Gail Collins: The Audacity of Listening

[babylonsister]

The Audacity of Listening


By GAIL COLLINS
Published: July 10, 2008


We have to have a talk about Barack Obama.

I know, I know. You’re upset. You think the guy you fell in love with last spring is spending the summer flip-flopping his way to the right. Drifting to the center. Going all moderate on you. So you’re withholding the love. Also possibly the money.

I feel your pain. I just don’t know what candidate you’re talking about.

Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats.

Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field?

When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[fasttense]

1. I think Obama should learn to listen to We the People.

Republicans and Democrats were against amnesty for the telecoms. Yet Obama went right ahead and voted for it. That was a dumb vote. Now maybe he should listen to We the People and he wont make another Dumb vote.

[blogslut]

3. Actually, he voted for the amendments that would remove Telcom immunity.

Were you listening?

[MarjorieG]

84. We the people may undestand more now, but still clueless and susceptible to the fear card.

Bush announced as great terra fighting necessity. And something in place IS better than nothing now, to be revisited along with other abuses. If we can all get with the program and just elect the man.

[blogslut]

2. I like it

She's right. He's anti-dumb.

[foo_bar]

101. is the "church of" Bob avatar about anti-dumb?

I never quite figured out what the subgenius stuff was about, but I think I was hypnotized by it via late nite TV in the 80s (Night Flight for the pwn). I still get flashbacks to it whenever I see your avatar or read the word "Fnord", stupid Illuminati and their campy music video shows.

[blogslut]

107. Ah, the Church

Let me put it to you this way:

If you find anyone who honestly believes that The Church of the SubGenius is a real religion and/or BoB is a real deity, as a reverend since 1984, you have my permission to point and laugh at them. :)

Salvation or your Money Back!

[foo_bar]

108. gotcha, so it's like Flying Spaghetti Monster meets the Church of Euthanasia times Adbusters?

But more slack oriented. I'm all for lazing against the machine, just checking if there isn't some trigger phrase that'll make me pick up a Meerschaum pipe and culture-jam. I mean if I wasn't doing that already.

[blogslut]

109. Well, what got my attention

In 1984, I was at a bar and I passed this crazy dude performing 48-hour marriages. I thought that was the most brilliant thing I had ever seen. I got to know the fellow and he gave this pamphlet:

http://www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet_p1.html

:)

[wyldwolf]

4. "Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field?"

Awesome line.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Something we can agree on, wyldwolf.

[Inuca]

32. Absolutely

I can't believe what I can reading and hearing. The media at least has the "excuse" that they have to fill in the hours nad the printed columns and controversy sells. But what about the rest, who are not in it for the $$$? What have these people been listening to for the last year plus? Agree or disagree, fine (I am not happy about FISA), but for crying out loud don't act surprised or you are embarassing yourself.

[AZBlue]

98. That is awesome!

[skooooo]

6. "Even if he says it in that great Baracky way."

This makes "Baracky" a new adjective!!

:bounce:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. K&R Brilliant!!

This is what many of us were saying. Obama was never a liberal. Nothing in his IL Senate career or what he did in the U.S. Senate would suggest otherwise...

[TexasObserver]

8. Frankly, most of the naysayers have been hostile to Obama a long time.

I don't see many long time Obama supporters suddenly finding his actions now repugnant. I see a lot of Obama haters finding new rationales to hate him.

It's a small, noisy group that never tires of giving their opinions about what Obama did wrong today.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[TexasObserver]

29. the guilty chicken cackles the loudest

thanks for outting yourself as a serious Obama Hater

[The Backlash Cometh]

45. You've lost your mind.

I've donated to his campaign, believing in what he was saying.

I don't hate Obama, but I don't trust him anymore.

[TexasObserver]

56. I'm sorry. I didn't realize this was your first election.

Hang around. You'll be disappointed again.

It's an election. It's not Obama's job to keep you happy. His job is to get elected, even if that means some of his more pissy supporters get their feathers ruffled.

[The Backlash Cometh]

66. Yep.

Like Dems don't punish their own presidents, like they punished Clinton by withholding their support when the right-wingers came after him in the 90s.

Everything that comes around, goes around.

[Hamlette]

102. what? The dems supported Clinton, all except Lieberman. We rallied around.

