Jack & Jill Politics

I've seen the video of the woman who collapsed and died in the waiting room of the King's County hospital in New York.

Apparently, she'd been taken to the hospital and was told to wait until a bed became available.....in the waiting room! One report said she'd been waiting 24 hours, sitting in a chair.

This was a human being, a black woman who collapsed in a waiting room with other black people seated observing. No one flinched or went over to see if she needed help.

Did anyone else see this? What do you think? Did anyone see the vid of the cop who dumped a disabled man from his wheelchair to prove he was faking?

Ignorance?
Cruelty?
Self Hatred?

Obama had a meeting with Powell. I know that there are those of us who won't forgive Powell. But, isn't anyone going to give him the chance to redeem himself? Is he hopeless?

Much will be redeemed when he endorses Obama. He is not hopless, he was just hapless. He did heavy lifting to validate the Iraq War and then saw himself and image kicked to the MF'en curb by the Bush Administration. When he endorses Obama, he will BLAST the right. And there are many who admire him, even through what has happened. Watch Bush's War, Frontline on PBS. The story is told THERE.

I frequent a few sites like Daily Kos - I am TIRED of the LINE IN THE SAND all of these people who have never been elected to a political office in their lives want Obama to draw regarding FISA.

They already look at all your emails anyway.

I can't say it better than I've said it here - Barack Obama: The Hunchback of Cyberspace - but my mother would give you the short version: "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Will read when I have a second, afroacademic. Thanks.

BTW, don't be thinking I let Clinton off the hook for all of his craziness!

Anon,

Gotcha (and we know there is plenty of B Clinton craziness).
-Peace

Of course McCain sucks. Of course Obama is the better option. That's not the point. The point is that the candidate who set himself up as the agent of change has spent the three weeks since he became the Democratic nominee promoting politics as usual, from FISA to supporting the death penalty to saying that he'll extend faith-based federal funding and allow certain kinds of discrimination in hiring.

The constitution calls for separation of church and state because the framers didn't want anyone telling them who or how to worship, or to wind up with another church-run nation.

Giving federal money to faith-based organizations, and then allowing them to discriminate on the basis of faith puts another crack in a wall that the hard-core fundies have been trying to pull down for years. It's a very, very important wall, especially if you're in the religious minority in this country. And I'm good and pissed that Obama would put another crack in it, and the constitution, which has already been taking quite a battering these past few terms, to woo the right. There are lots of other things people of genuine faith can respond to, and I'd prefer to see Obama emphasizing those rather than this not-so-very-well-concealed appeal to their wallets.

Anon,

read my comment above or read Obama's speech on faith and government here:
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives...

I think we forget that Clinton started the faith/government link.

Again, he says no discrimination.

Now FISA is pure capitulation. But Based on his own book (years old) the faith and death penalty things are far from new. He never hid that.

Well, well , well... I guess the chickens are finally coming home to roost.

Forgive me for saying "I told you so" when I note that the following NYT article is..."For [all the] Colored [Politicians] Who [Never] Considered [that they were committing political] Suicide When [black folks saw the race baiting behind the Clinton] Rainbow [and said] Enuf"!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/politics/0...

I haven't read Obama's whole speech on faith and government but this part is reassuring:

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

Yup.

The challengers to some of old Dems via the NYT: Towns challenged by K. Powell.

LMAO @ Webb...that's hott!

Here' s a funny HuffPo piece on Webb for VP. Enjoy!

McCain is a bald-faced liar. He's hoping that no one's paying attention and he won't be discovered. He shoud ask Hillary about YouTube.

Well, if Obama's flip-flopped, backtracked, and started moving towards the center, what does that make him?

That would mean that he's changing and adjusting positions just as we all have. However, a lie is quite different.

Doesn't make him dangerous, that much is for sure.

good info re McCain and his flip flops from carpetbagreport.com (I think there are 48 on this list)....... and by the way, I am Angela......can't figure out how to change my display name at disqus....can anyone help me? thanks,
Angela

It’s a delicate dance, and John McCain is ‘liable to break a hip’
Posted June 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

Long-time readers know that I’ve been emphasizing John McCain’s dozens of major policy flip-flops for months now, hoping that this would a) catch on as a campaign issue; and b) undermine McCain’s unearned reputation for principled stands on the issues.

