Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on John McCain is a Bad Man, Too

1

I wonder though, how much is legit criticism from actual Dems voting for Obama, and how much is McCain supporters attempting Internet insurrections and Hillary supporters still betting on a coup?

I would also like to point out that not all bleeding hear Libs have a problem with guns, faith (or their initiatives), abortion limits, or FISA (again, gotta wonder how many people even know what FISA is)...There is, or at least should be, room for more than one opinion on these issues in the Democratic party.

Posted by hal | July 7, 2008 9:20 PM
2

Clinton's strategist Howard Wolfson just went to work for Fox News, you know. Howard praised Fox, Karl Rove praised Howard. You could feel the love.

So when I consider that "Democrats" like Wolfson will not be getting into power, I can give Obama credit for already living up to my dream stopping that type of human being from rising any further. Right there is one example of how much worse it could have been.

Posted by elenchos | July 7, 2008 9:22 PM
3

the problem is there is no real change. we're constantly in a vote for the lesser of two evils. i can't believe obama is sliding to the center before the election and am not sure if i should admire him for it. i was one who voted for the first time when voting for clinton and was truly disappointed by his eager to please everyone fucking everyone who voted for him over when he got into office.

the problem is that the system is broken and i for one am just burnt out. i cant take it anymore and it feels like it just doesn't matter. it seems to me that obama cares more about being the first black president than anything else. a friend of mine said she's been listening to all of his speeches since the beginning and can't really figure out what change he is going to bring. its all rhetoric. it's all bullshit. for him to be advocating stricter abortion laws and touting abstinence education should be the red flag this man has no change to bring to this country.

so yet again we'll try to vote for the lesser of two evils and the republicans will most likely steal the election like they have for the last 8 years and nothing will change.

and IF obama manages to get in the white house any change he wanted to bring about (if he actually does want to bring about any change at all which it's not clear that he does except for bringing some color to the white house) will fall by the wayside.

and we'll all sit around and bitch about it and blog about it and fight about it and cry about it

but
nothing
will
change

Posted by xina | July 7, 2008 9:25 PM
4

I swear half the reason McCain gets a free pass from the press (even, bafflingly, the liberal press) is because he's so freaking boring that nobody feels like writing about him.

Do not underestimate this man. Everybody said Bush couldn't win too.

Posted by flamingbanjo | July 7, 2008 9:26 PM
5

Bush didn't win.

Posted by pox | July 7, 2008 9:28 PM
6

For those want to see the Canadaization of the United States, I guess voting for Obama makes sense.

Posted by raindrop | July 7, 2008 9:36 PM
7

"f he actually does want to bring about any change at all which it's not clear that he does except for bringing some color to the white house"

Boy, that's dismissive. How old are you? I ask because you said this was the first time you voted, so I would assume you are 18. Otherwise, you just did not bother to vote before, which could help contribute to lack of choices. Vote or don't bitch about the state of the world. Oh, and can we get off this lesser of two evils bullshit? Obama is not the lesser evil of McCain. sheesh.

Posted by hal | July 7, 2008 9:36 PM
8

Hey your co-workers are the ones that made Obama walk on water; they can do ANYTHING....

Posted by Home2Roost | July 7, 2008 9:41 PM
9

Thank you, Anthony.

xtina-- The "slide to the center" is part of the general election campaign, and if you didn't know it was coming, it must be the first presidential election you've ever followed. One of the reasons Senator Clinton had so much trouble is that she started the general election moderate campaign early, which doesn't bring in the base.

I want to get Senator Obama elected without being an apologist. I will defend what I agree with and put aside what I don't, but understand it as best I can. If he is elected, I intend to be hugely critical in order to further a progressive agenda, but I harbor no illusions about Obama's platform. It is smart, constitutional, slightly liberal, and mostly watertight. It is not overly progressive.

But if you think there is no difference between Senator Obama and Senator McCain, who wants to "win" in Iraq and threaten Iran (but doesn't know the difference between Shiite and Sunni), drill everywhere, cut all taxes without making up the lost revenue and overturn Roe v. Wade, you don't have to vote for either. Just be aware of what you are doing.

Posted by V | July 7, 2008 9:42 PM
10

um, i said i voted for the first time when clinton was voted in and that makes me 36. i have voted in every election since then. when there are only two choices and they're both shitty, i consider that voting for the lesser of two evils. you can consider it whatever you want. don't get me wrong, i want MORE THAN ANYTHING for real change to occur in this country - i just don't happen to believe barack obama is going to bring it. i'll be happier than a pig in shit if i am proven wrong. go lecture someone else.

