Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRight Words Said at the Right Time Can Cause a Political Revolution
America is America again.
America, that is to say, is once again America at its best - optimistic, risk-taking, extraordinarily resilient and with the energy and nerve it takes to do things. Or, at any rate, the energy to try to do things in a fresh and radically different way.
This is what Barack Obama has done for his own people. It is also what he has done for a great many people around the world. And few stand to be affected more by the change than Canadians.
All of the preceding paragraphs, however, must be qualified by cautionary words such as potentially, possibly, perhaps.
Even within the relatively narrow confines of the Democratic presidential nomination contest, Obama may prove to be a flash in the pan, sort of as Howard Dean was during the contest in 2004.
He may not win the presidential nomination. By next November, at which time the U.S. economy will very likely be in recession, voters may be looking for a president with practical skills rather than with theatrical ones.
If Obama does win the presidency, he might prove to be a disappointment.
He really is inexperienced to be head of state and government of the world's only hyper-power, with all its multiple international responsibilities. It's one thing for a leader to say the right things, but quite another to make the right decisions month in, year out, and to implement them effectively.
But the right words said at the right time can cause a political revolution. Obama has touched a chord with Americans and many outside the country as no other modern president has since John F. Kennedy and his call to Americans that they "ask what you can do for your country," and Franklin D. Roosevelt with his invocation in the middle of the Depression that "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Moreover, Obama has connected with Americans in two ways, each distinctive, each potentially transformational at the same time: By his rhetoric and by his person.
With his rhetoric, Obama has made "change" the touchstone by which all the candidates are now judged; Republicans no differently than Democrats.
He offers few specifics about the kind of change he has in mind. But great numbers of Americans understand fully and applaud ecstatically the direction of the change that he seeks.
It's toward harmony and healing from today's deep divisions, both cultural, as between the "blue and red states" - liberals and neoconservatives - to which he so often refers, and also between the races, white and non-white.
In place of division, suspicion and even hatred, he offers "hope." As Obama has said: "Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an empire. What led the greatest of generations to free a continent ... Hope is what led me here today, with a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas ... Hope is the bedrock of this nation."
Obama connects because he is so new, so much of today, so clearly a break from the past. Because he is black. Because he is young. Because in his manner and style he is so palpably someone who belongs in the 21st century rather than the 20th.
Because Obama is so different a politician, a great many people outside America will look at America differently. Never in its history has the U.S. been so widely disliked, feared, downright detested as it is today.
Among these people looking in, few are more likely to be affected than Canadians. As is obvious, we'll no longer have George W. Bush to kick around.
Far more significantly, we'll find ourselves wondering why America can every now and then produce an Obama. Not long after reflecting about that, we'll find ourselves wondering why the best we can produce is a Stephen Harper and a Stéphane Dion.
It matters, critically, that Obama should be offering Americans "the vision thing." It matters at least as much that Americans, from some distinctively American instincts and attitudes deep inside themselves, should have decided that this is the time for them to take a dare on a vision.
--Richard Gwyn
© Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2008
78 Comments so far
Show Allhttp://www.trafford.com/07-2440
Dear Sirs and Mesdames,
This subject, in my mind, is the most immediate most urgent and serious matter confronting the Human Race. Despite the fact that many great minds, philosophers, politicians, academics and economists, have all created eminent careers based on their knowledge and understanding of how free enterprise, national economies and the human race interact, they have all failed to admit the obvious. It is glaringly obvious that we have large swathes of the human race that do not have access to money; it is that simple.
Therefore we need a system of economy that literally accommodates the needs and aspirations of every human being. A system that will not rely on taxing others' in order to provide all the multifarious forms of infrastructures, as well as our human and social obligations. A system of taxation in which the haves are continually being pressured to claw back those taxes from the have-nots. We must face the fact, once and for all; this system can never provide all human needs and infrastructures.
We have allowed right-wing ideology to dictate the terms and even if or when large swathes of populations may be fed and housed or have health needs addressed. We tolerate the fact that we have millions of working poor who will never earn enough to meet all of life's basic costs. Many of these are struggling to raise families the bedrock of our future. Those who work lead the most precarious of lives.
Precarious, because their work and income has become the plaything of corporate power, which moves production to lower waged economies. This makes the executives and the shareholders richer but at the cost of the misery they leave behind. Wages go down, but not prices, or costs of living, and the formerly free "social wage entitlements" are removed.
This is the "rationalized" world directed by Corporate Power and implemented by our Governments, the world of "user pays".
Take it or suffer the consequences. The Government calls this "work choices". Hear the Corporate applause? The consequences are total destitution for some; they could buy none of life's essential services.
Complete and total destitution for many unless they work, no shelter, no food, no health care, and no education, none of life's necessities.
So we need a system, which provides equal opportunity and care for all, overlaid with free enterprise. At the same time we can put in place a fair and equitable industrial relations system that eliminates employer employee antagonisms.
