Change to Win... For Obama

posted by John Nichols on 02/21/2008 @ 1:05pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (64)

Subscribe Now

The Change to Win coalition of unions has decided to endorse Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, a move that will give the senator from Illinois another big boost at a point where his campaign seems to be going from strength to strength.

"Change to Win is excited to announce the endorsement of Barack Obama for President," Change to Win chair Anna Burger said today. "We are the unions that organize and mobilize working people and believe that we can make a huge difference on the ground in the upcoming primaries. Change To Win is the new labor movement, the labor movement of the 21st century and we are excited about our ability to make a difference."

Coming on the heels of endorsements of Obama's candidacy in recent weeks by key players in the Change to Win coalition -- the Service Employees International Union, UNITE HERE, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters -- the endorsement essentially signals that Obama will have the labor support he needs in states with primaries scheduled for March and April, such as Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

He will not, however, have all the labor support he wants.

Key unions, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the International Association of Machinists, are working hard for Hillary Clinton. Indeed, some of Clinton's union backers are developing quite an edge, as anyone who heard Machinists union president Tom Buffenbarger introduce the New York senator at a recent Ohio rally knows.

Buffenbarger tore into Obama, referring to the senator as a "thespian," and "the man in love with the microphone." And he bluntly dismissed the movement that backs Obama as the antithesis of a working-people's campaign. "Give me a break!" growled Buffenbarger in Youngstown. "I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter."

The Change to Win coalition thinks differently, although it should be noted that the coalition is not reading precisely from the same page. One Change to Win union, the United Farm Workers, backs Clinton, a not inconsequential fact with voting coming in Texas, where the union has been an influential player in Latino politics. Additionally, the powerful Laborers' International Union of North America abstained from the endorsement because it is in the midst of a membership survey on whether to back Obama or Clinton.

That said, the Change to Win endorsement is significant.

CTW refers to Obama as "the American Dream candidate," and the coalition and its Obama-backing affiliates plan a major push on the senator's behalf among union members in upcoming primary and caucus states.

Still in play? Two of the most important industrial unions in Ohio and Pennsylvania, the United Auto Workers and the United Steelworkers. Both were friendly to the John Edwards campaign. That's another reason why Obama and Clinton continue to court not just particular unions but former candidate Edwards.

Comments (64)

This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter."

But Obama is winning against the Clinton attack machine that reads from the same play book as Karl Rove!

Every time Hillary attacks and smears, Obama cuts into her base of support. Hit-and-run smear campaigns only work against another divisive figure like Hillary, and backfire against uniters like Obama!

Part of Obama's appeal is a repudiation of Rove and smear politics. The fact that Penn & Co don't understand this is KILLING Hillary!

Posted by Metteyya at 02/21/2008 @ 1:09pm
And how can a leader of ANY union support Hillary with a straight face?

Don't they realize that it was the Clintons who were pushing NAFTA and that Hillary was a corporate lawyer for 15 years representing union busters like Walmart and Tyson Foods?

Posted by Metteyya at 02/21/2008 @ 1:11pm
Geez Louise, the Dems better settle this thing on March 4th. Blacks versus feminists. "Youth vote" versus oldsters. Now unions versus unions?!?!?

As for Edwards, Mr Nichols...sh*t or get off the pot, Johnny (Edwards that is).

Any "pull" he has will be useless in less than 10 days one way or the other. If he doesn't endorse, let him go off and build houses for Habitat in Raleigh, but turn off the camera lights.

Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 1:35pm
"I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter."

he's talking to you, IBLLLLLIBBLLELBLBLBLE!

go get 'em.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 1:37pm
"I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies crowding in to hear him speak!" - wow, this sounds like something that would come out of O'rielly's mouth or something. He forgot to add "sushi-eating".

