Obama says Democrats must hold White House accountable

[sabra]

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/12674139.htm

Obama says Democrats must hold White House accountable

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - (KRT) - Sen. Barack Obama urged fellow Democrats on Saturday not to automatically view President Bush's proposed reconstruction of the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast with a cynical eye, but said: "It is absolutely imperative that we call him on his bluff."

"In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, I think it's important that we don't just assume that George Bush is lying when he says he's finally been awakened to the fact that there is poverty and racism in our midst," said Obama, D-Ill. "It's tempting to do so, especially when he decides to put Karl Rove in charge of reconstruction."

Rove, the top political adviser to the president, will play a role through his position as deputy White House chief of staff, but he has not been tapped to supervise the rebuilding.

In an address at Harvard Law School's "Celebration of Black Alumni," Obama said Democrats shared responsibility for failing to make a larger issue of poverty in the United States. But he said it was the opposition party's duty to hold the White House accountable for fixing problems exposed by Hurricane Katrina.

[wtmusic]

1. Obama is naive

"we don't just assume that George Bush is lying?"

This is just silly. George Bush has been awakened to nothing.

:eyes:

[rodeodance]

3. I think Jr has been awakened to the poverty---and how this incident may

affect his legacy. Omaba is warning us to be vigilant to the upcoming actions of BushCo.



....."In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, I think it's important that we don't just assume that George Bush is lying when he says he's finally been awakened to the fact that there is poverty and racism in our midst," said Obama, D-Ill. "It's tempting to do so, especially when he decides to put Karl Rove in charge of reconstruction."

[wtmusic]

4. Lip service

generated, edited and approved by Karl Rove Productions ©2005. Where has Obama been for the last four years?

[never cry wolf]

6. lol

well, for 2 1/2 of the last 4 years he was in the Illinois State Senate. Not exactly the platform from which you may have heard his views but I did.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

8. Obama needs to read this TPM Cafe article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2097579&mesg_id=2097579

...because I've got to tell you, the author paints a pretty chilling (and probably VERY ACCURATE) picture of what Rove is up to with the "recovery efforts," and why HE was chosen to be the person in charge.

Obama also needs to watch the movie "Copland."

Sylvester Stallone, pathetic, washed-up sheriff in a town full of corrupt cops.

Robert DeNiro: "I see you and I see a man who is looking for something to do. And I'm here to tell you I HAVE SOMETHING FOR YOU TO DO."

I have something for Obama to do, too. Read the TPM Cafe article and MAKE...THE...AUTHOR...EAT...HIS...WORDS.

DON'T let Rove get away with this BULLSHIT.

Or, Obama can piss in my ear and tell me it's raining. His choice. But talk is cheap, money talks, bullshit walks, etc. etc. etc.

:patriot:

[Kralizec]

46. He was barely elected in 2004. Remember, the mighty Alan Keys ran

against him.

He gave a speech at DNC Convention?

[RandomKoolzip]

50. Barely elected?

Keyes got something like 15% of the vote. Obama ate Keyes's corporate-shilling ass for breakfast...and he gave one of the greatest speeches I've ever heard at the DNC.

[Kralizec]

61. Barely as in recently... bad grammar on my part. n/t

[Pirate Smile]

5. I think the way Obama phrases this is fine. He clearly understands

that we all think Bush is lying but politically we can't just start screaming "he's lying, he's lying". We need to just hold their feet to the fire and take over Congress in 2006 so we can have some real investigations.

[never cry wolf]

10. Agreed, very clever actually

By using the phrasolgy of "I think it's important that we don't just assume that George Bush is lying" it implies is that assuming bush is lying is the norm, that everyone usually assumes he is lying and that this needs to be looked at further. It's actually more damaging, imho. He is asserting as fact that bunnypants lies as a matter of course, leaving open and casting doubt upon the particular fact in question, meanwhile not getting himself into the RW firing line for blatantly calling the prezdint a liar.

Brilliant, imho.

[confludemocrat]

23. Clever won't get it done. But presenting alternative rather than lecturing

other Democrats and liberals (in effect borrowing a common right wing line of critique in painting liberals as simply knee-jerk accusers of Bush as a liar as if that was their only concern) would have been preferable. He is too clever by half, he chose the easier theme.

[renaissanceguy]

57. He's sounding more and more like a DLCer

every time he speaks. "Democrats must do this." "Democrats are weak on this."

