Both our candidates our strong; if I can say it, I think you can too.
Yes We Can!
(OK, that kind of hurt to say, but I imagine i'll get over it over time)
To me he's a center-right candidate, nowhere near as progressive as Hillary.
Far to the right of where Bill Clinton was in 1992
If Obama is "center-right", then John McCain is a Catholic restorationist, or something. Seriously, what a ridiculous statement.
American politics runs from the centre to the right. At best both Senators Obama and Clinton are a smidgeon left of centre (and both will doubtless be portrayed as dirty leeeeebruls.)
The few true leftists are quickly dismissed (and are usually crazy anyway).
Very few people make it because it's something that makes you realize just how sad an atmosphere we live in.
Ever since the Republicans successfully made it embarrassing to be liberal, everyone that wants to win takes positions that are on right side of the political spectrum.
Political compass analyzed it perfectly, as far as I'm concerned:
I even made a little 'X' for where I sit. But I can tell you I won't be voting for Ralph Nader, even if he sounds sane to me.
Turns out I'm Purple!
At a swag I'd put myself at (2,-7) if I have my x,y axis correct... Maybe (1,-4) or even (-1-4) depending how one defines the terms.
As I said very recently:
If I started to map my beliefs and how they fit to various political positions I'd need an n-dimensional chart with footnotes everywhere.
-chris
When I took that test it turns out I'm to the left of Nader. I don't trust it 100% though, as it's based on statements made by the candidates which can be interpreted multiple ways without nuance, and their actions can be vastly different from their initial promises.
I still think it's a pretty accurate snapshot.
What's the url for that?
Political Compass
Then you go down to 'Take the Test' just below the first header. Or if you want to see the Primary candidates, that's even further down.
Pretty long test but it cuts to the point. And it even shows past leaders and where they're situated.
I think it's pretty comprehensive.
Pretty close. Turns out I am purple, Somewhere aound the intersection of Jose Zapatero Street and Nelson Mandela Avenue...
Though I could see myself answering a lot of those questions a notch either way. Best to do these things quickly and not let yoursef think about them.
-thanks!
I can't believe I'm more liberal than Nader. I took the test a while ago, and my score was like -9, -8. But I'm in good company with Gandhi, Mandela, and the Dalai Lama.
Yeah, that's where I am. Between Mandela and the Dalai Lama.
Which means that they forgot to ask me my opinion on God-Kings.
I have little faith in a system that puts Ron Paul closer to authoritarian than libertarian.
'Libertarian' views are mainly economic (e.g. taxes, withdrawal from the WTO). On that matrix social issues are on the vertical scale and economic issues on the horizontal. His stance on social issues are mostly conservative - pro life, pro gun, anti immigration. However, he scores better on these than the other republicans as he simply says leave it up to the states to decide.
Wow Obama and Hillary are right next to each other.
That's shocking to you? They don't seriously diverge on any substantial policies. Yea, their healthcare initiatives are different but the differences pale in comparison to anything that the Right has come up with.
Dali Llama (or however you spell that) I am also a huge populist, which is probably why Edward's platform appealed to me the most.
I was to the left of the Dali Llama too!
That makes me smile.
voting for Nader if BO is the Dem candidate.
Just saying.
Because he's polically closer to Hillary? HA! Having met Hillary at least three times and known people who know her well, lets just say Obama is a lot closer than good ole Ralph's beliefs.
On trade and certain economic issues, Clinton actually is closer to Nader than Obama is, and Clinton's record on "ending corporate welfare" and "making government work for everyone, not just the rich or powerful" is one of the best in the Senate, and certainly better than Obama's record.
You can study their respective records here:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/members. jsp?search=selectScore&chamber=Senat e&scoreSort=lifetime
who said Barack Obama was closer to him on Meet the Press.
But whatever. This argument is stupid.
Vote for whoever you want.
When did he say that? I'm curious, because when I last saw him on MTP he was lambasting both Clinton and Obama and suggesting that Edwards was more in line with his positions.
Has he appeared on MTP since then and spoken more favorably about Obama?