Posted by jro555 at 02/21/2008 @ 1:40pm
This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter."

oooh,

ROVOTS on the march,

with tighty-whitey

shirts of starch,

with smearing, spinning,

dreams of winning,

attracting fools with their lies,

much like their stench

attracts the flies.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 1:42pm
Posted by JRO555 02/21/2008 @ 1:40pm

o'reilly's utterances come not from his mouth.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 1:45pm
Those latte-drinking, Prius-driving monsters! The next time I see someone drinking a latte, driving a Prius, or wearing Birkenstocks I will look at them suspiciously... Always remember folks, our political opponents are not "real" people. Senator Clinton: ready to stoke the fires of fear and division on day one.

Posted by Be Good at 02/21/2008 @ 2:01pm
I gotta say the "Prius-driving" thing shows how much of a "Big Tent" the Democratic Party tries to be.

Imagine using...driving a HYBRID... as a PUT-DOWN of a voter!?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 2:32pm
he's talking to you, IBLLLLLIBBLLELBLBLBLE!

go get 'em.

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/21/2008 @ 1:37pm

no - he's talking like me - not to me...lol...

muhamad ali - fighting poet...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 2:58pm
Really. We slam those who drive SUVS and those who drive Hybrids! What is a sensible progressive supposed to drive? Maybe my Subaru is a happy medium - just rugged enough, but not a manhood-compensating gas guzzler. Next they'll be attacking those who ride public transportation or a bike.

Posted by Be Good at 02/21/2008 @ 3:01pm
Posted by JRO555 02/21/2008 @ 1:40pm

He forgot to add "sushi-eating". --- And effete intellectual snobs.

Posted by FLaim at 02/21/2008 @ 3:17pm
Next they'll be attacking those who ride public transportation or a bike.

Posted by BE GOOD 02/21/2008 @ 3:01pm

wimp.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 3:20pm
And he bluntly dismissed the movement that backs Obama as the antithesis of a working-people's campaign. "Give me a break!" growled Buffenbarger in Youngstown. "I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter."

And he bluntly dismissed the movement that backs Obama as the antithesis of a working-people's campaign

He's talking about people like mary and all the others that think they can maintain a democracy without a prosperous working class and a large middle class.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/21/2008 @ 3:36pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/21/2008 @ 3:36pm

Yeah, good thing Buffenbarger didn't go after the "It doesn't matter who you vote for, homophobic, power-fearing, Truman Capote-reference, subsistance bank-robbing anarcho-communists at heart" crowd...huh?

heheh

Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 3:49pm
Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma, Oba.ma!

Hey FROSTY, I'm getting a hang of Obamania! Still need more work.....ain't got no thrills running up my legs yet......maybe I need to go attend a rally to be truly `touched'....maybe, maybe....he'll lay eyes on me.....I hope I won't faint!

Posted by Happy at 02/21/2008 @ 3:54pm
HAPPY's Updated version:

O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma, O.ba.ma!

Posted by Happy at 02/21/2008 @ 3:58pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/21/2008 @ 3:58pm

enjoy hoping!

(just don't ask any questions)

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2008 @ 4:11pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/21/2008 @ 4:11pm

I think we might need a new term...."Obamaphobia"!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 4:12pm
a new term...."Obamaphobia"!

Posted by MASK 02/21/2008 @ 4:12pm

Some 527 will revive "Hussainphobia"? Version 2.O(bama)?

The Clintonistas have Obamaphobia.....their `cures' didn't & aren't working....We've got `the Blade'...who discovered the cure for Hussainphobia, Premier Edition.....:~)

Posted by Happy at 02/21/2008 @ 5:07pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/21/2008 @ 5:07pm

So basically you're ADMITTING that McCain can't win ...on the issues? Only on 527 smears?

Posted by Mask at 02/21/2008 @ 7:22pm
So basically you're ADMITTING that McCain can't win ...on the issues? Only on 527 smears?

Posted by MASK 02/21/2008 @ 7:22pm

Classic MASKian! I'll guarantee you, Obama can't win without smearing McCain, by his campaign or `friends' like MoveOn & the NYT!

Posted by Happy at 02/21/2008 @ 8:12pm
Hey guys, I've been out of the country for awhile, with no contact with the outside world. How'd that whole impeachment thing turn out? Has Bush been indicted for releasing the identity of covert agent Valerie Plame?

