Obama's Patriotism Speech Stresses Life Story, Criticizes MoveOn
Barack Obama delivered a big speech on patriotism today in Missouri in which he sought to do something that John McCain has done extensively with his war service throughout this campaign: Define patriotism through the prism of his own biography.
"For me, as for most Americans, patriotism starts as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for country rooted in my earliest memories," Obama said, according to the prepared text.
Obama then directly faulted the notion that the window dressing of patriotism -- such as the now-infamous flag pin -- constitutes the genuine article.
"I'm not just talking about the recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Thanksgiving pageants at school or the fireworks on the Fourth of July, as wonderful as those things may be. Rather, I'm referring to the way the American ideal wove its way throughout the lessons my family taught me as a child," Obama said, recounting his grandfather's World War II service and other episodes.
But Obama also appeared to be distancing himself from some elements of the cultural left, attacking a key ally, MoveOn, over the "General Betrayus" ad, which Obama skipped a vote to condemn last year.
Obama has often argued that he's unencumbered by the political baggage of the 1960s. In this speech he appeared to be trying to reinforce this view, but with a twist, attacking what he called the "so-called counter-culture of the sixties" as a way of preempting any future efforts to associate him with the allegedly anti-military and anti-American sixties left...
Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself -- by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views -- these caricatures of left and right. Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America's traditions and institutions. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments -- a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.
Full text after the jump.
On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists - farmers and merchants, blacksmiths and printers, men and boys - left their homes and families in Lexington and Concord to take up arms against the tyranny of an Empire. The odds against them were long and the risks enormous - for even if they survived the battle, any ultimate failure would bring charges of treason, and death by hanging.
And yet they took that chance. They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty. The idea of God-given, inalienable rights. And with the first shot of that fateful day - a shot heard round the world - the American Revolution, and America's experiment with democracy, began.
Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots. And at the beginning of a week when we celebrate the birth of our nation, I think it is fitting to pause for a moment and reflect on the meaning of patriotism - theirs, and ours. We do so in part because we are in the midst of war - more than one and a half million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; over 60,000 have been wounded, and over 4,600 have been laid to rest. The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce. It is natural, in light of such sacrifice by so many, to think more deeply about the commitments that bind us to our nation, and to each other.
We reflect on these questions as well because we are in the midst of a presidential election, perhaps the most consequential in generations; a contest that will determine the course of this nation for years, perhaps decades, to come. Not only is it a debate about big issues - health care, jobs, energy, education, and retirement security - but it is also a debate about values. How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties? How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests? How do we ensure that in an increasingly global economy, the winners maintain allegiance to the less fortunate? And how do we resolve our differences at a time of increasing diversity?
Finally, it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is - or is not - a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged - at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.
So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.
My concerns here aren't simply personal, however. After all, throughout our history, men and women of far greater stature and significance than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates. Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French. The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule. Likewise, even our wisest Presidents have sought to justify questionable policies on the basis of patriotism. Adams' Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese Americans - all were defended as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic.
In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic. Still, what is striking about today's patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s - in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders o
And here's the link to the video:
http://thepage.time.com/obama-speaks-on-patriotism-john-mccain-and-valuing-service/
June 30, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
flufferwink, that link to Mark Halperin's blog at Time magazine has only about a one-minute clip. Need more video.
C-SPAN only has up Barack's speech to NALEAO (they call it NALEO) yesterday.
June 30, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like how Obama's mind works. I've said the same thing for years. The vast majority of Americas, across the country, are reasonable people. We may not agree on everything, but overall we can agree a lot more often and come together to accomplish goals without various hardliner ideologues, culture warriors, and pyromaniacs on various sides inflaming issues.
No more hippies, no more hicks.
We have real issues to solve and we can't keep playing out these tired cultural ID games. And that's just what they are: identity GAMES and ego trips, when we have so many important real problems to solve.
I find the consistent problem with ideologies on both sides is intellectual laziness. A preference for easy and clinched answers one's peers would cheer, rather than the courage and intellectual honesty to look at issues again with fresh eyes.
To me, one of the most inspiring examples of people coming together is the emerging solidarity between reasonable conservationists in the scientific community, who are non-ideological and willing to reach out to others for common purpose, and members of the Religious community, Christian denominations and others but primarily Christian, who embrace their responsibility to Shepard the planet. They're coming together around a shared reverence of the majesty and mystery of nature as well as an understanding of complex ecosystems, interdependence, and the possibilities of discoveries benefiting man based in species which may be unknown or obscure today.
June 30, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
" I'm not just talking about the recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Thanksgiving pageants at school or the fireworks on the Fourth of July, as wonderful as those things may be."
The thing that struck me the second he said this was, he points to these as "patriotic" things he remembers from his childhood and the base of his party is fighting to take 2 of the 3 away from kids in school today. Amazing!(probably all 3 once someone decides fireworks put out too much CO2).
June 30, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hadn't heard that. When have they done this?
June 30, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Examples? Links?
Because otherwise you are just talking out of your ass..
June 30, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where have y'all been for the past 15 years? The 9th Circuit outlawed the pledge a few years back...and try throwing a "Thanksgiving Day" pagent...you can have a "Fall Festival" but Thanksgiving is entirely too religious probably racist too.
June 30, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're confusing Halloween with Thanksgiving on the Fall Festival thing, and that's because of the churchy types. Wrong wing.
June 30, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's safe to say that there aren't Thanksgiving pagents or Christmas Holidays at most elementary schools in the Blue States.
June 30, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I saw this on South Park so it must be true.
June 30, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christmas? Huh? Is that from another speech?
It's "safe to say" that this conversation might have proceeded better, had you supported your claims somehow.
June 30, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I have a job, supplying you with links to common knowlege like the 9th circuit ruling on the pledge doesn't pay too well.
June 30, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a civil, reasoned argument isn't worth having, then why are you here to begin with?
June 30, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I pointed out what amused me about the speech. Then civility apparently went out the window. The 9th circuit ruled a few years ago, everyone should've heard about it, I didn't realize that required a link to back it up.
June 30, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You argued that the 9th circuit has "outlawed" the pledge. As my cohorts are arguing below, posting a link about the 9th circuit decision doesn't support your argument.
June 30, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, if you read the post I said "base of his party is fighting to take 2 of the 3 away from kids in school today. Amazing!(probably all 3 once someone decides fireworks put out too much CO2)."
An example was the 9th circuit's ruling several years ago and another article from San Francisco I linked to. I didn't say anything became a law because that would require the rest of the county to be as nutty as the bay area.
June 30, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is silly. At 3:40, you wrote, "The 9th Circuit outlawed the pledge a few years back."
I can see this is going nowhere. Till next time.
June 30, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
They did...the Supreme court reversed them...stay with me.
June 30, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
For God's sake people! How many times do we have to say it! "DON'T FEED THE TROLL!"
June 30, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC Wallace is a far more interesting and entertaining entity than the typical troll, so I say, feed him/her!
June 30, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks
June 30, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 9th Circuit didn't outlaw the pledge, they ruled that the phrase "under god", which was added in 1954, was unconstitutional. The Senate, which had a fair number of Democratic members at the time, voted *unanimously* to affirm the pledge (including the "under god" part).
You sir, are a shameless liar.
June 30, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently his "job" is trolling TPMC.
June 30, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish, it's definately more entertaining.
June 30, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sorry, I have a job, . . ."
Hey boyo, if you are doing this on duty time you're wasting the taxpayers' money and cruising for an Article 15.
Unless the Army is paying you to try to jam this site with nonsense . . . .
Just so you know.
June 30, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC (Ret)...
July 1, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace says:
"I think it's safe to say that there aren't Thanksgiving pagents or Christmas Holidays at most elementary schools in the Blue States."
I don't remember and Thanksgiving Pageants, and I've been around a long time. I rememebr Thanksgiving symbols being hung in classrooms, and being taught about Thanksgiving, but that's all. And as far as Christmas Holidays in Blue States, I know of NO schools in blue states that DO NOT have Christmas Holidays. Actually, schools in blue states are closed from Christmas Eve till after the New Year.
What bubble are you living in?
June 30, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check the calendar...that's a "Winter break"
June 30, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Montgomery County, MD, about as liberal (and as Jewish) of a constituency as you will find, says "Holidays-Christmas":
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/calendars/future/
June 30, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace says:
"Check the calendar...that's a "Winter break"
Those aren't "winter break" decorations in all the schools, they're Christmas decorations."
And no one in the schools is greeting anyone with "Merry Winter Break".