In any case, I do agree with your last statement. It's just that I've always found Obama's trashing of Hillary over NAFTA to be completely disingenuous and one of the reasons I was turned off by his campaign.
I'm very sorry to hear that. Will you at least try to get a Democratic House and Senate?
as long as s/he did not support Obama.
In that case, thanks for leaving our generation with a massive military debt and broken-down health care system!!! You're the greatest!!!!
Democratic party.
Therefore, you are doing more than your job of following this:
> > Step three: As the Democ-rat nomination narrows in on a candidate crank up the heat. Your ident that supports the winning candidate should be a total ass to the losers. The loser ident should start calling for a voter boycott on the winner.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of Barack Obama's recent endorsement by Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, along with Congressmember Patrick Kennedy, his son, and his niece, Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of President John F. Kennedy? This is the Obama campaign commercial made by Caroline Kennedy. CAROLINE KENNEDY: Once we had a president who made people feel hopeful about America and brought us together to do great things. Today, Barack Obama gives us that same chance. He makes us believe in ourselves again, that when we act as one nation we can overcome any challenge. People always tell me how my father inspired them. I feel that same excitement now. Barack Obama can lift America and make us one nation again. BARACK OBAMA: I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message. AMY GOODMAN: Your response to Caroline Kennedy's endorsement and her comparison of Barack Obama to John Kennedy? RALPH NADER: Well, I think it's an inspirational message. I think the Kennedys made the right move. I think they have been simmering quietly over the years about the behavior and performance of Bill Clinton. I think that's part of the shift away from Clinton to Obama. Whether it means more votes remains to be seen, but it certainly has given Obama a higher profile for a few days.
CAROLINE KENNEDY: Once we had a president who made people feel hopeful about America and brought us together to do great things. Today, Barack Obama gives us that same chance. He makes us believe in ourselves again, that when we act as one nation we can overcome any challenge. People always tell me how my father inspired them. I feel that same excitement now. Barack Obama can lift America and make us one nation again.
BARACK OBAMA: I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message.
AMY GOODMAN: Your response to Caroline Kennedy's endorsement and her comparison of Barack Obama to John Kennedy?
RALPH NADER: Well, I think it's an inspirational message. I think the Kennedys made the right move. I think they have been simmering quietly over the years about the behavior and performance of Bill Clinton. I think that's part of the shift away from Clinton to Obama. Whether it means more votes remains to be seen, but it certainly has given Obama a higher profile for a few days.
Hillary Clinton is a corporate Democrat. There's no better evidence of that than the Fortune magazine cover story in June of last year, which basically said business loves Hillary. Hillary is a big business candidate.
RALPH NADER: My assessment of Barack Obama is that he knows what the score is in terms of the male distribution of power. He knows what he has said in the past about the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the need for Palestinian rights and a two-state solution. He knows that this war was a criminal war in Iraq and we've got to get out of it in a responsible, expeditious manner. He knows that corporations have too much power over workers and consumers and small taxpayers and elections and the government.
I hadn't heard that interview, so thanks. It seems to me that Nader, like so many other progressives, hasn't done due diligence on Obama's positions, his economic advisers, or his Wall Street connections. I freely admit that both candidates deserve the label "corporate Democrat" (there aren't all that many who don't) and if I thought that Obama would do any better than Hillary on I/P issues, I would feel better about his campaign. But it seems to me that Obama once held positions the were progressive and was somewhat sympathetic to Palestinians when those were politically advantageous positions to take. But now, not so much. I would like to be wrong, because in all likelihood Obama will be the nominee.
I wouldn't call Hillary a progressive with her AUMF vote.
As far as Bill goes, maybe you could explain why he cost us both the House and the Senate in 1994 and he could never get that back. His performance was less than stellar what with NAFTA and de-regulation. The economic boom we enjoyed was because of the emergence of the dot coms and would have been enjoyed regardless of who was president at the time. I'll give him the balanced budget but beyond that he didn't exactly glow in the dark.
Obama maybe somewhat a centrist but I'll take that, honesty and superior management (think ability to run an effective campaign) over subterfuge and triangulation or a Republican any day.
again: there are three things that cost Senator Clinton this primary.