When will these "friends" of ours realize that THE LEFT WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING. We were dead-on right about the war, about the tax breaks, about the deficit, about the handling of Katrina. WE are the ones out there and active. And all our "friends" do is go on camera and criticize us while adding NOTHING to the mix.

[loyalsister]

62. Not only that

it raises expextations. The ONLY reason Bush can say he has had any success is because people swear he's too dumb to have pulled off his agenda and then re-election.
If he had been expected to be smart and honest things might be a little different.

[ElectroPrincess]

11. He Clearly (Obama) is being groomed as a coveted "talk is cheap"

Democrat. Bought for and paid by big corporations and the republican party. Face it folks, our present Democratic Representatives are ANYTHING BUT.

We the people are being played and our so called coveted Democrats, to include the very intelligent and photogenic Obama are "in on the scam."

When will these representatives stand up for THE PEOPLE before the giant corporations (and the Republican & Democratic big wigs) who all but OWN THEM politically?!?

[never cry wolf]

15. We eat our own

Obama is anything but bought. If he was about being bought he would have taken one of the multiple 7 figure offers after graduating as the first minority president of the Harvard Law Review rather than becoming a civil rights attorney and organizer.

He is the lowest ranking Senator in the minority party. If you want him to come out and scream on the senate floor that the president and his senate colleagues are liars, he will have a very short and inneffective career.

[Why Syzygy]

27. I don't have all the facts on the guy

but these comments certainly do smack of "the Gap". Union label?

[ray of light]

60. I'm sick and tired of progressives eating their own!

We'll stay in the minority while this keeps happening.

[TankLV]

65. Obama is NOT a "progressive".

He sucks big time.

He's a big disappointment.

[ray of light]

67. He's not a Republican and that's what matters now.

[kster]

21. That would be

a perfect plan if Obama would help us get rid of the vote stealing machines.

[rosesaylavee]

39. I agree - he is maintaining credibility with both parties

very smart, I think. We will need our Republican friends to get this idiot and his cronies out of office.

[me b zola]

22. All due respect, rodeodance, but Jr. hasn't awakened to shit

The only thing that he awakened to was the fact that the press actually began to do their jobs and international outrage was screaming for justice.

Jr's sudden acknowledgement that racism & poverty exists is only because these issues which he has spit on are going to rise to kick him in his silver-plated ass. Everything that he and his minions have done since he over threw the electoral process has been to exacerbate both of these problems.




Okay. Upon re-reading your post, maybe you are saying the same thing that I am saying. I am just one raw nerve since I watched what bush*inc did to our brothers & sisters in New Orleans. I will never forget.

[jackster]

45. exactly,

the only thing shrubya cares about is his legacy. His ego is so enormous he is unable to have any feelings for anything else. Twisted, sick, and despicable.

[babsbunny]

49. His legacy?

The worst President ever!!!

[Tiggeroshii]

24. I think that Obama is learning the ropes to affectiveness

...and these are his signs to his coming of.. age as a senator. Or whatever. He's a junior senator guys, he gave a good speech, we loved him but you can't hold him responsible for what he still has to learn.

[indepat]

44. The Repukes in the Congress and MSM hold W accountable for nothing

[TankLV]

63. He is deluded - bush* ALWAYS lies!

That's a given.

People can be so clueless - and the fact that this one is an "upandcomming" leader in the party is very worrisome.

[FloridaPat]

2. 5 years of crimes and lying and he wants to Democrats to hold *

accountable to the amount of money he is going to spend to increase the deficit? I guess they have to start somewhere.

[IChing]

7. Barack has been sitting at the table but has not played the game

ONE NEEDS TO know but three words to play poker: call, raise or fold.

Fold means keep the money, I'm out of the hand; call means to match your opponents' bet. That leaves raise, which is the only way to win at poker. The raiser puts his opponent on the defensive, seizing the initiative. Initiative is only important if one wants to win.

The military axiom is "he who imposes the terms of the battle imposes the terms of the peace." The gambling equivalent is: "Don't call unless you could raise"; that is, to merely match one's opponent's bet is effective only if it makes the opponent question the caller's motives. And that can only occur if the caller has acted aggressively enough in the past to cause his opponents to wonder if the mere call is a ruse de guerre.