This guy is easy; NEXT!.
June 30, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's start taking a poll.
False for Wisconsin.
June 30, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sergeant First Class Wallace:
You are utterly "Nuts" (to quote Gen McAuliffe (of the 101st fame) regarding T-Givings pagents in "blue States" or "Red States" or even attempting to bait and chastise others from your keyboard with your highly prejudicial worldview. Ironically I have lived in all state categories----the deep Crimson Red of Indiana, the Lake Michigan Blue of Illinois, the perpetual battleground gray state of Wisconsin and now the Color Purple turning deep sky blue State of Colorado. Everyone has a T-Giving pagent or play---all use the theme of the Pilgrims lore---Christmas is celebrated by the dominant and majority throughout America, as is GOOD FRIDAY and the Christian Family Day known as New Years.
You are lost in your own cultural bias' as this nation moves on from the great divides of the 20th Century. We have no time this anymore, our problems are far more severe, where are looking at future famine, climate disasters like floods & great storms of our own makings, economics that are unstable because of outdated understandings and last the remnants of a bygone Oil-Economic Global Empire which you were a servant.
This is not a counter-culture schtick----it is a truth to be told. By the way....there is no universal Red or Blue State....just ask the folks in IN or IL who sit side by side....or NC & VA or CO & NM, but the blue tide of change is a coming and even you will be washed clean of that red stain of dividing.
June 30, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh, are you going loopy? I usually get some of your arguments, but not these. Thanksgiving pagents happen all the time. The issue with the pledge was "under God," not the pledge itself. You do realize that under God was added for propoganda purposes during the beginning of the cold war against those "godless" communists don't you. Also, they have christmas parties as well. Oh brother, way off.
June 30, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think it's safe to say that there aren't Thanksgiving pagents or Christmas Holidays at most elementary schools in the Blue States."
Is it the US Army you are or were a member of?
And it's "pageant," not "pagent." A lot like the word "sergeant." LOf'inL.
June 30, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Links, boyo? You were asked nicely.
June 30, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/alerts/2002/9th-Circuit-7-01-2002.shtml
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=11206
June 30, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Eagle Forum has been poutting out misinformation since before the internet. My mother subscribed to their news letter until I showed her a blatent lie in one of them when I was in High School. They quoted a song lyric as "I worship Satan", when the lyric was 'they say I worship Satan, but they are liars or they are fools. She quit subscribing to their news letters because she thought lying was unchristian.
June 30, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
...so that means the 9th circuit didn't rule that saying the pledge in school was unconstitutional?
June 30, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, just the recently added phrase 'under god'. But even that was overturned by the supreme court because they ruled that the plaintif did not have standing to bring the suit.
June 30, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say the rest of the country would go along, I said his base, what y'all commonly refer to as "wingnuts" on our side.
June 30, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the recent pew survey on religion is any indication then atheist are not the base of the Democratic party. The majority of them self identify as independents. The base of both parties self identify as Christian. It is the wing nuts who try to dishonestly portray their political enemies as godless. I hold a minority position among both atheists and Democrats because I self identify as both.
June 30, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, it originated from years of wingnut "thinking" - the Commies are godless, so the Dems must be too since they're soft on the godless Commies.
June 30, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW I am one atheist who favors leaving the 'Under God' phrase in. It offers a teachable moment where you can inform your children that they are not bound by coerced speach.
June 30, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You overlooked what others have posted, that the words "under God" were the problem in the 9th Cir., and not the pledge itself. An important detail for most, but too small for you to notice?
It was your whiskey-sodden (hero?) Joe McCarthy's ranting and paranoia that was largely responsible for getting the words "under God" put in the PoA. Not exactly a character reference, huh?
Finally, there was a Supreme Court case during WW2 holding that forcing anyone to say even the Commie, Sodomite, un-American Pledge of Allegiance (you know, boyo, the one without the words words "under God") was illegal. Do you object to that case too?
June 30, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's true that a Nixon appointee and a Bush '41 appointee on that Ninth Circuit panel issued such a ruling.
June 30, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
No..they did not rule that and you know it. They ruled that references to God cannot be forced on anyone in a tax supported venue as it violates the 1 amendment rights of those so forced. The pledge has been polluted with the God reference and that is to what they were referring. Take the God crap out of the Pledge of Allegiance and no court ruling is needed. Try as you will to paint folks as hating America just because they are not so fond of you Sarge but it wont work so well anymore. Remember, it was wingers like yourself that put the reference to God in what had been a pure oath to the USA as the USA alone isn't good enough for you. So you made an oxymoron out of OUR pledge by setting it up to mutually include dumping on OUR Constitution.
Yes I have military experience and a Silver Star . No, I am no better than anybody who doesn't.
June 30, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
wallace,
i used the google to search for 'school thanksgiving pageant'. the first page i got had a bunch of links to pics of kids doing dressed up for their thanksgiving pageants, and a bunch of whiny posts on conservative blogs complaining about not being able to have these pageants any more. you'd better come up with some better evidence, or we're going to have to bust your internet rank down to spcwallace.
June 30, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha...
June 30, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL Yer doin' it wrong. You need to try harder.
June 30, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you hate the original Pledge of Allegiance? Why do you hate seasons?
June 30, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in librul Massachusetts, and our elementary schools do Thanksgiving big time. What planet are you on?
June 30, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, I'll bet that's right! I'm guessing nobody does up Thanksgiving Pagents like Massachusetts.
June 30, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Ninth Circuit opinion of which you speak--, which is not, and will never be, the law of the land or even of the Ninth Circuit--said nothing about stopping schools from making kids say the Pledge of Allegience. It was directed solely to the law by which Congress crowbarred the words "under God" into the Pledge back into the 1950s.
You knew that, of course, but it just doesn't make liberals (all of whom naturally support the ACLU's position on every issue 100% of the time) sound evil enough when you state fact correctly.
June 30, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Steve.
June 30, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch me confuse the Sarge:
I went to my nephews school the other day up here in socialistcommieinfested New York to watch him get some silly award they were giving to a bunch of the kids, you know, one of those awards they give to boost the kids self-esteem.
But the very first thing we did, before the ceremony even got underway was to recite the pledge. Even a dirty-effing-hippy-radical-leftist like me joined in. Well ok, except for the "under God" part.
So on the one hand we have the commie tradition of giving undeserved awards to the kids (as compared to say, giving multi-million dollars bonuses to CEO's for tanking their company's stock, but that's another story) but on the other we have that fine GOP approved American tradition of saying the pledge.
So what is it? Patriotic Righty Approved School or Commie Left School?
Hint: The vp did praise TiM Russert...
June 30, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace,
the 9th Circuit's problem was teachers leading in the Pledge with the words "under God" in it.
The Rhenquist Court threw the case out stating the plaintiff, an atheist, lacked standing to sue.
The ruling did not directly address the issue of referencing God in the Pledge.
Regardless of what you may believe, the Pledge is being said by tens of millions of school children around the country, even in blue states.
June 30, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay Sarge 4 more days and you can go out in your back yard and wave your flag. OK?
June 30, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a liar.
Plain and simple.
June 30, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who me?
June 30, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard, SFCWallace, that the base is planning on taking away elementary school altogether!
June 30, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone knows elementary schools have a "librul bias"
June 30, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeh, teaching all them facts and sciences and junk. Some of them even want to teach the evilutions to kids to young to now better.
June 30, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I heard that the base was planning to replace elementary school with Sunday school. Part of the divine master plan, as it were.
June 30, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, just changing the name to Indoctrination Centers.
June 30, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's malarky wallace and you know it.
June 30, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey troll, we don't care what you have to say. Tell McCain he is wasting his money by paying you.
June 30, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
...as if McCain's people were sharp enough to pick up on that.
June 30, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What color is the sky in the world where you live? Here in this universe, no one has tried to outlaw the Pledge of Allegiance, Thanksgiving pageants or fireworks. They have been pretty busy attacking voting rights, privacy rights and a host of other basic rights. Sounds like you have the better of the deal.
June 30, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys...all I said was I thought it was funny that he listed those examples from his childhood. Be sure to watch that carbon footprint with your fireworks though...they're next.
June 30, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys...all I said was I thought it was funny that he listed those examples from his childhood. Be sure to watch that carbon footprint with your fireworks though...they're next.
June 30, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Sarge we In Hawaii are Democrats too...We also are among who served. Our Senior Senator a Liberal is a Medal of Honor Awardee.
So get of your horse.
June 30, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congrats...
July 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez Greg, haven't you been paying attention? Didn't you see General Wesley Clark's Sunday appearance and if you did, didn't you learn anything?
