Obama was dead wrong in his AP speech yesterday. I am furious.

[madfloridian]

Why is he criticizing Democrats for supporting the safety net for seniors? Why is he supporting merit pay for teachers? Children are not "things" that teachers can manipulate for pay. This upsets me.

Sounds like he is spouting privatizing of Social Security and Medicare.

I do NOT like this one bit.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3768066.html

In addition to criticizing Republicans, Obama chided members of his own party.

He said Democrats "all too often are defending a social safety net that was constructed in the 1930s and '40s. My argument to Democrats has been that we need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."

He is dead wrong on that...we need to be very careful how we achieve those goals. Sounds like he supports achieving the goal in any way we can...it is called privatizing. Our seniors are suffering enough right now from that devastating Medicare D bill. They don't need to hear a Democrat spouting Republican rhetoric.

Obama prodded Democrats on education. "I do not believe that being against No Child Left Behind is an education policy," he said. "We should take a look at pay for performance," an idea not generally popular with teacher unions.

"I'm a big union guy and I have a sister who is a public school teacher," he said. "I think it is absolutely necessary for us to engage teachers, saying, 'We are willing to pay you more, but we have a right to expect a better outcome.'"

Well, Obama, may I say that there are other factors involved that teachers have no control over. Can you say parents? Can you say children's temperaments? Can you say lack of ability on the part of students who are required to take tests they can't read because they have learning problems? Can you say poverty?....I could go on.

Sorry, but that sounds very corporate friendly to me. I don't like that at all.

I am afraid that what I thought would happen is happening. The DLC is setting policy, not listening to the people. I am pretty sure the "tough and smart" from the national security plan the other day is right from the Third Way site. I thought so when I saw the logo at Raw Story, but I can not find the cached version of the old Third Way site. But if you compare the new site and their program....they set the agenda.

So are we back to square one? Are all of them going to go along now with getting to the "goals" just any old way.

They have been controlling the agenda too long. I am upset with Obama over that.

[JStuart]

1. I don't know...

maybe he's trying to play the middle? that's stupid.

[movonne]

2. I am not at all impressed with this guy..never was and could not

see why so many here were so impressed with him...I think he is a tool of the dlc and they have puffed him up to be this great new dem.

[kurth]

He's a great opportunist

who loves corporate donations, just like the rest of them.

[Imagine My Surprise]

39. Ditto

[AzDar]

117. ..Gotta pile on here. I never GOT whatever it is that makes him so

outstanding; a good convention speech ,perhaps?
If that's how low we've set the bar......

[Chimichurri]

118. totally agree. He's a huge disappointment.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

139. He gave one good speech

and was immediately hailed as The Answer, never mind that The Question hadn't been defined.

[Kittycat]

140. I sent him a letter last week...

This news is a slap in my face. I guess he's not going to respond to the very carefully worded letter that I sent. But I guess these statements are enough, since they completely counter it.

Kat

[trixie]

146. I was turned off by his religious rhetoric

now this.....:shrug:

[Czolgosz]

155. Obama has been an O-bust -- he never lives up to his campaign speeches

[Lorien]

204. I must admit, I became suspicious when the media absolutely gushed

over him during the 2004 Democratic convention, calling him the party's "rising star". It seems like the only politicians the MSM gives that kind of treatment to are the ones who have made a lot of promises to their parent corporations. Hope I'm wrong about that in his case.

[Pacifist Patriot]

214. Honestly, I never saw much in him either...

but I'm not a constituent so I confess to not following him all that closely.

[philosophie_en_rose]

3. Obama graduated from an elite private school in Hawaii.

I adore Obama, but I think he's not realistic in regards to public schools.

[Critters2]

44. Why have so few politicians gone to public schools?

They are completely clueless about how most of us live. Most of us went to public schools!!

[Pacifist Patriot]

215. Ooooo, I could get into so much trouble if I answered...

your question seriously.

[mmonk]

4. Another reason

we have no power.

[madfloridian]

5. And another damn thing, Obama...about that "safety net"

"a social safety net that was constructed in the 1930s and '40s."

That safety net enabled my grandparents and great grandparents after the great depression to have some kind of life. Think about when FDR brought Social Security into being...it was not long after the great depression.

I am seething. That safety net of Social Security gave people their lives back.

[catmandu57]

7. It was during the great depression

That most of this came to be. I can't see what everyone sees in this guy either.

[madfloridian]

10. You are right, the 30s.

It only began in 29...just got worse.

[EST]

6. Mr. Obama continues to be a deep disappointment.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. That's pretty sucky

[IsItJustMe]

9. I don't know about Obama either. The more I see of him, the more I wonder

I think he is trying to fit in this centrist moderate position as a Democrat. I don't know if he realizes it or not, but he comes off sometimes as sounding like a Repuke. We shall see.

[endarkenment]

11. *sigh*

we will now all be told to stop criticising Democrats, that we are lefties, that Obama is just wonderful and that we should STFU.

Obama long ago ceased to surprise me with his centrist corporate safe politics.

[madfloridian]

15. Dems do NOT attack seniors with impunity.

I guess I should not have been surprised, but I was.

If I have anything to say, our Democrats better leave the safety nets alone.

[IsItJustMe]

20. You are right on the mark. He's no rising star, just another politician.

He talks a lot of shit, but no true ideals. No fire in the belly, and hence just another empty suit.

It amazes me how people can always see through these people. I have been thinking this for a long time now, and yet this post typifies my thoughts and feelings about him.

And I so wanted him to be a rising star.

[cascadiance]

69. Please put "centrist" in quotes when describing the DLC...

The DLC has continued to try to desribe them as the "centrist" element or the "moderating influence" of the left in the Democratic Party. We need to move away from that meme and change the frame to identify them as the corporatist band that they are. To win in 2006 and to rid ourselves of the corporate corrupting influence of the DLC, we need to sell the moderates and independents on how what we're really fighting right now is the corporate takeover of our Democracy, and it isn't a "left" vs. "right" or "moderate" thing. We need to isolate the DLC as the corporate corrupting influence of the Democratic Party that it is, and get everyone, both left and in the middle members of the party to push it out. Dems can be moderate and still dislike what the real agenda of the DLC is.

Ultimately we need to get public financing to flush them out, but some grass roots framing of what these folks really are is where we need to start.

[Protagoras]

90. how about "Corporatist Democrats"

instead of Centrist or Moderate. There's nothing moderate about their desire to sell us out to big business.

[cascadiance]

121. That works for me...

Perhaps though, we need something that sounds even more nasty than "Corporatist"... How about "Corporafascist"?

[endarkenment]

136. I actually didn't use the toxic DLC word.

I said "centrist corporate safe politics". But I agree that 'centrist' is a misnomer as the american political 'center' is between moderate rightwing and rabid fascist rightwing these days.

How about "center-right corporate safe politics"?

[cascadiance]

142. I think that you are correctly identifying corporatist there...

It's just that the whole left vs. right (with moderates in between) is talking about a completely different sphere I think than what is going on with corporatist corruption and the rest of us.

I guess you're right that you didn't state DLC. But I think that the DLC is more about corporatist politics and are equivalent to the term "corporatist" than they are being a "moderate" part of the Democratic Party. I think there are even extreme right wing types (much as I don't care for them) that are just as adversely affected by corporatist corruption as we are (the bankruptcy bill isn't just saying that liberals can't declare bankruptcy. It applies to those who get in honest trouble such as a major medical operation that are extreme right wing folks too).

The corporatists shouldn't be allowed to claim ownership of any viewpoint (left, right, or center), except their own sefish self serving ideals, which are more authoritarian vs. democratic than they are trying to claim someplace on the left vs. right spectrum.

[endarkenment]

176. I've stopped using DLC as a label

as the "dlc'ers" here will quickly go to the membership roles and claim that so and so isn't technically a dlc'er, or we end up in some meaningless side argument about the great deeds of the DLC. So corporatist works for me. Those who know some of the ideological underpinnings of fascism understand that the corporatist label cuts right to the heart of the political crisis in our republic.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. From the beginning I felt that Obama was a Manchurian Candidate.

Didn't the GOP put up an out of state rabid contender against him in the Senate race? Someone that had a chance of winning only if hell froze over?

Once he voted to confirm Condi, he totally lost me.

But what do I know? :tinfoilhat:

[kurth]

16. Obama is an elitist at heart

He's no friend of progressives except when it serves his career.

[endarkenment]

19. The Illinois GOP had a meltdown.

I forget the specifics, you can look it up, but they had a candidate who went toxic midstream and they had to go get another one and ended up with a joke. i don't think that was deliberate.

Obama is just another corporatist career politician suffocating the Democratic Party, not some Republican plant.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

80. I think the GOP is too well organized than to have a "meltdown".

Alan Keyes is a world class nut.

[endarkenment]

137. Not in this case in Illinois.

Other posters reminded me of the details. Ryan had a toxic marital problem and the GOP was left without a candidate until that frootbag numskull space-alien Keyes showed up. They couldn't have planned that mess. It was totally fubar.

[bunkerbuster1]

26. "out of state rabid contender" = Alan Keyes

A dead pedophile could've beaten Alan Keyes in '04.

Let's face reality. Barak Obama is a Senator because Jeri Ryan's husband acted like a cad.

Barak Obama is a better-looking Joe Biden with a tan + more hair.

[cascadiance]

74. Hey, let's get "7 of 9" (Jeri Ryan) to run for the Dems...

We need a "reformed" Borg to help us rid ourselves of the corruption, etc.

[bunkerbuster1]

91. It'd be tough getting fellas to volunteer to work with her

not.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

85. Thanks for reminding me of his name. I didn't have the time to do a search

[Hard_Work]

144. Not true, you know...

"Let's face reality. Barak Obama is a Senator because Jeri Ryan's husband acted like a cad."


