vaudree January 28th, 2008 9:17 pmvaudree January 28th, 2008 9:17 pm

ill try to be objective. the pres/vp contest is the only contest americans vote for as a collective, as americans. 7 of the last 18 Vp's have ascended to the presidency (1901-2008). the VP candidate is chosen by the nominee/the victor of the party. the VP oversees the US senate and votes during ties, otherwise few proscribed duties. weak presidents (bush2/cheney) generally choose strong Vp's; strong presidents (bush 1/ quayle) generally choose weaker Vp's. the goal is to choose a Vp that compliments the presidential candidate.

list of us presidents and Vps.
http://www.presidentsusa.net/presvplist.html

however, it's interesting that b clinton could subvert the intent of the 22nd amendment by running as hillary's VP (similar to Putin circumventing term limits in russia by redefining the defintion of prime minister and president).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Vice_President

"The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the vice president to meet the same eligibility requirements as the president. That is, the vice president must be at least 35 years of age, have been born a citizen of the United States, and have been a resident of the U.S. for at least the 14 years preceding election.

It is unclear whether someone who has been twice elected to the presidency can subsequently be elected Vice President. The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that a person may not be elected to the presidency more than twice, but it does not rule out such a person subsequently becoming president by other means (for example through the line of succession)."

There is no restriction on the number of terms a person can serve as Vice President - the limit only applies to the Presidency."

-- about the corporate whore comment (actually i was referring to h clintons association with wal-mart when she sat on their board of directors). all these candidates are running in a capitalist society that demands players play within a set of dubious rules. it's how it is. all the candidates have generated piles and piles of money.........

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

"After nine months of fundraising, the candidates for president in 2008 have already raised about $420 million. This presidential money chase seems to be on track to collect an unprecedented $1 billion total. By some predictions, the eventual nominees will need to raise $500 million apiece to compete--a record sum. To find out where all this money is coming from, explore the options to the left. Year-end reports are due to the Federal Election Commission by Jan. 31."

john's 12 million in contributions in the last quarter can be scrutanized at the site noted above.

-- vaudree i agree obama is not the 'ideal' prog but there's more a stake, dynastic politics (like the royals in france and the kirchners in argentina, and the bhuttos in pakistan), a candidate who opposed war by demonstrating in the streets, the age thing - clearly the folks under 50 in this country want new representation.

also vaudree i like your point by point style of expressing yourself, it's refreshing to read posts that actually refer to comments...........

That depends upon how big her boobs are.

PJD,
Thanks for posting the letter.

I must say that Obama is not being even handed at all in this letter.
There is no urging for talking about a cease fire between Israel and Hamas.

The only way to win war in modern times is to end war.

I hope Obama keeps to the promise of talking to enemies... if he wants to find Osama, talking to him about a cease fire would be the best way to find out where he is and if he is even still alive or a ghost...

If none of the candidates come clean on this, I may cast my protest vote... We got about 9 months ...We'll see.

If the young generation is so important why don't we nominate Captain Kangaroo; he was certainly inspiring. To be honest I'm a little tired of the "give hope to a new generation" thang. How about convincing us world-weary jaded bastards? If anyone can see the real thing, we will.

(P.S. As a west-coaster who's always trying to play catch-up to 5Am eastern risers, let me just thank the Academy that I was chosen No. 1 -- at last!)

Obama Rules: Symbolic Pandering isn't new politics and can only get you in trouble
An Open (and titled) Letter to Obama

Mr. Obama,

Some free advice.

When you've gotten yourself in trouble, it has been when you're off message, ad-libbing, and, most informatively, when pandering to the right.

• Punjab Senator (I mean, what were you or your surrogates thinking?)
• Reagan (I know, I know…you didn't say what your opponents are saying you said. I even know what you were trying to say – that the Clinton's are really a part of the Reagan legacy – but you were still pandering to a pretty reactionary rag.)
• Anti-Gay preacher dude (Again, what were you thinking? You can't win the Democratic nomination without the gay vote.)
• "Illegal Aliens" gaffe in televised debate (There's less written about this than there should be. But, just so you know, that phrase is the same as the N-word in the Latino community. And how can you say you're about the future when you use archaic language like that?)
• Nuclear talk
• Macho war talk
• etc.

Rule #1: Symbolic pandering to the right (see above examples) isn't the new politics that is your core message. When you get into trouble, it's when what you say is out of character and you're out of your element. No need for the symbolic indulgences to reactionary forces. Let your ideas, values and core message keep winning over those soft republicans, independents, and new and 'non-traditional' young voters.

Rule #2: Answer the Clinton's attacks with your core message. They're afraid of you. You really out-organized 'em in Iowa, and you were about to in New Hampshire until the corporate media did their job and alerted the establishment to your "wave." The Clintons understand these things called elections are about change. Remember the famous haiku that got Bill Clinton elected the first time?

Change in Direction
(It's) The Economy, Stupid
Don't Forget Healthcare!

I actually think the Clintons also understand that there's just no going back in time. They know that there really isn't a DeLorean with 1.21 gigawatts and a flex capacitor that can take them Back to the Future. That was a movie, not a campaign theme. And it's an old movie at that. They are no longer a change in direction. They're part of what's gotten the economy in the mess that it's in. And they want us to forget they failed on healthcare.

Rule #3: Don't sell a corporate agenda with the language of grassroots social movements. When you get into office, represent us – not the corporations or the rich. Be that rare public servant that says what they mean and does what they say. I know it's a leap of faith, but there's hope.

Maybe yours come Election Day,

ipenek-- "To be honest I'm a little tired of the "give hope to a new generation" thang"

Yeah ... lets just stick with the morally repugnant, ethically challenged, apathetic older generation. They've been doing a helluva job so far.

Hi,

Whoever is the Democratic nominee, and whoever is the next President - WE NEED TO BE A MOVEMENT!

Lyndon Johnson did not sign the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act because he was a great leader - he signed them because the power structure of the US was threatened.

Richard Nixon did not sign the National Environmental Policy Act because he was a great leader - he signed it because the power structure of the US was threatened.

And Bill Clinton did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING good, because there was no movement threatening the power structure of the US during his presidency.

Whoever is President, we need to threaten the power structure of the US. Not because we have a visionary candidate, not because we vote for or against anyone, but because we are acting and mobilizing and creating our own reality. Candidates and Presidents will only follow us if we lead.

Blogging is not useless, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. We all need to be organizing in our communities, building a popular movement that truly threatens corporate power and the war machine.

So i ask myself - what do i feed with my daily activities? What does my work, and my money, and my life build? Who am i working with, and what are we building? Words are important, but if my actions feed the monster, my words cannot compensate.

Are we building a movement? What are we building?

Oh nonsense. Just because Obama runs meetings that pulsate like pop concerts and carry people away on a wave of hysterical enthusiasm, it doesn't mean he has the brains, the knowhow and the integrity to run the country. He's already compromised on everything from nukes to Palestine, so we know he's just another political opportunist out to buy votes where he can. Nothing will change under him - he is already sending the people with the real power the signals they are waiting for.

If truth be told Bill Clinton was more like JFK, however Bill could never match JFK's record with respect to the excesses of prescription drugs and sexual experimentation.

On January 22, Amy Goodman interviewed the legendary activist, grace Lee Boggs. Boggs, 92, marched with Dr. King and with Malcolm X, and she spoke excitedly about the Barack Obama phenomenon. Reminding us all of the perils of top-down leadership, especially in the U.S.A., where charismatic, principled leaders are so often gunned down, never to see the promised land, as Dr. King predicted in his own case. One need only think of the fates of JFK to RFK to MLK, Jr., Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and many others who gave their lives for the cause. Don't forget that Dr. King gave his "Beyond Vietnam" speech, in which he connected materialism, racism, and militarization. For activists, it may even be a more powerful speech than his "I have a dream" speech.

This is why Grace Lee Boggs expressed excitement about the candidacy of Barack Obama, who is bringing thousands, if not millions of new voter, of young, energized, optimistic youth, tired of the same old party hacks and quacks. Grass roots organizing is much harder to snuff than individual leaders of movements. While she admitted that the policies articulated by Dennis Kucinich are much closer to the policies she favors, she still maintained that this surprising, multiracial, energetic campaign was promising, even surprising.

Given that none of the front-runners have distinct or exemplary policies, nor do any of them have progressive voting records, perhaps we should listen to this wise activist and worry about the policies down the road. After all, the CEO of our country can do nothing without consulting the corporations, the congress, and the realm of the possible.

For all of these reasons, I am ready to join this grass roots phenomenon, preferring the audacity of hope over Hope, Arkansas!

It seems with his victory in South Carolina, Obama is now the "new inevitability" - for however long that will last - but while I'm not as deeply jaded as perhaps ipenek is, I'd like to nonetheless make a case (to gyptian and others) for being skeptical.

First to the subject of this article by C. Kennedy: The kind of "inspirational hope" Obama has given us this far is based purely on his rhetorical abilities, as was JFK's. When Barack gives specifics, he's far less inspiring (see solak's list). "Charisma" if you will, is a mere talent and like any talent, it can be polished and improved. It is not necessarily a sign of a person's true character and rarely an indication of his or her verisimilitude. So I (as a professional speechwriter) and others are naturally mistrustful of all this vision and inspiration, simply because we know how easily it is manufactured, like the characters in a movie or a campaign for a product. Why else are his "early adopters" among Media and "Dream Factory" types like Oprah Winfrey and David Geffen, not to mention outright propagandists like Karl Rove? The past 20 years have left a lot of us wanting for substantive politicians, who are more about the realities of political discourse (issues) and less about their carefully managed media images.

Ronald Reagan, as Obama pointed out, was the apotheosis of this feeling over substance, not JFK. Also we sometimes forget that even G.W. Bush was charismatic to his original base with his plain talking charm and "Aw Shucks" simplicity of character. It was of course playacting, but at the time it had a wild effect on Republicans and ultimately Americans, who preferred his Regular Guy to the academic reserve of Gore and the patrician aloofness of Kerry.

None of these political personae ever amounted to anything more than propaganda, but it took bitter experience for Americans to realize it. "Morning in America" turned out to be the beginning of a great day for the rich and powerful and the beginning of a long dark night for liberals and progressives. Bush's "base" turned out not to be the dope who'd rather have a beer with him, but the richest of the rich, who would never allow an average Joe into their club. Even J.F.K who is the subject of this article had an inspirational style and charisma that outshone his reality and was largely untested by the kinds of scrutinizes politicians fall under today. We should never forget JFK's tenure was quite brief – enough time to inspire, but not enough to be tested ideologically and pre-dating the communications revolution, certainly not long enough for skeletons to be found in his closet by the nascent scandal media.

I simply think it's important to realize that Obama may have a considerable talent as an orator and speech writer (Does he write his own? Does he have a coach?) But does he have the stuff it will take to restore our position in the world and enough experience to know how to make it happen? Andrew Sullivan seems to think so, and more or less bases his entire support for Barrack Obama on the man's face. (Even my reserved support for him goes deeper than that.) But it is not an "old guard" attitude to suggest the world is ugly and getting uglier. We live in a time of WW (world war) preconditions: Our economy is sliding down, down, down as anti-democratic forces are running amok around the planet prompting allied (NATO) Generals to start talking about abandoning their prohibitions against "first strike" nuclear options. I don't believe we can be inspired about any of this. And I don't think a right-of-center smooth talking candidate can pull it off. Despite Obama's seeming cakewalk through race-obsessed South Carolina, his campaign is apt to let some pretty vile features of the American character out of their cages (race and misogyny in his case, gender in Hillary's) when the "glow" of these victories will be far off indeed. It's apt to make for a pretty uninspiring environment.

Now that Bill Clinton seems to be single-handedly deep sixing Hillary's campaign, Progressives will be faced with a candidate who is disturbingly right of center and well educated, being set against McCain (in all likelihood) a veteran and a straight talker who will appear moderate compared to the other Republicans. Amerircans will be making that kind of choice.

As for Obama's politics, I like solrak's punch list of things Obama should do to shore up his candidacy, but little of it appeals to Progressives. Re: the now famous Reagan statement - I don't agree that he got misquoted. I think he said what he said and that's what was reported. His failure was in ONLY saying Reagan inspired America after a time of darkness WITHOUT SAYING that he nonetheless disapproved greatly with Reagan's ideology and the damage it did to our current way of life. Why not even say t helped sow the seeds for our current political and economic situations? He could have said it and still hit Bill Clinton for not doing enough to halt it. THAT was the suspicious omission to me and that is why I am very hesitant to embrace him as a candidate. That's much worse than pandering!

Finally, Obama's and his supporters' arguments that this is somehow some kind of generational thing really offends me and my intelligence. It even shows up in these comments. It's this naïve, ahistorical assumption that somehow the Red State / Blue State ideological conflict is a legacy of the Vietnam War that was somehow cooked up in some dorm room in the 60's. Ahistorical is almost too kind. This conflict reflects the bitter struggle for power over common people and their desire for self-determination by authorities and institutions that have a vested interest in keeping them in place. It's called politics. When Obama and his supporters make this all about my generation and their generation they sound like a gaggle of ignorant 60's hippies and that must make the Republicans very happy indeed.

solrak: abso-friggin'-lutely brilliant! That nail didn't bend one bit! And I'm glad you hit it the way you did.

And...webwalk, you're on the mark, too. Threaten the power structure. That's the way things get done in this version of democracy. But we need to threaten with our votes, our wallets, our voices, and even our bodies at this point. The opposing side has seen all of these threats before, and has been actively engaged in preparing defenses against them. This time the fight has to be even harder, even more empassioned. This time, the fight must equal or exceed the passions of 1776. Nothing less than the future of a free America is at stake.

I'm not warmed up yet to Obama. I'm not warmed up yet to Edwards, either. I'm still smarting from the pasting that Kucinich received in this dirty primary process, but there's no way someone like Clinton could ever restore what was great about America. She's the wrong choice, and I can only hope that the folks out there excited about a female president can look past the genders and see the character of Hillary Clinton as the beast that it is.

"Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life"

Obama's interview in Christianity Today: a magazine of evangelical conviction,

(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=1)

with related links to a string of recent articles published by the faith based communities causes many to do more than raise an eyebrow. I am thoroughly convinced the Senator needs to be thoroughly scrutinized for his belief in perpetuating faith based initiatives from within the infrastructure of government and the White House.

Obama's mark as a great orator is loosing steam. The American people want more substance than eloquence. We understand our next president must have a pre-existing, substantive world stage background. It is critical that our country obtain a truly strong leader equipped with knowledge, experience and mistakes otherwise known as a portfolio without the fat to manage the most delicate and troublesome relationships that are imminent within our domestic and global boardrooms. The nation does not have the luxury to hire our next CEO on a promise to inspire us rather than to intelligently devise strategies for repairing the fallout of this preeminent war-torn-to-shreds economy with proven success for implementation.

The American people are looking to hire an individual who does not need on the job training in the first two years, four years or eight years. Sound familiar? The US is facing the worst of times in the history of our nation. Everything imaginable is at stake for "a new generation of Americans" and for those of us who are living here right now struggling to makes ends meet without any guarantee we will have the most basic of necessities when we are old.

Thank you Caroline Kennedy for submitting your letter of recommendation for Senator Obama. However, the hiring committee is looking for a milieu of qualifications for the position we are seeking to fill. Mr. Obama is no doubt an exceptional individual. However, it would serve him well to first acquire the necessary skills, scars and sage wisdom to run the most powerful country in the world. We welcome him to resubmit his resume in the future for upcoming positions we may have available.

Oh...and, uh would you let him know the hiring committee feels it important that you convey our dismay at his unabashed self-portrayal as a living, breathing Martin Luther King reincarnate. This indiscretion currently on his resume not only appears blatantly fraudulent but serves to denigrate MLK's selfless contributions as a civil rights activist and a martyr.

Thank you Walt for sharing the depth and scope of your knowledge and opinion. "as anti-democratic forces are running amok around the planet prompting allied (NATO) Generals to start talking about abandoning their prohibitions against "first strike" nuclear options", leaves me with further pause.

Thanks Caroline, we're going to follow American Idol and concentrate on "just the singing" as you've recommended.

Hello -- it doesn't matter that much who's President. The Corporatocracy is going to call the shots or "replace" them. Without a citizen movement -- can Obama inspire that? -- little will change for the better.

Good for You Caroline... I am in TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH YOUR ARTICLE... AS A WOMAN, MOTHER AND NOW GRANDMOTHER TO 6 BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN, IT IS NOW TIME FOR A MUCH NEEDED CHANGE IN OUR COUNTRY.. I AM GOING ON THE OBAMA BANDWAGON FOR SURE.. FOR ALL THE OLD FARTS THAT ARE BEING NEGATIVE, TAKE A CHILL PILL.. TIME FOR THE COUNTRY TO REUNITE ! GRANFORCHANGE IN WISCONSIN

Obama and Clinton look the same on policy so where's the beef?

Much ado about nothing!

Obama's keynote address at the 2004 DEM convention was the first time I felt hope and pride for my country in a long, long time. This nation desperately needs that kind of leadership. Obama seems to have a sense of the goodness of this nation.

Bush is such a fool. We have lost all our credibility under his administration. He consistently makes wrong decisions. Everything Bush touches turns to dust.

Thank you Caroline for your public endorsement.
People will pay attention to your opinion.

"it doesn't mean he has the brains, the knowhow and the integrity to run the country. He's already compromised on everything from nukes to Palestine, "

Seems like a blueprint for the construction of more of the murderous ninnies that are ruining the country right now.

"Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates' goals are similar."

I'll say - or better yet, let's have Ralph Nader say it - "Not a Dimes Worth of Difference!"

Let's elect somone who wants to increase the military, continue our great tradition of military adventurism abroad, and usher in a new, new era of Reaganism. Oh yippe - I can *hardly* wait.

But what if McCain beomces our next Pres? Oh well, what's the difference? Yawn.

Positives: Obama has put in time as a street organizer. He's smarter than any guy with a square lump on his back.

Negatives: He's taking a lot of garbage money. He supports nuclear power which uses as much carbon as it saves, just to grab the campaign dollars.

Dear Caroline,

How time seems to fly. I first knew of you when you were a small preschool child and your little brother a toddler. Now you are all grown up, with teenagers of your own! Your parents were the most glamorous couple in the whole country even elipsing media and sports stars in their celebrity. Then came that awful day in Dallas and our country has never been the same since because more than your father's hope, idealism, and celebrity died that day in Dallas.

The truth of the national security state in all its vile and perverse ugliness was revealed to the American people in that dreadful day in Dallas and in the subsequent coverup of the investigation of the murder of President of the US--your own beloved father--by Republican and Democratic political leaders. The Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of the government, were also implicated in this sorry affair. All of them falling prostrate at the feet of this monolith which your father tried in vain to reform only to be destroyed for his efforts.

All of that being said Caroline, let's get real about the current field of Presidential contenders because there is a worthy successor to your father's political legacy and it is most definately not Barack Obama (which is to take nothing away from his own idealism, charisma, and celebrity).

He is young, handsome, has a bunch of kids, a father who was very wealthy and prominent in his own right, is of controversial religious persuasion, and even held high political office in Massachusetts and his name is Mitt Romney--ugh! About all he lacks is a politically vicious and resourceful little brother who is willing to subsume his own identity for the sake of the campaign and a incurable terminal disease like Addisons to cultivate a determined fatalism that "the future is now because there may not be a tomorrow for me" attitude. That more than any twaddle about "Camelot" is the true courage and legacy your very brave father left this undeserving country.

I think the time has come to question the American Dream and the American Ideal - first we need to look at just what these dreams and ideals are.

In a nutshell the American Mythology is that God gave this land
to us, his new chosen people - and we took it. Now what we did in the taking isn't so pretty, so we create a mythology of Brave Frontiersman fighting Godless Savages.

And then we created "Freedom" for all - even though Europeans had rid themselves of pure chattel slavery a thousand years before and we found that we needed to resurrect this practice as a practical concern. So we took the people out of Africa, ripped from their families, and gave them our beneficence. Never have so few done so much for so many.

And now other people have *our* oil and threaten *our* energy supply. So we need to take it again, fighting the Godless Savages of teh Mid-East, the dead-enders, who stand in the way of God's Own Plan(tm) (GOP).

Yes, yes, we certainly do need *inspiring* preachers to lead us God's Holy Work.

Bring it on Obama!

I wonder if it is the same folks who were sayin vote for Dennis are now sayin Obama can't win.

I see the same kind of lies about Obama that Bill puts out.
Obama does not support nuclear power.. That will be up to us and he will listen to the people more than anyone who has a chance to win.

Caroline Kennedy is right on!

I have read commom dreams comments enough to know that any one who tries to convince cynical old farts is a masochist... you will have to fend for yourselves.

Oooh - what tasty cynicism you cook up ipenek, oldbadgertoo, kalia and others! Yummy! Let's just all sit on our asses because we know there's no difference between the candidates! (like, in 2000, was there any difference between Gore and Bush? - except for little things like eviscerating the people of Iraq, our civil rights, our reputation and the middle class for that matter!) And what does good oration give you? Hope? Look at the wonderful oration of George Bush! Despite his eloquent, moving words, look at the how little he's accomplished!

So, let's all remember all the candidates are the same and there's no reason for hope ...

And if you really do believe that, just sit on your butts and be quiet and let others will work toward moving the country in the right direction. Obama won by a landslide in S.C. as he will in November - and we will be able to tell the world that America is back.

Evrybody likes to point out that Obama spoke against the Iraq war. But what is his stance in regards to American Militarism in general? Does he want to increase the military. Yep. Does he stand behind teh Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes? Yep. Likes the idea of staying in Iraq now that we're there? Yep.
Promotes the American Myth that we are God's Chosen who need to fight the Godless Savages? Seems to be so.

bigjoe.. You lie about Obama like a Clinton and Republican ... go ahead vote for McCain.

I lie? You mean I don't give it just the right *spin* that you'ld like to see.

When NeoCons liek Robert Kagan praise Obama who canbe against him?

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html

Also check out Tom Hayden's latest heer on CD:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/25/6631/

But I understand the point - anyone who doesn't like your candidate is a fill-in-the-blank __________ (liar, racist, closet conservative, moron, illuminate, lizard-alien).

"I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president - not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."

Well Caroline I must say I believe you have been duped. There is more to leadership than a deep voice projecting empty platitudes. I have yet to find any real substance as this man continues his feel good, empty rhetoric, while shamelessly pandering every now and again. Makes me want to check my wallet every time I hear him speak.

But it is not really relevant any way he will never be elected to the presidency! and all those hopeful supporter that have become part of the process because he moved them so, what will become of them when this reality comes crashing home? Will they continue to work for "change" whatever that means? Or will they go back to watching American Idol?

I wonder what odds my bookie is giving that a man named Barack Husein Obama will be elected president of the USA in 2008?

The Kagan article is just so illuminating to us illuminati. Let me quote:

------------------
Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace Corps-like activity as a substitute for military power. Surely he intends to cut or at least cap a defense budget soaring over $500 billion a year. Surely he understands there is no military answer to terrorism.

Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.

He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others." Make every effort?

Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are four words: United Nations Security Council.

Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?

Ask Noam Chomsky the next time you see him.
--------------------------------

Ah - I begin to see the light!

Well, in defense of Caroline's remarks, ol' Camelot was a dangerous US imperialist too.

Remember the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam.

Remember, more importantly, Jack's placement of nuclear missiles right on the Turkish-Russian border - this threatening act, not the Russians' reasonable response in Cuba, is what took humanity to the brink of annihilation.

As as a child, I lived well withing the "total destruction radius of a 5 MT device" of the Pentagon. The local DC area street maps even had radius circles drawn out from the Pentagon in those days. Maybe I was a bit of a precocious 6-year old in those days, but I will never forgive this imperialist Kennedy for that time of terror. Every time they tested those god-awful yellow death-sirens, I knew my mother and father would helpless to save any of us.

bigjoe

Maybe America should just fail.

The real war is in the economy and competition between areas for economic dominance. Right now the rest of the world is decoupling itself from America and its love of debt and loss of a manufacturing base.

The stock market has been proped up by soveriegn funds from other nations imo. So the idea that the US economy is a capitalist system is not true. The US economy is dependent upon China and its use of US dollars under that government's control.

The Chinese government is buying up parts of US companies. What if the Chinese government decides to influence US politics much as these companies have already infiltrated the US government and its policies with their lobbyists?

So while America is building up a powerful military the economy of the US is being taken over by other nations...and could influence America from within.

bigjoe...

OK maybe you are not lying... you are quoting what someone else is pointing out and quoting.
Every speech has a context and I like to judge what a speaker says by what I hear him say in the total context of the speech or debate.

I read the article by Tom Hayden... I just don't spin what Tom said like you do. You are spining someone elses spin.
I judge Obama on what I hear directly and in full context....
I don't need to believe in someone elses spin.

I was for Kucinich. I might vote for Obama, I won't vote for Hillary.

I agree with lpenek. It's not that Bush lacked vision or was poor at managing important symbols. It was far deeper than the abstract/ephemeral arena -- Bush's damage and the Democrats' acquiescence went deep into the socio-economic reality of this country.

So we're THROUGH with talk and vision. Now is the time for action and substance.

Given that Obama missed a lot of votes in '07, courted AIPAC, and supported Liebermann, what are we to make of his actions?

Cynical old farts.

Is there any reason to be optimistic? The reality is Democracy is dead in America, corporations choose our candidates (like Obama), rhetoric rules, a steady decline in the life styles of the average American have occurred for three decades now, our government is responsible for the deaths of over a million innocent Iraqi's, over 100,000 unnecessary operations are performed every year in America because of a profit based health care system, over 300 million guns are lying about with a country that still has the industrialized world's highest murder rate, a class of poor that is below any rung of society in Western Europe, a nation that spends half of its tax dollars on the military and homeland security, an illiteracy rate and general ignorance of the general populace that is lower than that of many third world countries (or of Americans in 1776!) and a culture of consumerism that is accelerating the destruction of our environment with no end in sight.

What's there to be cynical about?

Yet here comes along a new politician with a short and dubious track record (he caved in to the medical industrial complex in Illinois) who talks all about change and hope while never mentioning the publics true opponent (predatory corporations) or the solutions required to reverse this nasty state of affairs.

Voting for Obama is like voting for Britney Spears.

"but because we are acting and mobilizing and creating our own reality. Candidates and Presidents will only follow us if we lead."

In John Steinbeck's novel , "The Moon Is Down", the German-Nazy commandant whose troops were occupying a small un-named Norwegian town threatened to execute the mayor and councillors in turn if the railway saboteurs were not fingered . It may be Hollywood but the mayor and council quietly replied that he would be forced to execute the entire population because each citizen would step forward and become mayor. Such was the community spirit and the phenomenon that every citizen had service and leadership skills .

This idea completely dumbfounded the commanding officer whose military background programmed him to command unquestionably from the top down : If he was removed , his inferior officer would less capable than he and so on down the chain of command . The idea that ANY soldier under his command would be as brilliant as he was completely unthinkable.

I can't find the above quotation's author but in nut-shell she/he is saying like John Steinbeck , Americans , never mind who is elected , get off the couch and be the change you want to make , one town at a time .

John Fitzgerald Kennedy received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal under the following citation:

For extremely heroic conduct as Commanding Officer of Motor Torpedo Boat 109 following the collision and sinking of that vessel in the Pacific War Theater on August 1-2, 1943. Unmindful of personal danger, Lieutenant (then Lieutenant, Junior Grade) Kennedy unhesitatingly braved the difficulties and hazards of darkness to direct rescue operations, swimming many hours to secure aid and food after he had succeeded in getting his crew ashore. His outstanding courage, endurance and leadership contributed to the saving of several lives and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

Have we gotten to the point where we have so little respect for our brave soldiers that no one thinks it's a significant difference between Obama and JFK that JFK was a real hero and Obama is just a blathering speech-maker?

Will some contributors please re-read my post on Kennedy. (he was called "Camelot") Kennedy was a warmongering imperialist who brought humanity to the brink of destruction. So my fear is that Obama might very well be a Jack Kennedy.

Barf!

Anytime I see a candidate trying to be JFK, I just want to barf. Because that alone tells me they are a shallow phony. They are such a phony that they can't stand on their own two legs, but have to instead pretend to be a long dead President.

Obama is all smoke and mirrors. He's full of lots of nice sounding talking about 'hope' and 'change' and not being divisive. But there's nothing underneath. He doesn't say why we should have hope with him in charge. He won't say how things will change with him in charge.

Surely a candidate that just spread BS around and won't say what he'll actually do should be regarded as highly dangerous.

And there are clues that this is very dangerous. The corporate money that's backing him, and that you know he won't disappoint. And the fact that when he slams people for being divisive, its always the left he slams. Its always those evil 60's that are bad. That last time that the people in the country really tried to stand up and stop corporate rule, that's Obama's example for what's bad and he what he wants to stamp out and prevent.

He never speaks of the divisiveness of the right. The horrible splitting of this nation into rich and poor. He never calls that excessive. In fact he walks around talking about what a wonderful uniter Ronald Reagan was.

This man is all smoke and mirrors and a new face put on the same old corporate rule. Be happy with your Obama puppet replacing the Dubya puppet. Even pretend he looks like your old JFK doll in the closet that's getting a little worn from time. But don't fool yourself that this man isn't a puppet. Just the very basic fact that he refuses to tell you what he really wants to do as President should scare you badly.

I like Caroline Kennedy! To think that what we have today is the result of what we lost yesterday is telling. If we are to have a new day as Caroline states, it will be because americans get up off thier asses and do something. Take a stand, notice that homeless guy and actually do something to create equality and justice.

Obama is the face on a very skillful campaign. He plays on the fact that most people just see in a Pres candidate what they want to see. In this sense, they've mastered the propaganda techniques that Bush used. Just a small example: a majority of people who voted for Bush think that he supports Kyoto.

Obama is very good at this. He throws lots of words out that test well with the pollsters and the focus groups. "Hope" and "Change", etc. While doing this, he's careful never to spoil anyone's illusions. So to all voters he always looks like what they want to see. He looks good, and he sounds good. And he rarely says anything of substance that could break anyone's illusions. So people see what they want to see.

He steals the rythyms of a black preacher. Thus people hear that and think he's another MLK Jr.

Thus its no surprise that a Kennedy sees JFK. Everyone sees what they want to see. And JFK is what a Kennedy would want to see.

But Obama never talks about the poor or poverty.

Obama is better than Clinton and might be able to energize people enough to elect him..but I suspect Hilary will get the nomination because of the Bradley effect and her connections.
Then she will most likely lose to the Republican especially if its McCain. I have this weird feeling we are going to see an "incident" october surprise courtesy of Bush as a gift to McCain.

alt January 27th, 2008 7:44 am
It seems with his victory in South Carolina, Obama is now the "new inevitability" - for however long that will last

The vitrol on this site is beyond belief.
Mighty Whitey just can't stand Barack on Any level.

well, I voted for my first African American President yesterday and I'm PROUD to have done so!!
The Clintons, like the Bushes need to go away, please. We are tired of you, please MOVE ON OR GET OUT THE WAY... PLESAE, GO AWAY!!!

I regret that some of my fellow "progressives" (and the righties who come on CD to contribute "junk" messages) feel the need to slam a personality or bring up what is really very unimportant details when someone like Ms. Kennedy writes such an important piece. This article is her opinion, her belief. I value what the Kennedy family has meant to America, the sacrifices they made. Who amongst us can throw the first stone? Who amongst us can say OUR family did so much for America? Do your research, people.

And as I said, this article is Ms. Kennedy's opinion, her belief. She is an extremely well educated woman, and I'm willing to listen.

Side note: I have her book, A Patriot's Handbook, on my computer table. I have dial up so while I wait for this slow machine to work, I read some of the book. It's excellent.

Peace, people. And remember - it begins with each of us.

Juliann

Senator Obama:

You have brought me over to your camp. I had been for Kucinich because of the war and the impeachment movement he was leading. Then he moved his support for you and I was mystified, and decided to support Edwards. I have been fighting with my conscious because I could not understand how Kucinich could be for you and why I was so angry at all of the politicians. Edwards has a good message about the poor and forgotten working families. But now, I have been listening more closely to you, and have found peace in my heart, because you reached me with your message of unity, irregardless of color, financial status, or gender. Most of all your example of steering clear of the false assumptions you listed in your So. Carolina victory speech is the leadership that I can follow. You have my vote, and my pledge to work for your election come November. I urge the Mexican American voters in California to do the same. Afterall, we have the same concerns that men and women, White, Black, Brown and Yellow or Red, have. And one more thing, Californios and anyone else that is reading this: haven't the years of George W. Bush, and Bush senior, with their token bad appointments because of color or ethnicity, reflected badly on us all? Isn't it better that we have leaders who look beyond our color, language, creed, and gender, and treat us all as the Americans we all are? Vote for Barak Obama in your primary and in November.

OBAMA IS A REPUBLICAN BAIT, why democrats don't get it? No Candidate of the left has ever made it in an American Election. Obama is not electable in the American heatland the support of Kennedys for him would be another nail in Democratic Party's chances of winning the next election. With demcrats divided, and Clintons in disarray there seems Republicans are the only winners. Just like in the past a minority party of organized true believers has been successful to fool the disorganized Democrats that they should vote with their liberal hearts rather than a strategy to win the presidency and get the vote of over 100,000,000 of voting white moderate Americans.

REF: Rule #3: Don't sell a corporate agenda with the language of grassroots social movements. When you get into office, represent us – not the corporations or the rich. Be that rare public servant that says what they mean and does what they say.

I am extremely concerned about Obama's relationship with corporate America. He has accepted many of their large donations and therefore will be baholding to their agendas. At this point in time, we are in dire need of someone who will side with "we the people" and NOT with "we the corporations and the wealthy".