TL;DR

Reply to this: comment | thread

Sounds like he’s just trying to keep up with the Republicans.  How is this radical?

Reply to this: comment | thread

Hello Sal, 
  I am shocked by the synposis.  When I read these two statements they seem to contrast.

“He basically asks readers to pretend to be less radical. “

“it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda.

The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.”

I am confused!

Reply to this: comment | thread

His comments do not seem “radical” to me.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Similar to Bill G.;
  So, what’s the point?

Reply to this: comment | thread

Ask Obama who is Vera Baker is? Better yet, ask why he paid her as Finance Manager when SOMEONE ELSE was his finance manager? Perhaps one ought to ask Michelle Obama why she was so ticked off and why Vera up and moved to Martinique? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Perhaps we’ll learn AFTER the election that Obama is no different than cheatin’ John Edwards.

Reply to this: comment | thread

in a few weeks we will make a choice that will decide our future.
This time the stakes are much higher then most people could imagine
I would like to point out some things You may already know with a new perspective.
I follow a economist named bob proctor who has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
He perfectly predicted the current real estate market meltdown ,and the picture he paints about what will happen in the next couple years
Is terrifying. He thinks it could get worse then the great depression.
Banks in the US are going under one after the other. Country wide the largest morgage bank in the world
Bear Stearns and Lehman brothers , and Merrill Lynch which are 3 out of the top 5 wall street firms.
And now Fanny and Freddy which hold 50 percent of the home loans in the United States.
The goverment took them over because they are essentially bankrupt.
If they didn’t the entire financially system would virtually shut down, the stock market would crash
And we would suffer beyond what any of us have seen before
The future of these companies will fall into the hands of our next president
And all of our economic future depends on them reorganizing these companies right.
Lehman, Merill Lynch, and Bear Sterns have survived for over 150 years and survived even the great depression
They are important because the are the biggest engines of growth in america and
they are connected to almost everything.
The last time the real estate market numbers looked this bad was during
The great depression and real estate often leads the way into major economic recessions.
One out of 10 Americans is somewhere in the foreclosure process.
During the last 8 years the average person saw there salary drop instead
Of increase. These are all facts no one will argue with.
The truth is we are only in the start of the worst economy we have seen in our generation
and a very real possibility of another depression.
Bush just like Mcain doesn’t understand the economy.
That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it
He does not understand exactly what is broken. Its no surprise that he doesnt. The people that make up these
securities use complex math models very few people understand.
They are basically bundles of thousand of loans some good and some bad that are then given rules based on quantitiative
math. It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this, and the same things bush and mcain have done for the last 8 years
Have not worked so far and wont work in the future.
If you do what you have always done then you will do get what you have always __________
90 percent of the time they have voted the same.
Please don’t just take my word for it Start to read up on some of this yourself. MSN money, elliot wave and, bloomberg
Have tons of articles That prove we are in the heading into one of the worst economies any one has ever seen.
So why are the polls even close then ?
The chairman of mcains campaign recently said that people don’t vote on issues
they vote on a personality composite which means. He is trying to sell personality instead
of results.
He believes people will vote against there own self interests.
Lets teach him we are smarter then that and elect the ticket that can
bring us back from the brink of a economic abyss.
If you think i am kidding do your own home work you will find
We are at the start of this mess not the end.
Mcain admits in the year 2008 he cannot use a computer even to send email
Its almost impossible then he will understand the complex securities such as cdos that are destroying wall street
and the home values on your street.
We are not bulletproof america it time to wake up and hold these people accountable.
How many people that you go out and have drinks with would you really want running the country?
Lets stand up and fight for our country now while it will still make a difference
Lets elect Obama Biden 08

Reply to this: comment | thread

Nothing radical there that I can see.  But I think I get it: Obama is African-American and new to the scene.  So, the Republicans know that their base is resistant to this change and some are ready to buy whatever they’re sold.  But, for the country’s sake, I hope we see that he’s a progressive guy with a good intellect and a fabulously even temperament. I think he’ll make a great President.