I’m beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, the criticism is taking root. Consider yesterday’s “Cafferty File” on CNN:



For those who can’t watch clips online, Jack Cafferty noted some of McCain more glaring recent reversals, adding, “If John McCain doesn’t stop changing his position on the issues, he threatens to make John Kerry look like an amateur. In order for McCain to win in November, he has to appeal to both the traditional Republican base and to Independents. Dana Milbank, in The Washington Post says that’s a delicate dance. And if McCain’s not careful, ‘he’s liable to break a hip.’ Of course, any doctor will tell you a broken hip can be very difficult to recover from.”

The past couple of weeks have been especially difficult when it comes to McCain flip-flops.

* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.

* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet….

* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.

And these come after these other reversals from April and May:

* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.

* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.

And these are the flip-flops I’ve noticed earlier:

* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

* McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

* McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.

* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.

* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.

* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.

* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.

* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.

* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.

* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.

* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.

* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

Confronted with the inconsistencies in McCain’s record in March, the senator’s aides told the New York Times that the senator “has evolved rather than switched positions in his 25-year career.” That’s a perfectly sensible spin — when a politician holds one position, and then, for apparently political reasons, decides to embrace the polar opposite position, it’s only natural for his or her aides to say the politician’s position has “evolved.”

But in McCain’s case, the spin is wholly unfulfilling. First, McCain sells himself as a pol who never sways with the wind, and whose willingness to be consistent in the face of pressure is proof of his character. Second, Republicans have spent the last four years or so making policy reversals the single most serious political crime in presidential politics. The dreaded “flip-flop” is, according to the GOP, the latest cardinal sin for someone seeking national office.

And if we’re playing by Republican rules, McCain’s “evolutions” should be a fairly serious problem. I’m beginning to think they might be.

Angela,

click of the 'profile' tab
click 'edit profile'
Then change your 'display name'

So....if Sens. Lieberman and Graham had to leave honorary positions with Vets for Freedom, should Wesley Clark leave his with VoteVets?

Why should he. Name one thing he said that was false.Hell I'm a vet does that make me qualified to be President

It does give you an advantage; a certain knowledge that you can leverage against someone who's never served.

And as a vet, you should feel equally disparaged by someone disrspecting a former POW, even if you don't agree with the POW politically or the person doing the disrespecting wore the same uniform.

Wes Clark needs to shut the hell up and go back to the Clinton camp.

It does give you an advantage; a certain knowledge that you can leverage against someone who's never served.

::

I'd have to say that's rubbish. Pure absolute garbage.

And if a politician wants to "leverage" his POW experience against an opponent, that said opponent has every right to question how being that experience makes a person more qualified to be President than someone who wasn't.

And I'm not denigrated anyone's service. But serving in the military doesn't necessarily make someone a good politician, a good leader, or a good President.

Wesley Clark didn't disrespect anyone's service. He praised McCain's in fact. He simply stated his opinion, which reads more like a fact to me.

But serving in the military doesn't necessarily make someone a good politician, a good leader, or a good President.

As a matter of fact, it seemed to make McCain an angry, verbally abusive asshole. Or, maybe he was that before serving. Whatever, the salient point is that he's reckless, tough-talking jerk.

Military service had no real transformative effect. He enters service a jerk, He exits a jerk trained to kill. His jerkiness has taken on nuance, he's become a potentially dangerous jerk. He's learned new jerkiness mechanisms. He's a jerk on a mission. A jerk with a "card"...which he plays whenever his jerkness is questioned.

And, Truthseeker he is a jerk who was forever altered by his circumstances - hence all the anger

Of course you'd think that.

If you and I were running for...sherrif, and I had 10 years of law enforcement experience while you had just gotten a degree in criminal justice a few months before the election, you don't think that would have some bearing?

I bet if McCain wasn't a candidate or a senator, and was just some guy fighting the VA to get his disability, liberals would hold him up as a hero.

Your comparison is bogus, D.

A sheriff is a law enforcement official. That's all a sheriff is.

Hiring a sheriff and elected a president don't even deserve comparison.

But I didn't say hiring, did I? My sherrif is elected, hence the comparison.

Still bogus.

Electing a sheriff and electing a president don't deserve comparison.

Since you want to hide behind semantics.

Foul.

