onegoodmove

I was going to leave a detailed response to this, but would you acknowledge it... or is this another hit and run anti-Obama screed like the healthcare post from the other day?

Obama also refuses to meet, in public at least, with key African American leaders. But then, that's because he knows better than to get to close to the tar brush.

This is one of those issues that set Obama apart from Hillary, for me. Never before this administration did we view talking to us as a reward, and her promise to continue Bush's policy of giving the finger to regimes who don't bend before us sickens me. For what it's worth, she doesn't seem to be for meeting with Hamas anyway.

Oh, goody: another substantive game of Gotcha! How invigorating!

If only Data, from Star Trek, were running, we might have a candidate who was so consistent we couldn't "get" him. But hten all the blogs would go out of business, and who wants to play that much Tetris or FreeRice?

He thinks Carter should not meet any Hamas leaders. I guess isolation works for some and not others --

hit and run anti-Obama screed

Yes, If by 'screed' you mean pointing out again that Obama is just another politician and not the agent of change that many Obama supporters believe him to be. I consider his apparent views on Israel, his pandering if you will, to be no better than Hillary's demented take on that topic. The difference between this and healthcare is that in the case of healthcare his position is decidedly weaker than Hillary's. I find them both lacking, but there are not many making the claim that Hillary is the second coming. If there were, I'd be pushing back against that as well. Hillary's views on most topics are well known, Barack's not so much, so I believe it worthwhile to expose those views particularly when I disagree with them. I agree with Jimmy Carter that we need to engage all the players in the Israel Palestinian conflict. I think he has it exactly right.

I agree with Carter too.

I would also agree this is Obama falling short of the ideals he set for himself.

But did we expect to get a president that stands up to the Israeli lobby before he gets elected?

How does:

"When I'm president I will be willing to meet with our enemies"

equate to:

"I don't think that it is productive for ex-president Jimmy Carter to be meeting with Hamas."

???

Really. This is such a stretch. You're contorting yourself.

Ooh, a gotcha moment. We love gotcha moments. They represent all that is right and good with our political discourse and it's amazing how much research they require to create. They really must be the highest form of journalism!

Unfortunately, as a former Edwards supporter, I never had to worry about my candidate ever having inconsistent messages like these. We should have nominated him instead of these two paragons of hypocrisy in the Democratic Party.

Keep those gotcha moments coming. It always feels good to be right and righteous. After all, it's better to be a cynical nihilist than an believing sucker.

"The difference between this and healthcare is that in the case of healthcare his position is decidedly weaker than Hillary's."

Norm, you are evading the point.

I'll ignore that, to the extent that you've posted about the Democratic contest here, it's been all anti-Obama screeds. But what you said in that entry wasn't a honest, detailed argument as to why Obama's plan is weaker than Hillary's. It was a quick definitive statement with no argument to back it up... literally a hit and run.

Moreover, you said that what makes Hillary good is that her plan is for "universal healthcare"... and then ignored all the comments to that entry, all of which debunked that assertion.

I would be very interested in seeing you respond to the comments made to that entry, seeing as you considered it a big enough deal to post about in the first place. Thanks.

It was a quick definitive statement with no argument to back it up... literally a hit and run

I've detailed the arguments many times. Check the archives.
I'm not going to quibble about what the definition of universal is. I'm fully aware that neither plan qualifies under any strict definition of universal. The arguments made were disingenuous and don't merit a response. The bottom line is that in her plan everyone is covered in his they are not. Call it what you will. Let's just say that hers is more universal than his. A single payer system like that advocated by Kucinich and Nader is even better.

Unfortunately, as a former Edwards supporter, I never had to worry about my candidate ever having inconsistent messages like these

Lol

The arguments made were disingenuous and don't merit a response. The bottom line is that in her plan everyone is covered in his they are not.

small edit

The bottom line is that in her plan everyone has to cover themselves in his they do not.

The word Covered implies that her plan actually covers people, which it does not.

Not on the lone Prairie...

"thanks for sighing in"...

Barry is perhaps being overly cautious, for now, about uttering any frei dinkum* Gedanken he might be entertaining, he doesn't walk on water, you know: "get to(o) close to the tar brush". I will say this though, abeaut' the eliction,

if Sir Edmund wins, I for one, will be moving (making one good move) to Aotearoa.

