Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Republican Sen. Coburn

Barack Obama today listed three Republican Senators he is especially eager to work with as a bi-partisan President, including Obama's good friend Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. Here are some of Coburn's political views that Obama presumably thinks he can accommodate in the spirit of bi-partisanship, from an article in Salon:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/ 2004/09/13/coburn/index.html?pn=1

For Coburn, the imminent danger facing America is apparently not terrorism but the "gay agenda." His thumping about this menace within contributed to the pressure that led to Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage. At a Republican meeting this spring, Coburn warned: "The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power ... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."

As far right as Coburn is on fiscal issues, he is even farther right on social issues. "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life," he told the Associated Press in July. Last week, he told the Hugo [Okla.] Daily News: "We need someone who will speak morally on the issues and not run from the criticism of the national press ... We need to have moral clarity about our leaders. I have a 100 percent pro-life record. I don't apologize for saying we need to protect the unborn. Do you realize that if all those children had not been aborted, we wouldn't have any trouble with Medicare and Social Security today? That's another 41 million people."

A year later, Coburn gained a moment of national attention when he condemned NBC for televising the Academy Award-winning movie on the Holocaust "Schindler's List." According to Coburn, the film encouraged "irresponsible sexual behavior," and he called for outrage against the network from "parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere." He added, "I cringe when I realize that there were children all across this nation watching this program." Even conservative avatar William Bennett felt compelled to rebuke him: "These are very unfortunate and foolish comments."

In 1999, after the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, Coburn opposed President Clinton's proposal for making adults liable if they allow their children to buy guns and harm others. "If I wanted to buy a bazooka to use in a very restricted way, to do something, I ought to be able to do that," said Coburn.

I wonder what elements of the progressive agenda Obama plans to achieve working with Senator Coburn in the spirit of bi-partisan compromise?

Tags: Barack Obama, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, hit diary, president, Troll Diary (all tags)

Comments

191 Comments

Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

Wow , That Tom Coburn guy is a wing nut.

by lori 2007-08-25 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

Yeah, but I hear he sings a mean chorus of Kumbaya.

by hwc 2007-08-25 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

And, I don't know about you guys, but the last thing on my mind after watching Schindler's List (and wiping away the tears) was running right out for some irresponsible sex.

by hwc 2007-08-25 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

That was funny.

by lori 2007-08-25 09:08PM | 0 recs
What Could Be More Irresponsible

Than irresponsible sex you didn't even go looking for?

The sex ate my homework.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-08-26 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

You seem surprised...are you totally ignorant of politics?

Or just making (yet another) snide comment?

Of course he is crazy...as Obama said, one of the MOST conservative members of the Senate.

But that doesn't mean there isn't something they can find common ground on (that, after all, is how you GOVERN).

Then again, not surprising a Hillary-supporter would oppose transparency.  When are those White House papers being released, again???

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 05:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

Then again, not surprising a Hillary-supporter would oppose transparency.

Clinton co-sponsored the bill. It passed the Senate unanimously. With the exception of some meddling by Stevens, completely uncontroversial.

I think the opposing opinions in this diary come down to one thing: when we talk about finding "consensus" with arch-conservatives, do we mean no-brainer legislation or do we extend this to more controversial (partisan) matters?

by dblhelix 2007-08-26 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

What about Clinton working with Newty?

by danIA 2007-08-26 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

What about it? Same thing applies. Reducing paperwork in medical billing falls under the same type of housekeeping legislation.

Both candidates make claims re: bipartisanship & compromise. We'll be hearing more from Clinton on this next month as Part 3 of her health plan is rolled out.

However, one of the claims made on this site is that Obama is more progressive than Clinton, while she is "Republican-lite," etc. So the question is, what is Obama willing to negotiate away in the name of compromise? Do I give him points for an allegedly more progressive position just to see it negotiated away? Perhaps Clinton is just being realistic from the get-go.

Example: Obama has stated that abortion services will be covered under his universal health care plan. Clinton has not made a statement one way or the other. We know this to be an extremely contentious issue to many Republicans and even some Democrats. For this reason, I haven't given Obama any points, because I don't know if he's willing to fight hard to make good on this campaign pledge. How does his relationship with Coburn enable abortion coverage, or is this the first thing to get thrown out in the name of compromise?

I didn't recommend this diary b/c it didn't use this opportunity (Obama claiming that he can work with even the most conservative legislators) to ask the question on where the line should be drawn. That's the key issue -- there's nothing wrong with working on the few issues where you actually do find broad, even unanimous consensus. There's also no point in adopting a tone that implies Obama will sell out, when there's no evidence for it.

by dblhelix 2007-08-26 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu
However, one of the claims made on this site is that Obama is more progressive than Clinton, while she is "Republican-lite," etc. So the question is, what is Obama willing to negotiate away in the name of compromise? Do I give him points for an allegedly more progressive position just to see it negotiated away? Perhaps Clinton is just being realistic from the get-go.
Do you not give him poins on the basis of a compromise you have no evidence he will make?
by Casuist 2007-08-26 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

Casuist, I'm not sure what you're asking.

Another contentious issue: disparities in sentencing for crack cocaine vs powder cocaine.

The Chicago Tribune condemned Clinton's response:


Derrick Z. Jackson, a columnist for the Boston Globe, asked Clinton about the irony and pointed out that even as he signed the bill, the former president called the law "immoral and unjust."

"Was the law a mistake?" Jackson asked.

In response, Hillary hemmed and hawed about the political trading her husband had to do to get a crime bill passed that put more police officers on the street.

"There were some unfortunate compromises . . . one in particular that has come to symbolize the disparity and unfairness in the criminal justice system," Clinton acknowledged. "As a matter as practical politics, we might not be able to get from where we are from 100-1 to parity. We might be able to get to 10-1."

OK, so she says the bill was a result of compromise, and the resulting sentencing disparity could realistically be reduced from 100-1 to 10-1. Not very satisfying from a progressive point-of-view.

The journalist who actually asked her the question penned his own column:


That vacillation became evident as he kept talking about crack-vs.-powder sentencing, which has come to symbolize racial injustice in criminal justice. He said that if he were to become president, he would support a commission to issue a report "that allows me to say that based on the expert evidence, this is not working and it's unfair and unjust. Then I would move legislation forward."

That was a puzzling statement because the US Sentencing Commission, created by Congress in 1984, has long said the system is not working and reaffirmed in April that the 100-to-1 ratio "significantly undermines" sentencing reform.

Obama asked if he could make a "broader" point. "Even if we fix this, if it was a 1-to-1 ratio, it's still a problem that folks are selling crack. It's still a problem that our young men are in a situation where they believe the only recourse for them is the drug trade. So there is a balancing act that has to be done in terms of, do we want to spend all our political capital on a very difficult issue that doesn't get at some of the underlying issues; whether we want to spend more of that political capital getting early childhood education in place, getting after-school programs in place, getting summer school programs in place."

Obama suggest that it might not be prudent to spend political capital on the "very difficult issue" preferring to focus on issues that are more likely to attract broad consensus like early childhood education.

The journalists's take:


By asking an open question about spending "all our political capital" on eliminating the 100-to-1 ratio, that raises the possibility he will spend little or none on it. By talking about a "broader" prescription of early childhood school programs -- which means nothing to a 17-year-old in jail-- Obama risks flashing a losing card of being nonconfrontational.

What is more "progressive?" Suggesting that a reduction, but not elimination is politically feasible, or suggesting avoidance of a difficult issue in favor of the broader issues (ones that Clinton hardly ignores)?

At best, Obama is suggesting an incrementalist approach that is identical to Clinton's.

Anyone can work w/ the opposition on issues that are not controversial.

And w/ respect to the abortion issue, the logic he uses in response to sentencing disparities can easily be extended to focusing on the "broader issue" of reducing the abortion rate while not investing political capital in the "difficult issue" of coverage under universal health care.

by dblhelix 2007-08-26 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu
What is more "progressive?" Suggesting that a reduction, but not elimination is politically feasible, or suggesting avoidance of a difficult issue in favor of the broader issues (ones that Clinton hardly ignores)? At best, Obama is suggesting an incrementalist approach that is identical to Clinton's.
Well... no. At best he's suggesting a different approach that is better than Clinton's and at worst he's suggesting a different approach that is worse, but he does so without ruling out that very approach Clinton follows. Obama's response was to say there are different ways to cook an egg, and one might stand a chance of lesser mess.

My question above was fairly straightforward... Obama has supported progressive policies both in word and in practice. Your statement I quoted suggested that one might not be inclined to give him credit for policies he vocally supports and compromise away. I responded: One should do no such thing when there is no evidence he will compromise away his position- Obama should be given due credit for his stated positions.
by Casuist 2007-08-26 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

At best he's suggesting a different approach that is better than Clinton's

Better how? She is equally aggressive when it comes to youth opportunity/childhood education -- she's been doing it for 35 yrs!

Obama should be given due credit for his stated positions

If bipartisan cooperation is a centerpiece of his campaign, it's a fair question to ask how the "very difficult" issues will be handled. Yes, I believe that Obama would like abortion services to be covered under his plan. No, I don't believe that his working relationships with Coburn, Lugar etc will facilitate this -- and that was the point of my original comment.

by dblhelix 2007-08-26 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

They don't understand how "legislation" gets pushed through.  It is called "working together", but they would prefer this bickering "since the 90's" to continue.

by caroline becker 2007-08-26 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

However, it is Hillary who wanted to amend the constitution to ban flag burning

Simply not correct, which is why she voted against Hatch's amendment, which failed by only one vote.

Here is the vote.

You may be referring to a statute against flag-burning under restricted circumstances (damaging federal property or inciting violence) -- which was put up to counter Hatch's legislation by Dick Durbin and strongly supported by Clinton, Republican Bennett, Barbara Boxer and others. Obama voted for it, but the measure lost 36-64.

by dblhelix 2007-08-26 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

You need to work a little harder.