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2008 @ 10:39pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/21/2008 @ 8:12pm

Again, HAPPY, why will McCain need 527s if he can soundly defeat Obama on the issues?!?!!?

Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 10:47am
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 10:47am

Again, HAPPY, why will McCain need 527s if he can soundly defeat Obama on the issues?!?!!?

What a disengenuous question. Why does Obama need $30 million in internet donations if he can 'soundly defeat' McCain 'on the issues'? Every politician needs money to get their message out, especiaally Republicans, when you consider the 24/7 propaganda machine advantage the liberals have with the liberal media (which many analysts figure is good for 5-7 points in the general election alone). The NYT's hit piece on McCain is just the beginning.

Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2008 @ 11:06am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/22/2008 @ 11:06am

So "having campaign money" equals "Swift Boating"?!?!?!?!??!

Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 11:20am
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 11:20am

So "having campaign money" equals "Swift Boating"?!?!?!?!??!

What the liberals call 'Switft Boating' was actually just de-mythifying Kerry's tall tales about his military service, something the liberal media was unwilling to do. And yes, that takes money. The Swift Boat veterans punctured Kerry's nonsense like the cheap balloon it was, you folks shouldn't be shooting the messenger.

Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2008 @ 11:49am
Hey MASK, I read a screed by one of the resident gadflies at the Nation recently in which all of the ways that Bill Kristol's prognostications over the years had supposedly been proven wrong. It made me wonder whether and how the Nation trains such analysis on its own columnists. Thus the question of the results of John Nichols' and David Corn's seemningly endless diatribes regarding impeachment and the Plame pseudo-issue. Any thoughts?

Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2008 @ 11:52am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/22/2008 @ 11:49am

Oh, really. So "raising doubts" about his Purple Hearts was justified to you...while I'm sure you were just OUTRAGED at Rather and Bill Burkett for the forged TANG memos, right?

And re-read what HAPPY said about "Husseinphobia"...you think 527ing Obama won't be "You know...he's probably a secret Muslim!"....hardly "issue-driven".

Fact is HAPP slipped up. He basically admitted that he thinks McCain (or McCain allies on the Right) will NEED to "Swift Boat" Obama...because he's in deep doo-doo on the issues....such as supporting a war that SEVENTY PERCENT of the country is sick of.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/22/2008 @ 11:52am

Did impeachment or Plame-gate predictions....help get nearly 4000 GIs killed?

Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 11:58am
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 11:58am

Oh, really. So "raising doubts" about his Purple Hearts was justified to you...while I'm sure you were just OUTRAGED at Rather and Bill Burkett for the forged TANG memos, right?

I don't see much of a parallel there. Kerry put himself in the position of needing to be debunked by his frequent use of demonstrably false statements ('seared...SEARED...into my mind about Christmas in Cambodia..blah..blah..blah). If I was a lawyer, I would respond that it was Kerry who made the Swift Boater's response not only relevant but necessary in the Court of Public opinion. Again, I fail to see how the fabrications of Burkett and the willful malfeasance fo Dan Rather in concocting not only false, but laughably so documents as 'evidence' to prove a partisan point in the supposedly non-partisan media parallels that at all.

And re-read what HAPPY said about "Husseinphobia"...you think 527ing Obama won't be "You know...he's probably a secret Muslim!"....hardly "issue-driven".

You're right on this one. Calling Obama a closet Muslim may well be effective, but it's not cricket. But it should work quite well with some people, with whom the more sophisticated questions of Obama's extremely unqualified nature as a politician and poor (e.g., knee-jerk liberal) policy positions won't.

Fact is HAPP slipped up. He basically admitted that he thinks McCain (or McCain allies on the Right) will NEED to "Swift Boat" Obama...because he's in deep doo-doo on the issues....such as supporting a war that SEVENTY PERCENT of the country is sick of.

I really don't think that McCain will use the Muslim thing against Obama. I wouldn't really support it if he did. Obama, as a representative of the Democratic Party, is dangerous enough to this country without making things up.

Did impeachment or Plame-gate predictions....help get nearly 4000 GIs killed?

