He's been called an empty suit. A hack. A panderer. He's faced absurd allegations that he has no specific policy initiatives, no meaningful experience, and no fighting spirit. But of all these distortions, the one that galls me the most is the comparison of Barack Obama to a modern-day Pied Piper. You know the story- some guy in a colorful get-up comes to town and lures all the children into the river with nothing more than a catchy melody.
Sound familiar? Well, I understand how Barack Obama's popularity among young people could be misattributed to a "cult of personality" or a "messianic" campaign.
After all, he is pretty darn hip.
But as a young supporter in a sea of other young supporters, I can tell you, we don't support Obama because he reminds us of that popular guy in high school. Sure, we all loved 'The Matrix', but that doesn't mean we actually believe in "The One". And even if we did, Barack Obama can't fly or teleport through phone booths, so that pretty much takes him out of the running. We know Obama is human. We know he can't be our savior. However, we also know that his policies,
message, and world-view represent us. We've taken the time to examine his candidacy. And we're anything but blind followers. To the contrary, Barack Obama's presidential campaign is inspiring a new generation of leaders.
Look at it this way- just as my generation was growing into our political consciousness, our world fell apart. Two weeks after I started high school, I woke up to find my parents standing motionless in front of the television in our living room. Two of our buildings were burning in New York City. In that moment, I couldn't imagine that the destruction on that screen could be anything but an accident.
A few hours later, I knew better. And the grief began. I grieved for the loss of life, for the loss of innocence, and for thought that my five year-old sister would have to grow up in a time of war.
Just a year later, the build-up to the Iraq War was revving into gear. I was beside myself. Like many young people I knew, I took the time to look into the justification for the occupation, and came out against it. Many of us knew what Barack Obama knew. It was a "dumb war." A "rash war." But despite the letter writing, the protests, the organizing, I felt powerless. My generation watched the greatest foreign policy tragedy in our nation's history unfold before our eyes
while being told that we were to young too understand, too young to stop it. Five years later, Americans too young to be dying are still making the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq.
Soon after my high school graduation, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. And then the entire world knew what some Americans have been aware of their entire lives. Race matters. Class matters. Even in America, it can mean life or death. Even in America, poor people with dark skin can be labeled as refugees in their own country. Even in America, a nation can forget quickly. The outrage was universal, but on college campuses, it lingered. Students from the Gulf Coast
relocated to our universities. Campus clubs organized community service trips to help rebuild over spring break. Hurricane Katrina remained visible a little longer for us, and the outrage got under our skin.
Try to understand. The events of this new century have affected all Americans. But they have struck to the heart of my generation. When the twin towers fell, our nation came together in healing. But soon after, we rebuilt a bitter reinterpretation of those two towers in our national politics. We became a nation divided. A nation of acidic duality. A traumatized nation with a gulf of uncertainty between every human relationship. And my generation felt this scar running deeply through each of us. The first terrorist attack on American soil occurred at a time when we still viewed our country as some mix between the womb and the ultimate patriarch. Our country was home, it was infallible, it was just and true and loving. But lately we have become orphans of our own idealism. And we are looking within ourselves for a new leader.
This is the true genius in the Obama campaign. Barack Obama is inspiring our better angels, catalyzing our inner healing power. He takes the grief, the sense of powerlessness, the outrage, and inspires us to turn it into hope. We are not Obama followers. We are Obama supporters, and the distinction is important. We are coming into our own, and taking Barack Obama with us. We work to support him because he speaks to the wounds in our identities and in our nation. And he
inspires us to help him heal them.
Barack Obama's ability to inspire is not the only the only thing that attracts us. In a post-9/11 America, we need a leader who has international experience and is willing to communicate for peace, even with leaders whose policies are objectionable. Our generation is more internationally minded than any before us, thanks to the power of the
internet. And we know that behind every bad leader is a nation of citizens who would choose peace over destruction if they had the ability.
In the face of a continuing War in Iraq, we need a leader who opposed this war from the beginning. Barack Obama can take that credibility to the international community, whose support we desperately need for a conclusion to this chaos. Because my generation was powerless to stop the Iraq War, we are eager to elect a leader who had the integrity to speak wisdom to power from the very start.
And finally, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we need a leader who understands. A leader whose life story is one of dedication to that cherished American aspiration, equality. Barack Obama is this leader. He overcame obstacles of class, race, and identity to get to where he is today. He has been a community organizer in neighborhoods whose hopes were dreams deferred. He is an expert on the constitution, and knows its wisdom, its limitations, and the potential it holds for this nation. As president, he will take us farther down that winding road that leads to the realization our nation's original creed- that we are all of us created equal.
