As a Brit I’m finding it harder and harder to be objective on the subject of Barak Obama Pam. What started out as hype is rapidly becoming hysteria.

From the start B.O. reminded me of Tony Blair, a shallow man who would say anything he thought would win a few votes and the policy shifts on guns etc. seem to bear out that view. But any objective citicism is shouted down with accusations of racism.

I’m sure its not too late for the Democrats towork out some political fudge dump him and draft in Al Gore as emergency candidate.

But if I had a vote in November I would still be hoping Jello Biafra decides to run.

POTUS’s unlimited 2nd Amendment powers

Surely you mean Article II.

This isn’t playtime, Ian.  John McCain is gloating over how many Iranians he plans to kill.  Playing the “Oh boo-hoo the Democrat isn’t left enough” game—-especially when the more liberal of the two finalists won—-is going to be murderous if effective.  If liberals don’t exhibit the solidarity required to get Obama elected, we will have blood on our hands when McCain abuses his power.

For people who live in swing states, I’m with you.  But, it might be a good thing if the Green Party makes a respecatable third party showing in some solidly blue states - let the Democrats know that they are not doing the job that we’re electing them to do.  Obama’s vote on FISA has me really upset.

But, it might be a good thing if the Green Party makes a respecatable third party showing in some solidly blue states - let the Democrats know that they are not doing the job that we’re electing them to do.

Unfortunately, people have been trying that strategy since at least Reagan’s days and it hasn’t worked one iota.  The only thing it’s doing is convincing Democrats that people on the left are a lost cause, so they have to tack harder to the right to get independents if they want to win.

The only thing that works is to elect Democrats and then pressure them to do what you want, because now they’re beholden to you.  Threatening to withhold your vote is only effective if you’ve actually voted for them before.

I’m moving. I swear to all that’s holy to me, that I’m becoming an expatriate if McCain is elected. I’ve always wanted to live in another country, and that son-of-a-bitch’s potential election as POTUS would be the last fucking straw.

But if I had a vote in November I would still be hoping Jello Biafra decides to run.

Well then it’s a good thing you don’t, innit??

Seriously, I think we’re all quite well aware that American politics skew pretty far to the right of European politics.  This is the way that it is, and I for one hardly see how ensuring victory for the candidate who should in your eyes be considered a right-wing extremist would help get us where I think most readers of Pandagon wish we could be.

The bottom line is that America is not going to go from   the most extreme right-wing phase since at least the McCarthy era to some sort of Scandinavian liberal-socialist paradise in one election, most certainly not this particular election.  I’ll take a sane president who seems to have a familiarity with the term “diplomacy” over more of the same shrubbery any day of the week, thankyouverymuch.

Concern troll is concerned.

Seriously, Opoponax is completely correct - shouting down Obama because he’s not perfect is pretty much the dumbest thing we can do. No, he’s NOT perfect. He’s a politician, and the best politician in the world will STILL be a politician - with all the lying, flip-floping, folding, and manuevering that comes with the territory. But given the choice between a SOMEWHAT imperfect president and a REALLY imperfect president, let’s go with the somewhat imperfect president.

And voting Green in a solid state to tell the Democrats to shape up doesn’t work - it just fuels media frenzy over Obama not being in touch with his base, which frightens the independents away like startled gazelles.

And, no, we’re not going to go from Right-Wing Hell to Left-Wing Heaven in one go. And electing right-wing crazies in the meantime while we wait to get the perfect candidate isn’t going to work. Period.

For people who live in swing states, I’m with you.  But, it might be a good thing if the Green Party makes a respecatable third party showing in some solidly blue states - let the Democrats know that they are not doing the job that we’re electing them to do.  Obama’s vote on FISA has me really upset.

No.

For those who wish to make a protest vote and live in solidly RED states, that’s a different animal altogether.

Voting Green as a protest vote doesn’t work for me. We need to run up the score. It would be nice to win an election with a solid mid, upper 50s percentage of the popular vote. That will help a lot of down ticket races and help shape a “mandate” narrative, which we sorely need. I’ll take a narrow victory, I’ll take any victory, but the stronger the victory, the better the opportunity to fix some of the mess they’ve left us.

Kristie Hartle’s quote, and the subsequent “news story” makes me nuts.  This to me is a continuation of the “White Working Class Voters” or “Is Barack Obama Electable?” narrative during the end of the primary campaign. I know many Hillary voters are really pissed off by the way things worked out, and many have doubts about Obama’s experience (I myself am not loving his recent FISA vote) etc., and all this is a perfectly valid way to feel and we might see some repercussions for the Democratic party in the fall. Sure. Honestly, vote for whoever you want. However, 1) It’s really weird to me that Kristie Hartle speaks entirely in Republican talking points and 2) I find the media’s continuing focus on this to be narrative is greasy and gross and underhanded. The press gets to keep these stories (“Is Barack Obama A Muslim? Or a Terrorist? He sure has a funny name! I don’t trust him!”) afloat with the old “some voters are saying” reporting routine, where a ridiculous claim is treated with the same weight as the truth has become central to American political reporting. It usually shakes out like this:

Headline: Are Invisible Pink Unicorns Hurting Our Children?