Reply to this: comment | thread

1. If there was a video of a DARK Pastor praying on Obama to protect him from Witchcraft, what would happen? Answer:Obama’s presidential bid would be over.
2. If Obama paraded a pregnant teenaged daughter with her DARK lover on stage at the Democratic National Convention. What would happen? Answer:Obama’s presidential bid would be over
3. If Obama had chosen Sarah Palin if she were a democrat, and then everything happened showing her clear deficiencies.What would happen? Answer:Obama’s presidential bid would be over
4. If Obama was a part of Keating 5. What would happen?Answer:Obama’s presidential bid would be over
5. If Obama had committed adultery and then divorced his crippled wife who stood by him while he was a POW and married a rich adultering heiress, now has 9 homes and 13 cars. What would happen?Answer:Obama’s presidential bid would be over
6. If Obama had been running the swift boat adds and politics like McCain with outright 100% lies disproved by factcheckdot org. What would happen? Answer:Obama’s presidential bid would be over
7. If Obama had made 1/4 of the gaffes and lies that Mccain has made including the fundamentals of our economy are good. What would happen? Answer:Obama’s presidential bid would be over
8. If Obama’s daughter went on National tv and said that Obama dated a stripper and was wild in his younger years. If Obama was anywhere close to McCains moral failings in his life. What would happen? Answer: Obama’s presidential bid would be over
9. If Obama had verbally abused and berated the media for bias and sexism the way Mccain and Palin have done. What would happen? Answer:Obama’s presidential bid would be over
10. If Obama had removed his VP from scrutiny by the press and did exactly what Macain did with Palin. What would happen? Answer:Obama’s presidential bid would be over
11. If Obama has been anywhere close to Mccain in the conduct of his campaign. What would happen?Answer:Obama’s presidential bid would be over
I could go on and on.. but my point is… the hypocrisy of the republicans and so many in this country is on such a low shamefull and painfull level that I cannot find an adjective to describe it appropriately. These people have ZERO objectivity and ZERO conscience… Obama is held to a much higher standard because of ONE reason only… the color of his skin.. the racists out there reading this and screaming… know this point and remember it always…
“who God blesses NO MAN CAN curs” I hope Obama wins for the sake of this country… The republicans are praying and hoping that the uneducated and gullible racists will return them to power… Their support is critical and so the only way to appeal to hate is to manufacture lies, reapeat it enough times that the “heartland” would vote “white”. Sad, because 4 more years of Bush won’t help them anymore than the last 8 years have… Am just soo tired of all the hate and racism I read on these sites… people pretending to debate facts when instead they are debating their hate, and racism… all because they cannot stand the thought of a man with black skin in the white house… never mind the way this country has gone down the drain and the fact that the two women who raised Obama are as white as them… There is only one choice in this election, anyone with common sense knows Obama is that choice… but then… reading the posts above… common sense is NOT so common… oh well.. God help us.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Huh?  What’s radical about this?

Reply to this: comment | thread

DailyKos, far left?  What kind of tool are you?  I’ll tell you, not a very politically astute tool!

Reply to this: comment | thread

and this is radical ,how?

Reply to this: comment | thread

Mccain straight out lied in his convention speech when he said that he would lower taxes for the common man while Obama would raise the taxes. Yes! Obama will raise taxes but not for the common man but for the wealthiest top 5% of the American people in which Mccain is included. And by the way political analysts agree that Obama’s tax policy is more beneficial for the common man because he is going to decrease taxes for 95% of Americans which has to include the common man because a common man is not 5% of the American population.
!!!!!!!The Truth is Mccain lies and deceives voters like in his convention speech where he presented the incomplete truth about his policies.!!!!!1
By the Way Grant was also a military hero who won because of his character. And his term was full of corruption. Why?
it is because he had no clue about wat the common man experiences just like MCcain and Palin. Well for all of u who claim that Obama is too young and inexperienced and young to be president. Guess wat? Mccain is too old to be president and fighting as a soldier is different from commanding a whole country’s army and handling the economy (which does not only depend on the fundamentals (workers) but on the policies of the president for investors to invest in a crashing economy)and Palin is the worst possible VP candidate because she has no foreign policy experience which is needed in diplomatic relationships with other nations which the VP is responsible for. And being incharge of the Alaskan National Guard which had no crisis to face is not a qualification to be 2nd to commander in chief.
Obama on the other hand is willing to go against issues because of his minimal exposure to the corruption in washington.
For example, he opposed the War in Iraq which mccain supported just because the oil prices would go up leading to more profits for people like Bush and others in washington who own an oil drilling facility.
Mccain is just like Bush who deceived the public and charged into the War in Iraq (very similar to Vietnam war which had no reason but destroyed that country). Mccain lied to the public in his convention speech on his and Obama’s tax policy for the common man.
And Bidden is a very good choice for VP because the VP is supposed to be the invisible leader of the Senate and maintain diplomatic relationships with foreign countries( Bidden was in the senate in charge of Foreign policy)
i say Mccain would be a good VP candidate because of his foriegn policy experience and long time in the Senate but asking him to be president is going too far. Having good character does not mean he is right on policies ( especially regarding the economy and the common man).
Go Obama and Bidden the better qualified ticket for the Presidency and the VP.

