home

Sharp Differences

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:40:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

On the campaign trail this week, some sharp differences emerge (or reemerge) between candidates McCain and Obama.

Obama would require employers to expand family and medical leave, for example, while McCain said Thursday it should "be subject to negotiations between management and labor."

Negotiations between management and labor? What power do employees have to negotiate family leave rights? Does McCain assume that most employees belong to a union that can bargain collectively for them? This from the man who voted to block a Senate vote on the union-friendly Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that Obama co-sponsored.

On reproductive rights: [more ...]

"I will never back down in defending a woman's right to choose," Obama said at a "Women for Obama" breakfast fundraiser. ...

The two candidates differ sharply on abortion rights, which McCain has long opposed. Obama says McCain would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision affirming a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

"Senator McCain has made it abundantly clear that he wants to appoint justices like (John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito," Obama said Thursday. "And that he hopes to see Roe overturned."

Underscoring his point, Planned Parenthood endorsed Obama this week. Given the two men's differences on reproductive issues, Obama told the breakfast audience, the group's decision was hardly "a nail-biter."

On the Fair Pay Restoration Act, a necessary piece of legislation discussed at greater length here:

Obama cited recent Senate legislation designed to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting the time workers have to file pay discrimination lawsuits. Obama said McCain "thinks the Supreme Court got it right."

"He suggested that the reason women don't have equal pay isn't discrimination on the job - it's because they need more education and training," Obama said, eliciting groans from the audience.

Obama backed the Senate legislation that would have made it easier for women to sue their employers for pay discrimination. McCain opposed it, saying at the time: "I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation ... opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems."

McCain, who calls himself a "proud conservative," takes a much more hands-off approach to most regulatory issue, making it easy for opponents to accuse him of not using the government's powers to help struggling women. They point, for example, to his vote against a Senate amendment that would have required insurance companies to cover birth control products. Many insurers cover products such as Viagra, prompting cries of unfair treatment by some women's groups.

How does McCain respond?

Asked about women in an interview this week, McCain said he wants to "make sure that any barriers to their advancement are eliminated."

And what would McCain do to attain that goal? Cut taxes? Extend the fighting in Iraq? If you mean it, Senator McCain, why not support legislation that would help accomplish that goal? Oh, that's right, big business opposes it, and McCain is the candidate of big business.

< Children Left Behind | Thursday Night TV >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sharp Differences | 201 comments (201 topical)
    If only I could believe (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    Obama was far better.

    Being a little bit better isn't going to cut it.

    Not after Bush.

    TChris, (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    you can argue sharp differences.

    I'm not seeing it.

    [ Parent ]

    Then I question your eyesight (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:05:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I do wear glasses. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:10:38 PM EST
    I think my eyesight is just fine, as I watch McCain move ever so slowly toward Obama's positions, as Obama moves toward McCain's.

    And it's only July.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain has been (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:42:54 PM EST
    moving to the Right.  He has changed his position on:

      1.  Oil drilling.
      2.  Immigration.
      3.  Bush's tax cuts.

    And, he is talking about "isolating" Iran--more saber-rattling, get-tough, neocon foreign policy.  McCain is even more likely to get in a war with Iran than Bush.....McCain's critique of Bush's Iraq policy was that Bush wasn't bellicose enough;  McCain says he would invade Iraq all over again, even knowing there were no WMDs.

    [ Parent ]

    Yawn. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:47:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    War with Iran (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:03:27 PM EST
    does concern me....The more one ratchets up the rhetoric, the closer we get to war.

    I am currently reading the newest book on the Cuban Missile Crisis, One Minute to Midnight, which reveals new info on the Soviets having positioned Cruise missiles with nuclear, Hiroshima-sized warheads just outside of Guantanamo.  The hawks here in the U.S. had no knowledge of the Cruise missiles and were planning a first strike on the long range missile sites in Cuba, to be followed by an immediate invasion of Cuba by the Marines and the First Infantry Division.  Guess what, the first strike would have failed to get the Cruise missiles, which would have--at minimum--been used on Guantanamo and the invading Marines and soldiers.....A first strike would have ensured a nuclear war....

    Thank God the doves prevailed and JFK and Bobby overruled Curtis LeMay.

    Now, we are zoning in on another confrontation, and McCain is the guy to make the call?.....Republican Senator Thad Cochran said he was not fit--too much of a hothead.....

    It does make a difference.....  

    [ Parent ]

    Have you read Obama's latest (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:48:20 PM EST
    position on Iran?

    "Iran is a great threat. We have to make sure we are working with our allies to apply tightened pressure on Iran," the Illinois senator said.