Actually, Obama was beating the brakes off of Ryan as well. The GOP couldn't find anyone in-state who was willing to step in and take the ass whipping Obama was handing out, and the only out of state repub they could find was Keyes.

[bunkerbuster1]

163. Well, I haven't seen polling from the time

but I'll acknowledge that Ryan might've got his ass stomped with or without the sex scandal. Perhaps I did overstate things.

[DrRang]

40. Yeah, that homophobic nutball Alan Keyes n/t

[fooj]

88. Great minds think alike. LOL!

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

111. lol fooj!!!!!!!

((((((((((:tinfoilhat:))))))))) :hi:

[OutsidetheBox]

13. Obama= premature ejaculation

He had many liberals all uppity with his convention speech and suddenly he was a front runner for President in 2008? How easy the naive fall in line. Speeches are designed to manipulate people and this one enamored millions to an idea, not the actual man. Obama is a politician, don't forget that. He is not a savior or the second coming of MLK. He is, pure and simple, one of many devious human beings that comprise the label of politician. He smells power and he is doing all he can to achieve it, positioning himself as a moderate, hence the ability to garner more votes. Don't be fooled by Obama...He is one of many, and there will forever be one more Obama to take the grand stage of lies called politics.

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. If he's not careful, he's going to go the way of his mentor

He's another one of those cases where, during the 2004 campaign, hubby looks at me and states: "He's just too good to be true." The he goes about getting all of the Obama bumper stickers and lapel stick-ons he can grab. LOL!

Obama's made some votes I haven't been too happy about...in fact, downright pissed about them.

[madfloridian]

18. His mentor was Lieberman, isn't that what he said?

Or did Lieberman say that in a kidding way.

[Norquist Nemesis]

24. Whether he was kidding or not

they're joined because of the statement.

[American liberal]

165. no. His mentor during many of his years in IL State House was Paul Simon

[madfloridian]

174. We are speaking of what Lieberman said about it.

At the CT dinner. He said Obama had chosen him as his mentor...that was right after Obama referred to the grassroots' problem with Lieberman as the "elephant in the room." Lieberman joked about the elephant, said he wasn't one, then said the mentor thing.

Look, I like Obama, but he needs to speak clearly on serious issues to seniors and teachers lest he be misunderstood.

[stepnw1f]

17. I'm am Very Unimpressed by This Man

in fact I am highly dissapointed.

[qanda]

21. Did people read everything he said

Or are they taking the OP's interpretation of it to bash Obama. Yes, the Democrats are getting very far doing exactly what they're doing now. :sarcasm:

[madfloridian]

22. Don't start the bash stuff. I used his own words. He said them.

I quoted the things in his speech I disagreed with. And I really really disagreed. They hit me in the face.

[qanda]

30. I asked a question to the other posters

My post was the first response to the thread that was even slightly supportive of Obama. I happen to think that Democrats are where they are because they fail to see that sometimes change is good, not just for the party but also for the people. What exactly is wrong with discussing options that a good portion of people would like to see implemented, especially where public schools are concerned?

From the responses that often come on threads about Obama I get a sense that people expected him to be Al Sharpton and toe whatever imaginary line they had set for him. I guess the voters in his state will determine in four years if he truly is a disappointment

[madfloridian]

33. Students are people, not objects to be measured.

Teachers are people. Their job of teaching is not one that can be weighed and found wanting by scores. That is what corporations want to do, test and pay. Schools should not be run that way.

And seniors should not be made to suffer anymore for our corporatist Democrats giving in to the GOP.

It is time that certain things were stood up for.

You can have your discussions on other issues....not seniors, not teachers, not students. They need us to stand up for them.

[never cry wolf]

36. You used the words a paper printed that he said, read the speech!

Here is his speech: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060403-energy_independence_and_the_safety_of_our_planet/index.html

None of the quotes you cite are in there, I tried to find a transcript so that I could see the context of what the paper quoted. Maybe it was a Q & A session afterwards but that still does not supply any context.

His speech was about bunnypants' abysmal energy policy. look at what google news has for headlines: http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=mozilla-search&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&percentage_served=100&tab=wn&q=obama+%22associated+press%22&scoring=d
Bush Avoiding Action On Climate Catastrophe, Obama Says
Barack's Global Warming Truthiness
Obama faults Bush on energy policy
Obama scolds Bush on environment, energy proposals
Barack Obama Slams Bush's Oil Policy

His speech and probably 95% of what he said bashed bushie and was about energy and the environment. I'll take the body of what he said rather than a couple of quotes from a Q & A session without any context. Find a transcript and lets see what he really said.

[cantstandbush]

152. Oh, you beat me to it. Great comment. There are plenty of Obama

bashers just waiting to leap on him for anything. My God, what a shame.

[madfloridian]

153. I am a Obama basher because I questioned his words? Simplistic.

What a shame. He criticized Democrats who support the senior safety nets, and I am a basher.

It is very simplistic to call someone a basher when they question.

[never cry wolf]

190. What were his words, gimme a transcript!

I sure as hell ain't taking the Houston Chronicles interpretation on the Q & A after an extremely progressive speech.

[BurtWorm]

27. It's difficult to read what Obama said as anything progressive.

Maybe you could demonstrate how such a reading would be possible.

[ripple]

120. universal health care/universal education

And he said nothing about privatization- instead, I think he was making the larger point that instead of solely clinging emotionally to ineffective programs, we should work towards the larger goal of universal health care. If we can come up with a viable system of universal health care, the Medicare/Medicaid problems will be largely solved. That doesn't mean that we throw in the towel on vital programs that are necessary now- it just means that we remember the larger goals and work to achieve them.

It's a very progressive attitude and I really don't understand the animosity. Unless, of course, people believe that the ONLY way there can be universal health care and universal education is through privatization. I don't believe that and I don't believe Obama does, either.

[BurtWorm]

128. The disparagement, or criticism, may come from people who don't

really know him. Speaking for myself, I have never seen satisfactory evidence that Obama is that much of a progressive. His reputation as one that preceded him to the national stage has not panned out to be what it was cracked up to be. I agree with madfloridian that his less than full-throatedly positive remarks about Social Security as a "safety net" and about teacher's pay being based on "performance" seemed to contain code words most progressives I know of don't use when speaking on those subjects.

I don't rule out that he may be more progressive than he lets on. I just haven't seen enough evidence for that.

[warrens]

23. The object here is to get rid of Rucking Fepublicans

Not constantly attempt to disparage dems every time one of them says something you don't agree with. Obama has said from the git-go that there are ideas in the conservative world that have merit; that most of them are hijacked by wingnuts and turned into hate speech doesn't mean the idea is bad or can't be valuable. For instance, balancing the budget was an idea from the right, which they posed in terms of getting rid of welfare queens. Clinton stole it, turned it sane, and gave us all a true and very valuable tax break. But when he started talking about it, the leftwads started screaming that he was just Ronald Reagan in a Democratic suit.

Obama has a lot of interesting ideas, and he is attempting to take the partisanship out of politics. It's probably a hopeless quest, but he's throwing out ideas for discussion.

If you want Rove to win again, keep screaming about ideological purity.

[madfloridian]

25. So I am not to question when their policy hurts teachers and seniors?

Is that how far along we have come on the spectrum? I have made it clear I will vote Democratic in the general election, but they are going out of their way to irritate.

I am a retired teacher, and both issues above concern me greatly. I have every right to speak of them.

[endarkenment]

181. And please continue to do so.

I really object to the theory that our criticism of Democrats from within the Democratic Party is somehow wrong. I'll fight like hell to get progressive candidates in and to get corporatist shills replaced. When it comes to election time, I'm am going to vote Democratic in almost all circumstances, but I will be damned if that means I support all Democrats without criticism.

[Skinner]

28. I guess I'm not seeing what is so bad about this.

In particular, this part:

My argument to Democrats has been that we need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values.

There are probably many different ways to give Americans universal health care. If we are able to achieve universal healthcare, why must we insist that it be done in one particular way? The most important goal is the universal healthcare, not the manner which it is done.

Maybe you can accuse Obama of speaking in some kind of secret code which is hiding some nefarious agenda. But if you take away that possibility, I honestly don't see what is inherently wrong or offensive about his statement.

[endarkenment]

34. Here is one part I hate.

Basing teacher pay on test scores is an abomination of educational practice. Teachers are now routinely teaching kids how to take tests rather than helping kids learn. Test skills have become the paramount goal of 'education' and that is crap, plain and simple.

As the OP states, we should not be agnostic about how UHC is acheived. If it is implemented through a corrupt give-away boondoggle to the healthcare industry it will be a disaster and will set back UHC for decades. The fact that Obama is opening the door to this scam is alarming to say the least. At least I find it alarming. Just look at the crap that is medicare plan D, that is the corporatist version of UHC in a nutshell.

[Skinner]

41. I agree that basing teacher pay on test scores is bad policy.

It rewards teachers who are lucky enough to get jobs at schools with privileged kids, and penalizes teachers who are working with the less privileged. But I don't think that changes the basic point Obama was making. Whe he says we should be agnostic on the methods, he is not arguing that we should be open to methods that don't work. If they don't work, then the goal is not going to be achieved.

The same goes for universal health care. He is arguing that we should be agnostic with regard to policies with a reasonable chance for success. But I seriously doubt he is saying that we should be willing to put in place policies that we expect to suck.

[madfloridian]

47. I was speaking of seniors' safety nets.

You are speaking more of Universal Health Care. He seems to be having too open a mind about privatizing Social Security and Medicare. They are already doing it via Medicare D, and many of us are trying to help seniors get their drugs which have gone sky high.

