Springsteen Endorses Obama

Posted on BruceSpringsteen.net

Dear Friends and Fans:

LIke most of you, I've been following the campaign and I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand. Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest.

He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where "...nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone."

At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.

After the terrible damage done over the past eight years, a great American reclamation project needs to be undertaken. I believe that Senator Obama is the best candidate to lead that project and to lead us into the 21st Century with a renewed sense of moral purpose and of ourselves as Americans.

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President.

Comments

The Boss should be a surrogate for Obama. He did a better job of explaining things than a lot of the surrogates I've seen on the talking head circuit of late.

Posted by Amy | April 16, 2008 9:50 AM

Who cares!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Posted by Obi's Sister | April 16, 2008 9:50 AM

Thanks Bruce! Nice one.

Posted by Kelly M. | April 16, 2008 9:50 AM

Don't think this endorsement will make a whit of difference, but man, it was eloquently written. Right on!

Seems to me that (given the recent "bitter" flap) Springsteen's song "My Hometown" would be the perfect accompaniment to an Obama commercial.

Posted by Dan | April 16, 2008 9:52 AM

No surprise and big deal! Springsteen is a classic Limosine Liberal, choosing the most obvious P.C. choice. Race trumps gender....sorry Hillary.

Obama's socialist high tax and high spend agenda will not affect Springsteen in the least. This guy jumped the shark years ago.

Posted by Jay | April 16, 2008 9:56 AM

He's just BITTER and CLINGS to his guitar and high school diploma because of his fear of people different than himself

Posted by average white person | April 16, 2008 9:56 AM

Since I am going to see Springsteen this weekend, I have been wondering if or who he would endorse. I could make reasonable speculations either way. Great letter and I think it will get some traction, but not be all that important. I'm sure the timing is no accident.

Posted by DML | April 16, 2008 9:59 AM

Still stuck on stupid.

Posted by Joe | April 16, 2008 9:59 AM

Wow, a socialist backing a socialist. Who'da thunk it?

Posted by Dirty White Boy | April 16, 2008 10:02 AM

Next up: Toby Keith and John Mellencamp.

The small town white rockers will eventually all endorse Obama. Awww yeah.

Posted by Craig | April 16, 2008 10:16 AM

Hey Bruce, you better get all those billions you have into off-shore and overseas account or Obama will be waiting to tax you back to "just" a multi-millionaire... What a joke, does anybody care what a brain-dead over-the-hill "rockstar" really thinks??? An elitist supporting an elitist---surprise of the young century so far!!!

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 10:24 AM

Oh yeah, forgot to ask the question---Springsteen can read???

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 10:26 AM

YYYAAAWWWWNNNN!!!!

Posted by DaveD | April 16, 2008 10:33 AM

The Andrews Sisters are set to endorse McCain.

Posted by chipfat | April 16, 2008 10:40 AM

Its definitely Dreams FROM My Father, not of...

But woo, anyway. Don't mess with the boss, he smacked Reagan pretty good for using "Born in the USA" at his campaign rallies in the 80s'

Posted by kim | April 16, 2008 10:41 AM

What I love about conservatives is it's all about them. They bitch about tax hikes and have no thoughts when they stroll through cities stepping over homeless. What I love is when I was in the service we always spoke about never leaving a man behind. Inside the country we don't care in the least. Personally, I'll pay taxes with a smile on my face if it helps someone else.

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 10:43 AM

To most of the above posters: Sour grapes, much?

Better Bruce than Elton. It was a well-written endorsement. Certainly not game-changing, but a nice bit of news.

Posted by texasdem | April 16, 2008 10:43 AM

I doubt he could spell OBAMA if you spotted him the OBAM....