Reply to this: comment | thread

lol you is dumb

sensitive to issues of social justice = radical

Reply to this: comment | thread

You are SO right.  Obama has to be heads and shoulders above the white candidates just to be seen as even; and so far, he’s done just that. Good post!

Reply to this: comment | thread

Progressive = Socialism. B.O. is Marxist to the bone. Marxism is anti-capitalism, anti-freedom, and anti-liberty. The American Democracy will cease to exist with B.O. as President and other Marxists like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in power. Terrible times are in store for Americans under a B.O. administration.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Why is this retarded #### on Google News?

And what, pray tell, is wrong with being progressive? Would you prefer that blacks still be slaves, gays be executed as in Iran, races not be allowed to intermingle, and the sciences be subverted in the name of a fiction? Yeah, it’d sure be better if Obama were a “moderate” and half-believed that global warming is real; and half-believed that evolution—a fact about the world on which we are able to make tremendous medical progress—is a hoax of that trickster Satan; and half-believed that Jesus rode around on a donkey cursing fig trees; and was half-sympathetic to the idea that we should give tax breaks to the rich. The conservative side has always been spearheaded by the most ignorant of bigoted fools throughout history, and there is no virtue in appeasing such stupidity in the name of unity.

Reply to this: comment | thread

This article is a joke. Just look at how the candidates manage their own campaigns.

Obama is not a radical : he is a sound and respectful leader, and sound people (including such conservatives as Powell or The Economist) follow him, while radicals turn against him (including Rev. Wright).

McCain is a bad tempered opportunist who sold his soul to the most radical clique, the true enemies of America :
http://e-blogules.blogspot.com/2008/09/change-is-coming-and-mac-will-fight-but.html

Reply to this: comment | thread

Your “excerpt” leaves out the part where Senator Obama says he *disagrees* with this perspective on how Democrats should proceed.  The full post is actually highly bi-partisan, advocating an inclusive approach to governing, and completely deflates your argument of a “radical” Obama.

The full text of the post can be found at http://obama.senate.gov/blog/050930-tone_truth_and_the_democratic_party/.

Reply to this: comment | thread

I think you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.  And that is putting in kindly.

The part you quoted is where Obama is characterizing progressive radicals.  “According to the storyline…”  In the very next sentence he goes on to dispute those tactics.

Stop insulting your readers with this ridiculous hack job.

How in the hell did you get on Google News in the first place with this garbage?

Reply to this: comment | thread

Anyone who wants to complain about this idiot’s blog getting filed under Google News should email ‘press@google.com’ immediately and put “complaint” in the subject line. It’s amazing how desparate some McCain fans are becoming. Zero integrity.

Reply to this: comment | thread

This does not seem radical to me either.  What bothers me about McCain is that this year he complained about how Bush should have landed his plane instead of just merely flying over the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.  Where was the criticism when it mattered?  He only complains when it is politically convenient.  That’s not leadership.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Wow!  So you’re saying it’s radical to actually have a PLAN - a strategy for defeating the Republican liars who stole the Presidency from Gore and “swiftboated” Kerry out of the Presidency and lied us into a war in Iraq and can wiretap anyone they choose and on and on?  You can call it radical if you like, but I call it brilliant!!!  Go Obama!

Reply to this: comment | thread

The voting system is designed to make it hard for the poor and working class to vote, it is your chance to go out and vote and accept all the dificulties, and get your country in your hand. If you don’t vote, please don’t complain either.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Gee whiz….it’s an op-ed..settle down with your radical comments.