Your job, as a journalist, is to take a few words out of a lengthy address, twist them entirely out of context, then make a big deal about your faux outrage.
Let's take this line for example, "- the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams." Now you get outraged because Obama is going after HIS dreams and not yours! Get angry!
Or this one, "We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated..." Well why the hell not?!? Get mad! We should be deporting anyone who doesn't believe what we believe.
Just do your job, Greg!
June 30, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
um, huh?
what you talkin' about, man?
June 30, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just kidding. Making fun of the MSM for totally taking out of context General Clark's statement and showing how anything anyone says can be tweisted.
Sorry, I'm having a rough Monday.
June 30, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
hah! gotcha.
rough monday? tell me about it...
June 30, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
War has a different view from 10,000 feet.
June 30, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and a different smell.
Regardless, it still stinks . . .
June 30, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey, comments were temporarily disabled. apologies.
June 30, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Btw, it doesn't look like the whole speech made it into the block quote, unless he ended it mid-sentence with a Mr. Bill-like "oooooooooo"
June 30, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe big chunk of transcript got dropped or lost when comments were momentarily disabled. Server hiccup?
June 30, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Full text is here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG55dC
June 30, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must be "throw our friends under the bus day" at the Obama campaign.
I think Petreaus is a political hack and full of shit. Am I unpatriotic, Senator Oabama?
June 30, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The inability of MoveOn.Org to anticipate, and then counterract the predictable faux outrage generated by Republicans should make you angry with MoveOn.
What's the point of advocacy if all you do is give ammunition to your opponents?
June 30, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please, The republicans will get faux outraged at everything. I find MoveOn annoying most of the time, but I think it was refreshing to see some criticism of Petreaus, some dirtying up of the tiara that the MSM work so hard to foist on his head. Sure, they caught a lot of flack, but I think it was hilarious.
June 30, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, but it took the attention from Petraeus' actual testimony. So what was gained from this?
June 30, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is wrong, the wing-nuts generated the outrage, the mainstream media jumped on the band wagon and that's what distracted, if there was a distraction, from his testimony. This has a twofer bonus effect for the wing-nuts, because it drives a wedge between Democratic leaders and the groups that could be supporting and helping them. It also puts people like Obama in a position where the yfeel, wrongly so in my opinion, that they must reject groups like Move-On to appeal the the Middle.
This is how the Right-Wing neuters left-wing groups. Its very effective because dipshit Democrats think there is some middle of the road voter out there and by distancing themselves from groups that the Right has defined as outside the mainstream, they can get their vote. Dems fall for it every time. Obama isn't any different.
June 30, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moveon is right on the merrits quite often but they are shitty at messaging. They are the left's FOF.
June 30, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"shitty on messaging".
Thank you Larry. That said what I was trying to say much more concisely.
June 30, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not wrong. The ad was sophomoric and wrong-headed. I'm sure it was very pleasing and validating and belief-affirming for Move On's membership, but if all Move On is is about is publishing ads that make its members feel validated and vindicated, its nothing but the biggest, most expensive, circle jerk in U.S. history.
If the idea was to try to persuade, or at least induce thought, in people who don't already agree with them, then implicitly accusing a West Pointer wearing a CIB of planning to "betray" the troops before he even testified could not have been better calculated fail in that purpose.
It wasn't "shocking" to them in any thought inducing, useful kind of way. it was "shocking" the way finding your pet dead on your doorstep is shocking.
To say "betray" is a loaded word, particularly people who've served in the military--and their parents and spouses--is the understatement of the century. You cannot expect that using that word in connection with a guy whom many hold in high esteem can be anything but counter-productive. And to take umbrage when it actually turns out to be counter-productive, and massively, almost disasterously, so is just preposterous.
June 30, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"its nothing but the biggest, most expensive, circle jerk in U.S. history." 2nd biggest, it's hard to top the MSNBC evening lineup.
July 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they could have done a better job anticipating and on follow-through.
But their real sin, in the eyes of too many, was in criticizing a military commander. And that little conventional wisdom, that it's unpatriotic to criticize the military, must go away.
June 30, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree, but for once, could we get a freaking Democratic organization to be just the tiniest bit media and Republican wingnut savvy?
Just once?
That's all I'm asking.
June 30, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"predictable faux outrage generated by Republicans"
AND all the Democrats who vote like Republicans and are so very afraid that Republicans just might say mean things about them. Scary!
Aside from the silly headline of the ad, I didn't find anything 'shrill' about it. To this day I'm amazed at how many Dems apparently support Petraeus and his partisan shilling just to show how 'serious' they are about Iraq. The latest war funding vote, made over a year after Pelosi et al talked big about winding down this debacle, shows how weak-kneed they are.
In that respect, the ad was a Rorschach test. If you worried more about the headline than the content, well, that shows how much you prefer to go along to get along, than to actually solve the freakin' problem.
June 30, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And again, the news that dominated that entire episode was about MoveOn, not Petraeus, and not Iraq. So just what was accomplished by that?
June 30, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fairness to MoveOn, part of the reason the Repubes are so successful at setting the press agenda is that their leaders stand up on their hind legs and make issues of things. Josh Marshall and other have pointed this out.
In this case, Dems attacked MoveOn and kissed Petreaus's ass. They didn't step up on this one or few other issues. We need the Dem leadership to make issues out of these things. MoveOn can't do it all themselves.
June 30, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this.
June 30, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, long (mild) rant alert.
Don't forget that MoveOn ran the ad to send the message directly to readers, the news coverage, while tough, was not destructive to MoveOn, and doubled or tripled the exposure for the ad. For free.
The effect of the ad was very long-term, it was not calculated for momentary effect. MoveOn can take credit for that. The effect of the ad can be seen in how Petraeus got ZERO coverage for his testimony on Iraq this spring: nobody cared what Petraeus said the second time around, because what he was saying and doing was irrelevant. Everyone knew that Petraeus shrugged off the failure of political reconciliation in Iraq as "not my job." Because Petraeus did't give a shit about the express goal of the surge, nobody gave a shit that he claimed the surge was "working," because everyone knew the Iraqi political class are total assholes and would never solve anything. So U.S. troops have to stay in Iraq forever.
Also, because Hillary voted to denounce MoveOn, MoveOn was motivated to endorse Barack, did endorse him, and did transfer their "gusher of money" to Barack, as Hillary complained. Result: Hillary lost, Barack won, and MoveOn was vindicated.
June 30, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting points. I'm not sure that I would attribute the lack of interest in Petraeus this spring as stemming, somehow, from the MoveOn ad last fall.
Maybe, but didn't we have a pretty exciting primary going on, that sucked all the air out of the political atmosphere?
And the point about the media coverage was excellent--it was an ad that appeared for one day, and was discussed for, what, 5?
I thought Petraeus' testimony last September was particularly important. But because of the ad, nstead of Petraeus being grilled, we got fluffball b.s. about the ad. And gosh, no one could have anticipated that, could they?
In eny event, maybe in the long run, the ad did its job. But I think we also lost an opportunity there.
June 30, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
don't want to beat a dead horse, but I recall the September 2007 hearings as including quite a bit of serious "grilling" of Petraeus. Even Senator Warner popped him a good one by getting Petraeus to admit that he had no idea whether the surge was making us safer. The records of those hearings were used over and over on the floors of the House and Senate in subsequent months, so I think the Dems did manage to do serious damage to Shrub's credibility on the war. As Josh and Greg usually like to do, we could also compare Shrub's approval ratings before and after the first and second Petraeus-and-Crocker dog-and-pony shows.
June 30, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I fault MoveOn for anything, it's not for failing to anticipate Republican reaction - as you mentioned, that was quite predictable. It was the Democratic piling on that was jarring and depressing.
I myself donated $100 to moveOn after that reaction, just as a way of saying Fuck You to all those grandstanders who ended up using that ad as an excuse to continue this terrible terrible Iraq policy. I don't regret that at all.
Here it is, well over a year after we were told there were going to be some big changes to our Iraq policy. And instead, we are just as deep if not deeper into the mess than we were. Blaming the Petraeus ad now is just as much a red herring as it was then.
June 30, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, and the piling on was depressing, and also predictable.
June 30, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Aside from the silly headline" in connection with that ad is like starting a sentence about the Titanic's first voyage with "aside from the iceberg."
The headline was a goddamned disaster. It completely undermined whatever message they were trying to get across and they created, out of nothing, a massive opportunity for the GOP to distract attention from the real issue at hand.