Hillary voted along with Rick Santorum, COnrad Burns, Jim Talent,

Just click on the roll call to see how wrong you are.

The WSJ article 100% supports my post.

I'll have to take your word on "Want a Flag." However, I see that frequently on congressional web sites -- it's for constituents to request flying a flag over the capitol.

by dblhelix 2007-08-26 10:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

Go get a flag from Hillary:

Cooldude, that's a standard constituent offering. My rep has the same page, as does yours.

This was the Flag Protection Act that Hillary cosponsored.  I was wrong, it was the Utah senator Bob Bennet who created this Act

Exactly. Others like Boxer co-sponsored and Obama voted in favor as well. The whole point was to get a bipartisan group together to craft something to put up against Hatch's flag-burning amendment to the Constitution.

In fact, Dick Durbin had things he wanted to add to it, so he took over lead sponsorship in the 109th (Cohen's editorial refers to the end of the 108th). Ultimately, the Flag Protection Act was Durbin's baby.

The only senator I recall that was in favor of Cohen's position (no compromise) was Feingold, who voted against both Hatch's amendment and Durbin's (w/ HRC, Bennett, etc as co-sponsors) Flag Protection Act.

BTW, I am not affiliated with Hillary's campaign.

by dblhelix 2007-08-26 11:41PM | 0 recs
Pretty ridiculous diary

Obama may think he can find some common ground with Coburn on some things such as coal, but even the suggestion that any of the above would be included in that, is pretty ridiculous. And not supported by anything in his record or in his statements.

I support Edwards but this kind of post is so obvious and just plain wrong. Smear tactics, cheap trash. The article doesn't even mention Obama. So guessing when you say presumably, it must be you doing the presuming.

I doubt even Limbaugh would post this kind of pure inuendo bullshit. Or maybe he would and then you would have another story to link to and post here.

by okamichan13 2007-08-25 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

Why Jerome let this idiot have a front page weekly post  I will never understand.   GeorgeP has an interesting article some times, this person is just terrible... I'd like to think they have some blackmail on Jerome and he doesn't actually think HWC's hack writing is any good... but who knows.

by yitbos96bb 2007-08-25 11:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

This is the first time I gave out a '1'. Under the new guideline, you certainly deserve one, bully.

by areyouready 2007-08-26 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

I rated you as I agree. Each of his diaries has been deeply offensive as to their substance, and I am not sure what this new rating is, but it seems odd that it would include not being able to say when someone's comments are offensive.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

Beyond the pale comment.  I am sure Jerome would agree.

by georgep 2007-08-26 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

The Hillary trolls have made these boards close to unreadable.

by TomGilpin 2007-08-26 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

Right, yitbos96bb with his name calling and accusations is fine and dandy.

I'd be a lot more open to such comments if people weren't so obviously partisan about it.

Name calling by a Clintonite is somehow worse then name calling by anybody else.

And somehow if one Clinton supporter says something, it reflect back to every Clinton supporter.

While being insulting to Clinton supporters is never even discussed. That is always perfectly fine. Riiiight...

by Ernst 2007-08-26 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

I'm not referring to name calling. I'm referring to terrible posts like "Yeah, but he sings a mean Kumbaya". (I don't intend to pick on that particular post - I could easily come up with a hundred posts that are as bad or worse, given a couple horrible hours of research.)

(1) Hillary supporters do not have a monopoly on these posts.

(2) There are certainly Hillary supporters here who don't post crap like that. For example, I generally enjoy reading georgep's posts.

(3) Nevertheless, a solid majority of these content-less posts are written by a few Hillary supporters. It's sad, because they are slowly ruining what was once a wonderfully high standard of conversation around here.  

by TomGilpin 2007-08-26 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

By the way, on the merits I'm ambivalent at best regarding Obama's actions here.

I support politicians working together to the extent that such work benefits the country. My hope is that all of this "working together with a few good Republicans" schtick is a form of political jujitsu comparable (in tactical/strategic terms) to Reagan's co-opting many prominent Dems in the 80's. Pushing progressive ideas further into the political mainstream is a good thing. Obviously, as we've discussed on this site often, many such ideas are already well within the ideological mainstream of voting Americans.  

That said, the whole thing smacks of Broderism to me and I can't say I'm big on it.

by TomGilpin 2007-08-26 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

It all depends on how it's actually done. Broder is a fool and a hack, but only because he is always so spectacularly blind to the faults inherent to the system so he thinks it always the best system. It's clear that it is not. But sometimes in limited doses it does get results. Knowing when to use it and when not can lead to good results.

by Ernst 2007-08-26 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

I agree completely.

by TomGilpin 2007-08-26 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

It's basically one person consistently and another 2 occasionally. That is 2 maybe 3 diaries a day tops. How on earth could that constitute a solid majority of content-less posts? How can that make this site unreadable? it's a statement impossible by mere numeracy. It's a perception bias.

And I'm sick and tired that Clinton supporters are made out to be the bogyman. It's the Clinton trolls who ruin MyDD! While a quick view at the statistics show that Clinton supporters at this site are pretty average. You've got some good ones, you've got some bad ones, just like you've got good and bad Obama and Edwards supporters. But because Clinton is so disliked here Clinton supporters are presumed trolls until proved otherwise. And I'm sick of it. The worst rating I've got has been a two. Yet daily I'm addressed multiple times as if I'm a bad guy, demeaning this site by merely being for Clinton. Both personally and in general. And people get uprated again and again for saying that.

So yeah. perhaps I'm overly sensitive. But when somebody says that the 2 or 3 dairies are worse then the dozens of diaries that also have no content at all but are for another candidate, I'm pretty skeptical.

And as for individual comments you seem a reasonable guy and perhaps I shouldn't vent this at you but your comment just rubbed me the wrong way. I'm just very tired about how everybody is spending all their time attack a whole group over one or two  users while half to a full dozen other posters are just as bad but overlooked because they are not for Clinton.

by Ernst 2007-08-26 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

That's a fair and earnest reply, but I strongly disagree with you.

(1) I don't care how many users are responsible; I care about the number of crappy posts I have to wade through to get to something meaningful. annefrank wrote a silly, content-less post on one of the recommended diaries (hillary=dynasty, etc) but in comparison the Hillary-bots in question are indefatigable in their dumbassery.

If you have statistics that prove otherwise, I'd seriously consider that argument.

(2) I am always happy to read informed, considered pro-Hillary stuff. In fact, I think that is the most unfortunate aspect of the current situation here. The Hillary-bots are turning me (and, potentially, others) off to a candidate who remains, in my opinion, leagues better than anybody the Repubs might nominate.

(3) There are currently five recommended diaries here.

One is written by a Hillary supporter with the following sig:

"On national security, Hillary sounds like JFK, GOPers sound like Bush on steroids, some other Dems sound like Carter on Prozac."

The first response to that diary, by another Hillary supporter, is:

"Good Info, man. Yeah She is taking a lot of incoming fire both from within the camp and from hostile forces , but I am confident She can weather the stone. We are in for a long 4 months of intense battle and in the end others will be the casualities." (too many sics to include them all)

A second of the five recommended diaries, written by desmoinesdem in an earnest tone, received the following response from a Hillary supporter:

"Do you know how childish this is. C'mon desmoinedem you should know better. This is getting a bit ridiculous."

A third of the five is this ludicrous diary. Is it fair to criticize Obama for reaching out to conservative Repubs? Of course. Is it fair to laundry-list wacko positions of Tom Coburn and then state/imply WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that those are "some . . . views that Obama presumably thinks he can accommodate in the spirit of bi-partisanship." Of course not. It's appalling.

I've briefly discussed a majority of the currently recommended diaries. My position that a solid majority of obnoxious, content-less posts come from Hillary-bots is pretty defensible. Again, the worst thing about this stuff is that it demeans a good candidate. The second worst thing is that it demeans a good forum.

by TomGilpin 2007-08-26 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty ridiculous diary

By the way, many more than three Hillary supporters recommended this travesty of a diary. It's not just three Hillary supporters who comprise the problem.

by TomGilpin 2007-08-26 05:25PM | 0 recs
I don't see a problem.

Remember the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act?  Obama and Coburn have worked to together to require full disclosure of all organizations receiving federal funds, despite Coburn's obvious insanity.

If Obama can work with and share a mutual friendship with someone as crazy and conservative as Tom Coburn (Coburn has praised Obama and called him a friend in the past), I think it speaks very strongly to his message that he can unite the country and get things done.

by Namtrix 2007-08-25 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't see a problem.

THANK YOU.

Coburn is bat-sh!t crazy, but the bill he and Obama put together was brilliant.

Too bad HWC and Lori and the rest these small-minded Clintonistas have zero vision...

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 05:06AM | 0 recs
Obama

HWC you complain a lot about crap posts, but yours are the worst.  You incinuate and lie in attempts to impose your views on people no matter how misfigured your words are.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-08-25 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

I didn't single out Coburn. Barack Obama did.

"There are some very capable Republicans who I have a great deal of respect for," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The opportunities are there to create a more effective relationship between parties."

Among the Republicans he would seek help from are Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, John Warner of Virginia and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Obama said.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/2007082 6/D8R8E7GG0.html

I'm thinking maybe Obama has targeted Coburn as an ally in the effort to change "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Anyway, I know that those of us in favor of the progressive agenda on social issues can only look forward to the prospect of Coburn taking a leading role in Obama's vision of bi-partisanship.

by hwc 2007-08-25 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

I think you're being impractical and silly.  They're not going to work together or agree on everything like you seem to imply.  Chances are they aren't going to see eye-to-eye most of the time.  The point is, when they do see eye-to-eye, like on the issue of bringing accountability and transparency to our government, Coburn is someone Obama can work with.

by Namtrix 2007-08-25 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Of all the Republicans in the Senate, why did Obama single out Coburn. I mean, he could have named his other mentor, Joe Lieberman.

