Can we start blasting John McCain please?

Karol Collymore

I'm not a fan of John McCain. His politics aside, he's got some issues.

McCain came in near the bottom of his Navy class, yet he was still allowed to be a pilot. He crashed three times. He left his wife - who was patiently waiting for him while he was a POW - for a younger, thinner, blonder model while still married. The current president used McCain's adopted daughter as racist pawn in the South in 2000, yet he still embraced him like they were long lost brothers. He rightly dismissed the aggressive religious right leaders and now wants them at a his campaign table. McCain's famous candor is disappearing faster than free donuts in my office.

As a friend of mine said, "Why do democrats eat their young?" I don't know, but we are currently feasting on the bones of Barack Obama. This man is running a strategic campaign for president, not a movement that meets all of our liberal whims. Obama is on the right side of choice, equality, womens' rights, the war, gay rights (Ok we could move him on marriage), health care and the economy. We will not all agree on the nuance of every single issue, but we can agree that we want Barack Obama?

Barack Obama continues to speak honestly, candidly and in a way that doesn't make us flinch in embarrassment or cause us to change the channel. When he makes decisions that we may not agree with, he issues clear statements with explanations. We can't agree with everything, people. As I've asked before, if we don't agree with everything, do we not vote? Steve Novick supported the death penalty and I still voted for him. Jeff Merkely supported denying migrant workers drivers licenses and I'm voting for him.

I contend that is our job as movement progressives to hold Obama (and Merkely) responsible for our visions after he is in office. Many will argue that after the election it is too late. I disagree. That is prime time because if he doesn't listen, he's out in four years. If he does and explains his actions with the skill and grace he does now, he'll help win others to our side.

Don't get me wrong, I think its OK to disagree, but let's not sink Obama's ship (or insert whatever cliche you want here). When the time comes, we'll need him to hold up our end of this bargain.

  • John-Mark Gilhousen (unverified)

    Of course we can start blasting McCain now. In fact, many of us have been far from reticent for some time about the disparities between his "maverick" and "man of principles" image and the reality of his sorry record and deplorable policies. And, of course, there is no question that despite my disappointment with our own presidential nominee on a number of issues, that he can be assured of my vote and support.

    But, I took Sen. Obama at his word when he invited criticism from the rank-and-file, to hold him accountable to core Democratic Party principles. He promised he would listen. I am not favorably disposed to calls from some of his supporters for us to shut-the-{fill in your favored expletive here}-up. If you want my vote, you are going to have to live with my voice, too. It's a package deal.

    Nay-sayers may call it "eating our own" all they want, but one of the essential reasons I'm a Democrat is that ours is a party which values all of its constituent voices, and holds its office holders and candidates accountable for being responsive to those voices.

    So, I will continue to take Sen. Obama at his word, and will work not only to see him elected, but also to influence his positions and policies in keeping with the vision of America he himself has publicly espoused -- a country where the ideals of full liberty and equality for all its citizens, and as a cooperative member of the community of nations, is ever more fully realized.

    If that's eating my own, please pass the salt.

    Disclaimer: I serve as state coordinator for Progressive Democrats of Oregon, a PDA affiliate, but my opinions stated here are my own.

  • (Show?)

    Thank you, Karol. You're right on.

    I also thought the column by Gail Collins - printed in today's O - was right on:

    We have to have a talk about Barack Obama. I know, I know. You’re upset. You think the guy you fell in love with last spring is spending the summer flip-flopping his way to the right. Drifting to the center. Going all moderate on you. So you’re withholding the love. Also possibly the money. I feel your pain. I just don’t know what candidate you’re talking about. Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats. Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field? When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way.


    Most of the things Obama’s taken heat for saying this summer fall into these two familiar patterns — attempts to find a rational common ground on controversial issues and dumb-avoidance. On the common-ground front, he’s called for giving more federal money to religious groups that run social programs, but only if the services they offer are secular. People can have guns for hunting and protection, but we should crack down on unscrupulous gun sellers. Putting some restrictions on the government’s ability to wiretap is better than nothing, even though he would rather have gone further. Dumb-avoidance would include his opposing the gas-tax holiday, backtracking on the anti-Nafta pandering he did during the primary and acknowledging that if one is planning to go all the way to Iraq to talk to the generals, one should actually pay attention to what the generals say. Touching both bases are Obama’s positions that 1) if people are going to ask him every day why he’s not wearing a flag pin, it’s easier to just wear the pin, for heaven’s sake, and 2) there’s nothing to be gained by getting into a fight over whether the death penalty can be imposed on child rapists.