    [ Parent ]

    "Tightened pressure" (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:31:36 PM EST
    does not mean bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb Iran.

    And it does not mean "isolate," which sounds like the act-of-war blockade that Tom DeLay told Tweety testerday that he preferred.

    [ Parent ]

    Can you acknowledge (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:34:17 PM EST
    that if Hillary had said "Iran is a great threat" during the primaries, the pro-Obama blogs would have collectively freaked out?

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (3.00 / 2) (#153)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:39:35 PM EST
    but why do you bring up Hillary?   Aren't we past that yet?

    Apparently not....I do think that much of the anti-Obama sentiment is driven by the hope that the superdelegates will wake up, change their minds, and put Hillary over the top at the convention.  The only problem....you've got to trash Obama so his poll numbers go down enough to get the superdelegates attention.

    Sabotage....

    [ Parent ]

    I bring it up (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:41:57 PM EST
    because those unfair attacks on Hillary are the reason that Hillary's supporters go nuts when Obama says the same kind of stuff and everyone just shrugs.  It's proof that the outrage from the primaries was completely phony and everyone knew it.

    [ Parent ]
    What I did not like (none / 0) (#166)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:46:47 PM EST
    was Hillary's talk of "obliterating" Iran with nukes....She knew the "massive retaliation" liturgy and yet sensationlaized her position on the eve of a primary.  And MAD ain't such a great thing--it almost didn't work....Blind luck more than anything else may have saved us in October 1962.

    [ Parent ]
    let'snot just "mis quote" her answer (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:55:08 PM EST
    and leave out the question she was answering at the sme time.

    Clinton said "obliterate"  she didn't say "obliterate with nukes".  And the question she was answering was what her response would be to Iran attacking another country "with nukes".

    She gave the right answer.  Iran needs to know exactly what would happen should they decide to attack another country with "nukes"

    [ Parent ]

    She made it clear she was talking about (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:01:48 PM EST
    nukes....And she put us into a new policy of MAD vis-a-vis the Arab nations--off the cuff on the eve of the primary...

    The term of art "massive retaliation" was used during MAD and recited as if it were the Nicene Creed.   She not only invoked MAD in a situation in which it has never officially applied (Israel has its own nukes), she violated the MAD policy--to sound tough.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:07:34 PM EST
    That's a "new policy" regarding what we would do if Iran nuked Israel?  What do you think the old policy was?  Do you realize Obama agreed with the policy in everything except word choice?

    [ Parent ]
    I do not believe (none / 0) (#193)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:10:41 PM EST
    there was a stated "old" policy of nuclear retaliation....

    The idea is to leave open a some ambiguity...so, the whole world doesn't freak out....

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:21:23 PM EST
    You think not only that there is ambiguity concerning what we would do if Iran nuked Israel, but that it is good for there to be ambiguity about what we would do?

    You don't seem to understand the idea of deterrence very well.  What would you think of the argument that we ought to leave some ambiguity as to what would happen if you murdered someone else, so that the whole country doesn't freak out?  Somehow, I suspect making it clear that killing someone gets you life in prison deters more murders than leaving some ambiguity would.

    Anyway, this sort of ridiculous demonization of Hillary is what created the resentment you see on display here.  Somehow, it's no problem at all for Obama to call Iran a great threat, but Hillary's words are so awful that they actually encouraged Iran to build nukes (an incomprehensible argument if I ever heard one).  Somehow, if the statements were reversed, Hillary would still be the evil one and Obama would still be the good one, and everyone knows this.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama said the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    All he left out was the word "obliterate."

    [ Parent ]
    When you talk about (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:04:54 PM EST
    or refer to nukes, language makes a difference.  You do not abandon the words everyone has used for more than a generation just to sound more tough....

    Obama said something along the lines of a "strong response." ....The idea is to leave a little amgiguity....Hillary left none to sound tough....Iran was incentivized to get its own nukes toot sweet....Wonderful.

    [ Parent ]

    It is a significant change from his (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:36:53 PM EST
    earlier statements that they are not a threat and that he would sit down with them. It is also similar to our current policy.

    [ Parent ]
    When did he say they were (none / 0) (#154)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:40:14 PM EST
    "not a threat?"  I never heard him say that....

    [ Parent ]
    Google is your friend (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:57:32 PM EST
    Obama: Iran is not a threat

    OTOH:

    Obama: Iran is a "grave threat"

    We report, you decide.