Uhh...no. But if you're going to blame Kristol for the failure of those types of prognotications, you're going to have to blame nearly every leader of the Democratic Party as well. Is your sense of integrity really so selective as to allow that? And again, you're taking way too much comfort from that 70 percent figure, much more than you should. It does NOT vindicate the knee-jerkers who were against the war prior to the invasion. You just think it does.

Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2008 @ 12:31pm
In what might be the most revealing statement made by any political figure so far in this campaign season, Mrs Obama caused a stir this week. She said that the success of her husband Barack's campaign had marked the first time in her adult life that she had felt pride in her country.

Do you really think that McCain has to make stuff up when he's got this sort of thing being generated gratis? Are you leftist folks really so tone deaf in the echo-chamber that they're unaware of how this sort of thing will play in the general population? No doubt some folks will call replaying of Ms. Obama's sentiments 'Swift Boating' as well, but I don't think that sort of delusion will help much.

Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2008 @ 12:48pm
Not much more than it helped Kerry, that is.

Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2008 @ 12:49pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/22/2008 @ 12:31pm

First, love the "fine distinction" you make between smearing a political opponent.

If Bush with Burkitt's memos, it's "willful malfeasance".

If Kerry with LIES about how he was wounded, it's "relevant but necessary"

And if somebody uses false charges of "secret Muslim" against Obama, it'll be "effective" but "not cricket".

So apparently all comes down to which side of the political aisle you're on, as to whether you truly care or get outraged about deliberate falsehoods being used against political opponents.

Second, as for Kristol, the point was HIS prognostications and CONTINUEING prognostications are one of two things-

1. "meaningless" and therefore he has NO influence over public support or government policy support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If so, why are you defending somebody who's irrelevant.

2. "influential" and therefore his WILDLY inaccurate guesses helped to instigate and continue the invasion and occupation...in which case, he has a share, if small, of the blame.

As for any "comfort" I'm taking in 70% of America thinking we should get out of Iraq and that going there in the first place was a mistake....there is none.

Because almost 4000 GIs, innumerable Iraqis, and nearly a TRILLION dollars have been lost on this misadventure, regardless of the polling, and it's not "comfort"...but extreme sadness that American lives, treasure, and prestige have been wasted by incompetents in a self-defeating purpose.

Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 3:38pm
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 3:38pm

I did not "Slip Up"....quite the contrarary, you're the one who first typed "Obamaphobia"....Is Obama NOT an Islamic name? Was his father NOT a Muslim to give rise to his last name Obama....some folks played up "Hussein" for obvious reason in that "Hussein" just happens to be Saddam's last name....it's obvious to educated folks that both Hussein & Obama ARE Islamic names....but some people, have more pronounced reactions to "Hussein" than "Obama"....Get it? Heck, I'd bet even Barrack is an Islamic/Muslim name!

Now, I can guess/predict that some right-wing 527 will pull off "Husseinphobia" messages targeting the LESS educated, that's a "slip up"?

Why don't you get creative and tell me, what kind of "slip up" do you think Liberal 527s, will deploy to `swift-boat' McCain....something targeting his POW past along the line of Gen. Betrayus??

I'm just way ahead of you...since I'm NOT daydreaming of Barrack Hussein Obama.....hoping "we're the ones we've been waiting for"....and neither am I wondering when "thrills will run up my legs"......but I confess, I'm daydreaming about a tie between Barrack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton all the way to the 5th ballot at the Dem Convention......LOL!

Posted by Happy at 02/22/2008 @ 4:33pm
Because almost 4000 GIs, innumerable Iraqis, and nearly a TRILLION dollars have been lost on this misadventure, regardless of the polling, and it's not "comfort"...but extreme sadness that American lives, treasure, and prestige have been wasted by incompetents in a self-defeating purpose.

Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 3:38pm

you forgot that former allies are now "former".

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 4:35pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/22/2008 @ 4:33pm

you honestly want mr. 100 years to win?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 4:36pm
Well first...

"Is Obama NOT an Islamic name?"----Posted by HAPPY 02/22/2008 @ 4:33pm

No...it's a KENYAN name. That's a nation. Islam is a religion. Sorry, you missed the $50 question on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire"!

