well, yes and no. maybe it just depends on what you mean by that. it’s pretty clear that while you’re not a “follower” of clinton or a full-blow clintonista, or whatever you want to call them, you do prefer clinton above obama. (am i wrong?) and in a two person race, that makes you a clinton supporter.

it also seems like you are willing to accept anti-obama memes, often things propogated by the clinton campaign or her supporters, relatively uncritically, while holding obama to a pretty high critical bar. i mean, as i think brendan pointed out above, on the one hand you claim he isn’t saying anything of substance, and then on the other you’re claiming that the substance of his proposals are not progressive. so which is it? it can’t be both. you’re just repeating two contradictory messages coming from pro-clinton bloggers like taylor marsh, lambert, and BTD (yes, i know armando calls himself an “obama supporter” in between posts talking about how awful obama is. it reminds me of pollack and o’hanlons “longtime opponents of the iraq war” schtick they used to give themselves credibility when they were writing op-ed peices cheering on the surge)

and now, to confuse things more, you seem to be saying that you don’t know about policy differences. if that’s true then how can you make either charge against obama? if you don’t know much about his policies, how can you claim he isn’t saying anything of substance? and if you don’t know about what his policy proposals are, how can you evaluate whether they are progressive or not? it just doesn’t make sense.

and yes, i agree that clinton’s health proposal is better than obama’s. but i also don’t like either of them all that much, though i also think that both are better than the super-shitty status quo. i’ll also grant that while clinton and obama are both pro-choice and good on women’s issues, president hillary clinton is likely to make those things (things like expanding family leave) more of a priority than president obama. on the other hand, i think obama has shown greater judgment on foreign policy matters and he seems to be the only one who is trying to throw the entire neo-con framework out the window. considering foreign policy these days isn’t about treaties or fishing rights but rather whether thousands of people live or die, i weigh obama’s positives on foreign policy more heavily than clinton’s positives on domestic policy.

that’s how it comes down for me, but i respect people (including my wife) who formulate stuff differently. rational people can disagree about this stuff. i just think it’s stupid and ultimately self-destructive to describe the people with real dedication to a candidate they like a “cultist” or to pretend that obama’s actual strengths don’t exist. both candidates have real strengths. i don’t know why it is so hard for people on the various sides of the debate to admit that.

So then your arguments in favor or against either candidate aren’t based on any kind of informed basis.
if you don’t know what Clinton’s policies are, or Obama’s for that matter, then how are you in any way positioned to criticize one or the other?
I’ll be presenting my thesis on “Golda Meir: Nazi Sympathizer” this weekend, by the way. I haven’t actually read anything about Golda Meir, but I feel compelled to tell you that she’s a fraud nonetheless.
You know, I may be an irrational angry shrill SOB, but at least I read what the candidates have to say before deciding they suck.
Why should anyone listen to you if you’re as uninformed as you claim?

I haven’t looked at any of her policies, either. Why would I? Her weaknesses are pretty well known, as are her strengths. She’s been vetted for the national stage; he hasn’t. There’s still time for something to come out. You don’t think the Republicans are looking high and low?

I covered politicians as a journalist for 20 years; I know all the tricks. You can sponsor all kinds of bills that look good, but it’s WHEN you sponsor them that matters. What stage of the process? Which version? I have neither the time nor the inclination to pull out everything he ever co-sponsored and fisk the timelines. It’s a lot of work, and I don’t get paid to do that. I already spend far too much time here.

Because I worked on a policy team (again, for the same consultants Obama uses), I don’t believe most of what they say. As I say, they’re a wish list. I can see why people take them literally, but I don’t. I’m not cynical about them per se - I assume people would like to be able to implement their policies - but they’re not meant for the real world. They’re goals. I’m probably cynical about the degree of detail, because when the consultants wanted to bury something, they’d pour on the details. They said it “looked more credible.” (You know, like Ann Coulter’s famous footnotes.)

All I really know about is her health plan - and I’m certainly no expert on that. Krugman says it’s slightly better, and he seems to know what he’s talking about.

I preferred Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson, Gravel even. Two devils I knew were Biden and Bill Clinton. Clinton was halfway decent on foreign policy, the first since Carter. But I didn’t like Rwanda, NAFTA, GATT, more welfare deform, the healthcare botch, don’t ask don’t tell, even though the devils that went after him were far worse devils for attacking everything like conspiracy theorists instead of rightly attacking his policies.

