View Story | 631 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Listen to the video.
He is not talking about compromising, he's talking about outreach.
by CPDem81 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:24:14 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
This election is about the past versus the future.
by xndem on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:25:30 PM PDT
I never thought a politician could be a genuine and decent human being till I came across Obama.
I hope he continues to keep it real.
Obama, don't take my advice. I'm just an anonymous blogger on the 'nets.
by Bronxist on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:45:41 PM PDT
he said Obama actually means what he says. He really is bringing people together!
Grandpa is mean and he smells funny.
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:47:54 PM PDT
Just look how well he's brought all of us together.
Help me reach my Goal!
by sgilman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:50:02 PM PDT
Obama seems like the next Kerry, doesn't he?
by dkmin on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:51:33 AM PDT
JFK was a wealthy playboy (and enjoyed every moment of his pursuits) but, despite those interests, he really cared about everyone. That's what made him so charismatic, that he honestly cared and it showed. Obama has the same quality. Only he's not a playboy and hasn't always been wealthy. It's quite evident that he's a real person, one who's filled with hope and concern, and wants to improve living conditions for everyone. That's charisma, baby.
"I am here because of Ashley." - Unknown Obama supporter.
by rainmanjr on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM PDT
even describe him as wealthy now.
by Nick Blas on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:31:00 PM PDT
But he's doing better than most.
by rainmanjr on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:32:20 AM PDT
You never thought a politician could be a genuine and decent human being until you came across Obama? Seriously? What about these following contemporary "politicians":
Which ones of these politicians is not a "genuine and decent human being?"
I have no doubt that Obama is a decent person, but to say that one cannot think of politicians as decent and genuine human beings until Obama is an insult to scores of decent public servants who have served our country so well.
"The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD
by deaniac83 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:23:40 PM PDT
May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.
by Fonsia on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:51:12 AM PDT
Saying that about Obama isn't to insult those others.
And anyway, none of them are running for President...
The war for oil is a war for the Beast The War on Terror is a war on peace
by El Yoss on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:15:50 AM PDT
"...never thought a politician could be a genuine and decent human being till I came across Obama."
...it may not have been meant as an insult, but it should be called out as overblown hyperbole (AKA Fanboyism).
by zhimbo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:53:01 AM PDT
Although to be honest, although those are all good Dems 6 that have done good work, and several are Dems that I would be proud to have as my President, none of them come close to possessing the amazing charisma and power to move peoples' hearts that Barack Obama has.
by El Yoss on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:57:57 AM PDT
get involved with politics or show any interest in researching the various candidates to make an informed decision - the politicians are perceived to be anything but genuine and decent.
People with hatred in their hearts never live up to their full potential. It's very sad.
by Nelsons on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:28:47 AM PDT
and I know them to be awesome progressives; but I don't know them in as much close up as Obama.
Some politically very kickass people I've known have been personally "maladjusted" for a lot of different gender/race/class/upbringing/personality reasons ... not true that personal integrity and good politics always go together ;)
(I did live in Wisconsin for years -- Feingold is a decent and genuine person; sorry for forgetting.)
So please don't get angry -- as Obama says as I too get older, anger is congruent with loss of control and not necessarily righteousness. We are on the same team.
by Bronxist on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:39:25 AM PDT
he was about as real and for the middle and lower class as they ever came.
by i love coffee on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:30:13 AM PDT
He is a hero of mine for the positions he took. But don't know him well enough to say that he was decent and full of personal integrity.
Do tell if you know any personal anecdotes!
by Bronxist on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:41:56 AM PDT
... round here, we breed presidential candidates that way.
You want me to vote for someone, stop talking about decency. Politics ain't a decent sport, and it's mostly fixed anyhow.
Tell me how COMPROMISE will defeat BLACKMAIL. Stakes are higher in Washington.
Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.
by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:36:35 AM PDT
around here lately. In my area, we have many socially liberal voters registered "Independent" because they despised the Clinton and Bush administrations for their devisiveness and their corporate/MIC ties. They really should be in the Democratic party and are Obama fans for the upcoming general election. Their votes, along with other disenfranchised voters, are necessary for winning our crucial "swing" Tampa Bay area. How do we comfortably win a general election without expanding the Democratic Party by "Crashing the Gates", employing a 50 state strategy and working to elect a favored progressive candidate?