In the end, it is Obama's intelligent and heartfelt approach to change that resonates with my generation. He is the full package- charisma and content, wit and wisdom, energy and experience. This weekend I'm flying to Texas to help get out the vote. The race for Ohio and Texas is close, and I hope he wins. But if he doesn't, I'm not too worried- we'll be right there behind him with our support. Generation O is fired up, and ready to go.
Bethany Woolman grew up in Albany, California, and is now a junior at Stanford University. She is studying 'Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity.' In her free time, she paints, follows the news, and tries to find ways to travel whenever possible. She is an aspiring documentary filmmaker and a fervent supporter of Barack Obama.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
273 Comments so far
Show All.
Ms. Woolman's is one of the best essays I have yet read about Obama. Unfortunately, its aim and tone belies a naivete that can only to destruction.
Obama is, in fact, a Pied Piper leading our entire nation into another era like the Great Society of the 1960's and 1970's - which brought us the Cabrini Green housing projects in Chicago, as well as the projects in New Orleans that produced the Katrina refugees.
Well-intentioned, but naive political idealism projects upon the "disadvantaged" a cultural maturity that they are incapable of realizing in their own lives. Unfortunately, the fact is: God (and reality) helps those who help themselves. In reality, the culture of the disadvantaged dooms them to their pitiful fate.
American poverty has been sustained by a dependency cult whose totem is income redistribution. Such naive idealism produces regimes like Mr. Mugabe's in Zimbabwe and Mr. Chavez's in Venezuela. Eventually, the resources are inevitably "redistributed" out of existence.
A few years ago, there was a Tony-winning musical entitled "Urinetown," which cleverly illustrated the Malthusian demise of a culture built upon naive idealism such as that of Mr. Obama and his supporters. Mr. Obama is like Bobby Strong, the lead character who leads the people to their demise.
Read Robert Browning's 1888 poetic tome "The Pied Piper of Hamelin," substitute Republicans for the rats of the story, Democrats for the children of the story, and the present Congress for the Mayor and town council. If Obama wins, we will all find out too late that this Fairy Tale is all too true.
I truly wish we could avoid our inevitable fate - but I fear that this country is too far down the socialist road. We will eventually end up like other failed states, ourselves. Socialism has never worked in a multicultural society like ours. It only works in societies such as Scandinavia, where people share a common cultural heritage.
I wish each of Mr. Obama's supporters the best of luck as they try to achieve success in his dream society that penalizes individual achievement by confiscatory taxes - seeking in vain to change the lives of those whose cultural identity dooms them to dependency.
I can hear the Piper's music right now...
dougnwagner -- Your suspicions are funnier than your opinions, please provide more (of the former, that is, less of the later).
Keep posting D/W the more you post, the more others
see you for what you are.
I try, but Namaste is far better than I.
kem, it helps you wonder, and only confirms my suspicions that in fact you are namaste.
de nada
God, you are a hateful and pitiful person D/W. Talk about
getting a life, you have no idea of that meaning. You are
a sad case, seek help before it is too late.
Thanks again Namaste, it's beautiful.
It helps us to wonder.
this picture is spam. get a life.
ZOUNDS -- Thank you. Have a blessed day, and exuberantly connect with the life force that connects us all - we all have it abundantly within us.
Namaste
NAMASTE -
What a beautiful, wonderful thing you did, in posting that photo of the Cosmos.
Most everybody else here is also beautiful and wonderful too.
Let's admit it: Our individuated perceptual wirings cause us to argue for The Good from different angles -- sometimes with spitting passionate fury, but nearly-always with a noble Common Dream in mind and heart.
Part of me hates the disembodying-ness of fugging computers (I'd dearly prefer to know most CD posters as neighbors-down-the-street.)
But I still love the intense energy of human decency I find here.
So, take stock of yourselves, you posting, sometimes mutually-roasting passionate heads: You are the probing purpose of a potentially-higher humanity!
None of those, the one where Chris Matthews asked him how he would have voted and he replied he wasn't sure, but that he probably would have voted yes because he supported Kerry and would not have wanted to embarrass Kerry by voting no. He said the same thing to another reporter. Don't remeber which reporter it was. Candidates often say different things when running for office. I believe Bob K's post is difficult to ignore or argue with. It's recorded, it's just plain facts.
which comment was that Kem? Its hard to keep up with the Clinton shit ball machine.
