For those who feel betrayed by Obama, a question:

[Writer]

If not Obama, then who?

[NJmaverick]

1. Stop asking reasonable questions that make them think

don't you see how unpopular that is!

[spoony]

5. It is only reasonable if one accepts the assumptions in it.

Like, that we want someone else. It's along the same lines as insisting that dissenters would have rather had McCain and Palin, or that those against escalation love the Taliban. We want Obama to do things differently, it isn't about him as a person, and besides that the next election is years away. Even if the answer for some is not Obama, "who else" is out of range. So the question is pointless.

[NJmaverick]

7. hmmm

:tinfoilhat:

and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[spoony]

10. Geez all that talk from you about critical thinking

and you let some silly smiley do your talking for you? Look at the responses to this thread and tell me that they aren't operating on the trite assumption I just described. "Oh they want moose barbie!" Gimme a break.

[NJmaverick]

12. Critical thinking yes, rule number 8 applies in this situation

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

[BeFree]

13. Yeah

The last famous guy we had claiming he was a maverick was McCain.

[NJmaverick]

16. and you would have just violated rule number 7

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

[BeFree]

18. Hmmm

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I just found the name maverick to be interesting and thot you might explain just what it is supposed to mean in your state.... of mind.

[NJmaverick]

20. You are still violating rule number 7. When you clean up your act, we can talk

[Writer]

29. Out of curiosity, where are these rules?

I'd like to take a look myself. They seem interesting.

[NJmaverick]

40. I don't remember where I found them, but here they are

I have them saved on my computer

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

[Writer]

50. Very interesting. Thank you! n/t

[LooseWilly]

53. I would add #11) Don't refer to rules that you can't cite the origin of as if they are meaningful...

when they could just as easily just be something that you made up yourself to pass an insomniacal night, instead of making soap or something.

That said... I feel obligated to point out some of your own violations, Maverick.

In post #12 you are violating "rule" 8: instead of addressing the point raised by spoony, or even re-visiting your "sometimes a spoon is just a spoon" from post #7 to provide any support to show that to be any more than a flippant response, you are instead attacking the poster (ad hominem) by asserting that (s)he is not responding in good faith, due to failure to abide by your interpretation of a set of rules which, at that point, only you were in possession of.

Ohh, the disingenuity.

Then, in post #20, in response the the counter-point "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" by BeFree in post #18, rather than acknowledge that point in good faith, and address the "Mavericky" inquiry, you instead dismiss the entirety of the point made, and re-assert rule 7, which is a blatant violation, once again, of rule 8.

Further, as the "cigar is a cigar" point was made earlier by you post #7 You are now also in violation of rule 6 (Demonstrate consistency). If the point was valid and worthy of consideration (twice, technically) when made by you, you are "required" to acknowledge it as being equally valid when made by others... requiring at the very least that you address it. ("Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies." --> else you "prove" yourself an idealogue.)

And, while we're at it, you wind up post #20 with: "When you clean up your act, we can talk", which is clearly a violation of rule 7 (so close on the heels of a violation of rule 6, too...), as you are now accusing BeFree of disputations in "bad faith", which is clearly an attack on BeFree's integrity, rather than an addressing of the point made (which would in turn justify the "Mavericky inquiry"... which was also ignored come to think of it, by resorting to another violation of rule 7, though not so clear a violation.)

Well, mr. Maverick, that's at least 4 clear violations of your own rules in the first 5 of your posts in this thread (as of the time of this writing). I submit to you, and everyone else, that maybe someone else ought to be appointed referee over your rules, as you don't seem to know very well what they mean.

Thus far, I'd nominate Writer.

[NJmaverick]

57. You could add that rule, but it would violate rule number 8 so it's better not to

as for your perceived rule violation, start with your own and then reread them because you are badly misapplying them. You are a bit too loose in your interpretations Willy (in my opinion)

[LooseWilly]

58. Hmm... and your response would be a violation of rule #1.

One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

The salient point being "in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most"... I fail to see any evidence provided by you to substantiate any allegations of my having broken any rules. Please, substantiate your claims that I have violated any of your rules... we wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that "intellectual dishonesty is probably in play" for your part.

