Obama To Kos: Tone, Truth And The Democratic Party

[NATO AIR]

Obama seems to be seperating himself and other prominent dems from the fire-breathing liberals... or is it all an act? nevertheless, a very well-written essay and interesting look at the infighting among liberals.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/30/102745/165

I read with interest your recent discussion regarding my comments on the floor(1, 2, 3) during the debate on John Roberts' nomination. I don't get a chance to follow blog traffic as regularly as I would like, and rarely get the time to participate in the discussions. I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.

Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it's precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.

Barack Obama's diary :: ::
There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.
CONTINUE AT LINK

 

[rtwngAvngr]

He's just using a little less fiery speech. He still depends on lies.

They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

Many believe Saddam had it coming for a number of reasons. Limiting the argument to WMD is an intellectual exercise with partisanship as it's only purpose.

No one reasonable worries about alienating France.

Who want's a Fuck France t shirt?

 

[NATO AIR]

He's just using a little less fiery speech. He still depends on lies.

Many believe Saddam had it coming for a number of reasons. Limiting the argument to WMD is an intellectual exercise with partisanship as it's only purpose.

No one reasonable worries about alienating France.

Who want's a Fuck France t shirt?

I agree about France. I think the real WMD is in Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran (the first two being where iraq's wmd went before we could get ahold of, a failure of planning and execution on our part). Then again, there is that juicy rumor about Russian Spetnaz in Iraq right before the war...

But EVERYONE has misconceptions about the strategic relationship with France. Most overvalue it, a few undervalue it. It has its benefits, primarily in the Horn Of Africa and the Middle East, where aside from Iraq, the French have been overwhelmingly helpful with intelligence and ideas.

Needless to say, the French leadership is at odds with America still, the French military, intelligence and police, not so much.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I agree about France. I think the real WMD is in Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran (the first two being where iraq's wmd went before we could get ahold of, a failure of planning and execution on our part). Then again, there is that juicy rumor about Russian Spetnaz in Iraq right before the war...

But EVERYONE has misconceptions about the strategic relationship with France. Most overvalue it, a few undervalue it. It has its benefits, primarily in the Horn Of Africa and the Middle East, where aside from Iraq, the French have been overwhelmingly helpful with intelligence and ideas.

Needless to say, the French leadership is at odds with America still, the French military, intelligence and police, not so much.

I just don't see Obama's comments as any meaningful departure from the usual lib spin. It's just SLIGHTLY less bombastic.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

The last two paragraphs are well written... the rest?

 

[speederdoc]

So why didn't he vote to confirm Judge Roberts then? He voted nay.