Posted by xina | July 7, 2008 9:45 PM
11

Hee! Oh, yeah, that OTHER Clinton! Forgot about him.

Posted by pox | July 7, 2008 9:46 PM
12

Come on, Anthony. It's still primary season, and Obama has yet to square up against His Honorable Leftness, the Generic Democrat-Pleasing Lefty McLefterton, Savior of All Rational and Free-Thinking Mankind.


Oh, silly me. Obama *is* our candidate.

Posted by w7ngman | July 7, 2008 9:54 PM
13

Obama has been a strong opponent of the war and a proponent of diplomacy. That's a huge change from what we have now.

He wants to encourage public service in young people. He has had the highest-rated economic stimulus plan of any of the candidates since the fall. He has a proposal to offer health care to everyone in the country. He supports LGBT rights and womens' rights. He is willing to spend money on veterans' care and has been a proponent of openness and ethics in government.

If that's shitty to you, but Clinton in the 90s was inspiring, I think you lost your way somewhere.

Posted by V | July 7, 2008 9:56 PM
14

Seriously, a vote for McCain is a vote that is a vote for the flip-flopping candidate of political expediency. Once against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, McCain now lies through his teeth telling audiences Obama's plan amounts to a tax increase on the middle class, even though Obama's plan includes a tax cut for the middle class.

Formerly a straight talker and an environmentalist, McCain now supports the oil lobby's renewed calls for offshore drilling and opening up ANWR - which you, the American consumer, get to finance through even higher prices at the pump and which would not come online until the end of McCain's 2nd term - assuming he lives that long (and could get elected a second time, after the mess he'd make)

Which brings me to a potentially more important point. McCain may not live to see the end of his first term, let alone his second. Formerly a maverick who challenged his party to be something better, several years ago he began mindlessly parroting GOP talking points and now amounts to little more than a puppet of his party. So who would he choose as a VP? His choice of VP matters - this person could have to take over the Presidency. Given his willingness to follow party edict, I'm not hopeful his VP choice would be someone America could live with as President.

Another issue is the aging, right-leaning Supreme Court - to which McCain is almost assured an opportunity to appoint at least one justice. Can the country afford another Scalia? Roberts? I think not.

Obama has shown that he can turn out voters all over the country - in conservative and liberal parts, in urban and rural parts, northern, southern, western, and midwestern parts. As a side effect of his team's smart nominating campaign strategy, he also short-circuited and then took control of party machinery.

One man is in control of his party and ready to lead the country. One man is being controlled by his party and is ready to continue corporate rule in this country, focusing on short-sighted feelgood measures which will not fix long-term structural problems.

On these hot button social issues, Obama's recent stances are somewhat troubling, but they represent none of the backward, shortsighted approach to policy and the operation of the government McCain would bring. The choice is pretty clear.

Posted by kentankerous | July 7, 2008 9:57 PM
15

@14,

Very nice. Thank you.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 7, 2008 10:04 PM
16

if you want change vote for Obama, act for unity, try to get 60 democratic senators elected and know that duh we are not actually going to get universal health care climate change full constitutional restoration a reinvigorated economy and an end to all racial problems in

oh the first 100 days or so

so don't be disappointed then either.

you may have noticed this is not a hugely progressive country ???

and the working class middle class is largely hoodwinked on cultural issues ??

and in response the Dems run away like chickens and fail to be clear. A real progressive would be calling for war crimes prosecution, nationalized socialistic health care, etc. etc. but nobody calls for that because -- it wouldn't win right now.

We have to get Obama in there and get SOME stuff passed and build up credibility over the long term.

So stop with the bipolar swings from prior adulation to current disgust. To say lesser of two evils is insane when in a world where we want someone who scores a "good" rating of "plus 1000" and all we got is someone who is a "plus 100" and the alternative is "minus 10,000" -- it's not "two evils" ok?

But after you get that minimally progressive dude in there and build and re elect and get 65 senators the NEXT time so we actually pass most of the shit we need then eventually are going to get change in this country.

Oh btw leaving out the two senators we should have from DC doesn't help does it? And having a Senate where about 18% of the population can control the majority will thru the magic of disproportional disrepresentation and the fucking cloture rules doesn't help either. (The stupid cloture rule that the Senate, including Dems, adopts each sesseion. That's the rule that means you have to have 60 votes to actually vote on anything thus ensuring minority (conservative) rule).

Try to be more realistic.

Posted by PC | July 7, 2008 10:04 PM
17

Hey PC, considering your history of spreading lies, are you qualified to be giving advice on how to establish credibility?

