So...which is it?

Put it on the table and boycott maybe?

Here's the story:
http://www.freetibet.org/press/pr280108.html

What's infuriating about Obama.is that this has been his m.o. throughout his entire campaign.  He basically just wants to be a more likeable, more electable Hillary Clinton, except for the fact that he doesn't touch her level of experience, knowledge and leadership.  

If you look at his platform, he's done everything he can to emulate her entirely, basically say "we are 95% the same, but you like me better, right?"   She comes out with an economic plan? Boom - there's his me-too plan.  She proposes solutions for homeowners in trouble? Boom - there's his me too plan, exactly like hers.  

And the 5% that they aren't alike on?  Those are the pieces Obama's cherry-picked out of Clinton's policies because they're not as popular, and would require real leadership to enact, regardless of whether that 5% actually matters.    

Healthcare mandates are a perfect example: if they were considered more popular and less contentious, Obama would be on board (in the company of anyone who knows about the real path to get to universal healthcare). But he knows that convincing republicans in congress to enact such changes would take a real feat of political maneuvering, and so he becomes the appeaser, giving up on the real ideological fights and eschewing any decision-making responsibilities (e.g. voting "present" in the Illinois state senate on several tough issues) to appear to meet in the middle on every issue.  (And no, an anti-war speech by an unknown politician on an unwatched stage does NOT count as leadership on the Iraq war, sorry. Nor does making a defensive, deflective rant on the state of race in America in the wake of questions about your personal affiliations with racist pastors count as leadership, healing, or a path to hopeful unity.)

Even watching him early on in the debates -- with simple yes or no show of hand questions, he was always the last to answer, watching who else raises their hand up or down first.  Rarely does Obama answer a question with an original thought of his own; rarely does he offer to answer first.  Rarely does he actually show the courage of his ideology.  He's always hesitant, always measuring the room before making a response, instead of answering from his gut and standing on his own two feet.  

Even answering the questionnaire on his policy views 10 years ago -- when he obviously DID give his own answers (terse and unqualified as they were), he backpedals and gives excuses that someone else was doing his work for him?  Please.  That was probably the closest we'll ever get to an unscripted, raw set of answers from Obama.

I don't want a president who just follows the popular trends when they suit his pursuit of the presidency (or subsequently, his favorability numbers).  I want real ideological leadership, and the occasional ugliness and unpopularity that comes along with it at times.    Sitting back and waiting on this issue to see which way the winds blow, an issue of basic human rights (about as black-and-white and ingrained in the definition of being an american as you can get, imo), is just embarrassing.

http://www.dailykos.com/user/DawnG/comments

You know what worries me?  When you have someone in the WH who is essentially afraid to lead, who does the leading for him?

The US-China relationship is one of the most complex and intractable foreign policy challenges faced by the US right now. Obama was right to be cautious about approaching this issue. One can dismiss this thoughtful approach as wishy-washy, or copycat, but all it reveals is a visceral revulsion toward the guy, and possibly some serious confusion about what is at stake in this particular case.

I have been wondering for a while why Obama ran for president after such a short time in office. Wouldn't it have made sense to build up more of a record? He's such a young guy, even if he waited another ten years he'd only be 56.

But now I know: It's because his schtick only works if he's a political unknown. Everything he's selling depends on his being a blank slate. If he had amassed more experience and spent more time in office, he couldn't pretend to be a Washington outsider and a new kind of politician.

so what exactly is the problem again? that Obama hasn't officially called for boycotts?

I mean heaven forbid people have DIFFERENT opinions on what should be done, I think boycotting at all is a waste of time as we won't follow it up with anything. what has China been under a rock? They know the world wants them to change their policies but they also know we won't actually do anything besides meaningless gestures as they buy our debt and money rules all. they are a most favored nation for a reason.

but still where was this outrage on March 26th when Hillary wasn't calling for boycotts yet, or 27th or the 28th? or the 29th? how about the 30th? was anyone praising Hillary for her stand on the 31st? were you questioning Obama's ability to lead on this issue back on April 1st?

but the second Hillary finally declared a position THEN the well why hasn't Obama also called for boycotts start?

The new Obama slogan "Just like Hillary, only with Newkindapolitics!"

"If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies. As I have communicated in public and to the President, it is past time for China to respect the human rights of the Tibetan people, to allow foreign journalists and diplomats access to the region, and to engage the Dalai Lama in meaningful talks about the future of Tibet. I am also deeply concerned about China's failure to support efforts to halt the genocide in Darfur. Regarding the Beijing Olympics this summer, a boycott of the opening ceremonies should be firmly on the table, but this decision should be made closer to the Games."

Obama is only saying it should be in the table, to be considered later.  He is not calling for a boycott at all, at least not right now, and it's a mistake to say that he is.

Personally I find this issue to be utterly meaningless.  The Chinese are not going to give one whit whether George Bush attends or not.  Having him boycott the Olympics is an empty gesture that allows politicians to show a symbolic opposition to China's actions rather than a material opposition such as advocating trade sanctions.  

During a brief stopover in Japan on his way to the United States, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader told reporters no one should try to silence demonstrators who are protesting against Chinese rule in Tibet. But at the same time, he struck a conciliatory tone toward Beijing, apparently distancing himself from calls in the West for a boycott of the Olympic opening ceremony.

Now, I'm sure the media/Obama supporter message will be: Obama really has the same opinion as the Dalai Lama, and that nasty Hillary Clinton doesn't...

sen. obama is obviously a very bright, well educated and articulate man. however, he doesn't seem to be able to put together an original thought, or his fear of how it will be taken causes him to wait until someone else (mostly sen. clinton) expresses an idea in public, before coming out with something remarkably similar, but with just a slightly different wording.