When did you begin to think that Obama might be unstoppable? Was it when your grown feminist daughter started weeping inconsolably over his defeat in New Hampshire? Or was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a state still littered with Confederate monuments and memorabilia? For me, it was on Tuesday night when two Republican Virginians in a row called CSPAN radio to report that they'd just voted for Ron Paul, but, in the general election, would vote for... Obama.
In the dominant campaign narrative, his appeal is mysterious and irrational: he's a "rock star," all flash and no substance, tending dangerously, according to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, to a "cult of personality." At best, he's seen as another vague Reaganesque avatar to Hallmarkian sentiments like optimism and hope. While Clinton, the designated valedictorian, reaches out for the ego and super-ego, he supposedly goes for the id. She might as well be promoting choral singing in the face of Beatlemania.
The Clinton coterie is wringing its hands. Should she transform herself into an economic populist, as Paul Begala pleaded on Tuesday night? This would be a stretch, given her technocratic and elitist approach to health reform in 1993, her embarrassing vote for a 2001 bankruptcy bill supported by credit card companies, among numerous other lapses. Besides, Obama already just leaped out in front of her with a resoundingly populist economic program on Wednesday.
Or should she reconfigure herself, untangle her triangulations, and attempt to appeal to the American people in some deep human way, with or without a tear or two? This, too, would take heavy lifting. Someone needs to tell her that there are better ways to signal conviction than by raising one's voice and drawing out the vowels, as in "I KNOW..." and "I BELIEVE..." The frozen smile has to go too, along with the metronymic nodding, which sometimes goes on long enough to suggest a placement within the autism spectrum.
But I don't think any tweakings of the candidate or her message will work, and not because Obama-mania is an occult force or a kind of mass hysteria. Let's take seriously what he offers, which is "change." The promise of "change" is what drives the Obama juggernaut, and "change" means wanting out of wherever you are now. It can even mean wanting out so badly that you don't much care, as in the case of the Ron Paul voters cited above, exactly what that change will be. In reality, there's no mystery about the direction in which Obama might take us: he's written a breathtakingly honest autobiography; he has a long legislative history, and now, a meaty economic program. But no one checks the weather before leaping out of a burning building.
Consider our present situation. Thanks to Iraq and water-boarding, Abu Ghraib and the "rendering" of terror suspects, we've achieved the moral status of a pariah nation. The seas are rising. The dollar is sinking. A growing proportion of Americans have no access to health care; an estimated 18,000 die every year for lack of health insurance. Now, as the economy staggers into recession, the financial analysts are wondering only whether the rest of the world is sufficiently "de-coupled" from the US economy to survive our demise.
Clinton can put forth all the policy proposals she likes--and many of them are admirable ones--but anyone can see that she's of the same generation and even one of the same families that got us into this checkmate situation in the first place. True, some people miss Bill, although the nostalgia was severely undercut by his anti-Obama rhetoric in South Carolina, or maybe they just miss the Internet bubble he happened to preside over. But even more people find dynastic successions distasteful, especially when it's a dynasty that produced so little by way of concrete improvements in our lives. Whatever she does, the semiotics of her campaign boils down to two words--"same old."
Obama is different, really different, and that in itself represents "change." A Kenyan-Kansan with roots in Indonesia and multiracial Hawaii, he seems to be the perfect answer to the bumper sticker that says, "I love you America, but isn't it time to start seeing other people?" As conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan has written, Obama's election could mean the re-branding of America. An antiwar black President with an Arab-sounding name: See, we're not so bad after all, world!
So yes, there's a powerful emotional component to Obama-mania, and not just because he's a far more inspiring speaker than his rival. We, perhaps white people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption. All of us, of whatever race, want a fresh start. That's what "change" means right now: Get us out of here!
Barbara Ehrenreich, the author of Nickel and Dimed (Owl), is the winner of the 2004 Puffin/Nation Prize.
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
213 Comments so far
Show AllGet Real America Obama doesn't even pledge allegiance to our flag and were going to elect him President...Get Real or Bend Over it's your choice!!!
Get real America Obama doesn't even pledge allegiance to our flag of the United States of America and were going to elect him President....Get Real or Bend Over it's your choice!!!!!
ike kay, if you will study the new voting system I posted above you will see it is just what you are asking for. If you can find a way to 'cheat' the system I'd like to know.
As far as the banks charging to be part of the election process it surely is to be less expensive than buying all these corruptable voting machines, and if they don't go along how about a claim of emminent domain? If they can take someones land to build a shopping center, claiming it is for the greater public good, then why not do the same for the banking industry, which would basically be telling the banks who refused to help their country on certain voting days their charter as a bank or corporation could be pulled.
Since the debate it appears there are some who still think that Hllary Clinton will win. She will not win and finally the American people are just getting it there must be a fundemental change in Washington!
Clinton is not change she and all those like her husband the president, are just harbingers of the "failed policies of past"! We need a complete change of all the congress with new people as so many know and a change of the voting system. The voter fraud that would be done away with with using green machines would be a good start. But how much would the banks charge since they are the most crooked of all?
Others here, like me, are also fed up with the foul mouthed, low level and all too frequent blogs of some people.
While I have issues with either Hill, or Bama, I certainly don't want another divisive obstructive Pub winning. Actually, KEM, you are correct that Bama was over 100 delegates a couple days ago, but that changed after Tuesday's primary totals.
It's (politics) all about money, though. Are you aware Obama has donated more to the campaigns of delagates than Hillary? Frankly I think these 'contributions' (almost $900,000 so far) are more correctly bribes, but that is the sorry state American politics are in right now. Do you remember the old comic strip called, "There ought to be a law"? Well there should be one about bribing delegates...period.
Debating about which of our current choices are the best for us is an excercise in futility...they all have skeletons in their closets. What we are debating is whose graveyard is smaller. I don't prefer any of them, really. There will be no 'change' unless we have honest elections, but there is a way for this. I've posted my idea a number of times on various sites, and even sent it to BlackBoxVoting.org (no response), but here it is one more time:
"A Better Election System" By Paul Magill Smith 3-8-2K6
"To begin with, in the United States there must be a powerful demolition of the old political order: We need elections where all votes are cast and counted. The campaign against voter repression is the essential civil rights struggle of our time, even though most progressives don't seem to realize it yet. Prevailing will require fundamental reform such as the introduction of nationwide vote-by-mail (the Oregon system). Without that, and also many relentless prosecutions, nothing else will be achieved".—JAMES K. GALBRAITH March 30, 2006 "Taming Global Capitalism Anew"—(April 17, 2006 issue of The Nation Magazine)
James K. Galbraith, chair of the board of Economists for Peace and Security, teaches at the University of Texas and is senior scholar with the Levy Economics Institute.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest round of corruption in our government stems from the biggest executive crime of all. In collusion with the Supreme Court our glorious president/dictator/tyrant "stole" the election of 2000, with another criminal (Tom DeLay) "stole" a majority in the house through re-districting, and with corporate henchmen in Diebold & Company "stole" another presidency in 2004. Whether you agree with the presidential election results or not there were statistical anomolies, and thousands of citizen complaints that should have required greater scrutiny & inquiry.