I'm thinking may Obama has spent so little time in the Senate that he just doesn't know many of the Republicans' names. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

by hwc 2007-08-25 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

He singled out Coburn because they both say they're friends and they've worked together in the past.

by Namtrix 2007-08-25 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

That's not the problem, you go on to say Obama's going to push Republican policies as a president because he prefers bipartisanism over progressivism.  Which is a lie.  

Along with "Obama chickens out of the debates" Something you had no evidence for, but kept pushing.  

Someone posted a diary about three people wanting to argue with Vilsack over supporting Clinton, and you kept saying they were Right wingers, when there was no proof either way.  

And someone posted a diary on a Clinton office in Fargo and you said "The guy must be lying."  When of course, there was no proof either way.  

You continually tried to spin things your ways with lies and claims you had no evidence for.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-08-26 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Re:  The fargo office issue.

Are you saying you actually BELIEVED the guy's "letter to the editor" which ended with the remark that he is working for the "Obama for president" campaign when he stated that he saw 3 field workers cry because they have been "abused"?

All I can say is that I am baffled that you actually buy into stuff like that.  

by georgep 2007-08-26 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Well has there been a response by the Clinton campaign?  That would be rather telling.  

Also, abused could mean verbally.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-08-26 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

And someone posted a diary on a Clinton office in Fargo and you said "The guy must be lying."  When of course, there was no proof either way.

Better check the videotape on that one. I've not even posted on that diary, let alone said the guy must be lying.

by hwc 2007-08-26 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

Isn't Tom Coburn the guy that said " the internet is a series of tubes "

by lori 2007-08-25 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

No, that's Ted Stevens, the crazy old man from Alaska.

by Namtrix 2007-08-25 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

oh ok , that guy was funny.

by lori 2007-08-25 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu
when will the rumors  all over the internets of some
sort of " Graceful Exit " from Iraq , come true.
by lori 2007-08-25 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

lots of crazy old men from alaska it seems!

by sepulvedaj3 2007-08-26 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

Coburn did him one better. The OK problem of lesbians in bathrooms.

by dblhelix 2007-08-26 08:49AM | 0 recs
Talk only to those you 100% agree with?

Sounds like Clinton's diplomatic approach.

by horizonr 2007-08-25 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Talk only to those you 100% agree with?

Look thats just a flat out lie and you know it , I am not going to be diplomatic here.

Stop spreading misrepresentations. You should know better than that.

by lori 2007-08-25 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Talk only to those you 100% agree with?

Talk to hwc. This diary is complete and utter bullshit.

by horizonr 2007-08-25 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Talk only to those you 100% agree with?

hahahahahaha

(is your post supposed be be ironic?  cause it is...)

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Talk only to those you 100% agree with?

Take a little look int he mirror before saying someone is misrepresenting your candidate. This diary is doing exactly that. I am not an Obama supporter, but this diary is silly.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 07:03AM | 0 recs
Flamethrower

Obviously, Obama is naming Coburn -- whom he calls "probably the most conservative member
of the U.S. Senate" -- to make a point: "If I can work with this guy, I can work with anybody."

These kinds of diaries -- and this is not the first from you -- call into serious question your
front-page "status." Certainly, they bring no credit to your candidate.

by horizonr 2007-08-25 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Flamethrower

What is Obama going to work with Coburn on as President?

Ending the war in Iraq? Health care reform? Gays in the military? Abortion rights? Education?

I'm serious.

by hwc 2007-08-25 10:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Flamethrower

no on issues like one he did in the senate......didn't Hillary work with tom Delay on foster care? the Hillary hypocrates are at it again!

by nevadadem 2007-08-25 11:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Flamethrower

So when Clinton agreed to work with Ginrich on healthcare issues as I remember, you are saying she should not have done so because of why? This diary is beneath even you. It's saying we don't have to get shit done. Then again maybe that's the point- I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but what exactly is the problem with him using another Senator in the legislative process to get something done.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Flamethrower

Obama co-sponsored a Senate bill with Coburn, mandating a searchable public Internet database of
federal spending. It was Obama's first piece of legislation after arriving in the Senate.

Surely, you aren't so partisan -- or are you? -- that you can't acknowledge this as a worthy initiative,
just because it has Coburn's name on it.

In any case, what Obama actually said recently about Coburn -- as quoted in the AP article that you
obviously couldn't be bothered to cite, reference, or link -- is: "I would also seek out people like Tom
Coburn, who is probably the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate. He has become a friend of
mine." [emphasis mine]

Obama's point: Given the right issue, he has a demonstrable record of being able to find common ground
and build trust even among people whose politics are generally diametrically opposed to his.

On a deeper level, he was highlighting the fact that political adversaries -- like all people -- are always more
complex than you think; that people can't and mustn't be caricatured, pigeonholed, and written off.

Indeed, in citing Coburn, Obama was saying that a strong leader recognizes the basic fact of human complexity --
recognizes that it's politically irresponsible and naive to treat people in a simple-minded, set-'em-up-and-
knock-'em-down way, because, in doing so, one misses opportunities for progress that always are available,
even in the most unlikely places.

Obama mentioned Coburn to assert that, as president, he will be more tireless than any other presidential
candidate in "seeking out" these opportunities, getting things done, and moving the country forward.

by horizonr 2007-08-26 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Flamethrower

The point is that ONCE AGAIN Obama is trying to make his bi-partisan mettle stand out when what he really should be doing is shore down his partisan base, which he has neglected to do.   He can do as he pleases, but then those of us who have seen him trend more towards bi-partisanship than taking the DEMOCRATS' side have a right to state that that is what he constantly does.  It has made me into a believer that, while he is at heart more left-of-center, he would govern as a centrist and would cave into more legislation the GOP wants to offer or "re-write" than I care to see happening.  

by georgep 2007-08-26 08:20AM | 0 recs
good for barack

score one for the illinois senator.
by pmb 2007-08-25 10:30PM | 0 recs
HWC, I see your post

has offended some people.  But, I have to agree with you. I'm deeply offended by anyone endorsing Cobrun.  Warner, and Lugar, fine.  A president could find alot to work on vis-a-vis national security with those two, but Coburn?  This is a man who steralized women w/out their consent.  I understand he's trying to make the point he can work with conservatives.  But this partcular conservative is extremely offensive to alot of people.

by bookgrl 2007-08-25 10:43PM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

I'm trying to figure out what Obama and Coburn could work together on. Maybe a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

by hwc 2007-08-25 11:14PM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

Please stop pretending to be ignorant.  You know that isn't going to happen, and you know that there are a lot of common sense, nonpartisan issues that Republicans and Democrats can come together on.  That's what Coburn and Obama have done in the past and will be able to do in the future -- and that's Hillary has also done with people like Delay and Gingrich.

Let's stop the foolishness here and be honest for a change.

by Namtrix 2007-08-25 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

You know that isn't going to happen, and you know that there are a lot of common sense, nonpartisan issues that Republicans and Democrats can come together on.

Can you give me three of Obama's stated priorities that you think Coburn will help push through Congress...on a bi-partisan basis with a spirit of cooperation, of course?

Thanks.

by hwc 2007-08-25 11:38PM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post
It's already happened
by Casuist 2007-08-26 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

these poeple that say that thye support HILLARY make such crazy arguments that I am actaully starting to wonder if they are Edwards or Obama people trying some wierd reverse Physcology shit. I can't imagine stuff like this wins her one vote.

by nevadadem 2007-08-25 11:39PM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

It shows Obama's constant penchant to strive for bi-partisanship, even with the most conservative wings of the GOP.  We were told before that his comments towards bi-partisanship were aimed at reasonable, mostly moderate, even liberal GOPers.  If we are expanding the bi-partisanship into the deepest recesses of the right-wing conservative areas of the GOP, then that needs to be pointed out.  

I am not against working with members from the other party, but let's be honest.  How can we REALLY be working on an amicable level with the far right-wing conservative wing of the GOP?      

by georgep 2007-08-26 08:25AM | 0 recs
by Casuist 2007-08-26 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

HWC: you clearly are new to politics.

Obama and Coburn ALREADY HAVE worked together--on a bill providing for transparency in earmarks.

But I guess given all the $$$ Hillary gets from big-pharm she doesn't want to have to disclose who she dishes cash to...

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

I think I figured it out. Maybe Obama sees eye to eye with Coburn on health care?