    Above all else:

    Obama has made it clear what issues he thinks all this cleverness and compromising are supposed to serve: national health care, a smart energy policy and getting American troops out of Iraq. He has tons of other concerns, but those seem to be the top three.

    Read the rest.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)

    Karol: I believe your are misinterpreting much of the criticism that is leveled at Obama. Much of it is like that of parents criticizing their children or, as the old saying goes only your friends tell you you have bad breath.

    Obama encouraged thousands in the grass- and netroots with his calls for change and he is now being seen as betraying his promises, real and implied. These supporters are telling him this is unacceptable.

    Of course, they should never have been so naive in the first place. (I notice a couple of his more enthusiastic supporters among BO contributors have been relatively mute since Obama's AIPAC speech.) It was always a good bet that Obama would still be very much business as usual despite his slogan about change, so those of us who were less starry-eyed are not overly surprised but nevertheless disappointed when we consider the potential Obama could have had. The system is still in place with corporations and party oligarchs remaining major puppetmasters.

    Three interesting articles:

    John McCain -- 61 Flip-Flops and Counting, After the FISA Fight: An Interview with Sen. Russ Feingold and Obama's fundraising problems-Turning to rich people.

    Very likely many of Obama's critics will still vote for him even if with great reluctance. McCain will be a disaster for this nation.

  • (Show?)

    You know, some enterprising young internet guy or gal should set up a site called "the Daily Gaffe" or something. McCain is a train wreck, and with a little work, the campaigns many, many, many blunders could doom him before September.

  • (Show?)

    Aug. 9, 2004 -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

    I remember vividly that day in 2004, because it’s when I felt pretty certain that John Kerry was going to lose to George Bush. It was as if he had completely undermined the single strongest reason he could give voters for why they should elect him and throw Bush & crew out on their asses.

    I also remember vividly the abuse that those who raised such concerns about Kerry’s overly hawkish positions on the war received – very much along the lines of what Kristin and others are receiving now in expressing concern over the direction of Obama’s campaign. They were told in so many words to put a lid on it – that we could address our concerns over his Iraq position after the election. I’ll also note that, in retrospect, Kerry later (after his defeat) acknowledged what a mistake his position had been.

    Given the tactical and strategic brilliance that the Obama team displayed in the primaries, there’s a tendency for many of us to think that we may not understand why he’s dong what he’s doing, but he and his folks must know what they’re doing, are hella smarter at this than we are, and so we should trust that they’re doing what they have to to win, which is, after all, what we want.

    But even smart people can screw up, and I don’t think it’s either disloyal or un-strategic to call them on what seem like just plain bad moves – not out of a holier-than-thou, political purist kind of stance, but because it just seems dumb. If, as Jeff describes in his post above, Dems are enjoying a large advantage in intensity of support, then moves by Obama’s campaign that put a significant damper on that intensity threaten to weaken that advantage.

  • John Mulvey (unverified)

    I appreciate your comments, Karol, and except for a very small few, we do agree that we all need to get Obama a win in November.

    I also have no regrets at expressing my displeasure at the FISA vote. In fact, I think if the beltway is suprised at the strength of the support for the Fourth Amendment, that's all to the good. I simply disagree with those who say these criticisms are "carrying the water" for McCain.

    90% of the posts I've seen critiquing the FISA position and others have stated unequivically that they support Senator Obama and urged readers to vote for him. I hope that President Obama puts FISA back on the table in January.

    McCain is a train wreck

    Yeah, the bizarro world of Campaign '08 continues... McCain appears prepared to rhetorically shoot himself in the head at least 3 times every day. Are we going to have to stop referring to the Republicans as a "major party" soon?