Please be specific in pointing out the looseness of my Willy interpretations.

[NJmaverick]

61. You know for someone that accused a person of making up the rules

rather than making sure he didn't take credit for someone else's work, I really have to question your commitment to intellectual honesty. You might also want to check that double standard rule number 6 in terms of humility and all of that.

[LooseWilly]

70. Firstly, I never said anything about my being committed to "your rules".

Hence there is no question of "intellectual honesty" were I to choose not to abide by them.

Secondly, this post is also a violation of rule 6: (6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.) ... in so far as you seem to expect others to follow your rules, while you do not yourself follow them. Your assertion, again without any supporting arguments, that I am in violation of rule 6, without any sign that you aren't in violation, at this point smacks of a double standard.


(And you still have not shown the intellectual honesty to address my allegation from post #53 :)

"Then, in post #20, in response the the counter-point "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" by BeFree in post #18, rather than acknowledge that point in good faith, and address the "Mavericky" inquiry, you instead dismiss the entirety of the point made, and re-assert rule 7, which is a blatant violation, once again, of rule 8.

Further, as the "cigar is a cigar" point was made earlier by you post #7 You are now also in violation of rule 6 (Demonstrate consistency). If the point was valid and worthy of consideration (twice, technically) when made by you, you are "required" to acknowledge it as being equally valid when made by others... requiring at the very least that you address it. ("Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies." --> else you "prove" yourself an idealogue.)"

Thirdly, you are now also violating rule 7: (7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.) ... in so far as you are still not "addressing the argument", but instead you are turning to "attacking the person making the argument" by asserting some sort of relevance, regarding my statements, of the "humility and all that" segment of the clause... which is a subtle attempt at an ad hominem argument ("a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty").

In an attempt to none the less address your point, viz. a viz. my humility... I simply re-iterate that I am waiting to hear your address of my allegations of your consistent and repeated breaking of your own rules. I provided clear evidentiary support for my contentions, and as yet your only response has been what appears to be a repeated turning to violations of your own rule 7 in order to evade responding with any substance.

If you continue to respond thusly, I will be forced to conclude that you are also in violation of rule 9. (9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said. )

[druidity33]

83. i'm sorry you spent time

to deal with this stinker. But i enjoyed reading your dissection!

be well.

:hi:

[LooseWilly]

92. Heh... I like his rules. It's like eviscerating a boar with its own tusks...

There's something so eminently rhetoric-aikido about the whole exercise... (which reminds me... I'll need to save a copy of his "rules" for the next time he begins casually tossing them around...)
;)

[goclark]

62. Excellent!

[ZombieHorde]

79. 10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty, here is the link to your text...

http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

Also check out Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate...

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

[arcadian]

23. nevermind

[spoony]

64. Isn't it tiring trying to talk to someone whose sole argument

is "I'm smarter than you and you aren't arguing by my rules"?

[NJmaverick]

66. 8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it

. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

[spoony]

67. Which rule addresses avoiding discussions by quoting made up rules

of discourse you demand people abide by? And which one am I breaking by finally telling you to go enjoy your superiority complex alone somewhere, perhaps even log off for awhile instead of constantly patrolling threads to see if there's any new posts you can call ill-informed or improperly reasoned.

[druidity33]

82. i like you spoony...

:)

i like you vey much.

:hi:

[xultar]

104. IT goes back to the primaries. People don't want to admit they bought the hype! DUH!!!!

At least with Hillary you know what you were getting. I supported her. I tried to tell all these pie in the sky people
Obama was a typical moderate
and no one
wanted
to
believe
me.

It should have been Biden @ the top of the ticket. We still would have won.

[jwirr]

2. Yes, this is the question. Are we ready for another repug administration? nt

[arcadian]

9. Yes, your's is the real question.

Because of Obama's lack of accountability for the Bush administration the next Republican is going to make W. Bush look like Julia Child.

[dionysus]

15. contrary to what you think, american's aren't clamoring to throw the bush administration in prison.

[arcadian]

22. Doesn't matter. He's obligated to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

remember when he took the oath of office? I do, I was there, were you?

