The Cloning Of John Kerry

I can't agree more. It amazes me how the man can deliver one of the best convention speeches in history, yet devolve into a clone of John Kerry as he did on Countdown With Keith Olbermann tonight.

Did somebody tell those two candidates to sit down and behave themselves?

by Robert Arend (5 articles, 17 quicklinks, 19 diaries, 183 comments) on Monday, September 8, 2008 at 10:05:03 PM
 

clones of boredom

Robert,

"A clone of Kerry".  Perfect -- and we all know what happened to Kerry, don't we?  Even factoring election theft, Kerry was still mostly a bland Democrat.  What happened to the all the passion and pizzaz in the Democratic Party?  It had that, once upon a time, but now its coma city.  That's why Palin (who should be anti matter in politics) is precisly what the pugs needed to highlight the INCREDIBLY boring nothingness the Democratic Party is now.  At least you can fantasize about her topless moment of glory.

Of course, it's also INCREDIBLY easy to see why this has happened and its almost torture to see how it could change in an instant.  The problem is simply that the dems NEVER talk about "issures" any more.  Obama did in the primaries (what a liar!), but he immediately morphed into an anti progressive (like suck up Biden) once we had his boring foot in the door. 

We don't really need a "revolution".  All we need is for Democratic candidates to talk about authentic human values and life and death issues again.  Instead, all we get is that moth eaten Obama smile.  Yeah, Barack, that smile really is going to make you President (what an idiot!).

by W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (262 articles, 53 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 643 comments) on Monday, September 8, 2008 at 10:27:19 PM
 

Obama the coward, Obama the liar, Obama the loser

Poor Bill:  You still want this loser to win; that means you still are stuck with delusional HOPE.  When Obama refused to put Hillary on the ticket he made a decision that affirmed the election IS about HIM, NOT US.  It opened the door for McCain to make a brilliant political decision in picking Palin.  Whatever the potential problems in dealing with Hillary and Bill, if Obama really thought that his winning the presidency was crucial for US, then he would have chosen Hillary.  Instead, he picks another Senator that voted for the Iraq war and is the perfect status quo establishment politician.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (135 articles, 37 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 539 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 9:45:30 AM
 

It's progressives who aren't doing their part in taking on

the Failed Conservative Values. Progressives need to be out their articulating the case for how conservative values have failed the country and they're not doing it. They need to be making the case for why progressive values are better than conservative value. .  Where are Moveon, the progressive think tanks,  the bloggers, etc. etc.

The Failed Conservative Values of James Dobson
		James Dobson is a major leader of the social conservatives. He is considered one of the more moderate of the 'Value Voters' leaders because he doesn't support spanking any child under the age of 18 months, while other conservative leaders do. Dobson  is now attacking Barrack Obama for "deliberately distorting the Bible" and "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." Isn't it time for progressives to start unmasking how the values of  the conservative movement have failed? Isn't it time to ask them some questions about their values? How about asking your family,  friends, neighbors, colleges, etc, "Have Conservative Values Failed?" View @: DemocracyforAmerica.com - Opednews.com  (Poll) -  Dailykos.com

56. Sarah Palin and the same old Failed Conservative Values
		Like at past Republican National Conventions, there has been a lot of talk about conservative values. Nothing new there, but this time the RNC convention has the feeling of a sinking ship.  The conservatives are doing a lot of  talking about the exact same Failed Conservative Values that they have been talking about for the past 30 years. It's the same Failed Conservative Values of indifference, incompetence, compassionate conservativism and corruption that brought us the disaster of Katrina. It's the same Failed Conservative Values of authoritarianism, secrecy, deception and violence that brought us the failed invasion and occupation of  Iraq. It's the same Failed Conservative Values of selfishness, greed and arrogance that brought us Abramoff and a conservative congress mired in a culture of corruption.  View @: Democracyforamerica.com - Opednews.com  (Poll)  - Dailykos.com

 for more ProgressiveSpirit.com

by Edwin Rutsch (64 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 155 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 12:16:19 AM
 

Hey, hadn't you heard?

Barack Obama is running for president, so he's supposed to do it alone. He's not giving us any drawer space in the Oval Office, so we are relieved of any obligation or responsibility for the outcome, and can just sit back and blog.

Hell, if the guy can't take on an entrenched criminal and unethical incumbent party, a decidedly biased corporate press and a hurricane cloud of lies on his own, then why does he bother.

Besides, we'd have nobody to snipe at but John and Sarah and what fun is that? In any event, by the time we're done they'll be in power and we know how vindictive they are. It'd be our ass if we did that!

by John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1381 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 9:02:56 AM
 

Who is "we" and what do we "win"?

Geez, folks, can't you see Obama and Biden are losers? Can't you see who's going to win the election? It will be the one with the biggest boobs, not the biggest balls! (Or maybe you never heard that joke about the secretary interviews :)

The dems are just rolling over and playing dumb and dead. Should I read the litany of dumb down names? Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and now Obama.