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)

    John-Mark Gilhousen said, "So, I will continue to take Sen. Obama at his word":

    So will I. Here are some of his words:

    After the invasion of Iraq, he said he wasn’t sure how he would have voted when the resolution authorizing Bush to use force to overthrow Saddam Hussein came before the Senate. More recently: "What I said is that we do need to have a strike force in the region. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places."

    Consistent with his "categorical" March 2008 opposition to "any statement that disparages our great country," Obama voted in July 2005 to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

    His repeatedly declared desire for unilateral interventionism and militarism in "situations beyond self-defense" won him praise from the neocon (and McCain adviser) Robert Kagan.

    He endorsed U.S. client Colombia's right to attack "terrorists" in Ecuador and the application of the reactionary "Merida Initiative" (which combines the so-called "War on Drugs" with the so-called "war on terror".

    He announced his intention to continue the despicable 47-year U.S. embargo on Cuba, and described the democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua as a ‘vacuum' to be filled.

    In "The Audacity of Hope," Obama criticized "left-leaning populists" for thinking that developing nations "should resist America's efforts to expand its hegemony" and for daring to "follow their own path to development."

    When he was asked about having called NAFTA "a big mistake" and "devastating," Obama replied: "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified."

    "What's really going on is that Obama is moving further right from a position that was already firmly lodged in the 'realistic' and 'pragmatic' center. He never would been in a position to make this move if he had not showed his centrist safety and 'dollar value' to corporate, financial, and military approval authorities years ago." (Obama “Shift to the Center” and the Narrow Authoritarian Spectrum in U.S. Politics)

  • (Show?)

    With the possible exception of people like Harry who always find a reason to dislike any Democrat capable of actually becoming President, very few people outside of the activist community have gotten worked up about his "move to the center". Moreover, most will in fact end up voting for him.

    The problem from my perspective is that the intensity of support that was apparent during the primary seems to have deflated amongst the politically active. It seems like the competition between Hillary and Obama was more meaningful to many than the real battle between Obama and McCain. Personally I hated the primary battle because I hate getting in fights with people that I generally agree with and support. This lack of intensity means fewer $ and volunteers for Obama when it really counts.

    Also, the commentary on the left regarding Obama's "flip-flops" just reinforces the McCain-Bush team's positioning of Obama. Most of the Obama "flipflops" are in fact nothing more than a different rhetorical emphasis rather than an actual change in position (see Kari's post of Gail Collins above) while McCain has made some fundamental changes in policy (taxes, religious bigots) and isn't being called on it by the same people bashing Obama.

  • (Show?)

    Are we going to have to stop referring to the Republicans as a "major party" soon?

    See Canada, 1993. From Wikipedia:

    In 1993, support for the Progressive Conservative Party collapsed, and the party's representation in the House of Commons dropped from an absolute majority of seats to only two seats. The 1993 results were the worst electoral disaster in Canadian history, and the Progressive Conservatives never fully recovered.

    They were literally wiped from the system - ceasing to exist as a legal party. It took ten years and a merger with the Canadian Alliance (a western-oriented social conservative party) for the right to come back in Canada.

  • (Show?)

    Well, it's a wee bit too early to declare the GOP dead. But there are a few dead parties in America's rear-view mirror. In addition to the minor parties that came and went (Free Soil, racist American/Know-Nothing, Liberty, etc), there were three who were substantial enough to win the White House:

    Federalist (1792-1816) - John Adams National Republicans (1825-1833) JQ Adams Whigs (1833-1856) - Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore

  • (Show?)

    One of the things I like best about Obama is that he has brought back to political discourse the notion that his supporters, and soon-to-be supporters, are to be treated like adults, with abilities to think critically, to discern right from wrong and to contribute to the national conversation even when we don't think everything is so peachy keen.

    I think Obama would be the last person who would say that we should follow him blindly. He knows adults, with intelligence and deep beliefs, don't really do that kind of thing.

    He has admitted that he will make mistakes and that his supporters have a right, a duty, to call him on it.

    By disagreeing with him, we aren't saying we don't totally adore the guy (I know I do) but that we are creating the kind of society in which a man as intelligent as Obama can continue to succeed.