(1) The First?
Barack Obama on Meet the Press July 25, 2007
MR. RUSSERT: "The nominee of your party, John Kerry, the nominee for vice president, John Edwards, all said he was an imminent threat. They voted to authorize George Bush to go to war. How could they have been so wrong and you so write as a state legislator in Illinois and they're on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees in Washington?
STATE REP. OBAMA: Well, I think they have access to information that I did not have. And what is absolutely clear is that John Kerry said, "If we go into war, let's make sure that we do it right. Let's make sure that our troops are supported. Let's make sure that we have the kind of coalition that's necessary to succeed." And the execution of what was a difficult choice to make was something that all of us have to be concerned about. And moving forward, the only way that we're going to be able to succeed is if, I think, we have an administration led by John Kerry that's going to allow us to consolidate
the relationships with our allies that bring about investment in Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you had been a senator at that time, you would have voted not to authorize President Bush to go to war?
STATE REP. OBAMA: I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5488345/
(2) The Second?
BLITZER: Had you been in the Senate when they had a vote on whether to give the president the authority to go to war, how would you have voted?
OBAMA: You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators. I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.
BLITZER: You would have voted no at the time?
OBAMA: That's correct.
BLITZER: Kerry, of course, and Edwards both voted yes.
OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call. What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004
(3)The Third?
March 22, 2007
Clinton Camp Challenges Obama on Iraq
By PATRICK HEALY
"Indeed, reporters asked Mr. Obama about the Democratic presidential ticket throughout the 2004 campaign, because Senators John Kerry and John Edwards had both voted for the Iraq war resolution. In an interview with The New York Times in July 2004, he declined to criticize Mr. Kerry or Mr. Edwards over the Iraq vote, but also said that he would not have voted as they had based on the information he had at the time.
"But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. WHAT I KNOW IS THAT FROM MY VANTAGE POINT THE CASE WAS NOT MADE"."
www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/us/politics/22obama.html
When asked how he would have voted on Prop 114 IF he were able, Obama more than just once, said he probably would have voted yes. If his moral judgment is the war was wrong, he should have continued to vote NO every itme. That's my argument. By not doing those things, he's wrong to judge others
Bob, your long list of Obama-hate nonsense only highlights your lack of depth, character, and explanation for why Hillary had no backbone to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning and still defends her vote to invade and occupy Iraq to steal their oil.
Can she read english? She voted for war. Once that vote was cast, every subsequent vote has been and will continue to be a vote to get the bus out of the ditch that 67 people or 60 people + the president can agree on.
Her vote to invade and occupy a country to steal their oil in the name of 'terrorism' that not one single Iraqi committed on 9/11 disqualifies her ipso facto.
Hillary Clinton did not vote for more inspectors. She voted for war. In fact, the resolution that she 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
"It is noteworthy, then, that Senator Clinton voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.
If Senator Clinton believes the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq because of that country's violation of Security Council resolutions, other Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other states that are in material breach of UN Security Council resolutions, such as Israel, Morocco, Turkey, Armenia, Pakistan and India . Her insistence on the right of the United States to unilaterally invade foreign countries because of alleged violations of UN Security Council resolutions seriously undermines the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and thereby opens the door to international anarchy."
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/23/7245/
"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, the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27....
Looks like this is going all the way to the Convention. What if it ended up like the 1924 Democratic Convention when after multiple rounds of nominations where nobody got enough votes to put them over the top, the Dems ended up nominating someone who wasn't even a front runner? Anyone see a possibility of Gore being drafted on the floor if the Obama/Clinton camps can't agree? Or will it be a "dream ticket" (barf!) of Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton?
BeForKids, check my March 4th, 2008 3:46am post, CANDIDATES' VOTING RECORDS COMPARED.
The only fair comparison is vote to vote. You can't fairly compare what one candidate does to what another candidate wishes for. You can't give credit for "bills authored." Hundreds of bills are authored every year strictly for public relations purposes. They go straight to committee and are never heard from again.
After seeing their voting records compared head-to-head, you may change your mind about who is the "incrementalist" and who is "corporate all the way."
Well~TOXIC~ Last weeks article titled, "General
Motors exec says, Global Warming is a total
crock of shit, had 410 comments.
