Change... Change... short Change.. Small Change.. NO CHANGE.

What are you people talking about? The proof has always been out there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWkGhV3PsLo . The war in Iraq is a war of aggression against the Iraqi people, to steal their resources, and to gain, military presence in the region. The US is acting no differently from Hitler going into Poland and this was planned and decided well before 2001.
Furthermore the Downing Street leak proved also that the invasion and occupation had nothing to do with WMD, Saddam's compliance to UNSC, or anything else, but lies, oil and regional power and yet you are here discussing how the Democratic nominee, if he or she wins the presidency will obviously continue this illegal occupation in some way, with a fortress embassy, umpteen bases, mercenaries that kill at will with impunity etc.. of course you know that 90% of Iraqi citizenry (those still alive or could not flee the country) know that the US and its presence is the cause of division and aggression not the solution and want to see ALL USA OCCUPATION OUT of Iraq. More than 60% of the people of your own country know that you have no business there and want to see a complete withdrawal from Iraq.

But no, Blackwater, bases, green zone, in the tens if not hundreds of thousands and a thousand CIA in the US embassy alone is on Obama's cards just the same. The Imperialist status quo will NOT CHANGE no matter who lives in the (puppet) White House. So enjoy you debating and voting, because it all means nothing.

Al Sadr and most Iraqis are right to conclude as they do that the only way get Americans to stop seeing the Iraqi sovereign country as a domestic matter in US politics, a matter of military casualties or budgetary costs, and to get all American Forces out of Iraq, is to seriously increase the number of body bags and send the message home to Americans that way. How else can they tell you that they want their country back.

How many Vietnams do you need to learn your lesson? And no, you don't own Iraq because you broke it (or anywhere else for that matter). And, no, you are not bringing freedom or democracy anywhere, just spreading hypocracy and violence. Yankee, Get the F**K out and GO home.

Blah-Blah-Blah-Blah-Blah-Blah-Blah-Blah........................

Now, where is Tweedle Dumber's propaganda?

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States."

Barack Obama-The RIGHT decision on Day 1.

Senator Obama, thanks for sharing this speech with us again.

Hm, have you seen the video of Cheney in the early nineties making an excellent arguement about how foolish it would be to try to overthrow Saddam? Part of this article...
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/01/6776/
Just wondering...

Surrender-That's right. Plug your ears and hum to yourself 'see no reason, hear no reason, speak no reason'.

and perle, wolfowitz, rove et. al .........walk free........no accountability for setting up the office of special plans and manipulating this from day one of the supreme court naming bush prez....

obama recognized it, as did many others who were then marginalized and demonized, villified and "foxified".............

what a sad ass state of affairs

This speech is exactly why Obama will lose his race for the imperial sceptre.

While it is commendable for Obama to have recognized that "Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States", it should not be forgotten by those who consider themselves to be liberals and progressives that this [alleged] anti-war candidate has consistently voted each and every time to allow the funding to continue for the occupation of Iraq, thus ensuring that more Americans will be returning to this country maimed and crippled and that Iraq will continue to unjustifiably suffer under the domination of the United States military.

Not against war but against dumb wars. Obama cannot wait to wage a smart war in the "war on terror" and prove Democrats are strong on national security.

an abundance of common sense that proved right on the mark.

Obama took this down from his web page when it seemed convenient to do so.

Erroll - We liberals and progressives have no anti-war candidate. Obama talks about readying 90,000 more troops. This occupation will end I am sure, but I think that events fully outside U.S. control will dictate that. I will vote for the Democratic candidate for president. I will stay active in my anti-war community. My rep Tom Lantos is dead and I have to see whom to support and why. It is all so depressing. Change is so frigging slow.

Note that the examples Obama uses of wars that weren't dumb were the Civil War and WWII. Of course he's not against war in every case. Most Americans aren't. But unfortunately for the country, we've seen how our support for war in extreme cases has been turned into war in any case, or you aren't American.

I do know that so (like, almost all) many of the instances in America's past where force was used was totally unnecessary.

I guess I'm voting for him.

Obama nails the problem right on the head of our intellectually challenged white house resident in chief, as it must be. Big oil needs access to our oil under Iraqi sand. This adventure was never a war in the sense of a struggle to prevail. It was always a power grab to control the middle east and offer alternative bases to those the Saudis want to kick us out of.