1) Mark Penn
Four and to a lesser degree because I seriously believe if one or two of those aforementioned issues changes, Clinton is the nominee, is her going up against Barack Obama, who was the only person who was going to be able to peal away African-American support, which is essential in the states he ran up the score in.
But all the chips fell against her, and she did herself no favors in choosing loyalty over intelligence and gumption.
She needed to only contest those midwestern states and purple west states and we'd be singing a different tune.
Ah very true and you know what. I would have voted for her. There is no way I want to be responsible for another Republican in the WH. I would have had to swallow very hard but I would have done it.
We just can not afford 4 more years of Republican war and fiscal insanity. That would harm us for years to come and not just the Supreme Court issue but also the federal bench. I think sometimes people don't consider the fed bench, geezez, those are lifetime appointments also.
Hillary should have run in '04. She would have won. I would have voted for her then. I would have voted for her this time, were she the nominee.
you must have been born after 1992. Let me explain the house was lost because of Postal scandal, check kiting and speaker wright's book deal. Sam Nunn's sabotage of gays in the military
Both are fairly centrist. I hold the thought that Hillary is a bit more progressive than Barack, but, Barack is far more liberal than McCain.
There were no "real" left of center liberals in this race, and chances are, we won't have one in a Presidential race for a while.
Kucinich is way left. Too bad that odd little bugger is never viable. I love Dennis...
and Elizabeth would've been the most drop dead gorgeous 1st lady in our country's history!
when it was not politically safe to do so - Hillary did not.
That fact alone shows that Obama is far more progressive than Hillary.
Also, Barack's campaign does not accept corporate PAC dopnations - Hillary's does. She is a corporatist candidate.
She voted for the resolution declaring the Iranian Gaurd a terrorist group - an excuse for George Bush to eventually invade Iran.
Hillary is the least progressive of any of the candidates we had this year.
He was a state senator in a very liberal district. I'd hardly call that courageous.
Hillary did not get down on her hands and knees and beg the Moveon.org wing of the party for forgiveness for her vote when she decided to run for office. She stood by her vote and accepted responsibility for it.
She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, joining half of the Democratic caucus in supporting it. The other candidates (who were sitting Senators) voted against it, except for one who did not show up for the vote, and they all piled on her for decision. She showed up, cast a difficult vote, and stood by it. That's courage. Casting a difficult and controversial vote. She could have hid away on the campaign trail throwing lame excuses around, but she didn't.
Hillary is courageous.
I don't care if he was nothing but a town crier from the most liberal town in America - it dosen't change the fact that he had the courage to stand up to George W. Bush and Hillary did not.
Besides, Hillary is a Senator of New York, correct? Is NY not a liberal state? If your only excuse is "Barack represented a liberal district", then why didn't Hillary come out against it as well?
B/c she was a coward, too afraid to take a politically courageous stand against George W. Bush.
It dosen't matter AT ALL what job he had at the time. The point is that at the time it did not seem that it was likely to be a stance that would help him politically in the future. Of course, Hillary made the calculated decision that it would help her in the future, so she supported it. Instead of standing up for progressive ideals, she made a calculated, political decision.
Many other Dem Senators had the good sense at the time to see that George Bush was lying - why didn't Hillary? Can you answer me that question?
Courageous? LOL......
Hillary is a coward.
By the very fact that he had a state office from a very liberal district, his "standing up to George W. Bush" required little, if any, courage. His opposition to the war is admirable, but just not courageous. Some might even say it was politically expedient, given his position and his constituency.
What don't you get about the fact that no matter how liberal his district is, he was eventually going to have to live with the consequences of his decision on a statewide or national level when he ran for higher office in the future?b And that at the time of his anti-Iraq War speech the country was overwhelmingly in favor of invading Iraq?
It dosen't matter what office he held at the time. It takes COURAGE to stand against something that is popular no matter what district you represent.
It takes COURAGE to stand against something that is popular. The Iraq War(or the idea of invading) at the time was very popular at the time. Which explains why Hillary made the choice she did.