Since the 2000 presidential election our national coffers have been looted to the tune of trillions of dollars, and with almost three more years to go in this theocratic oligarchy there is still much more damage to come. Our financial ruin, through an unsustainable balance of trade deficit, massive fiscal deficits, and a consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few individuals & corporations, bodes ill for generations of Americans to come—IF there are generations to come after the effects of global warming, a state of perpetual global war, and depleted uranium have their way with us.
A bleak picture-yes-but there is cause for hope. Going under the assumption most Americans have a streak of common sense, and an inbred respect for 'the rule of law', the first step toward retrieving our now stolen democracy is restoring honesty to our electoral process. Accountability, verifiability, and transparency are not luxuries; they are necessities if democracy in America (the world) is to be viable.
With these considerations in mind I propose an entirely new election system for this country. It uses, for the most part, existing equipment & technology already in place throughout the entire country, and would only require the development of some software. Election expenses would be reduced, election theft would become a thing of the past, and national referendums on key issues would become a possibility. The 'will of the people' would become king, instead of the preferences of King George/Dick/Karl/Donald/ etc.
So here is the idea. Currently in the US there are 368,000+ ATM machines. They are easy to use (even from a car), provide a paper trail, accessible by use of a card with security features, and very accurately keep track of billions of transactions every month (a 1% accuracy error, which is acceptable for most elections, would land bankers out of their jobs & very likely jailed).
OK, so the first part deals with voting at ATM's, except when they are being used for elections they would become AVM's (Automatic Voting Machines).
***(Important Paragraph) The issue of verifiability would be very simple also. Since each registered voter would receive their own magnetic credit-card type, individually numbered card (requiring a personalized identification number-PIN-to make it work), each voter would have a specific number, and security that they were the only one who had the secret code to access the AVM. Following an election their unique number, along with the way their vote was recorded would be published in the local paper & on the internet at a specific site. Since all the voter numbers could be placed in numerical order it would be easy to scan down the list to your number and verify your vote was cast for the person you wanted it to be.
***(Equally Important) If it was an election with candidates in a number of positions your vote would read as a multi-character number. An example would be 1324113 in which you voted for 7 different people for as many electable posts. The AVM would have given you a hard copy receipt to be used to verify against the posted list.
ATM's are already linked to central computers, so collection of the total votes from all the machines should present very little problem. Election officials would be necessary at these institutions to verify all the votes were retrieved, but the elimination of officials at each precinct polling place would eliminate much of the costs of holding elections as with our current system. As a further dis-incentive to election fraud, caused by computer tampering, if a certain percentage or number of voters provide their AVM receipt to election officials, and their vote code doesn't match that of the central computers, the election results are AUTOMATICALLY declared void, resulting in a new election.
Since I have only begun thinking & writing about this new system I am sure there are many details to be considered and worked out. The bottom line is the current election system is broken, with millions of Americans lacking confidence in the extant election process & results.
As the world's oldest democracy, holding our 'system' up as a model for budding or want-to-be democracies around the globe, it behooves us to make sure our own system is the best we can possibly make it, and the one others will wish to emulate. "Do as I say" is not good enough. If America is to 'talk the talk' we must 'walk the walk' also.
Paul Magill Smith
Richmond, VA
Paul.Magill@Rockitz.net
I welcome replies & suggestions.
Just to set the record straight:
The first post I wrote on this subject, several days ago, I gave the opinion that Hillary had to win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, or she would be out of the race. I never, ever said I hated Obama, I have repeatidely stated, I don't like some of his campaign methods, believe he is a well spoken con artist and feel that Hillary would be a better choice and if she is chosen, she should pick Obama as her V/P running mate.
Because I wrote that, ~Riverman~ has constantly written that I'm either a fool, an idiot, or stupid. Three days ago, Riverman said Obama was over 100 delegates ahead, I said he wasn't and as of this moring, according to all of the news channels, Obama leads by (61) delegates. But my math is flawed, according to Riverman and his nasty side kick ~Dougwagner~, who instigates fights here by telling others they have their head op their ass, etc.
I still say Hillary must win in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. If she does she will lead in the final delegate count and have the most super delegates If she does not win all three, she is out of it, unless they end up counting Michigan and Florida. Without a caucus vote with those two states, I believe that would be a serious mistake on the Demo's part.
Hey there ~WernerS~. Is a miscreat the one who initiate the sniping, by telling another they disagree with, that they have their head up their ass, or the one who replys to the insult?
I believe you should identify by name who the miscreats are that you are ORDERING off of this site; or do you fear doing that? __ Perhaps you should buy your own site, if the bloggers who post here disturb you.
ISN'T IT BETTER TO LIGHT ONE LITTLE CANDLE THAN CURSE THE DARKNESS?. The greatest danger is for some us "overinformed progressives" to succumb to NIHILISM, defeatism, cynicism, undue sarcasm and HOPELESSNESS. Some posters are abusing the privilege of constant, continual posting and they know who they are!!There is no moderator on this site YET. Finally, possibly a tiny few may just be out-and-out provocateurs. Name calling and phrases that show contempt for another poster just diminish the power and uniqueness of this site. It is vital to keep hope alive to have a democrat win in Nov.,2008. Personally, I prefer Obama over Clinton.I will be grateful for Clinton to win over McCain if they become the candidates. If Clinton wins, will she realize my hopes and dreams? Get real!!! It's a choice between possibly slowing down authoritarianism: or it growing even faster in a more virulently toxic soil. (Miscreats, bug off this site!!!)
It pleases me no end that you are a kissin buddy of DOGWAGNER Riverman, and that you both disagree with me on every issue. DOUGWAGER is a young law student, a member of the far right, young Repugs and is both a shill and a troll for them. He even joined the Green Party for awhile so he could claim credibility on sites such as this. I once saw similar situations in a large city, where Repugs worked in Demo and green Party headquarters, They call that type of moleing under, "Rat Fu%king". Actually those two words should be reversed for young Dougie.
kem p. what about hillary's vote on kyl/lieberman? mizz hillary with that vote showed her aipac supporters/handlers that she continues to be their girl. aipac wants to attack iran and mizz hillary will do it if they tell her to. and aipac will not change their mind on iran. they view iran as a danger to israel's right to expand.
Some people seem to be on attack of others who just simply don't get it but they are getting it just want to be contrary! With enough people writing fine insightful thoughts about this political process, I am certian they will come around. It is not that others are not trying hard or don't care.
