He voted for the AUMF. So what? In case you did not notice, Bush pulled the trigger.

Did you see the Frontline special on it? It kind of sets the record straight about who was at fault.

As for the money, he did take public financing, and he stated why. Have not heard any of the big two even mention it in passing.

And, once more, listening to the spew around here shows me that many are no better than those we criticize.

Posted at May 5, 2008 7:54 PM in response to It's Official: John And Elizabeth Edwards Will Not Endorse In Prez Race

Reading the comments here is sickening.

Edwards dealt with issues and stood for getting the money out of politics.

He rejected the GWOT and his stance on foreign policy will be seen as prophetic when those who cannot get enough food get off the fence and go after our interests.

Yet all people here want to do is show the cynical and small side of politics.

Enjoy your candidates, the very best that over $1/2 Billion could buy.

Posted at May 5, 2008 7:45 PM in response to It's Official: John And Elizabeth Edwards Will Not Endorse In Prez Race

Ridiculous!

Posted at May 5, 2008 7:36 PM in response to It's Official: John And Elizabeth Edwards Will Not Endorse In Prez Race

I don't even support Clinton, yet you assume I do.
So that is yet another mistake you seem to have made.

If you want to redirect, fine. No one can force you to answer. The deflection tells me a lot. It's like asking someone a simple question and, rather than provide an answer, he/she answer with a question.

The fact is that, as to Obama, we have not seen him perform under pressure and have a true crisis in his life that gives any indication of how he will perform.

Posted at June 15, 2007 11:17 AM in response to Obama as Movement Builder?

Again, this diary is about Obama. But dealing with any crisis provides a window to the way a person will deal with another crisis. You keep talking about Clinton, but I never raised her name. In all that, you have not said what has tested Obama's mettle. I raised this issue in my first comment, and you have deflected it to dump on Clinton. Perhaps it's because there is no adversity or crisis to give us a clue about Obama under pressure.

That's the problem here. I say something about Obama and the response is about something else.

When Obama is compared to JFK or FDR or Lincoln, I object. Plain and simple.

As for the first Obama campaign, see this:

Obama forced opponents from race in first campaign by David Jackson and Ray Long Chicago Tribune (MCT) 4 April 2007

. . .

A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/article/32738/obama-forced-opponents-from-race-in-first-campaign/

Posted at June 15, 2007 9:37 AM in response to Obama as Movement Builder?

Get your facts straight. Obama won his first race for state senate when he used tactics to eliminate his primary competition before the election. Otherwise, he may not have even won that. Lincoln lost several times, as a comment above shows, and did not live a life of relative ease.

This thread is about Obama, not Clinton. No one is comparing her to Lincoln. So what great defining moment exists for Obama? At least Clinton has had to deal with adversity so we can see her mettle. Do we really have anything close to a clue of how Obama would fare in a crisis? If som I am all ears.

Posted at June 15, 2007 8:04 AM in response to Obama as Movement Builder?

So far as I know, were people comparing Lincoln to Washington or Jefferson before he was elected, or FDR to Lincoln, etc? Yet that is what many proclaim about Obama.

Once again, Obama has not, to my knowledge ever faced down any crisis or overcome any real adversity, to give us an idea of his mettle. You cite many instances where Lincoln grew before he became President.

That, to me, is significant.

Posted at June 14, 2007 6:15 PM in response to Obama as Movement Builder?

People like to talk about this grand plan of Obama, but it seems to me that he is just winging it based on his personality and the fact that he projects himself as "new" and against "cynicism" and the special interests in Washington.

He is just two years removed from being a state senator. He has one contested primary election under his belt. He has not, according to my knowledge, ever had a real crisis or adversity which required or allowed him to show his steel.

Yet he is compared to JFK, FDR, Lincoln!

Are we so lacking in our own confidence that we must impute greatness to this relatively unproven man? I think that, by itself, shows what a sorry state we are in.

I wish Obama was more partisan. He need not carry a flamethower. However, I get a sense his approach will fail. The mediator above spoke to the power of consensus, but a basic rule of mediation is that both sides are committed to the process.

Obama is about personality at this stage. Until Obama can build a movement around issues besides the amorphous concept of change itself, I don't believe that he will have the backing of people who must guess what change means, or the attention of Republicans that are committed to their causes and unlikely to reach consensus just because he believes in it as a way to accomplish things.

Posted at June 14, 2007 2:28 PM in response to Obama as Movement Builder?

Just to imagine the utter silence of the Congressional Republicans in overseeing this presidency shows what a sad state of affairs our so-called democracy has become.

Imagine what would have happened under Clinton.  There, sex, misplaced files, and bad land deals resulted in endless incestigations.  Now, nothing is worth the effort of these leaders to save America from its move to a place that our founders would have never recognized.

Posted at July 6, 2005 1:10 PM in response to On Judith Miller's Sentencing

Bush will choose the most extreme candidate.  The nuclear option will become a reality.  It will further cast Bush as an unpopular fraud who assumed power and now that he has it is intent on wreaking havoc.  He believes it is the Christian thing to do.  A tyrant like Bush will never let go of power.  Opposition is widespread, but not organized enough to stop his maniacal mendacity.  His own party will have to bring him down, and that is unlikely.  They enjoy the power too much and their leadership is as corrupt as their leaders in the Administration.  The move toward fascism in America is alive and well.

Posted at July 1, 2005 9:37 AM in response to O'Connor