[dionysus]

24. so, you'd rather have a spectacle that would most likely fail, and get dems tossed out on their ass

for the forseeable future?

you do realize that would likely happen, don't you? it would bring the entire government to a grinding halt.

but, i suppose you wouldn't care because you have "superior principles"

[arcadian]

31. No I don't realize that. Where did you get such a notion?

Oh that's right, you pulled it out of your ass.

[dionysus]

34. a dash of common sense. as unpopular as bush is, there's no vast swath of public support

for trying those people for high crimes, no matter how much they deserve it. sorry if you don't realize how it would look and most likely play out.

and if something as unprecedented as that were to happen it's common sense to think that legislative business would grind to a halt.

[arcadian]

47. Are we a nation of laws or are we not?

[avaistheone1]

77. Actually there have been polls that have shown strong public support for trying

the previous admin.

[harun]

54. None of them uphold the Constitution anymore. If they thought that was

important Congress would actually have to declare war in all these places we are currently "at war".

[timeforpeace]

52. Correct. Can't believe that notion is believed around here.

[arcadian]

56. Here comes the user with the most ironic username

again. :eyes:

[LooseWilly]

59. That is indeed contrary to what I think. I'm under the impression they are clamoring for just that.

Or were. And would be happy to be so clamoring again.

After all... it would be a media feeding frenzy. It would put what's his face's mean American Idol comments to shame. It would make the Tiger Woods fiasco seem like a day in the park.

It would make the OJ trials seem vapid.

Give me a big enough budget... and I'll make Americans Clamor for Cheney's Blood !!!

[salguine]

65. I'm not sure we don't have one now.

[opihimoimoi]

3. Sarah The MOOSE LADY but of course Mon Ami..You betcha...

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. Well, my first 2 choices for 2008 never even entered the race, unfortunately.

The man who WAS elected in 2000, and the man who should have been in 2004.

[MissDeeds]

87. Now that's a terrific ticket

I doubt either would enter a primary against a sitting Democratic president, though.

[sandnsea]

91. Hmmm, so let's look at that

Putting Al Gore aside because his views have evolved since 2000 and I'm not interested enough to get links --

Howard Dean's health care plan is exactly what we're passing and it didn't have a public option.
Howard Dean supported Afghanistan. In fact, he supported the first Gulf War and a really stupid plan to put arms into Kosovo that most Democrats didn't support. He did not support gay marriage when running for President or as DNC chair. He supported TARP and the stimulus. I just think people don't listen to the actual words these people say. If he were President, he'd stay in Afghanistan too.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

28. What the hell?! n/t

[noamnety]

33. It's sort of like the birther mentality

take one small thing out of context, concoct some moran story around it, and try to pedal it as truth in order to discredit someone.

[RoadRage]

8. Insert some Liberal who would never be electable because they're so far to the left....

That's who 90% of this board wants instead of Obama. They want the LEFT version of Sarah Palin. I find it Hysterical to laugh at the posters who hope & pray that Palin gets the GOP nomination in '12 because she'd be "so easy to beat" but in the same breath curse Obama for his centrist attitude, and wish for someone further to the left the Palin is to the right.

70% of this country falls somewhere in the middle between right leaning, moderate and left leaning. The fringe on BOTH SIDES seem to forget this... in the US, the Majority rules. Wishing you had someone more liberal is how you can end up with a Republican for 8 more years.

[democracy1st]

60. name a liberal equivalent or someone comparable to Palin!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

63. There is another fitting screenname! n/t

[zipplewrath]

11. Richardson?

Clarke?

Or if you are looking for a real wish list:

Dean?

[dionysus]

14. i likes me some dean. but he's not an uber-liberal either, but he's a fighter

[BeFree]

17. Congress

We can change congress in less than a year. Then again in 3 years. Obama will be listening.
If you want change, that's the only avenue.

[Writer]

19. I'm going to counter this by asking you a question:

Do you think a liberal Democrat can win in a conservative district?

[BeFree]

21. yes

Alan Grayson beat a pubbie in what was considered to be a conservative area.

What? You never thought it could happen? Geez'a'louiee.

[Writer]

25. I question your read of the 8th Congressional district as "conservative."

Obama won the district 52-47% in 2008.