We stood by him through welfare reform and NAFTA and Monica. We agreed that the meaning of "is" was subject to interpretation and argued to anyone who would listen that he was being treated unfairly.

In fact, part of why we are nervous about Obama is we have fallen in love so many times recently only to be disappointed. Kerry didn't seem to stand up for the fight. Gore let the handlers take over. Clinton lied. We don't want our hearts broken again.

Clinton had an astronomically high approval rating during Monica...near 70%. It wasn't without the dems.

You remember the 90s way differently than I do. And way differently than any historian.

[DevonRex]

49. ROFL. Thank you. Can I use that line sometime? :) nt

[TexasObserver]

53. Sure. It's an old Texas line my grandma used.

You know, when grandma wants to know which kid made the mess.

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. Obama made his own mess

How can he seriously prosecute George Bush now, when he just gave him an out?

Read this and tell me if we're not seeing another flip-flop in the making:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

[TexasObserver]

58. Nonsense. This election is not about you. You're not our nominee.

You're just someone on the internet who thinks his or her point of view is more important than stopping the progression of Republican rule of the presidency.

When you grow up, get back to me. Otherwise, you don't need to bother talking to me, because I don't take seriously the petulant.

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. Erm, my opinion threatens you?

I am but a peasant with a college degree, capable of voicing an opinion on the internet, and that scares you? Do I come across that powerful to you?

I'm flummoxed.

[TexasObserver]

67. Don't flatter yourself. Your opinion does not matter.

The only reason I have not yet put you on ignore is because you look like someone on his way to a tombstone, so I'll watch you flame out for the sheer fun of it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

70. Why would I be tombstoned?

Am I the only leftie who is disappointed today?

[LVjinx]

104. You wouldn't be. Don't feed the trolls.

[mopinko]

44. it's very tiring, having these people taking over our board

i thought they would be wearing granite hats by now. :eyes:

[DevonRex]

52. Several have not been here in a long time. They came back

just to stir up shit after the vote. And, for some reason, right after 2 were TS'd. Makes you go hmmm.

[mopinko]

83. hmmm indeed.

some of the zombies don't even try very hard to disguise who they are.

[elizm]

68. Agree completely! The Democrats who would...

'snatch defeat from the jaws of victory'. What the hell are they thinking?

[Connie_Corleone]

9. Big kick

[davidpdx]

10. Thanks for posting this, a kick for the shear truth

that people need to stop spewing crap about him flip flopping. I was going to post this myself and am glad you did.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Nothing was clear. The man lied. We all know what's coming to him in the way of support.

He's going to have to form a tight inner circle just like Bush did because he will not have a following. I give him four years, and then we need to get Edwards in. Hillary and Obama got a free ride into the primaries because we all knew a Democrat was going to get elected, no matter what, and someone decided for us that it should either be a woman or someone in a minority group. So let Obama make history, then get him out of the way by supporting another candidate for 2012, so we can bring on the kind of change this country needs to get us back to our American roots.

[wyldwolf]

12. he lied about what?

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. C-H-A-N-G-E

He no longer is the candidate for change, is he? When he condoned the criminal activity of our crooked president, he lost the title.

[wyldwolf]

15. Be more specific

I mean, Bush = no health care, Obama = health care for children.

That's change.

So where's the lie?

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. For crying out loud! He painted himself as the candidate for change

and you come up with a pimple on the butt of a rhino. Change means REAL change, or sit down and shut up. Change means cutting out the graft in politics that keeps politicians corrupt. Change means going back and undoing the damage which George Bush did to our country by crapping on our constitution. Now George Bush has allowed the genie out of the bottle and it's so seductive, that no politician will be able to resist it. We are in for presidential dictatorships and it took a buffoon like George Bush to open the door. It just shows you how our democracy was never what it was heralded to be. We were never a strong country if we were only one attack away from ditching it all for what we have now.

[wyldwolf]

21. children's health care = "a pimple on the butt of a rhino" so says The Backlash Cometh

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. Wake up wyldwolf.

IT'S NOT ENOUGH. IT'S A CHEAP CONCESSION. We deserve that and a hell of a lot more after the shit that we've been through.

