Why does "The Nation" hate Obama?

I dunno. I pick and choose from among Sirota's enthusiasms and opinions.

I did not notice that Obama never referenced the Democratic party maybe because I read rather than heard this particular speech. But that certainly highlights why I have reservations about him. The speech was full of "let's be nice and reach out to people who don't share our opinions because they may have a point too" crap. I heard a commentator say the other day about another speech of his that it could easily be either a Republican or Democrat making the speech. In a climate where the policies and priorities of the Republicans have been debunked and repudiated at the polls and have plummeting support from the electorate, I think that's a huge mistake. One of my biggest problems with Obama is his timidity about standing up powerfully for a particular set of positions clearly labeled "Democratic." Without that it's going to be a struggle to rebuild a party that's been decimated by years of having its hands slapped away when it tried to "reach out" while the Republicans were in power. The Republicans didn't even let the Democrats in the room, let alone have a voice. To now put out the "let's share equally" stuff to me is tantamount to being a doormat.

Obama needs to be a LOT more "partisan" — call it that if you must — for me to get excited. The speeches he's making now would be much more suited for a position such as U.N. ambassador.

Good to see even a veiled attempt at bigotry is alive and well and living in Ohio. Thankfully, I'm never surprised by this shit. At least you have the courage to be an overt bigot instead of covert one. Glad you have an 8th grade education, ignoramus.

Stupidity and gullibility know no boundaries. Good luck with that.

I have never said Obama was a Muslim. Secondly Black Muslims/ NOI are not true Muslims and have generally been repudiated by those that truly are practicing Muslims. That said I have never insinuated that Obama was a Black Muslim I could care less about how you perceive me. I do think a candidate’s connections deserve and get scrutiny. Those that can't stand up to the scrutiny fall by the wayside. Should Obama be our candidate in November he will endure much more than a review of the websites of organizations with which he has chosen to affiliate himself. As for you and any others who feel a bit thin skinned regarding any perceived scrutiny of their candidate should read this from Paul Krugman in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?em&ex=1202965200&en=2dbd245441378ac1&ei=5087%0A%0A

I read Krugman. He's not even close to being objective with respect to the Democratic nominee.   He's HRC's personal Chris Myers. Sorry, they're about as credible as you.

He can't be credible because there's no semblance of objectivity, especially in his latest hit piece. And by the way, in case you glossed over it, or conveniently ignored it, I took Chris Meyers to task for being the same way with Obama. You see, that is what objectivity is. You might want to try it some time.

and maturity to engage in name calling. Perhaps you could just hold your breath until you really are blue. I wonder what you will do after Obama loses Ohio? Later in life you wll realize that not everyone will agree with your point of view and that does not make them wrong or lacking in objectivity. By the way since you are the expert on all things Obama why does the "Facts" section of his website debunk the myth of his middle name being Mohhammed by stating "His middle name is not Mohammed his middle name is not Mohammed" like some sort of cult chant but never indicates his middle nmae is Hussein? I am sure you have an objective answer.

Pot meet kettle. Did you not call me "Obamaite", BrightLight? Keep spitting in the wind, pal it only comes back to you. As for Obama's middle name, it's only those who are ignorant who will take issue with that fact. Unfortunately, I suspect your fraternity will be filled. And truth be told, my perspective is a bit broader than Ohio. I pretty much know he's going to lose here. I'll get over it. But it would be great to see your head explode a la "Scanners" should he not. Because you know what, BrightLight, if he does win here, that means the Clinton campaign is essentially dead.

And you have much to learn. I called you an Obamaite which to you should actually be a compliment while you called me ignorant a bigot etc because you disagree with the source material I posted. You don't want people to look at it and that is your way to attempt to stop it. You are censor and arbiter of what people should have the right to view and you decide whether they are smart enough to process it correctly which by definition is YOUR way and Your way only. Despite all that I do hope we can count on you in November to remain a Democrat. I have voted proudly and continuously Democratic since McGovern in 1972, except for 1984 when I couldn't vote for Mondale or Reagan and voted for Gus Hall and Angela Davis on the Peace and Freedom party ticket. So when it comes to a history of being progressive I am sort of Pete Seeger to your Ted Nugent. Sorry if those references are too dated for you. Stay Blue.

I know this is important to you so the win goes to you. You can write back again and have the final word as well. By the way if you think that Obama's policies are any less centerist then Clinton's I think you are mistaken. Their policies are virtually identical except for some eyewash by one or the other here and there. It comes down to who can make the system work to get those things done. When its head to head against McCain either Clinton or Obama will notch again toward the center because its about winning. Half of the first term will be spent undoing the damage of 8 years of Bush at the very least. Again you win big boy.