Although Disneyland is located in Florida, the district, including Orange County, has grown diverse since the last census, and I have to surmise that the ideology of the district somewhat mirrors the district's complexity. The same happened in my state of Colorado, where the 4th CD, a traditionally conservative district, elected a conservative Democrat by 12 points. It's not the party but the ideology of the party members in the district that's important, as well as those who consider themselves independent. The truth is, a Republican or Democrat can win in a particular district, but if the Republican or Democrat tilts too conservatively or liberally, then they'll suffer a defeat.

Furthermore, here's a tidbit about Orange County pulled from wikipedia:

Orange County is one of the most Democratic-leaning counties in Central Florida, with a diverse population of people from around the U.S. and the world. It voted for Barack Obama 59% to 40% in 2008.

[BeFree]

30. See?

The district went Obama 52-47, but the county went Obama 59-40.
It is more conservative than the county as a whole. At least 7% more.

I don't know what you are trying to prove. If you feel that liberals can't win, we f'n disagree.

[Writer]

37. Actually my argument is that liberals can't win in conservative districts.

Or at least, there's a very high probability that they can't win. You are correct to notice the statistical difference between Orange County and the entire 8th CD. However, the district did support Obama in 2008. If the district is conservative as you say, I don't think they'd be amenable to changing their support to a Democrat in 2008, unless that Democrat were himself a conservative. Are you sure that the Republicans who represented the district in the past were true conservatives themselves?

And furthermore, the district has changed: Check out how the winning margins for Republicans in the district have lessened over the decade: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/house/fl/florida_8th_district-1020.html

[BeFree]

48. Good dancing

Typical liberal rollover and die bullshit. 'WE can't win'

Ok, fuck it, according to you liberals are fucked. You win. Happy now?

I could sit here and pound your arguments into dirt, but I have real enemies to beat. Fighting liberals who lack faith is a waste of my time. Goodbye!

[Writer]

51. You know... liberals CAN win in liberal districts and some moderate districts...

:shrug:

But oh well.

[dionysus]

55. "I could sit here and pound your arguments into dirt" unlikely

:rofl:

[quaker bill]

93. I live in the 8th CD

Bottom line, Keller, the incumbent republican was broadly recognized as useless. He was unsuccessfully primaried by the far right (Todd Long). Finally, we turned out the vote for Obama. Gore and Kerry both took Orange County by about 2000 votes. Obama took Orange County by 85,000 votes, and we flipped two congressional seats. Grayson is likely safe, though some early analysts had him in the toss up category. The lack of any well known opponent will help him. Kosmas (d) is likely toast in 2010. Feeney (r) who she beat was tarnished with Jack Abramoff and the Obama coattail (d) turnout was unusually large. Republicans have held virtually every elected seat in that district from congress down to city commissioner for over 30 years. I expect their complete dominance will be restored in 2010.

[dionysus]

27. if a feingold or kennedy type liberal were to run for blue dog seats, they'd get spanked, badly.

[BeFree]

32. Bad Attitude?

Or just defeatist?

Put up Feingold or a Kennedy and we'll see. The problem is that too many liberals run from a good fight, and/or desert leaders all to often. Maybe it has to do with their attitudes? I dunno, watching it go down all these years has left me wondering: WTF?

[dionysus]

35. until you can educate the voters in places like that that god & guns aren't sacred

and gays and "big gummint" aren't bad, i stand by my assertion. that's not something you could do in a campaign, that'd be a long process.

[BeFree]

42. Your lack of faith

That given a proper candidate - like a Feingold - and a proper campaign, that liberals can't win, is sad.

But it goes back to what I said. Why do liberals run from a good fight? I never have and almost all my actions I've succeeded. Of course, I looked behind me and saw I was pretty much out there on my own. The other liberals had scurried away in fright.

JME: Just My Experience

[nemo137]

99. Russ Feingold

A twice-married, Jewish lawyer. Say we run him in Montana, a state that is less than 1% Jewish, and has produced Blue Dogs, not hard-core progressives. What do you expect is going to happen? First, there's going to be a whisper campaign about his religion. Then, there's going to be a series of ads about how he "doesn't represent Montana values."