Cheap concessions are for congressmen. They throw us that morsel and expect to keep up happy?

[wyldwolf]

39. I'm wide awake and waiting for you to provide examples

[The Backlash Cometh]

43. Of what?

Examples of what? That he went back on his word on public financing? That for someone who claimed he would ask his AG for an immediate review of George Bush's crimes, that this latest vote indicates that he would first give George Bush all the outs he needs to avoid punishment?

Take a look at this and tell me he isn't speaking with a forked tongue:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

[wyldwolf]

51. look at our exchange in posts 14 and 15

Do I really have to explain that?

[The Backlash Cometh]

59. Apparently I need to connect the dots.

In the Philly interview, he stated that he would IMMEDIATELY get his AG to review potential crimes in the Bush White House. Now, that's real change from anyone that we've heard before.

Here it is, he said it:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

And then yesterday, the tough talking goes limp because he just gave the Bush White house a major concession that would in essence, protect the Telcoms from civil prosecution and that, in turn shuts down the ugly process that's called "discovery" where all the guilty parties are fleshed out. THAT's what the FISA bill does. It shuts down discovery. When they took Bill Clinton down, all they needed was one civil lawsuit. That's the backdoor to the truth, that they closed.

[wyldwolf]

65. yes you do. YOU say he's lying about change. I provide an example disputing that...

... and ask you for specifics of your charge. THAT means you need to provide examples of him lying and not bringing change.

[The Backlash Cometh]

69. Wyldwolf, I did give you a glaring example, and you chose to ignore it.

Read the article. Obama said he was going to sic his AG on Bush, and now he's made a major backtrack by basically decriminalizing what Bush did. Is it possible that you can't grasp the meaning of all this? He's not about change, he's about same ole, same ole.

As far as your example goes, National Health Care for Children, Bush will be out in a few months, kiddo. The bill will pass with the next president, and meanwhile, Bush used it to scare all of you into giving him more concessions. Think about it. National Health Care for Kids is a shoo-in in less than a year, while George Bush just got a get-out-of-jail ticket for life.

[wyldwolf]

72. public financing? FISA?

These are areas the hard left just don't get. The "lose on some mythological principles" crowd will never understand the right wing will never play by the rules you want to impose and, thus, will always have an advantage over the left.

Changing one's mind is not lying.

[The Backlash Cometh]

74. I will be the first one to defend someone who changes his or her mind,

if new information gets revealed that suggests a different course. I defended Kerry once because I felt new information was provided to support his change of opinion. But all this for Obama is happening in a very short period of time. He won the primaries, and suddenly everything he said just a few weeks and months ago, changed, with no good explanation.

He deserves a little criticism today.

[DevonRex]

64. I see nothing constructive in your rants. Nothing whatsoever.

You're spewing right wing talking points like you work for McCain. Or Nader, perhaps.

[The Backlash Cometh]

73. Jennifer. Look at the Philly article,

What Obama promised to do in that article, is now neutered. It will be up to the ACLU to protect our Constitutional Rights.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

Perhaps I was being naive in believing that protecting American civil rights was important to the next president. That one, I'll take on the chin. I was naive.

[Egnever]

88. Well not to interupt a good rant but

The fisa bill he just voted for and bush signed btw call for a full investigation of the actions of the admin over the last seven years by the IG due within a year of the bills signing. That report will come in after Obama is in Office. Do you really believe he wont act on the information that report provides or that he will allow a bush appointed IG to continue the investigation after he is in office.

I understand the outrage especially when it is easily steered. I do think educating yourself on the bill instead of just buying into the hyperbole on it is a good Idea.

[The Backlash Cometh]

89. To much is taken out of our hands.

We have lost the right to handle this in the civil courts where the discovery process would put everything within our purview. The rights are now being put in the hands of an IG? (Do you mean Attorney General's Office?)

What report have we received in the last seven years which hasn't been tampered with? Maybe if you could name one, I'd have more confidence.

And how about posting a link to back up your claim?

[Egnever]

90. Well I apreciate the response.

I will try to respond back absent the snark.

Admittedly the oversight of this administration has been willfully inept. Having said that I really think you would do yourself a service to try and quell the outrage for a moment and actually attempt to read the bill. I understand your point that civil suits provide for a lot more discovery than do criminal due in large part to the fact that there would be more of them. Having said that I dont believe for a second that the criminality of these cases is in any way going to be dificult to discover.

