Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-02-20 at 11.46.30 AM
The greatest.

***

  • ***

********


« Whoops, A Rather Glaring Contradiction, Going Unnoticed | Main | They're Not Talking Points: It's Simple Reality »

February 04, 2008

Comments

beamer

so the bush legacy may well be the rejection of bushism&repuglicans-how nice.

ThomasMc

Obama has all but promised to let the Republicans get away with all their crimes against democracy. Hillary would just continue those crimes, herself.

As a liberal, I can no longer vote for a Democrat, the distinction has just become too great.

Realist

While I remain skeptical that Obama isn't just another corporatist sell-out, I agree that people have had it with divisive politics. Staunch Republicans I work with in the real world can see many of the problems caused by Bush even if they still can't see voting for a Democrat. This understanding is the key to building a consensus aimed at repairing the damage of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton era, but as yet I see no candidate even taking up this issue - although I will admit that Obama comes closest to doing so.

It may be that the nation will have to settle for the termination of the RBC era, and leave the repair to a subsequent president.

Mary

Interesting news: Axelrod, Obama's campaign chairman , was a consultant for Exelon, the nuclear energy company that Obama claimed to be upset about leaking hazardous materials, but later Obama rewrote the legislation so that Exelon --the corporation--got everything it wanted.

Essentially, he did exactly what Bush would have done: gutted the regulatory part of the legislation, making it "voluntary," which meant nothing changed.

And THEN, the Exelon boys contributed THOUSANDS to Obama's campaign.

Sounds JUST like Dubya, doesn't it?

Mary

Another important fact that PJ doesn't tell his readers:

Obama's main economic advisor is FOR privatization of Social Security.

It's why Obama has been falsely claiming there's a "Social Security crisis."

The contradictions in Mr. Obama are very very troubling, indeed.

HateBothParties

Obama wanted to invade Pakistan and is firmly under the thumb of the pro-Israel lobbies, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)

Until we stop attacking other countries we cannot begin to address our domestic issues.

The REAL anti-war/ pro- Bill of Rights candidate, Ron Paul, who, by necessity, will have to work with the Democrats and Republicans, so thus would never get to pass a pure libertarian agenda, gets my vote tomorrow.

orangutan

The positions listed on Obama's web site are remarkably pro-free trade. Tax cuts (for the middle class) are promised, with no mention of future tax policy for the rich. No mention of the defense budget.

Will

I think Barack may be able to clobber McMad in November. Why? Because on the one hand you have an a young guy backed by his base and very appealling to independants; while on the other hand you've got an old guy not backed by his base and mildly appealing to indepenants. If Hillary gets the nod, the advantage would switch hands...

judec

For the record, Obama has said repeatedly that he does not favor privatizing Social Security. What he has said, is that he wants enough funds in the program to cover baby boomers when they retire. As I am a part of that generation, I appreciate his concern. Clinton fans may remember that Bill talked about this all the time, but never got it done.

Also, Obama never said he wanted to invade Pakistan... sheesh! Obama did say, that if he had intelligence on Bin Laden's location, he wouldn't wait for permission from Musharraf to go after him.

If Mary is suggesting that we hold Obama responsible for every idea or job held by his advisors... should we do the same with Hillary, then? And what about the Clinton Library? Should we find out where the funds came from, and what the donors got in return? Good Idea, because they gave lots of money to Hillary, too!

Some people must be getting their news from Hillary's campaign.

Mary

With all due respect, judec, it is Obama who is campaigning as the new type of Democrat, clean and pure---no PAC money, against "special interests," a "new day."
Yada yada yada
But when studied closer, Obama appears to be no different than those he sneers at. Rezko, Exelon, Axelrod, Lieberman as a mentor, support for more free trade agreements, support for all war funding even though he got elected in Illinois promising not to, campaigning for Lieberman instead of the Democratic nominee, on and on.
Yes, Obama is held to a different standard because that's part of his schtick: claiming he's different.
Talk is cheap. Upon further study, he's NOT different.
He's not a srong progressive at all.
Like his Senate mentor, Joe Lieberman, Obama's definition of "bipartisanship" means capitulating to corporations and Republicans to "get along."
Democrats would be wise to study his actual record more studiously, and forego the starry-eyed college idealism.

The comments to this entry are closed.