We're not going to get sterling progressives in blue dog seats. We're going to get people who are awesome on some issue, and crap on others. Which, you know, isn't the worst thing that could happen; but, pretending you're going to get shining examples of liberal principles is silly.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

39. It's crazy. I think that the only way to get some semblance of sanity back

in our government is to do with right wing ideology the same thing the pukes did with liberal ideology back in the 70s and 80s. That is to demonise it to the point where people are embarrassed to vote for these clowns. Reagan did it beautifully. Obama seems to nice to do that. It would of course go beyond Obama and it would take years which we can't afford unfortunately.

[BeFree]

43. Been there. do that

It works. Start now and fight back!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

46. Shit, Frank Church was from Idaho. Can you imagine a man like that elected in a state like that now?

That's where I would like to see this country headed.

I'm in Chicago and my representative is pretty decent but like you said we need to take the fight to these muthafuckas. It's like the old scorpion and frog fable.

[YOY]

45. Where's the money in that?

n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

49. I know I know. I'm a 'm a naive jackass. Wouldn't it be great though to hear the

phrase "card carrying member of the CATO institute", "Heritage Foundation", etc. being said as if it were something horrible (which it is)?

[Cobalt-60]

100. I dont know about that. Pukes are pretty stupid

You just have to find their resonance frequency.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

26. I don't feel betrayed. From his campaign I kinda knew what to expect. I do wish he was more like

The Rock Obama though.

[butterfly77]

36. They don't give a damn...

they will complain no matter who it is but,not as soon as many have they were complaining before he was even sworn in..

[rug]

38. The question is not who but what.

WTF is he doing?

I don't care who it is as long as he/she/it are doing the right thing.

It's policies and deeds, not persons.

[spoony]

68. That's really what they don't get

They think if you aren't with them in cheering Obama then they can nail you by trying to find out for whom you're cheering. Thus all the anti-DK revenge posts. It's flawed thinking from the word go.

[freddie mertz]

41. Feingold, perhaps.nt.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Clio the Leo]

69. Sometimes you dont need a lot of words to speak the truth! NT

[LWolf]

71. Any of the other candidates he ran against in the primary.

Or:

Barbara Boxer. Bernie Sanders. Russ Feingold.

Any solidly left-of-center Democrat.

A 3rd party candidate with a better agenda.

[ima_sinnic]

72. I don't care anymore. Let Palin have it, so the country can totally implode

and start over.

[avaistheone1]

76. I think it is going to happen. Obama's decision to escalate is going to suck any possibility for

real change in this country.

I have been talking to friends about it. Most of us agree- let it implode. Because that is probably the only way change is going to happen now. Pretty freaking sad.

[NYC_SKP]

73. WOW! Almost every "contrary" reply to this post is attached to a Peace Sign Avatar.

I'm sure it means nothing.

Me, I'm a...

[Egnever]

74. !!!

:rofl:

[avaistheone1]

75. Here are some good people.

Howard Dean, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson Jr., Alan Grayson, Marcy Kaptur, Russ Feingold.

[Enthusiast]

81. Don't forget Al Franken and Bernie Sanders. nt

[avaistheone1]

98. They are great additions.

[DailyGrind51]

78. So, just shut-up and say, "Thank you, Sir! May I have another?"

[jeanpalmer]

80. It really doesn't make any difference

They're all crooks and liars. They all work for the MIC.

[IndianaGreen]

84. If not peace, then war. When will it end?

[saltpoint]

85. Obama's detractors should not discount his win in the Democratic primary

in 2008.

They held like, you know, caucuses and primaries in a lot of states, and it turned out, Obama won the most votes.

First place, at least in the traditional interpretaton, means a person wins.

Last November the whole country got to pick between Obama, McCain, Nader, Kucinich, and a few others, and a majority picked Obama.

So he's won, like, a couple of election thingys in a row.

[YOY]

88. He had no record then an a lot of inspirations from everyone.

He now has a record and has shown where he stand.

The choice was pained between Hillary, Obama, and whats-his-face. Sure Gravel, Todd, and Kucinich were there too...but the money wasn't behind them.