If you are branded as passive, the table will roll right over you — your opponents will steal antes without fear. Why? Because the addicted caller has never exhibited what, in the wider world, is known as courage.

In poker, one must have courage: the courage to bet, to back one's convictions, one's intuitions, one's understanding. There can be no victory without courage. The successful player must be willing to wager on likelihoods. Should he wait for absolutely risk-free certainty, he will win nothing, regardless of the cards he is dealt.

For example, take a player who has never acted with initiative — he has never raised, merely called. Now, at the end of the evening, he is dealt a royal flush. The hand, per se, is unbeatable, but the passive player has never acted aggressively; his current bet (on the sure thing) will signal to the other players that his hand is unbeatable, and they will fold.

His patient, passive quest for certainty has won nothing.

The Democrats, similarly, in their quest for a strategy that would alienate no voters, have given away the store, and they have given away the country.

Committed Democrats watched while Al Gore frittered away the sure-thing election of 2000. They watched, passively, while the Bush administration concocted a phony war; they, in the main, voted for the war knowing it was purposeless, out of fear of being thought weak. They then ran a candidate who refused to stand up to accusations of lack of patriotism.

The Republicans, like the perpetual raiser at the poker table, became increasingly bold as the Democrats signaled their absolute reluctance to seize the initiative.

John Kerry lost the 2004 election combating an indictment of his Vietnam War record. A decorated war hero muddled himself in merely "calling" the attacks of a man with, curiously, a vanishing record of military attendance. Even if the Democrats and Kerry had prevailed (that is, succeeded in nullifying the Republicans arguably absurd accusations), they would have been back only where they started before the accusations began.

Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise. The American public chose Bush over Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn't. I didn't bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter."

This would have been a raise. Here the initiative has been seized, and the opponent must now fume and bluster and scream unfair. In combat, in politics, in poker, there is no certainty; there is only likelihood, and the likelihood is that aggression will prevail.

The press, quiescent during five years of aggressive behavior by the White House, has, perhaps, begun to recover its pride. In speaking of Karl Rove, Scott McClellan and the White House's Valerie Plame disgrace, they have begun to use words such as "other than true," "fabricated." The word that they circle, still, is "lie." The word the Democratic constituency, heartsick over the behavior of its party leaders, has been forced to consider applying to them is "coward."

One may sit at the poker table all night and never bet and still go home broke, having anted away one's stake.

The Democrats are anteing away their time at the table. They may be bold and risk defeat, or be passive and ensure it.

DAVID MAMET is a screenwriter, novelist and the author of award-winning plays, including "Glengarry Glen Ross."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-mamet16sep16,1,341798.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[AlGore-08.com]

13. If 2000 was such a "sure thing" why didn't the GOP Congress impeach Smirk?

I ask this seriously. If an attempted impeachment is such a positive thing, why hasn't the GOP ever impeached Smirk? Wouldn't it have helped Smirk one h*ll of a lot in the fall of 2004, when it looked like Kerry might actually win? Does anybody really think that if only the GOP Congress had started impeachment proceedings against Smirk in 2002, or even 2004, Smirk might actually have gotten his precious mandate? That he would have won in a landslide?

Again, I ask seriously, does anybody here believe that impeachment is the next trick up Rove's sleeve to lock up 2006 and 2008? How can anybody who was residing in the real world have thought that 2000 was a sure thing?

[IChing]

17. I agree that his next ante could be this or any other devious lie

My attack was not on Baraak but on democrats in general, yes we have our Conyers, Boxer and a few others that call their bluff but most democrats just ante up and don't play the complete hand of the game.

Rove's poker hand for me at least is not convincing enough for me to not call his hand

He's a bully and a punk, I've played poker with his type. Yes, the impeachment scenario could be in his hand.

[AlGore-08.com]

52. Again, if impeachment was a plus, they would have done it before now

Not just Rove, but we'd have a long history of parties impeaching their own Presidents to boost the party's political chances in the next election. In the entire history of the United States, we have only two instances of attempted impeachment. Two attempted impeachments, and we've had 43 Presidents so far (in this case counting Smirk as a President).

If attempted impeachment were such a political plus, Nixon never would have resigned - - he would have welcomed an attempted impeachment so he could shoot right back up in the public's esteem, and continue serving as President.