Congratulations to all who take the time here, for your thinking. It is nice to know all of you are out there trying to influence cogent, and rational thinking in this final election, doing research and are working hard to inform and make a difference which will determine whether the young people get to have a life.
Be well and keep the passion going!
Well dang ~Riverman~ I have my head up my ass and it's difficult to think straight in that position.
Hillary will not support a war with Iran. Obama wants to have one with Pakistan though. That would be interesting.
if hillary pulls US troops out of iraq it will be to send them into iran. kem p. are you aware of her vote for the kul/lieberman amendment?
KEM PATRICK February 18th, 2008 7:23 pm
mr patrick i'm glad you have a strong voice, it's refreshing to hear a person with such convictions. but sir your dead wrong about our recent wars, they were designed many years before bush came to power (as d wagner's quotes above demonstrate, google project for a new american century) and they were designed by people tied to the maintenance of US hegemony through the control of oil. just look at the map. iran (very large oil reserves) is essentially surrounded by US troops. if iran fell, the saudi/US gov't will have indescribable power over all, emerging economies like china and india and other blocks (like the europeans for example, who seem to have a higher sense of the dignity of people - if the euro's want to object to some offensive policy in the future we can turn off the spigit, as the russians threatened with natural gas last year). iran would not be as threatened today w/out our presence in iraq. iran is the next phase in the endless war for resources. obama has agreed to open up diplomatic relations with iran (clinton, who did authorize military force in iraq calls him naive).
my sign in 2002 said no blood for oil, it was as easy to understand then as it is now. BTW- clinton's experience includes being married to a man who is responsible for the death of over 500,000 civilians (mostly children) who died excruciating deaths from lack of medicine. is that experience you want in your court kem?
dougwagner,
sir i accidentally assumed you were a temp worker the other day, and i presumptiously lumped you into the lumpenproletariat . i didn't mean to insult your intelligence. i hope that isn't what your reference was (the guy at the computer table in loft above the workers) i do believe in marxist ideals, and i'm not afraid of using his terms. by lumpenproletariat i mean the lowest rung of workers who are constantly on the go seeking new employment, because their work is so unstable. i've easily worked 15 different jobs in the past 3 years as well as working as a laborer in 5 states. traditionally these folks are very reactionary (not peace activists, greens or progressive dems). yet many believe it's the consciousness of these workers that could change the tide, in fact its the proletariat that rejects the migrant workers for fear they'll take their jobs (attitudes projected towards immigrants, the homeless and people in prison). it's why our public schools are in disarray, it's why jerry mander had to write a book called 4 arguments for the elimination of TV. the elites never want this volatile force activated.
i support obama because he represents change the masses can understand, and i believe he will implement policies that would be advantageous for me as an individual and for the people i live and work with. they know this. unfortunately out of my team of 12 people where i work, only 2 participated in the caucus (both voted for obama) but 10 of the 12 people overwhelmingly supported obama (i've given them voter registration forms). i also support obama in their name, the people who support this candidate but for various reasons did not or could not vote. not anonymous people - rather people whose faces are as clear to me as the text on this page.like ike kay, i do not intentionally try to insult people, thank you again for your well constructed, informative, well thought out posts.......
all the posts here are amazing, thank you
please donate to kucinich and sheehan.................
see you on the streets of denver..........peace..................
You needn't yell, my hearing is fine. You assume some are hurt and angry, perhaps you get angry from reading a computer screen, I don't. I'm often amused and sometimes amazed by the ignorance of others. I also don't assume and often use the words perhaps, may, maybe, etc. You put that shoe of yours on yet?
I will support Obama if he is the Demo candidate, I am supporting no one now since John Edwards dropped out. I do believe if Hillary is the president she will pull our troops out of Iraq and believe Obama will not.
THERE , THERRE , THERE FOR THOSE WHO ARE HURT AND ANGRY, BE CALM I AM HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR ATTITUDES OF SUPPORT FOR CHANGE, THE ONLY THING MISSING IS YOUR SUPPORT FOR OBAMA THE ONLY HOPE THERE IS!
What I like about this site, is about 100 or so disagree with Dougwagner and say he's a soplistic blowhard, and a few diagree with me.
That is precicely what I don't like about you DOUGWAGNER. I disagree with you on this issue and so you tell me I have my head up my ass. You say with indignation, any fool would realize the war with Iraq was only about oil.
You know what Dougwagner? I never heard that fact in 2,000, 2001, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 2006. Like 200+ million other Americans and the countless billions of people from all of the other world's nations, they and I heard, it was all about Saddam having WMDs and his supporting Osama bin Laden on the 9-11 attacks. To this day, I have never heard our press or media, or anyone in government with credibility, except Greenspan, acknowledge the real reason Bush went to war was for the Iraqi oil. I believe it is the reason and so now do many in our Congress. ___ It was not the reason in 2002. If you knew it then, why didn't you have a shit fit and say so and inform the authorities of that obvious crime?
I also read propostion 114 differently than you do, and therefore you state that I have my head up my ass. I suppose that since I disagree with you about that, I could say the same about you, ___ but I won't. I will say once again, that you are spreading the lie that Obama didn't support the war in Iraq. That is not an opinion about you, __ or an assumption. It's a fact.
You are assuming IKE KAY. I for one do not approve of the Bush administration, or of the policies of our elected. And I am certain that any who know me by my prior posts, are well aware of that. Nor have I read in regards to what you just posted from ANYONE who posted here. So who are you assuming about IKE?
You don't have to write Kem Patrick, I am well aware of whom you are speaking about with your unfounded assumptions. You are just spouting off for no good reason and attempting to put words which I never said nor have ever believed, to match your wild imagination. I was not showing anger, I was showing that I disagree with your opinions and the huge shoe you gave would fit many perfectly, but I'm not wearing your shoe, I just tossed it back to you to wear, for it fits you far better than I.
I also am not against change, in fact I am definently all for change, starting with the impeachment of Cheney and Bush, pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, charging Halliburton with criminal acts, restorin gour Constitiution, having decent and affordable medical care for everyone and attempting to correct the wrongs we did with Cuba, etc.
I worry about changes coming from any who distort the truth to their advantage, so that they may be the king of the hill. I also don't approve of bloggers attacking another here, and not being specific, afraaid to name names and then not answering their replys to specific items. But that's your pitiful choice IKE, whether I approve or not.
Kem, you are a whack job who sounds like they need to take a big step away from the computer. H.J. 114 is a DECLARATION OF WAR. Uninformed Obama-hating Edwards supporters like you are exactly what is wrong with this country. Be sure to thank John Edwards and Hillary Clinton for voting to INVADE IRAQ.