They all politically stand in the same spot. Right of center.

Everyone was hopeful that regardless of whoever was the result of the primary there would be solid difference in policies.

THere is a difference...but it's pretty fluid.

All the insults to the left as "radical left" and centralizing of his policies won't help in 2012.

If it makes no difference to John Q. Left of the dial if the guy in power has a D or an R after his name then insulting those who feel a bit burned won't help.

It's not a slur to anything or anyone...it's just the reality of the situation.

[saltpoint]

90. It will be interesting to see if Obama's leftist detractors are more

disappointed in him than most of the same leftists will be if Kucinich pursues alliances with the far Right.

In either case, it seems to me, the detractors are left ( ! ) with no place to go and no base to build from, or with such a little pre-existing base that Kucinich runs a strong risk of splitting what little of it there is. There certainly was a wave of inspiration in the 2008 candidacy of Barack Obama but even with the shift from Candidate to Incumbent, I don't see his relinquishing the leader's role. A challenge from the left to this president would be an issues-shaping effort but is not likely to unseat the president. If an issues-shaping candidacy were attempted, and the decision were mine to make, I would not tap Kucinich for the cause.

The blue dog impediment is the greater annoyance and likely represents a far bigger chunk of primary voters than any percentage of voters a challenge Kucinich would represent. It's hard to picture DK even trying such a daunting task. When RFK and McCarthy took on Lyndon Johnson, they had the wind of moral indignation at their backs, and on top of that, both were extraordinarily potent candidates, RFK the brother of a much-loved slain president and McCarthy an accomplished poet with a very keen eye on the past and future. Two very gifted men. Kucinich is as principled but not as gifted.

When there was a draft, and thousands of American soldiers had died in SE Asia, the U.S. population finally -- finally -- indicated in polling that they opposed the war. The left, very properly, demanded to know why if c. 70% of the U.S. adult population opposed that war why young people should be punished for refusing to fight in it. John Kerry was among those who very persuasively made that argument. I am extraordinarily grateful to him for it. Kucinich opposes war on principle, which is noble, but by all counts does not have the base or the communication skills necessary to cause a shift in public opinion. Democrats involved in the primaries voted overwhelmingly against him for the last two election cycles. And concurrent to DK's decision to align with right-wing elements, public polling suggests that c. 60% of voters support Obama's Afghanistan policy.

That landscape, given the history of third party or break-away movements within political parties, does not look very encouraging for Kucinich, and IMO he's smart enough to know that.

[Orsino]

86. Surely, Comrades, you do not want Jones back? n/t

[LatteLibertine]

89. Our country

is firmly in the grip of crony capitalism and corporatism. Both political parties are filled to the brim with career politicians who are easily bought. I don't see this changing any time soon. The President is like a hood ornament on a truck. He is not the truck.

I stick with the Democrats because their party has far fewer racists, homophobes, sexists and folks into classism. Republicans don't even pretend to give a fvck except right before an election.

[branders seine]

94. The owners of the country would not let anyone with a real agenda for change

even compete in the primaries.

Our "democracy" is vetted by the oligarchs.

"Who?"

Whoever has the guts to lead the revolution, perhaps.

[Rectangle]

95. President Bernie Sanders!! n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

96. I wish the Dems would have nominated someone else (no, not H. Clinton)

I knew Obama was a fake from the time I saw his first campaign speech. I voted "uncommitted" in the Minnesota party caucus.

I voted for him ONLY because of Sarah Palin, and I know I'm not the only one.

[RetroLounge]

97. This is your justification for his bullshit war escalation?

:eyes:

RL

[Forkboy]

105. Yes. Charming, isn't it?

:puke:

[Myrina]

101. False question.

Obama - as a DEMOCRATIC President in the mold of previous Democrats he supposedly idolizes (FDR, JFK) - would be fine thank you.
Obama - as a tool for the military industrial banking and insurance industries - no thank you.

Simple, eh?

[polichick]

102. The question doesn't make sense - it's not Obama or somebody else...

...we're stuck with him for three more years, like it or not - it's our job to call him on the bullshit and push him toward progressive policies.

[Sky Masterson]

103. Why do you hate America?

:P