Voters are worried that flying unicorns are hurting our children. Kristie Hartle, a hard-working white American spoke with AP reporters this week about her concerns. “These unicorns, who knows what they are up to or what they want? They could be hurting your children right now. There’s no proof they aren’t hurting our children. Our presidential candidates need to speak out against the Unicorn Threat.”

The Center for Actual Fact-Based Reality denies the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns. A spokesman for the Center, Pointyhead Nerdenweiner said “Unicorns exist only in the realm of fiction, aka, stories that aren’t real. Science has found zero evidence of the existence of unicorns. There is absolutely no truth to reports of unicorns attack, and if they did exist, no indication that they would be dangerous to young children, though, like any large animal, they should be approached with care. If they were real. Which they aren’t.”

What should you do about the Unicorn Threat sweeping the nation? Has an Invisible Pink Unicorn hurt a child near you? Tune into our special Web feature, “The Tapestry: Unicorns Throughout History” for more information.”

Then you start seeing motherfucking “Unicorn experts” on TV, candidates to weigh in on Unicorns, and I can’t even write about it in a rational way at this point any more because I’m like WHAT THE SHIT IS GOING ON? This is the kind of shitty, shitty, shitty journalism that creates a background “feeling” of distrust based totally on lies continually propagated by at best really lazy reporters and at worst reporters under pressure from corporate media to keep these narratives at the forefront of political discourse. Also, Kristie Hartle, if you exist, I have the answer to your question here, and you should feel free to contact me and explain how it is that you are not a complete moron.

like any large animal, they should be approached with care.

The above is the soundbite that would appear in the actual news report.

Wait, no, it would totally be this:

“Unicorns exist.  Science has found… evidence of the existence of unicorns. There is absolute… truth to reports of unicorns attack, and.. indication that they would be dangerous to young children.  Like any large animal, they should be approached with care. “

You really have to ask the (D) people who are rejecting Obama outright.  I have had some negative altercations with them (even as I am an Obama skeptic), but nevertheless, they are an informative read: I recommend riverdaughter’s blog.

Obviously, these dangerous unicorns are Commies, or we wouldn’t call them pinkos. And maybe they are lesbians, too. You can’t trust pink. Lesbian Communist unicorns are coming! Won’t someone think of the children?!

Had Clinton somehow pulled out a victory, I would be (very, very reluctantly) working to get her elected. Even though I think she reeks of privilege and corporate corruption. Because McGramps is clearly from a different planet. I think 95% of Clinton supporters feel somewhere between how I would feel were our positions reversed and real enthusiasm for the new nominee. And 80% of the remainder will just not vote instead of voting for McGramps.

The Kristie Hartles of the nation are very, very few in number, but they sell papers, or links or page views or whatever. Seriously, the way this country is going + Obama’s cash + McGramps’s grampitude + endless video of him hugging Bush - a few racists and dipshits and Hartles = a solid Dem victory. Which is both boring and anathema to the corporate media, so you can bet your collective bippy that we’ll see Kristie Hartle again.

And I believe in unicorns. Therefore, you may not have birth control.

So how many of these Appalachian “Hillary supporters” are they going to drag from under their rocks and burning crosses to slather across the idiot box during these “news” items?

We get it.  Toothless inbred hill-billies won’t support a black candidate even if it was in their best interest.  Congratulations, you found Nixon’s Southern Strategy has made it through the back woods to Pennsylvania like Robert E Lee.

Sorry to be so generalized and bitter but sometimes my maternal side pisses me the *%^!! off.

This isn’t playtime, Ian.  John McCain is gloating over how many Iranians he plans to kill.  Playing the “Oh boo-hoo the Democrat isn’t left enough” game—-especially when the more liberal of the two finalists won—-is going to be murderous if effective.  If liberals don’t exhibit the solidarity required to get Obama elected, we will have blood on our hands when McCain abuses his power.

THANK FUCKING GOD, SOMEONE ELSE SAYS IT.  It’s just like I said before: You can’t win a war by shooting your own troops.

Damian, in the immortal monologue from Patton:

“I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”

Where do so-called reporters get these people? I realize some of them are out on streetcorners screaming about the rapture, and others are busy wheatpasting every lamp post in sight with stories of how the kennedy clan sold them to space aliens, but really. Why couldn’t they stick to larding stories about Mars exploration with quotes from people who are convinced we need to conquer the martians and rescue Dejah Thoris?

(Seriously, I think it would be nice to track which PR operatives are feeding these maguffins to reporters.)

Let’s take these two issues together:

The Supreme Court is one justice away from getting REALLY scary.

and

Rural white Hillary supporters may not support Obama.

This underscores the importance of electing a Democratic SENATE.  Even if Obama doesn’t win, a large Democratic majority in the Senate will not let John McCain appoint another Rehnquist.  (Dems only had 45 votes when Alito and Roberts were nominated.) He’ll have to settle for a Kennedy or an O’Connor. We may even get lucky and get a Souter or a Stevens.

