Specter is going to have Obama campaigning and fundraising for him (and the best sound bites will surely wind up in campaign ads).

All Obama has to say about Sestak, is that Sestak backed the assertion that Obama wasn’t ready to lead, but McCain was. That shows enough about Sestak’s judgment.

Diano-

Can you back up that last claim? I never heard Sestak say that and he was pretty respectful of Obama, but supported Hillary because of their past relationship.

Also, Obama isn’t dumb, he will hedge his bets. The polling in the fall will likely predict the depth of “support” from Obama. And right now, it seems like you’d be better off with the rank-and-file Dems with Rendell not on your side.

Jack-
On March 6th 2008, Joe Sestak and several other former high ranking ex-military were an integral part of the Hillary press conference where she infamously asserted that both she and McCain were ready to lead, but Obama wasn’t. Joe sat next to Hillary (flags in the background) providing the imagery (window dressing) that the military didn’t support/trust Obama as Commander in Chief.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4404060&page=1

In 2007, Sestak was traveling outside his district campaigning for Hillary, instead of where he belonged: inside his district helping the local party and candidates who worked to get him elected.

Joe was an early super-delegate anointing Hillary (along with Rendell and others). It’s 4-star hypocrisy for him to disdain early endorsements for Specter.

Sestak’s loyal to himself, and the Dems supporting him are being foolish if they think Sestak will look out for the party. (The peace movement that originally supported Sestak eventually picketed his office.)

Joe’s never run in a primary before (the field got cleared for him by Rendell in 2006).

Admittedly, Arlen Specter has done a lot of good over time but his time has come to an end. He has been a lone wolf too long. Why give an 89 year old another six years of self-indulgent footsie-playing with the elites in DC? He’s old, he’s weak and everybody owns him.

sestak is a great candidate. We’ve seen how much politicians like Jim Webb with military experience help bring real credibility to progressive positions on national security and foreign policy. A Senator with a 30 year Navy career who can speak out forcefully against DADT and torture is an unquestionable asset to progressive causes. A 80-year-old 4-time cancer survivor who clearly has no personal conviction in any of the positions he takes, is a net loss for Democrats. Sestak should win this primary handily.

Jack asked David: “Can you back up that last claim? I never heard Sestak say that and he was pretty respectful of Obama, but supported Hillary because of their past relationship.”

David replied: “On March 6th 2008, Joe Sestak and several other former high ranking ex-military were an integral part of the Hillary press conference where she infamously asserted that both she and McCain were ready to lead, but Obama wasn’t.”

So, David, are you saying that everything that a candidiate says necessarily is attributable to everyone present when it’s said? Have you never been present when a candidiate whom you support says something which makes you wince? Pretty weak evidence in support of your assertion.

GOP Hawk-
Specter is 79 not 89. Since, you are probably for Toomey over either Sestak or Specter, you are going to want either the Democrat that Toomey can beat, or the one most like Toomey. Makes sense that you don’t seem to want Specter.

Jon-
If you think Sestak is so great: work for his campaign, give him money and vote for him. It’s your effort, time and money to waste. Specter has fought the GOP, and taken political hits, for voting his personal convictions. That’s why he’s been reelected so many times.
There are some ex-military that bring good experience. However, there are others that are either hawks for war, or can’t understand holding the line on military costs, or like Murtha that use their military experience to steer contracts. Sestak voted for Iraq war with no accountability (timetables), despite having campaigned on that specific “principle”. He’s the guy that couldn’t last 6 months without betraying the voters and his supporters on his most fundamental issue.

Lee-
At a minimum, we can say that Sestak’s silence indicates tacit approval. However, it’s obviously more than that. The entire event was staged to project the idea that Hillary was the “choice” of the military and Obama wasn’t. There’s not a hint that Sestak “winced”. Hillary’s remark was not some off the cuff ad lib, but planned. If Sestak is his own man and as independent as he pretends, he should have clarified that he didn’t agree with the characterization.
Any real Democrat should have been (and many of us were) properly outraged by Hillary putting McCain above Obama. Sestak wasn’t just somebody in the audience.
I haven’t been able to find a full video or transcript of the event to see if Sestak gave additional reinforcement of Hillary’s positions. However, if he made ANY contradiction it would have been news.