You know `~Joe~ sometimes these threads get going
hot and heavy with a few bloggers arguing or debating
back and forth on an issue, sometimes there are some
humerous posts, sometimes posts are not so funny. Whatever,
all and all it seems to work pretty good. For example your
last post was off topic, but who really cares and if you
hadn't posted it, I wouldn't be posting this one.
I've learned so much more here in a year than I did in 71,
that's why we're here. Many times we learn from one another
so we should take the bad with the good and if we come across
a blog we don't like, ___ just mouse on by. That's what it's for.
When STAR OF THE SEA says "NAMASTE!!! Can you feel how touched I am??? ". Yes. Was that shooting shouting star from you ?
¿ Did you realize that you cannot feel anything that is not already part of your being ?
Perhaps my allowance and reminder of the who that you are being, will flash iridescently while sizzling into the calm waters of our collective unconsciousness - and the dreamless sleepers everywhere will grin and nod amazingly in kind.
You do deserve the highest of source vibrations - at all times - as my own resistance to same illuminates how challenged one can be to throw off that darn bushel basket, to live and bask in the eternity of each resplendent moment in total joy and peace.
I am but the flute music being played through my hollow shell of impassioned envisioning clearance for allowance of streaming unmanifest becoming.
Let's be creators of cognitive resonance that ripples awareness growing louder, while displacing dis-empowering tones, and orchestrating humanity's heart song.
Namaste
252 comments and counting...gotta be a CD record of some type!! Great job Bethany!!! I added three postings myself. But jeez there has to be a word limit of some type, more is not better, it just more. Some of these posts are like reading transcripts of a CSPAN fillibuster. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
~Starofthesea~ or is it our lovely Soiuxrose in disguise?
I appreciate that also and like you, I don't feel deserving
of any kudos, but it is nice to hear nice things from others.
Especially when they are such very special people.
And Kathy is an angel. ____ Even angels err once in awhile,
or so I've heard.
Hey, ~BoB K~ they may be on the phone banks. Getting the vote
out is critical. See at this moment, Hillary has evened it out
in Texas. She sure got blasted in Vermont. I thought that if she
was doing well in Ohio, due to the time difference, that
information would have some influence on the voters in western
Texas in her favor. She wil wn Ohio, whch is a BIG win. To me,
it looks as if Pennsylvania will now become the critical state.
As those western Texas votes come in last,
I think she will win
Texas before their caucus voting is completed. A good chance
Obama will end up with a few more more delgate votes in Texas
after thecaucus voting. Talk about a confusing voting process.
----Damn.
Here's a link for what I just said above - that if Obama were starting from scratch, he would want a single payer system like Canada's, but he doesn't believe it's workable in light of the existing system:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/21/fact_check_obama_c...
Kathy, Obama did say at one point that he wanted a single payer health plan but didn't believe it was possible at this point to scrap entirely the system we have in place now. Sorry, I don't have a link for that, but I do remember reading that. Unlike Dennis Kucinich, who is not deterred from advocating bold and sweeping changes in our system, Obama, I believe, is an incrementalist. Again, my hope is that he is simply being pragmatic and if elected, would move towards a single payer system over time, with the public's support.
Bob K, I wsas referring to your post of 12:22pm where you reported Obama's record on war votes, but not Hillary's. You might also consider their legislative history of bills authored, although most of Obama's history is as an Illinois state Senator. Still noteworthy in showing where his inclinations lie.
I personally believe he would like to see a single payer health care plan, since he entered the state Senate with that intention, and I know full well Hillary would resist that to the end. She's corporate all the way but most people are too uninformed to notice.
kathyodat
KemPatrick---I too admire your rock-solid decency. Like UNCommonDreams so amicably said, we couild use allot more of that here---emotions can run high and as for your lack of advanced degrees or whatever you feel would make you a more able participant, all I can say is, " not to worry." College taught me to be a student for life---I couldn't tell you one damn thing I actually remember from my classes. Degrees are not what makes an educated human being--it is a curious and open mind---you clearly have both. remember what Eleanor Roosevelt so wisely said, " No one can make you feel inferior without your permission." You and Be For Kids can teach all of us how gracious debate is done.
namaste----NAMASTE!!! Can you feel how touched I am??? Somehow I suspect you are quite capable of telepathic communication. I am deeply honored by your support and your glowing interpretation of my SOS. I literally do not and did not deserve it but since you have thrown me a lifeline, I will gladly grab on. Although discouragement is understandable for any today, to tarry too long feels self indulgent and so we keep on keepin on, no?