Coburn has proposed abolishing Medicare and Medicaid and replacing them with tax deductions for buying private insurance, instead:

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cf m?FuseAction=LatestNews.NewsStories& ContentRecord_id=5041a7c8-802a-23ad-4a64 -1655de6466e9

by hwc 2007-08-25 11:20PM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

I  agree with you- he should not be lumping Coburn into senators he has a great deal of "respect" for.  He can say he wants to work with them without it seeming like he approves of the things they do, which is what that looks like- that is not good- wonder what David Geffen thinks of the respect Obama has of Coburn.  Another gaffe from Obama- this was good in concept- but he doesn't think things through- but it's also possible he forgot about the other stuff- he just seems to talk without thinking at times.  Some people find that refreshing that it's not calculated, but when you end up offending a bunch of people because of it, it's not so refreshing to me.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-26 02:16AM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

I noticed none of the male defenders here responded to my point.  Again, I get the bipartisan thing, and Warner and Lugar, that's great.  But, Coburn is so offensive to me, and many other people, that I think Obama probably could have made his point without mentioning him.

by bookgrl 2007-08-26 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

Is all that you see gender? Seriously this guy is also a racist, but you wouldn't see me walking around saying no one should ever work with him if some great good will come out of it. By your view, we should not do anything but-for it will be with people we find distasteful. There are a lot of Republicans I find disgusting on race and sexuality, and yet, I still do expect our Congress people when it comes to getting shit done to not just that as a basis for action. if its on gay issues, I would expect them to fight the GOP again. If they agree on healthcare or something else, I would expect that. As I point out above, Clinton worked with Ginrich on issues- was that wrong too? What about allt he Senators who helped passed DOMA- should we not have ever worked with any of them after that too?

by bruh21 2007-08-26 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

He's not merely a sexist. He preformed procedures on women to steralize them without their consent.  I said, I don't mind the bipartisan stuff at all.  Warner, Lugar, whatever, I honestly don't care.  I just would not have thrown his name into the mix of people Obama would work with, but if you read both of my comments you will see I said it is not such a big deal, just something I am uncomrforatable with.

by bookgrl 2007-08-26 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

bookgrl. I know what he did. I supported his revival during the election because of it. and it wasn't just women- it was women of color. which there is a long history in this country with this particularly reprehensible act.

that being said- that's not the point. i am glad you realize that although like you - it makes my skin crawl- i understand its going to sometimes be necessary to deal with the devil to get legislation beneficial to the american people done.

now if someone said obama compromised his values, that would be a nother story.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: HWC, I see your post

I agree this isn't a big deal since Obama did not endorse Coburn's actions, I just think he should have left him out of the names he mentioned.  That is just my feeling.  But, like I said, it is not such a big deal.

by bookgrl 2007-08-26 07:55AM | 0 recs
Obama is for working with repubs too

accomplish his progressive goals when they intersect in addition to trying to amintain personal friendships to make the atmosphere less poisonous, Hillary is for legitimaizing Republican fear tactics and perceptions about thier "edges" for her own political advantage while stigmatizing her own party in the process. Hillary plays on our fears of the big bad right wing all the while surredering on issue after issue in order to be seen as "responsable". One candidate wants to sell our message to others while the other wants to be seen as our party's only hope for power regardless of the consessions made in the process.

by nevadadem 2007-08-25 11:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is for working with repubs too

Less poisonous. Tom Coburn? Have you ever watched him in a Senate hearing on C-SPAN? I've seen spitting cobras that were less poisonous.

by hwc 2007-08-25 11:12PM | 0 recs
this is even by Hillarybot standards

the most ridiculous, disengenous diary ever, Even Are you ready's stuff isn't as patently ridiculous.

by nevadadem 2007-08-25 11:11PM | 0 recs
oh and by the way a SENATOR AND

PRESIDENT's job is to try and find things to find common ground on, Coburn is a nutcase but the people of Oklahoma elected him and he is a senator if there is agreement on something your damn right to work with him, just like Hillary and Delay did on foster care.

by nevadadem 2007-08-25 11:16PM | 0 recs
Re: oh and by the way a SENATOR AND

I know Obama wants to work with Coburn. He said so.

My question, to those who know Obama well (his supporters) is WHAT are they going to work together on?

by hwc 2007-08-25 11:21PM | 0 recs
Re: oh and by the way a SENATOR AND

how about looking at what they have worked on..........perhaps something similar.

by nevadadem 2007-08-25 11:36PM | 0 recs
Re: oh and by the way a SENATOR AND

You know, I agree this isn't a big deal.  But, as a woman, Coburn is the worst of the worst.  I don't care about getting earmarks posted online, but I do care about women who are sterilized without their consent.  

My point is, Lugar, Warner, I'm totally with you.  These are good people even if they are Republican. But, Coburn, is for me, almost a monster.  I don't think he should even be serving in the Senate after what he did as a doctor, so maybe this wasn't the best guy for Obama to highlight.

by bookgrl 2007-08-25 11:54PM | 0 recs
Re: oh and by the way a SENATOR AND

And what if its healthcare related next time such that it would somehow increase healthcare for women?

by bruh21 2007-08-26 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: oh and by the way a SENATOR AND

I'm lookin' for some help from the Obama supporters. I've looked at Coburn's voting record. I can't find anything that a Democrat could work with him on. He's voted NO on every single piece of Democratic legislation: abortion, S-CHIP, Pell Grants, ethics reform, environment.

Help a guy out. I'm not the Obama expert. What does Obama have in mind when he singles out Coburn as one of the 50 Republican Senators he most wants to work with?

I'm asking a serious question.

by hwc 2007-08-26 12:00AM | 0 recs
Re: How about ethics issues

since that is what they have worked together on in the Senate.

The 'Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act,' also known as Obama-Coburn Bill, created a "Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans."

http://obama.senate.gov/press/060908-sen ate_passes_c/

The two Senators also worked together to "crack down on no-bid contracting at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)"

http://thehill.com/the-executive/obama-a nd-coburn-revive-effort-to-stop-no-bid-f ema-contracts-2006-09-14.html

Senator Obama has made good government one of his major issues.  As crazy as Senator Coburn is on many issues, he is also concerned about ethics and fiscal responsibility.  Sen. Coburn voted against the ethics bill because it was too weak.

"Instead of exposing and eradicating secretive pork-barrel spending the bill has created new ways to hide that spending. The bill, Coburn said, makes earmark disclosure voluntary, not mandatory. Also, the requirement of 67 Senate votes to suspend the earmark disclosure rule was changed to 40 votes -- less than a majority.  The language prohibiting a Member or staff from promoting earmarks from which that individual personally would benefit was eviscerated completely. So was the provision prohibiting a Member from trading votes for earmarks. Coburn was also angry that the provision requiring a Member to disclose earmarks on the Internet 48 hours before a vote was changed to "as soon as practical." Other provisions of the bill were weakened as well, limiting the quantity of disclosure and transparency required of politicians and defeating the original purpose of the bill."

http://www.aim.org/guest_column/5682_0_6 _0_C/

The only thing worse than actual ignorance is faking ignorance.

by WellstoneDem 2007-08-26 01:58AM | 0 recs
Re: How about ethics issues

silence from hwc...you actually use FACTS, and that dumbass (and yes, i mean DUMBASS) doesn't know what to do.

hwc may be the single most ignorant and disingenuous poster on this entire site...

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: How about ethics issues

I note that people are rating people down using the rating system. Look, I don't know what these new rules are, but the fact that this system doesn't include a way to rate someone such as hwc who is engaging in an obvious manipulation of facts (not just that I disagree with him as to their impact, but a manipulation of fact) if condoned by this site will bring it down. People used to come here for some amount of honest debate. Where someone  leaves out facts that they know will damn their position isn't a sign of a desire for open debate. Now, I don't know hwc's intent, but I do know that this poster is correct to point out that ignorance of the particulars here especially given the inflamatory nature of trying to use guilt by association is not acceptable. At the very least, before posting hwc should have looked all of it up. the fact he did not is a sign of poor judgement at best on his part. We have got to be able to talk about these things

by bruh21 2007-08-26 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: How about ethics issues

Look, very simple:  The above poster used a personal INSULT.   Simple as that.  He could have made his point without it, but, as is way too often the case, he had to use a personal insult of a fellow poster to "make his point."   To me that shows a poverty of argument, and personal insults that are beyond the pale ("dumbass" certainly qualifies) will be downrated until the offenders finally stop using them.  

by georgep 2007-08-26 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: How about ethics issues

he got angry,a nd rightly so at the manipulativeness of this diary, which above you are defending. i understand his anger. any system that reflects a bias towards allowing hwc to post manipulative (at best) diaries that do no include all the relevant facts isn't a system that's going to do anything but make things worse here.

i've been over the open left and talk left. they are simply better written because posters such as hwc aren't allowed to as far as i can tell simply make shit up with out context of circustmances etc. this again maybe okay with you, but it lowers the value fo coming here for many people. i dont intend to let you or others stop me from coming here.

i know you dont care about that because its abundantly clear you aren't able to be objective. i am not even an obama supporter, and i have made it clear I have serious reservations with obama's why can't we all just get along sctick, but this diarist didn't write anything bout that. it wrote bout the normal give and take of the legislative process, and more importantly as this person points out- didn't even bother fo find out the substance of what obama was working on with the senator in question.  thats why its a hit piece rather than something that someone should respond to with respect.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: How about ethics issues

Then WRITE "This is a hit piece" and be done with it.  Or write something that constitutes a rebuttal of the points made.    Getting "angry" is for the birds.  On a BLOG?   I detect a sort of herd mentality you are seeking.   It is ALL in the eye of the beholder.  I have seen diaries that appear (from what your definition seems to be) very manipulative, which includes several of your diaries.  I personally view many posts poorly, very biased.  But that does not give me the right to troll rate you.  Unless you actually show anger and engage in name calling, which is a violation of the stated rules.  