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 10:46 AM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

P.S. Samantha Power was right

Posted by Lloyd Webber | April 16, 2008 10:46 AM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

P.S. Samantha Power was right

Posted by Lloyd Webber | April 16, 2008 10:47 AM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

P.S. Samantha Power was right

Posted by Lloyd Webber | April 16, 2008 10:47 AM

I have long been a huge fan of Bruce's music. I don't know what it says about him or what it says about me. But since 9/11, I have been at odds with the beliefs of most of my cultural heroes, including Bruce. I could barely listen to the polemic called "Magic." I hate that. But it's true. I think for the most part many of my cultural heroes fail to grasp the key challenge of our times: the Rise of Islamism. I also think that to a lesser or greater extent that they suffer from what Michelle Malkin has so eloquently described as "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Their hatred of George W. Bush colors and even overwhelms their common sense. I saw the same thing on the right during the Clinton years. "Clinton hatred" was more important to some people than what was good for the country. On some levels I really like Obama. But he is dangerous. He like Bruce sees the world as an optimistic place and he is quick to blame America first. The truth and, I hope that Bruce and more importantly Barack, comes to realize this is that we are in a fight for our lives against an ideology that fundamentally rejects individual freedom and seeks to make us bow down to what they believe is divine authority. If we had any brains at all, we wouldn't be moaning about Iraq. Instead, we would be planning the next war that we must inevitably fight against this enemy. We need more troops. We need a draft. We need to get ready to defend our freedoms and our lives. Or we will surely lose both to a relentless enemy who sees freedom as evil and our lives as worthless. Pulling out of Iraq with our tail between our legs will only embolden this enemy. And Islamism will not be defeated by blue jeans, rock 'n' roll, or defense spending like the old Soviet empire. The only way to defeat it is to convince that we will kill them and all of their progeny if they don't choose peace over war. That is the true teaching of the warlord named Mohammed: strike when the enemy is weak. Bide your time when the enemy is strong. THe jihad will not end just because we pull out of Iraq. It will only get worse.

Posted by Fleiter | April 16, 2008 10:50 AM

Why isn't Bruce and the music industry ashamed for killing the planet with their extra electrified carbon footprint every time they turn on the amps?

And how many jets and semi- trucks does Bruce and the band use to profit off killing the planet with their nasty live concert carbon footprints?

Posted by syn | April 16, 2008 10:50 AM

I have long been a huge fan of Bruce's music. I don't know what it says about him or what it says about me. But since 9/11, I have been at odds with the beliefs of most of my cultural heroes, including Bruce. I could barely listen to the polemic called "Magic." I hate that. But it's true. I think for the most part many of my cultural heroes fail to grasp the key challenge of our times: the Rise of Islamism. I also think that to a lesser or greater extent that they suffer from what Michelle Malkin has so eloquently described as "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Their hatred of George W. Bush colors and even overwhelms their common sense. I saw the same thing on the right during the Clinton years. "Clinton hatred" was more important to some people than what was good for the country. On some levels I really like Obama. But he is dangerous. He like Bruce sees the world as an optimistic place and he is quick to blame America first. The truth and, I hope that Bruce and more importantly Barack, comes to realize this is that we are in a fight for our lives against an ideology that fundamentally rejects individual freedom and seeks to make us bow down to what they believe is divine authority. If we had any brains at all, we wouldn't be moaning about Iraq. Instead, we would be planning the next war that we must inevitably fight against this enemy. We need more troops. We need a draft. We need to get ready to defend our freedoms and our lives. Or we will surely lose both to a relentless enemy who sees freedom as evil and our lives as worthless. Pulling out of Iraq with our tail between our legs will only embolden this enemy. And Islamism will not be defeated by blue jeans, rock 'n' roll, or defense spending like the old Soviet empire. The only way to defeat it is to convince that we will kill them and all of their progeny if they don't choose peace over war. That is the true teaching of the warlord named Mohammed: strike when the enemy is weak. Bide your time when the enemy is strong. THe jihad will not end just because we pull out of Iraq. It will only get worse.

Posted by Fleiter | April 16, 2008 10:51 AM

Hey Josh let me break it down for ya... 1.) I pay plenty of taxes and a lot of those taxes go towards helping the homeless and what not---you can't make people help themselves if they don't want to(I know liberals feel that if just more money was spent---things would be solved). 2.) I doubt B.S. has to step over any homeless people while he's being driven in a big gas-guzzling limo on his way to his 5-Star hotels and Filet Mignon dinners. 3.) As President Bush said, "the IRS takes checks and money orders" go ahead and send in that addtional money if you see fit... I doubt they return it to sender....