No I did not mean AG and it shows that you have not really educated yourself beyond the talking points that you ask me that question. Here is the text relevant to my point and a link to that portion of the bill where you can go and read the whole thing. I understand you are upset about this but I think you are allowing people to manipulate you somewhat.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:3:./temp/~c110lLYmVL:e112894:

(1) REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT- The Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, and any other element of the intelligence community that participated in the President's Surveillance Program, shall complete a comprehensive review of, with respect to the oversight authority and responsibility of each such Inspector General--

(A) all of the facts necessary to describe the establishment, implementation, product, and use of the product of the Program;

(B) access to legal reviews of the Program and access to information about the Program;

(C) communications with, and participation of, individuals and entities in the private sector related to the Program;

(D) interaction with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and transition to court orders related to the Program; and

(E) any other matters identified by any such Inspector General that would enable that Inspector General to complete a review of the Program, with respect to such Department or element.

[The Backlash Cometh]

91. So you met my snark, and bet two more?

Thank you for responding to my post.

This report you're talking about, it sounds like it hinges on the Inspectors (note plural) General of the Department of Justice, etc., -- basically all the agencies that were tainted by the Bush Administration, which means that Obama would have to remove every single Bushie in every single department before we actually got some straight answers. Is that correct?

[Egnever]

94. Thats correct

It requires an initial report in the first 90 days after the bill passes. Which even with bush controlling the DOJ to the extent he does, will not be able to hide all of the the things they did wrong.

Better yet the final report is due after Obama takes office. It is standard procedure for an incoming president to clean house in the DOJ after taking office. It has happened time and again in admin after admin. Bush made headlines this time around because he did it after taking office in mid term something that has never been done before.

I get the point you are trying to make about Bushes DOJ but try to remember He has less than 200 days left and there will be a house cleaning after he leaves.

I get the impression that you need to read some more on this. It is easy to point fingers at the bad man but much harder to understand how all of this stuff works in reality. This bill does not destroy the 4th amendment as so many would have us believe in part in fact because it specifically forbids violating the fourth amendment and also because laws can not supersede the constitution. If it in fact does violate the fourth amendment(something I think is up for debate at the least) then it should be no problem to get it overturned.

There really is much more to this than black and white and I only wish you would educate yourself on it more so that you could see that.

[The Backlash Cometh]

95. I see potential holes in your assurances.

First, the FISA bill took away the public's right to find out for themselves who was wiretapping, and what information was obtained, and for what purpose was it used. We lost the right to our civil rights to prosecute this in the civil courts, so please don't try to diminish this loss, because it's the only one that would have restored our confidence in government, unconditionally.

Second, we now have to rely on what is left. We have to rely on a young Obama administration to walk around the land mines of political manipulation and maneuvering to get the right people in place to make sure they scrub to the bottom of the cesspool for answers. And anyone who has read a transcript from a person who is practiced at being duplicitous, knows that you need more lawyers on your side, than they have on theirs because you have to wear a dishonest witness down until he can no longer play word games with you. Basically, if they have fourteen ways to evade an answer, you have to come up with fifteen ways to ask it. That's why immunity is such a bad idea.

Third, even you point out that they will not be able to hide all things they did wrong. Which means, they will be able to hide some things they did wrong. So, wouldn't it be helpful to have civil litigators involved to make sure that everything that can be known, will be known?

Fourth, before we, the public, can decide that the fourth amendment hasn't been breached, we would need to know about all the indiscretions. And, for that go back to point three.

Fifth, What I'm very concerned about is that what I have witnessed about dishonest people, is that only with complete sunshine will you get them to do the right thing. In a closed door session, they will begin negotiating and compromising on things that should never be negotiated or compromised. So, leaving this up to the government to resolve is probably not going to convince anyone, unless someone big gets delivered.

Those are my concerns. I have a right to them, and after seven years of this administration, it will take at least seven years of good public stewardship to overturn that perception.

[Egnever]

96. I share your concerns

They are valid concerns. Just want to make a couple of points.

