Barack Obama is ready to take on the enemy!

Senator Barack Obama has finally decided to forcefully take on the enemy!


“I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president’s authority,” he said.

USA Today

As opposed to the trivial breaches committed by Bush.

The war?

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.


Maybe for someone who is not ready to lead.


Obama said only that “if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it” — a transparent hedge given that it is virtually certain that the bill (being marked up this week by the Senate Judiciary Committee) will not come to the floor in its “current form.” That makes Obama’s statement virtually worthless, filled — as intended — with plenty of room for him to vote for amnesty if and when the Senate votes on it.

Glenn Greenwald

Following in Dodd’s footsteps, but not following all the way.


“First, Pastor McClurkin believes and has stated things about sexual orientation that are deeply hurtful and offensive to many Americans, most especially to gay Americans. This cannot and should not be denied.

At the same time, a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin’s beliefs. This also cannot be ignored.

Finally, we believe that the only way for these two sides to find common ground is to do so together.”

Huffington Post

Common ground? With bigots?

Well, okay- not those enemies. This enemy…

New York Times:

Senator Barack Obama says he will start confronting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton more forcefully, declaring that she had not been candid in describing her views on critical issues, as he tries to address mounting alarm among supporters that his lack of assertiveness has allowed her to dominate the presidential race.

Mr. Obama’s vow to go on the offensive comes just over two months before the first votes are cast for the Democratic nomination, and after a long period in which his aides, donors and other supporters have battled – and in some cases shared – the perception that he has not exhibited the aggressiveness demanded by presidential politics.

Here’s a clue for the Senator: the only people who care whether he takes on Hillary Clinton are people who already support his candidacy, or who really dislike Hillary. Those of us who are undecided, and who are looking for a leader, would prefer that he took on Bush, the war, FISA, and bigots.

I’m guessing that an increasing number of we undecideds have now decided on at least one thing: we won’t be voting for Senator Obama in the primaries.


Skip to comment form

  1. Edwards seems to be following the same pattern.  I’m really disappointed in him at the moment.  Each time I look for a political hero I am left sadly disappointed.  But then our current system does not reward heroes until they die. 

    I did like that Edwards spent hands-on time in Louisiana, helping people clean up and rebuild.  But that is about the only positive thing I’ve seen him do so far.

  2. If this is a war of ideas, then how do you win? By negotiating with the enemy.

      Isn’t that your suggestion for our foreign enemies…… negotiation.

      Yet for domestic ‘enemies’ such as biggotry and prejudice you suggest a freeze out?  As if singing with people is somehow capitulation or appeasement to the enemy. I would think it would be just the opposite.


  3. with the block quotes in your essay.
    With the exception of the NYT piece, I exchanged Obamas name with Clinton and sadly, agree with your bottom line.
    Do those of you with more political savy see these clowns playing to the middle, or do they simply not get it?

    • robodd on October 28, 2007 at 18:23

    Obama has been.

    A vote for Obama would be a vote for what we have already seen from the democrats since they took over the Congress:  weakness and capitulation.

  4. On the one hand, they have to commit themselves to real policies, otherwise they will be pegged by the public (eg Turkana) as do-nothings.  On the other hand, they have to behave largely as arms of the factions of transnational capital which will finance their efforts to attain office.  It takes a skillful orator to say things which will inspire the public to think you are a political leader, while at the same time allowing your owning corporations to imagine you as an employee.

  5. but of course I agree. There are an amazing number of people who think that politics is meaningfully different from policy. I think it is not.

Comments have been disabled.