    [ Parent ]

    He did several times. Look it up. (none / 0) (#164)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:46:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You missed it. (none / 0) (#165)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:46:18 PM EST
    Here

    [ Parent ]
    "Serious threat to us (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:50:09 PM EST
    like the Soviet Union..." is what he said....And that is undisputedly true.....He was comparing the situation with Iran to the Cuban Missile Crisis and yet still JFK talked to Khruschev.

     

    [ Parent ]

    USSR was a great threat. (none / 0) (#174)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:55:20 PM EST
    In this instance he said Iran wasn't. He said they spent too little on a military budget for us to seriously worry about. He has once again significantly changed his position. His statements now are similar to our current policy.

    [ Parent ]
    I never said anything about bomb (none / 0) (#177)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:56:48 PM EST
    bomb bomb

    [ Parent ]
    There were no Curise Missles (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by mrjerbub on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:50:10 PM EST
    in the 60's. Don't believe everything you read. Relax. By all means, don't vote for John McCain. I'm not going to. You shouldn't either. But seriously. No one is going to war with Iran. Even that wacky due in charge there...what's his name Amadanutjob or whatever, he knows the only thing that might happen is Israel will try to bomb some places and we'll all be paying $9.00 bucks a gallon for gas. I think you have a better chance of Obama doing something stupid than 'Ol Johnny Boy. I don't think either are qualified to be POTUS. IMH uninformed O. Chill.

    [ Parent ]
    Cruise Missile (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:26:46 PM EST
    Check this out.  And this.

    And this.

    Moreover, in July 1960, the U.S. could launch 1,000-mile (1,600 km)-range Polaris SLBMs from submerged submarines[10], while the Soviet submarine fleet had only some 100 short range V-1-type cruise missiles which could be launched only from submarines that surfaced and lost their hidden submerged status.



    [ Parent ]
    I stand corrected. (none / 0) (#163)
    by mrjerbub on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:46:01 PM EST
    Still the source is Mr. Dobbs. I believed I mentioned that my opinion was "uninformed". Thanx for informing me. I still don't believe it.

    [ Parent ]
    Why do you doubt Dobbs (none / 0) (#176)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:56:45 PM EST
    The reviews of his book are favorable--I haven't heard of any negative reviews.....Does he have a tarnished past?

    [ Parent ]
    Well, first of all Curise Missles, in the parlance (none / 0) (#192)
    by mrjerbub on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:09:28 PM EST
    of our times, (If I may quote Lebowski) refers to a specific type of stand off weapon not introduced until the 70's and not deployed until the 80's. I suppose you could say the V2 from WWII was a cruise missle. I should have not challenged your terminology. Cruise Missles are a U.S. Navel/Air Force weapon. Maybe I was looking for Cruise "type" Missle. Please. I surrender.

    [ Parent ]
    I am not criticizing (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:12:28 PM EST
    If Dobbs is washed up or unreliable (perhaps on some other point), I would like to know, so I can discontinue reading his book.  

    [ Parent ]
    I have no good or bad (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by mrjerbub on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:26:37 PM EST
    information on Mr. Dobbs. I have not read the book you're talking about. I mentioned him only because he was the single source, other than Wiki, which anybody can edit. Since I was in Jr. High at the time of said crisis, I knew there was no mention of the term Cruise Missle until almost 20 years later. Please forgive me and read whomever you want.

    [ Parent ]
    I yawn at your yawn. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:01:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah. (none / 0) (#121)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:09:34 PM EST
    You're not convincing me.

    I don't have to convince you.

    By all means, keep yawning.

    [ Parent ]

    At this rate (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:38:34 PM EST
    we should at least both get a good nap.

    [ Parent ]
    Barack said he'd reinvade Iraq (none / 0) (#160)
    by Lysis on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:44:12 PM EST
    If it turned out there was a terrorist presence there.  That was a debate gaffe that he got a free pass on. Well, one of many.  

    [ Parent ]
    I recall him saying that (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:54:52 PM EST
    he would leave troops there to combat al Qaeda, if necessary....I doubt he said re-invade....The context sounded like sending in a limited force for the express mission of taking out camps....like a few Rangers and Special Forces...not a re-occupation of the country...

    [ Parent ]
    riiiight (4.80 / 10) (#27)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    "I will never back down in defending a woman's right to choose,"

    but let's make sure it's not because they're just feeling blue.

    [ Parent ]

    But what does Obamas "require" mean? (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by lambertstrether on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:19:07 PM EST
    It means, just as McCain said:

    "be subject to negotiations between management and labor."

    just that Obama is handling the negotiations for us.

    How can anybody believe he'll do a good job?