Our Democrats are all over National Security, but they are allowing the seniors to suffer without speaking out.

[Radical Activist]

66. Where does Obama talk about privatizing social security?

Oh wait, he doesn't. You just made that up.

[madfloridian]

70. Uh, that is what is on the table now.

Not making that up, maybe you are not aware. That is the goal of this admin or haven't you heard. To privatize everything...give an inch they take a mile.

[Radical Activist]

76. The goal of the admin

NOT the goal of Obama. Are you seriously trying to put Bush's words in Obama's mouth? :wtf: You still can't point to a single sentence where Obama (not Bush) advocates privatizing social security. There are a lot of other ideas out there about improving SS other than privatization. Its not the only option for reform on the table.

[woo me with science]

96. What if merit increases aren't based on the scores themselves,

but rather on improvement by students relative to where they start at the beginning of the school year? People seem to be assuming that merit pay is based on absolute scores, which would penalize teachers in the lower-performing districts. However, I don't think that's necessarily what is being proposed. I think at least some of the proposals being suggested now are based on improvements in scores rather than absolute scores. This makes sense to me.

If merit pay is based on students' improvement relative to where they start at the beginning of the year, teachers in lower-performing schools may actually have an advantage to earn merit increases, since it could be argued that their students have more room for improvement than students who are already working close to their capabilities.

[endarkenment]

131. If it is "on improvement by students" as measured by test scores

then that is the problem itself. This results in teachers training children how to take tests and tossing learning out the window. If the kids happen to learn something, it is a by-product of their test taking skills training.

"teachers in lower-performing schools may actually have an advantage to earn merit increases" well I suppose they might, but that has not been the No Child's Behind Left result.

I guess I am just a old curmudgeon of a hippy holding on to progressive ideas like teaching should focus on enabling children to learn and not on ever increasing test scores. Peace.

[never cry wolf]

200. How do you measure improvement?

Certainly NCLB is absurd. Teaching kids how to take a test does no one any good. Plus under NCLB, the failing schools are designed to fail even more while the good students in those schools transfer and funds are cut even deeper.

This may be a subject for a different thread but how do you increase performance?

I don't have the answer. Certainly fund head start, provide more funds on a federal and state level rather than depend upon property taxes in a specific district. Here in Illinois some districts have 3x times more $ to spend per student, of course they will perform better...

Again, a topic for a new thread. Performance based incentives may be something to look into. Not test based, but performance based, after funding is equalized... Seems to me that is all Obama is saying...

[no name no slogan]

122. Want proof on UHC? Look at the Clintons' plan, 1994

Instead of a truly universal, single-payer system that would have provided coverage for EVERYBODY in the country, Hillary and co. formulated a half-baked, pro-corporate plan that would have consolidated all health coverage under the five largest insurance carriers in the nation, AND would STILL NOT provide coverage to all Americans.

The plan was opposed by nearly everybody-- UHC advocates and small- to medium-sized insurers both, because of what it did. It only got widespread support from (you guessed it) big corporate health care providers, who would reap 99% of the benefits.

IOW, imagine a Universal plan a la Medicare Part D. That's what we would have got under the Clinton plan.

The Clintons set back the fight for Universal Health Care for at least a decade. Most Dem presidential candidates won't even TOUCH the issue these days because of the beating the Clinton plan got.

[endarkenment]

132. Precisely.

And I want to make sure that if we get a second chance we don't get sandbagged by corporate greedheads looking for their slice of the action again.

So I have like a major allergic reaction when half assed UHC schemes are floated or when someone like Obama says that it's the goal that is important not the specific implementation. WRONG. The specific implementation has to be GREED-FREE.

[MaraJade]

170. But he doesn't say pay should be based on test scores. . .

I sorta agree with him. Especially since incompetent teachers in the CENTRAL DAUPHIN SCHOOL DISTRICT have caused my husband
and I to have to spend over $10,000 in tutoring fees for my daughter.

Allow me to give you an example.

When we moved our daughter from a private kindergarten to first grade in a public school we were informed by her Montessori Teacher
(at the private school) that she had dyslexia. The Montessori teacher contacted the public elementary school (by the way, this
particular school is one of the top PSSA test-passing schools in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania), she informed them that our
child was going to be enrolled, and gave her assessment. We were given assurances that our daughter would receive reading help
from a specially trained teacher.

She never received any help at all. In fact, she was needlessly placed in a program for troubled kids (which I had to
threaten legal action to get her out of).

Fast forward a bit.

She was assigned a reading assignment for over the summer between the eighth and ninth grades ("Rocket Boys," aka "October Skies").

When I noticed that she was struggling, I took her to Sylvan Learning Center for assessment.

Turns out she had a fifth grade reading level. And this at the end of the eighth grade.

Incompetent teachers had simply passed her on without a care in the world.

$5000 later Sylvan straightened it out and now she has an eleventh grade reading level and she's in the ninth grade.

I am angry and contemplating a lawsuit. It wasn't my child, or her family life, or any such nonsense. It was clearly a case
of incompetent teachers. Why should I have to pay taxes and then pay a tutor thousands of dollars to patch up the mess made
by teachers who simply don't do their jobs?

Now, she has a math teacher who has four classes of students who are failing, with the majority of the kids at the 65th percentile
or worse. This in a school district where the median income exceeds $60,000 per year (there are million and multi-million dollar
homes here). It is not a matter of money or socialization or anything like that. This man is incompetent. Once again, I have
had to hire a tutor to help my child at the cost of thousands of dollars.

Bad teachers who pass on kids who cannot read or who have hundreds of students who are failing should simply not be paid as high
a salary as teachers who don't. Maybe a penalty of a few thousand dollars a year would get their attention.

Granted, if a teacher is operating in a district where social factors heavily influence student performance, that must be
taken into consideration. But not all teachers do. They most certainly do not operate under such handicaps where I live.

Incompetence is inexcusable.

[madfloridian]

37. You need the whole paragraph to get the full meaning of what I wrote.

"He said Democrats "all too often are defending a social safety net that was constructed in the 1930s and '40s. My argument to Democrats has been that we need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."

They should be defending that safety net completely. The plans that are being discussed in addition to are nearly all corporate friendly plans with little oversight.

I think we need to watch what our Democrats do on this. Seniors are suffering now. No one is really speaking up for them at all. Doctors are refusing health care to many on just Medicare. I don't hear Democrats talking about this. Medicare costs out of Social Security have gone up over 24% in two years...right out of the payment.

But taxes are going up on Social Security people as well, because they don't take that into account on the COLA. Drugs costs are out of sight.

I think I was fair, we should not be "agnostic" in considering options. In fact, I fear the programs are already in such danger that no one dares speak honestly.

[Skinner]

43. I disagree.

They should not be blindly defending the safety net. What matters is what the safety net does, not how the safety net does it. If we can do it better in some other way, then we should be willing to consider all the alternatives.

[madfloridian]

48. They mean privatize.

In the hands of this group of Republicans, it could mean turning seniors over to private companies with no oversight.

Look what is happening to Medicare D?

[KoKo]

110. Yes....that's worrisome that Dems would be infavor of considering

Privatization.

[ripple]

123. Obama isn't talking privatization

Unless you believe that the only way to achieve universal health care and universal education is through privatization. Those are the things he mentioned- not privatization.

[MaraJade]

172. Agree--

[Telly Savalas]

188. Is that what Obama is saying?

Where?

An alternate implementation of social services need not be a private one.

[never cry wolf]

53. I agree with Skinner

I think that he was pointing out that the safety net was devised in the 30's and 40's and it should no be blindly defended but upgraded to include universal health care and education. That's how I read it.

[madfloridian]

57. Not with this bunch in power.

Please don't turn seniors over to these extremists who don't think anyone needs a helping hand. Please. Please blindly defend it while this bunch is in power.

[Guaranteed]

Come on, Skinner.

You can toy with SS a bit, move numbers around, and maybe be able to fix it. That's not an "alternative," though. And Obama didn't mean that. There's only one real, significantly different alternative to the federal Social Security program as it is today.

He's telling us to embrace corporatism, and achieve our goals through it.

I've never put the "DLC" label on Obama, but this is classic Clintonism. We've DONE this- look where it got us.

You can't put our values through the corporate machine. It doesn't work. You can't half-way assimilate.

[never cry wolf]

60. Where does he embrace corporatism or advocate privatization?

I sure don't see it anywhere. As I said above, I read it that he want to add universal health care and education TO the safety net, two items that were not so realtively expensive when the New Deal was devised but are out of reach for many now.

[Guaranteed]

Give me your interpretation of this sentence:

"My argument to Democrats has been that we need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."

What does he mean when he says we need to be agnostic in terms of how to achieve our values?

It's classic Clintonism. That's what this is.

[never cry wolf]

73. My interpretation is

aside from the fact that he did not say it in his speech... listen to it or read it here: http://www.barackobama.com/media/safety_of_our_planet/

by the way, you forgot the tiny bit of context that was there:

all too often are defending a social safety net that was constructed in the 1930s and '40s.

I believe he is saying that the safety net set up in the 30's and 40'd needs to be upgraded and enhanced to provide for those things the cost of which are out of control today, such as health care and education.

The safety net is not just SS, it's the whole New Deal and it never included provisions for health care and education except for vets in the GI Bill. I believe the agnostic means that we should not have blind faith that whatever was devised in the 30's and 40's is perfect forever but we should look for ways to enhance it without sticking to a party dogma.

By the way, I do not know where those quotes came from nor their context, which would go a long way to explain his meaning. They were NOT part of his speech. They may have been part of a Q & A afterwards but I can't find a transcript, can you?

