off.  It dosen't matter, they both fucking hurt bad.


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope they're not equal (none / 0)

I kind of thought that the problem with the bill was the immunity provision, not the rest of it.  Therefore, the harm is in the past and it is not going to continue, thus it is not going to ever be worse than AUMF, by any stretch of the imagination.

That is my point.  Disclaimer: I am not saying I am accurate b/c honestly  I have been focused only on the immunity provison, but I thought I heard that besides the immunity, it was essentially the same as before (1978 FISA) which was fine and consitutional.


Please don't associate moose with Palin, she likes to kill them.
by KLRinLA on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:38:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]