Even Paul O'Neill knew this was about oil and that this planning to invade and occupy Iraq began before 9/11.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3387941.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
This was a war for oil, and it's insulting for you to suggest to me that millions of Americans and I who opposed this war in 2002 didn't know the SO CALLLED FACTS about Iraq's WMDs. THIS WAS NEVER ABOUT IRAQ'S WMDS IT WAS ABOUT IRAQ'S OIL. Get your head out of your ass.
Bush attacked Iraq virtually his first month in office Kem. Get real.
"Last week's US and British airstrikes outside of Baghdad have come under severe scrutiny from countries once considered part of the US' Gulf War coalition."
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/20/us.iraq/
"The White House said missile attacks against Iraqi military command and control centers south of Baghdad on Friday did not "represent an escalation in attacks against Iraq or a change in policy."
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/iraq.airstrike.03/index.ht...
Is that what you want us to believe Kem? Well, excuse me. I wasn't fooled then and I sure as hell am not fooled 7 years later. Hillary and Edwards' vote continues to kill thousands of Iraqis and Americans. This was never about WMDs, it was about oil. That is obvious to everyone who has any common sense.
And the fact that you continue to justify Hillary and Edward's vote is pathetic. As Paul Wolfowitz said,
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm
Even Alan Greenspan, in his latest book, notes that it's obvious this was a war for oil. Come on.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
"But it doesn't end there. Because the American people weren't just failed by a President - they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts. By a foreign policy elite that largely boarded the bandwagon for war. And most of all by the majority of a Congress - a coequal branch of government - that voted to give the President the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day. Let's be clear: without that vote, there would be no war.
Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?" - Barack Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27....
To those who like my words, thank you for your comments. Like many here that have lived this American dream we all have a right to defend those who would try to take us from this disaster of the presently marketed "American dream. For those who find my thinking too long and not sufficiently abusive simply pass them by. I try very hard not to offend people for their opinions they have a right to them for the short time left before this, so-called American democracy puts them in detention for speaking their truth! I find that by not using names and referring to anyone directly it allows for those with the most prejudice to float to the surface and see themselves.
For those who have injuries created by this paranoid military establishment, for whom they gave up freedom, and for whom they have laid down parts of their bodies, it is too bad for them, as for me as I once was stupidly patriotic, and believed this rubbish from Washington! But they should certainly not impugn those who did not vote for war as the record clearly shows or those that support those candidates for their truth, such as it is.
For those here who defend the policies of Washington and the candidates who clearly support most of it, you must be happy for the young people who sit with their lives smashed as a result of the war footing that the USA sits on? Or a country bankrupt as a result of it? Or children certainly left behind as a result of it? Or forty million Americans in poverty or homeless as a result of it without healthcare or veterans without shelter? Or the global hatered that the USA is subject! Or the freedom that has vanished thst we fought for!
No, I have no aoplogies for those of you here who wish to be against the winds of change. I say go for it with your rhetoric, your curses, insults and intemperance! But do not try to engage other people with your vitriol who have more enlightened opinions. Who are prepared to accept that Washington at its best is a liar's haven. Obama, like the rest of the political system is not pure but he at least recognizes that change is necessary unlike the others who have picked up the cry recognizing that Americans will no longer accept the status quo, like many of you who write here. After reading my comments, which you are not forced to read, If the shoe fits wear it and don't single yourself out by showing your anger and intemperance.
I agree, Gringo can be Okay, it depends upon the context of how it is used. Like, "Hey, get your ass out of here gringo, or, you Fuc#in gringo". I never heard the term "paddy", but different locals have a lot to do with teminology spoken in the streets.
Don't worry, KEM PATRICK, no one who has any idea of what the Nazis were would accuse people blogging on a site and disagreeing with each other of being Nazis. That's so out there, it's not worth arguing about.
FYI, I grew up in a barrio, and the insult that was used by the Mexican American kids against the white kids was "paddy", not gringo.
Oops, I forgot to mention one other very important thing you said of me IKE KAY. You say it's alright to offer opinions, but it's wrong to state that others are lying, like I did with Dougwagner. Why should I, or any other blogger not state the truth? Dougwagner is spreading Obama's lies, whether he is aware of that or not, __ he is guilty of it.
If the word "lie" offends you IKE, then I'll say, Obama is twisting the truth and distorting facts on a very important issue, in his attempt to help himself fight to win the votes necessary to become our president. That point is very important in my mind. That's what Bill Clinton said about the Obama iraq war issue also, and I fully agree with him on that, because it's true. The evidence of it all is self evident.
~IKE KAY~. Since you have a disagreement with me and my opinions, and refer to me as a Nazi type, because of my posts, let's hash it out. You know it was I who you were referring to, __ if not, correct me on that and state who it was. BTW, I also served in Vietnam, two tours, and have the wounds and missing teeth and one eye to show for it. That war, like the Iraqi war, was unjust and illegal in my mind BTW.
I'll attempt to post this as simply as possible, for you like Dougwagner, seem to have a reading comprehension problem. That's not a persoanl attack on you IKE, it's an observation, based upon your post.
The 77 of 100 US Senators who voted yes on proposition 114, which gave the President the 'authority' to use military force agaist Iraq and ( ONLY IF ABSOLUTLY NECESSARY) was not a declaration of war, __ far from it. Read the proposition 114 and attempt to understand the legal wording. ___ It was NOT a declaration of war against Iraq.
In addition, our congress was horribly misled by the unlawfully altered NIE report, before they voted on that proposition. Now, if any wish to judge the senators who voted yes, because they state they were misled and lied to, so be it, be the judge and jury. I won't pre-judge any of them for there has never been a fair trial on that issue. If any wish to judge them guilty, that is only an unfair judgment, based upon limited knowledge, __ Like, "She's a witch, burn her at the stake".
IKE KAY, this entire subject matter about the propositin 114 vote, was due to Obama's statements, that he never voted for the war and Hillary did. That is a VERY important issue for millions of voters. And millions of people believe his distortion of the truth.
Finally, the act of going to war with Iraq, was absolutly the decision and the FULL responsibility of President Bush. Don't tbe afraid to reply to me IKE. I'm not going to jump through your computer screen and attack you. Do as you please on the issue, it's still a free country and I'm not a Nazi.
I personally read them all on any thread I may find of interest, whether I like the opinions, or may disagree with some opinions. We also all know there are Neo-cons, or far to the right types shills who post here.
I have learned a great deal here at CD on many seperate and important issues.
What I love about CD is that everybody is entitled to post whatever they want, as often as they want and can dialog with whoever they want and nobody can do a thing about it. For those who don't like my posts just skip them please.
~IKE KAY~ Personally, I have never felt that I was under anyones incessant chatter here at Common Dreams, even yours, which are usually very lengthy and full of self assured opinions, somethnng you accuse others of having BTW.