[Guaranteed]

83. That's a good try, but that's not what he said.

Yes, the context of it all is very important. The sentence you added in strengthens my interpretation.

Your interpretation of how the word "agnostic" operates on the whole sentence is just incorrect. He's not saying that he wants to include provisions for health care and education in the Social Security program. He's saying that we not only need to be "open minded" about the means we use to achieve "Social Security" (retirement), but also universal healthcare and education. In other words, not through the government.

He's saying that we need to be open to achieving our goals through private enterprise. It's pretty clear.

And I'm not impressed.

[never cry wolf]

103. hahahahaha

Of course he is implying privatization, it's plain as day.

He said Democrats "all too often are defending a social safety net that was constructed in the 1930s and '40s. My argument to Democrats has been that we need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."

Universal health and education are core values that are not in the current safety net and we should use every means possible to achieve those values. I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way sans context.

If those were answers to questions, and they must have been because they weren't in his speech, it would be nice to know what the questions were and his full answers.

[madfloridian]

63. I am speaking of "safety nets". Social Security and Medicare.

Some of you seem to be unaware that on the table now is privatizing those programs.

[tishaLA]

81. And Obama has never advocated privatization

In fact, he has done just the opposite.

[incapsulated]

87. Exactlly so.

But it just reeks of "truthiness" to say that he does! I AM FURIOUS!!!!

:nuke:

[madfloridian]

94. Glad to hear that.

He needs to not be open-minded on it, though with this adminstration. Their main goal is to do away with these programs, and we should not give them an inch.

And why is he critizing Democrats who defend these programs?

[tishaLA]

108. He's criticizing dems who defend which programs?

Privatization?

[madfloridian]

133. I stand by my OP. It was clear, it was honest.

He criticizes Democrats who defend the safety nets of the 30s and 40s. That is wrong. Those programs need to be left alone.

He should not be criticizing Democrats for saying hands off those programs. They are to be left alone.

[tishaLA]

143. By that standard, we should stand by the same

medical techniques we had in the 30s ad 40s. Or the same labor laws. We could freeze ourselves in a time warp and never escape. "They are to be left alone." (Passive voice is an astonishing thing for what it reveals.)

I'm glad you stand by your original post, which criticizes Sen. Obama for something he never says, especially since you are now saying he criticizes Democrats. Because, just as he never advocates privatization (and in fact has worked against it), he also never mentions Democrats who support the same old, same old.

[madfloridian]

145. Medicare and Social Security should be precious to our Democrats.

They aren't. That worries me.

[tishaLA]

147. They are to Obama

He wants to protect them. He wants universal health care. He opposes privatization of SS. He has always had those positions.

If that doesn't fit the definition of precious, I don't know what does.

[madfloridian]

149. Then why is he criticizing Dems who support the traditional programs?

Why is he saying he has an open mind...or that he is doubtful? That is what agnostic means.

[tishaLA]

151. Agnostic does not mean doubtful

at least not to those who take definitions of words seriously. And he's not criticizing Democrats as much as he is criticizing complacency. We always need new ways of looking at problems and achieving solutions. So, for Obama, within the general rubric of universal health care and avoiding the privatization of SS, he believes we have options available to us that might not look like those we had in the 30s and 40s. Otherwise, we become, in the truest sense of the word, "conservatives" only interested in maintaining a status quo rather than visionary progressives who look at new ways to make sure the safety net for our citizens is strengthened.

[madfloridian]

189. But the ones he is willing to work with have one goal...

to destroy both safety nets in their present form. They have stated this, they think seniors are not owed such "special" treatment. They will not compromise, and they have already begun destroying Medicare. The Medicare D is only the first step in their plan.

However, I do take words seriously. I usually think of agnostic as being undecided, not sure. I took words seriously for many years teaching, and I still do. I can not let you get away with saying that serious people do not think "doubtful" is a meaning of agnostic. Here is only one sample I found of the adjective. If there is anything I hate worse than being talked down by other Democrats, it is telling me I am wrong on meanings.

adj.
Relating to or being an agnostic.
Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin)

http://www.answers.com/topic/agnostic

[never cry wolf]

192. Where O WHERE does he EVER say he's giving in to the pukes?

Where praytell??

If you were a teacher, and you know how to PARSE a sentence, you will find that Obama feels that mainstream democrats have wandered from the values that define us, and are all too willing to accept the status quo as a victory, while he wants to add universal health and education to the safety net...

personally, i think you may know agent mike... psyopps to destroy a rising star???

sorry, your interpretation of 3 sentences taken out of context from a Q & A shows me an agenda...

[madfloridian]

199. He criticized Democrats who support the safety nets.

If you criticize someone, you don't agree. I just quoted him again in my other thread about Rubin's new economic plan for the Democrats.

Here is the main quote from my other thread. I do NOT consider Social Security, Medicare, and public schools "tired old ideology."

You may be doing some parsing yourself.

"The Hamilton Project, which will be based at the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, will be run by Peter Orszag, an economist and senior fellow at Brookings. Policy papers unveiled yesterday proposed vouchers for summer schools and giving teachers tenure based on standards for effectiveness. “That is not consistent with certain orthodoxies we are familiar with. I think that’s a fairly controversial proposal. I wouldn’t say that’s a yawner,” said Mr Altman.

The white paper also called for entitlement reform but acknowledged the political constraints that helped stall Mr Bush’s drive to reform Social Security. “The principal problem is one of political choice and will and what is most needed is a bipartisan approach for deciding among the options,” it said.

Barack Obama, a Democrat senator from Illinois, welcomed the initiative as a way of transcending “tired ideologies”. "

You are not going to get a bi-partisan approach from the Bush gang. Their purpose is to destroy any safety nets.

[never cry wolf]

205. The bush gang's days are numbered

There are no more rubber stamps. I could not find your other thread, nor what you are quoting from within it. Plus, Obama did not criticize, per se.

I maintain that the partial quote cited in the Houston Chronicle article means Obama wants to go on the offensive and add health and education to the social safety net rather than be satisfied parrying off the pukes attempts to chip away at what is already there. We need to be PROgressive and move forward. You know, make PROgress and not allow the status quo seem to be a victory but push for health care and education for all to be added to the social safety net.

[KoKo]

109. Defending Social Security....just the way it is....what's wrong with that?

Why couldn't he have agreed with Al Gore and said it needs to be in a "lock box" where the Government can't use the funds for other purposes.

Since most of us view SS as a safety net...why didn't he defend that but say perhaps National Health insurance is a goal we should have. SS is not national health insurance, but a Safety Net for income and the addition of Medicare at least gives those who have no access some ability to pay for health care.

Perhaps he's thinking that with a national health insurance program that SS recipients wouldn't need to have Medi-Care..and it could be taken out of the SS Benefits program...but he needs to be clearer in his statements than saying he's "agnostic" about it.

[American liberal]

167. I agree with you wholeheartedly, Skinner

And Obama's comments do not even begin to imply that he is in favor of privatizing SS. That's total conjecture on madfloridian's part.

[Radical Activist]

68. Maybe we need a NEW safety net?

Not one that was designed for a very different economy over 50 years ago. Do you think that's what he means? Gosh.

[madfloridian]

42. It is his reference to "safety nets" that bothered me.

I am very concerned that the very second our party gives in just the least bit, that these programs are gone forever in their present forms.

You don't make deals with this bunch of Republicans, they have their extreme agenda on the issue of safety nets.

They think if you are rich you deserve it, if you are poor you deserve it, and that if you have not saved by your senior years...you do not deserve those programs.

They have totally forgotten that we all pay dearly during our working years for those programs.

And since I taught for over 30 years I have a lot of problems with paying teachers for students performing.

[Skinner]

45. I seriously doubt that Obama is suggesting that we should just

let our safety net disappear forever with no alternative. He is talking about being agnostic with regard to methods, but not with regard to goals.

[Tyler Durden]

50. Sorry Skinner: Obama is proof positive that there is no black/white...

...only GREEN and NOT GREEN. As in CASH.

Of course if he ran for president, I'd crawl across the country to vote for him. A Democrat is a Democrat, and NOT a Republican.

Too bad he turned out this way, though. The proof is in the pudding, but if you don't follow a good RECIPE, forget the end product: it will ALWAYS suck.

[American liberal]

166. I live in IL. I voted for Obama. I still cautiously support him. Here's...

why. The last black person from IL to go to U.S. Senate was a woman by the name of Carol Mosley Braun. (remember her? I voted for her, too.) Well, she got up to the big house and started nudging the status quo and pushing in the wrong sorts of ways--and got CREAMED. Her name was smeared all over the press and she had to leave office in disgrace.

Obama's smart. He may be saying and doing things you may not agree with, but I have faith that at his core he is on my side and will advocate for my best interests. I stand by my conviction that Sen. Obama is playing his cards very smart and close to the vest. He's a JUNIOR SENATOR, for crying out loud. He's already serving on the Foreign Relations Committee and I believe one other high-profile committee that is quite unusual for a jr. senator to sit on (Judiciary?). He's been in office less than 2 years of a 6-year term (and no, he is not even considering a run for the White House--yet). He's biding his time and getting the lay of the land. Personally, I think he is a smart politician. And, yes, he is a politician. What were you hoping for? A Messiah?

I continue to suggest to my DU friends to cut Sen. Obama some slack and reserve judgment. I think we will be glad he's on our side before all is said and done. Please, too, keep in mind that he is deep in enemy territory. You don't just go in there and start slashing and burning with 75 bayonets at your throat!