But let’s not forget, Sestak was quoted here being overheard saying it would take an act of God to keep him from running. When I first met him, he talked about how to some young sailor, Sestak himself was “God”. It creeped me out then, and it still does. I wish I had a video of that.
Sestak says a lot of stuff that never makes the record, but it’s not too hard to figure out where he stands.

If you want to bury your head in the sand and believe that Sestak wanted an anti-war candidate like Obama for Commander in Chief, I congratulate you for the extent of your imagination.

So who are you voting for Diano? Specter?

Some Progressive you are.

Also, Rendell supported Hillary more explicitly than Sestak. Oh, and Specter stumped for McCain. So what exactly is your point?

I love the fact that we have freedom of speech in this country, even though it sometimes is deceptively used. We just celebrated Independence Day in honor of those freedoms. It’s up to each of us to separate the truth from the deception.

“At a minimum, we can say that Sestak’s silence indicates tacit approval.”

Yes, David, you can say that. Doesn’t make it true.

David,

I can personally attest to the truth that CONGRESSMAN SESTAK DID IN FACT SAY THAT SENATOR OBAMA WAS READY TO LEAD.

I was on Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign staff and was fortunate to be brought on board Senator Obama’s presidential campaign staff after Senator Clinton withdrew from the race. I accompanied Congressman Sestak on events for Senator Clinton, and then later for Senator Obama.

At no point in time did Congressman Sestak ever say that Senator Obama was not ready to lead or be present.

Nowhere in your cited ABC News Article does it mention Congressman Sestak stating Senator Obama was not ready to lead.

Prior to Senator Clinton dropping out, Congressman Sestak was always positive about both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama being able to lead, as well as both being qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

Jack-
It would vote for Specter over Sestak any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Sestak is not fit to be representative, especially in the Senate. Deep down, I think Specter can get more accomplished for Progressives than Sestak (because Specter can be more effective and because Sestak can’t be trusted).
Rendell didn’t need to do a lot of heavy lifting for an open Congressional district, but he did king making for Sestak by preventing a Primary. Lentz would have SLAUGHTERED Sestak in that Primary (Sestak would have been luck to get enough signatures to get on the ballot).

Lee-
Sestak opens up with lavish praise and respect for Specter, before essentially calling him a selfish, untrustworthy, Bush-loving flight-risk.

If Sestak disagreed with Hillary’s statement, he should have spoken up. Period. If there is no disapproval, then what is left is approval. QED.

I don’t know that Sestak even believed or cared whether Hillary was ready to lead. The consensus opinion among the people I talked to was that Sestak was looking to Hillary for a ticket out of the 7th district. Some Sestak supporters were hoping Hillary would make him Secretary of Defense.

Christal-
1) Did YOU think Hillary was totally wrong to go after Obama, while elevating McCain above her fellow Democrat?
2) Did you ask Sestak if he disagreed with Clinton’s press conference remarks?
3) If you do see Sestak again, feel free to ask him why he is treats Specter’s original Iraq War authorization vote as a Democratic disqualification, when Hillary made the same vote.

I really think ALL of you should go work for Sestak’s Senate campaign. Bringing your own blinders will probably be viewed as a plus.

I’ve seen Sestak behind the scenes, ranting and raving like a maniac. It ain’t pretty. I’ve seen how his campaign treats local candidates and the party. The sooner he’s gone, the better.

David said: “I really think ALL of you should go work for Sestak’s Senate campaign. Bringing your own blinders will probably be viewed as a plus.”

When I would argue with him, my dad, to make a point, would tell me: “Sure. You’re right and all the rest of the world is wrong”.

I believe my dad.

One of my heroes is Galileo.
He was right and the entire rest of the world was wrong. It happens.

However, in this case, there are a lot of people in Delco and Montco that KNOW first hand about Sestak and agree with me. Just because I’m the one taking point on the blogging, don’t assume that I’m alone in my opinions and knowledge.