Additionally, if impeachment is such a great boost to party of the impeached, why are so many Dems pushing for impeachment of Smirk? Wouldn't that automatically improve the GOP's chances in 2006 and 2008? Are all these folks calling for impeachment stupid, or are they GOP spies, or what? And why doesn't the genius Rove take advantage of our political naivete and call our bluff? The GOP control both Houses, they could attempt to impeach Smirk - - or even impeach him - - and rocket the GOP to victory in 2006 and 2008 - - if impeachment really was a way to win the next election in a landslide.

The attempted impeachment of Clinton was only one of many factors which worked to make 2000 far from a slam dunk for Gore. Anybody who lived through the Clinton admin and paid attention to the news media and the entertainment remembers that Clinton was a national joke at best, and a symbol of everything wrong with politics at the worst. Smirk ran his 2000 campaign pledging to "restore honor and dignity to the White House". You can't run a campaign like that unless people think that the current occupant of the White House lacks honor and dignity. Rove crowed to the media that his strategy was to have the public see Clinton every time they heard "Gore". Now since Rove is this super political genius who never makes a false step, why would he do that if 2000 was a slam dunk?

Other than the public's perception of Clinton, Gore's major roadblock in 2000 was the media, who either went out of their way to smear him, or they sat silently and let their colleagues smear away. They refused to cover Gore's statements and events in any way other than to ridicule his clothing, his speaking style, his mental health or snicker about his sex life. (In short - - they treated him exactly the same way they treated Clinton for eight years.) This has left millions of Americans with false impressions about that 2000 campaign - - even folks here at DU say Gore "ran away from the Clinton admin economic record" even though Gore talked about it at the top of every single speech he gave (ending with "But I'm not satisfied! We can do better!" and going on to his own proposals), or complaining that Gore "didn't let Clinton campaign for him" even though Gore used Clinton the exact same amount that Kerry did in 2004, etc., etc., etc.

This bizarre behavior by the media predated Gore's 2000 campaign. They treated Clinton the same way for 8 years, they treated Jesse Jackson, Bob Kerrey, Max Cleland, Tom Daschle and a host of other Dems after 2000 was over.

To maintain that neither the attempted impeachment of Clinton nor the press misconduct for the previous eight years had no role in the 2000 election is wrong. It's the media's story for why Gore did not "win" in 2000, so that they don't have to deal with their own role in aiding Smirk get into the White House. Now they are all disgusted and horrified over the Smirk admin's endless spinning and CYAing and lack of decency - - but when Smirk campaigned in 2000, lying about his accomplishments and his agenda and his proposals, the media cheered him on and bashed Gore for being another lying scumbag, like Clinton.

If we ever want real media reform, we cannot enable them. We cannot pretend that 2000 was a cakewalk for Gore, when they worked so very hard to put Bush in the White House. They will do it again - - they will pick another empty suit who appeals to their millionaire mindset, and promote that person, regardless of whether they have any qualifications for office, regardless of whether they even tell the truth about themselves. And we will all live with the consequences.

[Why Syzygy]

29. The thing is

once we start with his impeachment, we're gonna have to go down the line. Chenney? Are you kidding. That just might get a revolution going. Next in line I believe would be Tom DeLay. Or some other such idiot. We need housecleaning. Keep with in bounds, but we need to figure this out. Elections have been STOLEN. Don't forget that.

What a FUBAR.

[Why Syzygy]

28. cool. thanks for posting / nt

[OzarkDem]

70. Excellent column

Thanks for the link!

[politicasista]

9. What's up with the Obama bashing?

[never cry wolf]

12. i think that everyone wanted him to be....

a vocal in your face revolutionary rather than a brilliant very progressive and extremely savvy up and comer playing the system as it exists who knows he's 99th on the senority list and sometimes if you reach too far too quick you get your wrists broken.

He's got everything going for him for a long future of doing alot of good. If he were to get polarized at this early stage in the national spotlight they would take him down hard, even in Illinois. The pubes would like nothing more than to be able to paint him as a Jesse Jackson clone.

He's too smart for that.

[ElectroPrincess]

14. "Smart" is not the word that I would use ...

These Representatives SERVE THE PEOPLE, not THEMSELVES FIRST.

Nope, "smarmy in training" is the term I would use. Just another weak knee protestation to keep us sheeple voting for him, et. al.

[never cry wolf]

18. The great architect, Louis Sullivan once was asked...

What is the most important part of a project? His reply was, "getting the commission."