.

.

*don't look it up in Kiwipedia.

I would be very interested in seeing you respond to the comments made to that entry, seeing as you considered it a big enough deal to post about in the first place. Thanks

Where was it in the post that I raised the issue of healthcare?

The word Covered implies that her plan actually covers people, which it does not.

Was there really some doubt in your mind as to what I meant?

I'll include your comment under the disingenuous label.

The bottom line is that in her plan everyone has to cover themselves in his they do not.

another strawman argument ! (just kidding)

however, I do want to point out that in a universal healthcare system such as that seen in Canada or the UK, you could also say everyone has to cover themselves. That's what paying taxes is all about. The only way to move closer to that in this 'transition' type plan is to make this payment mandatory. (the argument which I support that this requirement for this being mandatory actually lowers the overall cost of healthcare and ultimately the individual's cost of healthcare has been made elsewhere in posts by myself and elsewhere).

paying taxes is a mandatory payment by individuals to cover their 'universal' healthcare.

not only is it essential that everyone cover themselves for a universal plan, but it is the only way for a universal plan to be effective both in providing universal care and cutting costs.

On another sticky issue of foreign policy, Obama refused to comment on former President Jimmy Carter's trip to the Middle East.

I'm not going to comment on former President Carter. He is a private citizen. It's not my place to discuss who he shouldn't meet with. I know that I have said consistently I would not meet with Hamas, given that it's a terrorist organization. It is not a state, and until Hamas clearly recognizes Israel and renounces terrorism ... I don't think conversations with them would prove fruitful

Former President Jimmy Carter all but said Wednesday he plans to cast his superdelegate vote for Barack Obama.

"Don’t forget that Obama won in my state of Georgia," Carter said. "My town, which is home to 625 people, is for Obama, my children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama."

"As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess," Carter added.

The Carter Center confirmed to CNN the newspaper did quote Carter accurately.

Carter's decision to meet with Hamas could have blowback for Obama. In Nigeria last week, Carter signaled his support for Obama, without officially endorsing him. Asked about that, sources close to both Obama and Carter told NBC NEWS that they are ducking a formal endorsement to avoid alienating Jewish voters critical of the former president's Middle East policies. Carter is a superdelegate and has long had rocky relations with the Clintons.

another strawman argument ! (just kidding)

I wouldn't even try one.

Two clarifications I would make to my arguement.

One

this being mandatory actually lowers the overall cost of healthcare

Again, I think we all seem to confuse healthcare and insurance too much.

Preventive healthcare reduces the cost of healthcare. Full coverage reduces the cost of insurance for individuals, when you don't get the cost of the uninsured hoisted onto the insured.

Do we know who will financially benefit the most from these savings? Doctors, Patients or insurance companies?

Two

paying taxes is a mandatory payment by individuals to cover their 'universal' healthcare.

Also true, but Taxes are on a graduated scale in this country. Subsidies might graduate premiums a little, but insurance companies will likely do two things, first charge more for people that do things like smoke, (which poor people do) or have other risk factors which could include a wide array of things that plague the poor. Secondly they will likely continue to deny coverage to the poor because of their limited access to lawyers.

Stop it JoAnn. Your rational, well cited responses are hurting my head. :-P

Norm,

Why are you not addressing Riley's point?

There exists a distinction between CANDIDATE Obama and EX-PRESIDENT Carter.

When I read it, I thought Senator Obama thinks Jimmy Carter, our ex-president, should not meet with Hamas.

That's completely different than Obama stating "I will never meet with _"

One... Again, I think we all seem to confuse healthcare and insurance too much. Preventive healthcare reduces the cost of healthcare. Full coverage reduces the cost of insurance for individuals, when you don't get the cost of the uninsured hoisted onto the insured. Do we know who will financially benefit the most from these savings? Doctors, Patients or insurance companies?

I stand by that statement - mandatory payment (taxes or other means) - provides the means to provide preventive care, avoidance or emergency room visits, prenatal care, adequate followup for treatable diseases (heart disease, diabetes, etc) - hence a reduction in overall healthcare costs and individual costs. I think we should start from there - mandatory payments in one form or another are necessary. without them, there is no chance of reducing healthcare costs

however the question then is are these mandatory payments going to the right place. (the excessive spending is not going to the doctors - that is for certain)- it is going to insurance companies or hospitals or drug companies and it would be helpful for me to understand if Clinton (or Obama) has safeguards in place for this (i.e. gov't oversight)

I think we are making the same point , RedSeven, but I see Clinton's plan as being in the right direction if (big IF) there is a stop to insurance gouging as they are doing now.