You and the others were not involved in the 2006 campaign, didn’t experienced the broken promises, haven’t talked to former Sestak staffers, nor been a part of local party apparatus of which Sestak is dismissive. You guys just see the carefully crafted image of a 31-year high ranking ex-military officer (who apparently was not well liked by his subordinates or superiors). He uses that image as a shield against criticism, and is quite skilled at weaseling his way out of positions and promises.

I’ve been backstage and seen through the magic tricks. You and the other Sestak fans are still in the audience convinced not only that Specter is more of an elephant than Sestak, but that Sestak can make him disappear.

Given Specter’s record of supporting the Bush administration during the last 8 years, it is rather difficult to place my trust in him. If he looks like an elephant, and he sounds like an elephant, and he (until Sestak began to campaign against him) voted like an elephant, he sure ain’t no donkey.

Lee-
I think Sestak’s the one’s who’s been the elephant here. I think it’s likely that before his “conversion” to the Democratic party, that Sestak voted for Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes.
Besides Joe’s obvious conservative nature, my reasons for my suspicions:
1) Sestak joined during Vietnam, and when Nixon was president. It is not likely that Sestak voted for anti-war McGovern. Also, this was before Roe v Wade, and McGovern was vilified by the Catholics for his support of abortion rights. I can’t believe that Sestak, right out of Catholic school voted for anyone but Nixon.

2) Reagan was responsible for a tremendous military build up and spending. I worked for a defense contractor then, and the military LOVED Reagan. Reagan got a lot of conservative Democrats to win. It’s a good bet he got a military guy like Sestak.

3) Bush Senior? There was Dukakis and the tank/helmet. Unlikely that helped get Sestak’s vote. Against Clinton, Bush was the Commander in Chief for the Gulf War and a bit of a war hero in his own right. I could understand a military man like Sestak favoring a Vet like Bush Sr. over a “draft dodger” like Clinton. It is unlikely that Sestak didn’t vote for Bush Sr at least once (even if the choice in both cases was only a coin flip, there is only a 25% chance Sestak voted against Bush twice.

4) Bush Jr. …Well, after 9/11 Sestak became the first director of Navy Operations Group (Deep Blue) and was there until 2005 when he got “administratively reassigned” (translation: canned). So, in 2004, Bush and his policies was clearly benefited Sestak’s career.
Sestak worked in the NSC for Clinton until he left (was let go?) in 1997. I don’t know if he had any good/bad interaction with Gore, so hard to call. I’d be unsurprised if Sestak voted Bush Jr at least once.

Is the above analysis speculation, of course. In a recent interview, Sestak touted his independence and said he’s voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the past (though he did not name candidates nor offices). I’d be very surprised if Sestak hadn’t voted for Specter and Weldon at least once.

With Specter’s friction with the GOP, I’d suspect he’s voted for a Democratic presidential candidate or two in his time.

Lee, my point here is that Sestak does NOT have a solid enough progressive record to convince some of us that he’s not a closet conservative. Many key litmus test issues have simply not been before him during his one term (and 6 month second term). He’s got no rating on many issues, and has betrayed Dems on a few like the Iraq War.

Masterful job of innuendo, David. You even admitted that it was “speculation”.

What you wrote in your last paragraph applies equally to Specter in regard to the brief time that he’s been a Democrat. Specter’s burden, though, is the 8 solid years of supporting Bush 43. No speculation needed there to know how Specter voted.

Lee-
Sestak goes around claiming that “in his heart of hearts” Obama really supports him (despite all direct evidence to the contrary), and claims that Specter is a “flight risk” (despite a solid voting record since switching).

My “speculation” has far more basis in reality than Sestak’s, in that, it’s not directly contradicted by the empirical evidence. There is plenty of evidence of how Sestak betrayed his core campaign promises with his votes.

We elect people based upon how they’ll vote in their next term. The previous terms are relevant to the extent of how they help us predict the future. Specter has been consistent in his votes, and campaign promises, but also his own man on key issues. Sestak has already shown that he can’t be trusted, and giving him a Senate seat is a much bigger risk.

Sestak is a 4-star phony. Waste your time and money supporting him if you wish, but don’t come back crying later that you weren’t warned.