After reviewing this thread, I have to agree with Entwriter. All of Brightlight's bullsh*t reeks of the swift-boating of Kerry in 2004. No offense to all of us, but Ohio really screwed up that election, BIG TIME. We bought all the "flip-flopper" name calling bullsh*t, we listened to the swift-boater a**holes who said Kerry was "unfit for command", and then we went and voted for 4 more years of WTF! I mean seriously... WTF?!!! I am sick of the dirty tricks and bulls**t about Obama, spread by the likes of Brightlight and other racist bigots - the swift boaters of this election season. All the crap about Obama's middle name, that he's a secret Muslim, and the other hoodoo voodoo crap that is being spread by propagandists. If you even make a half-hearted attempt to investigate Obama, you quickly figure out that this stuff is bulls**t... including that "Islamic Hope" website that any second-rate programmer with five bucks could create in 30 minutes, sticking Obama's face right in the middle. I mean give me a break. Barack Obama was raised as a Christian and is a Christian - though not in-your-face and annoying about it. His elementary school in Indonesia was not a madrassa and did NOT push Islam on its students. You can find all this stuff out yourself... or you can just listen to geniuses like Brightlight - fooled by the simplest tricks - and march right back in time to a lovely racist day and age. Wonderful. Believe me... I'm taking the 2008 election seriously, and so I am looking at all the candidates seriously, and have taken time to investigate each of them. After much research - I've settled: Obama has my vote! And I'm a just a regular white guy from Ohio, who wants a better country than this BS that we've helped create.