I trust Barack Obama.
by mjd in florida on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:51:45 PM PDT
claiming to swing a big stick, but where was the stick when they were in office? They want to "shock and awe" Corporations but want diplomacy with other countries? You get more flies with honey than with vinegar, than after you get the flies wyou can then exterminate them bastards...
:)... Happy New Year MJD...
I serve so that my children don't have to. I fight so my children won't have to.
by fromdabak on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:07:43 PM PDT
by mjd in florida on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:23:40 PM PDT
in the Fiesta Bowl.... Glad UF got beat ;0P, so I won't catch too much shit from the in-laws..... But other than that everything is cool... and you?
by fromdabak on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:29:57 PM PDT
Sheesh, all three of our state universities lost their bowl games. We all had a nice visit in Michigan over the holidays. We could have had more snow but probably didn't need to see as much as they got hit with a few day ago either. :)
by mjd in florida on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:47:44 PM PDT
If you were in Michigan -- Well the big Blue did very well -- didn't make up for the season, but was good fun and very rewarding.
If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.
by Tamar on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:25:17 PM PDT
and oldest son from UF. Mixed emotions on my part. We already had USF and FSU with losses too!
by mjd in florida on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:34:34 PM PDT
I'm not from Michigan, but my daughter goes to U. Mich and my husband's father, uncles, brother and cousins all went there, so I feel a natural loyalty. Also, Ann Arbor is probably in the top 5 cities/towns in terms of number of anti-Bush stickers (I would assume Madison, Berkeley would be up there also). And it also has fairy doors! (go to www.urban-fairies.com if you don't know what I'm talking about).
by Tamar on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:49:49 PM PDT
for years. My three kids have attended Miami, Florida and FSU (baby a senior at FSU right now) for under-grad. I go with the team with the winningest record for the BCS bowl games.
by mjd in florida on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:08:17 AM PDT
Sorry - I don't really follow college football but.. Go 'Eers! They're the big team back home. I'm just bummed they dropped that game to Pitt and aren't playing for the championship. Also glad family of mine aren't in Morgantown tonight because the kids are probably setting more porch furniture on fire.. :)
on strike.
by daria g on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:55:56 PM PDT
on a new one called "War Without Death" by Mark Maske......
by fromdabak on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:18:36 AM PDT
I just made a note to myself. I was too darn busy for a couple weeks there getting ready for the holidays and figuring out what to do with some time off. :)
by daria g on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 02:04:45 PM PDT
it is so off-putting this testosterone laden substitution of muscle for brain.
That's why Obama appeals to many of us that see through the swagger of fake populism.
by Bronxist on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:31:59 PM PDT
was the report of Edwards pulls men away from Obama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Sorry for the vaild link and sourcing, I am kicking old school, anyhoo...
these same men are all upset that Obama maybe was referring to Edwards via "trial Lawyers" when talking about how he could have made a ton of cash as one but decided to serve the community.
Which it is fellas?
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:03:49 PM PDT
when 70% of the American people basically agree we need to get out of Iraq, achieve Energy Independence, provide affordable health care, and other primary goals???!!!!
A lesson I learned a long time ago was that the really BIG changes in this country--passing the big Civil Rights Law, for example--were not achieved by Black Folks or even by Democrats alone (remember, at that time, the Southern Dem Senators were some of the biggest obstacles!!!). It took Schwerner and Goodman, other White Folks marching, Republicans in the Congress. I know that Sen. Obama understands this in his bones--were it not for these Civil Rights achievements, he wouldn't be here.
I don't believe for a second that he has his eyes on incremental changes---he knows we need big, fundamental changes, and, to quote the Staples Singers whose music closed his big SC event....."I'll Take You There"!!!!!
by serrano on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:07:40 AM PDT
You know, I was one of those blind people that couldn't see through "the swagger of fake populism" that is John Edwards. Not until you showed me the light. John and especially Elizabeth Edwards are nothing but testosterone laden substitution of muscle for brain. Hallelujah!