The truth is no one wins, everyone loses. I'm voting my conscience - Nader. The others can go screw. At least Nader (although he's no elixir) is consistently honest.

by Cinderfella (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 141 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 3:49:32 AM
 

Bill, Obama and Biden are doing their jobs.

Have you ever read the late Walter Karp's classic book, Indispensable Enemies: The Politics of Misrule in America?

Here's a review of it on amazon.

Karp explained how the two parties maintain their iron lock on U.S. politics. The job of the Republican Party is to represent the political right wing. The job of the Democratic Party is to co-opt the left so that there can't be any effective opposition to the right.

The job of the Democrats is NOT to oppose the Republicans. They don't oppose the Republicans because that's not their job. That's not what they're supposed to do. We don't have an opposition party in this country and the job of the Democrats is to make sure it stays that way. 

Of course Obama is acting like Kerry and Gore before him. Did you think that the Democratic Party would select a nominee who would act differently from other Democratic Party presidential nominees? 

It wouldn't matter how much public or personal pressure is applied to Obama and Biden. They were selected the same way that Gore and Kerry were selected, by the same political party, for the same reasons. 

Einstein defined insanity as repeating the same experiment over and over and expecting different results. 

In 2000 we voted for a Democrat. He won. We got a Republican.

In 2004 we voted for a Democrat again. He won. Again. And we got the same Republican. Again.

Now we are coming to 2008. I will not vote. I know that if I vote for a Democrat again, I'll get a Republican again, whether it is because Obama concedes to McCain without bothering to count the votes, or because McCain appeals to the Supreme Court and they intervene again, or because the voting machines flip the Obama votes to McCain, or because Obama, whose mentor was Joe Lieberman actually becomes President and immediately turns into a Republican, or rather a DINO (Democrat in Name Only) like his mentor Lieberman.

The Congressional Democrats don't care who becomes President, Obama or McCain. They went ahead and pre-funded the wars until 2010 because both candidates are committed to continuing the war profiteering, so it doesn't matter which one wins as long as Congress can continue to spend a million dollars every two minutes on wars that most Americans don't approve of. And in case you haven't noticed, almost a quarter of that money is totally unaccounted for because there is no oversight or accountability.

U.S. politics is as fake as professional wrestling. But at least in pro wrestling, they put on a show. The two major parties don't need to bother to do that. If two professional wrestlers got into the ring, smiled at each other, shook hands, kissed each other on the cheeks, shook hands, told the crowd, "Thanks for coming. We appreciate your money," and then went home, nobody would pay to watch them again. Rasslin' fans are a heck of a lot smarter than voters. 

But even if the candidate did put on a show, it wouldn't change anything. The game is rigged. Crooked. Fixed. Still there are some of the people who can be fooled all of the time, so no matter how many times they get fooled, in the exact same way, they will keep repeating the same mistake. 

And believe it or not, there are some people who are actually masochists. They enjoy pain. They like getting hurt. They want it. They ask for it. They know what they're doing. 

As for the ones who claim that they don't know what they're doing, I can understand that and sympathize with them the first time it happens. The second time I'm a bit more skeptical. But if they want to claim that they are going to repeat the exact same experiment a third time and expect different results, many they really shouldn't be calling other people crazy. 

Consensual Political Intercourse.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 5:20:10 AM
 

I apologize for the typo.

That should have been, "maybe they really shouldn't be calling other people crazy."

I was laughing too hard to type because it had occurred to me that repeating the same mistake over and over must be the "progressive" thing to do. ROFL

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 5:29:46 AM
 

No, I didn't read it.

I've got an election with a precinct to work.

by John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1381 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 9:05:05 AM
 

Here's a good example of Dems "coopting the Left."

In this 7 minute video clip from last Thursday, Obama -- supposedly the 'liberal' candidate -- grovels before the interviewer Bill O'Reilly, admitting everything O'Reilly wants him to admit, & allowing O'Reilly to wipe the floor with him.

In particular, O'Reilly demands that Obama admit that Bush's "surge" was has been a great success, & that he (Obama) had been wrong about it. Obama admits it, saying "...“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated.....It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

Obama also says the US is "absolutely" engaged in a worldwide war against terrorism; that Iran is a "major threat;" & calls for a more aggressive military stance towards Pakistan.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1293 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 10:13:47 AM
 

BIASED SUMMARY

I viewed the video and found your summary to be biased against Obama.  While I do not disagree that he has swerved to the middle, he was hardly squashed by O'Reilly, but was able to get his talking points in despite O'Reilly's loud, bullying interruptions.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 440 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 1:27:11 PM
 

"Biased" is in the eyes of the beholder. If you call it

"swerving towards the middle" for Obama to admit in an interview that the surge has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams;" for him to call for a more aggressive stance towards Pakistan; & for him to reiterate that Iran is a "major threat," then your idea of "middle" is my idea of the Republican Right.

