“Americans are fed up with a divisive brand of politics that is more about scoring points than solving problems,†Gov. Kathleen Sebelius wrote in a commentary today in the Wall Street Journal that supported Barack Obama and was co-authored by Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. “To win in November — and to govern this country — we should not choose to be a party that extends an era of bitter partisanship; we must be the party that ends it.â€
The commentary also pointed out another appeal of Obama for party leaders — his ability to help other Democrats get elected. “His unique ability to draw votes — not just for himself, but for down-ticket Democrats — makes him an obvious choice to lead the Democratic Party to success in the Congress, and in statehouses and state legislatures.â€
In a competing commentary, Hillary Clinton offered her plan for shared prosperity, which included providing greater economic security and opportunity for middle-class families, addressing the root causes of poverty, and restoring a strong climate for investment, innovation and job creation.
36 Comments
I’m still hoping to get a straight answer to my questions from the Obama folks.
Time’s running out.
MrC – I would point out to you that your issue is very specific and it is unlikely a part-time young volunteer even knows what the question is.
True that… but whatever happened to, “I don’t know, but I’ll find out”?
That’s a better answer than yelling at people because they ask questions.
True – I think the underlying problem is you are dealing with amatuers new on the job.
I think KFG is right about what she said about the party dems. But I also think Kansas voters have a mind of their own. We’ll find out in one more day.
Yes, shared prosperity – I want to tap into the prosperity of some billionaires, so that I may increase my personal wealth.
MrC, what did you ask them?
“we should not choose to be a party that extends an era of bitter partisanship; we must be the party that ends it.”
Kathy?
It sounds as if you would rather reach out to the enemy instead of sticking with your friends.
I’ll be remembering that your next election Kathy.
I am not interested in quitting while we are behind.
I do not know why people want to go back to the 90s again. Move on! Vote for the future and not the past. Obama is the best candidate. By far.
With McCain so loudly sucking on cable’s tit, I need to know where Obama stands on broadcast issues (reopening the Class A window, localism, restoring balance on the FCC). Much of the reason I stuck with John Edwards is that he placed his positions on his website.
Obama said something today that has me curious, “We’ve got to cut taxes on the middle class and really cut the tax burden on the poor.”
So my question: The poor are not paying any taxes today. What are you going to cut from nothing?
Unless, you intend to provide them more FREE MONEY, EIC payments.
Is this just a sound byte to buy votes, or does he have a serious plan?
Yeah Amway, try nailing those politicians down on what Dollar amount is poor, or middle class.
The fact of the matter is they will raise taxes on those who make $30,000 or higher. That’s the bracket paying 97% of the taxes today.
Rich is going to be what dollar amount exactly Hillary? Obama?
$30,000 be rich!
83% of the coverage the media is giving Obama is positive vs Hillary. This is wrong. Hillary is in the lead, andyet, it seems to be that the media is reporting as if Obama is the frontrunner.
Pmom, that’s because even the Liberal mass media knows that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a:
BITCH!
Oh geez.
My brother. My own brother is gonna caucus for Obama!
And it is the same old “tired of the fighting” crap from him too.
I am the older brother. I guess I got all the spine.
I DID get him to consider that it might be better for Obama to do 8 years as VP.
I’ll have to work on him some more.
It looks like Hillary’s healthcare plan is better, at least if you want universal coverage.
I’d like to know, too, where Obama stands on broadcast issues.
He’ll probably let ya know Rage.
Just after the Republicans tell him where he stands maybe.
Mr C. — it looks Obama is strongly in favor of network neutrality. As for the other issues, well, here’s his technology policy paper.
It only briefly deals with broadcast issues, but he came out strongly for net neutrality–something the cable companies have been campaigning hard against. It’s pretty hilarious: Cox runs these ads claiming–with a presumbly straight face–that, because the defacto cable broadband monopoly displaced many formerly dial-up households that this was somehow introducing competition .!
How incredibly stupid do they think we are? I dunno: maybe they just looked at who was in the White House! :)
Oops–you probably need a link ! My bad!
http://obama.3cdn.net/780e0e91ccb6cdbf6e_6udymvin7.pdf
Rage,
Thanks for the links and clarification.
Tomorrow’s caucus (even when the word is spelled correctly, it looks wrong) will be very, very interesting. As an Edwards supporter, I’m looking forward to being courted, and, if that doesn’t work, excoriated, by Obama and Hillary supporters.
CF2K–
Obama has been endorsed by the Kennedys’, by MoveOn.org, by DFA.
Watch that victory speech after Obama won in South Carolina at http://www.barackobama.com.
Breathes there a liberal with soul so dead that this speech doesn’t bring tears to his eyes?
YES, WE CAN!
“So my question: The poor are not paying any taxes today. What are you going to cut from nothing?”
Hey, Dumb $h*t?
The poor don’t pay much in income taxes; it’s true.
However there are a myrid of other taxes the poor pay.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/13/news/top_stories/1_01_334_12_07.txt
NORTH COUNTY — As they have for years, California’s low-income families continue to spend a greater share of their household income on taxes than do the wealthy, states a report released Thursday by the California Budget Project.
The poorest one-fifth of the state’s households, with an average income of $11,100, spent 11.7 percent of their income on state taxes, the report states. By comparison, the wealthiest 1 percent, with an average annual income of $1.6 million, spent 7.1 percent of their incomes on taxes, according to the report.
But it’s not the state income tax that is causing the poor to spend more of their money on taxes, according to the study’s authors. It’s the so-called regressive taxes such as sales tax, excise tax and property taxes, which often contribute to higher rents, said one of the study’s authors, Matt Gardner, executive director of the Washington-based Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
*****
This report supports many others saying the same thing.
