Support NeoGAF

[Tamanon]

Fair enough.
On a different note, Obama is apparantly going to release a statement about FISA today.

A reader emailed half an hour ago that the operators in Obama's call center (Who knew that he had a call center?) had been offering a scoop on his position on the wiretap bill known as FISA. I called the campaign's (800) number to check, and a woman with a British accent answered that Obama has "opposed this legislation and stood with Senator Dodd, cosponsoring his amendment to remove this special interest provision from the bill that came before the Senate."

Dodd opposes the compromise, so that sounded like an answer.

But on spokesman Bill Burton's urging, I called back and asked more narrowly about today's compromise on the Hill, and a second operators said he didn't know, but could read the past statement.

Given the hype about Obama's operation, I imagined the call center as a complicated system in which volunteers all over the world, including apparently England, were dialing in to a switchboard in Southern California to answer the enormous flood of calls, all under the control of a 17-year old Obama staffer who who also owns 20% of Google.

Apparently, not so much: The call center is made up of about a dozen volunteers in Chicago. And after I asked, Burton walked down the hall and told them to change the message.

And so when I called a third time, about two minutes later, I got a much smaller scoop from a third volunteer, who told me that Obama will be releasing a statement later today.

All in all, reassuringly low tech, though I'm still not sure how Obama feels about the NSA listening in on the calls.

:lol at Obama having a call-center. That's awesome.

Also, bigger :lol at Kossers wanting Obama to filibuster to prevent FISA. You think that's really a good use of a Presidential Candidates time? The Republicans wouldn't even bother trying to break the filibuster, they'd let him go on as long as he wants.

 

[Mumei]

So they are arguing over terminology? Man, I thought it was deeper than that. It is just a word, a word that doesn't mean much to a lot of people given the divorce rate in this country. People wanted equal rights, they are appearing to get it and that is wonderful. Isn't the world 'marriage' derived from church ideology? Why would you want to be associated with a word from an institution that seems to shun homosexuality?

You know that saying about how if you repeat a lie often enough, you'll get people to believe it?

That is exactly what happened with the church / marriage issue. Marriage happens to be an important thing (even a sacrament in some Christian denominations) in many religions, but marriage was not borne out of religion. Marriage in its current state (romantic love; marrying the person you love) is largely a product of the 19th century, actually; before (at least in the West), marriages were more arranged.

And honestly, I'm simplifying things a great deal. There are multiple kinds of "marriage"; there are religious institutions of marriage, governmental, and cultural. They all have the same name, but they aren't all the same. It is something like a homonym in that regard.

The goal of the gay community with regards to marriage is to have access to the benefits of the governmental and cultural institutions of marriage. Civil unions are good, because they give access to the governmental institution of marriage - but marriage equality is better, because we get both.

And as for the religious institution of marriage, if anyone wants that, they can join an especially liberal protestant denomination and get gay married.

 

[-Kees-]

Fair enough. I disagree - but I'll drop it there.

On a different note, Obama is apparantly going to release a statement about FISA today.

Couldn't he have done that, you know, BEFORE the house voted to pass it?

 

[kaching]

but I still have yet to see any reasonable reason to oppose same sex marriage which leads me to believe that those in opposition are, at least in some way, homophobic.

What's the "reasonable reason" for supporting the basic concept of marriage in the first place?

I want Obama to be a good leader. I want for him to reach out to my community. I want to donate money to the campaign. I want him to be who he says he is. And so far, I'm just not seeing it.

You're not seeing it, AT ALL? Reaching out implies a little bit of reaching out of your own.

 

[Mumei]

Couldn't he have done that, you know, BEFORE the house voted to pass it?

I really wish I could figure out his angle here. It stinks to me, but I want to believe that he's got a good reason. =\

 

[Tamanon]

Couldn't he have done that, you know, BEFORE the house voted to pass it?

Senators generally don't comment on bills in the house before they're presented to the Senate.