Second, and again, this idea that "They" (not Happ, of course!) will use Obama's name and father's religion against him....instead of....oh.....the issues...to defeat him, is quite telling.

Why not go for the "slam dunk", HAPP. Use Obama's opposition to the war and McCain's support of it to crush him in November?

Ohhhhh....that's right...because the war is HUGELY UN-POPULAR!

Well, how about McCain wanting to dig us into more deficits by pushing more tax cuts and Obama, free spending liberal that he is, allowing the Bush cuts to expire and reduce the deficit?

Ohhhh...yeah...that's because people are incredibly nervous about a governmetnal debt that could cause the entire economy to collapse.

No....let's let "them" use Obama's name and fear of Muslims....that's MUCH harder than the easy way of McCain simply beating Obama on all those issues where the majority of Americans agree with John SIDNEY McCain and not Barack HUSSEIN Obama!

Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 5:01pm
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 5:01pm

SIDNEY?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

AUSSIE INFILTRATOR WILL HAVE US ALL WEARING THOSE STUPID HATS!!!!!!!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:39pm
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 5:01pm

When "issues" are clearly laid out, you honestly think America is prepared for the most Liberal Senator to become the POTUS, even if his/her name is Love America Forever?

And, without any new programs or cuts in expenditures, you ACTUALLY think the deficits--not just the first 6 months or year when the economy adjusts--will be reduced when Bush's tax cuts expire? Well, I think you do....which is why I can so predictably make beat the financial markets, even this year where I am down much less than the broad market........people don't learn and history is doomed to repeat itself!

Posted by Happy at 02/22/2008 @ 6:19pm
you honestly want mr. 100 years to win?

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 4:36pm

So many Obama cultists have cast aside their wisdom, however little the <30s' have, and bought into the whole Magic show, I'm just convinced going with OLD John McCain is the correct route.

McCain with his resume & at his age, has no need to prove anything to anybody. He will be more forceful in seeing Iraq to a decent stage, yes. But I don't believe he goes into his Presidency intending to start new wars! Still, this is a dangerous world....I just think that when John McCain speaks on issues related to the possibility of war, nasty folks just may listen......and his holding firm on finishing Iraq obviously helps directly!

The "will meet anyone w/out preconditions" Obama? Gives me the willies! As the first black POTUS, he will have huge chips on both shoulders.....on one shoulder sits the "Dem" chip, on the other, the "Black" chip.......somewhat similar with Hillary, but at least, Bill Clinton would be there to catch the chips when they get too heavy....his would be a voice that MUST be listened to in the inner circle.

Between Hillary & Obama, the potentially tragic difference, is in how they may react to foreign-policy `eruptions' or major domestic terrorist attacks. Both Obama & HRC, will also have the haunting memory of one Jimmy Carter whose legacy of personal and national humiliation, will also weigh on their decisions....NOT GOOD, when each geopolitical event should be weighed on its won terms!

Posted by Happy at 02/22/2008 @ 7:55pm
When "issues" are clearly laid out, you honestly think America is prepared for the most Liberal Senator to become the POTUS, even if his/her name is Love America Forever?----Posted by HAPPY 02/22/2008 @ 6:19pm

Then again, why will your right-wing 527s NEED to "go Muslim" on Obama's ass?

Unless.....

Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 9:18pm
Then again, why will your right-wing 527s NEED to "go Muslim" on Obama's ass?

Unless.....

Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 9:18pm

For the same reason your left-wing 527s NNED to "go Geriatric" on McCain's ass...it's called personal attacks.....thought you knew a lot of political history, well, in case you didn't know "That's politics!" catering to the sound bite populations....but of course, not those of us actually in the know! We are, shall we say, ideological warriors!

Posted by Happy at 02/22/2008 @ 10:21pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/22/2008 @ 10:21pm

Ahh, but the Left hasn't done that yet...all they've shown is a POSSIBLE bit of hypocrisy on lobbying reform.

YOU however say that "Obamaphobia" or "Husseinphobia" is inevitable from the right-wing 527s.