    And then, just as with FISA, we'll get the chorus of "Oh, that's the politics of it. It was the best he could do..."

    [ Parent ]

    Sadly, I can't take (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:02:06 PM EST
    Obama at his word. Especially when he's addressing women or our issues. Our issues were noticeably absent from his speeches and his remarks in debates, iirc. Heard "race, religion and region" often enough, but not gender. And then there's other issues like his interaction with women. "Sweetie" comes to mind . . .

    Actually, that's true (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:29:25 PM EST
    The only time he talks about 'women's issues' is when he is in front of a whole room of 'em.

    [ Parent ]
    But, couldn't someone (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by dk on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:03:45 PM EST
    argue that Obama is the candidate of big business too after the FISA vote?  

    I think it's great and all to compare the candidate's actual records, and their statements (though only if you include the whole range..for example, Obama's statement last night should be balanced with his "mental distressed" statements from last week).  But to draw simplistic conclusions such as "McCain is the candidate of big business" from not too much evidence just undermines what you are trying to achieve, IMHO.

    It 'should' be a no-brainer to compare (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:06:26 PM EST
    the two, but Obama doesn't make it easy these days . . .

    [ Parent ]
    That's definitely true. (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by dk on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:31:05 PM EST
    But, my point was also that bloggers lose credibility when they are too simplistic in drawing their conclusions.  I mean, Obama just voted to grant immunity to some very large businesses just yesterday.  And he certainly takes in a lot of campaign money from big business.  And, let's not forget the energy bill vote.

    So, to build up a post of quotes and climax with the statement "McCain is the candidate of big business" just doesn't cut it for me.  

    And, particularly on the issue of women's reproductive rights and equal pay, to pick and choose quotes that don't present, in my opinion, a full picture of either candidate's comprehensive record, isn't too convincing to me at least.  

    McCain is for VERY limited government.  Definitely.  Obama seems to be for some kind of government/big business/establishment-religion triumverate.  I think if you really fleshed out each candidate's full records, that's probably what you'd find.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree. This, in my judgment (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:51:30 PM EST
    does not sufficiently reflect the candidates' judgment.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:09:14 PM EST
    I don't see much reason for progressives to be unhappy with Obama on labor issues, aside from random crap like calling a labor 527 a "special interest" in Iowa.

    Republicans, of course, hate organized labor with a passion.  Unless their name is Arlen Specter.  Or the union is called Solidarity.

    Since I happen to think a strong labor movement is the key to just about everything else progressives want, this is a pretty solid reason why I'm a partisan Democrat.

    What I would like from Candidate Obama is for him to use his rhetorical gifts to reclaim some of the territory we've been losing in the war of words over union issues since Reagan's election.  The Right has successful branded unions as corrupt enterprises that do nothing but drag on productivity.  Passing the Employee Free Choice Act would be great, but gaining some ground in the battle of public opinion would be great too.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:14:26 PM EST
    aside from random crap like calling a labor 527 a "special interest" in Iowa.

    I didn't hear him complaining when they were spending big bucks advertising for him in places like Ohio . . . against Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:14:48 PM EST
    Live in Michigan.

    Ford has rolled out some ugly new bus-like thing that the local (oldest running Ford dealership in MI) parked downtown today with balloons and everything.

    Mileage: 16 city, 22 highway.

    Are you kidding me?

    But unions are to blame (they partly share) for the downturn.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:16:37 PM EST
    I am a native Detroiter, which probably accounts for my strong pro-union tendencies.  But I will never own a Ford!

    [ Parent ]
    Clueless. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:26:13 PM EST
    Absolutely clueless.

    I did read a terrible story about a Japanese guy who was so overworked at Toyota that his death was blamed on it: 80 hours of overtime a month.

    The family got a settlement from Toyota after fighting for it.

    [ Parent ]

    My brother always said about Ford. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:43:18 PM EST
    Fix Or Repair Daily.  heh

    [ Parent ]
    Something funny/sad (none / 0) (#48)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    GM is the official sponsor of cars for the "green" Dem convention. Volunteer drivers are schlepping VIPs around in hybrids. The Chevy Malibu hybrid, mostly.

    There's a brochure we're supposed to give the VIPs, promoting the car. It has a table that shows gas mileage.

    The Chevy Malibu hybrid gets 32 mpg.

    The Chevy Malibu non-hybrid gets 30 mpg.

    And the hybrid costs $3,000 more.

    [ Parent ]

    I am basically pro-union (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:53:26 PM EST
    though I'm now old enough to see the problems with unions AND with being pro-business.  

