Lets All Write Randi Rhodes about Obama

[rsmith6621]

Well if you all remember Randi Rhodes was just totally infatuated before the election and in the days before Barack Obama took the oath of office as Illinois US Senator.

Randi could not find anything to fault Barack Obama with....she fawend all over him like he was the Quarterback of the football team. Randi has RANTED and very well criticized CONDI RICE and her nomination to the SOS position. MY thoughts are now wondering what is Randi now thinking now the Barack Obama has given CONDI the nod yes.

She SEEMS VERY QUIET as of LATE.........

I have e-mailed her..........why dont you.

[mahina]

1. beacuse I am too busy getting a paper trail law and campaign finance

reform law through our leg to take the trouble to complain about a good democrat who is not perfect to our one progressive broadcast.

Please look 180 degrees right and put them in your crosshairs.

[fooj]

2. Keep fighting the good fight!

:toast:

[mahina]

4. Thanks Fooj!

The campaign finance bill seems D.O.A., seems people would rather feel comfortable with "oh there's no sense bothering with politics, they are all corrupt" than changing that. We have a real chance, let's hope we can get people off their asses.

http://www.cleanelectionshawaii.org/c3/education.html

[fooj]

15. NGU! Fight for what you believe in!

You've chosen a very important battle! Your hard work is appreciated! Thanks again!

[Jack The Tab]

3. Ding ding ding - We have a target rich environment out there....

Lets not be shooting our own, however dissappointed we may be. Quiet talk time can come when DEAN is our DNC chair.

[SmokingJacket]

6. Yes, THANK you.

Why all this targeting of Democrats??

Don't the REPUBLICANS keep us busy enough?

Sheesh.

I do wish the perfect Democrat would descend from heaven and save us all, but it ain't gonna happen.

[TeacherCreature]

7. Because SOME Dems are Pukes in Dem clothing--like Obama today

How far do they have to go before someone like you will allow us criticize them?

[SmokingJacket]

25. So send him a letter telling him your thoughts.

What I object to is this **incessant** public attacking of Democrats.

It's really tiring. I found Obama very VERY inspiring during the campaign, someone who finally spoke intelligently and movingly about issues I cared about. Maybe he tricked me! Maybe he's a complete fake-wad and really wants to be in Bush's cabinet or something.

But I'm going to give him a chance. I'm disappointed too in his vote. I suspect it's political -- I don't know, I've never been a senator and I don't know how things work. Seriously, though. The guy just got there. Give him a few months before you tear him limb from limb. Repubs are going to be doing that soon enough.

[mahina]

28. Here's the thing- you can criticize till you are blue, no argument-

Any subject of any magnitude of importance. No argument.
No permission required, obviously.

But when you come along with "OK Everybody let's go attack Obama, why don't you all call into Randi R and jump on him" you are diverting effort from something productive to something harmful.

Nobody is saying you can't criticize the man. Please take your underpants off your head and step back, take a look at the range and scope of problems. They are DESPERATELY important. Hunger, poverty, debt, climate change, energy use, war- exactly what magnitide of problem is Obama's failure to achieve sainthood by your standards in a matter of weeks, to the greater picture?

Honestly I have to say that I seriously question anyone's intention who takes this kind of approach. It's irresponsible in the context of the destruction and death caused by this CRIMINAL rouge administration.

Help each other out, this is a very typical diversion of our most precious resource- time and energy. Good luck! For peace and for an honorable America again- we have lots of work to do together!

[Telly Savalas]

33. Indeed. There is really no substantive difference...

between Barack Obama and Alan Keyes. :eyes:

[truebrit71]

8. Please explain how a democrat voting for a republican is different...

..than a republican voting for a republican? Answer: there IS no difference, the republican wins everytime...

The bottom line here is that they were sent there to do a job. That job was very simple. Be a Democrat. That means NOT voting with the republicans. Very simple really. Apparently the latest 'rock-star' of the Dems didn't get the message.

You know why the repukes win everything? They vote together ALL THE TIME. They present a united front....why is it so hard for Democrats to figure that out...unless the spineless bush-enablers are called on the carpet we will continue to be a minority party.

[pbartch]

10. I agree with you totally. DEMOCRATS NEED TO BANK TOGETHER

THEY NEED TO VOTE THE SAME WAY.....ALL THE TIME.

I am not happy with Ron WYDEN (my Senator) or Patty Murray. What is wrong with these people!!!

[Tacos al Carbon]

14. Actually, the Job is "be a Senator"

and represent the ENTIRE state. For the record, Democrats voted 30-12 in favor of confirmation. That's over 71%. Are you saying that there are only 12 "real" Democrats in the Senate?

[TeacherCreature]

17. Yes. I would say that. The others have failed us AGAIN.

I am assuming of course that our party would or should stand against incompetence, agression, imperialism and lies.

[Tacos al Carbon]

21. With that attitude

That only those that vote against Bush's nominees & initiatives are real Democrats, you can expect to be in the minority for a long, long time. Real politicians engage in the give and take of politics to actually accomplish some things.

Let's put it this way. The Democrats have a choice. They can have hundreds of close votes and lose every single one or they can compromise , occasionally refrain from useless windmill-tilting and actually get some things accomplished that are important to their constituents and their party.