I have yet to say a nasty thing about Obama, but now I feel free to do nothing but savage that accommodating son of a bitch, thanks to followers with big mouths and small brains like yourself. I feel free to say such things to you, since you just said I'm blind and that I fall for testosterone laden blah blah blah instead of brains.
You just keep dreaming that a gussied up pig in a dress is something more than a pig in a dress while I'll just keep living in the reality-based community. In the meantime, I'm definitely never going to give my support to a man who keeps saying we have to put partisan politics aside. Now is exactly the time for Democratic candidates and politicians to be as partisan as they can possibly be. We're already in enough trouble as it is.
by christian on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:47:05 PM PDT
BTW, I was referring to the gendering of debates on DKos over whether "muscular" partisanship or "effeminate" compromise was the way forward for the nominee. Obama's video breaks that thread by making bi-partisanship seem thoughtful, and not frail.
Unfortunately, John has played into this "muscular" narrative, coming across as the manly-father candidate.
(Even your use of gendered terms "son of a bitch" and "pig in a dress" to refer to Obama ...)
Apart from a couple of passing quibbles, I have nothing but respect for some really progressive positions and people that John has pulled together.
(Liz did not cross my mind -- why drag her into this? Let that sweet smart lady be.)
by Bronxist on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:28:47 AM PDT
Vinegar actually attracts more flies than honey, in reality.
Iä! Iä! Cthulhu Fhtagn!
by Nerull on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:44:31 PM PDT
supervisor told me to kill people with kindness and he put that saying on my feedback....
by fromdabak on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:08:34 PM PDT
bees are another story. and bears.
John McCain will ban abortion.
by itsbenj on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:12:25 PM PDT
It's the bee larvae in the honeycombs. The honey is just gravy . . . sweet, sweet gravy.
Meet John McCain.
by DelRPCV on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:38:35 PM PDT
This is a great video, I watched it earlier tonight. As a stickler for civility, I really liked his point about being polite :-D
by bethcf4p on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:06:18 PM PDT
tip jar. I waited for you to comment for a while before posting.
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:29:22 PM PDT
I got a bit distracted by something else for a few minutes. I don't believe it matters much if the tip jar is the first comment, its not a courtesy point with me, though I understand it is with some.
by CPDem81 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:42:53 PM PDT
I wasn't trying to beat you to it.
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:45:12 PM PDT
Obama wants to invite big pharma and med to the table, be nice to them, and when they get contentious, politely usher them out of the room?
I mean, what's the point?
The man is neophyte, and will get nowhere with "play nice" if he somehow manages to win the general election.
You know how LBJ got us Medicare, Medicaid, and the Voting Rights Act? By being an asshole, that's how.
You know how FDR got us social security and the New Deal? By being an asshole, that's how.
We aren't going to get anywhere "playing nice" with Republicans.
To a Democrat, "democracy" means "free elections." To a Republican, "free markets."
by XOVER on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:38:22 PM PDT
and vote for the asshole.
Let us be, in peace!
by Bronxist on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:41:30 PM PDT
I'll also vote for Obama if he gets the nomination.
by XOVER on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:42:58 PM PDT
by Bronxist on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:57:46 PM PDT
because as an undecided, I really get upset when people say about a particular Democratic candidate: "I will never vote for X" or "I'll sit out the election before I'll vote for X." I'll work my ass off for whoever gets the nomination. All our candidates are flawed, but they are mainly sound. The Republicans are all massively flawed on a foundation constructed of sewage.
by Tamar on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:31:02 PM PDT
I will work for Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama or Richardson if they receive the Democratic nomination. If Mrs Clinton receives the nomination then I'll work very hard for local candidates but her name will not pass my lips.
America needs better than a bi-aristocracy.
Malcolm - in Florida for the election.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
by malc19ken on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:54:57 AM PDT
...but the "asshole" who has the "dirt" on everybody in Washington in this race isn't Obama or Edwards.