Maybe it'd be easier for you if you took the positions out of it.

To an imbecilic hiring manager, it would be the 10 years experience, automatically. The wise hiring manager however, would examine that experience for poor habits and undesirable learned behaviour.

Truth,
...and the American people will/should do the same.

The experience-whether viewed as a positive or negative-is still relevant to the discussion.

There's a flip flop.

D,

I'm still waiting on someone to explain how sitting in the Hanoi Hilton and getting beat-up (when you could've just said some Viet-cong propaganda/bull shyt and come home) makes you "Commander-In-Chief" material.

We don't need a leader who cares more about looking "tough," than acting in the best interest of the people...that's what we got with Bush. If McCain truly cared about his family and his country, he should have brought his ass home...but he didn't and now he can't lift his arms above his head.

Wes Clark spoke the truth and I'm glad that he's not backing down from the OBVIOUS truths.

When I think of successful Presidents who were military leaders prior to the presidency, I think of Washington, Grant and Eisenhower. What did they all have in common? They led MASSIVE forces. The outcomes of the Revolutionary, Civil and World wars were based heavily on their decision-making abilities. They did not spend years confined in British, Confederate, or German POW camps...They were running the whole dayum show!

Will someone? Can someone please explain how being a POW makes you presidential?

Webb,
First off, the release of POWs during Vietnam was by seniority or your measure of cooperation. Though McCain did initially cooperate, he ultimately decided not to benefit from that cooperation.

I would challenge you to read the military's Code of Conduct, which governs conduct for POWs, before you suggest that McCain cared neither for country or family. Contrary to liberal belief, there is no honor in tucking tail and running.

As for qualifications, being a POW is not a prerequsite to the presidency. But let's compare the two: you have a man who paid just short of the ultimate sacrifice for his country, compared to a man who has done....what?...for his.

As a vet, that's hard to overlook.

McCain has repeatedly said that he is only running because he looks to give back to a country that gave its all for him.

Thanks D,

Fortunately, "winning the presidency" will be more about what the candidate "will do for America," rather than "what they have done."

I know what McCain "will do for America"--continue Bush's policies--and on that basis alone, he must be DEFEATED.

And when you say:
McCain has repeatedly said that he is only running because he looks to give back to a country that gave its all for him.

Are you Lee Greenwood masquerading as a black man?

Webb.

Nah, that's from one of his post-primary victory speeches.

And if you are what I posted above in the thread, it seems like Obama is going to follow-and expand on-some of those same policies.

Guess those policies that you're so adamantly against aren't all bad, huh?

...and another reflection on Wes, from a friend of mine:

The Saddest Thing About Barack Obama's Available Military Expertise...
...is that though he has Wes Clark in his corner, the only person he knows with the experience of getting a bomb on target is Bill Ayers.

Considering the number of bombing mistakes under Clark's watch in the Balkans, I'd say that's.....interesting.

So that's how you wanna throw down?

You're foul.

Well, since we want to dig deeper into backgrounds and all....

When did Andrea Mitchell become a member of John McCain's campaign?

I have long said that I didn't trust Andrea Mitchell to be objective; she's a ReThug operative, and she's married to the guy who lied about the American economy to appease his ReThug supporters.

Those are two major things....I'm not gonna sit here and say that's it (for example, I was upset with the "just got done beating my wife" comment, when a lot of people here "explained"), but that's what came to mind at first thought.

This is why I hate statistics. What was the median pay for women vs. men? What about length of tenure with Obama v. salary? What about the averages and medians for non executive (100k+) staffers? Is there a discrepancy in pay for equal work? Have women been refused raises?

In truth if 4 or the 30 some male staffers are making as much as the article says, then the 6,000 dollar pay differential makes plenty of sense. In fact it is mathematically consistent. One could ask why there aren't more women in the top 5, but this article supplies no evidence that Obama's office is paying women doing similar work less money than men. Which is the central theme of the article. I think Mark Twain would have words for this "statistical analysis."

I don't mind an honest conversation but this article isn't close. While there are issues raised non are raised directly of honestly. Merely an underhanded way of attacking Obama and fair pay legislation. Bullocks.

Say it again.

D., have you ever criticized John McCain for anything? I know my criticisms of Barack have been muted and rare, but I do criticize him here from time to time.

Just asking.