[Zhade]

24. So opposing someone who helped lie us into an illegal war isn't important?

That would seem to be one of the most important things a Senator could do, IMIO.

[yankeedem]

26. Alright, what benefits have we received from bipartisanship

You don't seem to get it. Republicans aren't "giving and taking". They only take.

You seem to want Democrats to be good little children and take whatever scraps the pukes give them.

My question to you is that if the Democrats won't stand against election fraud, when will they stand up?

If the Democrats won't stand against the Iraq war, when will they stand up?

If the Democrats won't stand against A. "Torture" Gonzalez, when will they stand up?

If the Democrats won't stand against KindofSleazy, when will they stand up?

You talk about "getting things accomplished". Can you do that without a backbone, really?

[saracat]

32. Please. There is NO such thing as bipartisanship. Give it up.

This isn't politics as usual.

[TeacherCreature]

36. Well that is how I am going to vote, and I am sure I am not

The only one.

Time for consequences.

[Acryliccalico]

5. We need to bombard the Repub. Sen. with e-mail

We need to ask them. We need to work on the party that opposes us and not our own. If we BOMBARD them I think that they might think about it. IMHO :kick:

[mahina]

34. Exactly,

instead of weakening our own rookies. Exactly right. THanks!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sleepless In NY]

11. rsmith6621 did you listen to Randi's show yesterday?

She brought up Obama, I can't quote her exactly, only that she had a chance to do a 10 minute interview with him & when she really started to ask the tough questions, he backed off. Said she felt he was given the "speech" and told to stick to the party line. She seemed very disappointed with him. See if you can get a transcript of yesterday's show. I really love her show, dont agree with everything she says, but God, I wish she was running for office. We need people like her.

[skypilot]

19. I remember when she had him on her show.

It was right after the election and when she started talking about election fraud in Ohio, Obama chuckled and said something like, "I see you're determined to gnaw on this particular bone for awhile". That was really off-putting to me. Election fraud is not a "bone" it is a big, fat, red meat issue that we need to sink our teeth into. It's not some little quirky little fixation of the Democrats. That's how he seemed to treat it on her show. I was disappointed.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

12. Yes I 'm sure

he's not.

[davsand]

16. Those of us who elected him know he's a Dem.

I've not been hearing anybody here in Illinois yelling about him. If you took time to look at his legislative record from Illinois you'd know better too...

Time to form the circular firing squad AGAIN.


Laura

[TeacherCreature]

18. When will he start to VOTE like one then?

So far, his votes on Condi are identical to what Keyes would have done.

[ISUGRADIA]

31. Yeah, so did all Dems except boxer on Ohio and 30 dems

who voted for rice. All republicans, yup, sure.

Whatever.

[Individualist]

13. You didn't listen to yesterday's show, did you?

See post #11.

[msgadget]

20. He's a FRESHMAN!

He's got a record of ONE vote.

[ComerPerro]

22. Thank you

Exactly.

Durbin voted No, but that's because he can. He didn't just begin his Senate Career.

[KharmaTrain]

23. Let "Burden Of Proof"

While I line up with Barbara Boxer and Mark Dayton on my feelings Rice is a liar and a wingnut stooge, she's not stupid nor unqulaified for this position.

The "tradition" is you give the benefit of the doubt to the party in power when it comes to cabinet nomination as you don't want to bog down the government longer and make transitions last longer than necessary and that one day your party will be in power and payback is a bitch.

Right now we have to find "soft" Repugnians who will join Democrats on the big fights that we'll really need to go after...Social Security, the Tax Scams, supplementals and Supreme Court nominees.

So let's say Rice would have been rejected...then what? They'd send up another wingnut and another and another. Some you can work with, others you can't. I think Obama's vote is more that Rice is qualified BUT.

For a rookie Obama's already gotten some high powered visibility on the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs, but he's also the new kid on the block...learning the ropes. Most Senators usually aren't "effective" until their second term or late in their first one.

Too many people make Barak into some ideal Democrat/Progressive/Liberal. He's a politician and has to play ball or end up totally ineffective for the people who elected him.

[mahina]

29. exactly.

"Too many people make Barak into some ideal Democrat/Progressive/Liberal. He's a politician and has to play ball or end up totally ineffective for the people who elected him."

Yep, he didn't run for the office of Jesus Christ, he ran for Senate.

[MsTryska]

27. She mentioned him last night.....

she's disappointed, and feels that he's drank the special senatorial Kool-aid.


she said that she was so excited ot have gotten 10 minutes with him, and when she did, she found that he had already been prepped on what to say and what not to say, and that he's pretty much playing the game now.

[Swamp Rat]

30. Since this is his FIRST vote as a senator, I'll cut him some slack.

Personally, I don't agree with his choice in this particular matter, but I also know that he is a FRESHMAN senator. x(

[ultraist]

35. TWO VOTES AND YOU WANT TO LYNCH HIM?

Get real. I will NOT participate in a lynching of Obama after two votes that DID NOT EFFECT THE OUTCOME.

Talk about histrionics. Give the guy a chance for fuck's sake and focus on something that will REALLY HELP our horrible situation thanks to BUSH et al running our country into the ground and mass murdering people in Iraq.