  • Chris #12 (unverified)

    Yes, we should be blasting McCain, and I bet we all do. But McCain is not MY candidate, the GOP is not MY party. McCain and his party are supposed to screw us over and act the way they do. Obama and the Democrats, however are supposed to be our friends, they are supposed to be about working people, the poor, and people of color. They are supposed to oppose the war(s), defend civil liberties, and confront oppression. So when they don't do those things, what are we supposed to do? Many would argue that we should just forget about that stuff, we should make sure that our friends get elected--because it's so much better to get screwed over by your friends?

    I'm not saying I want 4 more years of Bush, but these damn Democrats need to earn my vote. I'm so tired of not having a party that consistently does all those things I list above. It took a Democratic congress to pass this FISA crap, it took a Democratic president to get NAFTA passed. And now I'm supposed to just shut up, help elect another Democrat who is threatening to attack Iran, who is flip-flopping on FISA, free trade, and the war in Iraq. I think that if we don't pressure them before they are elected, they will just do what they usually do--take the left for granted, since we have nowhere else to go. I can't remember who says it, but I agree--we don't need a third party--we just need a second one.

  • (Show?)


    Probably you know as well as I do that a key rule of getting online conversations to be about what you want them to be about, is DIY. Don't ask other people to do it, and especially don't ask them why they're not, because if you do, they will answer you, and the discussion will be about why they're not doing it, not about whatever you want discussed.

    So, in that vein, wherever else this thread goes, because I really, really agree with you that we need to be honing our knowledge and rhetoric about McCain, I encourage you to take your great first paragraph and expand it.

    Maybe even take it apart into its separate points and think about expanding each of them, or groups that form subthemes. Make them into columns that just blast McCain.

    Because what will happen is then people will start to chime in their own ideas about what's wrong with McCain, or expand on how they see a great point you've made, or come in with arguments like, o.k., that's a good point, but it will work more effectively if we frame it this way instead of that. Which as you say are conversations we need to be having.

    And I promise you, know that I get to write columns too, I will do some of those too.


    Which is not to say you don't have every right to express your frustrations, or that it's surprising that you chose to do so. But please notice that the same feelings that impelled that choice, are the same feelings that have been motivating people to express their frustrations with Obama.


    I'm less impressed with Gail Collins' article than is Kari. Anyone paying attetion knew that the conversations wouldn't be out in left field. Lots of us who ended up going with Obama did so knowing that the differences with Clinton were small in point of substance, and said so. I repeatedly expressed the worry, going back to before it had just come down to the two of them, that Obama's orientation to compromise could mean reaching out so far that he'll fall out of the boat.

    The thing is, there are different ways to compromise. And it wasn't clear, and it still isn't clear, which of those Obama will use, or maybe how much of which ways he will use. I am worried that he may be a Clinton-style compromiser who will do it by triangulating against me and against Democratic progressives. There is a hint of that in his recent use of a caricature group to which I belong,, as a prop to position himself. I give him a pass on that one because the national level of the group made a stupid mistake with a headliine about General Petraeus. That pissed me off because the substance of the ad was spot-on, but the childish headline gave the lap-dog/guide-dog media any easy excuse to avoid the substance entirely. I've been critical of other aspects of MoveOn national here, and directly to them, including communication with organizers.

    But if Obama proves to be a triangulator type compromiser mainly, who works of caricaturing progressives, I won't be quiet about it and sit back and take it. The fault will be his, not ours.

    He may prove to be the better kind of compromiser, the kind that knows how negotiation works -- that each side has things that matter more and less to them, and has a clear understanding about what matters most to his or her own side, and works with the dynamics, and also recognizes that there are times when a compromise can't be reached without giving up something essential, and doesn't believe in compromise for its own sake. Obama is plenty smart, and it may be that's how he operates.


    Behind that, however, does lurk the problem of what he considers essential. And on some things I know already that there's a big difference. For instance, I don't really think he is on the right side of the occupation of Iraq. He's just not a lunatic militarist like McCain. Moreover, the Congressional Democrats have completely blown the political possibilities of that issue, and in their kowtowing and selling out have protracted the occupation.