    I'd like to see more "share the wealth" business models.  It's like, Bill Gates became a billionaire but he created a lot of millionaires among the people that worked for him.  He shared the wealth.  A lot of "new economy" companies have done this, while others have not.  

    Costco is a "share the wealth" company.  Wal-Mart is not.  

    I appreciate the unions because I live in a union town and I worked in a union industry.  But if we had sufficient "share the wealth" companies, would we really need unions?  (No.  I can answer that myself.)  The reason unions exist is because there are too many greedy companies who think that money should only flow to the top and they shouldn't have to "share the wealth" with those below them.  

    One of the problems with being "pro-union" is that the deals that are often struck are "anti-business" -- so there is kind of a tug-a-war being fought there.  If benefits for workers are so onerous that it leads to a company's bankruptcy, then no one really profits.  

    Anyway, I'm still pro-union but I'm also pro-business because without businesses, we have no need for unions.  There need to be BOTH to have a good country.  (And I sure would like to see more "share the wealth" companies in the USA.)

    I'm troubled by Obama's ideas of taxing companies more.  If companies are taxed more, they'll often cut jobs or move them somewhere else where the taxes are more advantageous.  We need to be careful about taxing companies.  Sometimes "pass thru" taxes are best (Tax the companies less but tax the employees more) because the companies stay in the USA and pay better because of the taxes their employees have to pay.  If you study the states in the USA and their tax policies, you can learn a bit about how business taxes affect businesses.  Since all 50 states operate separately, it can serve as a "mini experiment" in taxation.    

    [ Parent ]

    During the Ohio race (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:16:54 PM EST
    when the press and everyone was fighting over Hillary's NAFTA position, Obama stated that America "needs to move away from a blue collar economy to a white collar economy." I was stunned that he could make a statement like that on television.

    He lost Ohio because of that statement. He also lost Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky because of that and other comments like it.

    [ Parent ]

    The USA doesn't need to move (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:43:04 PM EST
    from blue collar to white collar...

    What they need is fairer "profit sharing."  We need CEO's who don't insist on getting millions of dollars per year while the average worker barely earns minimum wage.  

    I pointed out Costco:  The Costco CEO makes something like $300,000 a year.  Average workers make around $15 an hour.  The CEO makes less than most CEOs (though he owns a lot of stock).  The workers make more than most retail workers.  I don't know the details of either's total compensation or perks.  I do know that the Costco CEO once said that he thought it was ridiculous for a CEO to make more than twice what a district manager makes -- so I assume he makes that much money.

    More companies ought to think this way.  Why should the CEO make 20 million dollars a year if the average worker is making 12 thousand dollars a year?  It doesn't make sense.  If the company can't afford to pay workers better, they can't afford to pay the CEO that much money.  

    Anyway...  I don't trust Obama a whole lot since he backed out on FISA and he's proven that he's only moving his lips -- I don't believe that he means much of what he says.  

    I also can't count John McCain out because I don't know what the heck McCain is thinking.  Maybe he thinks he's losing so he's not putting much into this or maybe he hasn't asked anyone he thinks is sharp in economics for advice...  I just don't know what to think anymore.  

    This has to be the WORST presidential election I remember in my lifetime.    

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's rhetorical gifts... (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by lambertstrether on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:24:16 PM EST
    Again, FISA.

    If Obama, a professor of Constitutional law, and the presumptive nominee, that is, the leader of the Democratic Party, doesn't use his rhetorical gifts on behalf of the Fourth Amendment, against a very unpopular law, and against even more unpopular corporations -- who do you know that likes the telcos? -- what in the name of sweet suffering Jeebus makes you think Obama's going to roll back Reagan's assault on the unions?

    Sure, I know everbody would "like" that, but if my mother had wheels, she'd be a teacart. Ya know?

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:15:28 PM EST
    More than 60 million Americans will vote for John McCain in November.

    If you can't imagine what makes a single one of them tick, that's on you, not them.  I was raised to believe that liberals were the open-minded ones, but in my experience, we seem to have a real blind spot for understanding differing opinions as something other than stupid or uninformed.  This, in turn, makes it much harder for us to persuade those who differ.

    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:34:41 PM EST
    If you can't imagine what makes a single one of them tick, that's on you, not them.

    That's on Obama, isn't it?

    He listening to too many voices.

    Hillary has her own voice.  It's surprising that some people don't get that.

    [ Parent ]

    He's (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:59:33 PM EST
    not Bob Dole. Bob Dole ran against a very popular president up for reelection. McCain does have the Bush albatross but Obama has the albatross of agreeing the craven democratic leadership. Kind of cancels each other out on that issue.