It takes COURAGE to stand against something that is popular
Agreed. But the war was NOT popular when and where Obama made his stand.
I'm not saying that he is not courageous, but this act is not what defines him as such.
Obama made his stand in October 2002, during the runup to the actual invasion. The war was incredibly popular at that point. Furthermore, what could he have done in his position as a state senator that would've been more "courageous"? He did things about as right as he could've, and if you've ever actually read the speech, he got things so damn right it's scary:
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
He wasn't exactly echoing the stuff coming from our national level D's. He was setting an example for them.
I'm not saying that he didn't make a good speech - perhaps even a great one. And you're exactly right - there wasn't much more he could have done as a state senator.
But - Those facts do NOT make him "courageous"...They make him a state senator who made a (maybe great) speech against the war.
Joe: What are you doing?
Bob: I'm keeping the wild elephants out of New Jersey.
Joe: But Bob, there earn't any wild elephants in New Jersey
Bob: See what a great job I'm doing?
Obama was no more courageous in his stand than Bob was a great elephant hunter.
I'm not sure what elephant hunting and political initiatives have to do with each other, but I some how feel like reading that may have made me permanantly dumber.
To say that the policies and actions of state level officials do not have significance and weight on a national stage is absurd. State level officials are still subject to the same type of backlash a senator or representative would within their constituents. It carries political risk. Furthermore, the actions of state level government officials have often been instrumental in getting action on a federal level as is currently happening with California when it comes to regulating emissions and gay marraige.
Whatever, I'd hate to make you admit he did something right and take a stand for his principals. But at the same time, I don't get why it's so hard to look at the facts and say "damn, that was pretty smart of him"
I guess you didn't bother to read the rest of my comments. I said he made a good speech. possibly a great speech. It was YOU who said he couldn't do much more than that as a state senator. I agreed with you.
I said he did something right. I also said that doing something right does not necessarily make someone courageous.
As far as backlash goes, he was a state senator in a liberal anti-war district. If he had made a pro-war speech, maybe then he could have expected backlash.
Just because there aren't any wild elephants in NJ, it does not automatically follow that Bob is a great elephant hunter.
Just because Obama made a good anti-war speech (possibly the greatest anti-war speech ever made), it does not automatically follow that he is a courageous speaker.
OK? Now I think I'm getting permanently dumber from this conversation.
Can we move on to something else now?
I can explain to you very simply why Hillary voted for AUMF. She wanted to become president in 2008. And it was perceived to be politically suicidal to vote against that bill if you had that aspiration. Its the same reason why John Edwards, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd voted for the bill.
Obama supporters don't want to hear this, but if you really believe Obama, harboring similar goals, wouldn't have voted for AUMF in 2002 were he in the senate, then you simply don't understand what this process is all about. These people aren't principled champions of the common man. They are unbelievably ambitious and calculating individuals single mindedly set on becoming THE MOST POWERFUL HUMAN ON THE PLANET. That's the goal. Everything else is secondary.
Of course Obama would have voted for AUMF if he thought that he would be running for the presidency in a few years. At the time, he seemed light years away from the presidency, so this kind of calculus wasn't relevant.
So he deserves no credit for speaking out against the war as early as October 2002? What could he have done that would've proved his resolve? I just don't think there is any way to credit somebody with doing something absolutely right by your standards.
Courageousness is hardly a virtue when it is employed in furtherance of wrongheaded policies.
...like not going into Iraq? Sorry to say, but I have more than 4000 American soldiers and more than half a trillion dollars that might disagree with you on that one, buddy.
I think we're on the same side on this one. The original poster is claiming Hillary is courageous and I am suggesting that her voting record (including her vote to go to war in Iraq) suggests otherwise, or at least if she is courageous she is employing her courage in furtherance of wrongheaded policies (the Iraq War included). I think you may have misunderstood my post.
I call it political cynicism.