Frankly, I think you know the Left won't HAVE to go after McCain on age....from the war (unpopular) to numerous flip-flops he's made (torture, Bush tax cuts)....plenty of ammo without even going "geriatic".

Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 10:29pm
Or THIS would be interesting to bring up...again, not about age--

The Hill | Bob Cusack | February 1, 2008 09:18 AM

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain's chief political strategist.

((Does McCain DENY it, with two corroborating witnesses...possibly with meeting notes?))

Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 10:33pm
The repubs will have to go after Barrack because well, that's what they do. The neocons have done a very handy job of taking over the repub party, and one of their core strengths is that they have a slander machine that's unmatched by any other political group. This combined with the fact that they only will condemn their own under extreme pressure makes them very effective propagandists. To suddenly decide not to use that slander machine that they have spent so much time creating on a national election would be political suicide. The effect of this slander machine (and democrats spending all their time fighting the slander machine) is that entire races get centered on something that is wholly negative for the democrat in the race. It's very hard to win a popularity contest when the subject of discussion is whether or not you've done reprehensible things.

Posted by shadow master at 02/22/2008 @ 11:16pm
YOU however say that "Obamaphobia" or "Husseinphobia" is inevitable from the right-wing 527s....

Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 10:29pm

MAJOR CORRECTION: YOU said "Obamaphobia" and I chimed in w/"Husseinphobia"! You used to be good debater, now, you're like the NYY more and more!

And, as for all the "Obamaphobia" tactics already employed, fact is, thew weren't the Repubs....try the opposing campaign (to Obama) that almost all bloggers here detest.......NOT yet the "right-wing 527s" that !

FACTS, MASKOT, don't lose track so soon even as Obamanic gradually zombies up your whole body.....starts in the legs and goes up!

Posted by Happy at 02/22/2008 @ 11:33pm
Hey, SHADOW, I made a few factual corrections.....but the bold part you actually got it right....yes, it is the Dems that have raised race and gender politics to never-before-seen height....even new stuff like "Obamaphobia"...:~)

The Dems will have to go after McCain because well, that's what they do. The Far Left have done a very handy job of taking over the Dem party, and one of their core strengths is that they have a slander machine (MoveOn, the NYT, etc.) that's unmatched by any other political group. This combined with the fact that they only will condemn their own under extreme pressure makes them very effective propagandists. To suddenly decide not to use that slander machine that they have spent so much time creating on a national election would be political suicide. The effect of this slander machine (and republicans spending all their time fighting the slander machine) is that entire races get centered on something that is wholly negative for the democrat in the race. It's very hard to win a popularity contest when the subject of discussion is whether or not you've done reprehensible things.

Posted by SHADOW MASTER 02/22/2008 @ 11:16pm

Posted by Happy at 02/22/2008 @ 11:39pm
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 3:38pm

Because almost 4000 GIs, innumerable Iraqis, and nearly a TRILLION dollars have been lost on this misadventure, regardless of the polling, and it's not "comfort"...but extreme sadness that American lives, treasure, and prestige have been wasted by incompetents in a self-defeating purpose.

Well, you can always console yourself with a few things, MASK. For one thing, you can be darn sure that almost none of those 4,000 GI's were liberals, it having long since become the norm that the only thing liberals fight for is higher taxes...on other people. As for the trillion dollars thing, this seems to be in the same category of numerical inflation as the '600,000 Iraqis' (now 'innumerable'? Is that greater or less than 600,000 I wonder).

Also, whatever number of Iraqis you 'more in sadness than in anger' liberals decide to settle on, surely that should be counterbalanced by the number of Saddam's victims that are unearthed in Iraq daily, which substantiate the idea that taking out a mass murderer might have some value. But again, I suppose such mundane pursuits have long since been sacrificed at the altar of Bush-fear-and-loathing. A pity. You liberals once aspired to better, now all you have is your hate.

Posted by pontificus at 02/23/2008 @ 01:21am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/23/2008 @ 01:21am

proof please.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 4:56pm
PONT, like FZ, I ask for proof of the following-

"For one thing, you can be darn sure that almost none of those 4,000 GI's were liberals"

Got figures on how many GIs in Iraq voted Repub vs Democrats?...any?