    [ Parent ]
    I have to disagree (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:03:42 PM EST
    that the media is paying attention to McCain.  In the last few days he has joked about killing Iranians by exporting cigarettes to Iran, called social security a disgrace, had his top economic advisor call America a nation of whiners and dismiss the economic downturn as a "mental recession."  When asked about the discrepancy in viagra/birth control coverage by insurance companies, he said he didn't know what his opinion on it was.  The media has largely given him a pass on all of these things.  Remember the 2 week Rev Wright-a-thon?  The media is still looking the other way when it comes to McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:08:59 PM EST
    expect that to last. McCain is the original "straight talker" and "media darling" if ever there was one. It's probably only going to become more obvious after the conventions.

    [ Parent ]
    Who are you? (none / 0) (#29)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:43:25 PM EST
    And what have you done with Steve M?  It's nice to hear you understanding other sides for a change. :)

    [ Parent ]
    Believe me (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:49:05 PM EST
    I don't always understand the other side, but I always try.

    It has been sort of frustrating to drag the pro-Obama arguments out of some of you over the course of this campaign.  Often it seems to boil down to me not understanding his awesomeness.  But I love it when I can hear people articulate actual feelings and thought processes as opposed to talking points.

    Back in the day MyDD used to let a handpicked set of candidate supporters post weekly diaries on the front page about their candidate, and they were really high-quality and great for understanding what people liked about their candidate.  Recall that I didn't start out this election as a Hillary supporter.

    [ Parent ]

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:00:46 PM EST
    that it's a fatal flaw of many Dems that they DON'T try to understand why people vote for the GOP. They seem to think that everyone thinks the same way they do and they can't possibly see how someone could vote for a party as awful as the GOP. A lot of it is not issue based, it's culturally based. We have too many Adlai Stevesons running for Pres and not enough Bill Clintons.

    [ Parent ]
    No. (none / 0) (#45)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:55:28 PM EST
    inconsistencies and irrationalities

    Obama is inconsistent.

    That's all that matters to me.

    [ Parent ]

    No. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:15:41 PM EST
    You have plenty of blogs that feed your need.

    Go there.

    I hope (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by TChris on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:22:04 PM EST
    you realize that this blog supports Obama.  Obama fans are quite welcome here.  Please don't tell them to go elsewhere.

    [ Parent ]
    If all they're looking for (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:49:55 PM EST
    is blind Obamadoration, then it's only fair to let them know thy aren't going to be happy here.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama supporters here (none / 0) (#20)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:29:15 PM EST
    only make me less inclined to vote for him.

    We still are allowed to express our very realy concerns about Obama, however.

    So y'all can keep trying to convince us.

    [ Parent ]

    I wouldn't dream of trying to convince you (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:47:31 PM EST
    That's a job for Sisyphus.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:04:59 PM EST
    you should think about making such posts, instead of just ordering other people to make them.

    Your posts, at least the ones that don't poke pointy sticks at Clinton supporters, all seem to be like "McSame sux, times infinity."  While it might be fun to have a thread where we all sit around and type stuff like that, I suspect it would get old.  A coherent argument offers much more basis for discussion.

    [ Parent ]

    "Pointy Sticks" (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:23:43 PM EST
    and "cleanup" with reference to a troll....That is using lingo I've only heard at RedState....Did you post there?..... I know Flyerhawk does....

    [ Parent ]
    Once upon a time (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:29:58 PM EST
    They ultimately got too nutty for me.  Flyerhawk, as we've all seen, has a remarkable pain threshold.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry Liberator that this blog (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:02:14 PM EST
    does not WORSHIP Obama as so many on the left do. I see very little Barack bashing here; certainly nothing close to the way Hillay was assaulted by so many sites. It seems the Obama fans expect 100% falling in line with no dissent allowed. As for this "devotion" you write of- are you as equally outraged by the DEVOTION of most MSM, led by MSNBC,to elect Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    Do you see any space at all (none / 0) (#61)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:07:21 PM EST
    between all Obamadoration all the time and "bashing" Obama?

    Because surprise, you're in that space.

    [ Parent ]

    Meh. (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:46:28 PM EST
    We're up a creek if he DOES win.

    [ Parent ]
    Why don't you join us (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:05:30 PM EST
    on the issues you disagree with him on instead of trying to force all of us to agree on every issue...  Cuz we are not gonna agree.  

    Many of us were originally Hillary supporters because we didn't agree with Obama from the start.  Many of us still don't agree with Obama.  Many of us are part of the flock that's thinking about hightailing it to another pasture.  