 

[mckmas8808]

I see it as "0% today, and likely 100% in 10 years" over a "75% (hooray for arbitrary numbers!) today over a much less likely 100% in 10 years", myself.

I'll vote for Obama and all, I'd just prefer that he didn't enact civil unions at all. Just leave the issue alone.

Of course, if he picks Supreme Court justices well enough and a case ends up reaching them, all would be forgiven. =P

That's what I really wanted to know. I mean you guys have the right to complain. If I were in your shoes I would complain too. But I wouldn't go from being an Obama supporter to non supporter over his mostly pro-gay policy.

At the end of the day its just a stupid thing to do logically.

Im a black guy ok. Now if it wasn't recognized in marriage that me and a white lady were married, but a politician wanted to give us 90 percent (pretty much full legal rights) without the label, Id take that in a heart beat.

And that's full knowing that Id fight for the label of marriage within 10 years easy! That's how you do it.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

You know that saying about how if you repeat a lie often enough, you'll get people to believe it?

That is exactly what happened with the church / marriage issue. Marriage happens to be an important thing (even a sacrament in some Christian denominations) in many religions, but marriage was not borne out of religion. Marriage in its current state (romantic love; marrying the person you love) is largely a product of the 19th century, actually; before (at least in the West), marriages were more arranged.

And honestly, I'm simplifying things a great deal. There are multiple kinds of "marriage"; there are religious institutions of marriage, governmental, and cultural. They all have the same name, but they aren't all the same. It is something like a homonym in that regard.

The goal of the gay community with regards to marriage is to have access to the benefits of the governmental and cultural institutions of marriage. Civil unions are good, because they give access to the governmental institution of marriage - but marriage equality is better, because we get both.

And as for the religious institution of marriage, if anyone wants that, they can join an especially liberal protestant denomination and get gay married.

Thank you for the clarification here. I've not seen any statistics about how the country feels about homosexuality lately. When looking at the complexion of this election, it seems like gay rights are one of those very important, yet pushed to the wayside issues because there are still bigger issues to strike a contrast with. Besides, don't we both know their stance? I saw that clip of Ellen when she put McCain on the spot about it and he didn't budge. Not knowing about Obama's stance in depth, I found this>

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

Barack Obama and Gay Rights in Illinois:
Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Barack Obama in the United States Senate:
Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard. Here's how HRC rated Barack Obama:
Barack Obama on Hate Crimes:
Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Employment Non-Discrimination:
Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Gays in the Military:
Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, "The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve."
Gay & Lesbian Adoption:
Barack Obama believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.
Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:
Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

A vote for Obama is a vote for progress, no?

 

[Gaborn]

That's what I really wanted to know. I mean you guys have the right to complain. If I were in your shoes I would complain too. But I wouldn't go from being an Obama supporter to non supporter over his mostly pro-gay policy.

At the end of the day its just a stupid thing to do logically.

Im a black guy ok. Now if it wasn't recognized in marriage that me and a white lady were married, but a politician wanted to give us 90 percent (pretty much full legal rights) without the label, Id take that in a heart beat.

And that's full knowing that Id fight for the label of marriage within 10 years easy! That's how you do it.

Except as I noted it doesn't work that way. The public tends to fight for equality... and then accept government solutions. So, in this case what would happen is the perception of a need to recognize gay relationships equally would be shifted to a need to recognize gay civil unions but not marriages. Essentially many states (not all, but many) would either follow the federal government's lead and grant civil unions or nothing (with the exception as mentioned of the handful of states that have more extensive constitutional protections based on gender that require or will require gay marriage).

 

[Mercury Fred]

What's the "reasonable reason" for supporting the basic concept of marriage in the first place?

The culture in which we live grants both an enormous suite of official rights to married people and cultural cache to those that are married. I'm in the camp of hey let's do away with marriage and let everyone have civil unions, but I don't think that's going to happen. I'd even go one further and suggest that people in couples shouldn't receive any special benefits over single people.