Yes, when deserved. I was not a fan of the gas tax holiday....still aren't. And I was completely displeased (to the point of calling a campaign office) when he gave that terrible speech to "officially" kick off the general election.

So, John McCain hasn't flip-flopped on any major issues? He hasn't pandered to any major constituencies? His Senate voting record (or lack thereof) is flawless?

Just asking.

Of course he has, and of course it's not.

Trust, when he does, it's more than pointed out here.

Not by you.

That was my question.

Not so.

Like I said, when the criticism is deserved, I offer it.

That's it?

I may still vote for him (though I'm seriously thinking about voting for Cynthia McKinney), but Barack has taken all the exciment out of my support for his candidacy. At this point, I have no other reason to vote for him other than he's not john mccain. The audacity of politics.

McKinney's looking good to me, too. I simply cannot bring myself to vote for McCain, under any circumstances.

And Obama is giving me heartburn, especially with the flip-flop on FISA.

My colleagues at Black Agenda Report has been singing the "Obama-Ain't-What-He-Appears-To-Be" theme song since 2003. Maybe we need to start listening to the lyrics, so we won't keep singing "Obama done done Me Wrong" anthem once he gets the White House.

However, if Cynthia McKinney gets 2% of the National vote, it's enough to send a message to Obama, and one he won't like receiving, either.

Where's Bruce Dixon when I need him?

What is voting for McKinney in protest going to do other than help get McCain elected?

Thank you, msmartin.

This is where I think too many people have overlooked something that has been out there for some time and is important to why many support Obama: he doesn't mind being told he's wrong and he seeks out dissenting opinions. He called an old conservative friend to discuss the conservative legal angle on surveillance programs. This is key I think to understanding Obama's leadership style. He learns lessons and seeks out people who disagree with him. I find this reassuring when considering someone who isn't my ideological match running the county.

So, send Obama a message, because unlike Bush he'll get it and in that, not rhetoric, is hope.

On another note, I really can't stand the "Obama everything except what he appears." I've been reading about the guy for ages and nothing that has happened has been a surprise. While we live in an age where the media chooses the narrative, the actual biographical interviews and write ups on Obama have created an accurate picture: moderate liberal, pragmatist who has a slight ego problem and a huge intellect. A politician in the Chicago mold who think big ideas and honest national purpose are what are missing in government.

afroacademic, thank you so much for this comment.

I especially appreciate this part: He learns lessons and seeks out people who disagree with him. I find this reassuring when considering someone who isn't my ideological match running the county.

This is part of the deepest core of my support for Senator Obama. IN my experience, this is an incredibly rare trait in this society -- genuine ability to really seriously learn and not just within your own comfort zone.

In my view, it makes for a different kind of politics in some crucial ways. The typical approach of left activism in this country, from what I have seen, is to make some some oversimplified/caricatured demands in the most belligerent and self-righteous way possible. Others are either on your side or against you.

A real learning approach isn't like that.

And I see the typical forms of interaction from the left missing the boat when it comes to Senator Obama. Instead group demanding that he do what they want or else he is a sell-out or bad or whatever, IMO they should be asking him to seek out their views and experiences on whatever the issues are they're concerned about, and add them to the range of what he is attending to and considering.

I think his ego problem is more than slight, but for the rest, I agree.

I agree. I see in him a man that is aware of his abilities and one who has little patience for those who don't get it.

That's why I check my enthusiasm at the door so the speak. Politicians will always disappoint you. From the start I knew Obama was to my right, after accepting that I've been a much happier political junkie. However, being a pragmatist I have many reasons to vote for him: Energy policy, full elimination of sentencing disparities, civil rights enforcement, more early childhood education, more government transparency, etc. So, as long as he's got better policies on many (I know not all) of the issues I care about then I'll vote for the guy.

The media and the Republicans (one and the same it seems) pushed the notion that Barack was ultra-liberal and too many activists bought it hook line and sinker.

I remain convinced that many, if not most, of Barack's most enthusiastic supporters (and his most rabid opponents) didn't do their research.

Now the left is calling him a betrayer and the right is calling him a panderer.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

I remain enthusiastic.

Is it too much to ask that he NOT turn into something worse than Bill Kristol? Or that as a constitutional scholar he respects the constitution? Is it too much to ask that respect the separation of Church and State? That he stands with those who supported him before? Maybe my understanding of "Change" and "Hope" are very different from his. He should've told us as much before we bought the line and hook.