nation loves OBAMA. he is the right person now. Yes We can

I was at a DAR meeting when a Rep. Woman whose husband is on the Rep. Committee stated they were thrilled that the Democrats were still stupid. When asked why she rhetorically said,"They are backing Obama". The Rep. Want him in because they have something on him and know if he wins obama will loose to McCain because they will use all they know against him. I have real issues with Obama myself. 1. Obama made a comment about Congress. He said on t.v. That if Congress said no to something and he disagreed that he would do it anyway. Who does that sound like? Bush. 2. He said that if the people wanted him to do something and he did not do it, not to come to him, because it was up to the people to take care of their own problems. 3. He was born in Hawaii but was raised mostly in Africa. 4. The night of the Iowa caucus, he calls Africa and has a loud speaker put up at the school he was registered as a Muslim at as a kid and over the intercom system tells them "to hold on a little bit longer and help would be on the way". That tells me he is planning on getting into a war with Africa. When a candidate's first move after a win is to talk to a country he grew up over the country he is running to become president of, that makes me wonder where his loyalties are? I urge you to look over my facts and investigate for yourself and back Hillary. I have come across many obama supporters and they act hateful. We need to remember that WE ARE ALL AMERICANS AND WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE. If any obama supporters were ever in trouble and I could help them, I would without hesitation. We may disagree on who is best to run our country, but we are all Americans. While obama has been campaigning, just let me say that Arnold Schwarzenegger asked the Clinton's for their help to get the flagging economy in California out of debt. Hillary and Bill met with him and gave him some good ideas. The clintons are going from state to state to try and figure out how best to help out those states as well. She is already acting like a Commander in Chief. while Obama calls Kenya, worried about their problems, Hillary is fighting for the economy of our nation in every state!! Plus, Obama has said out his own mouth, that he has gone to Hillary asking for her advice many times. And she has always given it to him. He talks about Hillary being some of the old establishment, well, Ted Kennedy is the oldest and uses pork tax dollars. MAntoin "Tony" Rezko, an entrepreneur who made a fortune in pizza parlors, Chinese restaurants and real estate, goes on trial next month on federal charges of extortion, influence peddling and conspiracy. There is no suggestion that Obama is involved in any of the alleged criminal activity. But the upcoming trial -- and details of Obama's relationship with its central figure -- could cast a shadow over his carefully cultivated image at a critical time. In recent weeks, including during the debate, Obama sought to minimize the nature of that relationship. Lost and is backing obama. You want to know who someone is, look at their backers. During his speech Tuesday night, Obama pushed this negative attack on Hillary: "It's a choice between a candidate who's taken more money from Washington lobbyists than either Republican in this race and a campaign that has not taken a dime of their money."But.....Sen. Obama's comments came on the same week Public Citizen released a report detailing ten bundlers for Sen. Obama who have registered as federal lobbyists.It also came at the same time that his former fundraising chairman and the man Obama called his "political Godfather", Antoin "Tony" Rezko, is about to be tried on federal charges of fraud involving bribery and political corruption.In this campaign Sen. Obama has also taken money from former lobbyists, partners of lobbyists, people who hire lobbyists, lobbyists' spouses, children of lobbyists and of course...any state lobbyists that wants to bundle up a million or so is very welcome to.These are the facts, according to the Campaign Finance Institute: http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease"Obama, whose campaign claims to have almost 500,000 donors in 2007, raised 54% of his $97.2 million from $1,000 and over donations (mostly in $2300 checks)." (Less than a third, only 32%, of his money in 2007 came from $200 or less contributions.) Like the Roman figure of Janus, Obama seems quite comfortable talking out of both sides of his two faces. But anyone who has been paying attention to the facts and not just the fluff of the Obama campaign already knows this. An Asterisk To Obama's Policy On DonationsA presidential hopefuls refusal of lobbyist money has its limitsBy Dan Morgan, LA Times Staff Writerhttp://www.caclean.org/problem/latimes_2 007-04-22Until he started running for president, Sen. Obama took money from federal lobbyists and, as a state senator, directly from corporations. (Which is LEGAL in Illinois politics!)Obama attained the lofty mark (of leading in Presidential fundraising) even as he decried the fundraising system. In his Internet appeals for small donations, Obama played up populist themes of reform."It may sound strange for a presidential candidate to launch a fundraising drive that isn't about dollars. But our democracy shouldn't be about money, and it's time our campaigns weren't either," he said in one such pitch."We're not going to play that game," the e-mail said."Obama said in his first-quarter financial report that he received money from 104,000 donors, twice as many as Clinton, suggesting a disproportionate number of small contributions. But the Campaign Finance Institute said Obama still received 68% of his money from donations of $1,000 or more...Rules for lobbyistsLobbyists generally are paid by corporations, unions and other interest groups to shape public policy by making regular contact with government officials. They must register with both houses of Congress, and make public disclosures identifying their clients and the amounts they are paid.Some of the most influential players, lawyers and consultants among them, skirt disclosure requirements by merely advising clients and associates who do actual lobbying, and avoiding regular contact with policymakers. Obama's ban does not cover such individuals.For example, partners from the Atlanta-based law firm Alston & Bird donated $33,000 to Obama in the first 90 days of 2007.Alston & Bird has a large lobbying division in Washington. It billed its clients nearly $3.9 million in 2006, ranking 35th among Washington lobbyists. Alston boasts on its website that it offers clients "unique experience with how policy is made" and knows "the people who make it: government and agency officials; members of Congress and their staff."Obama kept $2,300 donated by Alston's Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader (and general chairman of the Obama for President campaign). Daschle, located in Washington, is neither a lawyer nor a lobbyist. He is a consultant.According to Alston's website, Daschle advises "clients on issues related to all aspects of public policy with a particular emphasis on issues related to financial services, health care, energy, telecommunications and taxes."Daschle did not return phone calls. (Note: Daschle's wife is the head lobbyist for the Airline Industry, she was behind the Congressional airline bailout after 9/11, and has been reported to be amongst the highest paid lobbyists in town) The Obama campaign makes a very big issue of not taking money directly from "federal lobbyists"....but he's happy to take money directly from their clients! In the first quarter of 2007 alone, Obama took in a combined $170,000 from executives from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, two financial giants that have numerous issues pending in Washington and spent a total of $4.6 million on lobbying in 2006.But wait...There's More!Nuke Em! Power provider's largessObama's biggest single source of corporate money, over $160,000, came from executives at Exelon Corp., the nation's largest nuclear power provider, and its subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, an Illinois utility. This includes checks from lobbyists John P. Novak and James Monk. In Springfield, Novak represents Exelon., and Monk is president of the Illinois Energy Assn., a trade group that represents Commonwealth Electric.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl es/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obama's_rise/ From the Boston Globe: But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, had collected over $1.5 million from PACs and lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. In Roman mythology, Janus was the god of gates, doors and doorways. What's always on the inside of the doorways in both the State Capital in Springfield and the US Capital in Washington? Plenty of lobbies and lobbyists. Lets look at some of Obama's... Bundlers for Barack Obama Who Have Registered as Federal LobbyistsFrom Public Citizen - 1/29/08http://www.citizen.org/documents/Lobbyis tsFinal.pdfFrank Clark IL Commonwealth Edisonwww.exeloncorp.com/ExelonInternet/Templates/Standard PageCommonwealth Edison is a subsidiary of Exelon, the nuclear energy company to whom Barack Obama is beholden. Clark is Commonwealth Edison's chief legislative strategist. Clark is also a Board member of Aetna, a health insurance company.Scott Harris DC Harris Wiltshire and Granniswww.harriswiltshire.com/whowea

“Obama made a comment about Congress. He said on t.v. That if Congress said no to something and he disagreed that he would do it anyway. Who does that sound like? Bush.” Oh come on, lasurfgrl! Puh-leez! You are actually comparing Obama to Bush?! Not even close. Not a chance. But – on this same note – you’re all over the map here. Do you think Obama’s heart is in the right place? Is he a democrat with liberal values? If so, then do we need someone tenacious as President (like Hillary would probably also be, BTW) that would take on this lame Congress (that they are both part of, BTW) that either stands with Bush on many issues, or is too weak willed and/or politically vulnerable/nervous to do anything about it? Yes, I think we do.