First Open government has been Obamas passion from the get go and theres no reason to believe that wont continue. In fact he has specific Ideas on how to open the government up to more public scrutiny. If you haven't looked at his technology issues page do so. Its heady stuff and if he gets it in and working it will change our government forever.

Second Obama voted against immunity he didn't like it either but if you looked at the totals from those votes it didnt have a chance in hell of getting stripped no matter what he did. They didnt have the votes to pull off a filibuster on the full bill forget about holding it up with those amendments.This also does not absolve anyone from anything forever into the future only in this specific case and only when it comes to civil litigation against the telcos. It certainly isn't my first choice but as a defense of this administrations wrong doing its pretty freaking weak.

Lastly while I understand and share your concern on this and how it could or should have been handled. This is not the end of the world as we know it and Obama has heard you. He has made statements to that fact and blogged on his website about it. He shares our concern as well this was not the battle to win though if you want to win the war. The fourth amendment is part of our constitution. Not only does the new fisa bill specifically say in it that no part of this bill can be used in any way to circumvent fourth amendment rights but it can not supersede the constitution unless it is made into an amendment. Again if this is the end of the fourth amendment as many would have us believe then it will challenged almost immediately and it will be struck down in due time.

Again I think your concerns are totally valid ones to have and I share your distrust of our government. I am not sure however that buying into media manufactured outrage over this helps us to change that situation at all. Where as a little bit of self education and understanding of the process might not only assuage your fears but help you to understand the big goals here and what needs to be done to achieve them.

Look into Obamas technology issues page if you haven't, seriously, its what sold me on him in the first place and largely is what leads me to believe that a lot of this discussion is moot once we get him into office. It is all about Open government

[The Backlash Cometh]

99. I will look at Obama's technology pages this weekend.

And what he will do once he's in office, time will tell.

Meanwhile, you might want to take a peek at this:

http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-new-statement-on-fisa.html

[LVjinx]

105. Bush needing to be prosecuted is a McCain talking point? Yeesh, I need to pay better attention!

[babylonsister]

23. Get real; any change we might see will happen after he's

elected. He's doing what he has to do to win. Sorry you can't see that even with that crystal ball which allows you to read into the future. :eyes:

[The Backlash Cometh]

35. I truly expect Obama to be president.

And we shall see if your words turn out to be prophetic.

[Inuca]

36. Quoting from Collins' excellent article

trying to "get us past the old brain-dead politics" IS MAJOR change. Among other things.

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. Good bye old brain-dead politics,

Hello new brain-dead politics.

[Inuca]

38. Nice retort, but

not much meat to it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

40. Kind of like Obama, it seems.

[Inuca]

41. Obama has plenty of "meat", but

maybe not the kind that is to your taste. Which, of course, is your right.

[The Backlash Cometh]

46. Thank you.

That's probably the most civil response I've heard thus far. He has his platform, and now that it is becoming clearer, I can clearly say, it's not enough.

[vaberella]

16. How...assuming your talking about FISA of course. Give me langauge from FISA that supports your

claims. He is changing the face of politics because he basically told us exactly what he was going to do, most politicians don't even give us the time of day and dismiss us with a "We're listening to you, don't worry." He said he was listening and he gave us his response and reasoning.

By the bill was pushed by the Dems in the House before the Senate. Secondly I believe it was a Dem (Senate Majority Leader-Harry Reid) that allowed the bill to make it to the floor in the first place. Had he rejected it, it would never have been on up for discussion. You should take out your anger against him for even considering the bill if it's such a problem.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Are you a blue dog?

Because, I'm not interesting in going down that rabid slope you're on. You arguments are hollow. For example, have you noticed how no one is happy with the Dems in Congress? Never have been. Since I've been on this newsgroup we've talked about how spineless they are. And you waste my time by telling me that Obama listened to the Dems in Congress. That's precisely what we don't want in a president.

[vaberella]

25. You obviously didn't read my post.

First off I don't even know what a "blue dog" is. Secondly, I said Obama listened to and communicated with the PEOPLE!! Read my post more carefully in future. Further more I made no claims besides focusing on Obama's actions in part to the people who support him; which I can't argue with since he heard our concerns and gave his reasons why he did not agree. That doesn't mean I agree with his choice however, it says a lot about him in relation to other politicians and past politicians.