It was courageous for anyone who had political ambitions beyond that district, which we know he had. And it wasn't that he gave a speech against the war, it was that it was an awesome speech. From that speech:
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences
He shows he understood that we might acheive a military victory, but that would not be the end of our problems. 5 years later he deserves credit not just for being opposed to the war, but understanding even with a victory we were looking at being bogged down in the region for an undetermined length.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Here he mentions alot of the major issues that this campaign was about. And this is as a State Senator in 2002. And "not on principle but on politics" has to pretty well describe how alot of us feel about Hillary Clinton's vote.
He needs to be given alot more credit than just delivering an anti-war speech. He attacked the problems facing us today. Where was Hillary Clinton? Where was her experience and judgement and willingness to fight?
"Hillary is the least progressive of any of the candidates we had this year."
And yet her voting record proves otherwise. Maybe you should look it up before you spout off.
Of the two Hillary Clinton is the more progressive. BTW, nurses unions hire lobbyists. Some lobbyists do good work.
I'm not with you on Hillary being more progressive than Obama. It's close, but I'm not there. On health care, Hillary Clinton may well be more progressive than Barack Obama. But on foreign policy, crime, and many cultural issues (i.e., gay marriage), Barack Obama clearly is to the left of Hillary Clinton. I think the Clinton campaign would even acknowledge that.
In fact, I believe even the Clinton campaign acknowledges that Obama is more liberal than she is. There isn't very much difference between the two on the issues, but Obama is slightly more progressive than Clinton.
if that candidate votes for war with Iraq or Iran or any other country that's not a security threat to our country.
We're three TRILLION dollars in the tank because of this fiasco. Ret. Gen. William Odom, shortly after the war began, announced that it was the worst strategic disaster in the history of the United States. Worst. Strong language. Three TRILLION dollars could have paid for a lot of progressive programs, but it is gone, right down the rat hole, and some of our "PROGRESSIVE" Democrats either cheered it on or sat idly by while it happened.
So is Hillary more progressive than Obama? I don't think so, but even if she was, I don't care. It misses the single biggest issue of our generation.
How I wish I could give you some mojo. Take the phantom kind.
Unable to rec or rate. Reasons unknown....
You were probably punished for recommending the wrong diary (or diaries), much like a few dozen other Obama supporters.
not a bad diary, however you have not 'debunked' anything by giving us your opinion. And when you come right down to it as you state in the diary this is what you believe. but that is not debunking which is much, much different.
I've debunked the Michigan/Florida lie as well as the Florida advertisement lie.
I've debunked the prevalent belief in this community that polls matter by citing that many candidates have polled well in April and even on the day of the election, only to go down in defeat.
And I suppose I gave my opinion on sexism but the other two are backed by evidence. Michigan and Florida were not Obama's fault, the advertising was sanctioned and polls are not reliable evidence.
no you did not you gave your OPINION on what you THINK their motivations were for what the have each done but at no time did you address the issue of BHO and JRE explicitly taking their names off the ballots not as part of any pledge but as a way to pander to the other 3 states, a wholly political move with no motive but pandering. If you leave out big gaping parts of the situation you cannot claim to be in the debunking business.
It seems that in addition to pandering it would have the advantage of not letting some dishonest person claim that since his name was on the ballot it was a fair election and should be included in the results.
...and Obama won that too.
Oh! But Colorado was a caucus state.
Yeah...and it still counts.
What makes you the arbiter of what is sexist and what is not?
supporters on my side for ludicrous claims of racism, I can take the time to do the same for the other side.
I'll call them as I see them.
And if you don't like it, write a diary about it.
This is just one "Obama isn't sexist" diary debunking the notion spread by six that say he is, where people who believe they are the arbiters of what is and isn't sexist deride a candidate who has done nothing except run against their's.
You need to write from a basic understanding before you dismiss sexism as not-sexism.
sexism is not a matter of opinion
Obama is a fraud and coward. He's a creation of a political consultant. He's merely an empty symbol whose candidacy is fueled by naive, elitist supporters and a complicit media. His campaign has been consistently negative and this "unifier" has managed to divide the democratic party. Obama and his Animal Farm supporters have ruined the democratic party and once again have managed to lose the White House in a year that should be a cakewalk.