Reply to this: comment | thread

I see nothing in Obama’s log that does anything but call the Republicans out for THE REPUBLICANS’ extremely radical behavior. I, as many, think that many of Republican politicians ought to be locked up for treason and war crimes.  The GOP ought to love Pelosi and Reid for standing down & not playing the investigation/impeachment game that the GOP likes to preoccupy itself with.  Sorry Sal, clearly you’ve had way too much of Rush LImbaugh’s/Fox News kool aid. Maybe all you want are alot of hits on your website to finance your pathetic writing?

Reply to this: comment | thread

You’re not very bright, are you, Josh? Do you know what Marxism is? No, of course not. What about Socialism? Nope. If you want to talk about collective resources, go look at Alaska. If you want to talk about redistributing wealth, go look at Alaska. Raising taxes isn’t socialism, you idiot, otherwise every President in history who has raised taxes—like Bush 41—would be a Marxist. Obama wants to end tax cuts and RETURN them to the rates under Reagan. Was Reagan a Marxist? You retard. Go get an education.

You DO realize that it’s been the Republicans striving to end our liberties, right? The Patriot Act? Censorship? Spying? In fact, you do realize that it was the PROGRESSIVE IDEAL OF LIBERTY on which the country was founded? Nope? Huh! Because going to war with the mother country seems pretty damn radical to me.

Reply to this: comment | thread

I’m not a Dem or Liberal, but this post makes absolutely no sense.
It might have been useful, to post what followed your little snip.
Since he’s yet to explain HIS thoughts.
“According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party…”
All you posted was his read of the storyline that drives the groups & activists, without the punchline - - his remarks on what he thinks these groups & activists should do, instead.
In other words, try re-reading what you posted - - he’s not speaking of himself in this snip, he’s posing his interpretation of the groups/activists narrative, when you snipped it.
What did he say afterwards?

Reply to this: comment | thread

Gosh,
i was completely unaware that some 30 million ameraicans were in default on their mortgages. that would be your 10% figure. i suggest you make an attempt at accuracy. As far as leadership, as least Mcain has the guts to vote voted as opposed to Senator Obama who voted ” Present ” 193 times.
Obama is an empty suit who has done nothing but change his rhetoic begining with his first BIG lie. To run his campaign with public financing limits.
You are a typical Obama follower who listens to what you want to here and not reality.
Ps. when did the Supreme court take on the role of arbiter of Social justice

Reply to this: comment | thread

Here’s the next paragraph, from Obama’s commentary:
“I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don’t think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don’t think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don’t think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.”
Radical??
Did you actually read his whole commentary, which is on Obama’s Senate website (thanks to Jim P for pointing it out), not some mysterious old DailyKos thread, that just resurfaced?
By the way, Sal, thanks for this blog entry.  I never would have seen this commentary.
The intelligence, clarity, and thoughtfulness of Senator Obama, is almost breathtaking, when contrasted with run-of- the-mill politicians, on both sides of the aisle.
If he’s elected, we’ve lucked into one intelligent hombre as President.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Josh, I could just as easily say:

NeoConservative = Fascism. J.M. is Nazi to the bone. Naziism is anti-democracy, anti-freedom, and anti-liberty. The American Democracy will cease to exist with J.M. as President and other Nazis like ABC and XYZ in power. Terrible times are in store for Americans under a J.M. administration.

But neither are true.

Reply to this: comment | thread

The racist argument has great strength and momentum and is warranted, however the most shocking aspect of this campaign in its entirety has been the North American acceptance of discrimination based on sexism.  It has become so accepted that it does not seem to warrant comment, and certainly not the energy and revolt the mere thought of racism conjures.  Discrimination is discrimination regardless of basis, it is not more important or on a morally higher plain if it is based on race.  The majority of criticisms and comments from supposedly educated individuals and media, toward Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin have been not only offensive, ignorant, uncalled for, they have been grossly discriminatory and not half the racism revolt was conjured from the majority!  It is naive to think that once Obama is elected all can cheer that we have finally broken the chains of discrimination.  When we elect a woman, especially a woman from a minority group, then we can stop pretending.

Reply to this: comment | thread

I guess you all have a point. When someone suggests you pretend to be less radical, that means you’re not radical anymore. You all got me there. Don’t ever use that “you can put lipstick on a pig” ######## anymore, because according to all of you drones, he’s not a pig anymore. Bottom line… Progressive = RADICALISM

His type of socialist agenda has never once, in the history of man, succeeded.  A few countries in Europe that have been experimenting with Socialism, are getting back to what works…Capitalism.