You're not seeing it, AT ALL? Reaching out implies a little bit of reaching out of your own.

I have. I've watched the speeches. I've mostly gotten over homophobic ex-gay Donnie McClurkin emceeing an Obama event. I was ready to donate before I saw the marriage quote from Obama post-California. I want leadership, not cheesy pandering. And I want it even more because of what the Obama campaign alleges to be about.

 

[Mumei]

That's what I really wanted to know. I mean you guys have the right to complain. If I were in your shoes I would complain too. But I wouldn't go from being an Obama supporter to non supporter over his mostly pro-gay policy.

At the end of the day its just a stupid thing to do logically.

Im a black guy ok. Now if it wasn't recognized in marriage that me and a white lady were married, but a politician wanted to give us 90 percent (pretty much full legal rights) without the label, Id take that in a heart beat.

And that's full knowing that Id fight for the label of marriage within 10 years easy! That's how you do it.

No, and there are issues besides gay marriage; there's DOMA (related, yes, but not identical), DADT, expansion of hate crimes statutes, expansion of workplace and housing discrimination laws, his opposition to an amendment preventing same-sex marriages, where he has positions I completely agree with, as well as other issues where, while he doesn't have a position, I can guess from his other positions that he'd still be far better than McCain.

 

[Gaborn]

The culture in which we live grants both an enormous suite of official rights to married people and cultural cache to those that are married. I'm in the camp of hey let's do away with marriage and let everyone have civil unions, but I don't think that's going to happen. I'd even go one further and suggest that people in couples shouldn't receive any special benefits over single people.


I have. I've watched the speeches. I've mostly gotten over homophobic ex-gay Donnie McClurkin emceeing an Obama event. I was ready to donate before I saw the marriage quote from Obama post-California. I want leadership, not cheesy pandering. And I want it even more because of what the Obama campaign alleges to be about.

Also, did you see this? I realize Steve Hildebrand is openly gay, but I still find it EXTREMELY difficult to believe he uses the term casually regularly. I know that's one thing I'd never do, it's simply not a "casual" term to most gays.

 

[Tamanon]

FISA statement:

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. 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. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people."

Supports the compromise, but will work to remove the immunity. Same as ever, but people will still bitch about it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I have. I've watched the speeches. I've mostly gotten over homophobic ex-gay Donnie McClurkin emceeing an Obama event. I was ready to donate before I saw the marriage quote from Obama post-California. I want leadership, not cheesy pandering. And I want it even more because of what the Obama campaign alleges to be about.

How about the record that Agent Icebreezy just posted? That's a pretty strong record on gay rights. It is quite decidedly *not* cheesy pandering.

 

[Tamanon]

The culture in which we live grants both an enormous suite of official rights to married people and cultural cache to those that are married. I'm in the camp of hey let's do away with marriage and let everyone have civil unions, but I don't think that's going to happen. I'd even go one further and suggest that people in couples shouldn't receive any special benefits over single people.


I have. I've watched the speeches. I've mostly gotten over homophobic ex-gay Donnie McClurkin emceeing an Obama event. I was ready to donate before I saw the marriage quote from Obama post-California. I want leadership, not cheesy pandering. And I want it even more because of what the Obama campaign alleges to be about.

To be fair, wouldn't "cheesy pandering" be him saying something he doesn't personally believe so that a contingent feels better?

 

[Mumei]

Thank you for the clarification here. I've not seen any statistics about how the country feels about homosexuality lately. When looking at the complexion of this election, it seems like gay rights are one of those very important, yet pushed to the wayside issues because there are still bigger issues to strike a contrast with. Besides, don't we both know their stance? I saw that clip of Ellen when she put McCain on the spot about it and he didn't budge. Not knowing about Obama's stance in depth, I found this>

A vote for Obama is a vote for progress, no?