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 10:53 AM

"Socialist high tax and high spend agenda"? in the midst of the tsunami of drivel that hit at the beginning of the comments, this statement jumped out at me. Are you people THAT cognitively-challenged or are you just working from one of those laminated script books at the astroturf boiler room?

Look around at the state of things.Did you happen to notice the story that came out recently that the amount of the tax cuts for Dear Leader's Constituency of The Richest, over the period since the cut's inception, is the same as the amount we are in hock to the Chinese for? Have you seen the economy? Have you paid a gas or food bill lately, while the rich get richer in the commodities markets?

Are you people just that stupid to face all that and deride one man's desire for some change around here? At long last, have you not a lick of common sense?

Posted by T. Scheisskopf | April 16, 2008 10:59 AM

Wow, Delaware Vol, are you a douche.

Posted by Bruce | April 16, 2008 11:07 AM

Bruce screwed the E Street Band, his career flopped, he brings them back. Typical liberal.

Barack Billionaire Row is the true personality. Bruce fits right in. They are a great team. Hypocrites.

Posted by JoeS | April 16, 2008 11:07 AM

Bruce, reality is hard to face and come to terms with sometimes... Therefore, I'll ignore your comment.

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 11:11 AM

Springsteen has always written songs about how New Jersey, America and Americans are so miserable but what a heroic guy he is and how he will overcome the rest of us. Springsteen said he gets "great comfort" from writers like Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd, argueably two of the most hatefilled, dysfunctional writers on the public stage. That's not surprising when you hear the negativity (except for his own self perception) of his lyrics. His choice of an elitist, racist, classist like Obama would have been anticipated, that is if anyone really cared what a pampered, millionaire celebrity who lives in a gated compound had to say.

Posted by REW | April 16, 2008 11:32 AM

Springsteen has always written songs about how New Jersey, America and Americans are so miserable but what a heroic guy he is and how he will overcome the rest of us. Springsteen said he gets "great comfort" from writers like Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd, argueably two of the most hatefilled, dysfunctional writers on the public stage. That's not surprising when you hear the negativity (except for his own self perception) of his lyrics. His choice of an elitist, racist, classist like Obama would have been anticipated, that is if anyone really cared what a pampered, millionaire celebrity who lives in a gated compound had to say.

Posted by REW | April 16, 2008 11:32 AM

I quit buying John Grisham books after he endorsed Hillary. I only wish I bought Springsteen albums so I could quit buying them, too. Shut up and Sing.

Posted by flyover | April 16, 2008 11:33 AM

Delaware Vol just proves that conservatives don't care about the deficit, just their own pocketbooks. Bush's tax cuts combined with his spending and this war are just a deferred tax hike on younger people, but he doesn't care because he won't have to pay it.

Posted by Reality Man | April 16, 2008 11:35 AM

Well, all of you disaffected Bruce fans could always switch to Elton John. He's pretty good too.

Posted by swarty | April 16, 2008 11:37 AM

Springsteen sucks -- Obama sucks to infinity!

Posted by Beckwith | April 16, 2008 11:45 AM

Flyover spewed:
"I only wish I bought Springsteen albums so I could quit buying them, too. Shut up and Sing."

Hey buddy, go fuck yourself. You're clearly a Republican who remembers the Dixie Chicks. They didn't take your crap and neither will Bruce.

Posted by swarty | April 16, 2008 11:45 AM

Oh, Bruce. I wish you'd start surprising me. I used to think you were the John Steinbeck of rock-n-roll - turns out you're the maya angelou. Get your head out of your ass, boss!

Posted by SeanS. | April 16, 2008 11:45 AM

Springsteen for superdelegate!

Posted by PDB | April 16, 2008 11:52 AM

Not true, we're continuing to cut into the deficit---although you won't hear it or watch it on CNN, MSNBC, NBC or any of the other mainstream media outlets... Also, you're absolutely right---I don't want to pay 50% of what I earn in taxes... In addition, I hope you're not that naive to think that Bruce Springsteen doesn't benefit from the tax cuts as they are..... He may say he doesn't benefit but he'd be a liar if he made that statement... Finally, it is documented that people that consider themselves Conservative are FAR more generous in general with charity and other giving than those that consider themselves Liberal...