    So as an anti-war activist I can't just say, well, I'm going to put that on hold because when the Ds get in, they'll fix things and do the right thing. In fact Obama has said fairly explicitly that he wouldn't all the way along, and more recently has amplified that to make clearer the scale on which he is planning not to do the right thing. So I am going to continue my activism, and I am going to be critical of Democrats who are doing the wrong thing, and trying to figure out how to get them to do the right thing. And that includes Barack Obama.

    And this isn't a matter of small differences, not a matter of his not having "exactly the right position." So I need to be thinking about how to deal with the big difference.

    Because on that issue, I can't and won't be able to trust him as a compromiser, because he has already said he's willing to give up the essential, starts from a position of having given it up, in fact. So my problem is how we can change his view of that.

    He also has missed some of what Gail Collins calls "dumb-avoidance" opportunities, ones that would have cost him nada. A simple no vote on FISA would have been dumb-avoidance (leadership against it would have been smart-embrace). Raising Jerusalem to AIPAC was flinging himself headlong into the arms of dumb. That one's relatively small, he can if he decides treat it the way he's now treating his former position on NAFTA. But it all makes me a little seasick.


    Part of what I have been waiting to see and am still trying to figure out is how much I will be able to work for Obama from a basis of being out there enthusiastically for him, and how much it will be a matter of being out there being against McCain.

    Much of the conversation that bothers you, among those of us who unquestionably will be supporting Obama, I think amounts to people reaching the conclusion that it's going to be about being against McCain. Hence my promise to follow your headline suggestion. (This different from the voices who have always been committed against any Democrat, or any except Kucinich -- the two views really are quite different).

    I will be trying to figure out the best true things I think about what electing Obama will mean. But in ways that add up, he's making that a harder task than it needs to have been.


    Which brings us to Dan Petegorsky's point. It kind of looks as if Obama is listening to the "professionals" too much about where and how he needs to position himself. And they're wrong. They were wrong for Gore, they were wrong for Kerry, they probably would have been wrong for Clinton in '92 if it hadn't been for Ross Perot, they were wrong for Dukakis.

    I hope not, and there are several months remaining for him to work out a better path.

    Meanwhile, the federal courts and the Supreme Court remain my lodestone. I know his appointees will be better than McCain's. I know McCain's will lock reactionary ideology over law and justice into the judicial system for a generation or more, making every single other thing I care about harder to fight for or against. That's just huge and structural.

    So, Obama in '08!

  • Jim Et Al (unverified)

    This man is running a strategic campaign for president, not a movement that meets all of our liberal whims.

    Funny, I had no idea that the Fourth Amendment was a "liberal whim."

    Apparently, there are others who feel the same.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)

    Give it to Mr. Crooked Talk Express. Obama can be polite while he's going after McCain, but knowing that Rovian Rules will apply to both McCain's campaign and the rest of the GOP attack machine, I think you and I, dear reader, can take off the gloves.

    Tha Gail Collins column was indeed uninspiring, and SO WHAT?

    I'm voting Democratic. I will express criticism of Obama when it's deserved, as with FISA, but I'm having no part of any traditionally Democratic circular firing squads. We all have fantasies, don't we? Some are disheartened that Obama hasn't turned out to be like some sort of European social democrat (not that there was ever any evidence that he was). And others are indulging a fantasy that a vote for that <s>honest to god social democrat</s> smugly self-righteous perennial candidate Ralph Nader is actually going to move American politics to the left.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)

    With the possible exception of people like Harry who always find a reason to dislike any Democrat capable of actually becoming President, very few people outside of the activist community have gotten worked up about his "move to the center". Moreover, most will in fact end up voting for him.

    More often then not I'm with Harry K. on the points he makes, and I'm with him on those above.

    ... who always find a reason to dislike any Democrat capable of actually becoming President,...

    As one who was formerly registered as a Democrat but who switched to independent after being wised up, I find there are very few Democrats worthy of allegiance. Russ Feingold, Kucinich and Howard Dean are three of that select and relatively honest group. I was taking an interest in Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) as another exception until he voted for this latest FISA bill. Of course, if you're a Democrat first and only posing as a progressive, then your allegiance to party hacks is understandable. That seems to be part of the human condition.

    ... very few people outside of the activist community have gotten worked up about his "move to the center".