It is a fact of life that a politician that is not in office can't do crap. The very essence of politics is to get elected. Name me one politician who was more effective once out of office.

I don't particularly care for the system either, but that's the way it is. If you don't get elected, you don't get a say in things.

[ElectroPrincess]

30. What makes me very disappointed is ...

When fellow democrats don't even see that this guy, and many other's like him, calling themselves Democratic Representatives are part of the scam.

My goodness, the right wing has basically taken over ALL THREE BRANCHES of government, and you say Obama et. al. are *smart* to be nice TO MASTER "thank you sir may I have another?"

Obama is a Joe Biden in training. A lot of Democratic Representatives are going to wake up to NOT being re-elected. Why? Because all but the "most faithful" (Democratic Koolaid Drinkers) sheeple are finally beginning to wake up and realize that Ralph Nader was correct: Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are basically the same entity to SCAM the American People.

It's a waltz that they do with each other. No longer do I honestly believe that there are TWO parties. There's the Republicans and the Republican Lites. Both suck pond-water and Obama is just another pretty and photogenic cronie of big business. He makes us feel good while big business continues to screw the average American.

When you say "we eat our own" I can't relate. Big Business Democrats are not "one of mine."

[despairing optimist]

64. We're on the same wavelength.

Once the folks who really call the shots and make the kings in this country see enough people with our views, you can be confident that a candidate in one of the major parties (factions?) will seemingly arise out of the earth and claim to represent our issues. Cooptation by the elites has been their trump card since the dawn of the general franchise. It has moved from smoke-filled rooms in convention halls to party caucuses and primaries. Cash is still king, and he who pays the piper calls the tune. Anyone expecting true campaign-finance reform in this environment is in a dream world. The only thing that gets these guys' notice is lots of angry, loud people calling them out and raising the ante, to use that poker analogy upthread. And they count on their pals in the MSM to intimidate and discourage people so they think they don't have the power to change things that they actually do have.

I think we're quickly approaching a crossroads where the awakening mass of people will have to choose between hunkering down and grasping an ever-smaller piece of pie and getting out, very impolitely, and forcing the big guys to back down. It may be the last chance to set things straight.

[TankLV]

66. But when you put shit people in those positions, you're still left with

NOTHING!

And so far Obama has nothing as far as I can see.

[OzarkDem]

71. Once elected

politicians are then supposed to "do things", not just sit there pretending to look busy while raising money for the next election.

[never cry wolf]

74. What is he NOT doing?

In this speech he essentially said the the president is a known liar, he's very suspicious of rove and that we should call his bluff in order to assure the promises of relief * made are followed up on properly. He's sounding the alarm that the entire plan needs alot of scrtiny because of the theives that are running it. All the screaming of "liar" in the world won't bunnypants from appointing who he wants but it would render Obama's voice inefficitive in trying to hold shrubby accountable.

[BSDRebel]

76. My opinion

I get tired of people who talk the populist talk, and then fold when it comes to voting in the Congress. He's talked the Clintonesque "i have a dream of a bridge to the 21st century" talked, and then folded like the rest of the spineless, Biden-type democrats in Congress.

Obama is only the "last black hope" for star-eyed white progressives. I am not impressed. Give John Conyers, give me Dennis Kucinich, give me Hugo Chavez, give me Galloway, give me some REAL progressives.

[Tight_rope]

16. "we don't just assume that George Bush is lying"...

I don't have to assume. I like many others know that Bush is lying. It's an absolute fact. Bush won't know how to speak the true if it kiss him in his ole raggedy ass.:kick:

[never cry wolf]

19. The more I read this the more I am convinced that

this is an extremely bold statement.

"In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, I think it's important that we don't just assume that George Bush is lying when he says he's finally been awakened to the fact that there is poverty and racism in our midst," said Obama, D-Ill. "It's tempting to do so, especially when he decides to put Karl Rove in charge of reconstruction."

For anyone familiar with NLP, neuro linguistic programming, this statement implants: "assume that George Bush is lying", "the fact that there is poverty and racism in our midst" and while superficially arguing it's important not to assume such argues also against that point with: "It's tempting to do so, especially when he decides to put Karl Rove in charge of reconstruction."

IMHO it is brilliant.