And all because the people who put the ad together couldn't resist the impulse to channel their inner 16 year old wiseass on a quarter million dollar ad buy.
June 30, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for making my point - all distraction about the headline, and nothing about the content of the ad.
Yeah, I get it, the headline was dumb. So what? Were you personally offended, or just annoyed? Is that what has derailed the Dems approach to Iraq, and forced all those oh-so-patriotic Dems to keep pushing 100s of billions towards this ridiculous debacle? Is that why Obama has changed his mind and now considers telecom immunity acceptable? I sure hope not.
I'm sorry but you're going to have to try harder to convince me that one freakin' ad even with its dumb headline has caused so much unnecessary death and tax expenditure.
June 30, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try reading the speech again.
June 30, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where in Obama's speech does he criticize MoveOn? I don't see it in the transcript that's posted on his site. Can anyone provide the text?
June 30, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, but you're an idiot if you think Petraeus is unpatriotic.
June 30, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still can't see why MoveOn endorsed him after he refused to stand up for them in the Senate censure motion by saying it wasn't worthy of him even voting on it. However, there goes Clarke now as well as MoveOn. Now who gets the tire treads from the bus next now that Obama no longer needs them to get the nomination?
June 30, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, good. Two. We've met our quota for the bus metaphor. ;)
June 30, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
But will he back the bus up again?
(That's three!! Whee!)
June 30, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And for the record . . .
MoveOn and Wes Clark were two of Lamont's biggest supporters in his primary against Lieberman, while Obama flew to CT and publicly endorsed Lieberman, and then refused to campaign for Lamont in the general.
June 30, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dear Leader is just ticked off that MoveOn - remaining principled to the end - opined that He should keep His earlier promise and filibuster the Bush/Telecom-Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free bill.
Very naive of them, by the way, actually expecting Him to keep His promise.
June 30, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So MoveOn can criticize him but he can't criticize them? What's that about?
June 30, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
i second that
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/score-1-for-google/
June 30, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moveon practically handed him the nomination when it was most critical for the successs of his candidacy. If this is the real Obama it's a pathetic display, but my sense is that he's being given atrocious advice from, among others, that Democrat in Name Only Claire McCaskill.
June 30, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
shoulda' read your post at 3:51 before I posted by long rant. I think you are correct that MoveOn won the nomination for Barack. I still think we need the video of the whole speech to know whether Barack really did attack MoveOn rather than just defend Petraeus. It seems to me from Greg's excerpt that Barack was choosing his words carefully.
June 30, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I don't really see that as "taking on" the 60s counterculture. It's more like a fairly mild critique. I could see it upsetting some old boomers, but really it's more like attacking a strawman in order to win some brownie points with the "center" I don't think very many mainstream liberals would identify with the people being criticized
As far as MoveOn, MoveOn has always irritated me. They can be very shrill and over the top, and often don't worry to much about getting the facts right in their attacks (not that the republicans do, but still). As John Stewart said the other night "MoveOn: For 10 years making even those those who agree with is, cringe."
However, Obama is still a punk thanks to his FISA cave.
June 30, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
MoveOn, for all its membership, has been startling tonedeaf at times.
June 30, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I think Greg's over-interpreting a bit here. Also, you should look at this passage with its introduction, which Greg cut out, which I think gives it context:
I think that he's just illustrating here that you can disagree with your government and still love your country. Speaks directly to his challenging Bush's decision to take us to Iraq. I think it's also laying groundwork for building bridges with Repubs who may choose to cross over when it's time to vote. "You can disagree with the decisions that your government has made and it is not a betrayal."
June 30, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
don't blame me, i didn't vote for him (yet)........sigh........
June 30, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I'm in the minority, but I am with him 100% on the MoveOn thing.
That ad was childish and dumb and there were about a million better ways to get the point across.
June 30, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. The "It's true because it rhymes" tactic should stay on the right, with "Sounds like Osama" and the like.
June 30, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count me in the minority right there with you.
It gave ammunition to the Republicans in Congress, and took the spotlight off his testimony. Really really good tactical move.
June 30, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
AlphaLiberal - your comments have become so predictable...yawn.
June 30, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, really.... Weird considering how little I post here.
Quick. What will I write next?
June 30, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
tempest in a teapot.
but, following the fisa cave, i have got to wonder who's calling the shots over there.
clark didn't say anything controversial. he simply stated the obvious that military service alone does not qualify you for the presidency. period. full stop.
does mccain not find it ironic that his vaunted military experience has led him to embrace whole heartedly the policies of man who, at best, served his country during Viet Nam from a volleyball court in the Deep South.
obama better bring out that gun, cuz he's getting knifed pretty bad by his advisors.
June 30, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it would be next summer before I got sick of the centrist Obama presidency.
June 30, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I went to public schools that had no holiday pageants. (We had patriotic events like duck-and-cover civil defense drills.)
And fireworks? We got sparklers in the back yard, with supervision and a hose and a bucket handy. Most places don't allow fireworks because they're a hazard for amateurs. (I found neighbors setting off (illegal) bottle rockets under a pine tree one year.They hadn't even thought about it.)
The Pledge? I figured out by the time I got to high school that it's a prayer, not a promise, and it doesn't do anything for patriotism.
June 30, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the past it has seemed like the Obama campaign was very deliberate in their statements and prioritizing their targets. Now they seem to be drifting aimlessly. While I am disappointed that he is playing the left against the middle, I am at least as disappointed that having chosen that path, he is doing it in such an amateurish manner.
June 30, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah too bad we can't get a candidate elected President of the United States who represents 100% of your political viewpoints.
June 30, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
*yawn*
July 1, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lame. Sad. Worrisome. When are Dems going to stop marching to the GOP's tune and reinforcing their stupid made-up narratives? When will they figure out there is no "Vital center" to capture? I'm so goddamn sick of our candidates using their caricatures of us as strawmen. That's a large part of why I voted for the candidate not named "Clinton." I thought Obama and his team were smarter than that. Oh, well. Here we go again. Another fun election year of getting dumped on to appease the sensibilities of an imaginary voter bloc.
June 30, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I attended the speech and have to say it was pretty good overall. It was balanced and centrist, but in context the MoveOn rebuke was relatively mild and was balanced with other partisan attacks. I don't think he went after the 60s counterculture all that hard. He just pointed out some of worst offenses leveled at returning troops by some people. A lot of people who were the worst offenders then are ashamed of their actions now.
The biggest applause line of the speech was a quote from Mark Twain to the effect that we should always support our country but support our government only when they deserve support. There was a relatively strong riff about dissent not being the same as being unpatriotic. All and all a pretty good speech for the first week in July.
June 30, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the eyewitness notes. I want to go watch the video before I say too much. But I am suspicious that Obama is trying to "Sistah Soulja" us anti-war netroots DFHs. And that will not be tolerated. We are one of the main factions who helped him win the 'effing nomination, along with the 18-26 cohort, so he better act like it.
June 30, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So sorry the tactics of the '60's offend you, young man, but then it wasn't your young ass (or that of your friends and family) that was going to get drafted and shipped to Vietnam, was it?
Sorry if you find the anger of older women who supported Hillary incomprehensible, but you probably don't remember that want-ads were segregted by gender, women were openly paid less money than men and fired when they got pregnant.
I'm getting tired of being accused for all the evils in the world. Try thinking about what your life would be like if we hadn't misbehaved: no civil rights movement, no women's movement, no gay rights, let alone gay marriage. The Right likes to remember the '50's as a golden age, but it was dependent on denying the basic humanity of a lot of people - we fought to change that and did. We didn't make the world perfect - but we did make it better than it was.
June 30, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Powkat, Obama wasn't criticising that. He clearly believes that the 60s counter culture achieved much.
What Obama was saying is that is was wrong for some of those people to blame to American ideal and the American vision for the lack of those liberties in America at the time. Doing things like burning flags and deliberately unpatriotic things are what lead dissent to be associated with unpatriotic thoughts in the first place. Obama, in his speech, was trying to break that association.
Don't just spout vitriol or criticise his youth. He knows what he's talking about.
July 1, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ronbyers - thanks for your viewpoint on hearing the speech. I thought it sounded like a good speech and I especially liked Obama's strong statement that he wouldn't be attacked on his patriotism.
June 30, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was a good speech, and if it wasn't for the Clark/McCain hoopla, I bet most of ya'll would have too.
But whatevah, damned if he do, damned if he don't.
June 30, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties? How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests?"
I know - by voting for a FISA bill written by those very same special interests and redefines what our liberties are!
Did I get it right, Senator?
June 30, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh, nice.