Posted by elenchos | July 7, 2008 10:18 PM
18

@6

Oh you mean like stable, largely progressive, world-respected democracy? I know. Terrible, right?

Posted by bearseatbeats | July 7, 2008 10:35 PM
19

Canada is awesome! Where can I sign up for Canadaization?

Posted by Abby | July 7, 2008 10:48 PM
20

#5: And yet here we are.

#6: I'd vote for Canadaization in a heartbeat. As long as I don't have to eat poutine.

Posted by flamingbanjo | July 7, 2008 10:59 PM
21

Bill Clinton went far right, bombed the Serbs to distract from his Monica affair, attacked Blacks to appeal to white working class voters, welfare reform, and on and on. Looking at the Clinton's as an alternative is ridiculous. They wrote the play book on moving to the center. There's a reason Obama is said to be having his Sister Soulja moment.

Posted by hal | July 7, 2008 11:00 PM
22

I just want to point out that Obama is not "sliding to the center" as much as people are claiming. It makes me feel queasy to compare ECB's "Obama: Prohibit Late-Term Abortions, Focus on Abstinence Education" headline with his actual statements. He didn't advocate prohibiting further or focusing on anything; he was clarifying his own personal beliefs.

ECB's post and the blogs she cited as sources make me embarrassed to be in possession of a vagina (or "vag" as per jezebel). You can be pro-choice and not get all hysterical - yes, I'm using that word intentionally, ladies.

My main disappointment so far is his decision to not support the pledge to filibuster the FISA Amendments Act if it includes telecom immunity. I think he will vote for one or more of the proposed amendments that would strip that immunity which will fail; I guess we'll find out tomorrow in another sensationalistic slog post.

Posted by asteria | July 7, 2008 11:06 PM
23

Oh, What McCain Says on Abortion:

"... the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion....The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion....As John McCain has publicly noted, 'At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.'"

Posted by asteria | July 7, 2008 11:16 PM
24

Defining hope downwards and the true believers are again left squealing on the margins. Shoulda gone with the Hill.

Posted by Bob | July 8, 2008 6:45 AM
25

We won't support NO-Bama and will re-defeat him in November!!!

Posted by clintonsarmy | July 8, 2008 6:52 AM
26

(I'm trying to decide if there's any truth to this "progressive buyer remorse" meme. Or if's just sour grapes from ex-Clinton supporters. I have to assume that there is some truth to it, just because the consequences would be so dire for our chances in the fall if it gains traction. So let me say:)

Hey progressives. Only 25% of the population self-identifies as liberal. Vs. 35% conservative. This means that we have to get a SHITLOAD of moderates on election day to beat Republicans. The last true-blue progressive Democratic presidential candidate? McGovern in 1972.

Obama knows this. Additionally, I think the evidence is clear that he is not as personally liberal as many, making assumptions about him due to his skin color, had hoped. He was never, ever, ever a Wellstone/Kennedy/Feingold liberal, no matter what you may have read on the SLOG. "A new kind of politics" meant appealing to the middle without pandering, which is what he is trying to do.

Obama IS a different kind of candidate- more cerebral, less partisan- and if you get disenchanted and stop giving him with your time, money, and votes, this experiment will not be repeated. You will get Corporate McShill for the rest of eternity.

So quit whining and get back to electing this great candidate.

Posted by Big Sven | July 8, 2008 7:43 AM
27

We won't support NO-Bama whatsoever and will re-defeat him in November.

Posted by clintonsarmy | July 8, 2008 8:05 AM
28

Looks like ECB's work is done, a few posts up. I am as idealistic as the next progressive, but I am rooted in realism. And if you can dodge reality enough to equate Barack and McCain and dismiss the lesser of two evils argument, I am not living on the same planet as you!

Posted by ZWBush | July 8, 2008 8:07 AM
29

Anthony, Hillary can't run in 2012 if Barack is President. Hence the attempted kneecapping.

This is privileged white women like ECB, Ferraro and SusanUnPC who are upset that a "darkie" got to go first.

Posted by ru shur | July 8, 2008 8:29 AM
30

Big Sven is still my favorite Slogger.

Posted by V | July 8, 2008 8:54 AM
31

@26 Great post Sven.

Posted by Mike of Renton | July 8, 2008 11:28 AM
32

Thanks @30 & @31. I actually thought about my reply on the way to work before writing, instead of just firing off a reflexive screed. Perhaps I should do this more often.

Posted by Big Sven | July 8, 2008 2:10 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.