Hillary? I was terribly disappointed by the healthcare botch, her vote on Iraq, her refusal to apologize on it. But I never considered her devilish, viewed her as a good Mom and someone who advocated effectively for women and kids.

I liked Howard Dean last time around before others knew his name, but the youth movement that rallied around him struck me as undisciplined, naive, and arrogant. He ran a great campaign nationally, but his costs ran out of control and in Iowa, so did his team. I mention that because there’s some parallels with the Obama campaign.

The young, the idealistic, rallying for a guy who opposed the Iraq War, convinced he can do no wrong. As a pragmatist like you, I can see his flaws just fine.

But it’s been as true as any truism in politics that one needs to run to the center to win the presidency. Once elected, Presidents are freer to do what they wish.

As to his Senate record, he and Hillary have mastered the art of comity the Senate is famed for, a humbling process of suckuptitude, yet one that must be negotiated to achieve any meaningful results. If the Senate remains Democratic, both should be able to successfully get most of their appointments - esp to the Supremes - approved. So that indicates both learn and adapt in pursuit of being good legislators. But from 2003-2006, under a GOP majority, both were blocked from doing much as the Bush agenda railroaded over everything.

So there’s little but Iraq to judge their Senatorial records on. Inevitably, we have to look at what they’ve done prior to 2003.

Hillary’s finest achievements occurred between Yale Law School through First Lady of Arkansas. Obama’s were as a community organizer and Illinois State Legislator. Hard to see where either has an edge over the other. So I chose to endorse neither.

Getting elected President requires massive organization, skill, the capability to get volunteers motivated, adaptability, endurance, fast response to attacks, etc. I didn’t believe anyone could best Team Clinton at that.

Team Clinton bested every other Dem and Republican by far. Team Obama is the only one they haven’t. Both have withstood unfair attacks, played up their strengths, etc.

Most of the country has been more motivated by both, enough to create the longest, closest primary campaign in my memory. But Obama’s been breaking through more barriers and prejudices even though an impartial observer would suggest Clinton had the greater advantage demographically, since women are the majority in this country.

My concerns about him being sexist are not big, as both his wife and mother are/were hardly quiet wallflowers. I remain skeptical of both pursuing the degree of change Edwards sought, though in the past week, Clinton’s been sounding like the reincarnation of Eugene Debs. Why has that been suppressed for a decade and is it real? It sounds more like offering everything to avoid losing.

So, skeptic that I am, I don’t consider either magic, nor as devils. It’s just becoming clearer that Obama’s been motivating more and should he make it to the White House, I hope it translates into actual achievements.

Will his fans, or Hillary’s, accept their negatives in the Oval Office or cntinue, cult-like, as Bush’s lemmings did? I don’t think any Dem president retains blind loyalty long without concrete achievement. At the moment, though, he’s become the outlet for those most frustrated with the war and has channelled it effectively, which is the greatest achievement of his life.

Skeptic or not, I’m impressed with that much. And I’m just as skeptical of overparsing exhausted candidates like Clinton and Obama for ‘proof’ of hidden meanings and devious intents. In my mind, both have already permanently broken the glass ceiling but in 2008, only one can walk through it.

I predict more women will walk through it before any other Black American will. Hillary only created a little of her negatives. I can list dozens of biases that worked against her, sexism one of them, but her gender also worked for her, which isn’t as true of the anti-Sixties, anti-monarchy, anti-Bill, and media biases arrayed against her.

I’m trying to be objective and pragmatic. I don’t think gender bias was the hidden key against her. It was one, but some of the other unreasonable ones (Sixties/monarchy/media) were likely greater and more impossible to overcome.

Who?

that’s simply not true, at least not when it comes to foreign policy. (and the term neo-con usually doesn’t apply to economic policy) obama has picked up former clinton advisors, but he’s been getting the people from the clinton administration who opposed the war. whereas clinton got the former clinton advisors who support the war, plus neo-con apologists and surge supporters like o’hanlon. and when i point out that obama is the only candidate who advocates breaking the neo-con policy of refusing to deal with iran, you tell me that a clinton supporter says that’s a dumb idea so you believe him instead.

again and again, clinton has taken the most hawkish position with regards to foreign policy. you say that both candidates have weaknesses, why not acknowledge that weakness?