Yeah, I'm aware of his positions - he has his HRC questionnaire card filled out on his website, actually; he is the best we have ever had out of a Democratic nominee on every issue but marriage, and I do recognize that we've come a long way since 1972, the first year that gay rights were a plank on the Democratic platform (ouch).

 

[Gaborn]

How about the record that Agent Icebreezy just posted? That's a pretty strong record on gay rights. It is quite decidedly *not* cheesy pandering.

Most of it is window dressing. Personally I don't agree with hate crimes legislation in general on principle, and I certainly don't think private employers should be restricted in how they hire and fire people. It's good that he supported the government of Illinois not being allowed to discriminate though, I'll grant him that. I also think he's right that gays and lesbians should be allowed the same adoption rights as everyone else (not exactly a difficult stance since only one state has a specific ban on gay adoption but NOT on unmarried or single heterosexuals adopting, that being Florida)

 

[Mumei]

Most of it is window dressing. Personally I don't agree with hate crimes legislation in general on principle, and I certainly don't think private employers should be restricted in how they hire and fire people. It's good that he supported the government of Illinois not being allowed to discriminate though, I'll grant him that. I also think he's right that gays and lesbians should be allowed the same adoption rights as everyone else (not exactly a difficult stance since only one state has a specific ban on gay adoption but NOT on unmarried or single heterosexuals adopting, that being Florida)

How do you feel about laws prosecuting people for terrorism?

 

[Gaborn]

How do you feel about laws prosecuting people for terrorism?

I think that people should be tried for the crimes they commit, whether that's assaulting someone (regardless of the reason) or issuing a bomb threat to cause a panic, or whatever. I think that if someone commits or plots terrorist acts they should be arrested, tried, and convicted but I don't think BECAUSE THEY'RE A TERRORIST they're inherently worse than someone who commits the same or a similar act as a citizen (for example the guy that stabbed like 20 people in Japan is no worse than a terrorist who goes to a crowded area and shoots 20 people before being killed).

 

[maynerd]

FISA statement:

Supports the compromise, but will work to remove the immunity. Same as ever, but people will still bitch about it.

There really needs to be something in the thing that states if you go around this you will be punished. Because the president went around it and broke the law and NOTHING happened. What's to stop someone in the future from breaking the law again?

 

[kaching]

I'm in the camp of hey let's do away with marriage and let everyone have civil unions, but I don't think that's going to happen. I'd even go one further and suggest that people in couples shouldn't receive any special benefits over single people.

See, I didn't think this was about what we think will happen but rather what we think should happen and about not supporting half measures in the process. But it seems you're willing to engage in the same incomplete measures that you're accusing Obama of.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Hey, look at it this way: The argument has gone from whether people should be allowed to be married to "Should we call it marriage?" over the course of just a few years.

 

[Mandark]

To be fair, wouldn't "cheesy pandering" be him saying something he doesn't personally believe so that a contingent feels better?

How do we know that's not what he's doing now?

 

[Tamanon]

There really needs to be something in the thing that states if you go around this you will be punished. Because the president went around it and broke the law and NOTHING happened. What's to stop someone in the future from breaking the law again?

I've been going over that in my head for a while now, but I can't think of any way to avoid the President actively breaking the law. I mean, all that can happen is impeachment/censure. When it all comes down, if a President wants to, they can break the law at will, as evidenced by Yoo.

What can they put in a law besides it being a law that would prevent someone from the Executive branch from breaking it?

Mandark: That's kinda my point, "cheesy pandering" can apply to basically anything that's said by anyone.

 

[Gaborn]

See, I didn't think this was about what we think will happen but rather what we think should happen and about not supporting half measures in the process. But it seems you're willing to engage in the same incomplete measures that you're accusing Obama of.

What this is about is equality. I'd accept either marriage for all, or civil unions for all, however my guess is that arguing to give gays the right to marriage is probably easier for people to accept than legally redefining heterosexual marriages as a civil union.