The rules are the rules.  If you don't like them, tough.  It is certainly not up to you or me to impose rules here.   We can all just work together to make sure that the existing rules are abided by.  Since name calling is not within the rules' guidelines, your defense of the above name calling shows bias.   But, since you did not engage in any name calling in your post, said bias is not objectionable to me to deserve any type of downrate.   That is how this stuff works, and I commend you for taking the first step in "agreeing to disagree" without the cheap name calling that is detrimental to the site.   I don't mind you calling me "biased" (I feel the same about your posts,) but calling names like "dumbass," "idiot," or even threaten violence is way beyond the pale and should be condemned.  Yes, even by you, who agrees with the SUBSTANCE of the poster's argument.    

by georgep 2007-08-26 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: How about ethics issues

my point is- and perhaps this is because I am a lawyer- I understand the rules can be manipulated. here for example a diarist can quite knowingly or should have known post a diary that leaves out vital facts and not be considered trolling, and yet the result anger over the leaving out of the facts can be labeled as trolling.

as jon stewart said during the swift boat of kerry to ted koepple when discussing modern journalism- such a system allows for people to easily manipulate it.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: How about ethics issues

I find your post wrong headed.  Let me explain why:  The diarist made his feelings known.  It is up to you to rebut the diarists' assertions with logical arguments.  If those exist, then the other side of the argument will make complete sense to most observers.  That is how this stuff works.  This is an open forum.  You can use your wordsmithery to debunk claims made.  Then all arguments are there for all to read and nobody can be "manipulated" in any way.   Simple, and very effective.  

by georgep 2007-08-26 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: How about ethics issues

no george- as the saying goes- the diarist is entitled to his own opinion, not his own facts. the dispute here is over him having left out vital facts for which any of us can come to reasonable judgement as to whether his opinion is right or not.g iven the nature of the facts left out, it's clear this diarist meant this as a hit piece. its indefensible, and yet, here you are defending it anyway. And thats what is pissing people off. You call that anger, even when right, trollish. I call it realistic. You can't walk into a crowded room and yell fire knowing full well there is no fire, and then complain because peo ran over you. If trolling only requires us to look at the peo running over you without regard to what you did to create the incident, then its practically a useless term for understanding whats productive and unproductive behavior.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: How about ethics issues

A strange definition of "trolling."   Leaving out facts?  I think you are letting the experience here get to you a bit too much.  If "leaving out facts" was the troll threshold, 95% of the diaries here would not exist.  I have seen two-line diaries aimed at Clinton which can be classified as hit-pieces, but certainly not trolling.  In fact, if vital facts are indeed missing, why not write a post that "fleshes" the fact portion out?   That would be a valuable way of dealing with diaries you don't like.  Or simply ignore them.  

by georgep 2007-08-26 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: How about ethics issues

i stand by my assessment of the diarist.

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 09:37AM | 0 recs
To The Author

You forget.

When Clinton teams up with Republicans, it's cause she's triangulating and selling out Democrats.

When Obama teams up with Republicans, it's cause he's inclusive and wants to heal America.

Don't forget that, OK.

Walk the Line!

by Edgar08 2007-08-26 01:14AM | 0 recs
Re: To The Author

I guess circumstance and context doesn't matter for you? I say that only because your post is so broad in its generalites without regard to circumstance or context.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: To The Author

You are 100% correct, Edgar.    Good observation.  

by georgep 2007-08-26 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: To The Author

this is an example of what i mean. what exactly are agreeing with. this person made a generalization about all obama supporters or whoever and you say its a good point? come on- thats what i mean about non constructive activity here masquerading as such. all this person did was to blow off steam- just as the person getting angry did above- but in your mind, this person is constructive (because you agree) and the other person isnt? its like i told annefrank- there has to be limits and that is based on objectivity- she can be over the top too. thats my point here, and you as a now front pager should be aware of that, but you don't seem to be.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: To The Author

He made a general point that I agree with.  I don't understand why you assume to want to tell me what to "think."

I personally find it hypocritical that Clinton is bashed for "triangulation" when the same intent and actual work (Coburn and Obama have worked together on legislation) is seen as something extremely positive.  It does not compute, appears to be bias of the highest order.  

by georgep 2007-08-26 09:29AM | 0 recs
Triangulation is Caving In

Triangulation is giving up parts of the progressive agenda for expediency - the most obvious example of this is Bill Clinton's tax cuts (although I agree with you that Hillary Clinton isn't much of a triangulator).

What Obama did isn't triangulation - the bill the two of them worked on (which you can read about here: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001 485.php )sacrificed nothing and, indeed, is a perfect example of a bill I think many of us would like to see more of.

by JWR 2007-08-26 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Triangulation is Caving In

The poster outlined a larger point, one that has been discussed many times, is not restricted to Coburn.  Obama's calls for bipartisanship while simultaneously chiding Democrats for being a major part, at times even THE biggest part of the problem is seen as "visionary" and "forward looking."   Illogically Hillary is called "triangulating" when she is less inclined to work with those on the far fringes of the GOP than Obama.   Even you have no argument to put forward that addresses Hillary Clinton's day-to-day work in the Senate, only something from the past.   That is what the poster was addressing here, and I think he is absolutel correct with his statement.

by georgep 2007-08-26 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Triangulation is Caving In
Without having cited a specific example in which Obama has actually compromised progressive principles, the "point" is restricted entirely to what you have read into his statements on the matter.
Illogically Hillary is called "triangulating" when she is less inclined to work with those on the far fringes of the GOP than Obama.
Hillary is most often referred to as triangulating with respect to specific instances of stating a moderated policy position. Obama has worked with Coburn to the benefit of progressive policy positions... and you and the rest of the Clinton supporters in this thread are completely ignoring such specific examples.

This "far-right" fringe slam isn't going to fly. We have specific examples of it working to enact good policy... unless you have examples to the contrary it seems experience would suggest that working with Coburn on bipartisan legislation is a good thing. Voting him out of office would be a better thing.
by Casuist 2007-08-26 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Triangulation is Caving In

the poster misuses facts- its plain and simple, and you are defending it. if he wanted to make a larger point he could have done so without leaving out facts that dampened his arguement. you are now going beyond merely saying ignorance to saying its okay for posters to deliberately misrepresent facts for the purpose of making some larger points. if thats the standard this site will go down hll fast.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Triangulation is Caving In

Well, I could not disagree more with your comments.  But that is ok.  This site is not there for all of us to be herded into one direction (the one you like) or all to sing kumbaya.  Everybody is free to disagree with comments made, and then voice that disagreement in meaningful and respectful rebuttals within a diary.  I think the direction you seem to want the site to go into would bring the site to its knees, which is why admin addressed the issue today.  I am not surprised you disagree with the way this has been handled by the administrator, because it obviously preempts the type of content attack you seem to think as important to a site (when in fact it is totally useless.)      

by georgep 2007-08-26 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Triangulation is Caving In

this site is also not here for intentional lying either. and when someone omits facts that's lying.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Triangulation is Caving In

No, it is not intentionally lying.  I think you are running overboard with these accusations.  You have not laid out a case for said accusation, just levelled that accusation for the heck of it.   I don't think it is something that should be acceptable on a responsible blog.  MAKE A CASE, state why you disagree.  All I have seen has been hyperventilating without substance.   That is what IMHO makes these comments so biased and, frankly, predictable.  

by georgep 2007-08-26 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Triangulation is Caving In

others have leveled the case throughtout this thread that hwc left out critical information by specifying the critical information. when confronted with that information, hwc continued to ignore it as irrelevant. thats proof that its intentional.

he then spun it as well but its still triangulation. why would my proof given such tactics matter to you? what makes you predictable and others is that you claim you want proof, but the thing is, when given proof you claim it doesn't prove what it proves, or say it doesn't matter, or you engage in misdirection (I mention Clinton's unfavs you mention Obamas or edwards) etc. i've seen clinton supporters do it in several diaries at this point.  In another diary, I am now being asked to prove that Rupert Mudock isn't a far right wing benefactor and shouldn't be trusted as to why he would give money to Clinton. What proof am I given that I am wrong? Well, people's behavior, accorrding to bowie, isn't proof of their intent. This is the level of discource upon which you are asking me to provide proof.

so when i say that i dont want to waste  time playing the proof game with you its due to experience of my having tried in the past and watching others try and fail to get through the wall of denial. i've tried it on the gay rights issue, the lobbying issue, the healthcare issue (which you personally called substantiveless) and several others.  i can't argue with denial anymore than i can with belief.  if i am predictble, it's because the people I argue with keep using the same tactics over and over again.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Triangulation is Caving In

Just post your thoughts and be done with it.  We are all just posting our opinions.  I realize that you disagree with opinions.  I do as well.  But the idea is to explain why you disagree, not to constantly complain.  It is distracting from discussion, and in some instances it tends to hijack good discussion altogether, which is a shame.   Relax, have fun with this blogging stuff.  State your case, let others state their case.  It really should not matter HOW others frame their argumentation.  If you disagree, write an intelligent post that makes the opposite case, then move on.   Why all this "talk" about process?  Just enjoy.  

by georgep 2007-08-26 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: To The Author

triangulating is different from working with those across the aisle.

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisa

hahaha...hwc is silent--you give this dumbass (and yes, i mean DUMBASS) actual facts and he/she doesn't know what to do...

hwc is the single worst diarist on this site--ignorant and wholly disingenuous.

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 05:14AM | 0 recs
The Gipper's Second Coming

Barack O'Reagan strikes again!

by BigBoyBlue 2007-08-26 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

haha so when HRC works with conservatives or anyone in the GOP side, she's "not a real progressive" "republican lite"

When Obama works with a wingnut "its fantastic" "if he can work with Coburn, he can work with anyone"
Its just magical

ho-hum

by sepulvedaj3 2007-08-26 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

Tell you what- since some of you along this thread are just now makign stuff up- point out when someone said "when ever" HRC does it rather than on the specifics of when she does it. I am not an Obama supporter by the way. I just find some of this - well manipulative at best.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

ahh bruh21

When ever - that is manipulative --> it leads to the impression that its EVERY time she works on something with a republican, which is not what i said. I never said it was all inclusive.

Lets not kid ourselves, Hillary has crossed party lines to work on many different issues, and because of that people label her a centrist etc. You know that, dont make believe you dont.

The fact is that HRC has worked across party lines since she's been in the Senate, Obama has a few times as well. This isnt a new concept. It is hypocritical though when Obama supporters think this is a brand new type of politics, yet criticize HRC for doing the very same thing.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-08-26 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

"It is hypocritical though when Obama supporters think this is a brand new type of politics, yet criticize HRC for doing the very same thing."