Reply to this: comment | thread

In the Illinois state legislature, voting “present” is a normal procedural device, which usually means “No, but if we change some things in the bill, then I could support it.”

Reply to this: comment | thread

Sal, you should be very embarrassed for this post. First of all, anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that the apparently offensive text is his summary of the position *others* are taking. That is why he begins the paragraph with, “According to the storyline.”

Then, in the full text of his post, he disagrees with that. Here is what follows the part you quoted:

“I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don’t think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don’t think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don’t think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.”

It doesn’t help your cause being dishonest at worst or lazy at best.

Reply to this: comment | thread

The difference between what the Almighty O (read zero) is saying and what the Republicans do, or what he’s accusing Republicans of doing, is that when the Republicans tap their base, they remain more rather than less consistent in their message.  Obama, however, portrays himself as a moderate, but says he wants to promote “progressive” agenda.  If you don’t know the history of the word “progressive”, google it.  It has a long history beginning in the early 20th century.  Progressive may sound like a nice word (very possitive, forward looking, inovative, etc, etc. etc.).  But look it up.  Don’t take my word for it.  You’ll find out what it means. “Progressive” is a euphemism for “Socialist” and or “Communist”.  Obama is a radical “Progressive” and that’s what’s radical about his platform.  Don’t be fooled.

Reply to this: comment | thread

Sal,

I, like many others, fail to see how Obama’s comments are radical.  In the above, Obama is basically outlining a political strategy to compete against the Republican strategy—How’s that extreme? 

As a result of the above journalistic gem, I’ve now read several of your other posts. It appears that in all your posts you are a cheer captain for the Republican party.  So, to combat the “pass” you think Obama gets from the “mainstream media”, you publish poorly written blogs and pass it off as journalism.  To add to your journalistic excellence, the logic in many of these rags you publish is quite flawed—For example, getting owned on the logic of your factcheck.org piece. 

So, Sal, I have one question for you?  First, though, lets chronicle your credentials.  You are an intern at a radio station in NJ who “started following” politics 8 years ago.  Tell me, how does this make you an authority on the subject of politics?  Because unless you are some sort of authority on the subject, ie. have some credentials with respect to politics, you are committing the fallacy of false authority.  Basically, your a biased internet blogger with no checks and balances with regard to journalistic integrity.  Yes Sal!  This blog is certainly better than the fact based (cited) reporting done by the “mainstream” media. 

You claim that you are working on pieces regarding McCain and Timmons.  You just seem to be able to write Obama pieces much faster—I wonder why?

Please remember before you attack me, as you do most of your critics here, I don’t parade around as a quasi-journalist writing libelous statements about people based on loose information and associations.  Last, responding with name calling, questioning others patriotism, and telling off-color jokes about terrorism are not appropriate responses to someone criticisms of your work.  So “have some balls” and realize that when you blog you are responsible for what you write.

Reply to this: comment | thread

It takes a brilliant man to get elected POTUS even though his middle name is HUSSEIN.  That’s the man i want running the show for the next eight years (because we didn’t get this way overnight ~ we will not recover overnight).

Go Obama!

Reply to this: comment | thread

I am appalled that anyone has the nerve to state, “McCain admits in the year 2008 he cannot use a computer to send email.” Mr. McCain’s physical disabilities are the result of his unselfish service to his country and enduring over 5 years of hell as a POW, fighting to preserve the freedoms of callous, ungrateful people like you to spout off your mouths and criticize their leaders without fear of ending up in jail or the guillotine. It’s true—John McCain is the only candidate who ever fought for his country.

Reply to this: comment | thread

You state that “evolution [is] a fact about the world on which we are able to make tremendous medical progress.” First off, if any scientist has ever proven “evolution” (macro-evolution, that is) to be a “fact”, that’s news to me. It’s been a theory from the start. To prove it as a fact, you’d have to have been there millions of years ago. Were you? I don’t see how “macro-evolution” has contributed to medical progress. No one disputes “micro-evolution”, but I don’t know if you’re aware of the difference between the two. (Oh, you must. Liberals are not ignorant.) You’re just arrogant. You can’t prove religion is fiction either.

Reply to this: comment | thread