Blesings to all who post here and I do mean ALL of you. We really are expressions of the ONE and in our own way, are trying to make a contribution to moving the critical mass forward.
And namaste----your last posting---I am in awe. I wish I had the expertise to make such lovely offerings. I send you a mental quilt of my making. Would really like to have another means for communication other than here, although at least looking for posts like yours keep me returning, and that isn't a bad thing.
BeForKids,
You've got to be kidding. I listed the big, important votes taken in the Senate these past three years, and you call it an "anti Obama list?" How is it anti-Obama? What is "Hillary's list?" Do you know of any important votes in the Senate that I left out? Are there votes where Obama voted the right way, and Clinton the wrong way? Please let me know and I'll update my list. I don't know of any.
It's not my fault that Clinton voted the right way 8 of 12 times, and Obama only 4 of 12 times.
Your comment that Hillary "has always talked a great line, but . . . has never followed through with action" flies in the face of the reality of the votes she has cast. I researched the votes precisely because I wanted to cut through the candidates' rhetoric ("talk") and learn how they voted ("action"). Votes ARE action. Clinton's actions match her talk far better than Obama's actions match his talk.
re: Bob K's post above, there was no debate, just an anti Obama list. Throw in the lobbyist and corporate bundlings and Hillary's list doesn't look any better. Take your pick. At least Obama draws the line at voting to blow up bomblets in children's faces. Hillary has no such scruples, for all her talk about being there for children. And speaking of histories, she has always talked a great line, as has Bill, but like him, has never followed through with action. So many people are going with Obama because they know what they will get with Hillary. No thanks.
kathyodat
Hi KEM,
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Question: have you noticed a shortage of Hillary Haters and Obamaholics posting on CommonDreams today? Do you think that might be because they are all busy working the phones in Ohio and Texas for the Obama campaign?
The person who just attempted to SPAM my computer was
blocked. But I've got your E-mail address.
~BOB K~ ___Anyone who is not suffering from a
reading disability and or, is not being obtuse,
and is honest, would know with absolute certanty,
that you have won this debate.
Thank you for all of that documented information.
For those who believe that Obama is antiwar --
See #12 from my CANDIDATES' VOTING RECORDS COMPARED, above. Clinton voted for the Feingold-Reid which REQUIRED the President to have all combat troops out of Iraq by June 30, 2008. Obama did not cast a vote. He was one of just four Senators who didn't vote on that amendment. When Obama had a chance to vote to end the Iraq War, he chose not to vote. How is that antiwar? Answer: it's not.
But, that's just one vote. How about his overall record? I'm happy to re-post the very informative and well researched posts of two others here on CommonDreams.
Regarding Obama's 2002 speech at an antiwar rally (the sole basis for his antiwar image), a 2007 book now reveals that Obama reluctantly gave that speech in order to seek campaign contributions and political influence from wealthy antiwar Democrats in Chicago.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343/
posted by, mdswatch March 1st, 2008 2:51 pm
"OBAMA: From Promise to Power", by former Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell:
"The lead organizer of the downtown Chicago anti-war rally [in 2002] was Bettylu Saltzman…Saltzman, a petite woman in her early seventies at this time, was the daughter of a late Chicago-area builder, Philip Klutznick, who left a fortune to Saltzman and her five brothers. Klutznick had held top posts in the administration of…John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter…For four years, she [Saltzman] ran the Chicago-based office of Senator Paul Simon. While working for Simon, Saltzman formed a close bond with one of Simon's chief political minds–[David] Axelrod, who had co-managed Simon's first Senate campaign [against a U.S. Senate critic of the Israeli government's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Charles Percy]. The two would talk on the phone almost daily…By 2002, Saltzman was a major Chicago fund-raiser who could not only tap into her own wealth but had big-money connections that could help raise substantial cash for any political candidate…
"Saltzman first met Obama in 1992…Saltzman and Obama formed a lasting political friendship and she was helpful to Obama when he ran for the Illinois senate…
"So when Saltzman was assembling speakers for the anti-war rally in late October 2002, Obama came to her mind…She called him and asked him to participate in the rally…Obama…did not immediately agree, but he told Saltzman that he would think it over…
"He consulted with Shoman, still his main political adviser at the time, and Shomon told him…if Saltzman was urging him to speak, he could not refuse. Moreover, Obama was trying to draw Axelrod onto his Senate campaign team. It would not be wise to disappoint Saltzman if he wanted her to continue lobbying Axelrod on his behalf. So Obama agreed to speak…Obama made the decision to protest the impending war in part as a political calculation that he hoped would benefit him among Democrats…
"…Obama opened by announcing that he was `someone who is not opposed to war in all
circumstances.'…Throughout the speech, Obama inserted the refrain `I don't oppose all wars'…
"…Bettylu Saltzman was working hard. She was pulling together fund-raisers…"
_________________________
Furthermore, regarding Obama's voting record in the U.S. Senate, it's all prowar:
OBAMA: A PRO-WAR RECORD
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/03/7443/
posted by, chlamor March 4th, 2008 10:38 am
Highlights from a summary of Obama's U.S. Senate voting record:
"1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars…Roll call 2"
"2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General)."