I am not an Obama supporter. I don't believe in this whole unity for unity sake stuff he believes in. That being said, your post is still bogus.

It's bogus because you ignore context and circumstances. People are criticizing HRC over specific actions and like I told hwc the other day- I am glad you said centrist rather than moderate. I am a moderate, what Clinton does has nothing to do with moderation. It has to do with triangulation. Now, is Obama guilty of that as a politician? Sure. But the degree and circumstances under which he does it- and more importantly-t he question of whether that applies here under the specific circumstances (which is what i would always look at) matters.

The diarist never posts what we are supposed to be just offended and horrified at. Simply that we are supposed to be horrified. if someone said something about clinton without giving the specifics, or in the case of one diary that i denounced try to do guilt by including an onous supporters of hers, then you would see me argue against it. What I don't do is spin or manipulation. People aren't calling clinton a centrist due to her going out and helping on an issue such as the one being raised here- can you tell me what the issue is that OBama supportered Coburn on?

by bruh21 2007-08-26 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

I think you are missing my point.

My point is that sometimes Obama supporters, especially on here, criticize HRC solely based on the fact that she has worked with republicans, but now since Obama is doing it, its fabulous. Thats before you jumped in on my comment. I never said you were an Obama supporter.

also, Obama hasnt done much with Repugs in the senate, he just happened to work with Coburn on transparency in federal funding, and he's using that as a springboard. Why mention Coburn? Because Obama hasnt been in the Senate long enough to get a lot of legislation through, so he HAD to mention Coburn because thats one of his bipartisan bills.

Lastly, your questions are quite patronizing and not appreciated.

Can you tell me where you did that?

by sepulvedaj3 2007-08-26 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

good luck. lately i have decided to stop argument with certain personality types on here. one fo which is the attribution types- "well what we are doing here i sokay because i attribute it to everyone else." okay, if you think thats a good argument- whatever, but I am not going to continue to argue with it.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

yea - just like the lincoln bedroom argument you defended

by sepulvedaj3 2007-08-26 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

again- context- what was there a lie in that thread?  your inability to deal with what they did or you ability to spin it as 'thats what everyone else does' not with standing, it was still based on all the facts on the table. did the diarist here give all the facts? was there any information left o ut? whose  benefit was it for that they let someone stay in the bed room? were they passing legislation that would help the american people by doing that or rewarding someone? as i said, i am not a supporter, bu tmany of you here on this thread are full of it.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

Like it or not, you have to work with these people if you want to accomplish anything. Working with someone doesn't mean giving them what they want or changing who you are. Anyone who has ever worked in the civic sphere knows what I'm talking about.

Obama is famous for his ability to work with people he doesn't agree with and get things accomplished.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-08-26 07:25AM | 0 recs
Link?

Will you link to where he said that?

Generally, when these questions are asked, the question refers to Republicans that have worked with, not who they would work with as President.

That said, Obama and Coburn have worked together on an important piece of legislation regarding government accountability, as many have said above - this legislation was supported by most Democrats, and got good reviews on the frontpages of both DailyKos and this site.

So yes, Coburn is wrong on 97% of issues, but that doesn't mean Democrats shouldn't work with him on the other 3%.  This diary is a little misleading, at best...

by JWR 2007-08-26 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Link?

please stop using facts to support your argument...few people left on this site understand such logical reasoning...

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Link?

This is my continuing frustration with this site. Honestly, I am not sure how much longer I will stay  on it. Not because of candidate advocacy but because of people honeslty making shit up or leaving shit out. hwc is a front pager now, and that suggests to me that maybe the leadership here doesn't care about this sort of leaving facts out. I am still hoping that I am wrong.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Link?

re: hwc's front paging...jerome is not exactly the most objective of editors...

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Link?

I provided the link to the AP story. Here's the specific quote where he specifically cites Coburn as someone he would "seek out" to work with as President:

Obama said. "I would also seek out people like Tom Coburn, who is probably the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate. He has become a friend of mine."

What I am trying to understand is whether Obama's highly touted "bi-partisanship" extends to compromise with Senators like Coburn on important issues like gay rights, abortion, gun control, Iraq, etc. or whether Obama is simply refering to the fact that he is friendly with Republican Senators. As a voter trying to assess the Democratic candidates, I don't really care whether they are friendly with Republicans or not. I'm interested in where they intend to lead the country. Frankly, compromise with Tom Coburn on virtually any issue is not something I could endorse.

by hwc 2007-08-26 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Link?

The only link I see is to the story about how Tom Coburn is insane (which is a good piece, BTW).

by JWR 2007-08-26 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Link?
Frankly, compromise with Tom Coburn on virtually any issue is not something I could endorse.
So the Katrina and Federal Funding Transparency legislation are things you oppose?
by Casuist 2007-08-26 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Link?

and lets be clear- you just got through writing a diary in which you endorsed on the front page a candidate supporting the war in order to try to win the presidential nomination. frankly what it sounds like you are doing is spinning like a top, but aren't very good at it. this again as i keep saying isn't the msm or low information voters. you should respect your audience better than you do here with some of the arguments you try to make. especially for a guy such as yourself saying we are the far fringe left who disagree with you.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation
Funny, given that Obama requested that the DLC NOT include him in their list of supporting legislators...
by Casuist 2007-08-26 09:49AM | 0 recs
Thanks for the info Sen. bill S2590

You can surely understand the concern about Obama's pledging to work with Coburn.

I'm trying to figure out if I can vote for Obama in the general election. He has virtually no record on the national stage. He talks about bipartisanship. And then singles out Tom Coburn as one of the three Republican Senators he most wants to work with. I think the concern about understanding Obama's agenda is legitimate.

Researching S2590, this appears to have been a bill pushed by the Republicans and George Bush, passed into law by a unanimous vote immediately before the summer recess in an election year. One of those "freebie" bills that gives all 100 Senators something to take home to the district from a session of Congress that accomplished basically nothing.

I think that Obama's co-sponsorship of this minor bill is fine and dandy, but doesn't shed much light on his claim that he would work with Republicans in general (and Coburn specifically) on major substantive issues. As an informed voter, I am simply looking for assistance from Obama's supporters in better understanding what agenda he might pursue should he be elected to the White House. Frankly, when I look at Coburn's positions on issues important to progressive voters, I am nervous about this call for bi-partisanship.

by hwc 2007-08-26 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: hit piece by HWC

Another hit piece by hwc on Obama. What's new.

How about Hillary's gaffe on wanting to get rid of Maliki: Maliki stated that Clinton thinks she owns Iraqui villages.

I'll side with Maliki on this one. Just read in the news that there's a large PR operation on behalf of Maliki's predecessor, Allawi, going on in the Beltway. Levin, Clinton, AND the current WH don't like the fact that Maliki asked the US to leave his country. How preposterous to first announce the victory of Democracy in Iraq and then demand the elected leader to be exchanged because he doesn't serve American interests! Liberated country, protectorate, colony. Which is it?

by BDM 2007-08-26 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the info Sen. bill S2590

the reason why your diary is a hit piece if you provided no context at all. you were trying to do guilt by association. in defense of clinton the other day, when someone tried to do that with her, i specifically argued in favor of her saying that such an approach is indefensible without context showing she supported some value reprehensible to us rather than this guy simply supported her. in the case of that diary it was some idiot in Iowa saying he supported CLinton who didn't want to pay his employees a fair wage. here, you commit the same offense but worse, and what's more you don't even admit that you did that. this is why you are wrong. the bill in question at least according to the information being added by others is an example of progressive values. that you would try to spin this as a bad thing, is telling more so of you than of the candidate.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the info Sen. bill S2590

Come on. We all know what it means when a bill passes the Senate by 100-0 and is touted by George Bush as an accomplishment by his admistration.

My question is legitimate. I admit, I have no idea what Obama would set as his priorities in the White House, except that he seems to make a big deal of working with Republicans on a bi-partisan basis. As a Democratic voter in the 2008 election, I'm trying to figure out if Obama means "bi-partisan" in the same way that Joe Lieberman does. I'm hoping that the people who know Obama the best, presumably his supporters, can point to things in his record that would reassure me of his commitment to the progressive issues important to me.

Singling out Coburn is not reassuring, in my book.

by hwc 2007-08-26 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the info Sen. bill S2590

your question is illegimate because you misrepresented the facts.  if you don't see that, then there is nothing that anyone here can post to help you see that. as i said the other day, your compass is off, and i can't help you set it right.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the info Sen. bill S2590

Obama is pragmatism personified.  He is more interested in getting the work done on progressive issues than engaging in judgmental posturing.

If you REALLY want to know more about Obama's approach to working with others, read The Audacity of Hope.

If you want more insight into him read the The New Yorker Article.

If you want some insight into his philosophy of working across the aisle read Mark Schmitt's article, Obama and the Rules--

He alone seems to have a theory about the next era of politics, not the last. His appeal to unity is not as soft or aloof as it may seem. What's most interesting about it is that he's calling for an engagement with ideological conservatism itself, rather than with powerful interests. There's a real difference between calling for bipartisanship, as Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain do, and calling for a mutual attempt to understand and respect the conservative worldview, as Obama does...

The material is out there for any of us to become informed about any of these candidates.  

by Satya 2007-08-26 11:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the info Sen. bill S2590
I think that Obama's co-sponsorship of this minor bill is fine and dandy, but doesn't shed much light on his claim that he would work with Republicans in general (and Coburn specifically) on major substantive issues. As an informed voter, I am simply looking for assistance from Obama's supporters in better understanding what agenda he might pursue should he be elected to the White House.
Well it just so happens there's a diary that hasn't received a great deal of attention...(wry chuckle)

Proliferation: Bugs, Arms, and Facile Narratives
by Casuist 2007-08-26 10:18AM | 0 recs
Such honest concern

what a steaming pile of bs.

by okamichan13 2007-08-26 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Coburn are buddies???