It's not too much to ask, but he's not even near Bill Kristol, so I'm not sure where that rhetoric is coming from.

But I'll say it again:

I'd rather win than be right. If one takes that to mean I have no principles, so be it.

Winning doesn't happen without compromise, not in politics, not it marriage, not in life.

I used to be a teacher. I am getting to the point where I kind of wish I could make Audacity of Hope be a reading assignment for every progressive who says Senator Obama is moving to the center or moving to the right just to pander in the election. The book is accessible through many public libraries. It's not as good to read as his first one (IMO) but it is really very upfront about where he's actually coming from.

That is true for some Craig but being that I am a moderate, I was happy that Barack was not far left liberal as he was packaged and considered. I know his record and I will say that Obama is indeed less progressive than he once was.

My issue with him was a coupld of moves that he made, I realized then that his impression of change was quite different from mine.

I understand.

All Presidents, every single one of them, are less progressive than they were from whatever elected office they previously held.

I agree. I had to re-position my support back in March to one that was more practical and rational. I have no problem stating when I do not agree and I will openly state when I do agree. Today was the first time that I could actually agree with the brother in a while.

I agree with you, I began feeling like that back in March.

Just received this:

ADL: PAT BUCHANAN PROMOTES NEW BOOK ON RACIST RADIO SHOW


New York, NY, June 30, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today said conservative political commentator Pat Buchanan “stooped into the cesspool of extremism” by appearing on a radio show run by a well-known white supremacist.

On June 29, Buchanan appeared on “Political Cesspool,” a Tennessee-based AM radio show run by white supremacist James Edwards, to promote his book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.

“While parading himself as a moderate, to sell his book Pat Buchanan has stooped into the cesspool of extremism,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

Edwards regularly invites anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists to voice their views on his show. It was Buchanan’s second appearance on the program, which is also available via the Internet.

“It’s not as if he did this by accident,” said Mr. Foxman. “Anyone who would have made inquiries into the nature of this program would have realized that it is an outlet for racism, anti-Semitism and hate.”

During the interview, Buchanan posited that World War II was unnecessary and that the British “blundered ... to bring about a war with Germany,” a war that Hitler did not want. Buchanan also stated that, “Had there been no war, there would have been no Holocaust.”

Buchanan, who has a long history of racist and anti-Semitic comments, defended the American aviator Charles Lindbergh against charges of anti-Semitism, saying that “…his reputation has been blackened because of a single speech he gave and a couple of paragraphs in it where he said that … the Jewish community is beating the drums for war … but frankly, no one has said what he said was palpably untrue.”



The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

Ummm....shocking? Not really. I wonder if MSNBC will have to denounce and reject him?

But then again...

I'm wondering when MSNBC is going to denounce him.

Never.

H/T Stereohyped

I read this over at Stereohyped and I found it to be hilarious.

John McCain likes Usher!! he has his CD and he met him on SNL.

John McCain's Brief Brush with Hip Hop and R&B

I am moderate so I am not sure if I exactly view expanding faith based programs a bad thing. I actually think that this is something that Obama believes is best and not necessarily pandering if you ask me. I will defend him with this.

I hate the fact that Christianity and politics is directly associated with Bush or the right. I am happy that Obama is showing that their are Christians on the left. However do take me to task if I am completely wrong about this.

I just hope that he doesn't align with Republicans on other issues because then it will cause a problem.

I agree CPL, with what you said here: "Everytime a Democrat starts acting like a Republican and "moves to the center" it virtually guarantees another ReThug gets 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for four more years."

Yea, no Barack Obama Clinton. He already began discussing his positions on things that seem to align with Clinton...in a bad way. Obama however has actually moved to the center a while ago-from when he entered the Senate. He is not the most liberal senator like they say. He is less progressive than he was in Illinois.

With Obama's last couple of moves (though I must admit that I don't necessarily mind the expanding faith based one, if its really a bad thing let me know) I really hope that he doesn't get progressively un-progressive. We will hope (no pun intended) and see.


We can do video comments? Interesting?

Hey Rhonda

I don't know how I feel about this. I was listening to one of Wright's sermons again last night and the theme was that a lot of wrong things have been done in the name of christianity, so I guess it depends on whose interpreting the word and how it is applied. At the very least, I would say seperate faith from politics.