Your response says a lot about the comments I've seen by others on this board.

[genna]

17. A step too far: Someone decided either a white woman or a black man?

What?

Were white men supposed to have an automatic lock on the presidency?


I accept Obama is not doing the right thing with FISA nor do I think the death penalty should automatically go to a child rapist (well, as horrible as it is...the death penalty should be saved for capital-death offenses and it should be carried out in rare instances).

I don't accept the notion that the voters did not vote for Hillary or Barack due to their merit.

Be upset with BHO for his positions not his race or his gender.

[vaberella]

27. In defense of Obama in regards to the Death Penalty

that's his own personal belief. However, he has also said that he believes in the right of the State to make their own decisions in regards to the death penality and doesn't believe the president or anyone else has the right to set those regulations.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. That is my opinion. We had three strong candidates at one time.

Any of the three would have succeeded. The allure to vote in the first female president, or the first minority president was just too great for the media to overcome.

What a shame. We really needed Edwards at this time in history. He was the only one who fully understood the legal implications of what George Bush had done to us, and knew how to change it.

[DevonRex]

60. Why are you fighting the primary wars all over again? And if we

really needed Edwards, then democrats would have voted for him. He is not an unknown. He has great charisma himself. Democrats voted for the candidate they wanted. End of story. Now, get behind him. We must win this election. Your brand of criticism is unhelpful.

[The Backlash Cometh]

63. First of all.

I don't for a second believe that Obama will not be our next president. I honestly believe his candidacy is sealed, and I suspect, he knows it too.

Second of all, I know what awaits Obama, because I saw it during the Clinton years. People don't like to be lied to. Obama will be the next president, but he is not the candidate for change. I suggest you gird your loins, because if he continues to slide right, the criticism is going to get worse.

[MarjorieG]

85. I'd give the edge to the Constitutional scholar, but had his reasons to vote yes, and revisit.

I think there are some penguins in your loyalty to Edwards as well. And that takes nothing away from the good reality of Edwards.

[tishaLA]

19. so Obama is an affirmative action hire?

and we can turn to Edwards to return to "our American roots" after 4 years of "minority" rule?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. Edwards was the only one who had the legal background and teeth

to understand what needed to be done.

[tishaLA]

57. Right. Because Dodd, Clinton, and Obama don't have legal background

Jesus. They have EXCELLENT legal credentials and they all understand what needs to be done. They need to get elected, too. But a nice white guy like Edwards will allow us to "return to our American roots." Pfffft.

[The Backlash Cometh]

75. I honestly picked the man who I thought had the background to do the job.

Edwards is a trial lawyer. To my knowledge, neither Clinton nor Obama had that kind of experience. However, the primaries are over. Let's hope that Obama at least recognizes his weakness, and selects Edwards for something that can help us all.

[tishaLA]

77. yes, and he can keep us in "our American roots," too

[The Backlash Cometh]

79. Well, for that I'm afraid we'll have to rely on the ACLU.

[babylonsister]

61. You are totally delusional. Read this...

I know many people like(d) Edwards, but putting him on a pedestal as you've done doesn't work. Lucky for you we'll never get to find out how prescient you are.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/07/edwardss_populist_message_evolves/?page=1

[The Backlash Cometh]

76. The primaries are over.

I will concede you the point. We must move on with what we have to work with.

[flpoljunkie]

22. McCain has ONE thing going for him--he leads Obama 53-33 on who's best to handle terrorism

As Gail Collins said in her column this morning, Barack Obama is an "extremely intelligent politician."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.htm...

Think about it. Barack Obama must be seen by our relatively uninformed electorate as being able to keep us safe. If he had voted against the FISA bill, he would have opened himself up for an immediate and sustained assault from the Repigs. It's the only thing McCain polls better on than Obama--and the difference is not inconsiderable--20 points.

[vaberella]

30. Obama pwns in everything but terrorism. He's almost created an

immunity with his vote. However that is not to marginalize the importance of the vote in the first place which was to mitigate some of the damages done by the Patriot Act.

[The Backlash Cometh]

81. "uninformed electorate"

Therein lies the problem. We are continually being sold out because everyone fears what the "uninformed electorate" may be scared into believing and who they might support because of it.