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 11:53 AM

Josh, conservatives just tend to want their money to go to useful programs as opposed to bureaucratic nightmares that the federal government creates.
In general the further up the chain you go the less efficient any system gets so if you try to deal with the homeless in Chicago from a DC office you can just guess how well that works.

From every study I've ever seen on the subject conservatives tend to give much more of their income to charities then liberals. At least charities can be in some way help accountable for their use of their collected funds. Try doing the same for any politician.

Posted by Bic | April 16, 2008 11:57 AM

Delaware Vol - Your comments are idiotic. There is no other way to describe them.

Posted by swarty | April 16, 2008 12:05 PM

If Bruce really did write that half-intelligent bit of lefty propaganda then he needs to "shut up and sing". (Thank you Laura Ingraham).
Why do rock stars and actors think they have to weigh in on politics? Maybe since record sales and movie attendance is way down they resort to such methods to feed their ignore(-the-truth-and-)rant narcissism.
I saw Bruce once way back in the late 70's: I wasn't impressed then, I'm less impressed now. I'll take Joe Walsh and the old, tired Eagles over him any day.

Posted by Christie | April 16, 2008 12:05 PM

Stay classy Swarty, stay classy.

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 12:06 PM

I like it, that's a reasoned and unpretentious endorsement. Few stars are able to maintain balance between projecting a good sense of civic interest while not coming across as pretentious and bossy.

Here Springsteen doesn't tell anyone what to do, he just states his decision, and his reasons for it. Whether you agree with him or not, this is an appropriate statement, and sets a good example of civic diligence.

Posted by RTG | April 16, 2008 12:09 PM

In case someone wants to call me a Republican, as if it's worse than being a Democrap, (which is what I was when I was a stoopid chick), I'm a non-partisan.

Posted by Christie | April 16, 2008 12:10 PM

Christie said: "Why do rock stars and actors think they have to weigh in on politics?"

What is it today? Did everyone of you folks take your stupid pills?

Bruce is a voting citizen just like you are I assume. He's just as entitled to his opinion as you are. That's why he weighs in. If you followed the guy's career and mindset, it would make sense to you that he has a political conscience. Just because one doesn't like the music doesn't mean that his politics are suspect.

Posted by swarty | April 16, 2008 12:19 PM

Delaware Vol, how dare you use facts against a liberal! They are immune to them!

And D.V. is correct...when it comes to PERSONAL charitable giving, conservatives are far more generous than liberals. Yes, this FACT will be uncomfortable for you liberals, because it contradicts a MYTH you've held for so long (just like the FACT most military members are pro-war Republicans contradicts the MYTH of the chicken-hawk Republican).

Posted by Tony Pistone | April 16, 2008 12:20 PM

Intelligent response Swarty, at least you didn't tell me to go F-myself tho... That's a start.

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 12:21 PM

Delaware Vol said:
Stay classy Swarty, stay classy.

Maybe you didn't understand me. Go fuck yourself.

Posted by swarty | April 16, 2008 12:24 PM

In the interest of actually trying to answer Delaware Vol's completely straw man argument, I will do so.

Bruce Springsteen announces his support of Obama for President.

Delaware Vol then says that Bruce Springsteen is rich and has benefitted from Republican tax policies. He/she then makes a ludicrous assertion that Bruce "may say he doesn't benefit" which is not at issue and as far as I know Bruce has never said. I may have kissed Christy Turlington. That's a true statement as well.

He/she then states that it's a fact that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

What does this have to do with anything? It's like me saying that more Republican politicians are under indictment than Democrats. It adds exactly nothing to the discussion. I can only imagine that it is some sort of swipe at Bruce who I can only assume Delaware Vol thinks doesn't do enough for charity.

The whole comment is deeply silly and makes no sense and I feel sullied by even bothering to answer such claptrap.

Posted by swarty | April 16, 2008 12:37 PM

In breaking news, a swarm of morons has apparently invaded Ambinder's joint.

The internet is weird.