"2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture…[and a] man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10."
"4/21/05: Obama voted to make John 'Death Squad' Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107"
"4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 [W FOR PRO-WAR VOTE]"
"7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed 'The Nuclear Bill' by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 [W]."
"9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees."
"10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 [W]."
"11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S 1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. [W]."
"12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. [W]"
"5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 [W]."
"5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 [W]."
"6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 [W]."
"6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 [W]."
"6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 [W]"
"6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 [W]"
"6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183[W]."
"6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 [W].
9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 [W]"
"9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 [W]."
"11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 [W]."
"12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 [W]"
"Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 [W]…Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes…"
Umlaut, what a wise and thoughtful post.
Unfortunately the Hillary supporters seem to be able to forgive anything she does, brushing it off "politics as usual", or the favorite, "everyone does it". Well, no they don't. Obama has run a far more ethical campaign, and even when forced to be negative in defense, has stayed away from smears.
It would be nice to see a campaign where when "outside" interest groups tried a smear, and their candidate denounced and repudiated it.
We're coming into hard times. and it is important to direct all this energy into cleaning both houses of Congress. They are filthy with corruption and corporate money. It would be good if people stopped giving a penny to the parties and just funded the candidates of their choice. Starving the parties sounds very attractive to me. I can see it will take time and be a huge fight to turn this around. Right now we have a Congress that won't even consider voting against corporate interests.
cripes, you missed an important exception to the idea that someone running centrist for president would turn around and be progressive. FDR. The big one. I don't think it's so far fetched. My problem with Hillary is that it wouldn't be her. After 8 years of Bill, with her collusion, I can see where she would be headed. She's doing the same thing he did; talk left and lean right.
kathyodat
kathyodat
tetti_tatti
"they can stop the war and impeach Bush TOMORROW if they were really serious"
Can you tell us how many votes in the Senate it takes to impeach?
Apparently not.
You could add your solution to this country's woes as apposed to just saying what most of us know are wrong with the inevitable, somewhat regrettable, yet far more hopeful than the last 7 years, election choices.
On the other hand, some negative criticism is overstated, yet valid. We really need to get away from voting based on charisma and get out of this euphoric rose colored Hollywood glistening veneer mentality. I'm afraid it's too late for this election.
We should take a lesson from the Christian right and general right for that matter, who have diligently worked for 30 years to create so much sympathy for their twisted mindset. We need the idealism of the naysayers, but we need to arrive at what they seek. We need to set goals for getting out of this corporatacracy. Street performances, picketing, sit ins, and the like have been going on for a better half of a century and have done little to enlighten this country has a whole. It's been more of an alternative hangout and place to meet your vegan SO. Not that those are bad things, but they don't raise the collective mindset of the country.
The common person is being duped and needs to know what is going on. They need to know what is and what is not being voted on and by whom every day. This could easily be done by an unbiased fact sheet published bimonthly or so, with volunteers delivering it door to door. Just one small example thrown out into the ether.
Peel off the veneer and show these people for who they really are.
In the meantime we're stuck with the choice of 3 for the next 4 years unless you naysayers got something up your sleeve to rally about 80 million people to choose none of the above and some positive alternative.
I personally will vote for an outcome that will cause the least amount of deaths and the most amount of betterment for lives around the world.
If Obama's election will cause 100 more lives to be spared and 100 more meals to be eaten than McCain, then that's what I'll vote for tomorrow, and work to doing a hell of a lot better in the future.
Anyone that thinks that they can successfully get a third party into the white house in 09 starting now, good luck, but I find you have a weak grasp on reality. Anyone who thinks that the same amount of death and suffering and power to corporations will come from Obama or McCain than I think you're not just off your meds, but out of your institution.