Right wing pundits scold Michelle Obama for feeling ASHAMED of what our country has become.

We torture dubiously obtained prisoners.

We out source to Blackwater the protection of our diplomats so that they are not subject to ANY COUNTRY's laws.

We allow hundreds to die in New Orleans waiting for their national guardsmen that are in Iraq.

Our leaders have made a mockery of "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" that we once aspired to. Now we have allowed our greedy amd imcompetent leaders to place us all in the position of trying to justify any remaining pride in being an American.

I never thought that I would live in a country that tortures ANYONE FOR ANY REASON. I never believed that we would be so lazy and careless to allow such things to happen.

Like Eddy Chiles, I am mad as hell and I ain't gonna take it no more. I will vote for Obama and everything else I can think of to turn from this awful, horible future that shall be if we do not CHANGE course.

Ray O. Driskill
Houston, Texas

I think most Republicans, certainly all their talking heads, are just cowards. The likes of Rove and Perle and Kristol - surely all the Neocons - would not be able to enter the military because they are really sissies. What a joke that these types would call for war when they wouldn't last five minutes in any fight. Can you imagine Brit Hume actually backing up his big mouth? Can you imagine George Bush walking down some dark alley in Iraq for any reason? Cheney? Give me a break. McCain may have dropped bombs from 50,000 feet, but I guarantee you that he was short-arming those too. Just how Americans allowed themselves to be so bamboozled by these lying weak sissy boy cowards, is beyond comprehension. I think if Bush or McCain ever ran into Barrack on the street, without anyone around, they would lie down in a fetal position and cry for their Mama.

"and the Iraqi people, would be better off without [Saddam]."

funny how this didn't really turn out to be the case...

RichM says it was easy for Obama to make this speech in 10/02 before he became a national figure.

That may be technically true, but was this not DURING his campaign for Senate, in a HEARTLAND state?

Was this not also when all the Dems were running scared because of the Great Wave of Patriotism Bush channeled?

In that context, it was very daring indeed.

I agree with thong girl. We are led by sissies with a big mouth and little cojones. Screw politicians. The Swiss people lead themselves through the referendum. That's why they've haven't had a war in over 150 years, no WOD and no drug problem, the best education and healthcare, a healthy environment, no boom and bust economy and the highest per capita income in the world despite having no natural resources.

Sure, Barack Obama gave an anti-war speech in October 2002 (when he had no vote because he was not in Congress). But, by 2004 he was saying he "didn't know" how he would have voted on the Iraq War authorization, and after his election to the Senate in 2005 he voted repeatedly to continue the war. Moral: candidates' stump speeches are rarely the same as their voting records.

I challenge everyone here to take this Test of Knowledge. Do you know how your candidate for President has voted on the big issues important to Progressives? Since Clinton, Obama and McCain have all been U.S. Senators these past three years, comparing their actual voting records is straightforward. Copy and Paste this post, and fill in your answers. Then, see my next post to find out how each of the candidates voted. I guarantee it will be educational.

TEST OF KNOWLEDGE

(1) Confirmation of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State
Analysis: Neo-con, war criminal
Clinton:___ Obama___ McCain___

(2) Tort "reform" (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Analysis: Opposed by more than 68 consumer, civil rights, environmental and labor groups, it was described as the "final [Republican] payback to the tobacco, asbestos, oil and chemical industries, at the expense of ordinary families whose health has been compromised."
Clinton:___ Obama___ McCain___

(3) Senate Amendment #31 to the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, to cap credit card interest rates at 30%
Analysis: Some predatory lenders charge vulnerable people more than 1000%/year interest. Republicans argued that "free-markets" should set interest rates, and government should not interfere.
Clinton:___ Obama___ McCain___

(4) Energy Policy Act of 2005
Analysis: A corporate welfare bill, called "bad policy" by Public Citizen because it gives "billions of dollars in unjustified subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries," regulatory rollbacks for the oil and gas industry, and "repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), an essential consumer protection that ensures that electric utilities exist to serve the people, not the profit interests of large corporations."
Clinton:___ Obama___ McCain___

(5) Confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court
Analysis: Hard right-winger
Clinton:___ Obama___ McCain___

(6) Confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court
Analysis: Hard right-winger
Clinton:___ Obama___ McCain___

(7) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran
Analysis: Tantamount to a declaration of war. (Sen. James Webb, former Secretary of the Navy)
Clinton:___ Obama___ McCain___

(8) Iraq withdrawal time-line (Supplemental Appropriations 2007)
Analysis: Provided "The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq."
Clinton:___ Obama___ McCain___

The perfect Progressive score is 8, as follows:
(1) Condoleeza Rice: NO
(2) Tort "reform": NO
(3) Cap credit card interest rates at 30%: YES
(4) Energy bill: NO
(5) John Roberts: NO
(6) Samuel Alito: NO
(7) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran: NO
(8) Iraq withdrawal time-line: YES

How did your candidate score? See my next post.