I believe in Sen. Obama and think he will do a lot of good in the name of We the People before it's all over. Give him time. I know we're jaded, but there are still some good guys out there trying to do good work. I think, if given the chance, Sen. Obama is one of them.

on edit: fixed a metaphor

[endarkenment]

180. You almost had me convinced.

So I had to go take a refresher course on what happened to Carol. Her problem was that she had a whole bunch of shenanigans going on outside of her duties as Senator.

I am very dubious of assertions that "so and so is very clever and is, despite public statements to the contrary, really a hard core good guy". This is one of the endless excuses for why our Democratic Leadership is not really as compromised by corporatist shills as it appears to be.

The moral of the story is, as far as I am concerned, I judge people by their words and deeds and am unconvinced by statements that they really intend to do and say otherwise, when the conditions are right. Obama can just avoid corrupt practices and then he wont have a Carol Mosley Braun problem.


"The most damaging allegation of illegal activity came when the Federal Election Commission began investigating $249,000 in unaccounted campaign expenditures in 1993. Charges had been made that Moseley Braun and Matthews had squandered the donations on trips and other personal expenditures. The campaign claimed careless bookkeeping and went on to file nearly 10,000 pages of amended reports, according to the Chicago Tribune. The nearly five-year investigation did turn up some evidence of misappropriation, such as a $4,000 bill at the Four Seasons Hotel in Maui. Despite finding evidence, the FEC never filed charges, citing of a "lack of resources." The Justice Department later rejected two requests from the Internal Revenue Service to investigate Moseley Braun for criminal misappropriation of campaign funds.

The controversy intensified when, in 1996, she traveled to Nigeria and praised its dictator, Sani Abacha, months after the execution of activist and playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa. It was later revealed that she was accompanied on the trip by Matthews, who was also a registered agent of the Nigerian government.

In the end, both the Nigerian scandal and the allegations of misappropriation of campaign funds largely contributed to her narrow re-election defeat in 1998. In 1999, she was appointed the American Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa, a position she held until 2001."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Moseley-Braun

[never cry wolf]

194. And do you know Obama's history?

Did you know that he was the first african american president of the Harvard Law Review, arguably denoting the most prestigious law student in the nation? Do you not think that the top law graduate who also happens to be a minority had 6 figure offers from every high powered law firm around and many corporations? Did you know that he turned them all down to work in the neighborhoods on civil rights issues?

If he was after money, he could have sold out decades ago, he didn't although I am sure it was tempting...

If mammon was his goal, he could have had all he wanted... that is not his goal, believe me....

[endarkenment]

209. As I said

I judge by words and deeds. Obama turned down big law firms - good for him. He had instead a focus on a career in politics. OK. So this establishes absolutely nothing about his character. I have found his publicly stated positions on issues I find very important to be hugely disappointing and routinely aligned with the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party.

The post I responded to claimed, effectively, that he is just 'keeping his powder dry'. I ain't buying that bullshit anymore.

[FlaGranny]

56. There IS a difference in the way health care is done.

If it is done for the benefit of insurance and health care corporations, there will continue to be profit made to the detriment of health care and will continue to rob Americans. Universal health insurance CAN be done badly. I'm not making a comment regarding his speech - I don't have the time to read it right now.

[leftstreet]

129. Politicians "believe in" universal health care...when they're campaigning.

:rofl:

The Democrats had the majority during the years Kennedy would have been glad to see his versions of universal Medicare For All adopted.

[Iowa]

159. I know what you're saying, but I think Obama is twisting...

...the language a bit here. Universal health care is really more of a goal than a value. HOW we choose to achieve universal health care is where the parties' respective values will come into play. When it comes to sweeping issues such as health care and education, the means one uses to accomplish an end can be as important as the end itself. The Medicare drug benefit; Bush's SS plan; No Child Left Behind - the problems are almost always buried in the "how". If we lose sight of that - if it all becomes about achieving an end, by any means... well, that's how corporations approach the world and little people usually end up getting screwed. HOW we achieve goals defines our values.

One more thing: The definition of agnostic is, "uncertain of all claims to knowledge". When ever someone in management decides to throw everything we think we know out the window and make a fresh start - look out. It usually means they know exactly what they want. And chaos usually follows.

[Iowa]

175. In follow-up to my previous post - take a look at this article...

Here's how Massachusetts is planning to handle universal health care - just make it a legal requirement that everyone MUST buy health insurance, and fine anyone who doesn't comply.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html

"The idea was applauded by Uwe E. Reinhardt, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, who said that he has long believed that the American system of allowing uninsured patients to receive care at the government's expense was nothing more than "freedom to mooch."

"Massachusetts is the first state in America to reach full adulthood," said Reinhardt, noting that the new measure is a move toward personal responsibility. "The rest of America is still in adolescence."

The manner in which we achieve the goal of things like universal health care definitely does matter, and this is a perfect example.

[madfloridian]

29. In one county teachers are fighting back again merit pay. Rally this week.

They are putting their jobs on the line to fight back against Jeb's merit pay connected to test scores. Students will be joining them also. I would imagine that though it is not really being covered on the news, that there will be several thousand.

It is time to speak on that issue, and seniors should be silent no longer on their issues either.

[MaraJade]

173. Read my other post and you will see why I back merit pay for teachers. . .

What I do not believe in is the TESTING of kids through statewide examinations. Just because kids can pass the test
doesn't mean education. My daughter passed the test every year and still could not read.

How? She was specifically TAUGHT to pass the test. But incompetent teachers failed to teach her to read. Go figure.

Without merit pay we PARENTS (yes it must be up to PARENTS) have no assurance that teachers who don't care will
be weeded out. We need to get rid of the incompetents.

I've been forced to pay private tutors thousands of dollars to fix the mess incompetent teachers have made of my
daughter's education ON TOP OF even more thousands of dollars of school taxes. This simply isn't fair.

Until something is done, businesses like Huntingdon's, Sylvans, and even "Indian Outsorced" outfits like Growing Stars
will make money off of desperate parents who have nowhere else to turn for help.

[BlooInBloo]

31. He's too smart for this country, and its electorate....

Reading his words themselves, there's nothing wrong with em. The only wrong comes when people read into his words things he simply didn't say.

Obama did NOT for example, say ANY of the following:

(a) We should not be careful about how we achieve Social Security goals.

(b) There are no factors in a successful education beyond teachers.

(c) Parents are not a factor in a child's education.

(d) Poverty is not a factor in a child's education.

(e) Learning disabilities are not a factor in a child's education.


He simply didn't say these things. Nothing he said implied those things. Nothing he said so much as SUGGESTED those things. And yet your criticisms only make sense on the assumption that he did say those things.

I personally, for example, believe that pay for performance makes perfect sense. I also believe that poverty, parenting, and numerous other things need to be addressed in order to create a COMPLETE solution.

I think ascribing statements to someone that they didn't make - ESPECIALLY when they're trained lawyers (specifically trained to say EXACTLY what they mean) - is a rather low form of argumentation. All the more so when the person IS ON YOUR FUCKING SIDE.

[melissinha]

150. thats fair

Except I completely disagree on paying for performance, I think teachers should be evaluated like any employee offered assistance and additional training when needed, but a pay for performance really doesn't honor the true spirit of teaching, it puts up teaching for sale.

[BlooInBloo]

154. I'm fine with it being for sale to those best able to deliver....

And, while also adressing all the other issues, the proof is in the pudding.

Keep in mind: there are a lot of things that could be included under the concept *pay for performance*. Don't make the mistake of thinking it can only be one particular implementation.

I want the best for my kids - nothing wrong with a little fair competition to determine what the best is....

In any case, Obama didn't say a single one of the things the OP accussed him of. The OP was making shit up for the express purpose of creating outrage - as best as I can see.

[madfloridian]

182. The quotes were in the article: not my quotes. I don't make things up.

You will never convince me of pay for performance. I taught children, for over 30 years. They were real people with real feelings and thoughts and joys and sadnesses.

They are never to be manipulated as though schools are just a business. Schools will never fit into the business category...never. People are involved in the final product.

I do not appreciate your saying I made things up. That is poor taste, and it is not true. Shame on you for being in denial about what is in the OP.

I found other statements from Obama about being open-minded about those programs. Seniors are a huge community, so he needs to be careful.

And you need to be careful about calling me a liar.

[never cry wolf]

196. They are not full quotes, just a reporters spin on them

Get a transcript! I could take snippets from ronnie raygun and make it sound like he thought Lenin was the bees knees.

[madfloridian]

202. If they have quotation marks, DU generally accepts them as quotes.

Has the policy changed?

[never cry wolf]

206. I don't make DU policy, I have no doubt he said those words

but those words do not make a complete thought nor express a complete view, only what the reporter felt was intended, or what he wanted everyone to think was intended.

I always question the source, especially if it's the MSM.

Did not rovian tactics make Kerry look like a flip flopper to those that did not hear his full thoughts? If someone is on stage for 30/40 minutes, a couple of 5 second quotes taken out of context can be spun anyway one wants.

[American liberal]

168. Thank you. My sentiments exactly.

[lonestarnot]

32. What the fuck is with him?

[napi21]

35. With JUST that comment on SS, I agree with you, but I don't know

exactly what he means by "we should remain agnostic on how to achieve those goals." Does that mean that he want's the SS system to be solvent and remain the safety-net, but we all need to duscuss the best way to do that? I don't know.

As far a teachers being paid for performance, I guess it depends on how you measure their performance. I disagree with the NCLB plan because I KNOW many if not most teachers :teach to pass the damn test" and not the base foundaation of knowledge that can be built on. However, I do think there should be a way to measure a teacher's accomplishments. There isn't any profession that doesn't have at least some slackers, and no-one should be exempt from evaluation. I've never been a teacher, so I don't know the best way to do that, but there really has to be some good way to do it.