Let me see .... Obama is very close to Joe Lieberman (even uses his scheduler to help Michelle); Obama has private meetings with Colin Powell; and Obama considers Senator Coburn his "good friend".

It sounds pretty scary to me.

by samueldem 2007-08-26 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Coburn are buddies???

another dishonest guilt by association post. and let me just remind you given who clinton keep company with  you may not want to be living in this class house.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Coburn are buddies???

Bingo.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with a Blue Dog democrat. I might very well still vote for Obama in the general, even if he is from the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. I'm just trying to figure out who this guy really is.

I have limits to how much bluedog I can accept, particularly on issues like abortion, civil right, and preemptive invasion of sovereign countries.

by hwc 2007-08-26 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Coburn are buddies???

Do you really think Obama is from the "conservative wing of the Democratic Party"? And this is coming from a centrist Hillary supporter? How can this even be possible?

There are a number of substantive comments above explaining that Obama has worked productively with Coburn in the senate on a number of good progressive issues--ethics and lobbying reform, for example, or the crisis in Darfur. That doesn't make Obama a conservative or a triangulator, it just means that he's willing to work with whoever it takes it to get good stuff passed. Did Obama sponsor any bills with Coburn limiting abortion or gay rights or advocating preemptive invasions of sovereign countries? No? Then why are you being so incredibly disingenuous? Is your problem that Obama said Coburn was his "friend"? Whatever happened to disagreeing with respect and with good faith?

For Obama's theory about politics and getting progressive legislation passed, laid out in his own words, I recommend the book The Audacity of Hope. That is, if you really are confused about what he stands for, and are not trying to hit him with sheer nonsense. Saying Obama is a conservative democrat is sheer nonsense.

by Korha 2007-08-26 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Coburn are buddies???

Do you really think Obama is from the "conservative wing of the Democratic Party"?

I don't know. One of the problems is that his record is so thin that we don't have much to go on. His campaign rhetoric seems to emphasize bi-partisanship with Republicans above all else. I'm trying to pin down who he really is politically.

by hwc 2007-08-26 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Coburn are buddies???

Again, I recommend the book The Audacity of Hope, more specifically the first two or three chapters. Also Dreams from My Father is just a plain good read.  

Obama's legislative record in the Illinois State Senate is anything but "thin," and the media has covered it pretty extensively since he began running for president. For examples, see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262. html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/pol itics/30obama.html?ex=1188273600&en= 8daf1ff3c658bd83&ei=5070

by Korha 2007-08-26 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Coburn are buddies???

Oh, Khora...your use of substantive information is not appreciated by the small mindedness of hwc.

He/she is a talentless hack (call me out for a personal attack...I really don't care.  come say something of substance and you'll earn some respect.)

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Coburn are buddies???

Barack Obama's wife's scheduler used to be employed by Joe Lieberman at one time, and that means that Obama and Lieberman are very close and share the same sort of politics. What a closely argued train of logic you have there!  

by Korha 2007-08-26 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Coburn are buddies???

Yes...even I can work with "my opponent" for a small agenda..

On working together on some larger issues that woudl be something.

This COBURN guy is an obstructionist; he holds up bills, demands a filibuster more than most and he would not fund Obama's healthcare, economic policies (if obama has one), civil unions.

Coburn did not even support the recent SCHIP bill...children's healthcare! GO FIGURE..."my good friend does not support children's healthcare in 2007! possibly the best thing DEMS can achieve for the good of the country.

by pate 2007-08-26 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and Coburn are buddies???

FDR and LBJ were both wheel-and-deal politicians despite having bigger party majorities than we do now, and they got some pretty nice stuff done on the domestic front. The counterexample is Bush 43, who tried to ram his stuff through Congress along strict party lines and thus ended up having his domestic agenda flounder in utter failure (anyone remember Social Security reform?). Some approaches are simply more effective than others in terms of getting things that you want to pass, passed.

by Korha 2007-08-26 11:25AM | 0 recs
Where is this coming from?

I find this diary entertaining given the political diatribe HWC was on the other day - HWC continues to view things with Hillary colored glasses, with no consideration for the broader state of our party or our nation.  Be it election ethics, Florida, Nuclear Weapons, Losing to the R's after a Terrorists Attack, Bipartisan legislation - all have a double standard when it comes to Hillary.

HWC's comments:

"To decry political horsetrading is to reject bipartisan government. You give me this one that I need for my voters back home and I'll give you that one that you need for your voters. It's the essence of democracy and it's the been that way since the founding fathers hammered out a system of government signed off on by two regions of the country that share absolutely nothing in economic interests.

The reason that our goverment has become so polarized is that there hasn't been enough horsetrading."

"Horsetrading is not ethical corrupt or getting down in the mud. Just the opposite. It's glorious.

It's how you take two people who disagree and figure out a way to craft a win-win negotiation. It's the ultimate expression of democracy."

"That's how democracy works. Find areas of agreement and then horsetrade the rest of it. Take horsetrading (or "politics") out of the equation and democracy grinds to a screeching halt."

" And that has been the way politics is done since the founding fathers sat down to write the Constitution, which itself was document crafted on the principle of "you scratch my back on this point, and I'll scratch yours on that one".

That's the basis of a democratic form of government. Nothing gets done without horse trading.

Now, maybe a young bright-eyed politician, two years removed from the statehouse, can change the very nature of the American democracy.

But, I doubt it."

by CardBoard 2007-08-26 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Where is this coming from?

Perfect. Good work pointing out the wanton hypocrisy on display here.

by Korha 2007-08-26 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Where is this coming from?

Actually, my initial diary about Coburn was to call into question the hypocrisy of Obama supporters who are eager to paint other candidates as "Bush-Cheney lite" or "Rebublican-lite" for their efforts to work across the aisle.

BTW, it should be noted that, in the Republican congress from 2000 to 2006, any Democrat whose name was attached to a bill had to have worked across the aisle. Republican committee chairs don't let Democratic bills out of committee.

by hwc 2007-08-26 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Where is this coming from?
Clinton is not criticized for working across the aisle, her "policies" are questioned. You are failing to show how Obama's bipartisanship has compromised his policy, despite several examples to the contrary and invitations to read into his quite substantial record...
by Casuist 2007-08-26 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Where is this coming from?

I see nothing whatsoever in this diary that talks about the hypocrisy of Obama supporters, or in most of your comments. It is all about how Obama is a "conservative" that is going to sell out the Democratic agenda to "bipartisanship," and that you're looking for people to "reassure me of his commitment to the progressive issues important to me."

by Korha 2007-08-26 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Where is this coming from?

I asked a simple question, and a reasonable question given that Obama is not well known and his record is relatively slim:

What does Obama means when he singles out Tom Coburn as one of the three Republican Senators he seeks to work with as President?

Since working with Republicans is the cornerstone of Obama's campaign, this is most certainly a legitimate question for Democrats trying to learn about a candidate who is new to the national political stage.

by hwc 2007-08-26 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Where is this coming from?
and you were already given a simple answer: government transparency... Obama has already worked with Coburn, and you may have noticed he didn't compromise any principles in order to do so.
by Casuist 2007-08-26 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Where is this coming from?

Hillary is Bush-Cheney lite for advocating policies that have failed this country.

It has nothing to do with being bipartisan.

(And, for the record, bipartisanship and triangulating are two different things...)

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 02:31PM | 0 recs
Come on people
Senator Clinton works with the likes of Newt Gingrich, Lindsey Graham and Bill Frist. No one in here complains. The art of politics compromise. Get over it. If you do not compromise nothing gets done. Anyway I am still railing from her bipartisan flag burning bill. J/k.
by TennesseeGurl 2007-08-26 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Come on people

None of those individuals steralized women without their knowledge.  

This isn't the biggest deal but I am startled by people who defend Obama throwing Coburn's name out there.  

by bookgrl 2007-08-26 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on people

No in some cases they have done far worse even if they kept their hands clean in doing it.  frist one healthcare for example.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on people

The lawsuit accusing Coburn of sterilizing a patient without her knowledge got thrown out of court.

by Korha 2007-08-26 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on people

Newt served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital getting chemo

(Do we really want to have a debate on this level?  Com'on!)

by Dem in Dallas 2007-08-26 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on people

Senator Clinton works with the likes of Newt Gingrich, Lindsey Graham and Bill Frist. No one in here complains.

Actually, the netroots complains vigorously about Hillary Clinton working with Republicans. Some even suggest that Democrats are just as responsible for Iraq as Bush/Cheney. Other's call Democratic candiates "Republican-lite".

I'm just seeking clarification. Either it's OK to work with right-wing zealots like Tom Coburn or it isn't.

The sense I'm getting from Obama defenders is that it's OK for Obama to work with wingnuts, but not for other Democratic presidential candidates.

Which is it?

by hwc 2007-08-26 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on people

I'm just seeking clarification. Either it's OK to work with right-wing zealots like Tom Coburn or it isn't.

The sense I'm getting from Obama defenders is that it's OK for Obama to work with wingnuts, but not for other Democratic presidential candidates.

Which Obama defender is saying this? Really, point to some examples.

Obviously it is OK for Hillary Clinton to be working with Republicans to get progressive bills passed, and in fact I applaud her for doing it.

by Korha 2007-08-26 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on people

My feeling is that it's good for all Democrats to work with Republicans when we don't have to give anything up to do so (as is the case with the bill Obama and Coburn worked on), but not when doing so involves sacrificing Democratic ideals.