Obama was against the occupation of Iraq before he was for it
and George Bush.

He votes "yes" on all the billions of dollars to fund the war and
said that he is against impeaching BushCo...he is only for impeachment
under "grave" circumstances.

Holy Crap?!! Have we ever found ourselves in a more grave circumstance than BushCo?

With 90 percent of war casualties being innocent civilians these awful days, I would hope for a candidate who says that "I am taking war off the table as a foreign policy tool." The fascist-elite have silenced the early voices who have said this and will silence Nader and McKinney's voices, too.

We have to be the voices!
Love
Cindy

TEST OF KNOWLEDGE

Progressive vote score (U.S. Senate, 2005-present)

Clinton score: 6
(1) Condoleeza Rice: YES
(2) Tort "reform": NO
(3) Cap credit card interest rates at 30%: YES
(4) Energy bill: NO
(5) John Roberts: NO
(6) Samuel Alito: NO
(7) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran: YES
(8) Iraq withdrawal timeline: YES

Obama score: 3
(1) Condoleeza Rice: YES
(2) Tort "reform": YES
(3) Cap credit card interest rates at 30%: NO
(4) Energy bill: YES
(5) John Roberts: NO
(6) Samuel Alito: NO
(7) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran: NOT VOTING
(8) Iraq withdrawal timeline: YES

McCain score: 1
(1) Condoleeza Rice: YES
(2) Tort "reform": YES
(3) Cap credit card interest rates at 30%: NO
(4) Energy bill: NO
(5) John Roberts: YES
(6) Samuel Alito: YES
(7) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran: NOT VOTING
(8) Iraq withdrawal timeline: NO

I voted for Obama and will vote for him in November. This speech shows he does not buy into some of the more irrational delusions of empire. But he made the speech running as an "anti-war" candidate during the Democratic primary against a more conservative Democrat. As Sam Husseini has pointed out, once the primary was over, his campaign no longer had use for the anti-war spiel and the speech was dropped from his website for the general election campaign. Perhaps that made "tactical" sense, but it was not a "Profile in Courage" moment for Barack.

And once Obama WAS elected to the Senate, he consciously kept his head low on the issue of the war in Iraq, playing it safe while a few of the braver "congress critters", like Dennis Kucinich, were displaying more bravery and "speaking truth to power." It was not until public opinion had sufficiently shifted to opposing the war, that Barack once again found his "anti-war" voice. But this was again in the context of staking out a primary election strategy and figuring what sections of the Democratic and independent voter spectrum he had a chance of gathering together to support him in a field of multiple candidates.

As stated above, Obama is not "anti-imperialist," and no one should spread that illusion. But I cannot think of one US President that can fairly be accused of having been anti-imperialist and that is not the choice before us. Dennis Kucinich is out of the race, folks and, unfortunately, never had a chance to begin with. A vote for Nader or McKinney might make the voter feel virtuous, but is a wasted vote under the US election system.

Obama is significantly better than Clinton, who in turn is significantly better than McCain. When you come to a fork in the road, you face choices. Neither path is likely to take you to paradise, so you use your best judgment, pick the least bad path and move forward. Or, you can pull off the road, find a shade tree and contemplate your navel, wishing there were a better road leading from that intersection. A fat doobie might help.

The politicians will not "solve our problems." But we do have a stake in how bad the government is likely to be. I think Bush demonstrated that for recent arrivals, and Reagan or Nixon for those of us a bit older. An ex-con friend of mine who views himself as a committed revolutionary breaks ranks with his "comrades" on the question of voting. He says,"I've been in prison and I know there is a real world difference between having a reasonable warden and an asshole warden. These politicians are not our friends. They are helping keep us in prison. But if I have a choice between a prison guard who is going to beat me and throw me into isolation for minor infractions, and one who will provide us with classes and amenities, I can make that choice real easy."