Our democracy is in serious trouble. Rich people and corporations channel funds into political parties in order to achieve their own commercial or ideological ends cleverly bypassing democratic inputs. It is happening in all democracies but that does not make it "worlds best practice" or "right". We can correct that quite easily. We make so-called free trade agreements under which corporations are exempted from government regulation that control workers rights, pay and working conditions. Is this democracy, is this really necessary, should corporations have such unbridled power, where will it end?
Introduction of The Universal Economy will immediately and substantially impact and improve such questions as Poverty, provision of universal education, health care, pensions, unemployment, housing and all public infrastructure (roads bridges schools hospitals etc). None of this will require the imposition of taxation.
The concept of The Universal Economy will be easy to introduce, because it benefits everyone, everyone will want it to work. It will be hardest to implement in third world nations, not impossible, just slower to implement. It will kick start economies wherever it is introduced.
This is a concept for the twenty-first century. Put to one side traditional thought processes and embedded conventions see only the greater-good and benefit of mankind then you will support this enterprise with the open heart and mind it deserves. Adopt this concept for the good of humanity.
Give your support, not money.
Yours Faithfully, THOMAS W ADAMS.
JaneM, you should give yourself a chance to win by voting for Edwards. If Edwards doesn't win, you're going to get Obama or Hillary anyway, and a brokered convention might not be a bad idea. If Edwards stays in the race and nobody gets a clear majority, all the issues will be on the table.
John Edwards is not in the pocket of Wall Street, but Obama and Clinton are, period. Edwards is also the only one accepting PUBLIC FUNDING for his campaign.
Here is the list of top contributors to Obama -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
And here is the list for Hillary -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Now, you look at that list and tell me who is bought and paid for by Wall Street. They dont fear Obama and Hillary, they own them! But they do fear John Edwards!
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
"Bought'n'paid for" and "Barack Obama" - Kinda rhymes doesn't it Doug?
It should, tis true!
And Hillary Too!
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a WORLD OF CHANGE!
a little smooze, a bit of ego inflation, and everyone talks - most will tell their secrets w/o even knowing, to make appearances and to look good and feel right(er).
Paul Bramscher,
To be quite honest, I'm not sure what to make of it anymore, but conspiratorial melodrama apart, there is only so much oil in the ground and with human population increasing and the desire for more petro products, it isn't strange at all that countries would want to develope nuclear power plants, in operation when the oil supply diminishes.
Paul, your last sentence in the first paragraph says a lot. A great deal! Relate the whole paragraph to Iowa and New Hampshire and the MSM plug for Obama and Clinton from day one and see even how progressive folks are manipulated.
Paragraph #2 is reasonable. These people are secretive but not always impenetrable. I just don't know.
peaceman,
I have little doubt about the world the CFR/Trilateral/Bilderberg people circulate in: intelligence, military, neocon politics, military contractors, university administration and civil service. Some of them are "fixers" in a sense, no doubt, who hook up one of these entities to another one in a mutually beneficial arrangement with no democratic (small-d) input from below. They're autocrats/plutocrats, there can be absolutely no doubt about that. Perhaps even a new subspecies of Homo sapiens, a super-carnivore with no trouble in reaping billions in war profiteering contracts, killing civilians wholesale, etc. while advancing some Fourth Reich agenda. The astounding part is that they've been able to do it with a smile, and fool enough people to go along with them.
But what I DO doubt is whether any of them would actually speak candidly to an investigative journalist about the evils of it all. It seems completely unplausible. The writer here gets it on video, posts it to YouTube, their career is ruined and in doing so he blows the whistle on others. Unless his sources are someone lower down -- one of the Dyncorp guards he mentions, an employee at one of these 5-star hotels, hiding in a closet, etc. or some other "espionage" type mechanism.
There are a number of other unplausible things about the story. But I think the pro-nuclear thing was a kicker. According to this site: http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/south_america.php
the current nuke plants in South America are built by contractors such as: Westinghouse, Siemens, Kraftwerk Union, etc.
I don't find it a consistent argument that getting away from the Bilderbergers can be accomplished by inviting some of their most powerful contractors over to build plants which must be internationally monitored/regulated/etc.
Paul,
You brought up some good points, and again, we can't be certain of the accuracy of the reporting. On #1, I was somehow puzzled about the "pro nuclear plug" myself. I'm only speculating on this, but could the French model for nuke power be an influence? I think France gets 80-90% of their energy from nuclear power plants.
On #3, I agree with you. "They" know who's who long before the invitations are sent. That falls in with your fourth paragraph. On #2, revealing the sources isn't always the best or safest way when reporting or writing about something so senitive and secretive. Especially when promises were made. As you say, it would be hard to judge the veracity of the information. All one can do is look at the world and what has taken place this past century and the current situation around the globe as of now.
"He (Obama) really is inexperienced to be head of state and government of the world's only hyper-power, with all its multiple international responsibilities."
Bullshit. How about Bush? The guy can't even talk!
PAUL B -- You make good points. And I wondered what was in it for all of those sources, especially the one's risking treason (and death) by providing the location of each year's meeting. How can anyone be friends with the assassin's corp, as if they ever have a day off (maybe they do show their human side to some)?
Nonetheless, it connected the dots very well about why the EU didn't play bush-ball in Iraq.
peaceman,
I've "slept on it", and have a few troublesome questions with the Bilderberg streaming audio you mentioned above. Namely,
1) The author sneaks in a pro-nuclear power (and anti-Greenpeace) plug. He sees nuclear power as a means for South/Latin American countries to obtain energy independence, rather than as a m.i.c./Bilderberg technology in its own right. The interviewer didn't even call him on this. Troubling.
2) His book, and any others, which rely on unnamed sources are only as good as the veracity of the sources themselves. Since they're unnamed, we have no way of judging.
3) Let's say there are some attendees who've paid the big bucks and have been admitted to the Bilderberg group. Since this IS such and exclusive group (bankers, financiers, media moguls, former presidents and prime ministers, dynastic families, etc.) coughing up the membership fee wouldn't remotely be sufficient for attendance.
The author made it seem that there are some who are "Deep Throats" in a sense, somewhat opposed to the Bilderberger agenda, and willing to pass him some information. I find this difficult to believe. The "charade" of being a neocon plutocrat/billionaire/etc. isn't possible to pull off. One is one, or one is not (and therefore presumably not admitted to the club).
This isn't to say I doubt the existence of such a group, and its autocratic/plutocratic anti-democratic agenda. Key points here are lack of transparency, credibility of evidence, ability of the reader to judge for him/herself.
Obama can't guarantee to have us out of Iraq by 2013....Dennis Kucinich has said for over 4 years..he could have us out in 90 days. Guess who I'm supporting?
NPR Interview: Obama Analyzes N.H. Performance
(and more)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17953420
Obama offers Americans the feel-good version of themselves they prefer. Never mind that it has little to recommend itself by way of truth. Truth is, 90% were geelfully celebrating the start of W's misadventure in Iraq. They changed their tune when it wasn't a cakewalk. And of course we are SO BEYOND Indians and slaves and all THAT.
La-de-da. Kum-bay-a.
The right words would be Bu$h the inferior and Shotgun Dick and the gang is in jail and the military has been withdrawn from all foreign bases and reduced in size to 1 soldier more than the next biggest military in the world. Good health care is the right of all Americans. Corporate subsidies are ended. Corporate taxes are 10% of the US sales less other taxes levied by the local, state and federal governments. Public financing of elections...............
If you want to talk CHANGE and right words, try the above.
The New Positive Progressive Political Agenda!
1. Free the Media.
2. Take the money out of Politics,
Complete campaign finance reform.
3. A Single Payer Universal Health care system.
4. End the War. End Torture, Recall the Militia. Down size The Military Industrial Complexes presence around the world.
5. A verifiable paper trail that safeguards Voting machine reliability.
6. A Livable Minimum Wage.
7. Close the revolving door in Government.
8. No outsourcing and End Privatization.
9. Freeze dirty coal plant construction.
10. End W.M.D. production. No New Nukes!
11. End Deficit Spending!
12. Re-institute The Bush Tax Cuts to pay down the Debt.
13. Create new higher standards for auto, consumer product, and building standards.
The savings would be enormous and negate any need for any new power plant.
14. Fund solar and wind power and all renewable energy alternatives.
15. Kick the Lobbyists out of government.
16. Break up the Media Monopolies. One outlet in one market.
17. Open local airwaves to new independently owned local low band stations.
18. End the targeting of children by corporate advertisers.
19. Re-institute The Bill of Rights, The Constitution and Habeas Corpus.
20. Buy back the Federal Reserve and institute a sane fiscal policy.
21. Add on Here!
It's hard to have a free country
When the military is holding a gun to your head.
… VAIN = LAME = CHANGE …
Americans prob'ly don't think this song is about them
You're so change, you prob'ly think this song is about you.
HA!
… sending darth cheney is hardly diplomatic… HA! HA! too
Pri Mary had a little lamb, a little pork, a little ham ..
and
O'Momma, it's Obama Girl!
http://www.barelypolitical.com/
HA!
America at its best - optimistic, risk-taking, extraordinarily resilient and with the energy and nerve it takes to do things.
Missing from this list is SMART. Americans have brains like everyone else. NOW it's time to USE THEM.
"enlighten the people, generally" - T Jefferson
Paul,
Your guess is as good as mine as to the authenticity of the information.
Bonnie does have well-informed guests on her programs and may I suggest listening to Webster Tarpley and Professor William Hudson among others. Hudson has two interviews on economics which are excellent. One of them exposes the 'Allan Greenspan myth' and you don't want to miss it.
As I'm typing this, I'm looking at your post about Obama/AIPAC/Lieberman. Another good question for the "ex-Kucinich" progressives on CD who have swallowed the MSM bait, hook, line, and sinker. I still can't forgive Barbara Boxer campaigning for 'Joe the Independent' over Lamont in CT.
Peace and Harmony
Dougnwagner, Edwards isn't "saying anything to win", he is the only one SAYING ANYTHING!!
Obama says he'll keep us in Iraq past 2013, how much clearer does it have to be for you?
Edwards will get us out in 10 months!
Obama's campaign is being run by lobbyists. Do you think he'll bite the hand that's feeding him? Edwards isn't taking their money, no matter how much you want to think he is!
Get a clue dougwagner, Edwards is the only one that will take them on and beat them, period.
EDWARDS '08
Why'd Barak speak to AIPAC (a foreign lobby) and endorse Liebermann (who endorsed McCain)?
Why didn't he instead speak to the appropriate UN human rights commission or Amnesty International, and endorse Lamont in CT?
Obama will make some people feel better, at the surface, but he doesn't appear to be equipped to change substance. This country will no longer benefit from a marketing campaign.
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
YEAs —77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)
NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)
"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…
We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.
That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
Sorry to have missed some of the conversation. I had to go out and buy something at the grocery store. (Otherwise, if I am not shopping, the terrorists have won.) As you know, we are more consumers in this country than citizens. Whether we are consuming food, services, products, or media, we're dutiful Americans.
The conception of a "long, long while" is relative. Not long ago, Ralph Nader was dismissively arguing that it didn't matter if you vote for Bush or Gore, they are beholden to the same corporate system. Different sides of the same coin. What difference does one person make?
If we have been reminded of anything during the last 8 years of the Bush administration, it is that one person very much can (and does) make a difference. In a mere 8 years, the country has taken on a different tenor, and the world as well. To think that we cannot, through our individual efforts, shift our circumstances and refocus our national priorities is short-sighted. Things can change relatively quickly, with the right guidance and commitment.
The fact that Republican candidates/pundits even have some deferential things to say about Obama is evidence of his potential to bring the country together. Obama has been uniting political perspectives since his days in Harvard law school. Republicans voted for him to be president of the Harvard Law Review because they knew their views would be heard and count for something.
This kind of character -- of reconciling, of healing, of mending the broken places -- doesn't spring up overnight. It's woven into the fabric of one's being. It's a quality that is refined and honed over the years. Even if one's years are only 46 on this pleasant and awful earth.
It's not a sham, nor a shame. Personally, what I find reprehensible are those who retreat from the hardship, the difficulty, the challenge before us. The United States of America is a great democratic experiment unfolding now for over 200 years. It is a noble prospect where peoples from all over the world can come together and learn to live as one. During the last 8 years, when some jerks get in office and abuse their positions of authority, I hear progressives who want to give up on everything we have fought and struggled and worked for over the many generations. With self-righteous indignation, they shrug their shoulders and flee. It is no wonder that the "right" considers progressives to be a soft, selfish, lazy, cowardly hodgepodge of idealistic lunacy, who take their freedoms for granted. Running off to Costa Rica, or wherever, and only returning to the U.S. if/when the political climate suits them...
As the saying goes, a true patriot must always be prepared to defend his country -- even against its government. A patriot helps his country to live up to its best ideals. If one doesn't like the way things are, then get involved. Participate. Contribute. Or not. It's your privilege, either way. But real change, real revolution, happens through the power of transforming love. Change happens through ballots, not bullets.
Having said all that, I recognize the long journey ahead. I am not disheartened. Even if, as cowboy philosopher Will Rogers once said, "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat."
peaceman,
Thanks for the tip! I'm halfway into the audio stream right now. I wonder who the informants are, and whether they are giving good info to the author -- or leading him on.
nspire,
I was only joking on the beer. But think of the alternatives. I think of a wise (fictional) writer in The Onion, Jim Anchower.
"On top of that, I decided that I was spending way too much money on beer, so I decided to switch to whiskey, only whiskey made me want to punch people. Not in a "bust you open" way, but in a "You gotta check out what this feels like!" way. In any case, when I woke up with a swollen lip one morning, I decided I needed make the switch back to ice-cold Miller Genuine Draft. Definitely more mellow."
Folks, I'm supporting Republican Ron Paul. Whomever emerges on the Democratic side (sans Hillary) will be better than whomever wins the Republican side (sans Ron Paul... who wants the troops home NOW!)
Remember what the Republicans did to Democrat Cynthia McKinney in Georgia? I say its time for Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives to reciprocate in the Republican Primaries. Whatever we can do to continue to keep Ron Paul's pro-Peace message heard! (have you been watching Faux News squirm?)
Hey PAUL B -- When you mention "Free beer might be a starter,"I had a chill just wondering when Brave New World's _ S O M A _ was going to be marketed.
It sure would take the stress out of thinking and electing "leaders" this coming fallfall.
Paul Bramscher,
Paul, go to www.kpfa.org and hit the program button and scroll down to 'Guns and Butter' and click on the archives and listen to Daniel Estulin's interview with Bonnie on Nov.28, 2007 about 'The Bilderberg Group' . I think you'll find it fascinating as well as informative.
Enough of that free beer and the 'pain' will numb.
(www.gunsandbutter.net)
I may have said this elsewhere, but the Bilderbergers (or whoever they are) are looking for that special candidate who can (a) do whatever they demand of them but (b) make America feel happy while we're being hosed.
Their crypto-neocon job is the big sugar-coated letdown.
They're not allowed to change substance, just style. So cheer up people. While you're paying $5/gallon in gas, watching your earning power go down the toilet and health benefits evaporating -- they'll undoubtedly find a way to make us happy.
Free beer might be a starter.
RIGHT ON "JULIANIA" DARE TO HOPE PEOPLE !!!!! most of the negative writers here about Obama, (and I'm not here to say he is our savior either, but I give him credit for giving Americans reason to have hope again) really don't say anything of substance, just seem to like repeating negativity !!!! they must be the types, that when someone shows them a beautiful rose, they just disclaim its beauty, or the rose bud, its potential beauty, because there are "THORNS" leading up to the "ROSE" (and now this group will claim I'm saying Obama is a rose ----- and on and on !!! Bless them though, cause we need a few negatives amongst us to keep us on our toes !!!! HA !!!)
I meant to say how about a few words from Sibel Edmonds?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece
Well, Someone, Like you, I also am a former Peace Corps Volunteer (Thailand), and was also(like Obama) born in 1961 (having matured and ripened myself). I did not question that Obama could serve as president legally, just questioning your assertion that he had brought people together? and served communities? a long, long, while.
I can't wait for Senator Obama to utter some magic words that cause a political revolution. I'm bored right now!
I want the companies of good will -- the small ones of good heart and the democratically owned companies, to agree to be good citizens, to treat all people with respect, to poison nobody and nothing, and to have each other properly vetted for adherence to a good citizenship code. Then I want people in general to do their part by buying and selling with the good folks, and by withdrawing from the crooks' stores.
From such alliances I want to see a second government of the people built, by the people, for the people.
I want to see people creating a parallel election system in the streets, one that defies corruption, then going out and voting for an honest country.
Every time that we assume that the power to change rests with we the people, we win. So does everyone else living under every tinhorn dictator everywhere, because they can copy our moral example.
In the end, Barack Obama can join us.
Someone has been duped. What a shame!
Dear Mom,
Wisdom, unfortunately, is not measured in years. Nor is experience. Though one may be excused for thinking, or hoping, as much.
At the tender age of 46, Mr. Obama displays the kind of vision our country, perhaps our world, is yearning for right now. At 46, I trust that a human being has had proper time to mature and ripen.
The last time I checked our Constitution, one should be at least 35 years old to hold the nation's highest office, if his character and leadership suffice. John F. Kennedy was 43 when he was sworn in. He also had the right stuff, despite his "youth."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vg4DOWJpWBI
There is a bit of poetry in that Obama was born the same year that Kennedy took office. As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I myself am an extension of Kennedy's vision and call to service.
Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson that said "Every generation needs a new revolution."
Seems a bit overdue, no?
One windbag lauding another windbag!
Why is this shameless piece of ideological nonsense being reprinted in this forum?
Hey, Gwyn did ya ever wonder why it is, as you yourself say, that Obama "offers few specifics about the kind of change he has in mind?"
Change will come to this world when the U.S. empire of more than 725 military bases that is strangling the planet and threatens to extinguish life on Earth crumbles under its own weight.
When will that happen? When the oil wells of the world are depleted, when the national debt of the U.S. brings ruin to its economy, when global warming fries most of us into oblivion, when pandemic diseases wipe us out by the hundreds of thousands, if not more, when nuclear waste seaps into our water tables, our lakes, rivers, and oceans, when we suffocate under mountains of garbage and smog-laden skies...
Yep! Words do matter.
Dennis Kucinich for President!
A long, long while?? you must be a young person...Barack was born in 1961...that makes him 46! According to his campaign website, he did some community work right after college, and decided he couldn't get much done that way and would work better changing things from INSIDE the system, so he got a law degree in 1991 and then went into the Illinois legislature for 8 years, and on to the national scene where we find him now....what people has he brought together? and what communities has he served for such a long, long while?
Words matter. Words create worlds, and destroy them.
Though I agree with Mr. Shakespeare that, ultimately, "Action is eloquence."
George W. Bush has set the bar so low for qualifications to be president -- in fact, when the bar was resting on the ground, he dug a hole and threw it in -- that virtually anyone else will be an immediate improvement.
I am not worried about Obama's merits. His is a voice of reason, strength, progress, reconciliation and healing. He has been bringing people together, and serving our communities, for a long, long while. He's got experience. He's got leadership. He's got my vote.
Celibrity wrote:
"CHANGE" must be accompanied by ACTION! And I certainly don't see that happening with Obama or ANY of his "Top teier" cohorts. Bullshit is easy to make–moving it takes work!"
I AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Real "CHANGE" is the sound of breaking glass....
celebrity January 8th, 2008 12:05 pm
"CHANGE" must be accompanied by ACTION! Bullshit is easy to make – moving it takes work!
Here's the guy with the shovel:
http://www.dennis4president.com/home/
Ditto!
thinkingmom January 8th, 2008 2:38 pm
"Change is not going to come, period. Not until the electronic voting machines are removed…The rest of these discussions are pointless…I keep forgetting myself, because I don't want it to be true…but a reality check leads to this conclusion…"
You are so right, but it ain't just this, elections in the country have been rigged many times, long before the electronic voting machine. The corporate fascist power structure has a stranglehold on our republic, and it ain't letting go, much as I wish it were not so.
actually, mr. gwyn, don't give us any hope about your future articles.
Juliania January 8th, 2008 1:52 pm - "I absolutely agree with the points of this article. 'The vision thing' is why I became an American citizen. The Republican machine is broken, but the Democratic machine is alive and well. The only way to buck it is exactly as Obama is doing, with vision. Sure, he could fail, but he is running the way a candidate should run, not on the fear of failure but on the pure joy of potential."
Oh the pearls of wisdom being tossed before we swine.
What vision thing? obummer has nothing but platitudes, there is no substance behind his feel good rhetoric. And as for the Republican machine being broken while the Democratic machine is alive and well, give me a friggin' break! These are two sides of the same bad coin. The whole flippin' system is completely corrupt. Obummer's only potential is to hand the general election to that there broken Republican machine you were talking about.
If you became an America citizen because we are such an shinning example of democracy and fairness your were deceived. The USA is on a downward spiral, the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is which road to take to the bottom.
excuse me, mr. gwyn, i only thought you were mr. jackson. it's the price one pays for trying to become informed by some of these writers on cd.
here we have yet another so-called leader telling us that by next november the economy may be in a recession. just like hillaryious in the last debate, telling us we might be slipping into a recession. both of you, get your respective stinking rich black and white asses out on the street, start living like middle class america, then come back and tell us about this futuristic recession.
mr. jackson, obama has not connected with americans. he has connected with the young people of this country (i.e. the under 30 crowd) who have never experienced adversity, who don't know what hard work is, who have been given everything their whiney little asses ever wanted, and are only infatuated with the idea of a black man as president, regardless of the fact that his only hope is his charm, apparently evident since he was nine years old, kissing girls and then crashing thru the bamboo fence.
"he might prove to be a disappointment". that, sir, is a disappointing understatement. do we really want another anointed leader (i use the word loosely) with inexperience? where have you been for the last seven years, longer still if you were living in texas.???
oh great, now you're telling us he offers few specifics. how in the hell did he become a front-runner without specifics? this is exactly what the majority of us her on cd are saying: he's just another politician talking the talk. and it is a boring talk indeed, to anyone with something more than just a college education, or less.
you are a pathetic excuse of life if you can sit there and compare obama to jfk or to fdr. hope? obama thinks hope is the bedrock of this nation? that constitutes a great speech? the foundation of this country was built on risk and hard work, with the HOPE that a better life was in store.
we do NOT find ourselves wondering about how america can produce an obama. a man and a woman produced him. just in case you are totally clueless, the press has created him.
w do NOT need "to take a dare on a vision" at this time in our country's history. we need effective leadership, someone with a spine, with fire in his belly, and with a strong enough connection to his foundation to go in and clean out the house. that, in case you are wondering, mr. jackson, and in case you missed the most recent debate, is john edwards.
grab our attention, mr. jackson. give us hope to read more of what you have to write. but in the future, unlike your past articles, leave race out of the story. and btw, please tell me, mr. jackson, that you are NOT being paid to write this crap. take your insults to and assaults on my intelligence to another site.
"Next to Hillary there is no bigger phoney running for the Democratic Party nomination for President than Barack Obama–maybe that's why they are one and two in amount of monetary tribute paid by their soon to be pimps, multinational corprate America." (Poet)
It is.
What Edwards proposes requires change.
Nothing Clinton or Obama proposes requires any change.
Pimping change and committing to proposals that require change is very different. And, 'Corporate America' and her political enablers know it.
The biggest phonies in this race are the voters themselves; the hundred million Americans who will decide the winner by not voting, instead telling themselves how smart they are.
The politicians and corporations that care about America are the victims of voters that don't; voters unwilling to commit to the changes America requires.
He also supported Liebermann (who has endorsed McCain) and spoke to AIPAC not long ago. With such a one-sided neocon-friendly approach, why do you think he's going to accomplish anything in the mideast? And, at this point, why should we be so obsessed with some other country's troubles?
I'm more interested in single-payer health care, restoration of a middle-class, manufacturing, IT, a shortened work week, etc. and preservation of old growth wilderness areas. The Israel-Palestinian problem is symptomatic of a much greater problem of human rights around the world.
I became an Obama supporter when I realised that he is probably the only candidate on the left or right, who will make a genuine and fair effort to solve the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. I wish him well. He is a good person!
It might be amusing if it were not so sad that the Bush Apologists are still holding out for more of the same old crap.
It would appear that many of those who feel man is born flawed and sinful also believe that they deserve to be enslaved by fascists and driven into poverty and serfdom by the ultra-wealthy.
Frankly, I have no idea if Obama will win or even be a decent president... but frankly, I would be willing to put Wile E. Coyote into the job rather than have another 4 years of the Bush disaster.
Bush, his handlers and his supporters have made America a dirty word worldwide... driven this country into a steep nosedive economically, and have reduced the opportunity for an entire generation of young people... not to mention all of the death and destruction for which they have been responsible.
We still have a chance of pulling the nation out of the slagheap of former greatness, but we won't do it by continuing to do more of what these current fools have done.
As for Canada, we would do well to listen more closely when our friends say something is a bad idea.
peace , i'm sorry , but you are mistaken...the republicans want obama to win and are the lilith winds beneath his kenyan wings.the republicans know john mccain did them great service , but is now a 'dead man walking.'
Change is not going to come until the revolution comes! Or, put another, less radical way, until Humpty Dumpty (the USA) falls. This country is too big, too diverse, to only be one country, and continue on, with the dinosaur of a political system that we have.
Democrats, Republicans, whatever. Two sides of the same coin. Nothing will change. We sit here in the US and criticize Russia, China, et al, for the controlling party not letting anyone else in to play the game. Wake up! The US only has one party with two factions. As long as they control the game board (as proxies for their corporate string pullers), nothing will change.
We live in a corporate, global culture that tells us we have more choice than ever. We can choose from umpteen TV channels, umpteen fast foods, umpteen candidates. They're all devoid of any substantial content.
I'm going for mercy from my fellow Americans. Don't screw the country again, or stand by when the ballot box was cooked.
I'm going for hope. I saw Obama in Keene, New Hampshire, and he is inspiring. What have we got to lose? Is there any candidate that is better? Come on, you know there isn't. Why not start to feel good again that someone really cares about upholding the rule of law, caring about how we look to the rest of the world, care about the middle class. You know you want to. Thanks, Juliania, for the encouragement.
Go Obama!
Horseshit propaganda..PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Please do not insult the little intelligence I have left after 60 years of conditioning and de-education!
I welcome the DLC getting a pie in the face in Iowa.
I question whether we are being offered "hope" or "hype."
Well hell, smart people already know the fix is in,the game won even before contest begins,we will get the best candidate that $$$ has brought and paid for. and when asked to jump by their sponsors they will be three feet off the ground before asking "how high"
Change in Washington is not going to come from one person or in four years.
Anyone who thinks so is retarded.
It is also not going to come from bottom up.
It requires someone who already has clout and can manouver there.
I am not sure Dennis is that person.
Why does Common Dreams reprint Gwynn's columns? He's a mainstream lackey in Canada.
Gwyn invokes a piece of historical "lore" that should always be put to the fire: JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." He is suggesting that citizens work to advance the State, which is no different from what Lenin or Hitler asked. Our form of government was concieved as a tool for citizens to use to enhance their interest--thus the State is to work for its people. Lots of people were fooled by JFK; too many still are, including the author.
The Hope/Change mantra devoid of vision is just recycled 1992 Clinton BS. As far as he had any vision, it was "the economy stupid," and that was Carvill's vision, not Clinton's. Awhile ago, I called Obama a tabula rasa for the DLC--little different from Powell and Rice being the same for the AEI/RNC--and the DLC is no font for Hope/Change/Vision; it is a BAU bastion. If Obama gets the nomination, his tabula rasa will be filled with the Platform's contents; and his campaign which so far lacks many specific goals or articulated policies will suddenly be filled with those of the Platform.
With Clinton, we all know we're getting the shaft--thus ABC. With Obama, we know we'll get the shaft, but we're hopeful it will change and not be as destructive. The same can be said of Edwards, too.
thinkingmom says:
To bring up a quote from another era…"Follow the money"…If the "money" and the media are pushing it…I'm not buying...
***************
Or more succinctly asked, "Just what do you think those corporations who have given tens of millions ( and will probably be giving hundreds of millions before it is all over) are going to demand of their new darling?
Ans: Nothing that will help the ordinary person.
Raven says:
Obama will be as Obama does.
**************
Which begs the question, exactly what has the Senator for only a few years actually done?
Ans: Nothing but talk a good speech. Obama for Democratic Party cheerleader--Jesse Jackson you may retire.
********************
Hoa Bin (since1492) says:
Obama will be white by the time he is nominated. Corporate America will transform their favorite Democratic candidate into a Mr. Everyone. A puppet who can be manipulated into saying the right words about anything at anytime.
*****************
That would make him the African-American male equivalent to Condoleeza Rice. Black Barbie now has her very own Ken doll to pose with. How sweet!
****************
Poet says:
Next to Hillary there is no bigger phoney running for the Democratic Party nomination for President than Barack Obama--maybe that's why they are one and two in amount of monetary tribute paid by their soon to be pimps, multinational corprate America.
I absolutely agree with the points of this article. 'The vision thing' is why I became an American citizen. The Republican machine is broken, but the Democratic machine is alive and well. The only way to buck it is exactly as Obama is doing, with vision. Sure, he could fail, but he is running the way a candidate should run, not on the fear of failure but on the pure joy of potential.
Sure, he coasted along inside the pack to reach this point. I think you have to give him the benefit of sagacious practicality in doing that. He couldn't make it a pure straight run as the good Senator Kucinich has done. He's been drafting behind the power leaders in the party, but open your eyes folks - he's broken away from them now.
Be Americans; cheer him on.
Spartanladkenny - Do you really need the obvious pointed out? Obummer will never be president! He can not possibly win the general election. It's the Muslim heritage thing even more than the black thing. Sad but true, I wish that he stood no chance because of the fact that he has nothing of value to offer, but as you pointed out that did not stop w.
If people manifest their desire for change in one person it will go nowhere. No one person is capable of comprehending or effectively applying the dynamism of change. Change is decentralized and it takes place in the minds and hearts of people first. It is their collective desire for change that creates the vision. The vision is fluid and changes as people change. Unless an architecture is established to harness the dynamics of change effectively then change will not happen. Using the old model of centralized architecture to funnel change will only lead to a derailing and increasingly more of the same and possibly a collapse. Voicing change and hoping it works is not enough, in fact, it is a prescription for failure. When I hear Obama and other change candidates begin to voice the need for a new 21st Century political architecture, only then will I take a change candidate seriously.
C H A N G E _ is pretty much
worthless (or worse)
without _ V I S I O N
Obama will be white by the time he is nominated. Corporate America will transform their favorite Democratic candidate into a Mr. Everyone. A puppet who can be manipulated into saying the right words about anything at anytime.
Hoa binh
Yeah, well, Richard Gwyne has to be our stupidest columnist. I don't know why the Star keeps him on. So you can forget about this column.
Change is not going to come, period. Not until the electronic voting machines are removed...The rest of these discussions are pointless...I keep forgetting myself, because I don't want it to be true...but a reality check leads to this conclusion...
Obama would be a great candidate... for the Repubs to take down. Remember Kerry's 'swiftboating' - some of us saw that coming a mile away, we were trying to warn Dems in the primaries that Kerry's hero record in Vietnam was nothing but a PR stunt.
Obama is just another setup- the media darling until he gets the nod, then bam- they flip the switch and Barak 'Hussein Obama' with a muslim background will be all over the news.
To the Kucinich Supporters: wake up- your guy is a fraud too! A 'steam vent' for the left, he says all the right stuff, but then refuses to challenge vote fraud, refuses to boot the moles out of his campaign- he doesn't want to win. Pay closer attention to his campaign and you will see that.
Obama will be as Obama does.
As for me, I might become a supporter of Richard Gwyn's views again, when I see him apologise for brow beating Canadians to join the invasion of Iraq after what he assured us was the definitive proof that Colin Powell had just provided at the UN. Why is the Star still using this guy's material after that performance? Why is CD?
To bring up a quote from another era..."Follow the money"...If the "money" and the media are pushing it...I'm not buying...
This is the kind of media coverage I am afraid of when(if) we get a democrap president.
Rather than having all the news framed by classic models of good intentions and bad apples as it is framed for the repugs, which at least has a distant relationship with events; we will get this psudo-royalty and the media will faun (cover) his/her smile, his/her suit, how stylish he/she is, all the firsts, 1st black this 1st woman that… as if.
And when your critical of them everyone will say he/she's better than bush, whoop-de-doo.
I am not a supporter of Obama but if Bush can become the president twice, why can't Obama be one too. Whether he is going to be successful or not remains to be seen. In a country of sports fanatics we can't help but try to forecast the future with past statistics.
Yawn - What a bunch of hype and nonsense. Thees three words sum up what Obummer has to offer "potentially, possibly, perhaps".
I just read an article about Hillary giving up on Nevada and SC and saving her resources for the big primaries...a great justification for taking her first win in a state with electronic voting machines...don't you think. She already has 169 delegates, Obama has 66, Edwards has 47, Richardson 19 and Kucinich 1 (Counting the already promised Super delegates)...She's got some breathing room ...the question is how can it be credible??? Unless she takes a leave from the next two states and "Concentrates" her efforts where she'll win...betchya they'll have electronic voting machines...