home

Sean Penn on Obama: Not Ready to Endorse

The Cannes Film Festival is underway. Sean Penn and Natalie Portman were asked if they were going to jump on the Hollywood A-lister bandwagon and endorse Barack Obama. Sean Penn said:

”I don't have a candidate I'm supporting and I'm certainly interested and excited by the hope that Barack Obama is inspiring,” he said, but went on to accuse him of a “phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional” voting record.

”I hope that he will understand, if he is the nominee, the degree of disillusionment that will happen if he doesn't become a greater man than he will ever be,” Penn said. “This is the most important election, certainly in my lifetime, and maybe ever.”

More...

Natalie Portman:

Portman, 26, said she would not be endorsing Obama or his rival, Hillary Clinton, but added: “I think it's a very exciting year for our politics, that for the first time in a while we have a choice of who we like better instead of who we hate least.”

I disagree with Penn that Obama's voting record is "inhuman and unconstitutional" -- that makes no sense to me. His other point, which I think is that Obama will never be able to live up to the hype his campaign has engendered, which in turn will fuel disappointment should he be elected, seems valid.

< Death Penalty Declining: What's Next? | George W. Bush Reaches New Political Low >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Some people did not (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:12:43 AM EST
    park their critical thinking like the Nation, etc.  

    I am sad that women (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:15:10 AM EST
    are afraid to endorse her. I have a feeling that Portman backs Clinton but does not want to alienate her fanbase of young, liberal men.

    Is that what I said? NO. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:41:46 AM EST
    I said her fanbase is mainly YOUNG MEN. Who overwhelmingly support Obama.  HENCE, she does not want to alienate her biggest fanbase.  But way to be a sexist about it.  Since I said nothing about her "hotness."

    Parent
    I will not reciprocate with insults. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    I will simply hold to my opinion. That is her fan base. They are by far overwhelmingly behind Obama.  She has praised Clinton in the past, so that is why I have this opinion. Look how you've reacted. I'm sure she fears much worse.

    Parent
    I think you are correct. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    She has worked with Hillary on microfinancing and certainly seemed to be in favor of her last year.

    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#65)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:09:55 PM EST
    Not to mention that she's mentioned in articles that she doesn't understand why HRC gets so much hate. If she supported Obama, she'd be out about it as it would only endear her to her fans and Hollywood more.  

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#76)
    by djcny on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:24:19 PM EST
    In fact I thought I read some months ago that she came out in support of Hillary. I can only speculate why she's backed off,could be she didn't want to come out in favor of someone she perceives to be on the losing side. I don't believe celebrity endorsements mean much of anything but still...

    Parent
    what political aspirations (none / 0) (#49)
    by Saxon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:00:45 PM EST
    do you know that natalie portman has?

    and why shouldn't she give more importance to her career (and fan base) at this stage of her life than to her political inclination? what are you doing for your political views that is equivalent (of endangering career, etc.)?

    Parent

    I don't believe that to be true. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Iphie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    She has an enormous following among girls and young women. She is often held up as an example of a thinking starlet, with her advanced degrees and her support of things like micro-loans which are predominantly given to women. A quick look at her professional projects and it's clear she is not basing her career on the support of teenage or college aged boys.

    Parent
    What happened to Oprah's ratings (none / 0) (#80)
    by felizarte on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    fall is probably something entertainers have taken note of. See how Oprah has since quieted down on politics.

    Parent
    Her viewers (none / 0) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:10:12 PM EST
    are disproportionately typical white women over the age of 40....in other words, Hillary supporters.

    Parent
    Or were N/T (none / 0) (#82)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:11:29 PM EST
    LOL, (none / 0) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:18:57 PM EST
    yep, you've got a point there.

    If she loses viewers, it will be temporary, but I think Ellen will henceforth be more popular.  

    Oprah has forgotten her roots.  I cringed when she visited Katrina victims and really looked like she couldn't stand to touch people.  Ellen Degeneres (sp) comes across as more human.

    Parent

    Rooge was just speculating (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    I'd have to get your back here since I'd also perceive Natalie Portman as a talented entertainer who's got something more interesting to say than, eg, Jon Stewart.

    She might have just been being more diplomatic here than Penn (who as we all know tends to be inscrutable on current events.)

    Also, as any spouse or other half of a couple knows, when it's one's partner's Some Function, M or F, you encourage and support.