[jsamuel]

38. He is offically on my "not good Dem" list

sorry, but I have watched him for a long time and I have made up my mind. It can always change, but as I have said before, not often. He isn't a Dem on anything but social issues, but not even much on that.

[ripple]

46. Obama is not DLC

And I think you might have misinterpreted his remarks, especially the ones about universal health care and universal education. I believe he was talking about democrats setting aside our difference in order to find a way to achieve our common goals. He's absolutely right about Democrats spending a lot of time defending Medicare, Medicaid, and other necessary, but broken programs, without offering long-term solutions. Rather than privatization, I believe he was talking about finding a way to incorporate the social welfare programs that are in place, into a long-term systems that provide health care and quality education to all Americans.

I've heard him be highly critical of Medicare D and I don't think he has any desire to go down the same ugly path.

I'm not really up to speed about "pay for performance", but I do believe teachers should be paid more AND I believe there should be a better outcome. I think he's saying that there should be an open dialogue with teachers to find an outcome that works for everyone. That doesn't strike me as corporate-friendly at all.

Just my take.

[incapsulated]

49. God forbid any of you actually read his entire policy statements

It is far easier to take one sentance in a long speech (a very good speech about Energy Independence, not healthcare or education) and then dismiss the man based on criticism of a few words, twisted into all sorts of nefarious meanings.

I view Obama as a pragmatic democrat, more concerned with *gasp* realistic plans than rhetoric and red meat for the base. He is clearly doing a good job according to his approval ratings in his own state.


Teaching Our Kids in a 21st Century Economy

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051025-teaching_our_kids_in_a_21st_century_economy/index.html

Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060403-energy_independence_and_the_safety_of_our_planet/index.html

http://obama.senate.gov/

[Radical Activist]

65. Wow, someone in touch with reality

Thanks for pointing out those facts. The accusations in the original post are so out of touch with reality and almost completely disconnected from what Obama actually said.

[ripple]

71. Thank you

Your characterization of Obama as a pragmatic democrat is right on the money. I wish more people would listen to what he actually has to say, rather than jumping on him for not simply parroting the same rhetoric we've heard for years.

[never cry wolf]

77. Those quotes are not even IN his speech

The speech was totally about energy and environmental issues and was very progressive. http://www.barackobama.com/media/safety_of_our_planet/ listen and/or read.

[incapsulated]

79. I have a link to the speech in my post, I think those quotes...

Were taken from a Q and A afterwards. In other words, out of context and extremely edited.

This whole "We Hate Obama" nonsense has got to stop.

[madfloridian]

102. I don't hate Obama, never criticized him before.

But I will again if I disagree.

[incapsulated]

106. Disagree with what, exactly?

Your interpretation of a few sentances taken out of context in a Q and A?

Obama on Social Security:

But Obama became serious when the talk turned to President Bush's proposal to privatize parts of Social Security, which he said "does nothing to solve the Social Security problem and, in fact, probably makes it worse."

He said if Social Security is converted to a system of funds funneled into private accounts that are largely invested in the stock market, retirees wouldn't receive all the benefits they're entitled to.

Bush's plan would cut Social Security benefits for young workers in exchange for private accounts, Obama said, and the numbers simply don't add up.

"You've got to bank on the fact that you're such a savvy investor despite the fact that you don't have control over these stocks; that you're going to be able to make up for that 40 percent benefit cut," he said.

[qanda]

127. Oops! Look what a little truth will do

Bring on the crickets. The very least that the people bashing Obama should do is apologize for dragging the man's name through the mud and twisting what he said into lies about his intentions. There are comments about Obama on this thread that are very uncalled for and probably wouldn't have been said if all of the facts had been presented.

[madfloridian]

183. He criticized Democrats who support the safety nets.

That is very clear from this article. He should not do that, and that is an issue that will seriously hurt the Democrats if they try to play both ends against the middle.

[never cry wolf]

197. He criticized Democrats who are satisfied with the status quo

rather than push for the core values of universal health care and education being added to the safety net...

[madfloridian]

203. No, he criticized them for this:

He said Democrats "all too often are defending a social safety net that was constructed in the 1930s and '40s.

They should be defending that safety net.

[never cry wolf]

208. AND

"My argument to Democrats has been that we need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."

Why be on the defensive when you shoud be on the offensive to add health and education to the social safety net?

[madfloridian]

212. That is not MY argument...that is your argument.

You took what I said and changed it to expanding health care as did many here.

I think it was clear I was upset that he was open-minded about changing Medicare and Social Security.

There are other quotes all over that he feels that way. It is his right to want to be so agnostic on it, but I am not. I speak up on it.

[never cry wolf]

217. That is not MY argument... that is Obama's argument.

Plain as day he says, in quotes, that universal health care and universal education are values to be achieved with respect to the social safety net. He never mentioned Medicare or Social Security.

[never cry wolf]

105. Agreed, from a Q & A afterwards

of which we don't even know the questions or his full responses. Gee, I can't imagine an open minded paper like the Houston Chronicle pulling selected quotes out of context, can you?

[madfloridian]

130. Do you have the Q&A quotes in context?

You say they are misquoted and out of context...prove it to me and I will apologize

[incapsulated]

138. Ask the AP

They were the ones covering this speech. It's pretty obvious that he was taking questions afterwards and thats where it went into other issues.

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., addresses the annual luncheon of The Associated Press in Chicago, Monday, April 3, 2006. Obama, addressing the energy policy, accused the Bush administration Monday of a "stubborn refusal" to attack the causes of climate change, and said tougher fuel standards, stricter curbs on oil imports and more investment in cleaner energy are essential to avert global catastrophe."

"The answer about issues for 2008 prompted a follow-up question: Would he confirm an interest in being on the ticket?

"Health care is important, too," he said to laughter."

Where does his speech end and the questions begin? I don't know and neither do you, the article you are quoting from makes no such distinction. We don't know if he is answering a question or making a statement or how long it was.

I think we should stick to his stated positions on such matters, as I have already posted, rather than trying to read things into some AP article with quotes that have no context given. He is on the record about Social Security and against any privitazation.

[madfloridian]

141. He said he is "agnostic" on how we reach the goal of the safety net.

Now considering that the only thing the GOP has offered is turning it over to private companies, that scares me.

I stand by my very clear and very fair OP.

[never cry wolf]

162. Do you have the quotes IN context?

I have looked, I have ever written to the Senator's office to see if they know where I can find a transcript.

Look at how the article was written, look at it closely. You are taking the reporters word that his interpretation is correct, look:


He said Democrats "all too often are defending a social safety net that was constructed in the 1930s and '40s. My argument to Democrats has been that we need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."

The reporter says "he said democrats," not Obama. For all we know he prefaced what is actually in quotes as being from him with a 2 minute discourse on how the total safety net should be enhanced to fit the needs of modern times and how democrats should not be too complacent to only settle for defending the current social safety net.

Please also notice, Obama did NOT mention social security specifically, he called it a "social safety net" of which SS is but one part. There are many parts to the net but it currently does not include universal health of education, which he feels should be added to the net. sheesh!

[Schema Thing]

51. er... do you know what "agnostic" means?

[Guaranteed]

59. Yes- having no opinion, i.e., having no opinion as to

who...or what entity...is the most proper vehicle to accomplish our goals.

[madfloridian]

61. Yes.

I hate questions like that when I have stated I taught for many years.

Doubtful or noncommittal. We can not be that way with this bunch of extremists in power. Look what they are doing to seniors with the Medicare D bill.

[Schema Thing]

126. See above.

[Guaranteed]

52. Yeahhhhh....those quotes don't make me feel good about this guy. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

54. Why is he beginning to sound so corporatist?

Very disappointing :-(

His association with Leiberman is very disconcerting.

[madfloridian]

55. That "social safety net" is a lifeline. Let it not be taken lightly.

I fear this is going to be the way Democrats go on this...open-minded. So open-minded they turn seniors over on the rest of Medicare and Social Security just like we did on the Medicare D plan.

It is the first step in letting private companies handle it. They will never allow those who are already in the program to stay the way they are.. and our Democrats should never think so.

Seniors here are scared to death. That is wrong.

I think my OP was fair. I stand by it. I have not criticized Obama before, but I will do it again if he says things like that.

I think we have to question all our Democrats. Trust me, Howard Dean hears from a lot of us whenever he sounds too much like DC talk.

Sorry some think this was attacking, it was not. It was my assessment of what he said.

They should NOT even consider privatizing the programs for seniors. It is disaster in the making.

[Ms. Clio]

58. I never found him at all appealing

A caculating, corporatist, DLC Dem.

[flyarm]

62. i have my questions about this guy!! n/t

[Radical Activist]

64. There is so much bullshit in this post.

He's arguing for universal healthcare and education and you're twisting that into an argument against social security? That is a seriously distorted and inaccurate portrayal of what Obama actually said. There's no Republican rhetoric in what Obama is quoted as saying.

Is there something wrong with coming up with a more in-depth plan to improve education other than opposing No Child Left Behind? Gosh, I wonder if doing so would make it more difficult for Republicans to argue that Democrats don't have a plan for anything. Yeah, I bet it would. For you to twist that into a third way or DLC stance is bizarre and out of touch with reality.

Why are some people so damned desperate to diss Obama and make him look like a DLC sell-out? Is it some kind of competition? Jealousy? A challenging game?

[Guaranteed]

75. I think this approach reminds people of Bill Clinton.

It reminds me of him, at least.

He's using a lot of wishy-washy non-offensive rhetoric to open up a corporatist platform- to advance our goals, of course. Just like good ole Bill.

Guess it depends on what you think of the way it worked out last time.

