I Want Me To Want You
I’ve been a fan of John Edwards for a while now, but with the way his campaign chickened out in the face of right-wing’s manufactured outrage and his insistence on living up to Republican stereotypes that he’s an effete phony, I’ve had serious doubts that his campaign has it’s shit together enough to win a general election. My vote is Edwards’ to lose and he’s been doing a pretty good job at that.
Enter Barack Obama. Contrasted with the Edwards campaign, Obama has been on fire lately. He’s been reminding voters that unlike the other top candidates he opposed the war before it began. He picked a fight with Pat Robertson by debunking the “America is a Christian nation” myth. He was smart enough to avoid getting dragged down by the Clinton campaign’s tempest in a teapot controversy over talking with America’s enemies, knowing that backing down from his statements in any way would underscore the notion that Obama is too inexperienced to be president. A week ago I was this close to shifting my support.
This week with the GAO Iraq report, Petraeus testimony on the way, and an active debate about whether the surge has been a success and whether it should continue, Obama seems to be avoiding the issue altogether. I’m with Kos on this one :
So it’s Friday, and the two front-runners are still refusing to lead.Last supplemental, Hillary and Barack hid in the shadows, refusing to talk about the issue. They voted at the last second possible. They may have voted the right way, but did ZERO to move their caucus, the party, and the national electorate on the debate.
For a bunch claiming they deserve to lead our party and our nation, they’ve done everything possible to avoid any leadership.
Dammit, Obama. You’re killin’ me here.
3 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Oh, if only Obama was “hiding in the shadows.” Instead, he’s helping George W. Bush to make the case for an attack on Iran, with an op-ed in the New York Daily News that contains this bit:
The decision to wage a misguided war in Iraq has substantially strengthened Iran, which now poses the greatest strategic challenge to U.S. interests in the Middle East in a generation. Iran supports violent groups and sectarian politics in Iraq, fuels terror and extremism across the Middle East and continues to make progress on its nuclear program in defiance of the international community. Meanwhile, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that Israel must be “wiped off the map.”
Although couched in the form of a criticism of the Iraq war, Obama manages to pack into this one paragraph a virtually word-for-word recitation of Bush’s talking points on Iran.
Obama doesn’t call for airstrikes - he’s arguing for diplomacy and sanctions, but you can bet Bush and his supporters will grab the “Iran is a threat” part to build their case for war (”See - even Barack Obama agrees they’re a threat!”) and throw away the rest, just as they did in 2002, when many prominent Dems were saying: “Yes, Saddam is a threat, but we should contain him with diplomacy and sanctions.”
At this point, only about 30% of Americans believe anything Bush says, so Bush can’t sell a war with Iran by himself. Fortunately for him, and unfortunately for us, he has Barack Obama, a man not suspected of being a pathological liar, lending a hand with the sales job.
Comment by SteveB — September 7, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
I hate to keep beating the Ron Paul drum, but HELLO? I was for Obama, too, but he says this crap and I know he’s just another “one of the boys”, out to do his defense contractors’ bidding.
I wonder what Obama and Clinton have to say about restoring Habeus Corpus?
Yes, Ron Paul has some loony-ass ideas, and probably hates liberals and such, but most important in any politician is, um, respect for the Constitution–ISN’T IT?
please, name a time when Obama/Clinton/Edwards/anybody else has mentioned the need to restore our Constitutional guarantees of liberty??
Anyone?
Comment by joe mama — September 10, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
I hate to say it, (well not really) but the cons far outweigh the pros as far as Mr. Paul is concerned. Ron Paul is a greedy hateful little turd who happens to have one issue in his favor; that his stinginess by some stroke of luck happens to put him on the right side of the war dilemma.this neo-libertarian-con voted for drilling in anwar, he’s against giving aid to college students, he’s voted consistently in opposition to unions, he’s a racist hatefully little bigot with regard to blacks and immigrants and he’s a complete backer of the free for all open market system that is exporting our jobs out of America. Ron Paul would back out of the war In Iraq and instead would wage a war against the interests of the American people.
Comment by MR.E — October 7, 2007 @ 7:07 pm