Griswold will never be directly overturned because there will never be another law banning birth control. The first time they tried to get the court to overturn it in 1961 (Poe v. Ullman), the court refused to hear the case because the law was never enforced. The doctor flagrantly violated the law so the court would hear the case. Furthermore, taking away women’s contraceptives would be about as easy as taking away Charlton Heston’s guns (before he died.) Even Republican women.

Likewise, sodomy laws were rarely enforced, even before Lawrence.

So why do they talk about overturning Griswold and Lawrence? Most Republicans are probably just exploiting the religious nuts.  But there is a reason that the religious nuts want these laws overturned.

You see both Lawrence and Griswold (and Roe) expanded the definition of freedom. No, the right to birth control, abortion, or gay sex are not in the constitution. But that doesn’t matter. The 9th Amendment covers all the rights that are not explicitly stated in the constitution.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment IX”

The Constitution is a very short document. Very few rights are enumerated. What the religious nuts want is for the Court to read the 9th Amendment out of the Constitution!  Repealing a consitutional amendment is far beyond any “activism” that any liberal justice has ever come up with.

They already have four justices who are willing to do this. It is not politically correct to say this, but all four are conservative Catholics.  They view their religious belief as more important than the Constitution. They have little desire to impose Catholic doctrine on anyone, but they are more than willing to allow others to violate the constitution in accordance with the Catholic understanding of Natural Law.

Look at Nicaragua’s draconian abortion ban if you want to see the effects of Catholic law on a civil society.

It should be noted that most American Catholics reject many of the Vatican’s teachings, especially with regards to women. (That is the root of the big conflict within the Catholic Church.) In the population as a whole, there are probably two John Kerry’s and a Bob Casey for every Rick Santorum. But the Catholic right is a very powerful, intelligent, and well connected group that is very dangerous to our freedom.

“The only thing it’s doing is convincing Democrats that people on the left are a lost cause, so they have to tack harder to the right to get independents if they want to win.”

Democrats don’t run to the right because of disgusted progresives, they do it for their corporate backers.  For example, most Americans are against telecom immunity.  Obama wasn’t pandering to swing voters on this.  He was pandering to his big donors.  I’d like to believe that Obama is going to slowly turn things around, that the FISA vote was just a strategic move and that he is committed to fixing it when he gest into office.  I’m very realistic about the impossibility of fast change, particularly at the highest levels of government.  That’s exactly why the FISA vote has me so upset.  Telecom immunity is something that only 25%ers support.  If he can’t take a stand on that, what can he take a stand on?  This is slow, incrimental change - but in the wrong direction.  Still better than fast change in the wrong direction.  I will vote for him.  But I can see why some people are making different decisions.

Yes, those justices were appointed by two marginal Episcopalians and the black sheep son of one of them.

These are the like Republicans I talked about in another thread who have don’t care that women will die in the red states, since abortion will remain legal in the blue states where they live. They will gladly throw gays under a bus because most Americans aren’t gay and the gays they know live in “safe” areas. That’s rather frightening to those of use who live in the red states.

But my point is that these justices get their ideas from somewhere. So yes, this is a religious issue. And it’s wider than Catholics. As I said, most American Catholics strongly disagree with the Vatican’s position on a wide range of social issues. However, most people don’t realize how much “cross-pollination” there is.  Evangelicals have little moral theology that isn’t copied off of the Vatican’s paper. In other words, the Catholic understanding of natural law is an unacknowledged part of the Protestant dominionist agenda.

Democrats don’t run to the right because of disgusted progresives, they do it for their corporate backers.

Yes, because they have no need to answer to progressives.  If you don’t vote for them, they don’t give a shit about you.

As far as telecom immunity goes, I’m convinced that it was an election maneuver that just happened to include the delicious nougat filling of a giveaway to big donors.  It was a bone thrown to the Blue Dogs to keep them in line for the election.

I have no illusions that Obama is a great progressive hero, but if we can at least start the process of trying to tug things back to the center after 30 years of conservative rule, that would be nice.

MikeEss said “Obviously there are things like Roe, Griswold, Lawrence, etc. I wouldn’t even say Loving is 100% safe.  Miranda - hanging by a thread.  The overturning (or more likely the hollowing out) of these rulings would make this country a much harsher place for a great many people, without a doubt.

you really think Loving vs. Virginia is at risk?

it was bad enough that Roe was at risk. by Loving? i really really really LIKE not being stoned for my boyfriend who will someday be my husband. unless they overturn Loving, i guess. except i live in Ohio and don’t think there are any of those laws here.

but… um. sorry, that freaked me out. i’ve been worrying so much about Roe and BC and EC that it didn’t even occur to me that Loving might be an issue….

If I weren’t pounding my head against the wall, I would laugh at the “but those laws weren’t generally enforced” but.

That’s the whole effing point of having such laws: you enforce them every now and then, against the kind of people who need to be taught not to get uppity, and everyone who counts doesn’t have to worry about them.