2nd- "As for the trillion dollars thing, this seems to be in the same category of numerical inflation as the '600,000 Iraqis' (now 'innumerable'? Is that greater or less than 600,000 I wonder)."----Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/23/2008 @ 01:21am

How much money has the US Congress appropriated for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002?

Do you know?....do you care?....do you just make up false analogies when you don't do either?

Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 8:23pm
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 8:23pm

"For one thing, you can be darn sure that almost none of those 4,000 GI's were liberals"

Got figures on how many GIs in Iraq voted Repub vs Democrats?...any?

Nope. I just have my own common sense. Most surveys show overwhelming support for the Iraq War in the US military, with very strong re-enlistment rates, most especially among front-line troops who are getting killed and injured. You're saying that those include a significant percentage of liberals, pacifists, and knee-jerk Bush haters? You just don't seem to have any common sense at all, my friend.

How much money has the US Congress appropriated for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002?

Oh, wait. You've just been inveighing against the Iraq War. Now you're slipping in the war against Afghanistan, too? So...all of the NATO nations who have troops in Afghanistan...they're also Bush-type war mongers, prosecuting needless wars for the greater glory of George Bush and worldwide criminal capitalism?

Do you know?....do you care?....do you just make up false analogies when you don't do either?

First off, IMHO only a moron could possibly be against the Afghanistan War. I'm betting that even amongst the most concentrated section of political morons in America (Nation readers), 50 percent fully supported the War against the Taliban. Wouldn't you?

Second, do you have any idea how much 9/11 cost America? Hundreds of billions of dollars, at least, if not more. I think even someone with the most tenuous grasp on economic reality (again, a description of most Nation readers) would recognize that an expenditure of hundreds of billions in a strategic move designed to stabilize the ME and thus prevent another 9/11 would make some economic sense, even if you don't agree with it.

MASK, you seem to be caught in some kind of time-warp which keeps your political outlook sometime in the neighborhood circa October 2003. You and your ilk lost the debate over whether the Iraq War started, it's all water under the bridge now. It's boring to keep arguing with you over points that were settled long ago, with you still trying to prove in some way that you were right all along. Get over it.

Posted by pontificus at 02/23/2008 @ 10:46pm
Oh, and FROSTY and MASK? I'll have to ask you to do your own research and soul-searching regarding reenlistment rates and support for the war among our combat troops. Any messenger I bring to you regarding that information will no doubt be shot on sight.

Posted by pontificus at 02/23/2008 @ 10:48pm
it's all water under the bridge now.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/23/2008 @ 10:46pm

you mean blood...................

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 02:13am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/23/2008 @ 10:46pm |

PONTI, did you answer ONE question?

I didn't ask about support for the war, you said "almost none" of the GIs are liberals...and I asked for some FIGURES on how they voted. You had none. Now, why is that?

Second, you claimed that the TRILLION dollar figure was 'made up like Iraqi civilian deaths' and I asked you for the figures being spent AND WILL BE SPENT on Iraq and Afghanistan....you provided none. Why is THAT?

We both know the answers to THOSE questions...don't we?

Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 07:41am
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 07:41am

I didn't ask about support for the war, you said "almost none" of the GIs are liberals...and I asked for some FIGURES on how they voted. You had none. Now, why is that?

Because as I said, I think you should make the determination as to whether this is a true statement for yourself. It's a truism that people make their own minds about things, and you'll need to do your own research.

Second, you claimed that the TRILLION dollar figure was 'made up like Iraqi civilian deaths' and I asked you for the figures being spent AND WILL BE SPENT on Iraq and Afghanistan....you provided none. Why is THAT?

Again, as I said, you're claiming One Trillion dollars as the total figure spent. My main question about that figure is whether it includes the cost of Afghanistan, as you say, and why should we include that when you were talking about Iraq only before. How much are you claiming has been spent on Iraq, and how much for Afghanistan?

Posted by pontificus at 02/24/2008 @ 12:01pm
Whose "American Dream" is at stake in this election?