And no, I don't support her. But if you want another LBJ-- who passed the Voting Rights Act and the Great Society, but was also as in bed with corrupt business interests as any Republican-- Hillary's your man.
I hate to admit this, too, but: Kos is right. They all would be good in different ways.
A pain in the ass wrapped in a headache surrounded by a nightmare
by Blank Frank on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:37:56 AM PDT
Was that even necessary?
Mr. Ellinorianne for California State Senate!
by Ellinorianne on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:07:35 PM PDT
But when XOVER sets himself (or herself) up thusly:
The man is neophyte, and will get nowhere with "play nice" if he somehow manages to win the general election. You know how LBJ got us Medicare, Medicaid, and the Voting Rights Act? By being an asshole, that's how. You know how FDR got us social security and the New Deal? By being an asshole, that's how.
how can I resist? Its like a joke waiting for a punchline ...
Ok, XOVER -- I apologize cuz the nice lady said to ;)
by Bronxist on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:18:32 PM PDT
...by itself it seemed like a totally dick thing to say, but I get now that you were riffing off of the previous comment. Thanks for the explanation.
The Jed Report | Barack Obama for President
by JedReport on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:30:23 PM PDT
Obama!
by fisheye on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:37:52 PM PDT
...you think things are things that aren't things, it was one of those things, that's what I was thinking.
by JedReport on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:45:43 PM PDT
by fisheye on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:03:03 PM PDT
okay, thanks for clearing that up. I'm getting touchy :)
by Ellinorianne on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:40:32 PM PDT
I guess history is a big joke to you. That explains a lot.
by christian on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:51:21 PM PDT
Maybe if you hadn't said insulting things about Edwards' followers above we would. Unfortunately, in the real world, things don't work the way you keep expecting them to. Which is probably why you believe Obama is some holy man from on high whose very kindness will overwhelm our enemies.
Pipe dreams. Keep on smoking whatever you're smoking.
by christian on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:50:30 PM PDT
and a national mandate.
FDR, ditto.
Kennedy and FDR built progressive, broad based inclusive majority movements for those changes, then they used those majorities as a stick to hammer through their agenda. Not the other way around.
Thats exactly what Obama is trying to do here. This is generational realignment he is pursuing.
by CPDem81 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:46:08 PM PDT
Here we have John F. Kennedy, a charismatic Catholic, elected to office, with soaring words and grandiose language. Kennedy was also a novelty candidate of sorts because of his religion. Obama because of his race.
Kennedy barely got elected in 1960, Illinois being in doubt until the next morning when Nixon conceded.
What exactly did John get done in the first 6 months of his Presidency? Not much. Not much at all.
While I revere Kennedy as much as the next Democrat, Kennedy was mostly talk, no substance. If not for Cuba (had he not been killed), Kennedy's reelection was in doubt.
I'm afraid Obama may be our Kennedy-type President if somehow Obama can defeat the Republican's race-baiting tactics that have worked so well for them since 1968.
So here comes LBJ, the nation still in shock over Kennedy's death a year later, and the Republicans in transition. LBJ gets the big win. LBJ comes into office and by July 1965, LBJ enacts the Great Society into law -- within 6 months of his inauguration.
LBJ did it by literally "laying his hands" on all kinds of politicians, bullying them -- yes, bullying them -- into enacting his Great Society. It is well-known that LBJ could be a jerk when he wanted his way.
FDR? The poster below seems to think from FDR's social security speech that somehow, I guess, FDR "played nice" like Obama will. Well, that's just not how FDR played.
Like LBJ, FDR bullied his political opponents. Remember the "Fala"comment?:
In 1944, Fala was with the President on a sea trip to the Aleutian Islands. Rumors spread that Fala was accidentally left on one of the islands. During the 1944 presidential campaign, the Republicans accused him of spending millions of taxpayers' dollars in sending a destroyer back for him. The President answered the attack in his famous Fala speech while talking to the Teamsters Union. Roosevelt defended his Scottie, saying, that he, Roosevelt, expected such criticism aimed at himself, and that even his family expected negative talk about themselves. However, Fala had not been the same. Since the charge was made: "His Scotch soul was furious."