June 30, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Obama, as well as the Democratic party as a whole, sucks on the telecom immunity act.
Who expected any better?
I keep tell'n Yee...when it comes to protecting the corporations, there's little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
They are both just two factions of the Business Party and to hell with the civil liberties of Americans.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
June 30, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
After seeing the last seven years of Bush's policies and the results of them, after seeing the results of the Regan Revolution and the resulting increase in the concentration of wealth you still think there is no difference between the parties? Wake Up!
June 30, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"..some of worst offenses leveled at returning troops by some people."
OK, I 'll log off after this post.
But this bit of mythology is blown way out of proportion. A few isolated incidents are recast as commonplace and widespread.
June 30, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
psyclone - I think you are on the wrong website. We all aren't obsessed with the FISA vote (that has no chance to be defeated in an equally divided Senate) as the only issue that matters in this election. MoveOn!
June 30, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been told that the reason Obama changed his mind on FISA is that he has to make a vote that makes it harder for his opponents to attack his 'patriotism'. Consider the nature of the speech, and the very questions I quoted from his speech, I do believe - maybe I'm mistaken - that my snide comment was plenty relevant. The juxtaposition of these contrary ideas is just too obvious to pass up.
So thanks, but I'm not ready to ignore his earlier promise to oppose telecom immunity just yet.
June 30, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
to Debra: no he's not.
I can't stand that cave-in on FISA and I have warned Barack he gets no more support from me until he keeps his promise (both the promise last fall to filibuster the bill and his promise on the weekend of June 20-22 that he would work in the Senate to strip retroactive immunity from the bill). Over 4,000 Obama supporters have joined a list-serv at my dot barackobama dot com asking Barack to do exactly that, keep his promises. TPM cross-posts or links to lots of DailyKos diaries and Glenn Greenwald commentary on exactly this demand by Obama supporters: keep your promises, stand up to the White House, show some real leadership in your day job.
So, no, psyclone is not on the wrong blog.
June 30, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
what Obama's trying to do is create a working coalition so this country can be governed. Nobody's had the courage to do this for a long time. People need to take a deep breath and hang in there.
As to the Wesley Clark/McCain war record flap on the main page, surely the Obama campaign can't be the one's to point the finger at the limitations of McCain's military experience, especially on the day he's giving a speech on patriotism?. That should come from the media. But might be good if the Obama campaign did more media schmousing (sp?) to counter McCain's decade of sucking up to them.
It's past time to leave the 60's group think behind--and this is a boomer speaking.
June 30, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting comment, but I'm not sure what you mean by 60's group speak. A couple of examples of group speak not left behind?
June 30, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The counterculture's problem with "American traditions and institutions" wasn't that they thought it was "smart or sophisticated" to "disregard" them. It was that those traditions and institutions at the time were palpably fraudulent -- that imperialism and racism were the real agenda of America, not liberty, justice, or the pursuit of happiness. Sad to see Obama buying the Nixonian take on all that.
June 30, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
sad. but not especially surprising.
July 1, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
wallace,
i used the google to search for 'school thanksgiving pageant'. the first page i got had a bunch of links to pics of kids doing dressed up for their thanksgiving pageants, and a bunch of whiny posts on conservative blogs complaining about not being able to have these pageants any more. you'd better come up with some better evidence, or we're going to have to bust your internet rank down to spcwallace.
June 30, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just an observation;
I read many libs criticizing Dems for not standing their ground and fighting back against the Repugs and the right wing, then MoveOn comes along and does just that and now they're being criticized.
June 30, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all about fighting back intelligenty.
"General Betray-Us" was not a smart attack. It did more harm than good for Moveon's and the Dem’s cause.
June 30, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
hyper,
I take your point, but not everyone in the military should be free of criticism.
"Shortly before the 2004 presidential election Petraeus did something that active-duty commanders should not do. In late September he wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post..............in which he applauded what he called major progress by the Iraqi military, Iraqi police and Iraqi leadership.
It is bad enough that the general, a smart guy who knew what he was doing, interfered in the 2004 presidential election, in effect advocating the position of the Republican candidate, the incumbent, on the number-one issue of the campaign, only weeks before the vote."
Brent Budowsky
Read Petraeus' report in the WaPo in Sep 2004. It reads like it was written by Rumsfeld.
And Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Meyers had his head so far up Rummy's ass they should call him shithead. But hey, he now sits on the board of two defense contractors and his daughter received a plum job with another.
June 30, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Obama is sick of, and I agree with him, is the over dramatic, hyperventilating whining we on the left get so caught up.
We get so enraptured with our own self-righteousness sometimes and Obama doesn't want to ask "how high?" when the netroots say "jump."
We have become hysterical drama-queens that adapt an eerily Republican-like "us against them" mentality that pegs everyone on the right as "The Enemy."
Obama rejects that mindset and I join him in it.
June 30, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with you because I know you're right. You know how I know? I've driven people around me crazy with just what you're talking about.
People who agree with me already.
It's true - there's nothing quite so self-righteous as a bunch of liberals. I count myself right in the big middle of it, too.
June 30, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Obviously, I no longer belong in the Obama camp.
June 30, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can only say what I keep saying - this is a campaign, I want him to win, and furthermore, I want him to win big. Because I want him to have a clear mandate from voters to get things done.
I think every bit of this is what y'all have been asking for over and over: it's an attack - pre-emptive - on the Repugs' painting him as the most leftist lefty ever. And you know they will.
MoveOn does both good and silly things - they are ones who made the unfortunate situation possible in '04 for Kerry to get smeared endlessly with the Bush as Hitler thing.
June 30, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heck, Shrub specifically went on TV shortly after the Supreme Court selected him as prez in 2004 to arrogantly and ignorantly claim he had a mandate (I seriously doubt he or any Republican know the definition of the word)...after losing the popular vote and stealing the election through the Court. Based on that gross logic, Obama's win will be a lot more than a mandate! :-)
June 30, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I think so too; but you know, the bigger the margin, the better for about 10,000 reasons.
June 30, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought I noticed similar behavior on Obama's part after he clinched the nomination. He appeared to be disregarding how close the contest had been. I don't think anyone is likely to get a mandate to do anything this year. We're going to have to work it out issue by issue.
June 30, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Supreme Court selected him in 2000, it was the Diebold computer hackers in 2004, get your conspiracies right.
July 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, we all want him to win, but if it's all FISA-caving and left-bashing from here to November, he'll end up looking like just another Democratic weakling with no convictions. That's not a winning strategy.
June 30, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that FISA was as cut and dried as you think. Why don't we take a breath and see what transpires in the following weeks in the Senate.
I truly believe that with Barack as President, an executive order would suffice to bring out, what transpired prior to 2007.
That said, getting worked up over a piece of legislation that has not passed, is not the best use of your energy.
June 30, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's worked up? The fact is that Obama is tacking toward the right, playing it safe, dissipating the enthusiasm that brought him this far. That's how you lose.
June 30, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"truly believe" indeed.
your being a true believer means you'll get nothing and like it. (as judge smails says.)
July 1, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
the thing is MoveOn is a group of people. People he wants to vote for him, and continue to support him with more contributions.
There was no reason to bang on MoveOn, except moving more towards the right, which is what the right says dems must do, so you know it's true, he has to bag on the left. So great, he bags on people who support him.
Being one of those people who supports moveon, and beleived his false-past on FISA, screw him.
June 30, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buh-bye.
Have fun with Nader '08!
June 30, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't vote for Nader for anything in the world.
See ya, smart guy
June 30, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
persuasive as always.
July 1, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's denouncing that Betray-Us ad is entirely consistent, im my mind, with his message. The ad was absurd, did nothing but feed the frenzy of the quick-to-overreact media, and to be honest, accomplished nothing but put Democratic leadership in an awful bind.
It also lead to an absurd Senate Resolution denouncing MoveOn for the ad. Obama skipped this "vote" because, had he not, it would've been a complete waste of time. Why legitimize a evil-spirited ad by denouncing it in the Senate by a vote? If you disaprove, voice that disapproval. Lets not waste time actually calling a vote when we could - who knows - actually fix one of the many problems this country faces.
I joined, and remained, a member of MoveOn to voice my opinion that we need to turn the page in American history - a page that starts with the word IRAQ in bold heading. But the Betray Us ad and the ad of the mother with her child attacking McCain both made me cringe.
I felt embarassed to be a member. And the fact they have the gaul to say "Paid for by the 3 million (or whatever) members of MoveOn.org." Get out of here with that BS; don't attribute your nasty attack ads to me.