Posted by ethan salto | April 16, 2008 12:45 PM

"If you followed the guy's career and mindset, it would make sense to you that he has a political conscience. Just because one doesn't like the music doesn't mean that his politics are suspect."
Bwahahahaha...political conscience? Give me a break, Swarty. In The Boss's case that's an oxymoron. It's all hand-wringing and platitudes with the lefties, I know from experience, i used to be one of them.
Also, in the Boss's case his music sucks AND his political blather does too. I've stopped listening to alot of people especially when they start talking and singing political trash.
Just because he's a (wealthy, rock star) 'citizen' doesn't mean he's entitled to ('condescend' and) tell us who he's endorsing. It's no one's business! Besides, no one asks the average Joe to give 'eloquent' endorsements, just these idiots.
There are plenty of intelligent, famous people who don't foist their opinions on us, why does B.S.?

Posted by Christie | April 16, 2008 1:02 PM

Swarty, Deleware Vol was just contradicting the shot-in-the-dark claims that Republicans are for lower taxes only because they are greedy.

See, Del? I told you these spiteful trolls were immune to facts.

Posted by Tony Pistone | April 16, 2008 1:10 PM

Considering Salto's blog, methinks he doth project too much.
BTW, to help out and answer my last question, again: B.S. is a narcissist would wouldn't feel alive without the attention.

Posted by Christie | April 16, 2008 1:11 PM

Nice answer Swarty, I like it. Plain and simple Republicans hear the what they want to hear. They refer to Obama as an Elitist, me personally, I want an Elitist in office. Delaware says that republicans give to charities. That's not where you start. Most homeless suffer from mental illness, addiction etc..Then they have children and now they're homeless. Democrats provides programs for those, real solutions. A tax break? Are you fucking high? There is a reason that 76.2 percent of highly educated people (people with advanced degrees and professors) identify as liberal. Democrat speak about change and solutions and dumb bastards like Delaware get confused. Republican lower and taxes in the same sentence and he/she thinks he's solved the worlds problems. During the war in Iraq, the enemy has grown in numbers and strength and is more of a threat and civilians casualities are over 800,000. I think those are the things we went to war to prevent???

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 1:12 PM

I think Alice Cooper said it best...

He said people would be stupid to look to rock stars for political endorsements.

And while Cooper never hid the fact that he voted for Bush, he never used the power of his celebrity to bash people over the head with his opinions.

Face it, conservative celebrities are just cooler than liberal ones.

Liberal celebs: George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen, Tim Robbins, et. al...basically a bunch of elitist whiners who talk a big game and little more

Conservative celebs: Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzanegger, Alice Cooper, Ted Nugent...they either decline to use their celebrity status to voice their opinions...or they do far more than just talk and actually accomplish something in politics

Posted by Tony Pistone | April 16, 2008 1:16 PM

Nice Josh, your arguments/"facts" are right off the front pages of Daily Kos and Huffington Post... Wow, what a shock... LMAO!!!

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 1:20 PM

I finally found out who is truly bitter today: People who don't like Bruce Springsteen.

You guys sure are angry.

Of course Bruce (and Elton, and Chuck Norris, and Oprah, and Jon Voigt) is "entitled" to voice his opinion just as you are free to make straw man arguments about how his music sucks and that is why his opinion sucks too.

It's as much people's business as you, Christie, posting on this blog.

Intelligent, famous (btw, that's usually an oxymoron) people have as much right to their opinions as we do. I agree that they get a bigger arena for their opinions than we do. Oh well. But I bet you could make a Youtube about how much you think Bruce sucks and a few folks would look at it. You could post it on one of the Elton John fanboards and get some hits. Market your bitterness! Think big.

Posted by swarty | April 16, 2008 1:21 PM

Arnold Schwarzanegger isn't all that conservative. In fact, in most states, his policies would put him in the center of the Democratic party. And Ted Nugent is... whatever the opposite of "cool" is. And I notice you forgot Kelsey Grammar on that list, who is a huge tool and loves to flaunt his support for the Republicans.

Posted by Rock On | April 16, 2008 1:29 PM

Clever comeback Delaware. As soon as someone posts a number or a fact in a sentence you run and hide. I have a degree in PS. You, I'm imagining are going back and forth from this debate and downloading Justin Timberlake songs. Read my post, come back with some answers.