Of course, as a felon, he doesn't have the ability to help pick the new warden of America.

The movements for justice, in order to be effective, have to be rooted in the general population and not rely upon politicians. But when the movement has developed some strength and is in sync with public opinion and some politicians respond positively to the movement for justice, we activists are ignorant if we cannot distinguish between those that actively oppose the movement and those who give way, if only partially, to the movement's demands.

Obama is more in sync with public opinion on the war in Iraq than is Clinton and people who want a more just foreign policy should vote for him, but not rely upon him. Have no illusions that he may, indeed, feel a need to find himself a "smart war" in order to prove that he is "tough enough" to be president. And we will organize against that war.

Plan B Hello Switzerland!

Bob K,

Your list of progressive issues seems highly selective.

For example: Obama voted against amendment 31 to cap interest rates at 30% (perhaps he thought that was too high?) But he voted against the entire bill.

Voting records are important, but shouldn't be oversimplified.

John Kerry got tarred as a "flip-flopper" because he, "voted for the bill before he voted against it"...
it's utter rubbish.

Multiple versions of bills, and amendments, are introduced and voted on repeatedly before an act reaches it's final form.

Look, I'm under no illusion that Obama is a "progressive", but a recent post here on CD compared the bills sponsored and co-authored by he and Clinton.

That analysis puts him further into progressive territory than Clinton, in my opinion.

This speech should remind us that he's good and ready to take on the 'Pubs, when the primaries are over.

Kolea, you claim:

"Obama is significantly better than Clinton . . ."

but, like most Obama supporters, you don't give any specific reasons for your belief.

If you compare their actual voting records these past three years, you will see that the reverse is true: Clinton is significantly better than Obama. (See my previous two posts, above.)

jjohnjj,

I don't think the list is selective at all. If you think the Senate voted on other issues important to Progressives, name them and I'll add them to the list. (I couldn't find any which would change the candidates' scores.)

As to your claim that "Obama voted against amendment 31 to cap interest rates at 30% (perhaps he thought that was too high?)," that is false. Obama got caught trying to tell that very lie in a three-way debate with Clinton and Edwards. On repeated questioning by Edwards, Obama admitted "It didn't make sense for us to cap interest rates."

www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/debate.transcript/

On that issue, Obama not only voted anti-Progressive, he also lied about it and got caught.

"He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power... He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

Sounds like he's talking about Dubya.

"But I also know that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

Again, this is about Dubya.

Kathy Heckman: Another corporate candidate...THAT is the reason. With the eviction of Dennis Kucinich went the eviction of a people's government. What is left is bullshit as usual. PERIOD!

Cindy...

It seems that the memories of most of the posters here are very short indeed. Dennis Kucinich--the TRUE voice of Progressives--was run out on a rail by the corporate media and an asleep electorate months ago. Now, since all that's left are two Fascist-Lite Dems, the pos(t)ers are narrowing it down to the lesser of two evils. Here we go...AGAIN!

McCain VS OSAMA

Hillary VS OSAMA or

OBAMA VS OSAMA

Which is the warm and fuzzy?

I support Ralph Nader for President.

However, I think it is worthwhile to examine the Senate voting records of the big three candidates (Clinton, Obama and McCain) and to recognize that Clinton's voting record is significantly more Progressive than either Obama's or McCain's (as documented in my February 28th, 2008 3:26pm and 3:28pm posts).

One wonders why Obama's presumed anti-war position in 2002 didn't stay with him in the Senate. On Obama's terms, he voted to fund "A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics" over and over again.

It seems to me that the sudden influx of discussants on commondreams who want everyone to vote for corporatists have very little to go on.

Wouldn't a man with this view have fought to end the war when he finally got into the U.S. Senate? I must have not been paying attention or missed these valiant anti war moves. Oh, wait, there weren't any.

Obviously, Obama is an imperialist and a militarist.

He is going to lead us into greater conflict around the globe as he patrols the commons (a phrase from his ridiculous advisor, Samantha Power).

We vote for this man at our peril.

I was against this idiot war back then too. I predicted the outcome we are now facing. Huge crowds demonstrated for no war where I live and were ignored by the media. This isn't our war. Look at Bush's approval rating, about 20%. We Americans didn't do this, the ruling elite and their corporate media shoved it down our throats. Our will as citizens has been thrwarted for many years now.