There exists a distinction between CANDIDATE Obama and EX-PRESIDENT Carter.

It isn't relevant to the point being made. Obama's rhetoric is that he will meet with 'our enemies' but he makes the political calculation that he can't buck the Israel lobby and so equivocates. The point is Obama is a politician first, a point many Obama supporters ignore.

I think we are making the same point , RedSeven, but I see Clinton's plan as being in the right direction if (big IF) there is a stop to insurance gouging as they are doing now.

You think its better and I think it sucks less. Big question is, what does congress think about them?

The point is Obama is a politician first, a point many Obama supporters ignore.

The Good: Focus back on the original point. (But, I don't think many Obama supporters ignore that point.)

The Bad: The hair split on Hamas is legit. Not an elected state, not part of the group he would meet with.

A politically measured hair split? You bet!

Opening most of Obama supporter's eyes to the fact that he's a politician? I doubt it.

"Obama is a lesser evil." "He's not above all petty politics, diversion and self serving acts." "He is a human."

Ok I've said it... now can we move on to some real debate?

The Question: What would happen if Obama (or any President) was to follow through on this pledge to have state leader to state leader meetings with states we currently consider 'bad actors'?

Norm said:

The point is Obama is a politician first, a point many Obama supporters ignore

How many Obama supporters, in your opinion, feel that Obama is not a politician first? And how many Obama supporters vs Clinton supporters feel this way, in your opinion? Do you have any facts to back up this opinion?

Some Obama supporters may be "cultist" type supporters, but that does not equate to Hillary being better than Barack. Some Hillary supporters may be "cultist" type supporters, but that does not equate to Barack being better than Hillary. Some people in the MSM may be pro-Obama, but that does not equate to Hillary being better than Obama.

And is the MSM really biased? Hell, Obama has taken more flack for Reverend Wright's comments (unfairly in my opinion) than the flack that Hillary has taken for her own stupid lies and/or delusions re Bosnia/Tuzla.

And Hillary has been very effective re crying about media bias, and so the media are hesitant to be critical about her, although there is a whole hell of a lot about her to be critical about.

Might many Hillary supporters be so enamored of her that they are unable to admit that her long drawn-out fairy tale re Bosnia/Tuzla, and her husband's recent comments re Bosnia/Tuzla, which were also a fairy tale, are evidence of such an incredible propensity to either lie or evidence of incredible delusion? How could she possibly create this ridiculous story in her head? She didn't just get a detail wrong. She created in her head an entire scenario. Bill Clinton says that it was because she was a 60-year-old woman saying this at 11:00 at night. He said that she only made this comment one time. He lied. She made this comment multiple times and she made those comments in the morning and in the afternoon, but never did she make those delusional comments late at night. Not only that, but he lied about many other aspects of this debacle. He claimed that Hillary Clinton apologized for this. She never apologized. Shit, she was angry that anyone dare even mention this fairy tale, this delusion.

Bill Clinton said:

And you woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them when they're 60 they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night, too.

And then Hillary Clinton pretends that her husband said this without her approval.

I don't want anyone in the Whitehouse who is able to make up in her own mind some outrageous story about heroism. It's just too ridiculous. It goes way beyond exaggerating or "misstating". It's evidence of someone who is one big liar or one who is incredibly delusional.

thaddeusphoenix asks:

The Question: What would happen if Obama (or any President) was to follow through on this pledge to have state leader to state leader meetings with states we currently consider 'bad actors'?

I would hope that this type of policy would lead to more diplomacy and less war.

And on this note, Obama is much closer to Jimmy Carter's philosophy re meetings with bad actors than is Hillary Clinton.

"The point is Obama is a politician first, a point many Obama supporters ignore."