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 1:29 PM

You're wrong, I LOVE Bruce Springsteen---his music. The thing is, these performers are first of all arrogant, to think that anyone gives a damn what they think about the presidnetial election. Second of all, they're so ignorant because they are t-ing off at least 50% of their audience with their comments and endorsements... Probably not a good business decision.

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 1:30 PM

You lost all credibility with that 800,000 figure Chief. That's Daily kos all the way.

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 1:33 PM

I understand some of you are conservatives. But we don't have a fiscally conservative party in the U.S. so why not vote for the one that has a slightly less abismal record of incompetance.

Posted by NM | April 16, 2008 1:33 PM

You lost all credibility with that 800,000 figure Chief. That's Daily kos all the way or some George Soros funded site.

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 1:33 PM

800,000 is known to anyone that turns on the news.

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 1:35 PM

I agree, I've been tremendously disappointed with Bush over spending issues. The problem is NM, with the selection of either Obama or Clinton---they'll make the Bush Administration look frugal.

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 1:37 PM

Oh yeah, what channel, station, network???

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 1:39 PM

While you're online checkout the LA Times and The Washington Post. LA Times has it estimated at 1,000,000 by the end of the year.

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 1:43 PM

While you're at it Delaware, and I'm impressed that you're asking for the facts, check out the medical journal Lancet who last year had it at 654,965.

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 1:45 PM

You mean the committed left-wing, anti-war rags the LA Times and Washington Post... Unfortuantely, I have to read that garbage at the Post nearly everyday for work... I know their position on the war... Nope, not buying it... Rosie O'Donnell made the same false assertions...

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 1:52 PM

Great answer, do the country a favor, stay home fantasizing about you and Pat O'Reilly in the same room talking out your asses the day the polls open.

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 1:55 PM

Josh, don't bother anymore engaging with this fool.

I especially liked the comparison of The Washington POst & Rosie O'Donnell.

Delaware, you're dumber then you think I think you are.

Posted by swarty | April 16, 2008 1:57 PM

If the LA Times and Wash Post work for you as news sources than goody for you. I personally like my news sources to be slightly less biased.

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 2:01 PM

I agree Swarty, I love that comparison. I especially like the "committed left-wing, anti-war rags". It seems whenever the facts come up, they turn to that or liberal thinking as a defense. It reminds me of that "I know you are but what am I" game from when you're a kid.

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 2:04 PM

OK, Delaware, I'll bite. Give me some of your un-biased facts on death tolls and the growth of terrorism and back it up with some facts.

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 2:07 PM

First of all what facts??? You threw a bunch a numbers out there with GREAT discrepancies---so which one is it...??? Do we just want to take the average of the numbers and call it a day??? LOL!! Second of all, unless you got your BS of PS at Cal-Berkeley, than you can't POSSIBLY think that either the LA Times or the Washington Post is an OBJECTIVE source for news or data concerning the war...

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 2:14 PM

We have been safe and un-attacked since 9-11 and since the start of the war!!! That is a fact and the only one that REALLY makes a damn bit of difference...!!! Would you agree???

Posted by Delaware Vol | April 16, 2008 2:16 PM

The WP pushed for this stupid war, you dunderhead.

But I can't say Rosie O'Donnell did though. Not sure.

Posted by swarty | April 16, 2008 2:18 PM

Is there anyway to use crayon to write this down for you? I gave you an estimate by the end of the year, they facted in a 2.4% chance of error. The exact number I gave you was issued by John Hopkins U. I went to the University of Chicago so I agree with you about the Post and the Times. However, you take the facts from both sides and make the best of them. I served in the Army, 11B40, which is combat infantry if you don't know so I have a deep respect for this country. This war is not the answer to terrorism, you can't use violence to achieve peace under any circumstance.

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 2:25 PM

Hey Delaware Vol.

Trotting out the "we haven't been attacked" argument!! Just us, or do the folks in London, Bali, Spain and elsewhere not count?

I refer you to my earlier post. You know, the classy one.

Posted by swarty | April 16, 2008 2:25 PM

Josh, no one with any common sense accepts the 800,000 claim. It's been debunked by anti-war and pro-war people alike; Iraq body count having one of the best written analysis of the numbers I've seen.

