--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > Just out of curiosity, what do you think it is > > > about Obama that some folks are calling "elitist"? > > > > It is part of the arsenal of the republican attack machine. > > They run it on everybody. It is bullshit and bluster. Your > > analysis give it the dignity of having a basis in reality. > > You haven't answered my question.
If I had to guess it would be that he doesn't drop his "G's" in that folksy way Bush and Palin do. > > <snip> > > > > It is a fact that McCain is more conservative than > > Obama and will appoint accordingly. That is a fact > > now. > > The president doesn't "appoint" justices to the > Supreme Court; the president *nominates* them, > and then they have to be confirmed by the Senate. I misspoke. Important distinction. > > Plus which, that a justice is conservative doesn't > *automatically* mean he or she will always rule > contrary to progressive interests. True, we are just making our best guess. > > So there are two big uncertainties: A Democratic > Senate may reject a nominee they consider too > conservative; and a conservative who becomes a > justice may turn out to rule in surprising ways. Republicans don't like surprises. I think they pick pretty carefully. > <snip> > > Of course it does. But I'm talking about how Obama > supporters try to convince those who don't support > him--especially women--to vote for him. > I still disagree that pointing this out is blackmail. > > > > I also feel betrayed by the democratic party for cowering to > > > > Bush's Iraq war. But after 8 years of republicans I don't > > > > believe it can be brought down any more. > > > > > > It wasn't "the party," strictly speaking, that caved > > > to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress. > > > > I don't find your distinction useful. > > The distinction is that Democrats in Congress are > elected by the people; those who run the party > are not. Thanks for the distinction. I'm not sure how this matters for the point about the elected democrats caving to Bush's patriot bullshit. As far as I'm concerned they both failed us. <snip> > > You might want to see the interview I cited in my > post headed "Holding the DNC's Feet to the Fire" > for more on the rationale behind this. Thanks I'll read it. > > <snip> > It's a risk, yes, but in my view it's a *greater* risk > to have the current Democratic leadership remain in > power, with enhanced credibility. It's definitely a > judgment call. It is a perspective that is outside my box, so thanks for introducing it to me. I'm sort of on "pick the lessor asshole" mode with politicians. I can't muster much positive gusto for support of anybody, Obama included. >