I see alot of visceral hatred of Obama on the board. Some of you might try skillfull means of presenting your talking points. Thanks to those of you who have presented skillfull means. I'm taking a listen to you.

Sigh!,Lefty "purity",once again! We are so sorry that we can't make things so perfect for you enlightened ones. What we have is an imperfect fellow,Obama,who is still,light years better than an old war monger,McCain,and closer to what a lot of us prefer.

October 2002 Speech! Oh my God! We have to go back how many years to get a speech from Obama on the war. What a disgrace. Got anything more current? Now this is current:

Obama's website: "He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

In other words, if elected, troops will remain in Iraq fighting and dying for imperialism Big Business, Big Oil, Big Profits, and Big Mercenaries.

The fools need to get real, this is war and people get killed by the thousands. This is not about making history by electing the first "black" president so we can continue the killing with a different face.

Cindy Sheehan, Obama seems a ray of hope where with Clinton or McCain or Pelosi there is none. Obama is--well--just different. Oversimplified way to put it but: "give him a chance" and see what he will do.

Four (other) people who (like you) are for real, who do see hope and substance in Obama:

(1) Daniel Ellsberg: "I think Obama offers hope not only on the basis of his appearance, but because of the uncertainty of what he's saying. I do buy into his hopes. I don't know what he'll do, but maybe he'll do something right for a change."
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/02/21/952/qa_with_whistle-blower_daniel_ellsberg_in_some_ways_im_as_pessimistic_as_ive_ever_been

(2) Nader said that Obama has "substance" and "better instincts". This is important, in light of who is saying this. Nader criticizes Obama for censoring his (Obama's) better instincts. But Nader says those better instincts are there.

(3) Kucinich sent his supporters to Obama in the Iowa primary.

(4) Ted Kennedy.

In the severely distorted present american context, Obama seems about as good as it gets for a viable major party nominee. He is in the middle of a campaign (and his senate voting record also must be viewed in light of an anticipated presidential run). He has inspired tens of millions of americans, not by appealing to bigotry or dark angels, but by calling upon better angels. If he is elected, will he find solutions and lift america to a better course? I think that is a very realistic possibility, something on the order of maybe even odds. There are worse things one can imagine for America in 2008 than electing as president an insired poet with a mandate and good instincts.

If Obama were to be defeated, I for one would feel heartbroken, like weeping, wondering "what might have been", in a way that Pelosi or Hillary do not evoke.

I know he voted for funding for the occupation, and God only knows how personal this is for you, with the loss of your precious son. He didn't cause that war in the first place, and he wants to get the U.S. extricated from there, but he did not vote to cut off the money. He did not do civil disobedience like you. He did not demand impeachment. All this is true.

But I think Nader is right: Obama has better instincts, and this is not imaginary. Maybe becoming elected president, head of state of the empire, with an intent to bring about genuine change, may explain many of Obama's political choices up to now, including the ones open to criticism. I hope to God, in light of the nightmarish present circumstances of america, that Obama becomes president--just to see what can happen.

And I hope you win your race Cindy, and if you don't, taking down Pelosi is no great loss. But a foregone opportunity for an Obama presidency would seem like an overwhelming, significant loss to me. Just my heartfelt view, from one who thinks the very world of you and your heroic, genuine speaking of truth.

Bob K. February 28th, 2008 3:46 pm

Somebody actually read all your test? I skip past long posts. Get your own blog.
Barack Rocks!!! Mc Bomb sucks cluster bombs.

This guy talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

If I had any extra money out of my Social Security check, I'd bank on it that, if nominated and elected, Obama very likely will turn out to be a very effective president.

His intellect, his sensibilities, his ability to listen, particular strengths he has shown [he's obviously no push-over], the very well-organized and effective primary campaign and a very dedicated, smart and talented paid and volunteer staff, which knocked Hillary's inept, disorganized campaign into the rough quite impressively several times now, are good indications that he is the best choice.

He has an ease of self, in posture, in clarity of speech, in being fast on the uptake and responding evenly and well, even when there is reason to be angry. And then there is an appropriate edge with strength showing. In contrast, the stridency and sometimes whining tone that suggests Hillary is losing it has happened now, when I've listened, too many times. And I turned the radio off.