As for almost every other claim you make, 76.2% of advanced degree holders designate themselves liberal; for professors I'd agree (seeing they often live in a theoretical world not constrained by actual facts), but in general there is barely a 5% difference between conservatives and liberals at every level of education, except for those who dropped out of HS which have a 10-20% liberal lean. At the bachelor level conservatives are actually slightly higher. (That's according to PEW research in case you want a reference).

And if Democratic programs work, why is it that the problem of homelessness still persists? Democrats have passed thousands of bills and created hundreds of programs over the years and yet nothing improves. Where are those magic programs you talk about?

The truth is the feds can do little to help the homeless except to get out of the way of groups and organizations that know what they're doing. Churches and other religious based organizations do much more to help the homeless than any federal program can. The feds are even so bad at it that even when they just decide to give money to the local groups to continue working some have had to refuse because the red tape and restrictions placed on the for taking federal funds would prevent them from actually getting things done.

The nanny state is not always the solution and more often then not, it's part of the problem. Whenever the government decides to help people directly (instead of the more hands off oversight they should perform) things tend to go badly.

I know you probably despise Reagan and all he stood for but no truer words were ever spoke than his famous line:

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Posted by Bic | April 16, 2008 2:28 PM

Thanks Swarty, I believe they're our allies, correct? I think I read that in some committed left-wing news report one time. I may be wrong though, let's ask Delaware?

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 2:31 PM

President does not equal celebrity. I pity the person who allows themselves to be influenced by a celebrity.

Just because I admire someones talent, they think I care who they vote for? They think that me now knowing this about them, makes me more clear-headed about my decisions? Well then, if their talent qualifies them to "lead me straight", then I better set up some quality time with my dentist, my garbage man, my gynecologist, my mail carrier, the guy who served my lunch and my Second Grade teacher. It's gonna be a busy day!

Posted by pmoore | April 16, 2008 2:33 PM

Josh, this is the type of argument you often hear in those elitist circles mentioned earlier:

"This war is not the answer to terrorism, you can't use violence to achieve peace under any circumstance."

Which of course, to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history can answer:

"Except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism, and communism... Violence has never solved anything!"

And of course that's only from the last century.

Posted by Bic | April 16, 2008 2:33 PM

Ok, and just to correct myself before anyone else jumps on it, I know the civil war was not fought in the last hundred years.

=)

Posted by Bic | April 16, 2008 2:36 PM

Now there's an answer I can respect. Thanks Bic, I'll look into the PEW research, honestly, I haven't read it. For the sake of argrument, does it matter if it's 5,000 or 800,000? And on a personal note, My father served 3years 14 weeks in Vietnam. He's suffered from PTSD and all the bells and whistle that come along with it. He has been given veterans benefits since 1998. In January of 2006 his benefits were cut, when he asked his contact they actually blamed the current administration, saying he would need to appeal because everyones existing benefits were being reduced or cut. Now, in April 08 he still has no veterans benefits. 3 + years in Nam and he can't get simple health benefits. I agree with you about the programs, I have to say at least they're trying to make headway with it.No, I don't despise Reagan, I agree with that saying to a point. However, the government has to open the gates for the Project Breads, ONE etc...and the republican party decision indirectly challenge their cause.

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 2:44 PM

"slavery, fascism, nazism, and communism"
In each case we went after the people that were actually in charge of the terror. In this case, we lied to go to war and we forgot to attack the people that were threatening us.

Posted by Josh | April 16, 2008 2:54 PM

Sorry to hear about your fathers problems, but sadly that is what happens when big government gets involved. In the case of veterans however, they are obligated (and rightly so) to be in the picture but along with that comes all the same issues that all other government projects share.

A minor rule change at the top, filters down through hundreds of layers until the little guy at the bottom is negatively impacted. Then when the problem is discovered the process reverses and the little guy now has to push things uphill to get anything done. If you're lucky you get a good case worker who is willing to do the extra research for you to find out how to speed the process along, but more often than not you just end up in the pile on someones desk.

The basic rule is the more separated a person is from the actual crisis the longer it takes for them to act and when the government is involved they are masters at creating positions just to help insulate them from lower levels. Thats why it almost always better to find a local solution instead of looking to the Fed or even state government. If the tax system was reworked the money collected to provide help for these types of problems would be available to the lower levels to work with but as always, when you're dealing with such large sums everyone wants their cut.