    Coming over here and shaking a stick isn't gonna work.  We're adults.

    Since you obviously weren't graced with "original Herding dog" genes, perhaps you could try to find a gentler way to herd us into the fold?  Most of us aren't sheep either.    

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry sweetie! ;) (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:18:16 PM EST


    I will continue (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:20:47 PM EST
    to criticize Obama, because I don't like what he says.

    I'm a democrat.  When he starts acting like one, he'll have my support.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:40:04 PM EST
    "Senator McCain has made it abundantly clear that he wants to appoint justices like (John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito," Obama said Thursday.

    Really. And just who did Obama think was hunky dory to want to vote onto the bench until he was told it wasn't good for his Presidential aspirations?  Hmmm......let me think....it will come to me eventually.

    Hi pot.  Meet kettle.

    There's a difference (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:47:22 PM EST
    Between voting to confirm a justice (which Obama did not, by the way) and having that justice as your first choice for a SCOTUS appointment.  Lots of republicans voted to confirm Ginsberg and Breyer, but no one expected Bush to name more like them, did they?  You can't seriously be arguing that Obama would appoint another Alito.

    [ Parent ]
    I did not say he voted for Roberts (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:58:46 PM EST
    I said he was GOING to vote for Roberts until he was told it wasn't politically expedient.  You missed the point - he thought Roberts was ok to put on the bench.

    Add that to his numerous flip flops in the last month alone, and frankly, it proves Obama can't be trusted on any position.

    [ Parent ]

    But be honest (3.50 / 4) (#58)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    But you thought that before this month, and before the McCain camp started pushing the "flip flop" narrative.  The flip flop thing didn't change your mind, it just changed your talking points.

    And because it's a vague talking point, you can use it as an excuse to argue almost anything about a candidate.  I just thought you stepped over the line when you seemed to argue that Obama would appoint another Roberts or Alito.

    It's kinda like saying Obama is a flip-flopper, so that means you can't be sure he won't engage in human sacrifice and satan worship.  Some things just don't make sense.

    [ Parent ]

    Search and research here, then type (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:25:07 PM EST
    as you then would know that this concern about Obama's near-vote for Roberts has been discussed here for a long time, throughout the primaries.

    You have not been a regular here until recently, but you can catch up before speaking up -- and speaking ill.

    [ Parent ]

    Read thread first (none / 0) (#88)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:37:19 PM EST
    Before typing sneering attacks.  My point (really: it's like three messages up) was that Obama would not appoint another Alito.  You understand the difference between voting to confirm and appointment, right?

    Seriously: is it possible for you guys to argue without flinging insults around?

    [ Parent ]

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:43:21 PM EST
    My point (really: it's like three messages up) was that Obama would not appoint another Alito.  You understand the difference between voting to confirm and appointment, right?

    Really?  How do you know?  Because he said so?  Sorry, we've seen numerous times that this doesn't really mean anything.

    [ Parent ]

    I read this here, where is the proof? (none / 0) (#105)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:55:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    On Obama's Website n/t (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:01:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hmm reading is fundamental (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    First, I did find what you are talking about.  But you are just plain wrong, because plainly you did not read what he wrote.  He siad he thought that he was an amazing lawyer, with an awesome mind, who was qualified to be on the court for 95% of cases, the problem was the 5% that was not okay.  In fact he writes, "The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak"

    Here is the meat of his statement, it can be found at obama.senate.gov (and not on his website):

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

    The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

    ___

    It angers me to attack someone based on factually incorrect information.  Research it for yourself.  There are plenty of real reasons to not like Obama, this is not one of them

    [ Parent ]

    It IS on his Website (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    or it was. Perhaps he scrubbed it. I'm not giving him the click.

    It was in a WaPo article, and it was discussed here on TalkLeft

       It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

        And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.



    [ Parent ]
    You owe echin an apology (none / 0) (#161)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:44:26 PM EST
    The Washington post, August 27, 2007

    "Sen. Barack Obama had hired Pete Rouse for just such a moment.

    It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

    A relative newcomer to the national scene, Barack Obama has assembled a team composed of seasoned campaign hands, confidants from his law school days and insiders who had worked with former Senate Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle.

    And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no."

    [ Parent ]

    No I do not (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:58:25 PM EST
    Again reading is a good thing.  Here is the only line from a three page story on Justice Roberts, "Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds."  Is he saying in this quote that he supports his ideas? No.  Is he saying that he supports Roberts? no.  What he was saying is that he was qualified.   And though ideologically he disagrees with him (the important point), he would not want someone voting against his Supreme court choice based on ideology.  He then took the advice of an experienced washington insider, and voted against Roberts.  He then elaborated on how he came to that decision (see the post above).   Taking this information with HIS WORDS and ACTIONS, you can see that your argument HOLDS NO WATER.