    Also, Portman is objectively totally hot. What!? I'm just saying ...

    Parent

    lol. (none / 0) (#120)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:42:19 AM EST
    She's GORGEOUS.

    Parent
    Sounds like he's getting ready (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:16:31 AM EST
    to endorse Nader. Bleh.

    Could be. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:23:41 AM EST
    Almost what I was thinking.... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:21:20 PM EST
    from what I know of Penn's views, I figure he'd have a hard time endorsing a Democrat.

    Third party alternatives seem more his speed...and mine.

    Parent

    Portman got (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:16:49 AM EST
    sucked into the fighting in 2004, prolly doesn't want to break her own heart again.

    What's up with Penn though? He ought to quietly elaborate on it all.

    Do you mean the voting record? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:34:13 AM EST
    The other part is self-explanatory to anyone who has seen this Axelrod package before.

    Parent
    I imply meant (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:44:10 AM EST
    specifics

    Parent
    Although he talked in code (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by talex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:54:03 AM EST
    for some reason I think it is pretty clear what he was alluding to and that is Obama's continued support for the war by funding it.

    For Penn, Obama's continued use of that he was against the war while on the stump, and then when in the Senate he did not have the courage to vote against funding it was "inhuman and unconstitutional" because Penn sees the war as both.

    FWIW Penn is not a fan of Clinton either and he did endorse Kucinich.

    Parent

    he knows (none / 0) (#40)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:56:19 AM EST
    that the war will continue.   So at least he's got his eyes open anbout reality.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by talex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:02:20 PM EST
    we all know the war will continue. That is why all of Obama's rhetoric about ending it is just that - rhetoric. Rhetoric to get elected because he is no different than most politicians in that he tell you what you want to hear.

    Parent
    oh, i think it is a lot more than that. (none / 0) (#41)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:56:46 AM EST
    Do tell (none / 0) (#53)
    by talex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:02:34 PM EST
    what is telling is that he doesn't (none / 0) (#59)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    support obama now while many who were against the war also are on the band wagon. sean marches to the beat of his own drum. i think he is alluding to a lot more than iraq.

    Parent
    Like What? What is the secret you are keeping. (none / 0) (#73)
    by talex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:17:16 PM EST
    Penn's statement was regarding Obama's  "phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional" voting record.

    So what in Obama's voting record other than Iraq would be "phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional"?

    Parent

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    drug war support?  prison nation support?  police state support?

    Parent
    do you honestly think obama will be (none / 0) (#89)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:39:12 PM EST
    any different than the rest of the dems. no, he won't. but hey attack hillary supporters. have a good time. see ya in november.

    Parent
    talex go do the homework yourself. (none / 0) (#88)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:38:14 PM EST
    Oh cool! (none / 0) (#93)
    by talex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:12:38 PM EST
    So you got nothing. OK. No problem. Because other than the war I can't imagine what else Penn could have been talking about.

    There are some other Obama votes I did not like, like the tort reform vote but one could hardly classify that as "phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional".

    Parent

    yeah, you got it! nailed! (none / 0) (#98)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    go do your own homework.

    Parent
    yeah you got nailed alright (none / 0) (#104)
    by talex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:18:10 PM EST
    talex i could write a book on (none / 0) (#105)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:22:29 PM EST
    the various positions or lack thereof obama has taken. i find obama supporter like yourself who come on here and demand we do this and that insulting. obama is a light weight on legislation. it was a gift in the ill legislature. what has he done in the senate. the answer isn't much. so where is the beef? the answer is there isn't any. so you argue. turn yourself into a pretzel and watch your candidate with the pensil thin resume lose in november. got that!

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#110)
    by talex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    I am a Clinton supporter as all my posts including the one I made about Penn would lead one to believe.

    You obviously misinterpreted my post.

    Parent

    i don't misread you. (none / 0) (#111)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:59:02 PM EST
    Whatever (none / 0) (#113)
    by talex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:08:17 PM EST
    I support Clinton

    bye

    Parent

    I thought Natalie had come out (none / 0) (#25)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:40:49 AM EST
    earlier for Hillary but I guess I was wrong.