 

[Mumei]

I think that people should be tried for the crimes they commit, whether that's assaulting someone (regardless of the reason) or issuing a bomb threat to cause a panic, or whatever. I think that if someone commits or plots terrorist acts they should be arrested, tried, and convicted but I don't think BECAUSE THEY'RE A TERRORIST they're inherently worse than someone who commits the same or a similar act as a citizen (for example the guy that stabbed like 20 people in Japan is no worse than a terrorist who goes to a crowded area and shoots 20 people before being killed).

So, you believe that we should prosecute them for the murder and attempted murders, for the destruction of private and public property, and so forth, but that there shouldn't be a law against terrorism, per se; the preexisting laws are good enough for our purposes.

Well, at least you aren't intellectually dishonest about this. Nice job avoiding The Trap.

 

[Mercury Fred]

See, I didn't think this was about what we think will happen but rather what we think should happen and about not supporting half measures in the process. But it seems you're willing to engage in the same incomplete measures that you're accusing Obama of.

I want equality. That's the priority.

 

[Gaborn]

So, you believe that we should prosecute them for the murder and attempted murders, for the destruction of private and public property, and so forth, but that there shouldn't be a law against terrorism, per se; the preexisting laws are good enough for our purposes.

Well, at least you aren't intellectually dishonest about this. Nice job avoiding The Trap.

Yep, exactly. As long as someone is committing a criminal act, which terrorists generally are they should be tried under those laws.

 

[Mumei]

How do we know that's not what he's doing now?

This is going to give me a nightmare consisting of a conversation between Raskolnikov and Obama. :lol

 

[Mandark]

Tamanon: I'm thinking of how many people are willing to just accept that this is his "personal belief" because he says so, and not even consider the possibility that it's a political calculation.

The same thing happened when I was carping about the energy bill. "He explained why he voted for it, and it had nothing to do with Illinois coal interests!"

Obama strikes me as more honest than the median politician, but that doesn't put him anywhere close to complete truthfulness.

 

[Gaborn]

Tamanon: I'm thinking of how many people are willing to just accept that this is his "personal belief" because he says so, and not even consider the possibility that it's a political calculation.

The same thing happened when I was carping about the energy bill. "He explained why he voted for it, and it had nothing to do with Illinois coal interests!"

Obama strikes me as more honest than the median politician, but that doesn't put him anywhere close to complete truthfulness.

Agreed.

 

[kaching]

What this is about is equality. I'd accept either marriage for all, or civil unions for all, however my guess is that arguing to give gays the right to marriage is probably easier for people to accept than legally redefining heterosexual marriages as a civil union.

All I see is half measures. Not good enough.

Having access to marriage doesn't establish equality in society. If anything, marriage is a driver for continued discriminatory acts by individuals.

 

[Tamanon]

Tamanon: I'm thinking of how many people are willing to just accept that this is his "personal belief" because he says so, and not even consider the possibility that it's a political calculation.

The same thing happened when I was carping about the energy bill. "He explained why he voted for it, and it had nothing to do with Illinois coal interests!"

Obama strikes me as more honest than the median politician, but that doesn't put him anywhere close to complete truthfulness.

Oh I completely agree, I think it's impossible to be a politician and be completely truthful.

 

[mckmas8808]

It's NOT just a word, it's what the word represents in society.

Im going to ask an assholish question, but which would you rather have?

A. Full civil unions without the word 'married', but full rights as if you were married?

or

B. To be considered 'married' but not have full or even half the rights that married people have?

 

[Gaborn]

All I see is half measures. Not good enough.

Having access to marriage doesn't establish equality in society. If anything, marriage is a driver for continued discriminatory acts by individuals.

In what sense is that a half measure? You're confusing legal equality with social equality incidentally. I don't support the GOVERNMENT making arbitrary distinctions against groups of people based solely on biological sex (a man can marry a woman but not a man, but a woman can marry a man but not a woman), but any citizen should be free to personally discriminate.