If I get onto a thread and disagree with another blogger opinions, such as Dougwagner's here, who cuts and pastes his comments and loads several threads with his identical opinions concerning Obama and then refuses to accept any facts or reply to any which are presented to debate his opinions.
I will debate any here on issues and sometimes we both, or even two, three or more may get into a debate and go back and forth. You find that to be disturbing and refer to it as Nazism. You say that our freedoms are being destroyed by some who write here, perhaps you could name names and be more specific, or perhaps you would rather hide behind your words and sling your stones from afar, I say perhaps, but that is precicely what you are doing.
For example, you state some have posted here that they hold the senators blameless for the war in Iraq. I could not find such a post here and went over every single one of them. I have posted that Hillary and John Edwards were not "responsible" for the Iraqi war, with their vote on proposition 114, and if you fail to see the reasoning in that commment and opinion, come right out and say why you disagree, instead of writing from behind a wall like a SNIPER with vague accusations. You accuse others of attacking others ___ and then you do that VERY THING with a self rightious attitude. After all, you didn't name any names. You have written about yourself with your last post Ike Kay. "Mirror, mirror on the wall". __ Funny Ike.
iowablackbird February 17th, 2008 1:02 am
RSJ February 17th, 2008 8:50 am
Thank you both for your intelligent and insightful posts.
ike kay February 18th, 2008 11:46 am
Great post!
We are all under the incessant chatter of some individuals who are certain they are the only people who have any ideas. They flood this space with their self-indulgence, telling others how wrong they may be, for example holding the senators blameless for perpetuating the loss of American freedom and allowing an American despotic president to wage war.
They help us by showing their lack of understanding, they help us by showing their American imdoctrination about war issues and how the public can be controlled by the military-Industrial complex who has bought the key votes in congress for the continuation America's military agenda fuelled by their paranoia. I wrote many of these ideas before the vote to go to war with Iraq on 9/11, echoed by Obama now. The politicks of fear is an ever present government media indoctrination vehicle to keep the USA building its military might on the backs of the people. While the country, and the people who it ostensibly is there to protect go to hell.
I support those here who are not so conditioned that they support the sitting government that most of America is completely fed up with. The ideas of change embraced by more than a few of us writing here, who are opposed to the graybeards that stick with their media-indoctrination and abuse people with their ideas on this blog.
They who would accept the ugly price caused by the shopping-mall (those so called American Dreamers who continue with the status-quo Wallmart ideology that simply feathers the nests of the wealthy super class supported with the collusion of the Republican and Democratic hacks that sit in this congress sucking the people dry with the "failed policies of the past".
Yes, I would gladly jump to any change from the present burning building of American reality. I would gladly join any culture that is not in continual war, I would rather accept very much less materialism for a peaceful, less stressful life. All of the above, rather than support the Hillary, Edwards and other congressional, ideas of defending the American dream with war continually stripping the people of life with these paranoid military delusions for American safety.
Militaristic adventures supported with dillusions of safety take from the people of their health, wealth, work, infrastructure, homes, education and so many other parts of life that are so much more important and become the very reasons that support the American Dream.
Terrorism, is exacerbated by this paranoia, it has increased in possibility not diminished according to most international think-tanks and poles. It is time to stop! The people who flog their worn-out patriotism here are of a type that should give some others a chance to have their ideas heard without their negativism and the abuse they espouse so well.
I spent a long time in the military fighting for a war against the so-called domino effect, to halt the spread of communism. The enemy than, also the figment of a military, that needed an enemy and an industry TO CONTINUE BUILDING WEAPONS. The enemy of the time has since become American trading partners all the USA was ever interested. They are still Communists and it does not seem that they infected the world with their ideas nor does China another trading partner.
However, there are black walls in Washington covered with names of people whose lives were destroyed with families that still grieve for them as well as the children who had no fathers for these "failed ideas of the past"!
Those here who wish to project their values have a right to do so but not with the allegations and complaints against others who also have different point of view and ideas which are not lies but different oppinions. These abusive people in this blog remind me of the Nazi regime rather than understanding that freedom requires the excahnge if ideas rather than indoctrinated principals.
The freedoms that Americans have come to adore is now in the process of being dismantled with the help of some people who write here and a congress which Obama speaks against. Yes, change would be welcome regardless of the risks, they cant BE ANY GREATER THAN WHAT THE USA HAS EXPERIENCED THESE PAST EIGHT YEARS.
unfortunately i am writing too late to get any comments. but i want to say that the commondreams responders should check out the folks at information clearing house. i wonder why there is such a different between the two groups.
the responders here almost unanimously refuse to see aipac's role in US politics. to me you all are shockingly dense, that you can't see the obvious elephant in the room
Of course the fainting spells may very well be part of his well orchestrated act ~Armchair. He's a good ol boy who cares for us little people. It happened once and he stood there on the stage and calmed everyone down and that was alright, he looked good, he was taking control of the situation. Twice? __ Three times, __ four, __ five, __six that we know of. Hmmmmmmmm?????? __ Yeah __ sure. If Obama has orchastrated those acts, then he's a charlaton and if he's elected, ___ look out. Before any jump on any bandwagon, they should be VERY well informed. What bothers me is, our neo-con press likes him. They like him far too much. We cannot trust our press and media anymore.
woah! ...one more thing, jus found this and THIS IS BIZARRE... obama has someone near him "faint" at alot of his rallies, he then directs medical care and supplies water to the "faintee" while in the middle of his speech. he does it like 6 different times, recently, and its all on video. its pretty fkn weird, is he faking this shit for some reason??? if he is, its nutzo. this is a fkn TRIP. check it: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/48404.html
aha! so HEREs the perfect example of the kind of small nothing-changes obama will bring as he stands for the dem-machine. bush brought millions of small legislative horrors with him, now obama will bring tons of SMALL legislative "good" things, and the horrors and good will balance out as NOTHING. except the war. the war people... the wars. obama WILL continue to pursue the war "process". so actually he will do more than jus-nuttin. ..more war. the junior senator-who-noone-really-knows will have lots to prove to those who question his hawk-ability. maybe when he continues the wars, he will get only good press of the shallowest-type as he does now, and always has. jus like bush did.. huh..thats weird isnt it?
anyway, heres the reposting of the small nothing good-things we can expect in small doses from mr "hope", who btw, has my vote.
gov10. S.115 : A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Finance
or 16. S.674 : A bill to require accountability and enhanced congressional oversight for personnel performing private security functions under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 2/16/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: Senate Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 2/16/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
or
7. S.692 : A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report on health care quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 2/27/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 2/27/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
18. S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 2/28/2007) Cosponsors (34)
Committees: Senate Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 2/28/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
19. S.737 : A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 in order to measure, compare, and improve the quality of voter access to polls and voter services in the administration of Federal elections in the States.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/1/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Rules and Administration
Latest Major Action: 3/1/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
I live in an area that is 50% Hispanic, not far from the Mexican border. Hispances here don't use the word Gringo when "Gringos" are present
Well, Mexicans in Mexico do use it all the time, even in front of Americans and it is nothing more than a colloquial form for American. Hispanics also use "americano" in reference to Americans though this term is never used in Mexico. It is another case of when in Rome, do as the Romans.