From his books one can see that Obama has the ability to be introspective, self-examine and grow, that he is very bright, very rational and clear about himself in terms of who he is and what he stands for, which obviously includes being flexible and broader in vision than most of the hacks in Washington. Most have no vision at all it seems.

Obama is knowledgeable about Constitutional law, which I think is very convenient right about now. I also appreciate his desire to reach across the waters to connect, to talk without pompous, my-superior-nation-is-top-dog-over-your-inferior-nation "preconditions," viz., "you lesser others" have to agree ahead of time to this nation's dictates or in other words, a one-way street for starts before anything starts and then we'll send you lower-level diplomats to feel you out first. That's what both GW and Hillary are insisting is a weakness and an indication of misguided judgment about Obama's ideas. I disagree.

This nonsense about the Monster Fidel and now Raoul or the Monster Hugo Chavez, etc., is all about major league corporate capitalism wanting control of oil in Venzuela and in Cuba's case making sure they never become prosperous or even grow sugar cane as their major crop again. It's clear GW would love to liberate them from their misery.

Dan Rather once did a documentary in Cuba about Fidel and his relationship with the people of Cuba. He kept remarking in a surprised way how wherever they went -- the cities, the fields, the towns ... that the people ran to Fidel and seemed to genuinely love him. How could that be? Surprise also ... everybody had free education as far as they wanted or could go. There was job-training, and medical care and assistance if anyone needed it. Sure Cuba got poor after years of embargo and bans on sugar-cane export which helped our southern states jack the price of sugar up high. I remember when it happened. That documentary about Fidel and his people was a revelation, but it got dropped off the network radar as fast as that, and I don't think the network bosses were pleased with Dan's work.

He was still a very good journalist then. He still is, but he just wasn't allowed to be that anymore.

I think Obama will be a breath of fresh air. His multi-racial self, his background, his over-all attractiveness and charisma ... it's there ... will do the U.S. A. proud ...

And the Presidency is a powerful office that a good leader uses for the good of the people and has a broad reach into the world, and instead of wars, just maybe there would be an emphasis on peace and civil negotiation. I kinda' think that's where this man is at.

However, and I hate to even put it on paper, if Obama is the nominee and runs for the presidency and maybe even makes it without a glitch, and he begins to transform the dark shadows over this nation into that light, that beacon that was once looked to by a good portion of the world as something wonderful, and the country begins to come back into balance, Obama's best bet may be to travel like GW ... with maximum security and a regular vetting of his security staff.

Corporate capitalisms drive to global empire engineered by the very, very powerful is a ferocious, hungry monster that is used to being able to attack in one way or another its prey, and then devour whatever is in its path or across the way that suits its fancy.

Genuine goodness and a true desire to see all people have a good life is, I think, part of Obama. It comes through in his writings. But genine goodness ... compassion, kindness, decency, fair dealings, sharing, justice, equality ... all those wonderful qualities that every Christmas and holiday in any religion are the very things that are prayed, those qualities representing high morality and a high ethical sense ... don't sit well nor are they appreciated one bit by the ferocious, hungry monster that has been doing us in right along, and a good portion of the world's poorest nations too.

Yes, I've decided to vote for you, Obama. Hope is a positive thing. Good luck. And I think it's appropriate to offer up some prayers.

Who can trust a man who was against the war that he now continually funds?

I hope Nader exposes Barack for what he is.

Forgive me father for I have sinned. I am reading Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope.I am interested that he has written a chapter on the constitution, Politics and his take on how to function in the Senate. The man has some good points that I mull over, like his admiration for Senator Robert Byrd. Some have called him an empty suit, talk about how he doesn't walk his talk. His had every bit of sh@#@t thrown at him from the Clinton campaign and deflected it. Love Nader, but of course. And certainly he should be allowed in the arena. But that is a decision that the corporate media makes not me. The way I see it the only real chance of keeping Mr. Bomb Bomb McCain out is to vote for Obama. I'm sick and tired of the Bush-Clinton=Bush dynasty. If I thought Nader-Gonzales could win I'd vote for them. Rather than tear Obama down, what I would love to see are articles on what Nader has to offer us.