[sandnsea]

59. along with "call him on his bluff"

It is brilliant, the whole thing. Subtly implanting what he wants America to think, digs dressed up as complements, and demand for accountability. It's one of the best comments I've heard to date. He's going to come out the leader on this, no doubt in my mind.

[Gloria]

20. I always hear how Democrats "should do ...." ....but they NEVER DO!!!

They just never get off the mark....

[0007]

34. Right on!

"I share the anger and I share the outrage," he added. "But what I also want to do is accept some responsibility. The truth is that we haven't been entirely on the case either. We've been a little complacent."

A little complacent? Give me a fucking break! I thought this guy was a fighter?

[Lilyhoney]

25. I have faith in Obama.

[Why Syzygy]

26. "Tempting"?

TEMPTING? To put forth the idea that George W. Bush is LYING?
Are his lips moving?

Can some Dem get up off his comfy ass and Take on this Disaster?
Please?

This is the first I've heard of ROVER being in charge of RECONSTRUCTION.

This must not stand.

Who ever gave him any kind of qualifications for this?
No one.

This must be a desparate move. I have to hope.
No one elected KR to do ANYTHING!

Really, this tells me they are falling apart from the highest branch.

Call in the Nanny!

[Nightwing]

31. Here we go again

As I read through these posts, I cant help but see that we as a party are more willing to eat our own rather than fight the good fight against the chimp and his cronies.

Splintering of our party does not bode well for 2006 and beyond. Our representatives and senators cant do shit if they dont win. But let's trash them anyway. Sheesh!!

Come on people, it's about winning and we will never win if we cannot unite and stay strong.

[ElectroPrincess]

32. But that's the point Nightwing ...

It's NOT about winning or helping to groom one's political career so they can become "a star."

What it's about and what it has ALWAYS been about is SERVING ONE'S CONSTITUENTS. We need to remind those who call themselves Democratic Representatives WHO signs their paychecks.

In all fairness Obama's voting record is much better than Joe Biden's. However, I fear with time that as he is brought into the leadership fold, he'll become just another bloated, go along to get along, Democratic Cronie.

This is about SERVING the people and not about "Democrats Winning."

My God!?! Often times I don't even recognize what has become of the Democratic party.

Personally, I'm beginning not to give a damn if someone calls themselves Democrat, I want them to serve US working and middle class people's interest - FOR A CHANGE! Yes, to represent their Constituents first. Not kiss political butt so it will ensure a long career and pad their resume for a great job in big business when they retire.

Newsflash to the Democratic Party Leaders: I no longer will allow you to push me, and many like me to Republican lite.

It's about THE PEOPLE, not these bloated Democratic Representative's careers. Our so call representatives should be on the talk shows NON-STOP screaming for impeachment or withdrawal of the Bankruptcy Bill. But no, they are what some call "playing in smart." Bullshit! Serve the Average American or get the hell out of office - I will not be guilt tripped into voting for corporate loving, right wing a** kissing DINOs. No, I'll vote Green or stay home until our so called Democratic Representatives either grow a spine or are voted out of office. :P

[davsand]

36. Those of us who actually LIVE in Illinois are ok with Obama.

I really don't see a significant loss of support for him here in Illinois. Seems like those of us who elected him are just FINE with how he's doing...


Laura

[ElectroPrincess]

37. You have a point ...

Obama's voting record is commendable.

Time will tell if he can continue to "walk the walk" OR turn into a Joe-Momentum Biden.

You're right - I don't like people who are "too smooth and/or pretty" but it's only fair to wait and see what the future brings.

Point taken - I'm sorry to, in particular, muss up the individual Senator you know (and love) as Obama.

[rosesaylavee]

40. I agree - he won over 70% of the vote and has maintained his support here.

[bliss_eternal]

58. Yes. How is it that people that don't live in Illinois

have so much to say about what he is or isn't doing? Not trying to be antagonistic, I just think this is a good point.

I see lots of criticism for him, but I've never taken the time to see if it's actually coming from those that live in Illinois or not...

[Demit]

33. It's also about elected Dems proving to us they are an opposition party.

I don't blame people here for being skeptical of those Dems in Congress who seem to be acting more in collusion with the reigning Republicans than acting like Democrats. They are Democrats in name only. If they are "fighting the good fight against the chimp and his cronies" it is not so apparent to me as it is to you. What good is electing Democrats who vote the way the Republicans do? That makes winning a very empty achievement indeed.