June 30, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
MoveOn needs to stick to organizing, not messaging. They didn't manage to produce a single non-weird commercial in 2004.
Obama needs to learn that he needs to control the media agenda, not the other way around. His campaign is far too passive.
June 30, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me make sure I've got this straight: Obama blames the counter-culture demonstrators for disrepecting the soldiers who fought in Vietnam?
What about the Johnson & Nixon administrations? Don't ya think they have a wee bit more share of that particular burden? Christ, we wanted the soldiers HOME, so no more would die or be tortured or maimed. Sort of like today.
Obama seems to have an overly-simplistic view of the '60s and is losing more of my confidence with everything he's saying.
June 30, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately, you are in the minority. According to all the current polls, more and more people are gaining confidence with Obama throughout the country.
June 30, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iz dat true? O please tell me its true.
That's what it is about - everyone learning to trust him and I think what he's doing is taking the middle way - it's not about earning the trust of the left or the right - it's earning everyone's trust because the president is the president of everyone.
Look we have had 8 years of a hardline partisan government, to the point of illegality. I do not want another ideologue in the White House. I don't want a president following some party line regardless.
I don't trust anyone whose vision is narrowed down to one extreme or the other.
June 30, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Obama did not blame the 'counterculture'. His speech validated their right to express dissent about how their government was acting against their American interests and not upholding our constitution.
I wish folks would slow down and actually read for comprehension rather than to retort.
The speech upholds all Americans rights to dissent but it says also that no American should devalue the service of a veteran. Veterans carry out the policies set forth by our government.
Nothing is wrong with dissent and the 'counterculture' of the sixties was no different.
However, I do believe that line was put in specifically to address the Ayers situation that was brought up.
Obama is upholding the right of all Americans to dissent and at the same time saying we should not question anyone's patriotism as a political tactic.
As the right to dissent is one of the most fundamental core rights set forth in the US Constituion that Americans have.
All of which is why the line that received the most applause and which the media is not focusing on was the Twain comment...'we should love our country always but support our government only when it deserves it'.
Obama wants to take patriotism away from the GOP as a talking point, just as he did with religion. Obama is not going to allow these so-called 'values issues' to be the sole monopoly of the GOP party they have to monopoly to the ideals and values that make us Americans!
Obama is going to critique McCains character not his military credentials. This is just the opening phase of doing so.
the issue has been raised and Americans will be asking does being a POW or ship commander qualify you in terms of temperment and judgement to make POLICY decisions?
That is the core question being put to the American masses. Which is where Obama trumps McCain.
So all, let's take it slow and look at the long picture..Obama does not go in for the cheap, quick political hit. He sits back, digests the terrain, comes up with a strategy that may take the longer route but which in the end completely destroys the opposing argument.
He understands that the seeking perfection can be an enemy of the good and progress. Obama moves for the advantage to create incremental progress knowing that death by a thousand cuts is infinitely more effective than a knockout punch.
If you doubt this, just recall how he won the most delegates...he was stealth, prepared and focused on his goal..Hillary never saw Barack coming. Despite knowing how exceptional he was she reduced his expertise to 'oratorical' prowess.
Americans are watching a phenomenal politician..even Bill Clinton has yet to grasp the depth and profound greatness melded with superb leadership that Obama is.
I am so pleased that we finally have an intelligent leader that believes in the Constitution that I just don't know what to do.
I know he is not perfect, that he will make mistakes but I have the utmost confidence that this nation will be far better off after President Obama than we have been in the past 2 decades.
June 30, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome, Vic. Awesome, Awesome, Awesome.
You get it.
Please, please, friends, do not be quick to criticize. Read and consider carefully what Obama is saying here in its full context. It is perfectly reasonable and a message that we should be fully supporting.
And I still don't see where Obama criticized Move On. Am I looking at the wrong version of the speech? Could some please provide the text where he specifically criticized them, with the full context?
June 30, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
vicissitudes, yours is the first comment I have found in this very long thread which actually reflects that someone has read and reflected on the actual speech.
It is getting to be futile to try to get good discussions here at EC. This discussion was first hijacked by S??Wallace who did some usual idiotic attention grabbing nonsense statement.....pushing buttons on purpose with outre statements......then the thread devolved to tiresome rehashing of specific gripes which so many folks seem to be saving up like catty-minded teens who already have buttoned down their minds and knee jerk responses.
Obama is a different kind of politician and a bit of an unknown quantity. But we know that he is articulate and wise. He just gave a good speech on patriotism and how what patriotism means to him is about........ what is felt in folks' hearts about America and fellow Americans. He also put a whole lot of petty behaviors into perspective, for any open minds willing to think about that.
But, in terms of theme, I think Obama is saying that he refuses to let anyone else define his patriotism. That sort of fits with his refusal to let others define or limit his choices, his behavior, or his stances on issues. He brings to mind something I once read, "A fully human being is unpredictable, simply because he is free."
July 1, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
blah. Let the DLC campaign for Obama.
June 30, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too late,
Obama told the DLC to kiss-off by blowing off their meeting in Chicago.
Next?
June 30, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
he's following the DLC plan by moving to the right.
try something else
June 30, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
MoveOn has now been dissed by both major Democratic candidates.
June 30, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way Republicans aren't going to call into question your patriotism is to go along with Joe Lieberman and his aggressive Iraq/Iran policies. See, that's what the last 5 years has done to political discourse in this country.
It doesn't matter how many MoveOns Obama criticize - if it doesn't translate into 'supporting the troops' and supporting the Bush Doctrine, then expect him to be framed as or called a dirty fucking hippie, or at least a more TV-friendly version of the epithet. That's a very reductionist take to be sure, but I still think it's true.
Obama has made great progress challenging right-wing frames in his campaign, but the past week or two he seems to be buying into at least a few of them. That's what I find obnoxious, especially given how intrinsically unpopular and in decline those frames are these days. He's done great at 'catapulting the message' over the pro-McCain media, and really in my view, he should keep doing that.
By all means, he should keep talking about patriotism, and I agree that there are great elements in the speech quoted above. But please don't naively assume that this speech immunizes him somehow against right-wing attacks. He's going to be questioned severely when it comes to withdrawing from Iraq or just talking to Iran, you better believe it.
June 30, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right-on Powkat!!! Disco Sucks too! We weren't perfect. Often, we were too stoned to control our behavior and did stupid shit but, even so, we knew things weren't right or good and we tried to do something about it. We weren't scared to try new things. I'm proud to have formed my ideals from that era. We sure didn't sit on our asses playing video games. Everything we did was a cultural protest against the man in one fashion or another.
I'm pulling hard for Obama because my son is the same age now that I was when I recieved my draft card and something tells me I can trust him not to waste my son's life.
I see in Obama some of my early hope and dreams though I maintain a healthy caution of him knowing his formative years were during the rejection of altruism disco days of polyester, Pontiac Firebirds and coke. I ponder the roots of his liberal philosphies knowing he was too young for the 60's and early 70's and, his belief in God is at odds with just about everything I feel about the source of ones "values". I think he may be something new that will redefine our choices and am cautiously optimistic that on balance I will like the outcome.
Besides, it's nice to listen to someone who values and uses the good education they worked for and recieved.
June 30, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I thought it was a great speech. Like the race speech, he's taking a hot-button issue and talking about it without being superficial.
Listen - I loved the General Betrayus ad. My blood pressure goes up every time I see an American flag. I'm deeply embarrassed by and ashamed of this country and as far as I'm concerned, every moron who voted for Bush in 2004 is as much an enemy of democracy and America as Bin Laden.
I hate those people with a deep passion, but when I get to know some of them personally, as I was forced to on an extended business trip in the heartland, I see that, however misguided, they're decent human beings.
If Obama can get through to these people, more power to him.
Remember that they hate us as much as we hate them. We're right, of course, and I'm not being facetious. We are right and they are stupid. I know that to be true with every fiber of my being, but somebody's got to make peace with these idiots and if Obama can do it, he can thrown moveon.org and Wesley Clark (whom I never liked although I wholly agreed with his comments about McCain) under the bus with my blessing. I'll keep donating to moveon, but I hope for the day that 527s on both sides become unnecessary.
The FISA stand is just plain wrong, but this speech, in my opinion, is just plain right.
June 30, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the left wing Democrats think they are the only Obama supporters who matter. There are a lot of us supporting Obama who are moderate, and even some who are conservative. I am not comfortable with extreme politics--right or left. Both are characterized by arrogance because they are convinced that their standpoint is the only one that should be considered. Reason and understanding goes a long way in political discussions, as it does in all intellectual interaction.