Apart from an increase in the minimum wage, the labor movement will press a President Obama for tariffs and an end to globalization. At the same time he will be under pressure to ease legal immigration from Mexico and points south.

Stopping globalization will mean, many third world economies now growing by leaps and bounds, will shrivel and despair. At the same time, because the end of globalization will cause higher domestic production costs inflation will spike, which will offset increases in the minimum wage.

And if Obama agrees to easier immigration, as is likely, American workers will face the competition of low cost Latino labor right here at home. The first and biggest victims of that influx will be black Americans.

In short, Obama's election will be wonderful for Obama's and Michelle's American dream, but it will destroy the American dream of hundreds of millions of poor people overseas, and it will prove a nightmare for labor, especially black labor here at home.

In short the labor unions are in danger of paying with a deep and long fall for the pleasure of being uplifted by Obama.

Posted by MARKCANYON 02/24/2008

Mark, Since most on this site are ignoring you, I've copied this post, so they can refute it...(or not!)

Have to admit is makes a lot of sense to me, and this fact is not negated by the fact that many of your other posts have had, shall we say, fascistic tendencies.......

PS Are you really a certified goose-stepper, or is it just an act to stir up the lefties?

Posted by TransitDave at 02/24/2008 @ 12:05pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/24/2008 @ 12:01pm

1. YOU made the claim that "almost none of the GIs" were liberals....back it up. If you can't, you're just bullsh***ing.

2. The total cost TO DATE of the Iraq War is ONE HALF A TRILLION dollars. Given McCain gives no indication of a "course correction" and even states that he'll stay "100 years if that's what it takes"...I was low-balling to the end of his firs term (2013) and merely doubling what we've spent so far.

Still, if you want to debate that HALF A TRILLION, and all of it supplemental so it's both "off the books" deficit-wise AND not paid for with taxes, is "chump change"...the final death of conservatives as "fiscal conservatives" will be realized and maybe you understand why it's not just "Bridges to Nowhere" that have lost the GOP their attack of "tax and spend liberals".

Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 3:58pm
Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/24/2008 @ 12:05pm

He called the Holocaust "one bright moment in history", DAVE.

Ref: BLOG | Posted 10/05/2007 @ 5:23pm Prison Reformers Finally Set Free by Matthew Blake

Posted at 1:15pm

Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 4:01pm
It is strange that after gaining some big union endorsements Obama changes direction on trade with korea, which is a big issue with the unions.

Union endorsements same as lobbyist support, everyone needs to be paid back!

Vote NADER in 08...for real CHANGE!

Posted by Blome at 02/24/2008 @ 5:12pm
Vote NADER in 08...for real CHANGE!

Posted by BLOME 02/24/2008 @ 5:12pm

Yep...change from Dubya to McCain!

Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 5:18pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/24/2008 @ 12:01pm

The war in Iraq has cost us 483 trillion dollars, millions of Iraqi lives and virtually nobody in the military supports it.

Bullshit?

Because as you said, I think you should make the determination as to whether this is a true statement for yourself.If it's a truism that people make their own minds about things, and you'll need to do your own research.

Makes sense to me. In the meantime, you are wrong...right? I'm starting to like your way of thinking.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 02/24/2008 @ 5:49pm
Nader, nader, nader, nader, nader, nader, nader, nader, nader, nader, nader, nader, nader,nader, nader, nader, nader, nader, nader.

.

.

It's ok mask, you can come out now. I was just messing with you.

Posted by Malcontent at 02/24/2008 @ 5:50pm
Obama said,"I don't think its realistic for us to repeal NAFTA," he said during a town hall meeting on the economy.

He argued arguing that because the trade deal had been passed more than a decade ago, it was entrenched in the economy, and any attempt to repeal it "would actually result in more job loss ... than job gains."

You call this CHANGE?

Nader doesn't think that a bad policy that has been that status quo for the past decade should stay POLICY!

Vote NADER the TRUE CHANGE candidate!

Posted by Blome at 02/24/2008 @ 7:03pm
I'm sure that makes their day....

Posted by Malcontent at 02/25/2008 @ 6:34pm