>>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002
>>
>>so, today obama voted in favor of confirming rice as
>>secretary of state, despite her lies/misstatements about WMD
>>put a disproportionately black infantry in harm's way for no
>>good reason, being an obvious lapdog/yeswoman for bush, and
>>well, not having any experience in foreign policy outside
>>around two decades spent studying what is now a non-existent
>>entity (communist russia).
>>
>
>While I disagree with Obama's vote, I certainly do not
>believe that his vote for Rice's confirmation is indicative
>of his lack of progressive ideals. Consider that the majory
>of Senate Democrats voted for Rice's confirmation (32-13).
>The Democratic Party is certainly a progressive political
>machine.

the fact that you say that shows me you have no idea what a 'progressive' is. the democratic party, particularly in the senate, is largely moderate.

and no, being progressive does not mean being "blindly opposed" to Bush, it means having clear and rational differences of opinion regarding many issues that the bush administration either champions or fails to champion. issues such as the Bush admin's refusal to have the US submit to the authority of the international criminal court or agree to the kyoto protocol, their support of the concept of pre-emptive war, etc. it's not like a progressive would oppose withdrawal from Iraq just because Bush orders it...LOL. This is far from "blind opposition".
____

http://costofwar.com/index-kids-health.html - why it's smarter to be anti-war

www.freefiona.com - saw this in allison's sig and had to represent my girl. word! (c) extra p

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html - CIA got that work