June 30, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do know this post has been written about 40 bazillion times on the web?
We get it. People who self-identify as "moderate" consider themselves superior over people who self-identify as "liberal" or "conservative." If you're not moderate you're "extreme." Yadda yadda...
But, they're simply not superior. Try to make a virtue out of having no convictions or positions on the issues all you want. In the end, it's a hollow position on the ideological spectrum.
Moderates are easily frightened careerists and the most slipper of any legislative body. They don't stand for any firm positions, and for no-one else save themselves and their own careers. (Unless you can lay out the moderate agenda for us? What is that, exactly?)
This is something many liberals and conservatives can agree on.
June 30, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"40 bazillion." heh. at least.
June 30, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debra, it is not arrogance to claim credit for putting Obama over the top in crucial early primaries, to claim credit for pounding Hillary into submission with massive online donations to Obama month after month after month, to claim credit for helping double or triple the turnout in critical congressional districts by phone banking and door-knocking, and the netroots and grass-roots volunteers were leaders in all of those successes. Barack owes us loyalty. He owes you too. But just because he owes you and other moderates does not mean he does not owe us loyalty. Claiming credit for the netroots's part of Barack's revolutionary campaign is not "extreme" politics and is not unreasonable, it is simply pragmatic politics. Don't start revising history that we were in the middle of -- esp. not history that we saw unfolding starting only one year ago.
June 30, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that didn't take long for me to get my patriotism (or at least my intentions) questioned apparently. I guess my opinions don't matter - no wonder you wanted me to 'MoveOn' to another website!
Debra, I have no idea which of my opinions you consider 'extreme', and I suspect you won't tell me either. If it's any consolation, I consider myself to be quite 'moderate' too - but that moderation doesn't mean that I am not shocked and offended by atrocity, or that I can't have strong feelings about the meaning of our rights vis-a-vis this presidential campaign. I happen to think that Iraq and FISA are both very substantive issues that force all of us to think hard and long about what our country means at a very fundamental level, and aren't just MacGuffins for talking about the campaign horse-race.
June 30, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama: "....and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal."
Oh bother, Obama is definitely lossing his mojo. Excuse me dud?
The general in question was not "providing his best counsel", Rather General Petraeus was regurgitate Bush's counsel due to the fact that MOST Americans did not trusted Bush, so Bush had to go looking for a uniformed, military face of a kiss-ass general to be the face of trust. Every American knows this - so WTF is Obama doing?
In American MOST of us disagree with the direction of war and MOST of us feel that Bush lied about evidence for war in Iraq so WTF is Obama doing - at long last showing his stupid?
This columnist, R.J. Eskow at Huffington Post is talking about what happened to Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who lost his re-election bid mostly for a failure to show courage and what about Senator Max Cleland, same thing. It is important to have conviction and I think is it a bad mistake in the extreme for Obama to criticize an organizing as big as MoveOn.org, a group of his own party members who worked to get Obama elected.
It will do not good for Keith Olbermann to give his special comments to Obama tonight on either a pro FISA or not commentary, because this FISA thing has teeth and legs - as Glenn Greenwald has shown evidence that Obama indeed lies, which is a very bad faith kind of thing to do. MoveOn.org in good faith gave Obama money for his campaign promises, because among other things Obama said he would filibuster telecom immunity but now Obama doesn't feel like he has to do that, it's looks really, really bad and it's getting worse.
Obama has an illusion of center, telling Americans what a good faith guy General Petraeus was doesn't cut it.
June 30, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the FISA thing most certainly does not have legs outside the Beltway or the dreams of neocons. Extremely few people across the country know or understand what it is. Let alone those that would even make a vote dependent on it. FISA is not an issue to voters. The wretched economy is number 1 by far. And it is not even close. Furthermore, no candidate is the perfect candidate. Never has been, never will be. Just look at the trouble McBush is having within his own party.
June 30, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck Patreus! MoveOn got that one right! Fuck Obama for running to the center like a coward.
June 30, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
moderates....middle of the road.....not a good place to be unless you WANT to become a hood ornament.
June 30, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
To quote the good Jim Hightower:
There’s Nothing in the Middle of the Road But Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos
June 30, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't most Americans in the middle? Whether they consider themselves Democrat or Republican, most people identify with moderate, centrist positions. I realize that isn't the case here at TPM, but let's not forget we need to appeal to a majority this November, and seeming to fit the bill as the "most liberal Senator" is not a winning strategy.
criticizing supporters
all on your own,
when you're not even being challenged on it, yeah,
that Indie Pro is brilliant.
Just sayin'
June 30, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
the smart thing to do would be to appeal to the middle, yet not lose your left support.
June 30, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't for the life of me see, how a person being a minority (black), can not live from day without seeing the value of being a liberal.
So GYHOYA and understand, in order for liberals to have a voice, we need to elect someone; and it definitely is not McCain or Nader.
Comprende?
June 30, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
and there it is! the delusion that obama is more liberal than any evidence could ever support is rooted in the idea that 'he's black, he MUST be liberal!' that's the idiocy that drove the true liberals (relatively speaking) from the race early. check the dude's record. it tells us a lot more than the color of his skin does. if liberals choose to vote for obama, they should do it while holding their noses, not holding their heads high.
July 1, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
and I'm not running for office, or even favorite commenter, so I don't have to appeal to anyone. just stating my impressions and opinions.
My impression is that Obama continues to alieanate people who supported him. I did. I supported him. I supported the fight against FISA, and I supported MoveON and many other activist programs. I'm active in town with progressives and dems, though I am not a democrat, and mainly for reasons like this move to the right, and alienating the left. Screw him.
I disagreed with Obama on quite a few things, yet I supported him. Today, and the last couple of weeks, the stink out of his campaign is growing.
June 30, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to edit, and Since I called you out I feel I should elaborate. If you are talking about waffling fence sitting and generally weak kneed thinking and action, I agree with you totally....But I think you go to far implying you have to be on the strong left or right to have a valid opinion, and those in the middle are somehow inferior. Debra (WRONGLY) sugessted about those on the left are arrogant and self-righteous, and some are. I only suggest it is also wrong to diminish the role of the middle way, mediation, negotiation, compromise and yes, moderation and centrism in our political process. Didn't want to start a fight, and I enjoy your posts and vigor for your causes. But as a person who does mediation, negotiating for a living, I have developed a strong respect for consensus builders, those that can bring diverse views to the table and get things done. That is what Obama is promising as much as adherence to a particular issue or another. I don't blame him for hitting MoveOn for that tactless and ridiculous "Betray Us" crap. It certainly seems silly now, in light of some limited success in Iraq, which most agree is a result of the surge and Petraeus' counter insurgency techniques. I also think Clark is being insensitive to the realities of McCain's service, and the impact of his time in captivity. One could easily say Clark's time at HQ in Europe doesn't quite live up to "combat" experience and who is he to say anything. This sort of thing just shows how ill advised this sort of line of attack is. And Obama, who never served, is right ti=o shut it down fast.
June 30, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only suggest it is also wrong to diminish the role of the middle way, mediation, negotiation, compromise and yes, moderation and centrism in our political process.
If you had read Hightower's book, oh nevermind. Obama is the one criticizing MoveOn. There was nothing wrong with that ad. Baghdad has undergone an ethnic cleansing under our watch, we're paying people not to fight, Liberalism isn't an extreme. It is what's made our country unique and great, and only since the right has taken over has our country diminished.
June 30, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay! Finally found the sentence that refers to Petraeus. Geez, so subtle, I was missing it.
I don't think you can just say that Obama is wrong. He's presenting the accusation of Petraeus as a traitor as being divisive. And wouldn't you agree that it is? He's pointing out that it's not fair to question one's patriotism - one's loyalty to one's country. You want to criticize someone's policies, do it. You want to question their professional practice, do that. That will provide your opponent the opportunity to justify those policies and practices. But, don't question their patriotism.
June 30, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, in his speech about patriotism Obama parrots the right's criticism of MoveOn.Org, and the dirty hippies from the sixties (whose civil disobedience is largely responsible for the fact that a (partly-) black man has a chance of becoming President, today) - pretty much denegrating our patriotism, while decrying others' questioning of his.
He, now, also supports (illegally) repealing the Fourth Amendment, by supporting the FISA bill.
In addition, he disavows Wesley Clark for making a perfectly valid point about the fact that having SERVED in the military doesn't automatically qualify someone to be in charge of it.
Next he'll be agreeing with Hillary that McCain has the experience to be president which he himself lacks.
This is who we need as president? Change? From what to what?