But never fear, the reich-wing class warriors will continue to demonize the powerless poor, facts be damned.
Yes you can!
Sell out your friends to work with your enemies?
CF may have provided me an answer here.
My brother would have caucused for Edwards. As would have I.
We caucus in the same location. I will try to start an Edwards backlash.
And then HOPE that Edwards does not throw in with the folks who think Republicans can be worked with.
By the way, Max, this report shows the bottom 20 percent of households in CA as making 11,000 dollars. The top 1 percent make 1.6 million.
Can we agree that 1.6 million a year qualifies as “rich”?
Can you drop your straw man bs about 30,000 being defined as rich?
Nobody’s saying that, except disingenuous YOU.
JR: Let’s get something straight–the “enemy,” as I see it, is the current power structure. To the extent that any candidate to sway the 28-percenters back toward reality, or at least glom onto the orpahned moderates, this is a good thing. This can be done without sacrificing our principles–whether Obama has either the skill or the commitment remains to be seen. But he at least seems like the real deal–but talk is cheap.
Other than the crass McClurkin stunt (in which he took great pains to remind us, albeit annoyingly, that it wasn’t his position) and some oblique, pandering comments about Reagan (designed to win an endorsement, apparently), I’ve seen little evidence that Obama will cave into the Republicans–at least not any more than Clinton is virtually guaranteed to do.
And hence my continuing quandary. Hell, I think Edwards will still be on the ballot. Easy out, I suppose, but the man is also privy to private talks the rest of us won’t hear.
As I posted earlier, his lucid, passionate, and logical opposition to the Iraq War became inconvenient when he was running for the U.S. Senate. Quite apart from the appeal of talking with the “enemy” (read: millions of confused, betrayed, wavering Republicans), it’s also a way of masking a fairly progressive agenda. The conservative pundits who were saying nice things about his sound bites before are going apeshit now.
In absolute terms, I think we have a couple of shrewd, capable candidates and, contrary to conventional wisdom, a long primary season only makes the eventual nominee stronger. I understand the passion, and the fears, and this a good thing.
But isn’t it nice that we can actually have a debate this sharp? Look on the Republican side: they’re settling on McCain because they can’t get past their own divisions. The religious right hates him—at least those who are still political. Anyone wanna bet Huckabee will be his choice for VP?
Not that’ll be a cakewalk. But the Republican party is in real trouble, and they know it.
JR–
I hope you give this a lot of serious thought.
You are going to seriously inconvenience a lot of folks if you gum up the works for a purely symbolic effect.
We’ve got to support the candidates we’ve got, not the ones we want.
If it were up to me, it’d be Russ Feingold running for Pres. Or Howard Dean. Or even Al Gore.
But they aren’t the choices.
I’ve said it before.
We ARE picking the next President.
Let it be a fight. Because we have a lot of fighting back to do.
I am in my 40’s and there has never been a convention with meaning in my lifetime. Just a party to send the “chosen one” off to face the right wing machine.
Well if Obama is “King Arthur” reclaiming Camelot let him prove his mettle. I owe HIM better than the pass the right is giving him.
And WHY are they giving it to him?
More?
Obama is RUNNING on a speech he made at another convention.
Well let him make another speech. And THIS time let it be not just high minded rhetoric but his case on why he should be trusted with the most powerful office on the planet. And let’s us make him make that speech only to Democrats.
He wants to work with Republicans. Well first he must prove himself to Democrats.
“Tap Herroni
Posted February 4, 2008 at 8:58 pm | Permalink
Pmom, that’s because even the Liberal mass media knows that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a:
“BITCH!”
This is the same insightful poster who claimed that Obama was a marsupial that had bandit markings around his eyes. Surely we can have a better discussion than what his troglodyte can provide.
Sigh…
I will be making my caucus effort for Hillary. She is not perfect, but less imperfect than the alternaitves. Thank you. Good night.
I should probably clarify that we have a primary in AZ, thus I won’t be joining any “insurgent” Edwards movement.
However, Edwards supporters have leverage, and I think they should use it! ;)
I have to say, Hillary has laid out her plan and ideas, and they are amazing.
I really hope all of you will listen to both Obama’s and Hillary’s speeches tonight. Obamas sounded full of hope as big as an inspirational speaker. But he had nothing original there. Hillary truly is on top of how to change this nation.
I do so hope she chooses Obama as a running mate. The two of them would be totally unbeatable.
P Mama I had the feeling during Sunday nite’s debate that Hillary and Obama were prctically presenting a United Front, rather than arguing against each other… That would be most interesting, wouldnt it??
As I published at http://www.wen2k.com/tell.php?Id=1891 “Halfway between the Truth and a Lie is not half the Truth, it is still 100% a Lie”. Herbert West III, west.herb@yahoo.com http://www.wen2k.com
mgivyak khvnbtzxi lusijmbhy naupgivb wekhgzd nvsjml jtlr
One Trackback
[...] WE Blog » The Wichita Eagle Editorial Department Blog wrote an interesting post today on Sebelius also writing about support for ObamaHere’s a quick excerptSebelius also writing about support for Obama Posted1:37 p.m. “Americans are fed up with a divisive brand of politics that is more about scoring points than solving problems,” Gov. Kathleen Sebelius wrote in a commentary today in the Wall Street Journal that supported Barack Obama and was co-authored by Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. “To win in November — and to govern this country — we should not choose to be a party that extends an era of bitter partisanshi [...]