The young are, have been and always will be starry-eyed and although it's not realistic, their energy balances out our realism. In the community centered past of mankind, these 2 were forced more into sharing the same space. We would do well to welcome their energy and optimism, and they would do well to hear our wisdom, and both would do well at taking the negative aspects of the other in context. The human mind doesn't fully develop until the mid-30s. We should all remember what we were like at their age.
As always, anyone with a reasonable plan to get someone other than the 3 we're stuck with into the oval office in 09 please post it. If not, respect those who are trying to make things at least somewhat better, and vote for someone who is boasting publicly against the occupation of Iraq, for when the tide of power turns, you may see that come into play, the opposition has 0% chance of that according to the "100 years" statement. Obama may not either it's true, but why don't you vote as if your spouse or child was there, or you were there. What would you choose to save that life.
In regards to Hilary over Obama, with the distortions she's made over Obama's statements, and her recent fear mongering campaign aid, if that doesn't raise the "conman" flag, and business as usual theory, I don't know what will for some of you.
Of course the two issues that should matter the most to Progressives are not on your shabby list: the Iraq War vote which Obama opposed and the Ethics Reform bill Obama worked on in 2007.
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
YEAs —77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)
NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)
or
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00001:
"The Republicans who controlled the Senate last year refused to let it come up. And on Jan. 12, before the details of the proposal had been disclosed, Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat in charge of his party's fund-raising as head of the senatorial campaign committee, used a run-in on the Senate floor to deliver an angry rebuke to the disclosure idea's lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, several people present or briefed on the confrontation said.
In a subsequent conversation, Mr. Schumer said he worried that the proposal could cramp fund-raising by placing an undue burden on potential bundlers, said aides who were briefed and a lawmaker familiar with their talk, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the nature of the talks.
"Senator Obama has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks," said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html
"Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who was tapped by leaders to oversee ethics overhaul, said the legislation would "ensure that committees aren't slipping in earmarks in the dead of night."
After overcoming resistance inside his own party, Mr. Obama pushed for a provision requiring, for the first time, disclosure by lobbyists who bundle political contributions of more than $15,000 in six months.
"My argument was that it was worth it for us to try to be aggressive on this front, particularly since we were just coming into power," Mr. Obama said, adding that he wished the rules could be enforced by an outside group. "I do think that the public would have more confidence in the process if we had an independent enforcement mechanism."
The legislation is designed to limit the social interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers, making it more difficult for them to get together at sporting events, parties at national political conventions and other social activities.
The bill also deprives former members of Congress who now work as lobbyists of some of the privileges that critics say give them an advantage in pushing legislation. The measure revokes floor privileges to former lawmakers who are lobbying, and denies them access to the House and Senate gyms, other exercise facilities and members-only parking."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/washington/03lobby.html
BTW: Obama opposed the Dayton Amendment because he thinks 30% interest rates are too high, he voted for the 2005 energy bill because he supports ethanol as an alternative source of energy (no one has proven carbon emissions can't be captured on-site) and source of new investment in Midwestern Farmers, and as for the Dorgan amendment, while I agree his vote was wrong, he still is not the woman who sat on the Board of Wal-Mart and in the Whitehouse while NAFTA and MFN Status for China were passed.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/28/fact_check_on_inac...
"Wal-Mart's First Lady"
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0021,harkavy,15052,5.html
"Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions"
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1
~DOUGWAGNER~ I came back, not to argue with you, or insult you
or to continue any petty fight. I came to apologize, for I believe you
are sick and what you write is not your fault. You see Dougie, you display
the symptoms of a medical malady, named the "Semmelweis Reflex". It
is not uncommon, or rare for one to have that mental problem, but it
is often not correctly diagnosed. Most people just call it sophistism.
I would suggest and urge you, in a friendy and sincere manner, that you
see a specialist and have a conference. I am certain, a qualified doctor
could easily confirm my opinion, after visiting with you for less than
an hour. I am not certain there is a cure, or any medications. But once
you have been properly diagnosed, you will perhaps realize that you are
a damn fool and aren't always right and attempt to cure yourself. I'll
leave it up to you of course and hope for the best for your future.
P/S, If you think BTW, that I would give you, or anyone else my military
history and which units I flew with, or served with, on this CD site, your
nuts. But if YOU post your telephone number and address, I will call you to
confirm it is indeed you and then will happily deliver such records to you
personally. I understand you are in Florida and we can meet and have a
little chit-chat get together some day at MY convenience.
Now I'll say gaa-bye. __ Oops, be sure to read Bob K's post there.