I'm not too upset about the Faith-Based expansion, either, as long as it demonstrates no discrimination in who gets faith-based money. Bush only created it to pay out his evangelical buddies before they realized he hoodwinked them. He had to throw them some scraps, as TD Jakes learned, the hard way.

Everything else I've said about Obama, I stand by. He's got MoveOn in a snit, and Kos just went public on denouncing him for the FISA stand and slinging Wesley Clark under the bus for defending him against McCain's sliming. He's beginning to sound like a DLC-puppet and why does he feel he needs to go that direction when he got the nomination without THEM?

I believe Obama's telling us EXACTLY what he's going to do if he gets the White House, but we have to mold his agenda before he gets there and let him know we will not let up on him once he's sworn in.

McCain IS NOT AN OPTION FOR ME, at any cost.

I've had it with MoveOn and DailyKos. Their leadership can't seem to grasp that criticism works both ways. They can rail against Barack, but he can't criticize them?

Uh huh.

Barack has denounced and rejected the DLC. He's not its puppet.

I'm with ya Craig

Craig wrote: I've had it with MoveOn and DailyKos. Their leadership can't seem to grasp that criticism works both ways. They can rail against Barack, but he can't criticize them?

Me too. Seconded!

Those kind of groups aren't good with critical reflection about their own practice and usually can't handle accepting critique - at all. They assume they know more and see more and see better than others who all just need to be pushed and/or educated.

Okay, Craig, then why he's flipping on FISA when he promised to filibuster it last Fall?

Why did he sling Wesley Clark under the bus for defending him against the sliming tactics of McCain.

While Kos' group goes whichever way he tells them to, MoveOn has had Obama's back for quite some time; longer than Kos, and it's not that they don't know criticism works both ways; it is what Obama is choosing to distance himself from - and he's distancing and criticising the very grass roots organizations that propelled him to that nomination, and raised a lot of money for him. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, and I'm feeling like Obama is going to go the way of Ned Lamont, when Lamont won that nomination away from Lieberman.

I agree that Obama isn't going to be everything to everyone, but he should stop trying to mold himself that way because it fuels inconsistency, and riles up the people who support him.

McCain is not an option for me...but Obama shouldn't be acting like now he has the nomination, he can start pandering to everyone else while throwing the people who have supported him out the window.

He didn't throw Wesley Clark under any bus.

It's my understanding that the FISA compromise doesn't call for criminal immunity so, technically, Barack is not flip flopping on this. But even if he is, I'm certain there's more than meets the eye with this legislation, so I'm not "betrayed" by his position.

And I don't see Barack pandering to everyone else and throwing his supporters out the window. So on that we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Al Giordano has an excellent article on the issue of the storm around Barack's positions these last few days. I was going to paste a paragraph here, but it's better read in it's entirety. He talks about "smart dissent" ... quite insightful and provocative. I will indulge in one sentence: "Too many progressive activists suffer from the illusion that if they leverage a candidate during a campaign that getting him or her to say one thing or another will later translate into policy. " The post can be read at: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/smart...

Sorry CPL but Clark got baited and said something a little too much. I'm sure he knew that. Attacking McCain the legend is difficult at best and any inelegant response or charge will be dissected by the right. Clark was walking a tight line and tripped, end of story.

Obama too had to walk a line to blunt the misstep. Guess what, he's barely mentioned Clark by name and to my knowledge Clark has his position. Sorry but this was nothing similar to being "thrown under the bus."

I agree with Clark on the merits, but when fighting the right wing how you attack is critical and he misfired.

On a side note: Obama is using the huge momentum on the left as collateral to pivot to the center. Personally I think it may be worth the risk, I guess we'll just wait and see.

Here's the thing, though: Obama jumps up and down on "Bush/McCain" this and "failed Bush policies" that.

Well, obviously something worked....so much so that not only does Obama want to keep it around, he wants to expand it.

Either all the policies have failed-as Obama has indirectly suggested-or some of them have worked. If you're gonna run against Bush, then run against him....and don't embrace what's politically expedient.

Well not exactly. That's the lovely thing about rhetoric, you get to pick and the American people get to decide if you're right. And yes I think that the Obama line is rhetoric, but it is good rhetoric because people think Bush has dropped the ball a lot, not every time, but enough to equal a lame duck. I'm not a fan of "gotcha" responses.

Regardless, Obama has always been moderate on faith issues. He's seen faith not as inconsistent with the town square but has embraced it. I think his open confrontations with some right wing Christians (Rev. Dobson) displays just how differently, but religiously he approaches faith and politics.

From a faith and society prospective I think it would do as well do remember the vast number of Americans who are faith filled people but also progressive, liberal, green, etc. and accept that some of their political views are actually informed by that faith. If we can push back against the common right wing mime that liberals and democrats hate people of faith and that only conservative principles are consistent with some large faith populations then I would consider that a huge step forward.

I'll wait on specifics from the Obama camp before I pass judgment on the merits of this move as new policy.

Obama disagrees with everything else=)

Then he's pandering.

It's to be expected, but let's call it what it is: he's making a move to appeal to a certain interest.

Which then leads to the question: what else has worked during the Bush Administration? Surely for all its faults, it wasn't all bad, else he wouldn't be embracing it.

I was going to re-answer you but afro-academic said it best. I am not mad nor confused about this move, Obama has shown and spoken publicly about his faith. He has made speeches about the role od faith in politics and vice versa. I agree with him 100% on what he has said. As afro-academic pointed out and as I mentioned above, I hate the fact that the right asks as if (along with too many liberals and dems) that Christianity or Christian values are republican. There are many Christians and evangelicals on the left especially among African Americans!!

I do not see this as pandering, I see this as something that fits in with much of what Obama has said on the matter of religion and civil religion for that matter. I feel that he is rightfully and hopefully repositioning the whole concept that has been unfortunately written by the right wing.

This is why right wing people are shaking in their pants (and skirts)...Obama is becoming more and more attractive to Evangelical voters who 1 in 5 are voting for Obama.

I will even go a step further and say that this goes back to the one America idea. I also think that Obama is looking to have the impact that Reagan had on politics and the electoral map. He said it.

I don't want him to nor do I think he will parrot right wing talking points or align himself by any means with the Right (hopefully). When he brought up Reagan and why I am bringing up Reagan is because Obama wants to be the Democratic version of what Reagan did to the Reopublican party.

All over Westchester there are Republicans for Obama signs. My neighbors who were Bush lovers 2000 and 2004 are supporting Obama and not McCain. They are extremely church going and look like they belong in the Bible Belt. The numbers have shown that Obama can do well amongst voters who attend church regularly. He is leading McCain.

Lastly, I will reitterate my point and say that, Obama in my opinion is not pandering because he has shown that he is a man of faith and is church going. He has spoken about religion in ways that few on the left have. I don't, for some reason, view this as pandering. I will wait until I get all the facts.

Don't get me wrong; I actually have no problem with this at all. Well.....except the hiring/firing based on faith part. That's kinda a little too Alberto Gonzales-ish for me.

It appears that since Mr. Obama got the Democratic Nomination on lockdown, he thinks he can back track on everything he promised, just like the typical politico.

I don't want to hear about how he "has to do certain things' or "move to center" to get elected. Everytime a Democrat starts acting like a Republican and "moves to the center" it virtually guarantees another ReThug gets 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for four more years.

We're good at quoting Harry Truman, but unlike Truman, the Democratic Party refuses to take the fight to them who's asking for it.

However, it isn't a bad idea to remind Obama that if he's going to sling the people who got him the nomination under the bus to pander to the corporate interests, he still has to dance with those who brought him...

Maybe Obama moving to the center might be a good thing as far as getting elected is concern.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/is-obama...

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr...

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change you can...oh, forget about it.

@ Ben S.

Did you happen to see that Obama T-Shirt that has that RUN DMC-esque look to it? It says "RUN DC" with Obama wearing a thick gold chain...the hotness!

Clock Wise Clothing

I WANT THAT, DO YOU HAVE A LINK SO I COULD BUY IT? IS IT AT A STORE OR SOMETHING?

Been trying to figure out how to work this thing.....

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

This wouldn't happen to be one of those Bush/McCain policies that Obama loves to tout as "failed," would it?

Interesting, I will look about that.

Check out Obamosaic, an interactive mosaic of 200 Obama t-shirts.

Cool, thanks for that.