How in the world can you read these minute differences and then say "Obama's position is clearly better than Clintons"?

Actually, both are very similar, with only differences in how they parse their words. Both have basically identical voting records in the US Senate on Iraq. Both have supported funding the war and the bloated Pentagon budgets with the same votes. Both suddenly switched to a politically correct NO vote in this last year (certianly after being assured by the Senate Leadership that was shepparding the money for the war through the Senate that there were enough votes for passage and that their votes were not needed ... thus they were free to vote the more politically correct way).

I don't give a damn what Obama said as a State Senator in 2002. He was representing an urban minority district that was certainly solidly against the war. I lived in a similar area of Atlanta at the time, and opposing the war was no act of bravery in places like that.

The telling thing is how Obama changed course when he got to the US Senate in 2004. Suddenly he became much more supporting of the war and the supplemental budgets that paid for it. He's also been a supporter of the bloated Pentagon budgets ever since he's been there. And before this Presidential campaign, I don't think any anti-war activists would have thought of Obama as someone who was leading the fight against the war on the floor and committee rooms of the US Senate.

Regarding Iran, Obama went over to the AIPAC convention, just like Hillary and the other top Dems, and pledged support to Israel and support for a war with Iran. Obama used the exact same language as the Bush administration in saying that 'All options are on the table.' And the way that language has been used with regard to Iran, that refers not only to war but to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

If progressives want to oppose the war, supporting Obama and the Dems is not the way to do it. Get involved with the Green Party and support McKinney or Nader.

The only way we'll have an alternative political force in this country is if we build it ourselves. Supporting Obama and the Dems won't do it, and doing that means that in the future we'll continue to only have such weak choices and the BS Hayden lists above.

RichM:

I thought you were just quoting Gravel. Who would:

-withdraw troops within 120 days, making it a felony to remain thereafter.

-reach out to Iran and Syria to help stabilize the region

-cut the military budget by 60% and have a leaner, more effective national budget, rather than our currently bloated version.

and...

END US Imperialism the world over

War can just as easily be made into a "tipping issue" the wrong way --toward McCain and Republicans. The last time military stuff was overemphasized (by nominating Kerry, the after-action Vietnam protester, to salute and report for duty) we, the people, lost bigtime. I'd just as soon the antiwar lobby would chill a bit and let Obama be elected without the protesters overdoing themselves until voters get scared and run to McCain.

Right now Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingram, Beck and crowd are bashing McCain. Too much "let's pull out and lose"
talk from the left (the spin THEY'LL put on it) might cause them to turn around and support him. If you get Obama and a Dem Congress, that's all the antiwar tilt you can have. Let's not invite protesters to spoil the soup on what, at present, is actually already going our way.

Any serious person who is for peace cannot possibly vote for Mrs. Clinton because she is even now a true believer in the Iraq war and the Iran war as she made very clear in the last debate by spouting Bush's rationale for going to war and making it her own. She is an opportunist now mouthing ant-war rhetoric soley to win the democratic primary.

You know, I'm really sick of this, this kind of triangulating cowardice exemplified by Mr. David. That's what most politicians are good at - the electable ones, right? OUR job, which is the point of this piece, is to influence these power-seekers in socially beneficial directions. Not to worry about polls and pundits and "perception" and other MSM/power-elite-defined bullshit. Give it a rest, David.

Ha! This is YOUR reality Tom, not mine, nor many others. These two are nothing my backers of murder and the status quo. Sorry bro. Not an option anymore.

Yeah, I'm saving my time, energy (and money) alright... for either Ralph, the Green party, or some other 3rd party candidate I can vote for.

Hayden's plan will backfire for two reasons:

1) Although the Iraq occupation is pushing the US into bankruptcy, it is the ONLY thing keeping the US from going into a major recession, and

2) It doesn't matter that I have been opposed to the Iraq occupation from the beginning and support immediate withdrawl when most Americans that I know are not opposed to the occupation...they are opposed to losing the "war".
The 2007 "surge" has been a successful PR campaign to convince more US voters that the US is winning the "war".

yohocoma,

Cowardice is as cowardice does. Losing an election (and hurting A LOT of people as a result) on sheer stupidity --when losing isn't necessary-- is the ultimate cowardice. You may not give a darn whether you get McCain and the 100-years war or not--as long as your opinion gets heard, just like so many other blowhards here are CD. I see it differently. I want the best anti-war candidate to actually win, and I'll "give it a rest" when I choose, not when you choose. Same sentiment to RichM, the nutcase above, who does not know you cannot end the wars without winning the government and that her posts, if they were played on TV as ads, would lose elections for decades.

And yet another article calling for peace that doesn't mention the only candidate that wants to pull ALL US troops out of international bases: Ron Paul.

The rest of the people running for the office of commander in chief are all going to maintain the status quo that the United States is the world's police force. Our military will still span the globe, and little wars to protect corporate interests in other nation's resources will continue unabated.

There can be no peace when the government of this nation believes in coercing other nations with military force to give up their resources so that the elites in the USA can live an unsustainable life.

If the Democratic candidate can't come out for peace in the campaign, why on earth would you think that she or he would stop the occupation after she is elected? That is beyond wishful thinking. That's just plain stupid.

At least Nixon SAID he had a secret plan to end the war. These Democrats don't even bother. They flat out say they're going to continue US imperialism. Obama keeps talking about America being back and leading the world. Does anyone really think he means that we will lead the world in peaceful coexistence?

andersdl is absolutely right. Americans are not opposed to the war. They are opposed to losing it. There are probably more americans who want to nuke Iraq and Iran and kill everyone in those countries and take their oil then there are those of us who are appalled at the current siege and carnage.

There is a peace candidate yet in the race, and I heartily encourage everyone to vote for him.

Don't vote Kucinich or Edwards when they are no longer in the race. Support someone who's still stumping hard on the campaign trail, throwing punches and taking names.

Vote Mike Gravel, who has said he will be in this race until November, and has been the most ferocious critic of the war and the military-industrial-complex through his entire candidacy.

Galvanize your votes to him, and help strengthen his voice.

and rrossell:

Enough with the pithy "Ron Paul is the only candidate" schlock. Acknowledge Gravel and we'll acknowledge Paul. Otherwise it's self-defeating hypocrisy.

Ron Paul is the peace movement.

Everyone else, including McCain and his call for a Lieberman VP, are all NWO UN operatives that refused to ceed any power Bush granted himself or the Patriot Act (written by Lieberman).

RichM__All of your Democrat bashing is designed to elect a warmonger for president. Anyone that falls for your sick reasoning that there is no difference between the two parties on their attitude toward endless war is as pathetic as you.

Why don`t you spend time organizing the people that are able or willing to go demonstrate against the war and lay off comparing Dems to Repugs?

The answer to Iraq is this: like the Star Trek episode when they visit a warring planet between two opposing sides willing to destroy each other. Since the Enterprise (the Federation ship) can't stay there forever trying to keep peace, Capt. Kirk decides to arm both sides. He then sits down with the leaders and tells them, "Either you learn to live in peace or die in pieces." Good advise for any warring planet or country!

It took me 50 years to learn this-

Heat is energy. Cold is not. Cold is simply the relative absence of heat. One cannot manufacture a machine that produces cold. To make something cold, remove the heat.

Light is energy. Darkness is not. Darkness is simply the relative absence of light. One cannot manufacture a machine that produces darkness. To make something dark, remove the light.

Compassion (love) is energy. Evil is not. Evil is the relative absence of compassion. To make something evil, remove compassion.

The degree to which one lacks compassion is the degree to which one serves evil. This is true regardless of religious beliefs, political alignment or anything else.

Imagine yourself in a giant auditorium with all of the lights turned off. Total darkness. In your hand is a flashlight. A flick of the thumb sends a beam through the darkness. While the flashlights beam is not infinitely powerful, all of the darkness in the universe, if you could bring it into the auditorium, would have no effect on it whatsoever. There is no battle between darkness and light. Darkness is powerless. The battle takes place in the thumb.

The same thing can be said for the trigger finger. The battle between good and evil does not take place "out there" where the bullet is. It takes place in the finger.

The battle is between that which is separate from all else (ego) and that which is connected to all else (spirit).

To borrow from Joseph Campbell-

"…every failure to cope with a life situation must be laid, in the end, to a restriction of consciousness, Wars and temper tantrums are the makeshifts of ignorance; regrets are illuminations come too late."

"Totem, tribal, racial, and aggressively missionizing cults represent only partial solutions of the psychological problem of subduing hate by love; they only partially initiate. Ego is not annihilated in them; rather, it is enlarged; instead of thinking only of himself, the individual becomes dedicated the whole of his society. The rest of the world meanwhile (that is to say, by far the greater portion of mankind) is left outside the sphere of his sympathy and protection because outside the sphere of the protection of his god. And there takes place, then, that dramatic divorce of the two principles of love and hate which the pages of history so bountifully illustrate. Instead of clearing his own heart the zealot tries to clear the world. The laws of the City of God are applied only to his in-group (tribe, church, nation, class, or what not) while the fire of a perpetual holy war is hurled (with good conscience, and indeed a sense of pious service) against whatever uncircumcised, barbarian, heathen, "native," or alien people happens to occupy the position of neighbor."

Open the door to a dark room. Does the darkness flow out or the light rush in?

Truth Faerie
The_truth_faerie@yahoo.com

Mr Scary on glue has just stepped down. I think I almost bust a gut when Romney said that it would be the end of the world if the United States were to become like France.

Now Newsworld has just announced a special on Osama Bin Laden's grandparents!

Things have gotten weirder and weirder and it isn't even time for the latest installment of the Karlheinz Schreiber story yet!

Thursday, February 7 LIVE ONLINE at 3:30PM ET / 12:30PM PT

House of Commons Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
Members convened on February 7 to discuss the Mulroney Airbus Settlement with Luc Lavoie, Mulroney's former spokesperson, as an individual, and François Martin, Mulroney's former chef, as an individual. cpac.ca

RE: - Ron Paul is the peace movement.

Only because he is against taxes. If war was not being waged using "taxpayers money" he would have no problems with it. As him what he thinks about trade unions!

RE: - Obama keeps talking about America being back and leading the world. Does anyone really think he means that we will lead the world in peaceful coexistence?

You know that they are full of number two when they say they are number one - but one does get the feeling that any candidate who admits that American isn't the greatest nation on earth would have an uphill battle. I saw Kindergarten Cop (which is probably spoofing your patriotism) - Americans are taught that they are the greatest and don't really want to be told they aren't - present company accepted.

RE: - There are stylistic differences between Obama & Hillary, but no substantive ones. There is no possibility of "the peace movement" being able to "pressure" Democratic candidates to do anything whatsoever. There is also no such thing as a "progressive Democrat."

Depends on who wants Edwards's delegates more. Edwards is for peace.

Concede that Obama's selling points (ie bring different people together) were also former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's selling points, but, at this point, he is still better than Billary on this issue.

Obama may not be able to bring all troops home, but he can certainly get the combat troops out and negotiate a UN force to take over.

Kemel, I agree with the sick reasoning of RichM, except that I might be even a little sicker. For me the only issue is the war on drugs. I use it as a litmus test the way others use homosexual marriage or abortion to decide. The candidate who wants my vote MUST oppose the war on drugs. I cannot, therefore, vote for any of the four main candidates, and I won't.

I vote as follows: Browne in 96 and 2000, Badnarek in 2004. My preferred candidate in 04 was Nader, but a flier enclosed with my absentee ballot warned that a vote for Nader, though he was on the ballot, won't be counted. My candidate for 2008 was Kucinich.

If there is no candidate, even among the third parties, who opposes the war on drugs, then I will write in my own name or someone from the Pansexual Peace Party which never gets any votes. I will probably vote this way for the rest of my life as the U.S. collapses or is destroyed in nuclear war. Plenty of people vote for collapse and war, and those who accept the lesser of two evils are among them.

Democrats need to catch on that there are plenty of spoilers like me who vote our conscience and who insist on representation. I don't care if McCain is elected and starts WWIII and is followed by eight years of Jeb Bush who is followed by Jenna Bush and then sister Barb Bush as war president. If you want my vote you must represent me. I will never vote for the lesser of two evils. I vote against evil and I don't care if the whole damn world loses, and I especially don't care if Hillary or Obama lose.

What does "losing a war" mean?????
Of course, this isn't really a war, but an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation (which was SECULAR, btw, where women were treated as human beings as opposed to Saudi Arabia, our great big buddy) whose only fault was to possess a lot of oil which our HUGE cars suck on daily, hourly.
If you have to call it a war, who are we fighting? Not the poor bedeviled Iraqis who are caught in our crosshairs and crossfires. Or we just "fighting" a small group GB & Co. call TERRORISTS. Who knows who these TERRORISTS are? Are they the little people who would like us to get the h out of their country? Are they the Al Qaeda who were never there before the U.S. invasion? Are they young boys whose lives have been ruined by our occupation, whose families may have been just the collateral damage, or whose little brothers and sisters may have stepped on our land mines (weren't they forbidden?).
Let's drop the "WINNING" word--we've already LOST piles and piles of people, money, good will, and the price of our GAS has never been higher, and never have the big oils made so much PROFIT.
What's left to lose? Pride? Give me a break. If your pride is synomnous with Winning, redefine your pride before the U.S. goes broke as all the empire seeking nations have before us. And the good old dollar continues to sink everywhere.
I believe that of all the candidates, only Obama has expressed any interest in even talking with our ENEMIES. There is a chance for peace with him. With H and Mc, it's more of the same, and watch our economy, our lifestyle, as well as our morale and integrity get flushed... while the super wealthy just keep getting wealthier... they are probably already converting to Euros...they're not stupid, only greedy and amoral, folks.

Just great, the loudest forum voice is a triangulating clintonite. Hayden is right to urge those defending and promoting peace to make noise now.

My own feeling is that many of you are wrong to write of the American electorate at this time. Those who have advocated peace and a rational foreign policy have been consistent and prescient.

The November '06 election was a true sampling of the electorate's desire for a severe policy redirection. It only failed because not every seat in the Senate was up for replacement.

Kernel; With respect to your opinion, I have to tell you I completely agree with RichM's answer to Tom Hayden's article. What have the Democrats done to stop this administration in continuing "crimes against humanity?" Zilch!

Most Democratic Party politicians are as bad as the Republicans, especially when voting takes place. After 13 months as 'the majority', we have even more occupiers in Iraq than when they were 'the minority' in D.C. They both serve the same masters...the corporate monopolists with their 'free-trade' charade, the 'death and destruction industry (also known as the military-industrial complex) and the 'international bankers', period!

They certainly don't have regular working people in mind when they legislate. Perpetual investigations leading nowhere, except for steroid use by atheletes, or things of that nature.

I'm an ex-Democrat myself. The 'donkey' can only "cry wolf" for so long before being found out. A little under two years ago, Mr. Hayden had an article on CD about phasing our military out of Iraq within a twelve month period. I spoke to Tom in person, about 15 months ago and said at the time it could be done within a month rather than 12. I like Tom and have voted for him in California elections over the years as he is a progressive, but he is catering to the wrong people on this issue, in my opinion. Why, I don't know.

My hat off to RichM in the above post.

TRUTH FAERIE: A most enlightened post. Thank you for sharing it.

I happen to see MUCH wisdom in RICH M's perspective. We are dealing with lessers of evils here. We are dealing with our choices pre-fabricated by media constructs and restrictions, not to mention those that exist within the parties themselves. There is some truth in Daniel David's perspective, although he has NEVER once owned the fact that the current democrats have for the most part rubber stamped EVERY egregious policy decision (better named disorder) of Bush & co. They approved the disgusting Supreme Court un-justices he appointed in a very slippery quid pro quo with the same few that put him into office, as in "democracy not." The system is corrupted and corrupted people are represented by and through it. I do foresee a huge uprising in this nation. Economics will be the likely trigger, but earth mother/Gaia's revenge, and/or karmic blowback in the form of "terrorism" in our land are possible as well.

Today I learned that to renew my post office box (which I've had for years), I just show up with 2 forms of I.D. I called to complain as I am heading out of town and have 10 days to do this; and was told by the post lady that she hates it, too, but it's obligatory. New rules brought to you by Homeland Security. Pretty soon we'll need to offer our urine (test) to buy groceries.

The Democrats could have already ended the war by refusing to fund it. They control the committees and don't have to let anything out for a vote that they don't want to

But they haven't done that

The Democrats could have prevented Roberts and Alito from being appointed to the Supreme court

But they didn't do that

The Democrats could have impeached Bush and Cheney

But they haven't done that, in fact Pelosi took impeachment off the table before she was even elected Speaker.

The Democrats could have supported the working class poor and the middle class.

But they didn't do that, instead they passed NAFTA, CAFTA, the Carribean Basin initiative, the African economic opportunity act, the China trade agreement, etc. etc. etc.

And yet folks, according to DD and Kernel it will be YOUR fault if things continue to get worse if you don't elect even more Democrats.

What's wrong with this picture?

Lobo Gris

good reminder. thanks, Tom. Obama is hands-down the stronger anti-war candidate, and we need to get this message out for the primaries yet to come. but in the larger scheme, both of them are buckets of pus served up by the corporations.

Right on RichM; I'm fed up with these mealy mouthed, compromised Dems barely giving an inch as more innocent people die every day as a result of the US occupation of Iraq.

Not defending the Democrat's feckless attempts to slow down Bush, but neither party at this time controls the Senate. A one-seat majority when one of them (at the very least) is really a Republican????

Get serious, get real.

RichM, ya big nut ya, you're really getting on the nerves of the deluded partisan loyalists here.

I'm too mathematics-averse to have enjoyed "Flatland", but you probably know that the book describes a domain of geometric dimensions. Flatland, the two-dimensional domain, is inhabited by dots and lines limited to a plane.

To Flatlanders, three-dimensional persons like yourself indeed come across as deranged or sinister. The "moderates", "centrists", "realists", "pragmatists" buy into Flatland's parameters, and your comments and criticisms appear like wild, random, incoherent dots and lines.

IMO, they're hopelessly convinced that their general approach of supporting their perceived least evil political candidates, and afterwards "pressuring" or otherwise influencing that candidate to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative will result in long-term improvement.

It's similar to the domino theory, in a way. The least evil candidate, they trust, will take sufficient baby steps toward progressivism to permit an even less evil candidate next time, and the rising tide of progressivism will allow an even lesser evil, etc.

There are many flaws in this approach, not least of which is that T = infinity. Not to mention that this so-called "realism" is purely fantastic, and there's no evidence that this approach actually produces the results they desperately claim it will. But they refuse to be hampered by your toxic "cynicism" and "negativity".

You big meanie!

RIP - Peace movement in 2008 presidential election

The time for the peace movement to get involved has already passed. Unfortunately by not allowing people like Kucinich and Mike Gravel a voice in the mainstream media, and with people like the first poster thinking that everything is going fine, there has been a hole dug for the peace movement. The mainstream 2008 presidential candidates have effectively buried the peace movement.

Both Obama and Hillary have not only voiced a continuation of a war based foreign policy, but have acted on it as well.

And for those Charlie Browns who are still thinking that the Obama could be their savior, I have one word for you- Sucker.

The solution is going to take a long time (if ever) to achieve, but we don't even have any of the mainstream candidates who are mouthing the words necessary for change, much less acting on them. The sad truth may be that they don't believe that peace should be the first avenue of political discourse.

Maybe they also believe that it is our oil under their sand.

so it goes,

http://www.wordsareimportant.com/lifeisbeautiful.htm

Hi everyone. I went to a caucus in Colorado the other night and just let me say, people are very misinformed about a lot of things. I stood in a room full of 95 strangers and said I was uncommitted. They gave me dirty looks and booed me, but just cause she a female and he's a black doesn't mean they are not fascist...Edwards would of been proud of me:)

Ghawar wrote: "I don't care if McCain is elected and starts WWIII and is followed by eight years of Jeb Bush who is followed by Jenna Bush and then sister Barb Bush as war president."

And so seem the all-too-common sentiments of the purists. Well now, we have seen the outcome of these sentiments, have we not?

I have argued that this matter electoral politics is a slippery slope and we must play every angle. By this I mean that we should support those candidates who, at this point, have a chance of making a difference in the primaries. Those who believe Paul and Gravel are still relevant to these primaries seem to lack the rudimentary skills of arithmetic, so I suggest you get out your calculators and make your most optimistic calculations and see what it is worth.

Again, there is a slight-but-real difference between Obama and Clinton on matters of war and foreign policy; that important notion has not been taken down by the arguments of the puritans in this forum. Refer to, and refute if you can, Zunes article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/04/6836/

Meanwhile, I recommend that those who want more serious change commit to organizing an independent campaign of your choice, but do not miss an opportunity to shift the terrain in the last remaining days of the primary if you can.

Love and compassion -- boundless forces when we see examples and are inspired. Take inspiration where you can find it while lifting up your shields to defend yourselves against the depredations and depravity of the Bush years, for our spirits have been weakened, our unity scattered, and our analytical skills dulled.

"...Regrets are illuminations come too late."

For what Obama won't say about Hillary and maybe shouldn't.
www.vealetruth.com

Alright,RichM and others, I give up. From what you all say, the Dems are cowardly, lying, defeatist, worthless, stupid morons and crooks.

Now, lets have the answer to who we are going to ELECT, not just vote for, to stop this insane war and occupation. We know now to not vote for a Democrat under any circumstances but no one seems to know who to votwe FOR. Just wondering what the grand solution is to getting a peace president elected.

Clarity, conciseness and rationality about Tom Hayden's article is at AN ALL TIME CD low today. Name calling between posters who seem to know each other serves little purpose. Calling him a Clinton Triangulator is obtuse. He put his life on the line during Vietnam War and still believes in- your-face protests. Repression, fear politics and severe punishments for "dissenters" or the THREAT THEREOF has ratched up tenfold since 1969-1974. The tendency to attack good people who are actually in "our camp" has become a virulent poison reflecting a nilhist culture of alientation, irrationality, violence and doom.The performance of Democratic legislators in Congress since 2006 election thus far has been abyssmal.How can voting for Gravel, Paul or Nader get the worst of them replaced???? We got to go with whom is "running." Either Obama or Clinton appear to me a sea-change improvement over a McCain regency that might propel a partially Fascist nation into FULL AUTHORITARIANISM. It CAN HAPPEN HERE and it is later than we think.We have to "unite" even if we don't agree totally on the opinions of others left-of-center. Lock step conformity is usually the domain of the rabid right, although simplistic labelling always muddies the waters.We have got to get the majority of our military leaders to believe noviolent outcomes are actually in their best interests. 21st Century thinking has to be get beyond, i.e.: Doctors are supposed the heal patients and the Military exists suppposedly to fight "to protect the Homeland against our enemies." General Smedley had it right. Ultimately Dwight Eisenhower spoke truth to power. Why does the Military speak out only after they retire? The radical concept of Preventative War by the US will ultimately hasten our destruction if Global Warming does'nt do it first. Pardon a 76-year old arthritic the excessive gloom fellow posters!

Another significant difference between Obama and Clinton is in HER SUPPORT for the continued use of cluster bombs.

Obama voted AGAINST cluster bombs.

This came up last year in an amendment sponsored by CA Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Look it up.////

CommonDreams Readers!! ... Scroll up and read Rich M for the best analysis.

Rich, I'd like to see your views expressed in an article here on CD. Your opinion would be far better than what's been coming from ol' Tom Hayden, bless his bygone era soul.

Kernel; Please don't give up. We, ( and I can only speak for myself ) are not against you. We're all in the same boat, Kernel. Some of us disagree with each other from time to time but we all want the same basic thing that RichM stated in his ending paragraph. Our numbers are few, and we are losing the battle. It's just a longtime disappointment over Democratic Party politics. Things could have, should have, would have been better for working men and women if the Dems were really sincere.

Amen, Werner

It's time for our ship of state's scuppers to run red.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I did not mean to imply that Hayden is a triangulating clintonite; that remark was directed at Daniel David.

Like many here, I view all of the remaining candidates as falling far short of exemplifying solid and consistent progressive credentials, and all are soiled by merely being successful professional politicians. Doesn't have to be so, but today in America it is so.

But like Kernel pointed out, we can wring our hands and gnash our teeth all we want that the process is again so transparently only for show, but who are you going to vote for?

This discussion has become pointless and if many want to vote for Daffy Duck, Seymour Butts, or somebody that enunciates your beliefs, then please do so, because in December it probably won't make a damn bit of difference and I won't blame you for "throwing" the election. That was done months ago.

RichM's 12:24pm post is right on, and I don't think that anyone who is really paying attention can deny his analysis. Is it not obvious to all that the democrats have consistently snuggled up to the republicans and their war mongering corporate agenda, over and over, all the while paying lip service to their constituency.

"Oh no sweetie I'm not having an affair, you believe me don't you?"

"Well I'd like to, I just don't know why you and the neighbor are always pulling your pants up when I came home."

Daniel David and Rich M:TOO Super clever and on target BUT Can nilhism and hopelessness give you positive results? Don't you have a responsibility to present your scenarios for a solution instead of telling us so accurately what is so very wrong!

Hi all,

i think the idea of a "peace movement" as portrayed by Hayden (and by almost everyone in this thread) is deeply flawed.

A "peace movement" doesn't focus on candidates or parties. A "peace movement" focuses on stopping the war.

Yes, it is time for the "peace movement" to take center stage - by disrupting the functioning of the war machine, by closing down recruitment centers, by blockading arms shipments, by not paying taxes to the United States government, by disrupting the ability of the US economy to function.

Just to be clear, please read the above paragraph carefully - it is NOT a call to violence. It is a call to directly interfere with violence.

i'm sure others can think of other tactics that a "peace movement" might use to disrupt the "war movement".

Any social movement that restricts itself to the tactic of appealing to political leaders, hoping for political leaders, working for political leaders, despairing at political leaders - and then bitterly recriminating against others whose particular tactics of seeking and promoting political leaders are seen as "incorrect" - is not actually a social movement.

A movement against war, that does not confront and resist war, is not a movement against war.

i think most Common Dreamers know this, even if we forget this in the excitement of analyzing political parties and candidates and votes.

As one (perhaps tired) example, Martin Luther King Jr supported the right of blacks to vote. He also promoted direct confrontation with the machinery of segregation. By the end of his life, he supported direct confrontation with the machinery of war.

i think the reason most of us do NOT promote direct confrontation with the machinery of war is that we do not want to suffer, or be jailed, or die. It would be so much easier if a hero would save us. But in the long run we will all suffer and die no matter what we do. The question is, how will we live?

Hayden is dead-on right. 70% of the American people want an end to the war in Iraq. While Obama is better on issues of war and peace, both he and Clinton are wishy-washy on the war in Iraq and both support continuing American military domination of the world. It is foreseeable that whichever of them secures the nomination they will shuffle to the right on the war issue to try to take the "middle ground" away from McCain, ignoring the fact that they are already to the right of the middle ground of American public opinion. In doing so they will place a more militaristic stamp on their administration if victorious. More likely they will throw the election to McCain, as the public, given two pro-war candidates to choose from, will choose the one who will do it best. Our job now, in 2008, is not to decide whether it is a good thing to elect a Democrat, but to organize and mobilize the people to oppose war and militarism and to thereby force a change in policy. Without this nothing good will come of supporting or not supporting a Democratic, a Green or a Wobblie candidate.

The time to put the pressure on Clinton and Obama to shift toward the anti-war middle is now. It won't cost them the election and might even save them.

Kernel, you asked who we should vote for, and I'm going to tell you.

At first, I was going to say that IT DOESN'T MATTER; that on the issues that do matter in the short- and especially long-term (that is to say, peak oil and global warming, or, to put it another way, global warming and peak oil) NO ONE will do close to anything effective in the time frame we need them to. And as for a less major issue, NO ONE will pull us out of Iraq, ever. (Do you have any idea how much money is being made on the seventeen military bases "we're" building there and the fortified embassy that is larger than the Vatican?)

Isn't it obvious by now that ALL the "major" candidates still around are beholden to their corporate puppeteers (who are themselves controlled by organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group)? That the last several "elections" have been managed and stolen for the benefit of these sinister entities? Why do you feel so hopeful that those who stole them in the past will leave this one to be decided simply on the relative merits of the remaining candidates? Where are Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel these days anyway?

Then, Mr. Kernel, I was going to suggest you cast your ballot for whomever would make your heart feel glad (in my case, a ticket of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, or maybe Bill Moyers and the Dalai Lama). At least you could sleep at night, and I am concerned about your health.

But then, it occurred to me that since none of the remaining Great States-people will do a damn thing but further cement the status quo (I guess that's what the mean by when they tell us they're all for Change- we'll MOVE EVEN DEEPER into the shit.), I am recommending that we all vote for John McCain. NOT because he's who we deserve for being chicken-shit little sheeple and not doing a damn fucking thing to take back our rights and dignity when we had the chance (although we probably do).

Because, by electing either of the Dems, most of their supporters, the kind and good but do-nothings will be lulled back to sleep (or back to their addictions) while believing that, "Whew! We've just dodged a bullet.", and that "Our long national nightmare is over". Unfortunately, the truth is in actuality tragically far from this scenario. At least with McCain and the neocons still at the helm, maybe more and more of us will somehow find our balls and/or our ovaries to where we might finally make some change before it is really too late. (Or, more probably, to begin to work cooperatively to minimize the inevitable damage.)

So, VOTE MCCAIN/LIEBERMAN in '08. Our future depends on it.

Or even better (under the circumstances), McCain/HUCKABEE.

Very interesting--the Progressives have now morphed into Repugs just because their favorites, Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul did not make it. My fave was John Edwards but he threw in the towel also. That does not mean that I am going to throw my vote away or in a fit of rage, vote for the 100 year war man, McCain.

I refused to vote for Bush-Cheney both times as I did not truat their campaign promises. If a few more could have done the same, we would be in much better shape today. A vote now for Nader might make someone feel good but will do absolutely nothing to stop the war as he has no chance of election.

Voting for McCain for the purpose of making things as bad as possible to bring change is about like the fundamentalists waiting for Armageddon to be saved.

Good job Tom Hayden! I excised my "wishful thinking" political participation process in 04 with Kucinich, worked hard, got nothing. Voted for Nader when Kerry was obviously safe in CA in the general. Now, it's Obama, all the way, for one simple reason you forgot to mention Tom: Hillary is the #1 recipient of military contractor donations and of lobbyists. End of story. She's dead to me, now and in Nov.

Obama's got the people's clout, almost three-quarters of a million and counting, donating from $1 to 2,300 - the vast majority nowhere near the 2300 threshold. There's also Obama's Open Govt Technology Plan, with direct links between donations, legislators and all their pet projects, and earmarks. Hillary hates that legislation and website.

There's also the little matter of ending media consolidation, thereby pulling the media out of war-endorsements and rationalizations for imperialism. With that is the itsy bitsy matter of public airwaves for community radio and television that Obama promises. And cheap/free broadband from the poorest ghettos to the most isolated rural areas so everyone has access to compare health insurance plans (including feedback from subscribers) and legislative/donation/earmark info.

Wake up people. The means to change this nation's culture from its militaristic imperialist fantasies is within reach! Get on barackobama.com, click on Action Center, and start calling upcoming states' voters, unless you enjoy wallowing in the futility of it all. I am done with wishful thinking and bitter analysis paralysis. I'm gonna go call Washington voters and make sure they get that they have to caucus this Saturday or their vote for Obama won't count on their largely-ceremonial primary day.

I'm not letting a DLC OR Republican military industrial complex candidate into the White House, not this time!

Obama has also said US troops will still be in Iraq at the end of his first term in 2012.

Remember, when the Dems talk about 'withdrawal', they really mean their plan that has massive loopholes that keep tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq after they've completed their 'withdrawal'. The Dem loopholes include 'fighting terrorists', 'training the Iraqis' and 'protecting US forces and interests'. If you went to the Pentagon today and asked what are the missions of the current 150,000 troops in Iraq, they'd list exactly those three items. I've seen estimates that at the end of the Democratic 'withdrawal' plan, there'd still be 70,000 US troops in Iraq.

And, the Dems 'withdrawal' plans also always have meant an increased reliance on US airpower against Iraqis. Which means increased 'collateral damage' (ie, the murder of innocent people). That's the humane Dem plan.

And the one thing you'll never ever hear either of these two, or any other leading Dem say, is that its none of the US business to tell the Iraqis what to do with their country. They both accept as a given that its the US' right to go into that country and make sure that the Iraqis are doing what we tell them to do. All Dem 'withdrawal' plans really speak of 'redeployment' to other places in the region, and its probably not hard at all to get either Obama or Clinton to talk about sending US troops back into Iraq 'if required'.

Basically, the Dem position of both Obama and Clinton is that they can be better managers of the Evil Empire than Bush and the Republicans. They talk about poor tactical decisions in how Bush has managed the Evil Empire, and say they can do better. This is how both Clinton and Obama present their 'withdrawal' options for Iraq ... as better ways for the US to achieve its goals.

That the United States, as a free and democratic country, should not be even acting as an empire in the world, that you'll never hear Obama nor Clinton nor any other leading Dem talk about.

It's so depressing to see the regurgitated hatreds of the lifestyle leftists (Hey, look at me, I'm a Trotskyist!) so aggressively on display here in the face of good news about at least one of the contenders for President, which must be ridiculed and second-guessed to death in order that nothing disturb the perfect paradigm of corporate power, conspiracy and evil at the highest levels of everything. The final expression of which will be political displays under the banner of the Green Party if not the Red Party, resplendent in their futility and delusion.

Meanwhile, a great deal hinges on the outcome of Clinton vs. Obama, not the least of which is the outcome of McCain vs. The Future, of which these Calibans can say nothing since they are unable to see any differences, or anything at all past their hatred of the successful and powerful.

Thank you Tom Hayden for reminding us that this is the key issue for most of us. We are a nation that let Bush start this war and continue it even though most say they want us out of Iraq. Obama will make that happen because he will hear the people. Hillary is about Hillary and her need to be in control. She said recently she supported the war because of what Bush had told Congress leading up to it. She obviously is unable to take the time to go search out the truth because it was there on the internet with lots of information showing Bush was lying to make his case. I found out is just several hours of reading around the internet direct evidence in contradiction to Bush.

I for one am:
1. Tired of being lied to politicians that want us to be just sheeple
2. Tired of these people who want to lead this country, unwilling to say they made a mistake
3. Tired of the endless profits of those benefiting from the war while our soldiers die and Iraqis are murdered by us
4. Tired of being feed an endless pile of misinformation
5. Tired of being talked to as if we are all ignorant and they are doing what is for our good.
6. Tired of the use of fear to manipulate the people of this country
7. Tired of the use of terror to rationalize all their sick, control desires
8. Tired of all the power they give to this small band of fanatics(terrorists not Bush) as if they have control of the world
9. Tired of Congress not doing their job and providing any kind of checks and balances on Bush
10.Tired of Bush being allowed to do whatever he wants with zero consequences
11.Tired of the lack of courage in what is suppose to be an opposition party
12.Tired of the "money" party being in charge and no one looking out for the people
13.Tired of hearing the profit motive rationalize so much unacceptable behavior

I could go on and on but I want to stop at 13 hoping for it to be a lucky number and that we all wake up and take back this country. Are you ready to do what it takes? Are you ready to say this is our country and we want it back from all those who think they can buy power and influence? Are you ready to walk the hero's journey toward a courageous involvement and a compassionate activism? Are your ready to find your own peace, then you can be a positive force for world peace?

I am, how about you? Lets meet in our groups immediately, think outside the box and come up with some solutions that will save Democracy and the planet.

Peace and inspiration to you.

Joseph

Joseph Bernard, Ph.D.
www.peace-together.com
www.ExploreLifeBlog.com

RE: - The candidate who wants my vote MUST oppose the war on drugs. I cannot, therefore, vote for any of the four main candidates, and I won't.

Men in glass houses, men in glass houses. He who has used cocaine in the past may not wish to make his past drug use an issue by starting an end to the "war on drugs" during an election campaign.

My guess - you are a Marc Emery fan?

RE: - Of course, this isn't really a war, but an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation (which was SECULAR, btw, where women were treated as human beings

True enough. I take note of your use of the word "were" and wish to add that America's attack on Iraq was unprovoked UNLESS one considers the nationalization of oil wells a provokation ...

RE: - But they didn't do that, instead they passed NAFTA

Reagan/Bush/Clinton from the US and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney from Canada. Now what has Brian Mulroney been up to lately? Oh yes ...

Mulroney's testimony on Thursday December 13:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071212/mulroney_testifies_071213/20071213/

I wonder if any of those envelops filled with cash that he was getting from various people had anything to do with the wording of FTA/NAFTA.

RE: - Obama is hands-down the stronger anti-war candidate

Compared to who - Clinton and McCain/Huckabee? Romney, sure. Definitely not Edwards!

So you think Cain and Huck will be running mates? I can see the debate now:

Obama: you are McCain and I am Mc ready willing and able!

RE: - To Flatlanders, three-dimensional persons like yourself indeed come across as deranged or sinister.

So it wasn't an attempt at humour - Romney, the leader of the Flatlanders was actually being serious! He ranted against homosexuality and single parenthood (ie Obama's upbringing) and then called the Taliban evil for agreeing with him.

RE: - And for those Charlie Browns who are still thinking that the Obama could be their savior, I have one word for you- Sucker.

Hey, if I was Charlie Brown, I would trust Franklin with the football over Lucy any day! Bad metaphor but point taken.

Poor kid (in picture) - wish their hospitals had pain killers.

RE: - Edwards would of been proud of me

Probably. Why would they boo you for not making up your mind? Seems a bit like coercion to me.

I may be naive but isn't this election about getting rid of patriotic correctness and keeping our leaders honest!

RE: - Again, there is a slight-but-real difference between Obama and Clinton on matters of war and foreign policy

Slight-but-real is still slightly real (or is it really slight). I trust Obama a bit more on rendition than Clinton, that is all.

And I don't think that it will take Obama too long to learn that Canada doesn't have a President. I wonder how long it will take Danny Williams and the rest of the Council of the Federation to ambush Obama and teach him everything he needs to know about Canada - including the fact that Santa Claus lives in Canada and, as President, Obama be able to recognise that the North West Passage is Canadian property.

RE: - Why does the Military speak out only after they retire?

This same rhetorical question applies to other whistle-blowers - they can't fire you, demote you or otherwise make your life miserable (more than they already do) if you are already retired.

RE: - Another significant difference between Obama and Clinton is in HER SUPPORT for the continued use of cluster bombs. / Obama voted AGAINST cluster bombs.

How many American soldiers have been killed through the use of American manufactured cluster bombs? I presume that at least a few have been. Does she care any more about American soldiers than she does Iraqi children? I don't know if Obama cares - but, at present, I don't know that he doesn't.

RE: - This discussion has become pointless and if many want to vote for Daffy Duck, Seymour Butts

Kucinich did a Daffy duck impression on 22 Minutes and Bob Rae went skinny dipping with Rick Mercer on the Rick Mercer Report (one would seymour butt if he wasn't wearing those digital swim trunks).

It is not my riding, but if it was, I would vote for El-Farouk Khaki over Bob Rae any day.

RE: - As one (perhaps tired) example, Martin Luther King Jr supported the right of blacks to vote. He also promoted direct confrontation with the machinery of segregation. By the end of his life, he supported direct confrontation with the machinery of war.

And his son backed John Edwards.