    Parent
    "A greater man that he will ever be..." (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by dianem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    Ouch. That stung. It also captured the Obama problem quite succinctly. Obama is not MLK, or Lincoln. He is more like Reagan, who was a potemkin warrior whose legend has grown in the retelling. If Obama does by some miracle win, I predict that within a year the same people cheering his praises will be decrying him for not following through on his promised to them. Of course, they will be wrong. He has not promised them anything, he has simply implied that he will provide all things to all people - an impossible goal to maintaing once you are in power.

    Like Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jondee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:29:19 AM EST
    minus the bit about blaming the poor, commies in the bushes, no such thing as man made pollution, claiming to liberate WWII labor camps, bringing the nutball religious right front stage and center, claiming to be against "big government" while doing everything to solidify the corporate/govt status quo..

    Other than that, Obama's just like Reagan.

    Parent

    The arguments don't work on the left (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by dianem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:40:06 AM EST
    But he does his share of pandering to the base, and he makes up facts to support his story. Nobody is suggesting that Obama shares Reagan's politics. Just his style.

    Parent
    They all share his style (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST
    to a greater or lesser degree.

    We wont get rid of the b.s posturing and pandering until all these candidates cut loose the media consultants, image consultants, Madison Avenue hucksters on the payroll etc

    You think downing shots in blue collar bars with "the people" is something Hillary does because she's just so down-to-earth?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#67)
    by Emma on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:11:42 PM EST
    I think she's able to do it because she is down to earth.

    Parent
    $109 million income down to earth! (none / 0) (#90)
    by caseynm on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:00:14 PM EST
    Holy Crap!  Who'd a thunk it?

    Hey. I can do shots with Blue Collar workers.  In fact, I was for many years a blue collar worker.  Blue collar workers are friends of mine.  Hillary, you're no blue collar worker, and sucking down Crown Royal ain't gonna get ya any closer!

    Parent

    Excuse Me (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:22:35 PM EST
    With all due respect, the issue here is NOT Hillary Clinton, but Barack Obama.
    t is such a bogus defense tactic that when something is said to confront reality, that the subject is immediately changed, in this case to Hillary.
    Obama is the one who has proudly proclaimed his opposition to the war when it mattered not, and who since that time has done NOTHING to oppose it where it really matters, in the Senate.
    As far as other issues are concerned, at the risk of speculating, perhaps Sean Penn is referring to Obama's lack of action or opposition to the current administrations progressive dismantling of the Constitution. For someone who claims to be an expert on the Constitution and who taught Constitutional Law at Univ. of Chicago, his silence has been deplorable!

    Parent
    jondee... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:06:10 PM EST
    wisely said all the candidates will never give us the straight dope until they fire all their high-priced handlers and consultants and wanna-be Rove's.

    So Hillary is the issue in that case just as much as Obama and McCain.  None will give us the straight dope because that takes courage and the willingness to risk losing some votes by taking principled stances.

    Parent

    Blue collar workers don't seem to agree (none / 0) (#100)
    by bridget on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:40:33 PM EST
    because Hillary shows that she cares and has some heart ... and people relate to her.

    Just like they always did and still do w. Bill. When Obama ignored WV and gave his lame speech from another state early in the day, he showed them he didn't care, he showed them no heart at all.

    Besides, Hillary does not have a rich family background. Bill's is downright poor. As governor he only made 20 000 dollars AFAIR. But he remained in civil service for years. Even as president his salary was shockingly low IMHO. Btw. When they moved into the White House in their forties they didn't own a house and were considered anything but rich. It's part of the Clinton legend. Every article mentioned it at the time.

    Now they are 60 years old and they certainly worked hard for  what they own. CEOs make billions, Oprah makes billions, actors make 20plus millions a movie. $109 mil the Clintons own now? Big Deal considering who they are! Let's talk again in 20 years and see how much is in the Obama bank account, shall we? Bet it will be more and if so that's fine w. me.

    Parent

    I don't mind.... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:21:25 PM EST
    somebody working hard, doing right by people and getting rich.  If that's what makes you happy.

    But the Clintons could at least stop collecting taxpayer funded pension benefits to the tune of 8 million.  For all the people Bill got off welfare, he should get off it himself.  Link

    Interesting side note...the presidential pension thang in effect today was passed because Harry Truman, maybe our last really good president, was living like a pauper on his military pension because...I'll use his words.

    "I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency." - Harry Truman

    I got some bad news for ya Harry...the prestige and dignity you speak of no longer exists.