Following your line of thought would have us be supporting Zell Miller because he is a Democrat. If we didn't, according to you, we would be the ones splintering the party.

I don't know about Barack Obama yet; he's too recently elected. In another era we wouldn't be expecting so much from a freshman. But these veteran Democrats who cast votes in Congress for big business and against the people--why exactly do they deserve our support? Because we're hoping they'll wake up one morning and remember what the Democratic Party stands for? We've had five years of mornings and that big epiphany hasn't happened yet. We're still waiting for that "good fight" to start.

[0007]

43. Do you read the article?

[OzarkDem]

72. Correcting our party will save it

This isn't just my party, or your party, its the party that was handed to us by our parents, grand parents and great grandparents. Its our duty and responsibility that it remains a viable, working party long into the future.

It has faltered badly in the last several years and its our duty to fix it. There's been a great deal of money and media time spent in neutering the Dem party. Think of it as a child that has run away and joined a cult. It needs to be "deprogrammed" and its going to take some hard work to get it back to its roots and core values, but we will.

[cassiepriam]

35. What a concept. Why didn't we think of this before?? nt

[truthisfreedom]

38. we must all admidt that bush is totally fucked.

and move on toward a bright new day!

[remfan]

41. I've been watching * for almost 5 yrs

and they are on the fucking record saying they were going to spin this to their political advantage.

Do not ask me to pretend otherwise.

[mcscajun]

42. I think it's brilliant. Better than assuming * is lying, we give him just

a smidgen of 'benefit of the doubt'; then by holding his feet to the fire on his promises, we show him up for what we know him to be - this time for all to see.

Far more effective than just screaming "Liar!" and having our charges dismissed.

He's wily, this man. And as another poster here in the thread put it, it's puts the "assume he's lying" phrase in people's heads who might not have considered that before.

[never cry wolf]

47. Exactly, it's a classic tactic

"So, Sir, just when did you stop beating your wife?" is perfectly analagous. He sets the thought up as an accepted fact that bunnypanys should normally be assumed to be a liar but lets give him a chance here to prove otherwise and hold his feet to the fire to provide real relief for the citizens of NOLA.

Meanwhile he maintains credibility with the soundbite sheeple for not making headlines for going off half crocked.

[OneGrassRoot]

48. I choose to give Obama the benefit of the doubt...........

we've got to try to get behind some of these people, folks, and not just assume they completely suck and are ineffective and/or corrupt in some way until they've shown this to be true. Especially since he's new to the "game"....it's not like he's been in office for years and has been all talk and no action.

I think what he said here was indeed clever, a more tactful Howard Dean kind of statement....though I love that Howard is NOT concerned about being tactful....:)

[Dr Fate]

51. He used the actual word "lying" and "George Bush" in the same sentence...

...not directly - but it is still there.

I moslty like Obama's response.

[Vinca]

53. It would be nice if Democratic leaders would actually try to

dominate the airways and get in front on this. But will they? I doubt it. For the most part they're still afraid to rock the boat in this flood of Bush disapproval. I don't get it.

[Dr Fate]

55. I agree- they have taken a few good stabs at it...

...but I want to see them drive it home and make it stick.

[Gregorian]

54. Sorry we're not in right now.

When you hear the tone, please leave a message.

[fshrink]

56. The list

of items accumulated over 5 years, including elections, and which would honestly require accountability is so long that it will probably never happen. I owe 100,000 to my bank I am bankrupt, I owe 1 billion to my bank, my bank goes bankrupt.

[snot]

68. Never trust where there's much too lose.

Esp. when we've been given every reason to distrust.

I don't understand this speech as anything but posturing.

It's fine if he wants to extend a theoretical benefit of the doubt to * personally, but it makes no sense to say we're supposed to stand up and hold folks accountable but acquiesce in leaving a known fox in charge of the henhouse.

Why aren't Obama and other Dems DEMANDING that Rove be suspended from all further responsibility pending the conclusion of Fitzgerald's investigation?

[shavedape]

69. our first black president

Obama/Clinton 2008

[OzarkDem]

73. I don't think so

unless they ran on the Republican ticket.

Both have a lot of learning to do.

[redqueen]

75. How did he vote on the Bankruptcy bill?

I'm sorry, but I just don't trust Obama.