[Radical Activist]

78. Look at what Obama has done.

Yes, he often uses rhetoric that many people can agree with, like at the '04 convention. Has he ever proposed anything along the lines of a corporate agenda? NO! Not in the US Senate and not in the Illinois State Senate. I don't see any evidence to support the claim of Obama adopting a corporatist stance.

[Guaranteed]

86. Corporatist is a strong word.

I like the term "Clintonist" better. Not exactly corporatism. Certainly not neo-con.

But, I don't think that approach has worked. I think it messed up a whole lot of stuff, put a lot of really nasty people in power.

[never cry wolf]

89. Here's some wishy washy inoffensive corporatist rhetoric

and this was actually IN his speech:

And yet, when it comes to finding a way to end our dependence on fossil fuels, the greatest vacuum in leadership, the biggest failure of imagination, and the most stubborn refusal to admit the need for change is coming from the very people who are running the country.

By now, the Bush Administration's record on climate change is almost legendary. This is the administration that commissioned government experts and scientists to do a study on global warming, only to omit the part from the final report that said it was caused by humans. This is the administration that didn't try to improve the Kyoto Treaty by trying to include oil guzzlers like China and India, but walked away from the entire global effort to stem climate change. And just recently, this is the administration that tried to silence a NASA scientist for letting the rest of us know that yes, climate change is a pretty big deal.

Meanwhile, it's pretty tough to make any real progress on this issue in Congress when the Chairman of the committee in charge of the environment thinks that, in the face of literally thousands of scientists and studies that say otherwise, global warming is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." And you know it's bad when the star witness at his global warming hearing is a science fiction writer.

Now, after the President's last State of the Union, when he told us that America was addicted to oil, there was a brief moment of hope that he'd finally do something on energy.

I was among the hopeful. But then I saw the plan.

His funding for renewable fuels is at the same level it was the day he took office. He refuses to call for even a modest increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars. And his latest budget funds less then half of the energy bill he himself signed into law - leaving hundreds of millions of dollars in under-funded energy proposals.

This is not a serious effort. Saying that America is addicted to oil without following a real plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and then skipping out on the 12-step program. It's not enough to identify the challenge - we have to meet it.

Thank GOD we found out he was a plant before he ran for higher office.

[Guaranteed]

95. I didn't say he was a plant. I said he was like Bill Clinton.

That shouldn't make you so defensive.

And his position on alternative energy is great, although it doesn't take a lot of courage to take it.

[centristo]

93. heavens

you mean we may actually win an election? then what will we do?

[Guaranteed]

98. Continue to flush our country down the toilet, I guess.

Yay! :P

[madfloridian]

67. Did any of you notice I referred mostly to senior's safety nets?

I don't think you read my post very thoroughly. I don't criticize him on anything but that issue....I bolded it clearly.

Seniors programs and merit pay for teachers.

I stand behind my OP.

I did not question his stance on Universal Health care...just the attitude of his being critical of Democrats for defending the traditional seniors programs.

I think fair is fair.

[Radical Activist]

72. Nowhere does Obama advocate destroying the safety net.

It is a very twisted interpretation for you to suggest that. In fact, Obama specifically says we need to EXPAND the safety net in areas such as healthcare and education, the exact opposite of the bizarre accusation you're making. Saying we need to change and improve the safety net, as Obama is clearly doing here, is something very different that privatizing social security, which he never even brings up. I guess your only argument is that he used the phrase "safety net" and that somehow offends you.

[madfloridian]

101. He says he is "agnostic" about it.

Seniors are too important for anyone to be agnostic about them.

[Radical Activist]

104. more distortion

he never said he was agnostic about seniors, in fact he said the exact opposite. You don't care about honesty at all do you?

[Guaranteed]

107. You know what he said he was agnostic about. nt

[never cry wolf]

113. I know what he said he was agnostic about

He said we should be agnostic about how we achieve the values of universal health care and universal education.

That is exactly what he said.

My argument to Democrats has been that we need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values.

[Guaranteed]

115. Yes! nt

[Radical Activist]

177. Yes. That's totally different than

being agnostic about seniors in general. His statement is one of being committed to heal care, education and core Democratic values. Turning that into some kind of statement against seniors or for privatization is a shameless attempt to confirm previously held biases.

[Radical Activist]

114. The methods whereby we protect the safety net.

Which means he is committed to the values of the Democratic Party, including protecting social security, according to his quotes. Nothing DLC about that.

[Shakespeare]

84. You were quite clear, and I agree with you completely.

In another post on this thread, I pointed out that the much-maligned "social safety net" is what built our middle class; the same middle class that's now being dismantled brick by brick.

[madfloridian]

97. Thanks so much so reading my post carefully.

I thought I was clear. These programs are not negotiable. The Medicare D is only the first step.

Again thanks for reading.

[Telly Savalas]

187. Help me out here.

I missed the part where Obama was defending Medicare Part D.

[Generator]

112. Yes and Madfloridan should trust her intuition

We are under attack, under threat and politicians such as Mr. Obama do not seem to realize the threat we are under. The power grab is to be a complete one by the Corpo-Repub-Bush party. And the fact that we have held back the tide on the social security issue is the one little victory I see achieved in the last few years. It's not even a freaking victory it's just holding on to the safety net. And Obama, like at least 80% of the Dems we have either doesn't understand that the middle class is under attack or doesn't see it as much of a problem. I'll say it again: He acts like this is 1995. Things have changed and he doesn't seem to realize how close to the abyss we are in this country. And in my opinion that renders Mr. Obama useless.

[madfloridian]

169. Correct, you do not compromise with these guys.

They will eat you alive. In my mind the Democrats have no choice but to preserve Medicare and Social Security as they are....not some private or personal account.

[never cry wolf]

195. He NEVER said he would compromise, he is their worst nightmare

Obama wants to ADD Universal health care and education to the safety net and is not satisfied with the status quo, much less retreating.

[indigo32]

119. I'm there too

They will use ANY toehold they can get to tear it down.
No of course I don't believe Obama thinks it should be torn down. I've just seen enough to believe it's extremely dangerous territory he is wading into.

[Shakespeare]

82. That social safety net built the middle class.

And brought about the good times now so fondly remembered by the "greatest generation." And if political opportunists like Obama don't figure that out REALLY soon and do something about it, we're not going to have a middle class left in this country.

[madfloridian]

134. Correct, and the GOP is out to demolish them.

and they will do so with Democrats who are "open-minded" or undecided or "agnostic." They will dismantle the programs, and they will be using some Democrats to do it.

I am amazed that many here are not aware of the way Bush has been trying to do the private accounts or personal accounts...I am amazed that people at DU are not aware that is the goal.

Obama should not even be considering cooperating with them.

[centristo]

92. i don't understand your position

don't we want the best results from our politicians possible instead of failed or less than stellar policies? i'm not sure where our country ranks in standarized test scores worldwide, but it certainly isn't #1. I think we need to look at our system and fix what needs to be fixed. The status quo isn't going to give us better math scores than Belgium, Korea or China.

As far as privitization is concerned, in some cases it works (i.e. the phone company) and in some cases it doesn't (i.e. Enron). I favor doing what works, and I could care less if a Democrat or a Republican came up with the idea.

[madfloridian]

99. Those positions are vital to me as Democrat.

The seniors' programs should be left alone, and teachers should not be graded on how students take tests.

[madfloridian]

184. They are already privatizing Medicare, look at part D.

It is a bust for seniors and boon for big pharma. That is what privatizing health issues does...it profits big business and hurts others.

[PATRICK]

100. I'd settle for a devious politician if

he wouldn't make stupid, disheartening, unnecessary critiques of core groups and programs that make up the bedrock and the heart of the current REAL Democratic party, you know the masses that work and come out to vote. If he just making these speeches to raise big corporate donations or please the DLC loser club, a real politician would do it on the QT like the Repukes do.

I find it contradictory that someone can be damned with the faint praise of "being just another politician" when committing a political blunder of subtraction and dismay. Especially in these times of crisis and opportunity. especially when the left is more than ready to back a gifted politician who may not be all that progressive but one who shows some minuscule, some grain of sand piece of common sense. The ray of darkness that shoots through the whole party leadership is this instinct to lose, to kill morale, to hold back, to make things quiet, to soak up blame, while totally convinced this is the right thing to do.

It isn't politics. It might squeeze a few million loose from frightened rich donors. It is part of th problem and sinks any solution out of sight. The few who do get the picture like Dean and Gore and Kucinich have not been able to surface a winning politics out of this abomination of leadership, but at least they are working at it and when they open their mouth they don't spray spittle on their core or their new vanguards.

Do the Repukes make straw-men out of even their most screwy or fascist dumbos? This just further solidifies the idea that in this long exodus from GOP fraud/Dem submissiveness this whole generation of leadership must eventually give way or this is no Democratic party.

OK the GOP has solidified its own criminal gambit around unaccountability and deception or else the entire GOP, despite a rock headed commitment to a tradition going back to Lincoln would utterly collapse. They have no other leaders or options than incompetent crooks and sellouts. The Democrats, still wearing the blindfold to their own reality already have a lot to answer for in poor leadership, extremely questionable policies. If they work real hard they will allow the GOP to drag them down with them until a real sea change in American politics finally creates new parties.

The game is rigged. Caution and compromise will not cut it. The opportunity is being squandered every day on very bad political principles. The alternatives we have seen played out constantly have taught us and the nation that the "smart" bi-partisan Dems are a failure at business as usual. Once in a while one gets fed up enough to roll up his sleeves and advance into the wolf pit. Does that define party leadership or does the exception prove the rule?