Americans in Mexico use "Gringo" (informal) and "estadounidense" (formal), never "americano". They too do as the Romans. Google "gringo mexico" and see for yourself. Look it up in Wikipedia.
I also don't remember Barbara Ehrenreich saying she was a socialist, just a progressive
She was (is?) a member of the DSA party and her profile on Wikipedia says she is a socialist.
people I've met from Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela and Guatemala would definitely view Obama as a black American man, not as a dark-skinned South American Latino.
When in Rome do as the Romans. My point was that people who look like Obama (mixed raced) are not considered blacks (one drop rule) in Europe or in Latin America, so Ehrenreich assertion that "An antiwar black President with an Arab-sounding name: See, we're not so bad after all, world!" is totally off mark because 1) the world does not see him as black, 2) even if he were, he is still a mainstream American politician, and 3) he has not addressed issues of empire such as bases all around the world, torture, Guantánamo, enduring bases in Iraq, and outrageous military expenditure.
I can understand that Ehrenreich is enthusiastic about a man not totally white becoming president given the US' history, but to project that enthusiasm to the rest of the world (Brazil has a cabinet member with dreadlocks, so there!) and that, as she, we conclude that the US will no longer threaten non-nuclear states with nuclear annihilation ("not bad") is US-centric.
BTW Dougwagner, Riverman is funny when he writes in support of Obama. ___ You are not funny. You may not realize you are spreading lies,__ but you are.
~LUPITA~ I live in an area that is 50% Hispanic, not far from the Mexican border. Hispances here don't use the word Gringo when "Gringos" are present, unless they are angry with a white person. If they use the term, it is usually in a derogatory context. I'm certain you are aware of that. I don't use the words spicks, etc. either. I wrote those words in a question to you.
~RSJ~. Talk about not makng any sense. What Obama said about his decision if he would have voted yes or no on resolution 114, is nothing short of political grab-ass and political ambition. He said THAT and then uses Hillary's vote to malinger her. That is hypocritical to the max on Obama's part. And that is exactly why Bill Clinton called him on the issue and he should have. So should our "FREE" press and media.
That is your opinion ~DOUGWAGNER~. My opinion is, you are wrong, as is any who think that. ___ Bush pushed for the war with Iraq ever since he was first elected and is our only "Commander In Chief". Hillary and Edwards never pushed or advocated going to war. And no, Hillary never apologized for her vote, she voted as she felt was necessary at the time and her vote was based upon the intelligence allowed to the Senate for that situation. And the intelligence was a lie.
They only voted to give the President, the authority to use military force against Iraq IF absolutely necessary.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld conspired to have their war, Colin Powell advised Bush on several occasions, that it would be a serious mistake to go to war with Iraq and that if he attacked Iraq, he would own it and be fully responsible for that country afterwards. (Powell's words.)
Powell was then given the ALTERED NIE report to brief to the UN and to our Congress, which he did on a nationally televised program. Powell was unaware Bush had the NIE report altered to state that Saddam DID have WMDs and had purchased uranium from Africa. Those were outright lies and Bush knew full well they were lies. Many people had doubts about Saddam but the annual NIE report is the "Bible" for the intelligence community. It must be accurate and totally believeable. Well, not the one Tenent altered to Bush's wishes.
NO DOUWAGNER, Hillary and Edwards, or no other Senators were 'responsible' for those lies, or the ensuing military buildup and attack on Iraq. Bush made that decision and he was the President and the Commander In Chief of our armed forces. The Senate voted to give Bush the authority ot use military force if it ever became necessary. ___ It never was NECESSARY. __ That, Dougwagner, is the issue.
And DOUGWAGNER, you keep posting your comments in support of Obama, which is perfectly fine for any to support Obama if they so choose. But by using your twisted posts here as an excuse as to why Hillary, or Edwards were not fit to be elected, because they went to war, is not honorable. That sir is a lie and you are guilty of spreading it at least 50 times here in the past weeks. So to tell me, "to get over myself", is just your soplistic manner of attempting to show superiority and self assured knowledge with your horribley flawed opinions.
Lupita, you sure seem to not know much about America -- if Obama stated he was a socialist (and he isn't), he'd be finished as a national candidate. I also don't remember Barbara Ehrenreich saying she was a socialist, just a progressive -- they aren't exactly the same thing in this country.
I also disagree with you about Latin America; I don't know where you are from, but the people I've met from Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela and Guatemala would definitely view Obama as a black American man, not as a dark-skinned South American Latino.
Yes, and it would be nice to get rid of those little boxes that ask for your race or ethnicity.
Kem you are wrong. Iraq is not Bush's full responisiblity. It is also John Edwards and Hillary Clinton's.
Obama oppossed the war from the beginning and has led the fight to call for timelines in a Republican-dominated Senate and Whitehouse.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061120-a_way_forward_i/index.php
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/obama.comment/index.html
And BTW, you're right. He's not JFK or FDR.
Barack Obama is the next President of the United States and THE CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. Get over yourself.
I have been around enough to know that notions such as race vary considerably by culture and that, definitely, in Latin America and in Europe people who look like Obama are not considered black. I have never been to Africa but I would assume he would not be considered black there either. Remember, the "one drop rule" is a Gringo thing, a product of your history. So is checking little boxes to state your "race/ethnicity".
he has been consistently progressive in his views
I thought Barbara Ehrenreich was a socialist. Has Obama ever mentioned the word?
Kem wrote: "Well RSJ, one one hand you defend Obama for his votes to keep funding the war, and a paragraph later explain why he was against the war. Those reasons for his yes vote to fund the war are explainable and defensible for Obama, but they are wrong for Hillary or Edwards. Hmmmmmm."
