For good reason. Much (most?) of the change that Obama’s supporters seem to expect would require Constitutional amendments. All change will require funding whose specifics must be first approved by Congress. Otherwise, the only wiggle room Obama has in enacting change will be minor procedural and logistical things in the interim budgets that he inherits from Bush.

I disagree with Obama on it. I do blame the House more, because it never should have come for a vote.

I’m not going to have deep issues with him over the death penalty ruling. I don’t agree with it, but that’s only because I’d have the pedophile killed in prison by other prisoners.

Thanks for your post. I agree with your comments both about Obama’s positions of these two critical issues that disapportionately affect Black folks, and also the unwillingness of many Black folks to want to discuss these issues and why Obama is in support of them.

I was totally shocked when he said he agreed with overturning the ban on guns in Washington, DC and as for the death penalty — WOW. Yes, it is an abomination to rape a child, but death? How many black folks have and are on death row for crimes that did not commit, or were put to death proclaiming their innocence for crimes they did not commit.

Tavis was correct and that many in our community have not fully vetted Obama on many of his positions and how they will affect THIS community. I know that he is a politician trying to get elected, but if he truly believes many of the things he is saying to get votes, regrettably, we will continue to be treated by the Democrats as we always have; a inconvenience to be used during election time, only to be discarded when no longer needed. Let’s see how long our expiration date is if Obama is elected.

As you stated is this the change we can believe in, because I can’t.

The question that is now raised in my mind is are these people not wanting to support Obama because of his skin tone or because of his stance on issues?
—————-

These Negroes and the Geraldine Ferraro faction are the only people still with their lip poked out. Everyone else is like “Obama is the nominee, we’re behind our nominee.” So that tells me the CBC and Ferraro resistance isn’t political, it’s personal.

I think certain people of the CBC still have their lip poked out because

a) They were promised favors and goodies in return for riding for Hillary and Obama winning messed that up, since obviously an Obama win means they won’t get the favors and goodies they were promised;

b) Obama rendered them effectively useless, because they thought they were the gatekeepers to the black vote, and Obama proved you don’t need to kiss the CBC’s ass or get their endorsement to get the black vote.

Yup, I think he cussed said y’all and wished he could have a Newport. I wonder if that would be ‘black enough’ for Nader? *snark*

Brian Francis said…
See, I think Obama has just as much leverage over her to force her to address what you’re saying.

And I think it is why you see Bill Clinton pouting. Obama has them over a barrel.

The best explanation of why the FISA bill–which gives the White House broad surveillance powers and the telecom industry immunity–is bunk comes from the ACLU. http://blog.aclu.org/2008/06/19/this-spade-is-a-spade-fisa-deal-is-bunk/

The whole post is worth a read, but the most contentious FISA provision grants retroactive immunity for the very phone companies that compromised your 4th amendment privacy rights and mine to begin with so long as they can produce a document from the president or government asking them to comply. In short, “We were only following orders.”

There is no question of whether Obama supports it, Big Man, despite his having promised in October 2007 to filibuster any version of the bill that contains immunity for the phone companies. Here’s Obama’s statement from earlier this week supporting it: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php

We can call this whatever we want, from level-headed politicking and sound political strategy to a failure of courage and principle, but either way we’re still looking at a candidate who is running on a platform of change, but perpetuating the same constitutional violations, and accommodationist positioning, that have made these past 7 and a half years such a bleak time in this country.

I don’t think it’s rude or inappropriate to ask when, where, and on what issue Obama plans to take a stand against “politics as usual.” I’m a little uncomfortable with the panacea that “All that will change once he’s in office.”

As for the death penalty, I think it’s wrong, period. But it’s particularly ironic that Obama would support it given that, as astute commentators on the Talk Left thread http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/25/234840/218 noted:

“Even the SCOTUS opinion referenced the research finding that having a death penalty for child rape increases the likelihood the child will be killed to ensure the child cannot later be a witness against the offender. It also referenced the research showing that family members would be less likely to report another family member who raped a child if they thought the offending relative could be executed.”

And then there’s the fact that the death penalty is disproportionately levied against black men.

Obviously and understandably, Obama doesn’t want to be caught in the Dukakis trap and painted as “soft on crime.” But is this really the best place for the candidate of Change and Hope to make a stand?

My friend and I were saying that for some of Hillary’s female CBC supporters, it was as if they still haven’t gotten over the light skinned guy in high school never asking them out, and they were sure going to take revenge on Barack as a result. That’s a horrible thing to say, but that’s as good a reason as anything else. Since none of it makes sense.

I wish he would have told them to grow the hell up, and stop cowering in fear of the imagined wrath of the Clintons. I mean, what do these people think Bill and Hillary can do to them?

The question that is now raised in my mind is are these people not wanting to support Obama because of his skin tone or because of his stance on issues?

Will Obama’s shifting stances undermine his true-blue image?

“From the beginning, Barack Obama’s special appeal was his vow to remain an idealistic outsider, courageous and optimistic, and never to shift his positions for political expediency, or become captive of the Inside-the-Beltway intelligentsia, or kiss up to special interests and big money donors.

In recent weeks, though, Obama has done all those things.“

Charity health care, where is this, the jungles of South America? No, the USA.

60 Minutes – Remote Area Medical

Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits

“Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires’ case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn’t properly filled out a form. At death’s door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.“

Rough, huh.

“Since the spring of 2006, Ontario’s government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as “broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain.” Other provinces have followed Ontario’s example.

The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can’t centrally plan their way to better health care.“

“From now on, I think he should give them the silent treatment and let their constituents deal with them.”

-Word.

I think he shouldn’t reach out to them any more. Once is enough…he’s the winner goddamit!

From now on, I think he should give them the silent treatment and let their constituents deal with them.

If you’re going to cite articles about Canadian Health Care, you should pick ones that get their objective facts straight. You wouldn’t want to misinform your fellow Americans now, would you?