Re: Democrats Do It Again

Audra Berne wrote:

"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:OK6dnU3iFOyzLDXanZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx

Rita wrote:

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:11:37 -0500, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxxx>

Rita wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:15:48 -0500, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxxx>

Rita wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:53:45 -0500, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxxx>

Rita wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:37:25 -0500, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxxx>

Rita wrote:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:55:07 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:5v6dndcR2_cpsjranZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx

John Galt wrote:

"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:YZCdnfEgc-oZuzranZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx

Once again, Democrats has demonstrated their penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with their ever increasing support for the media darling, Barack Obama. Obama, created solely by the media, has about as much right to contest for the Democratic nomination for the presidency as Rosie O'Donnell. And he's an even bigger joke. The problem is that most Democrats are too starry-eyed to understand it.

What was Ted Kennedy's motivation? He's not explained by "the media."

Don't ask me why Ted Kennedy does anything. Ask him.

Fact remains,

Obama was a junior state senator who did not distinguish himself in that role through any significant legislative accomplishment, and was immediately labeled a 'rising star' for no good reason when he managed to get the senatorial nomination. The media continued to hype him throughout an undistinguished few years in the U.S. Senate, where he managed to sponsor nothing of any consequence, failed to gain the respect of colleagues which would be necessary for supreme leadership and simply parlayed his media hype to the present set of circumstances. Yet he postures himself as potential presidential material.

So, John, if you want to know why Ted kennedy does anything, ask him; don't ask me. If you want my opinion,

Well, that's what I asked for.... :-) (Sure took a long time to get to it......)

I think his elder statesman status went to his brain. And an Obama candidacy would be the worst thing that could happen to both the Democratic Party and the Country since Jimmy Carter( not counting the Republican disasters ).

Perhaps, but I'm not seeing how electing the junior senator from NY with 8 years of public experience, and who is also criticized for sponsoring nothing of consequence, is much different in comparison. Both candidates have less legislative experience than the current President, who has the least experience of any President since WW2 (perhaps the century), and we know how well that's worked out, do we not?

Both sides of the aisle seem, in certain ways, bound and determined to put themselves in a position where a large minority of their base is disaffected. Happening at the same time, I have to wonder if it's some sort of sign of our political times, a passing of some sort of torch as the Boomers become the elder statemen in politics whilst the Gen Xers and Yers become the energetic drivers.

Quite an excellent article that alludes to this was in the Journal, written by Dan Gerstein. He argues that the era of the "angry" leftists who want only the heads of the Republicans and disdain any and all cooperation, is ending, and the popularity of Obama is a function of people who wish to end the era of political anger at all costs (not arging that the costs may indeed be as you outline above).

I suspect that Gerstein's observations could easily be extended to explain the sudden popularity of McCain:


I think the Wall Street Journal article has perhaps put his finger on
it. At least for the Democrats. They see Obama not as a polarizing
figure but as someone who can create change in Washington. They may
not be too clear on what changes they look for -- after all the two
Dem candidates are very close on issues. You don't hear the Dem
voters interviewed talking about how either candidate stands on this
issue or that.

The one adjective you omitted before change was either 'meaningful' or 'achievable.' Most of Obama's changes are impractical and the rest unachievable. I agree, after 8 years in the valley of darkness, the country certainly requires change. But a practical and pragmatic individual is necessary to bring that change, as well as one who has the necessary respect of legislators and their leaders required to bring that about. I am disappointed that this is being forgotten by those who would vote in favor of his 'media image hype' and his demagoguery.

Obama is not that person. Perhaps he may be at some future time, but that time is not now.

There is talk it is time to end dynasties in American politics. Ted
Kennedy's endorsement was important from that standpoint, I think.
After all, Ted is a part of a dynasty himself, although one that
elected only one President. But Bobby might have made it had he
lived. And Ted tried himself and failed.

What Ted Kennedy's motivations are may go further to his relationship with Bill Clinton, and any hidden agendas not currently privy to the public, so this could merely be payback time. Ted Kennedy certainly doesn't need to curry favor in order to get patronage jobs. Perhaps he thinks he'll have undue influence in an Obama White House that he wouldn't have in a Clinton White House. But whatever the reason, it's irrelevant. What he did, was not in the interests of electing a Democrat in 2008, and in fact, serve to hurt those chances. Obama is simply not a mainstream candidate, and Kennedy should know that.

( remainder of post snipped )

I feel your pain, Alan:)

Does that mean that you're supporting Hillary? < G >

No, I already voted by mail for Obama. But I'll support her in
the general election if Obama doesn't make it there.

Too bad. I guess you've also been fooled by the angel of false change.
Why am I not surprised?

Alan, if your opinion was the least important to me I might be
offended, but I am quite accustomed to your opinions to which you
latch on like a little fierce terrier and never concede anyone who
differs from you might not be a fool.

Oh, I don't always say that those who differ with me are fools, because being fooled doesn't necessarily make one a fool does it? After all, didn't our fearless leader 'fool' a majority of Congress to vote for his adventure in Iraq? Are you posturing that those members are fools?

But in Obama's case, Hillary's campaign has properly labeled him as the angel of false hope, because he can't deliver on that promise.

Or do you think that it's better to hope for the unattainable and then wring your hands in despair when you fall flat on your face than make necessary changes in small increments which are attainable?

I don't think Obama has made any promises that are unattainable, first
of all.

Obama has promised to bring jobs back from overseas. Perhaps you overlooked that one? Even John Galt will tell you that that's not going to happen any time soon. Although he promised to deliver health care, his 'plan' would leave a significant number of people uncovered. He's promised tax incentives for virtually everything, but has been relatively mum on paying for them, beyond rescinding SOME of the Bush tax cuts.

Well, if he's promised to bring jobs back from overseas, he apparently means to bring employees from overseas because Silicon Valley has provided heavy support for his campaign based on his increasing the HB visas.

Indeed they have, however, I suggest you check the campaign finance report of Hillary. You might be surprised what you find there, with respect to silicon valley.