This speech has sealed the fate of Barak even if he wins the nomination. Especially if he is the nominee.

cindysheehan February 28th, 2008 3:26 pm
He votes "yes" on all the billions of dollars to fund the war and
said that he is against impeaching BushCo…

Thanks Cindy for speaking the truth! Obama is an unprincipled typical Democrat backed to the hilt by the powers that be. If he represented the least threat to the establishment he would have met the same fate as all the other truth tellers. Keep up the good fight. I am with you Cindy. God bless!

Ralph's entrance into the race has had an immediate impact.

This article's timing speaks for itself.

Obama gave a nice antiwar speech back in the day, but his more recent voting record of supporting war funding in Congress is all you need to know about him as a Presidential candidate.

This speech shows is that there was no penalty for Democrats to speak out against the impending Bush war plans (Robert Byrd did it all of the time). It also shows Obama to be one to put politics ahead of principles - that is, he later supported the wars even though he knew back then that they were crimes formulated by neocons. (They still are crimes formulated by neocons.)

Obama also gets his details wrong in this speech, suggesting that Saddam Hussein sought nuclear weapons, but we all know now that such claims were based on badly forged documents.

The phrase, "I don't oppose all wars," is repeated so often in the speech that the military industrial complex will understand it's still possible to fund an Obama candidacy.

The "dumb wars" theme was also a minor theme in the last Presidential election, when John Kerry promised to manage the wars better than Bush. John Kerry's plan during the campaign was to add 20,000 or 40,000 new troops in Iraq. At the time, Kerry was campaigning to the political right of Bush. However, when Bush recently carried out his troop "surge" strategy, it was basically just stealing Kerry's war escalation idea.

I see weasel room in this speech, but it is much better than what Obama is now saying about keeping the troops in Iraq for another five years or so.

People will see what they want in the speech, but actions speak louder than words. Obama is a war supporter by votes, plain and simple. Reject these bastards, these traitors to the American people. Reject them all.

Never mind that Obama voted for the tort "reform" legislation (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) that gives the Exxons, the PG & Es, and the Enrons of the world free reign to rape the environment, rob us blind and destroy our health with little fear of consequences. To hell with the fishermen and Alaska Natives of Prince William Sound who were devastated by Exxon's oil spill. To hell with the families of Hinkley, CA who were sickened and killed by PG & E's toxic chemicals. To hell with all the victims of corporate crimes. These are "class-action abuses" Mr. Obama told the business lobbyists at their luncheon, and businesses should not be "burdened."

Never mind that Obama voted for the corporate-welfare Energy Policy Act of 2005, which gives oil companies and nuclear power companies billions of taxpayers dollars, weakens environmental regulations, and puts corporate profits before the public good. That's what the business lobbyists wanted, and that's how Barack rolls.

Never mind that Obama voted against Senate Amendment #31 to the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, which would have capped credit card interest rates at 30%. To hell with the desperately poor who are being charged 1000%/year interest by sleazy, predatory lenders. Republican doctrine says government should not interfere with business, and Barack agrees, saying capping interest rates "doesn't make sense."

Never mind that even Hillary Clinton — who is criticized from the Left for being a Republican-Lite, corporate Democrat — even she voted against the unconscionable tort "reform" bill, against the contemptible energy bill, and for the ethical and fair 30% cap on interest rates. Never mind that Barack Obama is more of a Republican than Hillary Clinton.

We don't want to know; we don't even want to think. Reading is too hard! We just want to close our eyes and hope.

Never mind that Obama gave one antiwar speech in 2002, and then repudiated it again and again by repeatedly voting to continue funding the war. Never mind that he now pledges to keep the troops and the mercenaries in Iraq, to open a new war in Pakistan which he calls the "right battlefield," and to continue and even expand the bloodshed and the horror. It's that speech he gave in 2002 that we hold on to. We close our eyes to the things he's done and said for the past five years. He voted to fund the war because he was against the war, or because he was running for President, or something like that.

You see, it really doesn't matter. Substance is not important. Policies and actions are not important. Votes on legislation are not important. The important things are image, style, presentation and platitudes. Obama is a "uniter, not a divider," like George W. Bush when he campaigned for the presidency in 2000. He's an optimist and it's "Morning in America" again, like it was when Ronald Reagan campaigned for the presidency in 1980. And if Obama doesn't win we'll just cry, because we're true believers just like all the other true believers throughout history.

Rejoice! The Trojans have gone, and they've left us this wonderful Wooden Horse! Let's roll it into the city!