    Parent

    Glad to hear it .... (none / 0) (#118)
    by bridget on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:49:48 AM EST
    because as one would say in German: "Bill Clinton ist nicht mit Geld zu bezahlen."

    :-)

    Parent

    Do you think blue collar workers only... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:49:04 PM EST
    ...relate to other blue collar workers?

    Parent
    Hard to do when you are a political novice (none / 0) (#74)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    and aren't well versed yourself in the issues of the day.....

    Parent
    Spot on (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by mg7505 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    about this:

    He has not promised them anything, he has simply implied that he will provide all things to all people - an impossible goal to maintaing [sic] once you are in power.


    Parent
    He's no Reagan. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    Reagan was strongly partisan.

    Parent
    Reagan was only partisan... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by dianem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    ...in the history books. He ran as a bi-partisan candidate and and passed a lot of legislation that made liberals happy, even while he quietly set the stage for major right wing wins. His reputation has been tweaked in the ensuing years in order to turn him into a hero of the right. Try asking a right winger if Reagan ever raised taxes sometime. Their answer will surprise you.  

    If I thought that Obama was skilled enough to pull this off, I'd probably be supporting him. Obviously, I don't. All I meant was that Obama is more like Reagan than MLK or Lincoln.

    Parent

    That's completey untrue. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:48:02 AM EST
    He was a fierce partisan.  Obama has zero in common with Reagan.

    Parent
    Heard of Reagan Democrats? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:58:10 AM EST
    Yup. That's not at all because Reagan was (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:01:38 PM EST
    bipartisan.

    Parent
    you are right (none / 0) (#60)
    by Saxon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    obama has little in common with reagan - one has some historical accomplishments over 8 years as the president and the other has "hope and change" with nothing to show

    Parent
    It's not even that. Reagan was fiercely partisan. (none / 0) (#95)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:23:11 PM EST
    He did not believe in nor ascribe to a post-partisan philosophy.

    Parent
    sean is saying in so many words that (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:58:16 AM EST
    he doesn't believe the obama hype and doesn't think there is any follow through. he is saying what others in california might be thinking but won't say as their agents threatened with loss of favor.

    Parent
    see the Koolaid flowing at DKos (none / 0) (#71)
    by Josey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    Their vitriol toward Edwards for the past 3 months for not endorsing Obama is happily explained today that Obama was merely waiting to bring out Edwards for "maximum benefit" before KY.
    The fact that if Edwards had endorsed Obama last month he could have been campaigning in KY and WV for Obama - is lost in the rah rah.
    Whatever it takes to cast Obama as a brilliant Savior.

    Like Bushies, Obamamites create their own reality.


    Parent

    Just for kicks (none / 0) (#106)
    by Lisa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:27:01 PM EST
    how do the kosian fantasists explain away the Obama's angelic "doing the lord's work" campaign ad?

    Just one more progressive principle, like equality for women, now separation of church and state, down the drain (who needed it anyway?)

    Parent

    Yes...you have foretold... (none / 0) (#97)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:32:26 PM EST
    what will likely happen.  Reality sucks, but better to be in reality than in an illusion.

    Parent
    Speaking of not endorsing Obama (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:20:04 AM EST
    here is today's Bush screed about how Obama is aiding the terraists:

    President Bush used a speech to the Israeli Parliament on Thursday to issue a veiled rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, who has argued that the United States should negotiate with countries like Iran and Syria.

    Mr. Bush did not mention Mr. Obama by name, and the White House said his remarks were not aimed at the senator. But in a lengthy speech intended to promote the strong alliance between the United States and Israel, the president invoked the emotionally volatile imagery of World War II to make the case that talking to "terrorists and radicals" was no different than appeasing Hitler and the Nazis.

    "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Mr. Bush said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

    The Obama campaign issued an angry response. In an e-mail statement to reporters, the senator denounced Mr. Bush for using the 60th anniversary of Israel to "launch a false political attack," adding, "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

    Godwin's Law is alive and well is Bushland.


    No one cares about the Deciderer (none / 0) (#27)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:43:43 AM EST
    and his tanked-up pronouncements anymore.

    That's one good thing to come out of this long primary season. :-)

    Parent

    I never cared for Hollywoood pronouncements (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:24:05 AM EST
    on politics.

    this time it makes (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:26:32 AM EST
    more sense that the MSM and bloggers.  