FDR initiated true class warfare, fought like hell, and earned the everlasting enmity of all Republicans. There was no "play nice" with Republicans in Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Now about FDR's "mandate." Yea, he had one. And like LBJ, he got all kinds of legislation accomplished in his first 6 months.
It appears that many Obama folks think there's going to be some kind of "landslide" such as those that occurred in 1932 and 1964. If Obama gets the nomination, the general election is going to be exceedingly close, if Obama wins at all.
It is going to be close because of race. We will find out if America is ready to elect a President of color, and I hope it is. But I have my doubts. Serious doubts.
A "landslide" with Obama heading the ticket? I settle for a win.
And if Obama wins, he needs to do 2 things:
And if Obama really wants to get some tough legislation passed, he better act a whole lot more like LBJ or FDR than John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton.
I question whether Obama has the toughness it takes. And if Obama is nominated, I hope I'm wrong. Because he will get my vote.
by XOVER on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:34:03 PM PDT
Seriously. You make a great point.
by rainmanjr on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:15:31 PM PDT
............and I've been everywhere.
One additional thing, LBJ, asshole that he was, was similar to FDR in this; he'd' been in D.C for decades had been Majority Leader in the Senate and has been acknowledged as one of the best at manipulating the Senate into doing as he saw fit. Sort of the anti-Reid. FDR had also served in various different parts of the executive and was a master politician who knew and had worked with everyone of consequence in the government. He like LBJ also had the 'dirt' on everyone he needed to have it on. The Congresses both faced were no match for these guys. They knew who to call and how to apply pressure and had the knowledge to do so.
Read some fucking history folks!
Comparing Obama to these guys is like comparing a Pop Warner football player to Tom Brady.
There is no comparison.
If he squeaks into office, I say he will not, here's exactly what will happen:
There will be no supermajority in the Senate.
The Republicans in the Senate will block everything President Obama proposes and when he 'goes to the people...' the Senate Minority Leader of one of his goons will explain to Pumpkinhead or Tweety how, 'The President just doesn't understand how these things need to be done. I feel his lack of experience really hurts him here.' or words to that effect and guess fukin' what!
Pumpkinhead or Tweety will nod their heads in agreement. Fair and balanced ya know!
And what?
Harry Reid's gonna rescue him?
He won't get my vote. I'm not voting for 4 years of Republicans running the government from the Senate.
If it happens as I see it I'll spend my time working to elect real progressives. Folks that realize politics is for keeps.
It's for jobs...
It's for help when you're sick....
It's about taking back the Trillions that the uber-rich have extracted from society under the guise of 'tax-reform'....
It's about life and death for our soldiers and the Iraqis they are forced to kill every day....
To those of you who are complaining about 'too much testosterone...' to much conflict in politics yer full of it. It's a form of war that primates have hardwired into them from millions of years of contending over that which is needed to survive.
Read your Darwin!
Losers don't get to eat so good and live nervous, miserable lives and....
Right now the vast majority of Americans are losing. Check out the Edwards video. That ex-Maytag worker is the face of America.
Unless we reverse course many of you will get to live his life.
And Barrack Obama is not, in my opinion, no matter what he says the guy to 'change' that.
And one more thing. Spare yourself the anger and misery of responding with the usual bullshit attacking me personally or denigrating my analysis because I 'just don't understand...' I understand real well having been poltiically active since 1967 so try and do better than that.
Better yet....
Do take a minute to think about it.....
'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'
by Nestor Makhnow on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:05:41 PM PDT
why you believe we won't pick up Senate seats.
Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. 76 days until the '08 elections. Let's paint the country BLUE!
by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 03:37:23 AM PDT
Won't that have to wait until 2010 or am I missing something?
Doesnt the next President (whoever that may be) have to work with or bully the senate in it's current composition for two years?
by Craziel on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:34:27 AM PDT
1/3 of the Senate is up for election in 2008, just like in every election year. Most of the seats up in 2008 are Republican seats, several of which we have a good chance of picking up--for example, in Virginia, Mark Warner is a lock to pick up the seat if he doesn't get caught knocking over a convenience store (or tapped to be somebody's VP).