    I go with the words and the actions of the person.  Maybe you should start doing the same.  Instead you consistently choosing the argument that suits your interests.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, you do. (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:16:23 PM EST
    Here is what you asked for proof of:

    I said he was GOING to vote for Roberts until he was told it wasn't politically expedient.  You missed the point - he thought Roberts was ok to put on the bench.

    As the WaPo article clearly shows beyond a shadow of a doubt, he WAS going to vote for Roberts until he was told it was not politically expedient.

    I go with the truth, not the words and actions of a person who is known to be a craven liar who does not keep his word.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama voted against Roberts (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:47:34 PM EST
    and Alito.  If one wants to look at action, that speaks volumes....

    [ Parent ]
    It took action to get him (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:49:37 PM EST
    to vote against Roberts. Does that speak volumes also?

    [ Parent ]
    Feingold actually voted for Roberts (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:16:58 PM EST
    That doesn't make him a pro-life toady....

    [ Parent ]
    And if Feingold were the nominee (none / 0) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:44:45 PM EST
    I might not hold his vote against him, because of his record and rhetoric that cuts pro-choice.

    Obama -- esp. on rhetoric -- not so much.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought Obama skeptics (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM EST
    eschewed his rhetoric as mere words..... He should get credit for his vote....

    If you measure rhetoric, why reject only his pro-choice rhetoric and accept his  supposedly anti-choice rhetoric?  Seems like a  heads-I-win, tails-you-lose scenario.

    Has Obama ever voted in favor of an anti-choice bill?  Ever?  Has Obama voted the pro-choice position?

    McCain is close to a 100% anti-choice record.

    [ Parent ]

    Fortunately, I'm not responsible for (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:20:47 PM EST
    what you think Obama skeptics say or think or feel or whatever.

    Obama's dismissal of 'mental distress' as one of the bases for which a third-trimester abortion is allowable is frightening.  Not just his opinion, but the way he discussed in the original report and later, after he got flack for it.  The just feeling 'blue' comment truly bordered on snark.  And sorry, you don't get to snark about my constitutional rights, buddy.  I can't tell if he was just reacting badly to being questioned (which he's done in several contexts) or truly believes the right-wing frame on 3rd trimester abortion that there are hordes of careless women who would get a late stage abortion to chirp themselves up just 'cuz they're feeling down, the same way they might go on a shopping spree for new shoes.

    Even without the mental distress comment, the fact that he has repeatedly included the clergy as part of the 'consultation' process when discussing a woman's right to choose is repellant.  His lecturing the pro-choice community on their lack of understanding of the deeper 'moral' issues on abortion fits right into a plausible reading of his attitude toward women's right to choose as at best condescending and at worst just more patriarchal bullsh*t.  That's a right-wing frame, too.  For those who think history just started a few years ago, the phrases 'abortion on demand' and 'using abortion as birth control' are longstanding anti-choice rhetoric.

    Obama's path to a Senatorship started in one of the most liberal districts in the country, in a Democratic-machine city.  His votes on abortion (aside from the 'present' and wrong button ones) could easily be not from principled belief in the right itself but just plain party-line votes.  Fast track to nowhere without them.  Or they could be real belief.

    So the 100% vote record is an important factor, but it's just the start.  All he's done is vote.  He's never risked political capital for a pro-choice cause.  Now he's making statements that undermine his voting record.  To me, that makes it more likely that his pro-choice voting record is due to political opportunism than principle.

    And reproductive rights are to me what FISA is to the netroots.  (more, really, since you'll not catch me taking a black eye on abortion and then licking the hand that punched me).  Maybe he really is solid on abortion.  Maybe he's not.  And any maybe is too much maybe for me.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#107)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:56:35 PM EST
    Has Obama ever voted in favor of an anti-choice bill?  Ever?  Has Obama voted the pro-choice position?

    Maybe when he didn't vote "present" or just not show up or voted the wrong way.

    [ Parent ]

    I didn't realize he was running 4 pres (none / 0) (#189)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:06:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And Obama agreed with Thomas and Scalia (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:01:28 PM EST
    with what Obama said about abortion.

    What I am hearing from him suggests that he is more likely to seek changes in Roe v. Wade than McCain, as the latter has less incentive to do so.  The paradoxes of politics.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:07:29 PM EST
    McCain