    Parent
    You Are Correct Stellaaa...Sean Penn Has (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    made a very astute observation, and is one of the more credible voices in the hollywood sphere.  He
    is saying..."obama, you have been served."  But,
    honestly from what I have seen of obama, it appears he is incapable of, or simply doesn't want to change.

    Parent
    Unfortunaly, people pay attention (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jondee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:34:16 AM EST
    to what very wealthy, successful people have to say, the belief all-too-often being that these people just have to know something the rest of us dont.

    Parent
    That's kind of ironic. (none / 0) (#22)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:35:50 AM EST
    It is? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    I am trying to figure out why that would be. That Hollywood does not care for my political pronouncements? I would be flattered to know that they even knew I made political pronouncements.

    Or that people in general do not care for my political pronouncements? Again, I would be flattered to know that people in general are aware that I make political pronouncements.

    Parent

    Because Obama is the most hollywood marketed (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:50:19 AM EST
    candidate ever. From the WillIAm video, to the Oprah roadshow.  

    Parent
    They count no less than any other pronouncements (none / 0) (#119)
    by bridget on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:14:04 AM EST
    and often are worth a lot more than those of politicians and media people because they show a lot  of heart. They care a lot more, too.  

    What can I say - I love Hollywood.

    :-)

    Parent

    Right on target (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by SeaMBA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:29:38 AM EST
    I have to agree with Penn, and his reasoning is partly one reason that I think Obama is dangerous for the Democratic party.  He is not a great leader, and won't become one overnight (he is not a fighter or passionate).  He will have such high expectations that no matter how much better he might be than McCain people will see him as a failure (just look at how the left is treating Bill Clinton).  And in four years we will be stuck with another 20 years of Republicans.  Think Jimmy Carter.


    couldn't agree more (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:31:58 AM EST
    i have long said that obama is simply carter 2.0.  carter's a great guy, but he was a lousy president.  it took more than a decade to overcome that debacle.

    Parent
    Probably starts in 2 years(mid-term elections). (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:43:54 AM EST
    In fairness, anyone is going to have a hard time turning this mess around.  Americans are notoriously impatient but his change rhetoric is only going to exacerbate that.

    Parent
    I give it six months. (none / 0) (#34)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    The media will hasten the timeframe by doing their usual Democratic pile-on.

    Parent
    I have never heard (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by eric on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:34:39 AM EST
    of an "unconstitutional" voting record.  To achieve that, I suppose, one would have to have voted without the authority to do so.

    I think he means to say that Obama has a record of voting for unconstitutional bills.  It's the bill that is unconstitutional, not the voting.

    He sounds kind of like a bonehead, IMO.

    My guess is that he's referring (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Inky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:45:14 AM EST
    to Obama's multiple votes to keep funding the Iraq war, a war that Penn considers unconstitutional and inhuman. As someone who has spent time visiting Iraqi hospitals and the like, Sean Penn is a bit more wrapped up in ending our occupation now than your average congressional Democrat.

    Parent
    PATRIOT Act rewnewal (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ben Masel on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    March 2, 2006

    Both Obama and Clinton made remarks at the time about "returning" to "fix it." Both became preoccupied shortly thereafter.

    Parent

    I suspect (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:37:15 AM EST
    that Mr. Penn, for having the audacity to not climb on the Obama band wagon will now be relegated to the discard pile along with other former Progressive heroes.

    He might enjoy keeping company with Joe and Valerie Wilson, Wes Clark, and Paul Krugman just to mention a few.


    I have a feeling (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    that when Obama falls, Penn will still be standing.  Penn actually demonstrably cares about individuals who are less fortunate.

    Parent
    sean will take an unpopular stand (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    and take the flack which is more than i have ever seen obama do.

    Parent
    Does anyone want Tom Cruise's (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MarkL on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    endorsement?
    I would like Cruise to endorse Obama---preferably while on Oprah's show.

    Penn has taken a lot of flack... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:57:32 AM EST
    ...over the years for his political activism, but he's one of the most committed activists on the left--not only in his antiwar activities, but also on behalf of Katrina victims and global human rights.

    That doesn't mean his non-endorsement carries a lot of weight, but rather shows that Penn is not going to jump on a political bandwagon out of expediency or popularity, for which I do admire him.


    Me too (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:15:06 PM EST
    He's not just  another Hollywood celebrity to me.  He has done more real work for his beliefs than most people in congress, including, dare I say, Obama.