and it’s okay if you don’t believe obama’s opposition to the war is authentic. but you simply have no basis for not believing that it is. i guess his sponsonship with chris dodd of a bill requiring funding be tied to timetables for withdrawal don’t count. instead you seem to be taking any misinformation the clinton campaign puts out about him at face value and viewing anything in his favor with the utmost suspicion. the clinton campaign has been trying to spin the war issue like crazy because their candidate is simply objectively more pro-war than obama. not only did she vote for the AUMF, she helped kill a milder version of the bill. and she is unapologetic about it. and just 4 months ago she voted for kyl-lieberman which is a legal basis for bush to launching a war against iran. obama has none of those black marks on his record, but because clinton people tell you “there is no appreciable difference in their record on iraq” you’ve simply taken that to be the truth.

and by any measure obama has been extremely detailed in telling us what he will do in office. aside from delivering several detailed speeches on economic policy, he’s publicized detailed economic, diplomatic, health care, and energy proposals. he’s not the only one, both clinton and edwards did too. all three have been extremely detailed throughout their campaign, much more detailed than any other candidacy in my memory. usually politicians try to stay as vague as possible and don’t, for example, release detailed health plans while they are still in the primary season. note that’s the tact that all the republicans have taken (except for ron paul, but his proposals are simply to write, he just wants to abolish a bunch of stuff)

i guess my point is, this entire debate is getting rather ridiculous. on the one hand, obama is not giving any details just platatudes. and then, when brendan and others point out that’s not in fact correct, you say he must not have really meant it. meanwhile, you haven’t subjected clinton or edwards to the same kind of scrutany at all. in fact, you’ve swallowed clinton’s lines about obama’s foreign policy entirely.

he didn’t “co-sponsored legislation expanding the Nunn-Lugar framework”: Lugar did all the work and let Obama put his name on it because he felt sorry for the Littlest Senator. Nor did he sponsor legislation (first ever according to Obsidian wings) to deal with flu pandemics. I am so stupid, how could I have been fooled.
The legislation Obama introduced to regulate genetic testing: made up of whole cloth by his cult members. Intorduing a bill to make it illegal for tax preparers from selling your confidential information: that his twin brother Herman Obama.

That’s the problem with all these criticisms: all of them are easily disproved with a few clicks on Ye Olde Google. Come up with something of substance: I’ve been listening to a lot of right wing radio, and I have to say a lot of what I’m reading here has the same kind of tenor as their attacks on McCain: bizarre and based more on wishful thinking than any kind of reality.

of course you don’t believe anything Obama says: I doubt you’ve even read his proposals, since you’ve already deemed them a “nice sounding wish list” that he’ll abandon. But if that’s true for Obama, it’s gotta be true for Clinton, Edwards, and Dodd as well. Or does Hillary “I can’t explain my vote for war in Iraq” Clinton have a lock on integrity?

So he’s basically pointing to things other members of Congress are already working on and saying “Me, too!”

That’s nice, but pretty meaningless when it comes to showing us exactly what HE will make a priority.

From what I hear from people who know them, this campaign is her legacy - and his tribute to her.”

How do you know? Maybe Edwards is a liar like Obama. The entire point of those websites is, you can throw a nice-sounding wishlist up there. Later, you just say, “Well, I wanted to, but they wouldn’t let me!” Which is why I ignore them.

“Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a “contracts and influence” database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.
Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients – or tax earmarks – are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.
End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.
Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.
[snip]
Release Presidential Records: Obama will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.
[snip]
Obama will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of his first term in office. His plan will provide affordable, quality health care coverage for every American. (yes, i know his health care plan is imperfect, but so is Clinton’s)
[snip]
Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve as a critical safety net.
[snip]
Women’s Health: Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.

It’s AMAZING what you learn when you read the candidate’s policy plans and positions. 64 fucking pages of what he’ll do, including details and his previous accomplishments (and surprise, it’s more than just speeches!)

Again, I’m all for criticizing any of the candidates, but for pete’s sake my intelligence is getting offended on a daily basis by easily disprovable statements, and not just here at SG.

I mean, first you say that “the entire point of those websites is, you can throw a nice-sounding wishlist up there. Later, you just say, “Well, I wanted to, but they wouldn’t let me!” Which is why I ignore them.” and then say you want ““the elevator speech.” You have less than two minutes in the elevator to sell someone on your product - what’s the shortest, quickest way to describe it, and make them interested?”