Nothing has changed since 2000-2004. Only grassroots level politics and leadership will save democracy. There are no messiahs to make anyone assured and relaxed and in a upward delegating mood. Someday we will earn, will make, the national leaders we need and not the upper class backseat drivers we are often stuck with.

[msgadget]

125. Excellent post

Grassroots all the way but be careful of those grassroots that are started by insiders or those who are too friendly with politicians of any stripe. Again, excellent post, Patrick.

[American liberal]

171. Now that I have read many of your posts, I am compelled to kick it up...

a notch.

How many of you slamming my senator even live in IL? How many of you can claim to have not one, but TWO, Democratic Senators representing you in the Millionaires Club? Anyone? Then, in the infamous words of O'Lielly and with all due respect (which is not much): Shut Up!

What is wrong with you people? Please read my post about the fact that Sen. Obama is a friggin' JUNIOR SENATOR! Cut him some slack! He is NOT a corporatist as some of you claim. He is NOT DLC. He has NEVER advocated privatizing SS!!! As someone else mentioned in this thread: HE'S ON OUR SIDE!!! Get over yourselves. I'd like to see any one of you tread as softly and as well as Sen. Obama has during his less than 2 years in enemy territory!!! I'll bet 90% of you wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes up there. You've got nothing better to do than sit here and snipe at one of our own? The last black Senator from IL got rode out of town on a friggin' rail!

Obama's learning the rules before he starts challenging them! It's common sense. Why don't you try doing something productive like making campaign calls for CA special election for MoveOn.org? (I have.) Or hosting a meetup, or doing volunteer work for one of YOUR local politicians and quit bashing MINE!

[truebrit71]

116. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm yet more disappointing words from Obama....

His support for LIEberman is a MAJOR mark against him in my book as well....

You know what is the MOST disappointing aspect about him? He had such great promise...and now he reveals himself as yet another DLC/DINO... :shrug:

Where have all the Wellstone's gone?

[msgadget]

124. "The DLC is setting policy, not listening to the people..."

:applause:

[Ksec]

135. Another Lebermann

Just what we need. Another guy playing both sides .

[melissinha]

148. He's confused, core values= safety net

THe thing is, those "core values" are part of the "safety net" that has been built since the 40s..... I think he is spending too much time with the high and mighty to see this.

Maybe he is having a problem with the "safety net" image, which sounds like he's been hearing them call these programs "entitlement programs".

[never cry wolf]

193. the core values he cited are NOT part of the safety net

He wants to add universal health care and universal education to the USA's palette of social safety net...

[KoKo]

156. It could be as simple as this......

Obama is another "pig at the trough" of America. And...we should accept him for what he is with all his warts and flaws in the interest of "UNITY."

:shrug:

[Marr]

157. As soon as the entire punditocracy started praising Obama...

I got suspicious. The political establishment just *loved* him right off the bat. It was like they were selling a new product. It didn't take long to see why, either- he's been a Lieberman-style politician from the word go.

[depakid]

158. Looks like another example of poor judgment

I don't necessarily disagree with what he said about being "agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values," but it seems to me that he ought to take into account how that's going to sound to people- especially considering what's been going on the past 6 years.

That kind of statement just begged to be misunderstood- even if it reflected a sincere committment to progressive policies. It reminded me of when he criticized the filibuster a critical point- and he ended up supporting it (reluctantly?). Again- poor judgment.

His rhetoric and his actions remind me a lot of Clinton- trying to please everyone, and ending up as often as not as an enabler of the right wing agenda. I mean, here's a guy who voted for the energy bill (worse policy would be difficult to imagine) and yet he's crowing about energy independence- which I applaud him for. But where was he when his leadership counted. Making backroom deals which were bound to end up as stabs in his back.

[LaPera]

160. Thought he was great in 2004 -- Now I can't stand the moderate fuck!!!

He thinks the moderate bullshit DLC will someday make him president if he kisses enough ass!!!

[Radical Activist]

178. Because he says we should stand for core democratic values?

That's what Obama actually said, despite the twisted distortion of the original poster.

[madfloridian]

185. Selling out seniors to big business is not a core Dem value.

You should not be blaming me, you should make him responsible for his words. If you do that, maybe he will be more careful in what he lets slip out.

[never cry wolf]

198. i believe you are

I'd better not say it... Politely I'll say obstinate...

Your original interpretation of a reporter's slant of a Q & A session of which we know not the questions not the full responses seems about as responsible as Cheney shooting at quail in the dark...

We don't know his full words, and the way you read them is a completely preposterous assumption based upon very little, or no, fact.

Listen to his speech, or read it, there are links... parse the article and the quotes, keeping in mind that the author placed a couple of 10 second "sound" bites in the article out of a maybe 30 or 40 minute appearance.

Get a full transcript so we can all know what he said and meant or stfu...

Enough swiftboating, it won't work with me or others who are truly progressive and can spot rovian tactics...

[madfloridian]

201. The reporter did the quotes, not me.

The reporter in the quote tonight did the quotes, not me.

I am saying what I am seeing. I am not much of a traditionalist, and I am usually open to new ways.

HOWEVER...teacher merit pay...No.

Social Security open to new ideas...No.

Definitely no.

[never cry wolf]

207. Merit pay and social security were not quoted, anywhere!

Neither of those terms came out of Obama's mouth, according to the reporter. That is what you are reading into what the reporter quoted. Find where Obama said merit pay or social security....

errr, you can't, sorry...

that is just your interpretation of the reporter's interpretation either of which may or may not have an agenda.

I watched and listened to the speech. Unfortunately the Q&A was not a part of the clip but I do know Obama's stand on these issues and the way you are interpreting them is in direct opposite...


The article says that he bashed bushie on his energy and environmental policies, wants more funding for education and wants to find a way to achieve universal health care and universal education! PERIOD!

Seems pretty damn progressive/liberal to me, especially for a Senator!

[Radical Activist]

219. If those were his words, which they were not.

Are you just jealous because Obama is more progressive and has a brighter future than Dean? Is that why you're stretching the truth to make him look bad?

[boobooday]

161. Et tu, Barack?

Very disappointing.

[roguevalley]

164. Piss on him. The more I read, the more infuriated I am. There are

people dying from a lack of a security net that was there before 2000. Agnostic? Shit. Pay teachers for
performance? How about paying CONGRESS FOOLS for performance. I could SPIT NUCLEAR DEVICES when they talk like this.

[Radical Activist]

179. Why don't you read the entire statement

from Obama. Its very progressive.

[roguevalley]

186. you assume I didn't? As for the teachers, it will force more and more

teachers than already do to teach to tests and more and more already gutless admins to give in to psycho parents. He should bloody talk to teachers before he makes our work harder.

[stevietheman]

191. My analogy: Obama rides the fence as if it were a wild bull...

and he never falls to one or the other side. He is the master equivocator. I don't even think the man has testicles.

[alarimer]

210. what is wrong with public schools has a lot more to do funding

than with the teachers. I believe that funding based on property tax rates leads to great inequities in school systems. If the tax base is poor and property values are low, you will not have enough funding for those schools. So the education a kid receives largely depends on where he or she lives. If you are poor, you are immediately at a disadvantage. It is not fair that rich school districts get all the resources they need and poor ones do not. I think we need some other funding mechanism. Here in Texas they tried a "Robin Hood" approach (which has since been declared unconstitutional) which at least tried to spread the wealth. I say that states need to take some revenue (from state sales tax or income tax or something) and put it aside in a fund earmarked for schools. Districts can still fund schools from property taxes but the special school fund will go towards leveling the playing field and make sure the all school districts are equal in terms of the resources they get. I don't necessarily thing funding is the only problem with schools; class sizes should be a LOT smaller and teachers should be paid more (well I guess that does have to do with money). Everything should not be based on standardized tests. They are bullshit in my opinion.

[alarimer]

211. Universal health care

needs to be publically funded and NOT based on private insurance. I think if we take away the power of insurance companies, health care would get a lot more affordable. I am thinking we need a Canadian style system. No Democrat (except maybe Feingold) is even talking about such a thing. What they are advocating is some incremental changes, such as low-cost insurance for kids. All well and good but what about the millions of adults who are uninsured or underinsured? I hate this Massachussets plan that REQUIRES people to have health insurance. What if they can't afford it? What if their job does not offer it? It puts the burden unfairly on the individual instead of on the state. Extend Medicare to everyone, charge reasonable premiums (one a sliding scale but I don't think $50 a month is unreasonable). Medicare at least is more efficient than private insurance, with overhead around 4%.

[Plaid Adder]

213. I hate it when politicians talk about education.

None of them get it.

One simple fucking thing that would do more good than any of the posturing that goes on about "standards" would be to guarantee a maximum class size. In other words, to make a commitment that no matter what else happens, a given teacher will not have to teach more than x number of students. This would cost money and it would probably involve a lot of incentives to get people into the pipeline, but anyone who teaches will tell you that you can do a much better job with 20 students than you can with 40.

But no, instead everyone wants to talk about testing. Here's what happens when you introduce standardized testing and link the funding of the school system and the salaries of the teachers to it: everyone teaches to the test. They have no reason to do anything else and indeed if they try they will be punished for it. The goal of each class becomes to get the kids ready to pass the next round of tests. Learning to take a test is not the same thing as learning a subject. If I had one chance to brainwash everyone in DC into believing something about education, that would probably be what I would pick.

Grr,

The Plaid Adder

[JNelson6563]

216. He's promoting Lieberman, what'd you expect?

Birds of a feather and all that.

[K-W]

218. The corporate democrats obviously have his ear.

By the way, when you mention the DLC, you may also want to mention the Hamilton Project.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=201735&mesg_id=201735

[yurbud]

220. kick--this is what we'll get with DLC: just as screwed as by GOP

except without the Bible verses.