    I like his realism.

    Parent

    has paul newmann said anything? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:03:27 PM EST
    that guy puts his money out there where it counts. just saying! i have heard recently that he is ill. i sure hope not as i do admire him.

    what's pissing me off (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM EST
    is seeing guys like Dukakis and whatnot lie about how Obama is likely to lose the blue collar vote, especially in the south and foundry area.

    If Dems could just honestly say:

    Yeah he has a problem he's got to confront, while still being himself, and overcome. He's got his workl cut out for him.

    What did Dukakis say? (none / 0) (#63)
    by MarkL on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:08:14 PM EST
    and wouldn't you know it the one (none / 0) (#66)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:10:39 PM EST
    openly saying "hey dems have problem" is hannity while the dem spiners pretend that isn't so. they are doing themselves and the obama campaign no good. in the houston chronicle this morning were two editorials about the obama campaign. it says that the obama supporters with their ugly behavior are hurting obama and the core democrats are gone. they are saying obama won't confront major problems in his campaign. i can't tell you the number of emails i read that were outraged about how obama supporters booed when hillary's name was mentioned yesterday and obama smirked. that's what these emails said.  

    if you have a problem and ignore it, it isn't going away.

    Parent

    On the Sauce? (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:08:45 PM EST

    What is Penn's drug budget these days?

    please don't slime with innuendo. (none / 0) (#68)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:11:55 PM EST
    it is unbecoming and quite rude. try something with more substance. if you disagree with him fine.

    Parent
    "Inhuman and Unconstitutional (none / 0) (#7)
    by creeper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:23:10 AM EST
    Voting Record"

    Penn must be referring to Obama's vote to fund the war in Iraq.

    One vote doesn't really establish a voting record.

    Sounds like he's channeling (none / 0) (#16)
    by riddlerandy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:33:36 AM EST
    Spicoli

    Penn's a radical (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:44:09 AM EST
    but, because so many believe, albeit unconsciously, that people in his position should be satisfied forever and ever and not give a sh*t about the rest of the world, he's supposed to shut up.

    Parent
    "inhuman and unconstitutional"? That's (none / 0) (#35)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:46:55 AM EST
    pretty silly. Stick to movies Sean.

    It could be Obama's support... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:03:13 PM EST
    ...of the PATRIOT Act renewal to which Penn was referring (or maybe the Meth Act rider to the Act that Obama co-sponsored in the Senate).

    Parent
    Obama is a bity Olympian in his way. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM EST
    he acts liek he's the best thing since Zeus.

    Parent
    What else do you call this war (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:16:23 PM EST
    that Obama continues to fund?

    Parent
    I'm sure Penn is a fine man... (none / 0) (#62)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:06:54 PM EST
    But he's not making sense to me here.

    First of all, if Obama has a "phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional" voting record, then I shudder to think of what most Senators (even Clinton!) have. For better or worse, Obama doesn't really have much of a record at all.

    Second, I'm not sure how one becomes "A greater man than he will ever be." Did he mean to say "A greater man than he has ever been?" Or is he just saying that Obama sucks? If it's the latter, then why is he excited about the hope Obama brings?

    No Penn or Portman, but 3 SDs today (none / 0) (#75)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    Just saw on the news that Obama got Waxman, and McDermott, along with another who I'm unfamiliar with, Burman?

    I'm very disappointed in McDermott. He will be on my ballot this fall.

    I am not a Sean Penn fan... (none / 0) (#77)
    by AX10 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:52:45 PM EST
    we do agree that Obama will not live up to the hype that surrounds him.  It's about time someone from Hollywood had some sense NOT to jump onto the Obama bandwagon.  Mr. Penn understands that hype is NOT enough to be truly successful.

    Explanation (none / 0) (#79)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    I disagree with Penn that Obama's voting record is "inhuman and unconstitutional"

    I think he's speaking of the war.  Obama hasn't taken a stand against the war since he entered Congress, and I suspect Penn considers the war unconstitutional.

    I am waiting on bated breath for (none / 0) (#83)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    a Sean Penn endorsement. Yeah, that will do the trick for me. Not. I like Sean, and I have seen how political he is but in hearing him speak I found no flow to it. Besides, no actor or celebrity is going to influence my vote. I hope I am not that shallow. I have my decisions made. There are 3 scenerios. Now we will wait and see.