O it is excellent to have a giant's strength: but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant. --Measure for Measure, II.2
by RogueStage on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:42:17 AM PDT
Please explain more. How come some are up for election in '08?
by Craziel on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:45:16 AM PDT
Like RogueStage said, one third of them are up for election every two years. Every senator gets six years, just the starting years are offset in three groups. So seats in group A are up for election in 2000, 2006, 2012, etc. Seats in group B are up in 2002, 2008, 2014, etc. And seats in group C are up in 2004, 2010, 2016, and so on.
[-8.13/-8.67]
by chgriffen on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:29:41 AM PDT
Thanks for letting me know.. I had assumed (rather randomly) the whole damn lot was on a 4 year rotation, offset by two years from the presidential election.
Obviously i'm not very well versed with the US system :)
by Craziel on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM PDT
LBJ's success was built on the cultural change that JFK forged. JFK got people to believechangewas possible. His death gave LBJ a mandate.
I think a Jphn Edwards typwould be a hell of a lot more effective after a guy like Obama. It is suicide to declare war before the army has been raised.
'I speak, therefore I act' is the great American illusion of politics.
by snout on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:49:39 AM PDT
America does not have the luxury of time. The world does not have the luxury of time.
We are facing an abyss: A coincidence of peak oil, climate change, deindustrialization, recession/depression, and war. Simultaneously.
In my view, I believe 2008 will be a more important election cycle than 1860 or 1932. Overreaction? I hope so. But I doubt it.
We must elect a tough President this year, not at some unknown point in the future.
by XOVER on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:08:00 AM PDT
Didn't u read that great piece about how ferocious he was in a pickup basketball game? The SI reporter fouled him hard on a drive to the basket, and Barack smiled at him and said, "Hey, if we were somewhere else, you could get shot for that!"
Toughness and a sense of humor are not necessarily mutually exclusive!!!
by serrano on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:11:54 AM PDT
He was joking about the SS men watching out for him as he played. (As always.) He didn't say "if we were somewhere else", just "you know, you could get shot for that." The writer also said that Obama was doubled over in laughter because the foul was so blatant. I like Obama's quick wit. He can even be a bit of a smart-ass! A trait I admire ;)
by dijo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:39:28 AM PDT
my rusty recollection. Great Story!!! Particularly for a basketball nut like me---really humanizes him. That grin he flashes--and it's a sincere one--is worth a million bucks!!!
by serrano on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:57:35 AM PDT
Yes it was a great piece and was well written. I am not a basketball fan, but still got a kick out of reading it. Obama is the real deal!
by dijo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:29:29 AM PDT
by serrano on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:32:49 PM PDT
Dems had HUGE majorities in those days, as well as the White House. If we see similar numbers in 2008 and get the presidency, we will be able to kick butt and take names on the entire progressive agenda.
by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 03:35:41 AM PDT
Today, a hope of many years' standing is in large part fulfilled. The civilization of the past hundred years, with its startling industrial changes, had tended more and more to make life insecure. Young people have come to wonder what will be there lot when they came to old age. The man with a job has wondered how long the job would last. This social security measure gives at least some protection to 50 millions of our citizens who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation, through old-age pensions, and through increased services for the protection of children and the prevention of ill health. We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-stricken old age. This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete. It is a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions. It will act as a protection to future administrations against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy. The law will flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation. It is, in short, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness. I congratulate all of you ladies and gentlemen, all of you in the Congress, in the executive departments and all of you who come from private life, and I thank you for your splendid efforts in behalf of this sound, needed and patriotic legislation. It seems to me that if the Senate and the House of Representatives, in this long and arduous session, had done nothing more than pass this security Bill, Social Security Act, the session would be regarded as historic for all time.
Today, a hope of many years' standing is in large part fulfilled.
The civilization of the past hundred years, with its startling industrial changes, had tended more and more to make life insecure.
Young people have come to wonder what will be there lot when they came to old age.
The man with a job has wondered how long the job would last.