So an Obama voter is damned no matter what: they can’t point to the accomplishments and policy proposals on his website since (you say) it’s “a nice-sounding wishlist”, and they can’t point to his rhetoric because that’s meaningless too. You don’t care what Obama has to say because to you it’s all lies that should be ignored anyway, so why should anyone even fucking bother giving you the elevator speech? You’re just going to dismiss it out of hand anyway.

That’s basically the case here. Catch 22.

From what I hear from people who know them, this campaign is her legacy - and his tribute to her.

After seven years of pure nightmare and 20 years of something’s wrong here but can’t quite put their finger on it, people are voting with their guts.
Picking a candidate isn’t anything like buying soap’ to say it is is to simplify to the point on inanity.
Maybe you should return to product sales? You ARE smarter than this and I’ve come to expect better here, Susie. And just because I’m a Penis American, don’t tell me I don’t –and can’t — get it.
“There’s something to be said for the devil you know.” ?? WTF? That just says you’re OK with a constant state of fear….

And maybe you don’t find sexism offensive. I do. Maybe your ears aren’t as finely tuned to it as an assertive woman who attracts that sort of thing, but I can assure you, I’m not imagining it. (Or maybe I am. You know how women are.)

I don’t have to “like” the people I vote for. I just have to trust, at least to some extent, that they will fight for the things I find important. What I see is someone who’s boxing himself in as a “post-racial” (i.e. colorfree) man who will have to tread very, very carefully once he’s in if he wants to get anything done, and even more carefully to get a second term. His caution will make Bill Clinton look like the flaming liberal the right-wing said he was.

As to campaign websites - the entire point of those websites is, you can throw a nice-sounding wishlist up there. Later, you just say, “Well, I wanted to, but they wouldn’t let me!” Which is why I ignore them.

Tell me this, without citing a website or a speech: What, specifically, does Obama want to accomplish? In sales, we call this “the elevator speech.” You have less than two minutes in the elevator to sell someone on your product - what’s the shortest, quickest way to describe it, and make them interested?

You can’t refer them to the website, you don’t have any literature with you.

What are you selling? What is his PRIORITY? What is his FOCUS?

With John Edwards, it was rebalancing the economy to help the poor and working class - and ending the war.

With Hillary Clinton, it’s health care and domestic issues - and now, finally, ending the war. (I don’t believe she’ll actually do it, but you never know.)

With Obama, it’s ending the war (which, by the way, I predict he won’t do, either) and what else, exactly?

He made an anti-war speech before he was a senator and has voted to uphold that war ever since he was in a position to show some leadership on the issue. What am I missing here? All that “unity”? See, to me, that’s short for “it’s all fine and no one needs to be held accountable because how on earth would I ever get elected if I’m angry?” What does he want to DO?

All I have are clues, and I don’t like what I see. He’s surrounded himself with neocon foreign policy and economic advisers.

Why SHOULD I like him? I’m not that trusting. At least with Hillary, I know where she stands. There’s something to be said for the devil you know.

Please take a break, clear your head, you’re smarter than this.

I would say that some are, and some aren’t. Like Clinton, Obama’s not perfect.

Really? But on his site he specifically says

“End Racial Profiling

Obama will ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and provide federal incentives to state and local police departments to prohibit the practice.
Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support

Obama will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders, so that they are successfully re-integrated into society. Obama will also create a prison-to-work incentive program to improve ex-offender employment and job retention rates.
Eliminate Sentencing Disparities

Obama believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.
Expand Use of Drug Courts

Obama will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.

Now you can say “he won’t be able to get that done” and that may be true, but for the write to claim that Obama doesn’t “promise the hood a damn thing” is just factually false, and it took me less than 2 minutes to find that.

Is it too much to ask that attacks on the guy actually be legitimate and make sense?
How does a promise to “end racial profiling” translate into “Obama has based his entire strategy on sending messages to white males, assuring them he will take race and sex privilege off the table of American discourse.”? I mean, unless racial profiling is seen as a privilege, I don’t see how this attack holds up.

the problem with this post is that it smacks of after-the-fact justification. obama does better with white males than white females (though he also does even better with black males, but “white males” sounds more racist, so let’s go with that), so that must mean that he’s appealing primarily to white males. by the same logic clinton is a racist, she loses blacks of both sexes by an even larger margin that obama loses white women to white men.