Mkmas - neither, because both are unequal treatment under the law. Both would have different advantages, the second is more dignified and the first is more useful. In effect though we already HAVE the second, nothing stops gay couples from going to a church and having the ceremony performed, the government simply doesn't recognize it's validity in 48 states. Well 47 if you get it done in Calfornia and move to NY.

 

[guess]

Im going to ask an assholish question, but which would you rather have?

A. Full civil unions without the word 'married', but full rights as if you were married?

or

B. To be considered 'married' but not have full or even half the rights that married people have?

I'm sure the answer your going to get both rights and "word."

 

[avatar299]

Im going to ask an assholish question, but which would you rather have?

A. Full civil unions without the word 'married', but full rights as if you were married?

or

B. To be considered 'married' but not have full or even half the rights that married people have?

You just don't get it, do you?

 

[Incognito]

Posted yet?

Obama up 15%.

51-36%

 

[Tamanon]

In lighter news, Obama up 51 to 36 nationally in a new Newsweek poll.

Yup, 15 ponts.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465?from=rss

 

[Gaborn]

That's an impressive Newsweek poll.

 

[kkaabboomm]

At a discussion with a dozen Democratic governors in Chicago on Friday morning, each of the governors was identified with a small name plate but Senator Barack Obama sat behind a low rostrum to which was attached an official-looking seal no one had seen before.

It is emblazoned with a fierce-looking eagle clutching an olive branch in one claw and arrows in the other and is deliberately reminiscent of the official seal of the president of the United States. Around the top border are the words “Obama for America;” across the bottom is the campaign’s Web address. It also contains the logo of the Obama campaign, variously interpreted as a sunrise or a view down an open road.

Just above the eagle’s head are the words “Vero Possumus,” roughly translated “Yes we can.” Not exactly E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One), the motto on the presidential seal and the dollar bill. Then again Mr. Obama is not the president of anything.

John M. Broder, NYT/The Caucus
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/the-great-seal-of-obamaland/

is the seal a way to convey 'presidential' to average viewers/folk?

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

John M. Broder, NYT/The Caucus
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/the-great-seal-of-obamaland/

is the seal a way to convey 'presidential' to average viewers/folk?

Shit makes me think of the Dipset. I like it though.

 

[Incognito]

What the hell is the matter with this forum?

It's consistently the slowest thing on the internets.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Posted yet?

Obama up 15%.

51-36%

That's a huge outlier among general polls, which have McCain and Obama seperatedy by 3-7 points.

Interesting.

 

[Keylime]

I like that graphic... a lot.

 

[scorcho]

John M. Broder, NYT/The Caucus
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/the-great-seal-of-obamaland/

is the seal a way to convey 'presidential' to average viewers/folk?

but i'm starting to think their branding campaign is a getting a bit over the top.

 

[Gaborn]

What the hell is the matter with this forum?

It's consistently the slowest thing on the internets.

It's odd, I edited my post to reply to mckmas, it didn't show up for like a minute so I copied my planned reply, replied directly to his post and it finally went through... and showed my edit too. So I edited in my comment with the newsweek poll so it was clear. Still annoying though.

 

[maximum360]

On CNN's ticker: "Liberals slam Obama on Funding."

Also: "Trusting Obama. Fallout from funding decision."

Way to go there CNN. They give the impression that his base is against him and hint that people may no longer trust Obama.

 

[Tamanon]

On CNN's ticker: "Liberals slam Obama on Funding."

Also: "Trusting Obama. Fallout from funding decision."

Way to go there CNN. They give the impression that his base is against him and hint that people may no longer trust Obama.

I dunno, the "liberals slam Obama" headline might not be so bad

 

[Diablos]

Agreed. I've been completely baffled by the Dems' lack of action since the 2006 elections.

They've done a lot since 2006, but this just adds fuel to the perception fire that they aren't... really bad move, House Dems. I'm really disappointed.