[flpoljunkie]

92. And, it is a problem, a very real one.

[TwilightGardener]

31. So, the top two in the primaries stole the contest from...whom? A white male?

That's absolute bullshit. Both Obama and Hillary outshone the other competition. Too bad the white males in the race couldn't perform at their level.

[The Backlash Cometh]

80. Any three of them would have won.

I based my opinion on the one who routinely stood up against the giants.

[TwilightGardener]

82. "Would" have won? Did the primaries take place in some alternate reality?

Did the first caucus not take place in a state where John Edwards LIVED and campaigned in for TWO YEARS? Did he NOT lose in his birth state of South Carolina? What part of "enough people didn't vote for him" can you not accept?

[The Backlash Cometh]

87. And perchance, do you see the parallel between what happened

to Edwards because he wasn't minding his state, and what will happen to Obama because he's making the same kind of decisions?

[JoFerret]

97. Interesting perspective

I would prefer the old fashioned variety but then that's just me.

[demokatgurrl]

24. She gets it almost right

I disagree with her on the flag pin and the death penalty.
But I agree with her more this time than usual. And I believe she is a right-of-center Democrat, so Obama is perfect for her.

[TwilightGardener]

26. Truly great article from Ms. Collins--thanks.

[JoFerret]

34. Good column by Collins. n/t

.

[JohnnyLib2]

42. "Even if he says it in that great Baracky way."

I'm gonna remember that description for the next 4 years!

He may be a greatly effective president, but the opposition will hit and hit and hit at the "Baracky way" of addressing issues.

K & R for a very insightful piece.

[babylonsister]

50. The opposition? How about supposed Dems, in this very thread?

Damned if he does...

[JohnnyLib2]

71. Of course.

I keep in mind his book title. If the emphasis is put on
'The AUDACITY of Hope.' more things fall into place.

IMO, he was and is aware of the cage-rattling effect of the "Baracky way."
It is audacious and the ripples must be anticipated and answered.

(I think that the Jackson incident is an example; we'll have to wait for results on that.)

[DevonRex]

47. Fantastic article. Thank you so very much for posting it. nt

[Inuca]

54. Excellent op-ed

not to pat myself on the shoulder (well, maybe just a bit :-)) but I kept saying this over and over here and elsewhere. To anybody that has been paying attention, almost nothing that Obama did recently should come as a surprise. There are many things I like about Obama and hope he will be able to achieve once he takes office. Bringing people together, less pigeonholing, obsessing over one issue to the detriment of everything else, no matter how important that issue is to you, energizing people to actually DO something rather than throw stones at each other, all these come pretty damn close to the top of my personal list.

I think Collins' article is excellent beginning to end, and best summarized in this "attempts to find a rational common ground on controversial issues and dumb-avoidance." That's what actually we have been suffering from for the last 8 years, when you stop to think about it. Yes, roughly speaking, republicans= bad, and democrats=good. VERY roughly speaking. But I'd rather have a smart, well-intentioned, and compromise-seeking republican, than a not so smart "my way or the highway" democrat. Anyway... great article.

[NatBurner]

78. i like her perspective

kick

[Solon]

86. I agree with the author of the article, its also why Obama wasn't my first, or second....

choice.

[elkston]

93. But I am happy you are with us now. :) n/t

[babylonsister]

100. I'm happy you are with us, elkston! Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

103. I just re-watched Obama's 2004 convention speech

to see what had moved me about him back then. I was really excited to hear he spoke then about the exact same things he speaks about today - bringing the country together, hope, taking care of each other (I am my brother's keeper, he stated), and other themes that he's been consistently saying since early in the primaries. He's been reaching for the same goals at least since 2004, probably earlier. It definitely reinforced my opinion of Obama and that he hasn't moved or flip flopped or left his base. He's the same. People are just finally really getting to know him.

[GoldieAZ49]

106. compromise...he publicly dumped Wright after 20 yrs, you think the left base can't be dumped?

compromise...he has done that personally and politically throughout the campaign...those that have 'listened' to him are not surprised.

Don't like his compromises now? To bad, suck it up, or as the saying goes, get over it. You gave up having a choice long ago.

put your seat belt on, you are in for a ride.