That's seals it...
Obama does not represent me. From the Boston Globe (via Avedon, who seems pretty peeved as well):
"Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics. That is common sense. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home . . . . There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare. We are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country, but we've got more uninsured. There's nothing liberal about saying that doesn't make sense, and we should so something smarter with our healthcare system."
Yes, I am a liberal. And proud of it.
Update: It seems JFK understood the meaning:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label 'liberal'? If by 'liberal' they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then...we are not that kind of 'liberal.' But if by a 'liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people--their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties--someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'liberal' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'liberal.'
I wonder if Teddy Kennedy is rethinking his endorsement of the man who runs from the "label" his brother proudly embraced.
Comments
I heard this statement as a unifying message. I inferred that these things are not JUST liberal values. These are human values. I too am in the boat of having seen my first, second and third choices drop out of the race, and am not 100% with either choice left to me(no third option for me). I will be 100% with one in short order though as all 1000 mile journeys start with one step. I wonder sometimes if there is not such a thing as ear blinders sometimes. Remember, supposedly someone will be elected in November. Blessings of peace and harmony to all.
Posted by: T-Ray | February 27, 2008 11:28 AM
Oh yes that reminds me, congratulations on your first step towards a new "web nest". I am happy for you folks. Thanks for the effort and example.
Posted by: T-Ray | February 27, 2008 11:31 AM
T-Ray, if was meant to be a unifying message, then Obama should have said "it's not ONLY liberal to want [insert value]", not "there's nothing liberal about [insert value]". Liberals were the ones who first brought up these issues, and to then denigrate our history, strip our years of hard work, is not unifying. He just tossed out the liberal/progressive wing of the Democratic party, whether with the bathwater, or on purpose, really doesn't matter, does it?
Posted by: MB | February 27, 2008 11:39 AM
I believed you when posted this opinion above. I don't deny your inference. I saw how one could see that. I thought it worth mentioning that I inferred something else. I will not argue what he meant.I can't, not without him present. I did reference that he also was less than 3rd on my list of preferred candidates. What I wanted to express is my disdain for labels, all of them. Even the ones I would claim. If I am unable to look someone in the eyes and not see me looking back then I feel I am less than I could be. I try to think of all people as one (earthlings). We all have mother to stand upon and connect us. As a rule I feel a label (like group W bench) is just a way of pointing out differences. I think there are plenty of advocates for that already. I don't need to help that tide.
Well, can't I blather on! After all that maybe what I should have said was "people (I heard) hear what they want". Blessings!
Posted by: T-Ray | February 27, 2008 01:41 PM
lib-er-al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, generous, from Old French, from Latin lberlis, from lber, free; see leudh- in Indo-European roots.]
I can live with being liberal and being described as such, he makes me wonder why he wouldn't want to be generous, undogmatic and unauthoritarian. For a man who is running on "words matter", he seems to have issues with words that have defined the aims of the progressive wing of his own party.
Posted by: Hawise | February 27, 2008 05:24 PM
OK. Blessings
Posted by: T-Ray | February 28, 2008 12:17 AM