    Sean Penn is not only a great actor but he (none / 0) (#87)
    by bridget on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:33:24 PM EST
    follows up his words with action. Travels the world and Who else went to New Orleans and pulled the drowning out of the water? Not the reporters who used this whole tragedy as a career maker.

    re Obamamania
    I wouldn't expect Obamamania to turn Penn into an embarrassing fanatic anyway - other celebrities incl. Halle Berry really lost it, however (please read articles cited later in this post for some eye openers).

    Obamamania in Hollywood did make me lose respect for some of my favorites who are old enough to know better: George Clooney esp. who wants to follow Obama anywhere and good old Susan Sarandan doesn't have a clue but is so excited: "I can't wait to see what he stands for."

    My alltime favorite Obama line was written by a Hollywood writer because I always thought exactly the same thing about Obama from Day one. Here is Joel Stein:

    "There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a better tailor."
    ("He's got Obamaphilia." Los Angeles Times, 2/2/08

    Must reads about Obamamania in Hollywood and overall are the following articles written in february:

    The political pied piper, Barbara Simpson

    Obamamania verges on obsession, Lisa Lerer 2/20

    I never respected the town in the first place. (none / 0) (#117)
    by AX10 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:16:05 AM EST
    They are fashionable liberals.
    But they are a business first.  They love tax breaks and half of them are tax cheats.
    Someone I know said that George Clooney is just a clown.  His Obama obsession shows just how ignorant he is.

    Parent
    As soon as Obama steals the nomination (none / 0) (#91)
    by Exeter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    He start selling out everyone in his base. First up will be the African American community: I guarantee you he will go Bill Cosby almost immediately.

    That's Insane (none / 0) (#96)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:28:50 PM EST
    The system was se up to allow ALL States an opportunity to have a say in who the nominee is. To short circuit that system is ridiculous. For the first time in recent memory, maybe all States will have a say.
    In the meantime, we should take the opportunity to hold both candidates feet to the fire and have them address issues that are important to us. THEY represent US, not the other way around!

    Once Again! (none / 0) (#99)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:39:40 PM EST
    With all due respect, the issue here is NOT Hillary Clinton, but Barack Obama.
    It is such a bogus defense tactic that when something is said to confront reality, that the subject is immediately changed, in this case to Hillary.
    Obama is the one who has proudly proclaimed his opposition to the war when it mattered not, and who since that time has done NOTHING to oppose it where it really matters, in the Senate.
    As far as other issues are concerned, at the risk of speculating, perhaps Sean Penn is referring to Obama's lack of action or opposition to the current administrations progressive dismantling of the Constitution. For someone who claims to be an expert on the Constitution and who taught Constitutional Law at Univ. of Chicago, his silence has been deplorable!

    Endorsements Are Nice But... (none / 0) (#101)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:42:21 PM EST
    Endorsements are nice but, when it boils down to it, It is MY vote, not some Politician or Actor. Perhaps Penn is telling us to WAKE-UP!

    could it be Penn talking about (none / 0) (#107)
    by Lisa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:50:39 PM EST
    It's not always clear what Obama's financial backers want, but it seems safe to conclude that his campaign contributors are not interested merely in clean government and political reform. And although Obama is by no means a mouthpiece for his funders, it appears that he's not entirely indifferent to their desires either.

    Consider the case of Illinois-based Exelon Corporation, the nation's leading nuclear-power-plant operator. The firm is Obama's fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects. The loan guarantees were called "one of the worst provisions in this massive piece of legislation" by Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste; the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.

    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275


    or this (none / 0) (#108)
    by Lisa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:51:57 PM EST
    ... it is also startling to see how quickly Obama's senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation's manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party). Obama's top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense). Obama immediately established a "leadership PAC," a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians' campaigns--and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles...

    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

    Parent

    a supporter of Hillary (none / 0) (#114)
    by glennmcgahee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:19:16 PM EST
    I recently listened to a blogger roundtable on NPR and was extremely impressed by a blogger that is black and not buying the Obama mania. His name is John McCann and he sent me a link to his blog . In it he does a podcast of Hillary's win in west Virginia and Obama's Rev. Wright problem. Give this guy some support and traffic and let him know we appreciate his wise words.
    http://blog.johnmccann.net/

    "Inhuman"??? Inhumane? (none / 0) (#116)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:01:30 PM EST