Essentially I'd like to see the federal government as more of a standards council and accounting firm with as little impact on the actual operations of things. They set nationally accepted standards and practices for various programs (allowing for more local rules where required) but then stand back and let the local groups handle the day to day (these could include state or municipal government groups too). They then also review the books of all funded groups to ensure proper handling of the public monies.

In that scenario its only in the cases of things that are uniquely national, like Veteran's benefits and Social security, that they would be directly involved with. But hopefully by removing the need for congressmen and senators to spend all their time worrying about potholes in Idaho, they can actually get things done in a timely manner.

Posted by Bic | April 16, 2008 4:01 PM

http://www.brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html

The endorsement from Bruce was addressed to his friends and his fans. If you are not in that category then obviously it will mean nothing to you. If you're a fan, as I am, then it either means:

A) Bruce is validating the same choice you have made in a primary, caucus, or will make in the General election. ( I'm in this category and I'm glad he made his endorsement!)

B) if you're a fan who is undecided, he wants to let you know where he stands in order to persuade you to think twice about the candidate Obama he is supporting.

No more, no less. Believe it or not, some fans care about what he thinks because he speaks to them through music -over time, 26 years in my case -- in a way that politicians will never be able to reach. If you are not a fan and don't listen to his music, then it doesn't apply to you. If you listen to his music you know this isn't coming out of thin air. Many of his songs are political, and yes, about working class issues. (Its not like Britney Spears or Justin Timberlake is endorsing Obama.) Springsteen has a right to tell his fans what he cares about (on his own blog to boot -its not like he went on CNN to broadcast it). His fans will listen and take it to heart. They may not end up voting for who he endorses, but they understand that Bruce has earned the right to say it!

Posted by ahem | April 16, 2008 4:10 PM

Sheesh did Ambinder get linked to by Red State or something? The loonies seem to have popped out of the woodwork.

As to the poeple who claim to have always liked Bruce but his politics now thun them off, I'd suggest you re-read his lyrics, the politics have been the same preety much since the first album.

Posted by Eric k | April 16, 2008 5:03 PM

And uh....this is really Radio Nowhere. I think Springsteen is a real hypocrite, endorsing the candidate who trashes the people he's written about for many years. And who said rock stars were anything but sexist? As Shirley Chisholm said years ago, she suffered more discrimination as a woman than she ever had as a black person.

Posted by Dianne | April 16, 2008 5:59 PM

Uh Dianne, or maybe unlike all but the Hillary cultists Bruce has enough intelligence to know that Obama did nothing of the sort...

Also, as someone who has happily voted for Women for Mayor, State Rep, Secretary of State, Congress, Judge, Senate, Governor and probably every other poclitical office at one time or another and would happily vote for a woman for president depending on who she was and who she running against I am damn sick and tired of Hillary supporters accusing me and people like me of being sexist because in this particular case we happen to feel that a particular man is a better candidate than this particular woman.

Posted by Eric k | April 16, 2008 6:18 PM

i will burn all my albulms and records today!
Bruce, You suck you stupid jerk off!!!
I am sorry i wasted my money on your stuff!!!

Posted by mississippi | April 22, 2008 12:16 AM

i will burn all my albums and records today!
Bruce, You suck you stupid jerk off!!!
I am sorry i wasted my money on your stuff!!!

Posted by mississippi | April 22, 2008 12:16 AM

The Senate is now sitting on S. 1959 the Violent Radicalization and HOmegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, "and for other purposes" as the title of the bill plainly states.....does not mean that we should let Obama drop it from our radar. BIG MISTAKE! The Senate is probably and even likely "Sitting on it" with the hopes that the focus on the deadly bill will drop from the Internet. Then they will pass it, after we all stop talking about it. The planned delivery by junior Senator *Barack Obama* who sits on the Senate Homeland Security Committee committee who first indicated support to some constituents but now is undecided , is still in play.
Its the same as Barney Fife safe keeping a bullet in his shirt pocket in case of emergency.

Posted by NorthPal | July 5, 2008 10:09 PM