By admitting the surge is a big success, Obama has now set himself up for a Republican attack ad along the lines of "He was against the surge before he was for it." That's why I say O'Reilly wiped the floor with him.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1293 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 2:11:04 PM
 

Mark Smith

You just nailed it. That is why I call the Democrats the GREATER evil, not the lesser.

Now watch as they blame it all on Ralph Nader. Again. 

by Michael Cavlan (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 329 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 12:41:22 PM
 

sort of republican?

mark,

While I agree with you that there is not a lot of difference between republicans and democrats in general, and that Obama's militaristic elements are similar to republicans. All national politicians are subject to the overwhelming power of corporate interests.

But there are differences> as there were differences between the democratic candidates. And some of those differences are extremely important.

it is improtant to be clear what those differences are as well as what the similarities and the exact matches are.

you state them as being pretty much exactly the same thing and they are not.

the model that I compare is the nazi's and the other right wing parties.

Bush, similar to the nazis gained power and immediately began dismantling important elements of government by putting people who were either totally unqualified or totally committed to undermining the role of that governmental department. He instituted a level of corruption way beyond anything in my life times, and successfully undermined essential elements of the constitution and institutionalized state terrorism successfully. John McCain will almost surely maintain and possibly expand these really dangerous actions. Obama will almost surely repair some of them.

Progressives that are doing anything that leads to McCain winning in November are to me like the communists in Germany. Stalin ordered them to not oppose Hitler's becoming chancellor. The reasoning was Hitler would clearly show the true face of capitalism and the working class would rise up in revolution.

The Social Democrats thought Hitler would totally screw up and lead to their return to power and the conservatives thought that Hitler would screw up as well but set the stage for another strong right wing leader that wasn't as crazy.

I am totally opposed to Obama's militarism, his refusal to acknowledge the truth of Bush's treason, and his obesiance to corporate interests. But in a national election he is the best choice. if this were a typical republican situation. Say Bob Dole or Bush Senior, or someone like Arlen Spectre, i would say it doesn;t matter too much if you vote for a dem or republican, and voting for a real progressive would be a reasonable choice. 

But we are voting for either a democrat or someone who will continue a proto-fascist revolution, and in that case I have to support the democrat. And in this case i think one that will possibly be significantly better than Clinton was.

 Until there is real public interest in the devastating environmental problems that we are wallowing in, that the democrats give lip service to as well as the destructive militaristic imperial  nationalism that  both parties are bound to there is not much that can be done beyond grassroots work. Something I assume are already quite involved in

by Tony Duncan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments) on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 4:10:06 PM
 

Obama and whose army?

Tony wrote:

Bush, similar to the nazis gained power and immediately began dismantling important elements of government by putting people who were either totally unqualified or totally committed to undermining the role of that governmental department. He instituted a level of corruption way beyond anything in my life times, and successfully undermined essential elements of the constitution and institutionalized state terrorism successfully. John McCain will almost surely maintain and possibly expand these really dangerous actions. Obama will almost surely repair some of them.

JFK really wanted to accomplish a lot of things. But unbeknownst to him, the Democratic Party advisor he trusted to staff his cabinet, surrounded him with Rockefeller loyalists, many of whom were high level CIA people. 

But I respect your right to your religious beliefs and your prayers, and if you want to think that Obama, as President, might get a Supreme Court appointment, or might be able to sway the Congressional Democratic leadership to stop supporting the neo-con agenda, you certainly don't need silly things like logic or evidence to substantiate your beliefs or give substance to your prayers.

I don't suppose you remember that Bush couldn't have made many of his unqualified appointments, like Mukasey, unless the Democrats had been willing to confirm them?

Congressional Democrats are people who claim that they don't really want what they vote for, but that the Republicans are worse, which is why they don't really want to vote for everything that the Republicans want, or to confirm all the Republican nominations, or to protect the Republicans from impeachment, but they have to, because without the Republicans, there would be nothing worse than a Democrat, so they need to support and protect the Republicans so that they can claim that there are people worse than they are.

The Democrats don't rob the banks, they just stand lookout, drive the getaway car, and split the loot. And Democratic voters are grateful that the Democrats aren't the actual bank robbers inside with the guns, because that would be much worse than just standing lookout, driving the getaway car, and splitting the loot. There is NOTHING that Bush, Cheney, the Republicans, or the neo-cons could have done if the Democrats hadn't been willing to concede without counting the votes, support the Republican agenda, and confirm the Republican nominees. Nothing. 

Take a look at the comments by John Sanchez in the discussion here.  He is working precincts and urging people to vote for the Democrats on the grounds that if McCain wins, he'll take impeachment off the table. John admits that the Democrats ALREADY TOOK IMPEACHMENT OFF THE TABLE, but he wants people to vote for them because otherwise the Republican might do what the Democrats have already done.

There is no arguing with true believers.  ;)

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 7:07:34 PM
 

Over the falls ...