He is definitely a politician, but why is the position on Hamas necessarily "political" in the narrow sense? Maybe he really is less hawkish than Hillary and more hawkish than Jimmy Carter. If he were cynically changing his position in order to occupy some kind of sweet spot of public opinion (which is what Bill Clinton did indeed seem to do from time to time), then triangulation would be an appropriate word. But I don't think there's evidence for more than the claim that Obama is not as left-wing and dovish as we might want him to be.

And on this note, Obama is much closer to Jimmy Carter's philosophy re meetings with bad actors than is Hillary Clinton.

I agree.

I know I've brought this up a few times - I'll try one more time and then just leave it alone. Jimmy Carter said in 2004 he is going to support the candidate he thinks can win. I believe that's what he is doing with his Obama support. I'm not saying he's not a fan - he might be - but, I think if Hillary had a better chance of winning against McCain, he would be giving her his tacit approval.

Maybe you all feel like a Democrat is definitely going to get in but I see the Republican Noise Machine gearing up because it's an important term. There is the Supreme Court appointees coming up, making the tax cuts permanent and, a lot of illegal activities that went on under Bush that are coming to the surface that need a Republican administration to re-bury them among other things. I believe those are the things the Republicans with power will care about and then they will let McCain hang himself on Iraq as some sort of renegade Republican - he will be the new Nixon with some new, true conservative, Ronald Reagan waiting in the wings...

I think we have two pretty solid candidates (as solid as politicians can be) so why isn't everyone focused on making sure the more electable candidate wins? I think that is the debate. I like Hillary and I think what she said about Bosnia except in terms of what the Republicans will do with it is pretty meaningless (what actual effect did it have on our government?) There are things I would like to change about Barack (the Joe Lieberman as "mentor" Democrat leaves a very bad taste in my mouth - I believe Lieberman recently threw Obama to the lions though so perhaps he's learned his lesson there) but I think he has wonderful leadership skills and seems more electable...Isn't that the discussion?

I'm not sure who is more electable. With Obama's recent comments re "bitter" voters his electability has decreased. Hillary Clinton's Tuzla tale made her less electable.

It seems that McCain is looking good.

But in the end, I have to go with the person who has that combination of being electable but who also represents what I most believe in. The problem is that the candidates who most represent what I believe had no chance of winning the nomination.

To be an electable candidate requires being a savvy politician. So then I have to read between the lines.

Any candidate who dares speak their mind and who dares to be honest can never win.

Quite a conundrum.

I am SO mad at the purposeful misinterpretation of Barack's statement. Jon Stewart said it in one of his pieces on Obama - he is talking to us like we are adults. This was an adult and honest (and obvious) assessment of what happens when you take away opportunity. Hillary is smart enough to know that and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. As I said, I was planning on voting for him before so no change but now I am doing it with enthusiasm....(probably as the truly dense are moving out of the Democratic party and to McCain

So, now we'll see how effective the efforts to dumb down America have been..... America

Fox News is reporting exactly what everyone else in the MSM has been reporting.

But of his now-infamous claim that such economic bitterness leads working class Pennsylvanians to cling to God, Guns, and Anti-Immigrant fervor, Obama told the paper “if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.”

I'm afraid that having Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate is over.

It will be either President John McCain or President Hillary Clinton.

According to the latest statistics, we'll no doubt have John McCain as our next president.

But then according to most lefties, there's little difference between Democrats and Republicans, so what the hell, right?

I think you're blowing this way out of proportion JoAnn, he may have pissed off many of the people who were not going to vote for him anyway, but I don't think he said anything most Democrats don't already believe. Why would this make Democrats favor Hillary over him?

Why would this make Democrats favor Hillary over him?

Why, because Hillary's found another voice!

LOL - I can't even be upset that the Messiah is on the defensive because that headline is comedy gold! She really, honestly thinks the American public are morons. Amazing! Even when she has the upper hand, she plays it cheap and desperate.

"It isn't relevant to the point being made. Obama's rhetoric is that he will meet with 'our enemies' but he makes the political calculation that he can't buck the Israel lobby and so equivocates." -Norm

2) Hamas is a political party, not a state. Hamas leaders are not the heads of a state. Palestinian leaders are the heads of state -- meeting with Hamas would undermine the elected heads of state, so while you might assume the Obama is caving into the Israeli lobby, he would have a good reason as a head of state, not to meet with a non-head of state. Such a meeting would undermine the authority of the elected leaders of the Palestinian state.

test