June 30, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This just makes me spittin' mad. Some of us sixties folks have been voting for the Democrat on the ballot every single election for the past 40 years.
And this year for the first time I will not!
It's going to be fascinating to see how many demographics this guy thinks he can insult and still get elected.
June 30, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most Americans felt the ad was rude, just as they would had General Petraeus been disrespected by Congress. There's nothing wrong with showing the opposing viewpoint some decorum of respect. Of course Petraeus supported Bush's viewpoint--he is his commander-in-chief. He's a general, he follows the president's orders. We are supposed to treat Iran with respect in negotiations, but not our own general who has served this country for decades? Again, it is this type of self-righteousness and condemnation that turns people off of joining the Democrats.
June 30, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can waste $3 trillion, turn millions into refugees, kill hundreds of thousands for nothing, maim tens of thousands of Americans, and kill thousands more .... just don't be rude.
June 30, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can challenge a policy without calling a man a traitor.
June 30, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
way to completely miss the point. petraeus is supposed to ADVISE the president, not be his lapdog and give him cover. you've completely bought into the bush kabuki wrt iraq: bush tells 'the generals on the ground' what to say so that when they tell bush (and congress) what bush wants to hear bush can claim to only be following the advice of 'the generals on the ground'. petraeus agreeing to be bush's sock puppet is not in his job description as you seem to imagine. nor is it in the interest of the country or the men and women in uniform that he represents.
July 1, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This election is about restoring democracy to this country. Democracy isn't something you just believe in-you have to participate. Waving a flag, wearing a flag pin, and saying the pledge does not qualify as participating in democracy nor does it make one patriotic.
Bushites, David Addington, and John Yoo can wrap themselves in the flag all they want but it won't erase the facts that they have trampled on the Constitution and disrespected the ideals of what this country stands for.
June 30, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahahahahahahaha
this election is as much about restoring a 2006 kia as it is about restoring democracy.
go drink yer kool-aid elsewheres.
July 1, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Move on made a mint in contributitons for their ad which merely suggesting that Btray us was a politician doing his Bush service. It was accurate and the capitulating dems jumped to the repub den but when Limbaugh made his critical remarks a week later and Reid stood up republicans and the media started whistling in the dark with hands behind their backs. All dem leaders got out of that one was "move on-bad" instead of republicans--hypocrites. Sorry but I found this speech to be less than Obama's normally good rhetoric. It isn't even clear what he's trying to say about the '60s when people first began to stand up to the military industrial complex. In retrospect the VietNam war looks pretty silly now. Didn't know then the difference btween viet namiese, chinese, tawainese, Koreans, Japanese,...just all red communist bastards. Kind of like now with Sunnis, Shiias, Kurds, Persians, Arabs...just all Islamo fascists. Confused as they ever were except for the war profiteers who really don't give a damn.
Yeah, '60s...Martin Luther King (illegally wiretapped too) standing up so a black man could one day be president without race being a factor(who approves of warrantless spying on people like Martin Luther King)...the irony is comical
June 30, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's refusal to give way to pressure from the left is one thing I admire about him, and a good test of his leadership skills. If it were up to MoveOn and their unfailing stupidity, we'd never see another Democrat elected from now until the end of time.
June 30, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
criticizing supporters (contributers)
all on your own,
when you're not even being challenged on it, yeah,
that Obama's brilliant.
June 30, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wasn't criticizing the people who support him. He was criticizing their unbelievably stupid Patraeus ad. I criticized it too. With friends like MoveOn, the Democrats don't need enemies.
June 30, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, he's drawing a line between "most Americans" and the "fringe" left and right.
Which, puts Move On, and ut's people, on the fringe, where it doesn't belong. These are people who were against the impeahment of Clinton, and then later the war in Iraq.
They are also one of the groups who've supported Obama, the political genius!
June 30, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moveon had 8 people including me in my precinct campaigning for Kerry. Along the way we evicted the incumbent Republican from our swing district in the state legislature.
I won't be walking the streets this year!
June 30, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've tried to make that argument many times, that ActBlue, moveOn and the netroots in general are active people who care. Alienate them and you are losing money, and feet on the ground. It's stupid.
Sure, maybe most americans are centrist, but most americans don't vote, or care. During the Bush years, i was not silent, I was not defeated, i was active and vocal, I won't stop. There are many congresspeople to support and many issues to fight for.
it's easy for me to lose Obama. From what i can tell by this thread, he doesn't care for my kind anyway, nor does his supporters.
June 30, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats are their own enemies - all MoveOn did is make that more obvious.
Seriously, it isn't MoveOn that has kept us in Iraq an extra year and a half since the Dems told us there were 'gonna be some changes'. No, instead, all we got was a 'surge' made at McCain's behest, and have since seen that touted as a success.
Yeah, brilliant. Let's blame MoveOn for that.
June 30, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw during and after the VietNam War our soldiers taunted and treated like scum, even though most served because they were drafted. Hopefully we are a better country than that now. We don't want to regress by sneering at our military again.
June 30, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will tell you who did not support our troops returning home from Vietnam -- the Nixon White House, the Nixon Veterans Administration, and the VA hospital system. I represented hundreds of Vietnam era vets on their Social Security disability claims who were given the most absolutely shitty treatment by the VA medical & disability systems.
It is true that both parties sucked at funding the VA or Social Security disability systems, but the government mistreatment of Vietnam vets was far broader in scope and far more damaging than occasional civilian insults. That is why Barack now campaigns on a pledge of "no more homeless vets" and pledges to substantially jack up funding for all medical and disability systems supporting vets.
So, drop the attitude that we are "sneering" at the military if we want to have a careful examination of McCain's actual military and medical records.
June 30, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey ya'all. Just in case ya haven't noticed, we are wheels up, off the runway and climbing. NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO BE WORRYING 2HETHER OR NOT THE PILOT KNOWS HOW TO FLY!
Sheeesh. Show some backbone already.
June 30, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
what's this 'we' shit?
obama threw me off the plane. even if he ever represented me or my values, he's made it abundantly clear that he doesn't think he needs my vote.
July 1, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fractal - I thought the reason Obama didn't take money from lobbyists etc. was so he wouldn't "owe" anybody. I don't want Obama owing MoveOn anymore than I want him owing the insurance companies. I respect the hard work that MoveOn has done, but a lot of us have worked hard and sacrificed and donated to his campaign also. What makes your hard work and donation more important than the millions of others who have voted for Obama, and the others who have volunteered and donated? We all have placed our hope in Obama.
June 30, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debra, you might look back at your posts where you said the left wing was "extreme" and "arrogant," which I assumed you intended to apply to MoveOn, to the netroots, and to other progressive, anti-war factions who played a huge role in Barack's primary victories. We are neither of those things and are demanding that Barack keep his promises does not make us either of those things. You be sure to call Barack on breaking any promises he made to you.
F'rinstance, did you support him because he wants to end the occupation of Iraq, or do you support McCain's position on the occupation? Just askin'.
June 30, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"our" demanding, not "are" demanding.
June 30, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
have to run. sorry to post and skedaddle.
June 30, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Moderates are easily frightened careerists and the most slipper of any legislative body. They don't stand for any firm positions, and for no-one else save themselves and their own careers."
AlphaLiberal - No need to reply really...your attack on moderates proves my point. Keep telling yourself that YOU are the only one who holds all the truths and they are non-negotiable.
June 30, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
keep telling yourself that dems don't need the left to get a majority.
June 30, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You tell 'em Indie. They've lost my vote. Don't want it. Aren't getting it.
June 30, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
freakin incredible. the problem as I see it, is many democrats belive everything the republicans tell them.
lawyers = bad ; the left = bad ; govt = bad ; unions = bad
yet, most of what we enjoy in this country, 5 day work weeks, 40 hour days, somewhat safe products, ERA, anti-slavery, oversite, etc are past left success stories.
June 30, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the following passage, you guys are concluding that the "Dems don't need the left":
Where in this passage is Obama saying that he doesn't need the support of the Left? That he doesn't respect the views of the Left? It sounds to me like he's saying quite clearly that dissent should be respected. But, he's rejecting a "cynical disregard for our values and institutions." He specifically rejects the portrayal of one of our Generals as a traitor.
All of that boils down to Obama is too centrist and doesn't respect the views of the Left?
June 30, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
War isn't one of my values and neither is respect for those who obediently go to war for a lie. I'm not dissrespecting the enlisted guy, but generals are not off limits when it comes to dissent. And you don't have to go out of your way to trash your own (former?) supporters and (former?) contributors to make a point.