    That is one of the reasons why this nation is in serious trouble. Obama's and other politicians' "move to the center" has too often meant shredding of the Constitution and disregarding the law, which apparently they and the people supporting them don't care about.

    Too often people who move from one position to another do so because they do not stand on a principle. Kind of like a hooker who abandons her sidewalk turf to prostitute herself in some John's car.

    Moreover, most will in fact end up voting for him.

    Most likely, unless he becomes as disgusting as Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in 2000, I'll be voting for Obama but mainly because I have been persuaded McCain is playing his piano with a missing keyboard and Obama is arguably the lesser evil.

  • amorality troll (unverified)

    Chris #12, Jim Et Al and Bill Bodden: You must stop this acrimonious "values" debate. Values and principles are conservative issues. We must WIN, and what is won (and what is lost) is a secondary matter.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)

    We must WIN, and what is won (and what is lost) is a secondary matter.

    In other words, the end justifies the means.

    To paraphrase a certain biblical saying, "What advantage is it to a man if he wins the presidency and his party controls Congress but they lose their souls and the nation continues its decline into collapse?"

    If this is beyond your comprehension, amorality troll, perhaps you can get some grown up with a knowledge of history and people to explain it to you.

  • (Show?)

    Bill, amorality troll is on your side. It's irony, right down to the name, where s/he's taking a poke at the "purity troll" meme. Look at the parenthetical -- it's a short version of your bible quote.

    Gotta learn to recognize your friends, even if they are being subtle doves playing innocent serpents.

  • mlw (unverified)

    I'm a bit torn on this one. I think people should admit their past errors and we should all hope that our character evolves in positive direction. I also think that, frankly, these issues get enough airing without the candidate saying a thing. At most, he might merely repeat what McCain has said about himself. With the press filleting McCain on these issues, he hardly needs to pick up the knife himself.

    On the other hand, these are fairly grave character flaws, some occurring after what was supposed to be the reforming experience in his life (POW camp). Since then, he's done some good things and some bad things. I'd be more inclined to excuse him if he hadn't sold out his own views on immigration and the other "maverick" issues merely to get the nomination.

    If you look at his post-POW behavior, there's a very real current of "will to power" behavior - ditching the first wife unceremoniously, his attempts to blame the failures of Vietnam on the anti-war movement, a Machiavellian rise to power, compromising the on the very issues that made him a maverick. It makes me think that he didn't learn from the excesses of Rovian politics - he just learned Rovian politics.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)

    McCain is the most liberal GOP candidate since Nixon, if not before. Obama is a liar who sacrificed the 4th Amendment for political expediency. Why should we criticize a real progression towards the left (McCain), rather than a sell-out snake-in-the-grass (Obama)?

  • Tommy (unverified)

    I love Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and most of FOX News! If you want to rip on McCain, go ahead! The False Messiah Obama is not much better and in fact is lame. I was born and raised in Portland and cannot believe what people like you have done to destroy it, walking in the streets to purposely block cars, etc. Maybe you should get it going ripping on McCain because The False Messiah could sure use a spike!

  • Sam Geggy (unverified)

    Movement vs. Campaign: I am sure you are aware that many of the most engaged grassroots footsoldiers for Obama ARE indeed calling it a "movement"? The approach is as to movement. To these ones this is not a campaign. This is not politics, it is deeply personal with exploitable linkages galore and a will to be manipulated. Such is True Belief.

    It is, variously: scripturally-mandated; hope; justification; justice; truth; breath; back atcha. That is the whiff I get when I engage the ones in my environment who are active on his behalf here in PDX. Can't speak for all, just the ones nearest me. They trust me enough and assume things about my my (protective) Coloration to say some things that I find a little untasty as a maverick non-lib/non-con contrarian sort.

    They will undoubtedly take a long time to see behind the curtain, even longer to backlash when it comes. But it will be a mighty mighty vicious rage once the feelings of disappointment and betrayal set in.

    These are exciting times. And the Obama Movement/Campaign is complex.

    His speeches are beautiful, and he comes close to the edge of speaking substantively on a regular basis. My heart retains some hope here. The rest of me is poised for the usual.

connect with blueoregon