This social security measure gives at least some protection to 50 millions of our citizens who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation, through old-age pensions, and through increased services for the protection of children and the prevention of ill health.
We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-stricken old age.
This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete. It is a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions. It will act as a protection to future administrations against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy. The law will flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation. It is, in short, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.
I congratulate all of you ladies and gentlemen, all of you in the Congress, in the executive departments and all of you who come from private life, and I thank you for your splendid efforts in behalf of this sound, needed and patriotic legislation.
It seems to me that if the Senate and the House of Representatives, in this long and arduous session, had done nothing more than pass this security Bill, Social Security Act, the session would be regarded as historic for all time.
I guess this is coded language for "FUCK YOU ALL! HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! PWN3D!"
by The Other Steve on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:46:31 PM PDT
Give me a break! Does he think Cigna who's willing to let someone die to ensure profits (you know, they rationalize their thinking and process), is willing to negotiate? He's delusional. Honest to God, I've been avoiding these diaries, because I knew in my heart it was true, that he thinks his personality can win them over, but I just can't figure how after 8 years of Bush/Cheney, anyone would be willing to buy in. John Edwards knows how these sharks think. Obama supporters, at this risk of sounding harsh, and hard, "wake the fuck up". Have any of you lived thru the Vietnam war protests, or RFK's and MLK's assasination, or the civil rights movement? I don't mean to sound snide or superior, but if you support this mealy mouth rhetoric, and he wins, you deserve what he brings forth. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
by santamonicadem on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:00:52 PM PDT
and I know that while the protests were going on, there were people from different backgrounds and political leanings who sat down and talked with each other, politely and got issues resolved. The protests brought pressure, but the people at the table actually resolved the issues.
It is impossible to be an effective community organizer with rhetoric. Sen. Obama was a very effective community organizer. It is extremely difficult to motivate people who have been repeatedly beaten down and defeated at every turn. Sen. Obama did this and got results. He actually worked for poor people and got results, when he could have been on Wall Street. He had real job offers that he turned down to try to help people. He didn't go make a ton of money first, and then remember that there are poor people.
I don't know why people are so quick to minimize this man's obvious talents.
If you have a Republican Sec. of State start a voter registration certification drive in your area. Reverse the purge.
by Blogvirgin on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:20:01 PM PDT
reaching out to the community equates negotiating with corporations, such as big Pharma, Big Oil, and Insurance Corporations. Sorry, but there is no way he can approach the "temple" this way. I wish, I hope it was this easy, but I cannot accept this way anymore, after the hell of Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, and the death of Nataline by the hands of Cigna. If you really believe his approach can "change" America I don't know how to reach you. I mean no disrepect, but please review the video, and ask yourself, if an insurance company who resfued to pay for a liver transplant for a dying 13 year old girl, would be willing to accept culpabilty. If they did, they would have to admit they were evil. How many people, (remember they're run by a board of directors, who really see themselves just like you and me) do you know, would be willing to admit that? I say, NONE.
by santamonicadem on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:40:30 PM PDT
understood the role of a community organizer. They don't negotiate within the community. They organize the community to storm the gates of privilege!
They organize the people within the community and teach them the skills they need to go to corporations and negotiate rent free places for childcare. They sit down with corporations and negotiate for donated vans so that poor people can get to jobs outside of their neighborhoods.
They meet with city officials and negotiate and get more police officers for neighborhoods and then track the results and on and on. They teach the community to approach corporations and negotiate skills training.
Community organizers do all of this and more. Effective community organizing is exactly what we need in America today. If we had it George Bush and the Bush Crime Family would not have been able to steal the first election and certainly not the second or violate the Constitution in the manner that they have because the "community" would not have allowed it.
by Blogvirgin on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:55:00 PM PDT
groups in LA that engage and activate the community. I still don't think a President can act so provincially. He/She has to be more bold, more transformational. Also, community organizing can take take decades, and we don't have the time. That's why I want a bold leader, not a negotiater. Sorry, but I don't accept your concept of "change", and I don't think Obama gets it. The country needs John Edwards, the prize fighter.
by santamonicadem on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:09:18 PM PDT