Kem, this doesn't make any sense -- yes, Hillary and Edwards were wrong for voting to give Bush the power to go to war with Iraq; Edwards apologized for that vote; Hillary has not. And we don't know how Obama would have voted in 2002, since, as you point out, he wasn't in the US Senate at the time. In 2004, in support of the Dem presidential candidate, Obama said he didn't know how he would vote on the war if he had been a US Senator because Dem candidate John Kerry had voted for the war and he didn't want to undercut him and hand ammunition to the GOP to embarrass him. If he had not supported Kerry, there are some here who would, I have no doubt, now gripe that his failure to back Kerry was what cost Kerry the election. You have made up your minds to be losers, and add to the general notion that liberal progressives are a bunch of losers. Sign me up with the folks who would like to have a sucessful progressive movement and win for a change -- it's not starry-eyed rock star worship, simply the recognition that we have the best progressive political candidate since John Kennedy, who can bring people into the movement -- in other words, he's preaching beyond the choir, and getting results. I guess to some that's a sort of apostasy, rather than the reality -- we need someone with the ability to appeal to a cross-section of Americans, and Obama can do that. The ardent Obama-haters would look a gift horse in the mouth and reject it because it has a piece of straw between its teeth. I wonder what the self-righteous Obama-haters would have said about JFK when he was campaigning for president -- he certainly wasn't very liberal then, but his oratory and style helped spark a major shift to liberalism in the 1960s which resulted in civil rights legislation, improved medical care for seniors, programs that raised people out of poverty, and women's rights.
That's right, Deran, follow Cynthia McKinney all the way to victory for the Straight Talk Express and feel really good about yourself because you helped put McCain in the White House. I asked this earlier and no one answered: is McKinney even on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral vote?
Lupita, you should get out more -- Barack Obama, on face value, would be considered black in every part of the world. As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, and I'm not sure you do, either -- I know of no one who 'admires' Obama because he's 'exotic'. If you bothered to read up on the subject before forming an opinion, you might know he has been consistently progressive in his views since college and has gotten some things done when elected to office, and that's what attracts progressives like Barbara Ehrenreich.
What does the term "Gringo" mean to you LUPITA?
Obama is a Gringo. In Spanish, Gringo means of the United States. It has absolutely nothing to do with Gringo "race/ethnicity" and does not necessary have to refer to a person. One can speak of Gringo cars, Gringo cities, Gringo fashion, etc.
You may call me whatever racially offensive term you wish since you would be offending nobody except yourself for using such terms. I understand that Gringos are still obsessed with race given that your state-sponsored racial segregation system is so recent that you still see evil racists lurking everywhere, but please understand that the rest of the world (with the exception of South Africa) does not share your recent past, does not see Obama as black, and even if he were black, does not see him as "different" in the sense that he will atone for the sins of the white race. Those are quaint Gringo notions that are the product of your particular history. We do not even see Obama as a Democrat, just as another contender who does not question the empire, that is, your typical Gringo politician.
~DOUGWAGNER~ I tend to ignore your lengthy posts which are truths, half truths and distortions of the whole truth. I will reply, beause some may listen to your ranting and there is a flip side to every coin.
First of all, I'll answer your snotty remark to me. why should I thank Hillary and Edwards for their vote, or thank the other 75 Senators who voted yes on 114? Attacking Iraq was a disterous blunder and Bush insured the very important NIE report, which was given to Congress prior to their vore, was illegally altered, the NIE report was a lie and the only ones who knew it had been altered, were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Tenent and some CIA operatives.
That exerpt of resolution 114 you posted, is written so that it can mean many things, primarily it gave Bush full authority to do as he damn well pleased when it came to Iraq. Attacking Iraq was Bush's FULL responsibility.
Indeed you are correct on this point Dougwagner. Bush's word and his pledges, which he verbally gave to our Congress members, are not printed in that Resolution. Bush had stated several times, he would NEVER go to war with Iraq until AFTER the UN team, led by Hans Bliss had completed their inspections. He also said war with Iraq was a last resort. __ He lied,__ and 77 congress people didn't know he would lie and decieve them. They took his word, he was the President of the United States. __They erred. __ Had George Tenent been a brave and loyal American, he would have informed the world, that Bush forced him to alter the NIE report. There would have been no war with Iraq and Bush/Cheney would have been impeached.
However, that is history and it is not altered history, as you have claimed several times during the past thirty days. The point here on this thread is, Obama didn't vote yes on the Resolution 114. That is because he was not a US Senator then and could not vote yes or no on it. He has stated since, if he had been in the senate, he is not sure how he would have voted on Resolution 114 at the time. Obama has voted yes to fund the war every time since he was elected to the senate. He's playing games with words. He's a smart politician. Obama is not what he is professing to be. He's no JFk, or a Roosevelt. He is the best orator, I have ever seen or heard.
"Let's take seriously what he offers, which is "change.""
Uh, oh. You know we are in real trouble when Barbara Ehrenreivh is worshiping at the American Idol of Barack Obama.
Well, I'll add her name to the very long list of people I will be sending out boxes of kleenex to in abt two years form now when all these Obama believers find they have been gridfted. Grifted back t the stone age.
I think the historical reality is that Obama, if elected, and when it comes out that he is a hack like the rest of his former-Clinto staff, all these zero-attention span kids that are the core of the Obama Childrens Crusade will be turned off to politics forever. And thus all you hysterical Left intellectuals that are riding the Obama bandwagon, will be guilty as hell of being instrumental in wrecking it.
On the other hand, I will be hosting a huge schaudenfreude banquet where the rest of us can gorge on their misery! Mmmmmmm....
Yeah Edwards had a very Good platform and an excellent message. Of course Obama wants to listen to Edwrards advisors RSJ, it helps with his well delivered speeches. He isn't stupid.
Excellent point SHADA.
Be sure to thank John Edwards and Hillary Clinton for voting for to invade Iraq Kem.
Clinton and Edwards did not vote for more inspectors. They voted for war. In fact, the resolution that Clinton and Edwards voted for has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.
What H.J. Resolution 114 "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" actually says:
"Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."
[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf
"There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush's war, it's all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Or that we would have gotten Iraq right if we went in with more troops, or if we had a different proconsul instead of Paul Bremer, or if only there were a stronger Iraqi Prime Minister.
These are the easy answers. And like most easy answers, they are partially true. But they don't tell the whole truth, because they overlook a harder and more fundamental truth. The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalog of many mistakes - it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought…
Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…
We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.
That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama
"Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war."
"Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were "enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-20...
Hillary and the 2002 NIE
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/25/204032.aspx
"Bill Clinton's Own Fairy Tales on Obama's Views on Iraq"
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14219.html
"Hillary Clinton on Iraq"
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802
"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time… I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
"As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam." -Bill Clinton, March 18, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html
"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."- Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
"During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq "from the beginning" - a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html
EDIT?
What does the term "Gringo" mean to you LUPITA? Isn't it the same to call a white person a Gringo, as it is to use the "N" word for a black person? Would you be offended if I called you a Spic, or a beaner, or a halfbreed wetback?
Well RSJ, one one hand you defend Obama for his votes to keep funding the war, and a paragraph later explain why he was against the war. Those reasons for his yes vote to fund the war are explainable and defensible for Obama, but they are wrong for Hillary or Edwards. Hmmmmmm.