I don't know the circumstances of Hillary's collaboration with the three men the poster above mentioned, so I have no opinion on them - but just as I feel this diary is unfair, I don't think it's fair to just drag out the names of boogeymen Republicans and try to paint Hillary as an ally of theirs.

by JWR 2007-08-26 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on people

In fairness in the case of Ginrich my point was not that she did anything inappropriate- in fact it was a good thing she was trying to achieve. My problem with the diarist is his manipulation. That he conflates for manipulative purposes achieving progressive ends even if that means allying one self with a ape shit psycho like Coburn or Ginrich with allying one self with them based on policy. The debate about clinton is that she triangulates on policies, not alliances. If the debate were the former and we got universal healtchcare I doubt anyone here would care, but that;s not the issue, and hwc knows that. He's a hack who often spins things in favor of clinton even when they make absolutely no sense. I say this as someone who doesn't support Obama, but find what he is doing here groteque in its manipulation of facts and rovian manipulation of language. He knows perfectly well what triangulation, its about policies and values, but instead chooses to conflate it as about working with others to achieve progressive ends.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on people

In fairness in the case of Ginrich my point was not that she did anything inappropriate- in fact it was a good thing she was trying to achieve. My problem with the diarist is his manipulation. That he conflates for manipulative purposes achieving progressive ends even if that means allying one self with a ape shit psycho like Coburn or Ginrich with allying one self with them based on policy. The debate about clinton is that she triangulates on policies, not alliances. If the debate were the former and we got universal healtchcare I doubt anyone here would care, but that;s not the issue, and hwc knows that. He's a hack who often spins things in favor of clinton even when they make absolutely no sense. I say this as someone who doesn't support Obama, but find what he is doing here groteque in its manipulation of facts and rovian manipulation of language. He knows perfectly well what triangulation, its about policies and values, but instead chooses to conflate it as about working with others to achieve progressive ends.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

No wonder the Republicans like Obama.  He will be putty in their hands.

by Regan 2007-08-26 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

How could this get 0 rated when it's said about Hillary about 20 times a day?  Really!

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-27 06:41AM | 0 recs
What a dishonest diary

Clearly Obama wasn't saying that he agreed with Coburn on those issues.  

The person wo wrote this diary - and everybody who recc'd it  - should be ashamed.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-26 12:50PM | 0 recs
Ashamed?

I'm not ashamed.  I don't damned well like Coburn, and for good reasons.  And I don't like it when one of our Dem candidates calls Coburn his "good friend".  

I don't want a President who is good buddies with an extreme rightwing nutcase like Coburn.

by Regan 2007-08-26 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Ashamed?

I watch CSPAN while doing a lot of my work, and it seems that most Senators call their colleagues their "good friends," whether it's true or not - it's part of the spirit of collegiality that the Senate has historically tried to maintain.

So I wouldn't read anything into Obama calling Coburn that...

by JWR 2007-08-26 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Ashamed?

I don't care what he calls Coburn. I'm more concerned that, of all the Republican Senators, Obama singled Coburn out, by name, as one of the three he seeks to work with.

I wouldn't be asking the question if he had singled out Arlen Spector on the issues of constituional authority or judicial nominees.

I'm asking the question because he singled out a Senator whose view, across the spectrum, are from the ultra right-wing fringe of Republican party. I cited the examples because, again IMO, seeking the death penalty for doctors performing abortions is a pretty extreme position. I don't want the next President to seek bipartisan compromise with those particular views.

by hwc 2007-08-26 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Ashamed?

But if Coburn is good on issues of legislative accountability, why shouldn't Obama want to work with him in that sphere?

by JWR 2007-08-26 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Ashamed?

It's not about bi-partisanship, it's about post-partisanship.  People still try to insist on seeing Obama through the old frames which don't apply.  Bi-partisanship seeks compromise with a nutcase like Coburn.  That is not what Obama is about.  What he's saying is even with people as far right as Coburn, there are issues where you can agree, like transparency in government, and where if you don't demonize him in general you can work together for the common good.  You look for those areas and you mine them, and you don't involve him in the others.

by Piuma 2007-08-26 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Ashamed?

Oh, you mean "triangulation"?

by hwc 2007-08-26 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Ashamed?

No not triangulation.  What I mean is Coburn, for all his faults, is vehemently opposed to earmarks and he and Obama came together to pass into law the requirement that earmarks and their sponsors be listed publicly. That is good for all of us.  That is the first step toward truly cleaning up Washington.  That is an area where working with a nutcase, not compromising with him, resulted in the passing of a bill which is part of the progressive agenda.

by Piuma 2007-08-26 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Ashamed?

I feel the opposite.  A person who can't be friends with people of completely different opinions is, to me, someone laking in a certain personal honesty.  I'm friends with a raving lunatic right-winger and our political views are a point of teasing as well as friendly yet intense fighting. But someone who isn't capable of that is someone I don't trust to uphold our personal freedoms especially when they cross into moral values.  To support a woman's right to choose even if personally opposed to abortion, to be for equal rights for all  requires an openness of spirit.  Someone who is not able to be friends with a nutcase is the person I don't want to be President, not the other way around.

by Piuma 2007-08-26 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Ashamed?

I'm not examining the Democratic candidates from the perspective of their ability to be friendly. I'm examining them from the perspective of having the experience and political skills to make progress on items of the progressive agenda that are important to me.

by hwc 2007-08-26 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Ashamed?

There is not a single person running who has a longer progressive biography and has accomplished more on progressive issues than Barack Obama.  Simple fact.

by Piuma 2007-08-26 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: What a dishonest diary

Clearly Obama wasn't saying that he agreed with Coburn on those issues.

Really? What was he saying in singling Coburn out as a potential ally? What agenda items does Obama think he can work with Coburn on? It's a legitimate question.

by hwc 2007-08-26 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: What a dishonest diary

And it's been answered for you several times.

by Namtrix 2007-08-26 01:48PM | 0 recs
Stopping no-bid FEMA Contracts.

Or is that something you are for?  Perhaps you think no-bid FEMA contracts are good for the country and part of the progressive agenda.  I don't. Obama doesn't, and this is an area where Tom Coburn is in complete agreement with Obama.

by Piuma 2007-08-26 02:35PM | 0 recs
Here is a point of agreement

Link

By William Neikirk - Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON -- Teamed with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, Sen. Barack Obama has scored the biggest legislative victory of his Senate career on a bill to establish federal searchable databases of all government contracts, loans, grants and special-interest spending commonly known as pork.

Coburn of Oklahoma and Obama (D-Ill.) overcame the secret opposition of two powerful Senate veterans, Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), partly because Internet bloggers on the left and right tracked down and disclosed that first Stevens and then Byrd had stealthily put holds on the bill.

As I recall, Senator Clinton voted in favor of this legislation, but I could be wrong.

by Bill White 2007-08-26 07:37PM | 0 recs
Whats wrong with bipartisanship?
The ability to compromise means you can get things done. If you don't want to compromise no disrespect to the diarist but that means you probably vote for the diarist candidate. That candidate might be a real partisan which is pretty common in Washington. Most people I know do not want what's pretty common in Washington. I believe what it truly comes down to is that Americans want the same things good schools, great jobs, great neighborhoods and a chance to have a good life. We Democrats and Republicans just go about finding solutions in different ways. I live in Memphis, TN and we have urgent needs here. Like poverty and unemployment. Some of you may live in different parts of the country that may not have the same needs. As a person who lives in a city where poverty is a great concern I personally prefer to get rid of the childish partisanship and get things done.
by TennesseeGurl 2007-08-26 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Whats wrong with bipartisanship?

this diary is a lie because its not even about obama compromising progressive values. its about himw orking with a wingnut who we hate to achieve. i support edwards, but i cant imagine anyone having a problem with that. thats not the point of being partisan. the point is to do so to achieve progressive ends, but for hwc its ab out personalities and my team versus there. neither edwards or obama as far as i can tell are arguing that. edwards point is that we cant assume aren't going to have to hit the ground fighting, but i can not imagine he would say lets not take an easy win when we got one. nor would clinton despite this diarist dishonesty

by bruh21 2007-08-26 02:53PM | 0 recs
Tom Coburn

For as crazy as Tom Coburn is, he is also one of the best Senators when it comes to fighting against wasteful government spending and holding Senators accountable. That's why Obama singled him out.

by Unabridged 2007-08-26 06:22PM | 0 recs
Requiring the fed budget be google searchable

is simply a good sensible non-partisan idea that was co-sponsored by Obama and Coburn.

Only lobbbyists can oppose this:

By William Neikirk - Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON -- Teamed with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, Sen. Barack Obama has scored the biggest legislative victory of his Senate career on a bill to establish federal searchable databases of all government contracts, loans, grants and special-interest spending commonly known as pork.

Coburn of Oklahoma and Obama (D-Ill.) overcame the secret opposition of two powerful Senate veterans, Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), partly because Internet bloggers on the left and right tracked down and disclosed that first Stevens and then Byrd had stealthily put holds on the bill.

Transparency in government! What a concept!

by Bill White 2007-08-26 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Requiring the fed budget be google searchable

He also worked with Coburn on limiting no-bid contracts for Katrina Relief, and worked together on toughening up ethics legislation to bar negotiations of future employment when lobbying Congress.

Man, good governance and limiting government waste!  What wing-nuttery!

Perfect example of good bipartisanship.  

Go THOMAS search for bills sponsored/co-sponsored by Obama/Coburn, and sift through the pro-forma stuff.  You'll find the bills they've worked on together are quite substantive, and quite good.  And a President Obama would have a trusted Republican ally with conservative cache to be his point man with the GOP on lobbyist and ethics reform in the Senate.  

Oh, the horror...

by mopper8 2007-08-27 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

thanks for this diary, hwc, i've learned a lot.

by jello 2007-12-09 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama seeks bipartisan accomodation with Repu

shoot, i missed the time period allowed to recommend it.

by jello 2007-12-09 07:11PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads