Jack & Jill Politics

Not sure why folks keep asking -- Why Obama?

My thought was . . . of course he did. Why not?

Daily Kos
Is Rick Perry Hiding Smoking Gun in Todd Willingham Case" Hotlist
by Scott Cobb [Subscribe]
Digg this! Share this on Twitter - Is Rick Perry Hiding Smoking Gun in Todd Willingham Case"Tweet this submit to reddit Share This
Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 02:00:05 AM PDT

According to an article in today's Houston Chronicle, Texas Governor Rick Perry is refusing to release documents that could show whether or not he considered or even read the information sent to him on the day of the execution of Todd Willingham informing him that there was new evidence casting doubt on Willingham's guilt and raising the question of whether Texas was about to execute an innocent man.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/11/792085...


Perry's office quiet on expert's arson report
By LISE OLSEN Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
Oct. 11, 2009, 12:14AM

Just 88 minutes before the February 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, Gov. Rick Perry's office received by fax a crucial arson expert's opinion that later ignited a political firestorm over whether Texas, on Perry's watch, used botched forensic evidence to send a man to his death.

In a letter sent Feb. 14, three days before Willingham was scheduled to die, Perry had been asked to postpone the execution. The condemned man's attorney argued that the newly obtained expert evidence showed Willingham had not set the house fire that killed his daughters, 2-year-old Amber and 1-year-old twins Karmon and Kameron, two days before Christmas in 1991.

On Feb. 17, the day of the execution, Perry's office got the five-page faxed report at 4:52 p.m., according to documents the Houston Chronicle obtained in response to a public records request.

But it's unclear from the records whether he read it that day. Perry's office has declined to release any of his or his staff's comments or analysis of the reprieve request.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolita...

Trust me, Perry knows he is presiding over a dysfunctional death penalty system in Texas. Continuing the practice was simply a checklist item for the office of Governor.

Many groups and individuals, locally, from the state legislature, retired FBI directors, and members from the International community had meetings and offered him legislative alternatives. All of these groups and individuals have approached him with evidence on numerous occasions to prove that he needs to call for a moratorium.

While I am encouraged that the Todd Willingham case may be the one case that will finally force Texas and its Governor to stop its long history of miscarriage of justice, I encourage the same groups to review Frances Newton's and Delma Banks' cases as well.

Edit:

The United States does not often find itself in a league with China, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

But as international human rights groups and a number of countries, particularly in the European Union [EU], prepare to mark World Day Against the Death Penalty Saturday, that list of the five countries where nearly all of 2008's executions were carried out is where the US finds itself.

Proponents of abolishing the death penalty worldwide say the global trend is in their favor, and they claim the march of countries putting an end to executions is accelerating.

But even though a large majority of known executions carried out last year were in China, the US remains a key target of the abolition campaign as a country that in most other instances is seen sharing values with other Western powers.

"The death penalty is being progressively abolished worldwide, and at an accelerating pace," says Sweden's ambassador to the United States Jonas Hafström, who joined European Union officials in Washington Friday to promote a global focus on ending the death penalty.

Noting that 139 countries – more than two-thirds of the world total – have abolished the practice, Ambassador Hafström adds that more than 80 percent of known executions last year were carried out in five countries, including the US.

Europeans press the US to end the death penalty

Now it seems that Obama has lost the support entirely of people who voted for him, 9 months into his term. What has he done to have caused that?

Barack Obama as a longshot freshman Senator took down the Clintons and the Republicans to win the Presidency winning states Democrats hadn't won in 40yrs along the war.

In his first 9 months he has

1) passed a stimulus package that has helped the economy according to various experts, however jobs creation is still a big problem
2) order Gitmo closed in a year. Will it close on schedule? Probably not. Nobody wants the prisoners in their state and very few foreign countries will accept those freed.
3) enacted a plan to wind down the Iraq war - the troops will start coming home after the Iraqi Election in January
4) refocused on Afghanistan - he campaigned on escalating the war there which he did in March but he's reviewing the strategy now
5) pushed for healthcare reform - House and Senate will vote on separate bills in the next couple weeks. The ball is still in play so the final product is still in limbo but he's gotten further along that anyone else who's tried.
6) continued the bank bailouts - not surprising since he supported the original bailout before the election but many credit it with saving the financial sector
7) restructured the autos - saved jobs and the companies are no longer at the doorstep every month begging for money.
8) enagaged with Iran - he's gotten them to the negotiating table
9) engaged with NK - heading back to the 6 party talks
10) engaged the Israelis and the Palestinians on the peace effort - he appointed a mideast envoy and met with both sides
11) pushed for energy legislation - house has passed a bill, Senate just introduced one, stimulus money for green jobs
12) pushed for financial reform - house is working on legislation, Credit Card legislation passed
13) pushed for education reform - house passed legislation improving the student loan program, lots of stimulus money for reforming schools such as race to the top, improving community colleges

There are others but these are the biggest in my opinion. In each of these, there have been successes and failures. On many issues, I have disagreed on certain things that were done but I recognize an effort to solve big problems that have been kicked down the road for years and the constraints that exist.

I also recognize that the President won by grabbing the center and that he will govern as a center-left President. However after 8yrs of Bush, center-left is not where it used to be. I believe that if he can arrive at sensible solutions to the domestic problems even if they are not as progressive, it will be progress and voters will reward him the opportunity to revisit them a 2nd time. On foreign policy, if he can manage or contain problems without engaging in any new military conflicts, that will be progress.

I will continue to give support, offer constructive criticism and push him on the issues but I will give him the 4 years that he earned. In 2012, I'll look at what he promised versus what he did and I'll consider if the country is better off than when he took office and decide if he deserves another term in office.

I urge others who support the President especially those from the beginning, when the experts and punditry thought he did not have a chance in hell at winning the Democratic nomination much less the Presidency, to do the same.

"I believe that if he can arrive at sensible solutions to the domestic problems even if they are not as progressive, it will be progress and voters will reward him the opportunity to revisit them a 2nd time."

I am not as sanguine. Things are different financially this time. It will require a far more harder line w/ the financial institutions than he and his team are willing to execute. Incrementalism will not acheive anything.

Thank you.

"However after 8yrs of Bush, center-left is not where it used to be."

Where is it?

President Obama speaks at the annual HRC Dinner, Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raCFfXfw9O0
President Obama speaks at the annual HRC Dinner, Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImQexnszp0
President Obama speaks at the annual HRC Dinner, Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40XF5nFVmK8

lawd hammercy

Mom Has 2 Sets of Twins in 1 Year
AOL
posted: 6 HOURS 31 MINUTES AGO

(Oct 10) - A Texas mother has given birth to her second set of twins in less than a year.
Samantha Lopez, of San Antonio, already had two children when she delivered her first set of twins in December, KABB-TV reported. Soon after, she found out she was pregnant again with another set. The babies, a boy and a girl, were born last week.
Lopez and her boyfriend, Lorenzo Saldana, told KABB they are depending on food stamps to support the family because neither can work due to the demands of caring for their six young children. Saldana said he plans to find work when the babies are a bit older. Lopez is a licensed childcare provider.

Delusions of grandeur: Militia video warns President Obama to leave the country by Oct. 15
Click on the link to watch
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/delusio...

hello Secret Service

It is really time for them to announce that they arrest people when this happens. Silence is approval for people like this.

yep

Read this diary and when I post it hopefully it will be my last word on this faux outrage
Truth is, the Nobel committees don't give a s--t.
by BluePlatypus
Share this on Twitter - Truth is, the Nobel committees don't give a s--t. Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 04:50:08 PM PDT
Here I was with a long diary on the state of European and Scandinavian Social Democracy that I was looking forward to not having anyone read, when this whole Nobel thing came along and upset my plans.

Feeling that I know a bit more than the average bear about the Nobels, (as in actually knowing people involved in the thing) I joined the cacophony and wrote a diary, yesterday. Shouting in the crowd.

So now, of course, the punditocracy has gotten itself into top gear giving their opinions on the subject which they actually know relatively little about. Predictably, the main page is currently featuring the WaPo editorial: "Nominating" someone who'd both be ineligible and far past the nomination date.

It struck me that I forgot to underline another thing yesterday...

BluePlatypus's diary :: :: To recap, my main point in the entry yesterday was some often-missed points: That the Nobel Peace Prize is in fact, activist by its very nature. That it is often used not only to reward efforts, but to support them.

Since then a few omissions have come to mind, so just to add to the list:
"Obama's being rewarded just for not being Bush"

So? And you could say: "Nelson Mandela got the prize simply for not being P. W. Botha". Unless you take into account the ideological differences between the two, and why the Nobel committee thought those differences were important, it's a fairly meaningless statement.

The fight against racism, BTW, has long been a topic of the Peace Prize. Ask Mandela, or Desmond Tutu or Martin Luther King. The former two have praised Obama highly of course, and Tutu has explicitly commended Obama's Peace Prize. It's hard to imagine MLK being of a different opinion.

Okay. But let's just pretend that Obama doesn't deserve the prize. The Norwegian Nobel committee went nuts. Temporarily insane. They were blinded by his message and imagery.

If he's that potent a symbol - that he can seduce the entire Nobel committee, isn't that worth something in itself? Symbols are not unimportant, and the Nobel Prize itself is evidence of that. What's Aung San Suu Kyi done lately? Not much. Symbols are important, and the Nobel Prize has recognized plenty people 'merely' for what they stand for, rather than what they've accomplished in practice.

The committee, are all professional politicians. The chairman, Stoltenberg, has served as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of his country. In the terms of accomplishment that the pundits now give such import, he's got them beaten by miles. (How many nations have you lead, Joe Scarborough?). Anyone who claims that they're ignorant or politically naive in any way needs to back that up with some very solid merits, or take a slice of humble pie.

Which brings me to the main point I forgot:
The Nobel committees don't give a flying f--k what you think.

Get the big picture: There are two reasons the Nobel prize has achieved the stature it has. The first is its rather unique nature, being essentially the first prize of its kind, and really, the only prize of its kind - given its stature.

The second is the absolute integrity and secrecy of the prize committees.

It's their opinion that matters and their opinion only. It doesn't matter what you say, or what the million talking heads say. The committee doesn't care - it's their job not to care. Their job is to make up their minds who they think the best candidate is and make that decision. With no outside influence.

When was a Nobel laureate announcement ever leaked? When did you hear that a Nobel was 'bought' or that they'd 'given way to public pressure'? The answer is never, unless you count the inevitable weak rumors and sore losers.

It's not because that pressure doesn't exist. That pressure is massive. Businesses, Universities, entire nations sometimes try to campaign for a Nobel. It doesn't work and it's never worked.

The people I know on the committees have certainly never said a word to me. I doubt very much they tell anyone: Not their spouses, not their dogs. Because it is considered an honor just to be on the committee, and because they share the opinion that I'm expressing here: That the prestige and existence of the award is dependent on their integrity. (Add to this that Scandinavians in general are simply honest folks, not prone to conspiracy, corruption and backroom-dealing. They always rank among the least corrupt nations in the world)

If, as sometimes happens, someone claims to have been 'nominated for a Nobel prize', they're BS-ing you. The nominating process is done in absolute secrecy to guard this integrity. Records are kept of the nominations, motivations, discussion and vote. But they are sealed for 50 years. Anyone who claims to know anything is at best circulating an unsubstantiated (and in the near future, unverifiable) rumor. (most of which turn out to be false. Like Edison/Tesla having been offered but refused)

Members of the Swedish Academy are elected for life. By which they mean life. You can't resign even if you tried. Kerstin Ekman did in 1989. The Academy still considers her a member, under the reasoning that they still consider her bound to her oath of silence. (And she's not given away any secrets)

The debate will certainly go on, but realize this: It will never have any bearing on the Prize. Nor should it. Since the start, the Nobel Prizes have followed this principle religiously. They make their own determination, within the guidelines Nobel set up. Because that's what Nobel wanted and they are bound to follow his will to the letter. (Except for the word 'idealistisk' which they eventually decided was really 'idealisk').

It's no wonder the American punditocracy wouldn't understand the Nobels. It's a pretty 'un-American' thing: Neither amenable to money or public opinion. J.K. Rowling isn't going to get the Literature award, and Stephen Hawking isn't likely to get the Physics one. (for reasons a bit less obvious)

It's all served them well. The prestige of the prize, the relative absence of controversy around the winners (over time) is all evidence of that. You'd be hard-pressed to find a pundit with a better track record.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/10/79....

I know this will sound corny, but, this is my take on the kind of person our president is....he would be the one who would tend to the children who didn't have parents, he would read them stories and he would say "Goodnight, you princes of Maine. You kings of New England."

Huh? contrary to what you think I wasn't being disrespectful. I'm all for the Nobel award to the president.

It's author's quote from the article and post should have attached to article post on this site. Sorry, my post wasn't directed toward you or your post. LOL If I should ever post that way, remind me to take my meds.

dThomas likes the works of Adolph Reed.I admit I was ignorant of him so I thought as a courtsey some links to his writings
On Reparations, by Adolph Reed
http://educationright.tripod.com/id266.htm
Stirrings in the Jug
Black Politics in the Post-Segregation Era
By Adolph Reed Jr.
http://www.nathanielturner.com/stirringsintheju...
[Marxism] Adolph Reed Jr "Class-ifying the Hurricane" and comment by me
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/...
Black particularity reconsidered - Adolph L. Reed Jr
http://libcom.org/library/black-particularity-r...
So I have some reading to do but from what I have read it looks like he is fighting the last war.

Sen Kyl is holding up bill for extending unemployment benefits:

Key Senate Democrats tried unsuccessfully today to quickly pass legislation to give jobless workers in Michigan and other hard-hit states an additional 20 weeks of unemployment benefits.

That delays action on the high-stakes issue until at least next week.

Tom Clementson, a 58-year-old unemployed construction worker in Indian River, expressed frustration by the Senate's slow pace.

Advertisement

"So many people are out of work and need this extra money to put food on the table," said Clementson, who cashed his last check six weeks ago. "It seems like the Senate should spend more time on getting this passed."

Today's failed effort to quickly pass a bill followed the unveiling of a compromise bill by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and key allies. The bill would give all states an extra 14 weeks of jobless benefits, plus an extra six weeks for states with unemployment rates of 8.5 percent or greater.

Michigan has a jobless rate of 15.2 percent -- the highest in the nation.

Short of action by Congress, tens of thousands of unemployed workers in Michigan will run through their last benefits by the end of the year.

Reid introduced the bill after reaching a deal with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, who had balked at the House-passed bill, which only gives extra benefits to the hardest-hit states.

Also sponsoring the bill are Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana and Jack Reed of Rhode Island.

What kills me is that I don't see any outrage at this obstruction on blogs such as Huffington Post that are usually quick to call Obama or the Dems sell-outs. WTF?

Sen Kyl is beyond stupid.

Pointing out GOP obstructionism doesn't fit Arianna's meme about Obama being an ineffective weakling.

Why isn't Bin Laden wanted for the 9/11 attacks?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinlade...

Must be a typo.

Did you read the charges on the link?If it is a typo after 8 years of being the #1 boogyman dont you think they would have fixed it.Just sayin

I forgot to put /snark at the end of my comment.

My bad.

double post

Everyone wants a green car. Can you afford one,/a>?

Deep throat told Woodward and Bernstein to follow the money. Here's a map to follow it as the financial reform bill moves through Congress.

I was actually angry at Adolph Reed when he wrote the following piece back during the primaries:

http://www.progressive.org/mag_reed0508

I was angry because I was still drunk on the Kool Aid and still supported Obama at the time. But Reed turned out to be right. Hopefully more people will see the light as the facts continue to reveal themselves about Obama as his presidency continues.

Peace.

O we saw the light then and we see it now...Reed was a pontificating ass who was completely wrong and you are a follower of a disllusioned, bitter and resentful asshole.

O ..We got the light..it is shining reeeeal BRIGHT!!


weeee see you

You weren't angry.Deep down you hoped he was right so later you could feel vindicated.Just like your mindless rants about the Nobel Peace prize.So for your enlightened positions I hereby bestow onto you this honor
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/3171/douchebag...

From the link:

"3) he can’t beat McCain in November.

"Frankly, I suspect that Clinton can’t beat him either, but there’s no way that Obama will carry most of the states in November that he’s won in the primaries and caucuses. And, while it makes some liberals feel good to think that a majority of the American electorate could vote for a black Presidential candidate, we should keep in mind that the Republicans haven’t let one dog out of the kennel against him yet. The Jeremiah Wright contretemps is only the first bark.

"Obama’s style of being all things to all people threatens to melt under the inescapable spotlight of a national campaign against a Republican. It’s like what brings on the downfall of really successful con artists: They get themselves onto a stage that’s so big that they can’t hide their contradictions anymore, and everyone finds out about the different stories they’ve told different people.

(...)

"Obama’s campaign has been very clever in carving out a strategy to amass Democratic delegate votes, but its momentum is in some ways a Potemkin construction—built largely on victories in states that no Democrat will win in November—that will fall apart under Republican pressure.

"And then where will we be?"

::

Reed turned out to be right?

Only in an alternate universe.

I was specifically talking about the following, not the outcome of the election:

"He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal."

He's definitely a "neoliberal" given his current domestic and foreign policies


"His political repertoire has always included the repugnant stratagem of using connection with black audiences in exactly the same way Bill Clinton did—i.e., getting props both for emoting with the black crowd and talking through them to affirm a victim-blaming “tough love” message that focuses on alleged behavioral pathologies in poor black communities. Because he’s able to claim racial insider standing, he actually goes beyond Clinton and rehearses the scurrilous and ridiculous sort of narrative Bill Cosby has made infamous."

His fathers day speech and NAACP speech was the epitome of this.

"Paul Krugman noted months ago that the Obamistas display a cultish quality in the sense that they treat others’ criticism or failure to support their icon as a character flaw or sin."

I experience this with almost every person that supports Obama when I critique him- they don't handle criticism of him well.

"Like Jackson, he wants to appeal to blacks with the “it’s our time now” line, and to white liberals with that, as well as with the “I’m black in a different way from Jesse” qualifier and the religious conversion rhetoric. A friend said that Obama’s campaign, in stressing his appeal to rapturous children and liberal, glamorous yuppies, offers vicarious identification with these groups, as well as the chance to become sort of black in that ultra-safe and familiar theme park way."

Nuff said - took me a while to realize this though.

"Obama’s empty claims to being a candidate of progressive change and to embodying a “movement” that exists only as a brand will dissolve into disillusionment in either a failed campaign against McCain or an Obama Presidency that continues the politics he’s practiced his entire career;"

We're living this at this very moment - his presidency has been all shrewd politics so far and little progressive change for the good.

"his horribly opportunistic approach to the issues bearing on inequality—in which he tosses behaviorist rhetoric to the right and little more than calls to celebrate his success to blacks—stands to pollute debate about racial injustice whether he wins or loses the Presidency;"

Clearly Obama cannot be helping the dialogue of race much considering he side steps the issue as often as he can because of the political inconvenience. of being a black president. This does not allow us as a nation to have a true dialogue about the subject because Obama's political career is more important to most than dealing with this countries racial issues in an honest way.

"Obama gets credit for “opening a conversation” on race, for “taking the matter on squarely.” But he doesn’t really speak to what we ought to be doing to address the injustices, past and present, that he mentions. Despite all the babble about Obama’s transcendence, Obama persists in portraying black Americans as a stereotypical monolith: blacks feel x; whites feel y. And the trope of black “anger” is a tired chestnut that neither explains nor characterizes political grievances or aspirations. (By the way, Obama’s casting Wright’s alleged “anger” as generational is entirely consistent with his earlier praise of Ronald Reagan for sensing Americans’ desire to undo the “excesses” of the 1960s and 1970s.)"


Clearly Reed was wrong about Obama losing the presidency (as well as Clinton), but his characterization of Obama as a politician(along with the characterization of his supporters) was accurate.

You persist in describing his supporters as a stereotypical monolith.

Funny how that works.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm just going to address one point in your post.
"Clearly Obama cannot be helping the dialogue of race much considering he side steps the issue as often as he can because of the political inconvenience. of being a black president. This does not allow us as a nation to have a true dialogue about the subject because Obama's political career is more important to most than dealing with this countries racial issues in an honest way."
With all the problems that has been building up in this country for the past 30 years,What is it exactly you and Reed wants the President to do to address Americas racial ills?Reparations,A truth commision,line up white folks to be shot.Exactly what should he do?

I see Obama just finished offering more false hope with no action to the selected group of the day. Obama is like that person that misuses and abuses you in a relationship - he lies to you, treats you like crap and then offers sweet words and false promises to make up. Sigh.

So if that's the case, take yourself to a site that shares your point of view. Nobody asked you to support Obama. The last time I remember he had a 4 year term. U don't like his policy , fine. Don't get mad that people don't agree with you period.

He lies to you, treats you like crap and then offers sweet words... I think I can say that for the last 43 presidents. So come back with something original

"So if that's the case, take yourself to a site that shares your point of view. Nobody asked you to support Obama"

So I must be an advocate of Obama to post here? I thought this site was called Jack and Jill Politics.com not Jack and Jock Obama.com. I was told by another poster that this site existed before the arrival of - as Oprah says - "the one", and that independent thought was allowed. Was that poster wrong? Also for your info I post at other Obama slanted sites as well (like Huffpost and Daily kos, etc) in addition to posting at conservative sites that hate him like Townhall.com. I don't mind my views being challenged because i use facts to defend them. When the facts show that Obama is someone worth supporting again (I supported him during the election) I will support him as strongly as anyone else including you. But I care about the issues above all. Adoring someone just because he's popular and everyone else adores them is very high schoolish and I graduated high school about 11 years ago ;-).

Peace.

"So I must be an advocate of Obama to post here?"

Well yes. Didn't you know that? Not only do you have to be an Obama advocate, but your advocacy has to follow a certain othodoxy.:)

See that is your problem.... I said to you, don't be mad people don't share your viewpoint.

Your writings come across as someone who is intent on convincing everyone that you are right and everybody else is wrong. If individuals don't agree with your assertions they are automatically Obama cool aid drinkers or "whatever what not" you choose to call people.

There actually people who agree with your viewpoint and rate you. Sometimes you might make a point I agree with.

Go back and re-read what you initially posted and explain to me how that suffices as a critique and I think I stated again the same line you quoted could be said about the last 43 presidents. So is it because he is black you expect him to treat you a little different?

I expect more from Obama and critique his policy but I am not in realm of trying to convince others to see my point of view. If you make a valid point, you will find a collective agreement and you find disagreement. Life involves the art of being able to tolerate disagreement.

You for one have taken issue with the wars but as many have pointed out, if you really supported him, you would know the issue was setting a deadline for withdrawal with Iraq[he has] and escalating in Afghanistan[ he did not say withdraw there]. There are ways to articulate your disagreement, but you take offense when people do not agree with you. Its personal to you that everybody must agree with you or we all blind. I say you check yourself before you preach to others.

I responded to you regarding the criteria of the NPO but i did not hear back from you hummm...

Prime example Aleth, I posted a piece by Adolph Reed last night stating that I now agree with his perspective on Obama - I also listed reasons. Instead of responding to the substance of what was written by either me or Reed, the following moronic poster writes this:

laRapierWit

"Reed was a pontificating ass who was completely wrong and you are a follower of a disllusioned, bitter and resentful asshole."

And yet you talk about me. How about you critique the rigid and shortsighted views of the many people who support Obama with vile ad hominem attacks. This same poster suggested I die on another thread. Nothing to say about that?

Well I apologize for laRapierWit for making those comments, maybe we all have a better way to disagree with each other.

There just has to be a better and logically way to have a discourse. There is emotion on each level for people but I think alot of people in and around the world have alot at stake with the president.

Relax and make your arguments and move on. Life is too big and there is too much stuff going on. I guess a keyboard makes us all braver. Relax and have a good sunday dtthomas

"Your writings come across as someone who is intent on convincing everyone that you are right and everybody else is wrong. If individuals don't agree with your assertions they are automatically Obama cool aid drinkers"

Not really. I've just tried to present my perspective with facts and to engage people civilly. I only point out the cult like or Kool aid behavior when people don't address the specific facts that I bring up and call me names like "troll" or "hater" to deflect from my (often legitimate) criticism of Obama. Or I may call people cult supporters when they evoke biblical verses to justify blind support for Mr Obama by saying things like "no weapon formed against him shall prosper" -if that's not cult like, I don't know what is cult like, lol

However I don't think that I have ever responded that way to any of your post because you haven't hurled those terms (or evoked bible scripture) at me to deflect from my perspective.

"Go back and re-read what you initially posted and explain to me how that suffices as a critique and I think I stated again the same line you quoted could be said about the last 43 presidents. So is it because he is black you expect him to treat you different"

That post was a shallow post basically summing up my overall impression of Obama thus far - it wasn't meant to be that substantive. But I think if you have seen many of my other post, you would have noticed that I more often than not provide facts and even links to support my perspectives. As far as Obama's color, it rarely has anything to do with anything I write. I initially supported Obama because he was a Washington outsider, anti war guy, supported a full Public Option, believed in restructuring NAFTA and supported a host of progressive goals in which he laid out during the primaries. However Obama has abandoned all of this (choosing to engage in the politics of old I believe) and supports very few things that are progressive so therefore I no longer support him. It's that simple.

I initially supported Obama because he was a Washington outsider, anti war guy, supported a full Public Option, believed in restructuring NAFTA and supported a host of progressive goals in which he laid out during the primaries. However Obama has abandoned all of this (choosing to engage in the politics of old I believe) and supports very few things that are progressive so therefore I no longer support him. It's that simple.
-------------------------------------

Then that is fine but don't take it so personally that folks do not share your own view point. I am still trying to figure out where people get the notion that Obama is anti-war guy, the guy did not support the Iraq war because he felt it was a dumb war with no end in sight. He never opposed the Afghanistan war.

Notwithstanding if that's how easy you give up then you are in for a long haul. By the way Public Option was never a progressive stance, single payer was the progressive assessment. That was the whole debate during the democratic primary. Have you seen the final health care bill and do you think that you go to Washington and get what you want?

Re-structuring NAFTA, I would like that to happen but I sure know it will not happen in this economic climate. Heck it will not happen with the congress you have. The entire system is compromised, an OUTSIDER cannot change a well oiled machine alone. It requires folks fighting. The one thing the right does is they never quit and they keep fight. DC is a corporation with subsidiaries across the states, we are now a corporation. We have been fully incorporated since 1981.

As one person said, the right cast all their chips the last 30 years onto Reagan for fiscal responsibility, repeal abortion laws, social programs etc and they came out empty handed with nothing to show...

First president to get close to Health Care reform... As I SAID before in another post, if Eisenhower could not take on the Military Industrialized Complex and FDR could not get rid of the entire corporate greed structure, do you think an Outsider will be able to accomplish it?

So if you no longer support him, that is on you. Don't just be upset when people do not see from your point of view. Again I state the above comment you made could be stated to the last 43 presidents. Have a good one

Whassup Karmi II. Happy Sunday

were you a bush supporter?

Well you know what they say about ASSumptions.

Are you from New Orleans?

I ask, cause your screen name is the name of one of my good friends from New Orleans?

Watching a rebroadcast of Joy Behar's (from The View) show on CNN Headline news. She just had David Alan Grier, and he was talking about a book he has written. Did ya'll know that when he was a kid he walked in a protest in Detroit with Martin Luther King Jr (well his parents made him walk, he was just a lil kid)?

I actually like Joy, but I'm sure somebody here at JJP can tell me why I shouldn't like her. Go ahead...lay it on me.

No I don't think you are wrong. i actually like her better than Whoopi Goldberg.

Get Off Obama's Back ...second thoughts from Michael Moore
by Michael Moore
Share this on Twitter - Get Off Obama's Back ...second thoughts from Michael Moore Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 03:14:14 PM PDT

Friends,




Last night my wife asked me if I thought I was a little too hard on Obama in my letter yesterday congratulating him on his Nobel Prize. "No, I don't think so," I replied. I thought it was important to remind him he's now conducting the two wars he's inherited. "Yeah," she said, "but to tell him, 'Now earn it!'? Give the guy a break -- this is a great day for him and for all of us."




I went back and re-read what I had written. And I listened for far too long yesterday to the right wing hate machine who did what they could to crap all over Barack's big day. Did I -- and others on the left -- do the same?



Michael Moore's diary :: ::
We are weary, weary of war. The trillions that will have gone to these two wars have helped to bankrupt us as a nation -- financially and morally. To think of all the good we could have done with all that money! Two months of the War in Iraq would pay for all the wells that need to be dug in the Third World for drinking water! Obama is moving too slow for most of us -- but he needs to know we are with him and we stand beside him as he attempts to turn eight years of sheer madness around. Who could do that in nine months? Superman? Thor? Mitch McConnell?




Instead of waiting to see what the president is going to do, we all need to be pro-active and push the agenda that we want to see enacted. What keeps us from forming the same local groups we put together to get out the vote last November? C'mon! We're the majority now -- the majority by a significant margin! We call the shots -- and we need to tell this wimpy Congress to get busy and do what we say -- or else.




All I ask of those who voted for Obama is to not pile on him too quickly. Yes, make your voice heard (his phone number is 202-456-1414). But don't abandon the best hope we've had in our lifetime for change. And for God's sake, don't head to bummerville if he says or does something we don't like. Do you ever see Republicans behave that way? I mean, the Right had 20 years of Republican presidents and they still couldn't get prayer in the public schools, or outlaw abortion, or initiate a flat tax or put our Social Security into the stock market. They did a lot of damage, no doubt about that, but on the key issues that the Christian Right fought for, they came up nearly empty handed. No wonder they've been driven crazy lately. They'll never have it as good again as they've had it since Reagan took office.




But -- do you ever see them looking all gloomy and defeated? No! They keep on fighting! Every day. Our side? At the first sign of wavering, we just pack up our toys and go home.




So, at least for this weekend, let us celebrate what people elsewhere are celebrating -- that America now has a sane and smart man in the White House, a man who truly wants a world at peace for his two daughters.




Many, for the past couple days (yes, myself included), have grumbled, "What has he done to earn this prize?" How 'bout this:




The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.




Because on that day the murderous actions of the Bush/Cheney years were totally and thoroughly rebuked. One man -- a man who opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning -- offered to end the insanity. The world has stood by in utter horror for the past eight years as they watched the descendants of Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson light the fuse of our own self-destruction. We flipped off the nations on this planet by abandoning Kyoto and then proceeded to melt eight more years worth of the polar ice caps. We invaded two nations that didn't attack us, failed to find the real terrorists and, in effect, ignited our own wave of terror. People all over the world wondered if we had gone mad.




And if all that wasn't enough, the outgoing Joker presided over the worst global financial collapse since the Great Depression.




So, yeah, at precisely 11:00pm ET on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. And the 66 million people who voted for him won it, too. By the time he took the stage at midnight ET in the Grant Park Historic Hippie Battlefield in downtown Chicago, billions of people around the globe were already breathing a huge sigh of relief. It was as if, in that instant, one man did bring the promise of peace to the world -- and most were ready to go wherever he wanted to go to achieve that end. Never before had the election of one man made every other nation feel like they had won, too. When you've got billions of people ready, willing and able to join a cause like this, well, a prize in Oslo is the least that you deserve.




One other thought. The Peace Prize historically has been given to those who have worked to throw off the yoke of racial discrimination and segregation (Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu). I think the Nobel committee, in awarding Obama the prize, was also rewarding the fact that something profound had happened in a nation that was founded on racial genocide, built on racist slavery, and held back for a hundred-plus years by vestiges of hateful bigotry (which can still be found on display at teabagger rallies and daily talk radio). The fact that this one man could cause this seismic historical event to occur -- and to do so with such grace and humility, never succumbing to the bait, but still not backing down (yes, he asked to be sworn in as "Barack Hussein Obama"!) -- is more than reason enough he should be in Oslo to meet the King on December 10. Maybe he could take us along with him. 'Cause I also suspect the Nobel committee was tipping its hat to all of us -- we, the American people, had conquered some of our racism and did the truly unexpected. After seeing searing images of our black fellow citizens left to drown in New Orleans -- and poor whites seeing their own treated no better than the black man they had been raised to hate -- we had all seen enough. It was time for change.




Thank you, Barack Obama, for giving us the opportunity to redeem ourselves. Now for the tasks ahead. We need you to do all that you promised to do. We need it. The world needs it.




My prediction for the future? You become the first two-time winner of the Nobel Peace Prize! Yeah!




Fred (that's Norwegian for "Peace"),
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

looks like Michael Moore has joined the cult and drunk the Kool-Aid (/snark)

Didnt you get the memo.Unless we kick our own ass to please the village we are in the Obamamaniac cult
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/7912/hypnoba...

Michael Moore is married?

j/k

Great article.

Obama deserves a medal for putting up with FOX/Chip Reid/Chuck Todd/Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity/Michelle Malkin etc etc etc and not snatching a knot out of any of their asses. End of story.

I just read this.

Seems like Michael is just feeling what alot of people on the left are feeling today.

This whole episode goes to show you that emotional outburst over the little things is never good.

I always say don't write, read, or make decisions in the heat of the moment. You're lible to hate your decision when more rational heads prevail.

This is something that the GOP needs to learn for the remainder of this President's tenure, are they are gonna wake up with a lot of hangovers and wondering why the hell they did what they did the night before.

These people know perfectly well what they do. They do not care. They are determined to hold on to their way of life no matter what.

Obama's speech was good. He didn't say anything new, but he seemed fired up. He also made some pretty big promises, I hope he keeps them within the next 4 years (because he's not GUARANTEED 8, as much as we hate to admit that).

ok, how does one embed c-span clips. explain it to me like I'm 3 years old, cause I swear I'm never able to find their embed codes.

I don't think one CAN Embed CSPAN vids, you might have to wait til it pops up on YouTube, the WH will probably post it

it was on c-span, and I'll try and find it.

he was on fire!!!!

Hate bill passed and our President will sign it into law.

Gently slapping everybody. I know you think I am not working fast enough. But we all have a stake in jobs, education, healthcare, wars, etc. My commitment is unwavering. Do not doubt the direction we are headed or the destination we will reach.

Yeah, it was a little tap upside the heads of the "why havent you done what I wanted you to do yet" crowd.

yep and even tossed out while you are keeping everyone accountable, including me how about you take it to the streets and continue to fight for the change you want to see cause it will not be easy. Gotta love PO

I don't think he was slapping anyone with that statement.

Anyone been watching "Project Runway"? If so, can someone tell me what the hell happened to the young Black guy who was gonna be a doctor, but dropped outta medical school to pursue fashion?

Ra'mon got auf'ed because of this outfit.

http://tinyurl.com/ylla6xl

PO said . . . I am here with you in that fight.

are we going to have a blog post for the Human Rights Campaign CSPAN program with the President

Hey Val, there's one over at WEESeeYou.com. By all means, roll through!

hey. That blog is pretty cool. Thanks for referring me to it.

No problem Val, you are welcome!

I think so.

Oops, the speech is over...there's always the replay though.

The TARP program is not working to return the money. Fredo needs to excercise section 102 and fire any the managers and boards of these banks. There are plenty of good managers out here whom are victims of the cutbacks. Had the FDIC liquidated all the badbanks after a national bank holiday and force majeure on CDS we wouldn't be having these problems. TARP legislation could have been used to deal w/ AIG and any other financial institution(they used it to bailout GM-a good move especially if they can find proper management and we can afford to buy new cars).
We are at a crossroads now w/ financial institutions and lending policies. This will continue to slow down the real economy; jobs and spending.

Heads up guys..."The Proposal" will be on DVD next Tuesday.

CSPAN is getting ready to show Obama's speech

Did GWB give this many speeches or was I just not paying attention? It seems like Barack gives a lot of them.

8 Years of stupidity and incompetance has rubbed off on you.

"Did GWB give this many speeches"
Look it up if you really want to know.

Speaking and motivating the masses is the hallmark of leadership...soooo how much leadership did GWB exhibit...hmmmm

^^^Don't take the bait, folks. It's just trying to start some shit.

Rikyrah,

I'm watching last week's Fringe, and I'm still upset about Charlie!

I feel like Florida on "Good Times" when James died.


DAMN!!! DAMN!!!DAMN!!!

CHARLIE.........................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

i luved Charlie too, but at least we get to keep the actor for this season.

Wait...spoiler alert?

After this past episode, how can they keep him on? didn't Olivia shoot him in the head?

sorry....hadn't seen this week until now...

damn damn damn

Agreed. I loved Charlie.

Okay I am researching shampoos online, any recommendations? I've decided to grow out the chemically treated hair (perms), and I need something that moisturizes and is mild (meaning no sulfates is preferred). If it's CHEAP that's even better.

GVP Tea Tree Oil Shampoo
Tea Tree oil is a completely natural, non-toxic solvent and antiseptic
Adds vitality & luster
Leaves hair soft and manageable
Leaves scalp clean & tingling

GVP Tea Tree Oil Shampoo is formulated with special conditioning agents and activated moisture blends that smoothes, softens, and helps prevent moisture loss while stimulating the scalp to promote healthy hair. The unique combination of tea tree oil and other extracts creates a refreshing fragrance experience and leaving hair fresh and clean. Generic Value Products were formed by a group of experienced chemists and marketing people who knew they could produce "at popular prices", a product as good as the "higher priced" quality NAME BRANDS.
http://www.sallybeauty.com/Tea-Tree-Shampoo/SBS...

Has anyone tried this:

Try Dr Bonners Castile Soap.

does it work on ' Black hair'?

I've seen it referenced on a couple of hair blogs. Do you just use the soap, or is there a shampoo to it?

Check out the Dominican products at Roundbrush.com .

for some reason the site won't load for me

My bad: http://www.roundbrushhair.com/