White Gringos will be atoned and redeemed by somebody who only in the US passes for black? I though Ehrenreich was a socialist! She seems like a teenage groupie to me. Just like teenagers imagine themselves liberated by admiring some drug-crazed, noisy rock star, so some "socialists" seem to be rebelling by admiring somebody who only parochial Gringos would consider exotic (black, raised in Hawaii, stint in Indonesia).
Nah, voting for a guy with "different" demographic characteristics will not do the trick. The system is the system, I though a socialist, even a Gringo socialist, would know that.
I live in Pennsylvania. Our Primary is in April. Clinton leads Obama here by double digits. Reports are that she leads him in Ohio and Texas by double digits as well. I am sick of left,right and "mainstream" media making declarations about who has already won an election that is still ongoing.
Tailcap, you returned from the mountains without any stone tablets -- just some quotes from your pizza man? WTF?! :) (Congratulations, BTW, considering your bio, on your conversion to liberalism -- I've met several vets who have also 'seen the light.')
Seriously, I don't think Obama is anything more than a very smart politician who is fostering a progressive movement, as did Franklin Roosevelt, to force a gradual shift back to populism on the Democratic Party. Once the congressional Dems are confronted with millions of voters who want change, they'll either vote the right way or lose their cushy jobs. Eugene V. Debs and the early 20th century progressives had some great ideas, but it took a smart politician like FDR to make them law. Obama has learned from Kucinich and Nader what doesn't work, and he's running not to make a statement, but to win. In pursuit of that goal, he has to attract millions of people to vote for him, and that's what his carefully-crafted campaign has done -- he's gotten people involved with politics in this country who didn't give a rip before he came along. Is that a bad thing? That's how progress is really effected in this country. I'd rather have four years of even a tepid Obama than four years of a terrible McCain. And. yes, I'll be the first to criticize him when I think he's done the wrong thing -- that's what democracy and free speech are all about -- not lining up behind a leader, marching in lockstep, and keeping your mouth shut. That's for the dwindling Republican base that disgusts most of America these days.
Re: Tailcap: "I have not gotten a satisfactory explanation for why Obama voted to fund the war and has not talked about reducing the outrageous military spending. Don't even try because you can't."
I will anyway: He's a savvy politician and this is political cover, since the funding bill was going to pass anyway. If he consistently voted against funding it, the GOP could scream "You voted against our troops!" He didn't want to be caught in that bind, even as a senator running for reelection in Illinois. He is also a freshman senator and, as such, must sometimes follow the lead of the Senate Majority Leader, in this case hapless clown Harry Reid, in order to get anything done on other progressive legislation that has a chance of passing. He has said he will increase military spending to adequately fund better medical treatment for the troops, as well as an increase in pay to help their families.
Clyde Paige, when Obama made his anti-Iraq War speech in 2002, he was taking a political risk -- most of America supported Bush at the time, and his BS wars. Many Illinois Dems did not show up at that demonstration in downtown Chicago, but Obama did, and never backed off his position against the war in either his state Senate or US Senate campaigns. I know because I live in Illinois and followed those campaigns. Obama didn't crumple in GOP attacks in Illinois, and he hasn't folded from Hillary's slime. There is this assumption that the guy just fell off of the back of a turnip truck -- in fact he managed to prosper in the rough and corrupt world of Illinois politics and get some things done. He also racked up the highest vote count in Illinois history -- 70 percent in the last election, and many of those votes came from the mainly white and conservative central and southern portions of the state. He's smart and he has his eyes open, so don't assume he isn't ready for whatever the GOP may throw at him. If you think he has no substance, you should read more about him and stop wallowing in your ignorant talking points. Some of it is right in this thread.
Kem, here's something just for you: Obama is listening to some of Edwards' economic advisers and said this last Wednesday night in Wisconsin:
"(When) I am president, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate -- we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."
-- Barack Obama in Janesville, WI, Feb. 13, 2008, as quoted by The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=284664
Yes, Palmeres, as Kem said, join right in, but I suggest popping open a bottle of something 'spirited' first.
tailcap,
i respect ramons opinion and im glad you asked him the question. i have asked people who cynthia mckinney is and they look at me like i'm from mars. i have respect for mckinney's staunch anti war position, her call for impeachment and her advocacy for just causes in the congress, i just don't believe she will be elected because the common person can't identify her. i respect ramon's opinion about republicans i just believe he's wrong; based on random conversations i've had with republicans who haven't voted dem in 20 years (not exaggerating). i don't think they're lying, shucking and jiving me. the reason they support obama is he's authentic, he conveys the idea of authenticity that's one characteristic voters look for. john mccain is the hillary clinton of the center-right party. they see him as a sellout, not authentic, and many of them are starting to see the consequences of the iraq war, the short-sightedness of their earlier convictions. they don't like mccain, bush doesn't like mccain, the crazy evangelists don't like mccain. republican voter turnout will flounder if mccain is the candidate. with low repub voter turnout, exceedingly high democratic turnout and with independents and a fraction of the repubs seeking authenticity/anti iraq war obama could win. the polls as of tonight (realclearpoltics.com) are inconclusive in head to head comparisons (obama up 3, clinton down 2). i don't know what will happen, alot will happen before today and election day in november. OH, TX, PA the craziness of superdelegates, a convention. nevertheless i'd say the tide is with obama. yesterday 2/15 pelosi restated the fact: no MI or FL delegates to be seated w/out new caucus or primary and the conviction that superdelegates do not override the will of the voters in the primaries/caucuses.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080215_pelosi_warns_superd...
"Nancy Pelosi, who is not only one of the highest-ranking members of the Democratic Party but the chair of its approaching national convention, has weighed in on two of the most controversial issues looming over the presidential nomination. Superdelegates, Pelosi said, should not overrule the will of the voters, and the disputed delegations from Michigan and Florida "can't make the difference because then we would have no rules."
about military spending, it's about funding vetrens, it's about withdrawing from iraq while not further destabilizing the region. (i want war factories closed and retooled, i also will demonstrate the first opportunity i can against war if obama were to wield military power against others). regardless of our idealistic avatars, one of these 3 people will likely be president. mccain will use military force with limited diplomacy.
I watched Obama give a speech in Wisconsin C span sat evening. He got game. He is good!
~Hi PALMERES~, welcome to the fun site. About half of us are crazy, most of the the sane ones are stupid. The few left are excellent teachers and many can't spell very well and use horrible grammer. That's fine with me though, I for one have learned a great deal of good things about many diverse issues here at Common Dreams. Hang around and join in the fun, it's obvious that you have a good sense of humor,___ you need it here.
Oh, Ok ~Tailcap~, well I answered it with my post at 11:54pm, or ~Clyde Paige~ answered it also.