Glenn Greenwald Criticizes Obama for Caving on Telecom Immunity — Page 3

Rachel Ray is not for party unity and should be forced into obscurity.

Talking about a woman forcing something on herself gets me tingly.

I don't need any.

I'm oily enough.

Speaking of "oil" and "Obama," I'm presently skimming my new UNCLE JOHN'S BATHROOM READER (20th anniversary edition) and it has a little section about Obama, under Nudes & Prudes. I thought I'd share since it's relevant. Sorta.

PRUDE: While campaigning for the presidency in 2007, Senator Barack Obama made a fundraising stop at the Planet Zero Art Gallery in Richmond, Virginia. And although he's campaigning on a progressive platform, one of the artworks on display was too risqué for the senator. It was a 6-by-10-foot oil painting called "Snake Charmer," which features Britney Spears (sans underwear) getting out of Paris Hilton's limo. "I wished we could have had a good dialogue about freedom of speech," said the artist, Jamie Bolling, "but I understand that a politician might want to avoid being photographed in front of Britney Spear's crotch."

---

"It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

Madbrian--you're happy with that?

mejust?

lildogs?

orangeskittles?

I think it stinks.

---

You actually believe he will "work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses"?

I call that "pandering."

---

Obama ran his primary race running on the theme "Change", that he would be a different politician, making claims along the way: that he would filibuster any vote that gave immunity to the telecommunications firms, that he would take public finance in the presidential race. When he said these promises his supporters applauded and lauded him for it. At the same time he avoided votes that were controversial, like the vote on Iran (much the same way he voted present in his job at Chicago so he wouldn't go on record with anything that might get him into trouble later).

Now that he is the nominee he has backed off on his promises and his supporters (including Olbermann, who helped get him nominated) claim he is doing it just to get elected.
So in the end , we didn't get a candidate of change - we got someone who will say or do anything to get elected. In other words Hillary ... without the experience. But then she had the guts to at least have voted on issues before the results of the primary was known.

My problem is, who is this man? What does he really believe - since he's already shown you can't automatically believe everything he says. Don't think that if the vote for Iran was today that he wouldn't now vote for it. And when he did his supporters would agree saying he had to do it to be elected (what hypocrites).

As a democrat , I know I don't have a choice on who to vote for. Still Obama and some of his hypocritical supporters are really pissing me off.

Then why did he wait until AFTER the primary to say so. I'll answer, he would not have won the primary. He was the candidate of "Change". Well, it seems that after the primary he "changed" back into what he is, a typical, say anything to get elected politician - only he... unlike the rest of the Democratic nominees , has no experience.

no pj, they'll just come up with reasons to justify them as they come along. if they admitted them, they would have to admit their own culpability in them and that's something they will never, ever do.

---

I guess my point here is, why is everyone on this board (people I assume can read)SHOCKED by any of this. Obama like Hillary is not a liberal. Despite what the media says about him or what Republicans say he is not.

I expect this from Greenwald, that is what he does, he is a liberal. Oblerman I expect exactly what he does, he is not liberal.

After watching that stupid America video I can imagine people can assume radically different things but it's not the reality.

Obama is different. He is change but change that is purely superficial (which I have said all along). People in this country are very myopic and that is how you play this election game. Obama offered a different campaign (same promises) but something different.

PJ - But what idiot believed he was any different than the damn Democrat he has always been? It makes me think that many Democrats are as stupid as Republicans.

I'm seriously in awe when people pretend to care about politics in this country for five minutes but haven't a clue as to what really goes on.

Neither Hillary or Obama supported/support impeachment. Hillary of all people should have said, Make It So! Instead they only cared about this primary/election. Neither gave a **** about the people voting.

Obama is doing exactly what Obama has done and what someone in his position has done. He is a democrat. Anything outside of that box is liberal and he is not a liberal. He can make changes as a Democrat and he will and has, but don't expect him to start talking about single-payer healthcare.

I would argue Obama offered a much different campaign than we are used to and it really helped him win. That was change. He went after people that are often ignored and raised millions in private donations. He also appealed to younger people and connected with them.

But what idiot believed he was any different than the damn Democrat he has always been?

What idiot believed that?

Everyone who voted for him.

All the people who fainted at his rallies.

MSNBC and the rest of the Hillary-hating media.

Everyone who called Hillary a c*nt.

Lildogs and orangeskittles and Madbrian and Liverpool.

You.

---