Excellent post ~Bob K.~ very interesting and most informative. Thank you.
Thanks Namaste. We are really pretty small in the spectre aren't we?
CANDIDATES' VOTING RECORDS COMPARED (updated March 4, 2008)
What is more important, image or substance? Rhetoric or record?
Candidates' campaign speeches change from week to week. They pander to one group, then they pander to the next group. So, how do we know what they really stand for? Check their voting records!
Right now, Clinton and Obama are promising to fix NAFTA and other trade deals. But, how did they vote on that issue when they had the chance? They are promising to end the war in Iraq. How did they vote on that issue when they had the chance? Corporate welfare, environmental protection, social justice, public health, consumer protection — they've voted on all these important Progressive issues, and more!
Clinton, Obama and McCain have all been U.S. Senators for the past three years. Here's how they voted:
(1) Confirmation of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State (vote taken 1/26/2005)
Analysis: Neo-con, war criminal
Clinton: Yes Obama: Yes McCain: Yes
(2) Tort "reform" (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) (vote taken 2/10/2005)
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: No Obama: Yes McCain: Yes
(3) Dayton Amendment (S.Amdt. 31) to the 2005 Bankruptcy Act (vote taken 3/3/2005)
Analysis: Would cap credit card interest rates at 30%. Senator Dayton provided examples of predatory lenders charging vulnerable people more than 1000%/year interest. Republicans argued that "free-markets" should set interest rates, and government should not interfere.
Clinton: Yes Obama: No McCain: No
(4) Energy Policy Act of 2005 (vote taken 7/29/2005)
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," rollbacks environmental regulations 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: No Obama: Yes McCain: No
(5) Dorgan Amendment (S.Amdt. 1665) to the 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill (vote taken 9/15/2005)
Analysis: Would prevent future trade deals that allow "dumping" of products into the U.S. at prices below their cost of acquisition (harming U.S. farmers, ranchers, businesses and workers), by prohibiting the Commerce Department from weakening current countervailing duties and antidumping laws.
Clinton: Yes Obama: No McCain: No
(6) Confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court (vote taken 9/29/2005)
Analysis: Hard right-winger
Clinton: No Obama: No McCain: Yes
(7) Confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court (vote taken 1/31/2006)
Analysis: Hard right-winger
Clinton: No Obama: No McCain: Yes
(8) USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization (vote taken 3/1/2006)
Analysis: Allows the government to spy on citizens in "fishing expeditions" without probable cause or a court order, including listening to telephone calls, intercepting emails, accessing private medical records, library records and bank records, and searching homes and businesses without permission or knowledge.
Clinton: Yes Obama: Yes McCain: Yes
(9) Feinstein Amendment (S.Amdt. 4882) to the 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (vote taken 9/06/2006)
Analysis: Outlaws use of cluster bombs in most cases, in order to protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.
Clinton: No Obama: Yes McCain: No
(10) Iraq withdrawal timeline goal (2007 Supplemental Appropriations Act) (vote taken 3/29/2007)
Analysis: Provides that, "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: Yes Obama: Yes McCain: No
(11) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran (vote taken 9/26/2007)
Analysis: Tantamount to a declaration of war (Sen. James Webb, former Secretary of the Navy).
Clinton: Yes Obama: NV McCain: NV
(12) Feingold-Reid Amendment (S.Amdt. 3164) to the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (vote taken 10/3/2007)
Analysis: Requires the President to safely redeploy all U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008, except for those needed for al Qaeda operations, security and training.
Clinton: Yes Obama: NV McCain: No
A good Progressive would have voted as follows:
(1) Condoleeza Rice: NO
(2) Tort "reform": NO
(3) Cap credit card interest rates at 30%: YES
(4) Energy bill: NO
(5) Prevent unfair trade deals: YES
(6) John Roberts: NO
(7) Samuel Alito: NO
(8) USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization: NO
(9) Outlaw cluster bombs: YES
(10) Iraq withdrawal timeline goal: YES
(11) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran: NO
(12) Iraq withdrawal timeline requirement: YES
Here are the candidates' Progressive vote totals:
Clinton score: 8 of 12
Obama score: 4 of 12
McCain score: 1 of 12
name, rank, unit you phony. And I find it highly hypocritical that an Edwards supporter like you would say that Obama was 'unprincipled' on the Iraq war. Be sure to thank John Edwards for voting for HR 114 Kem. As Obama said, "once you drive the bus into the ditch, there are only so many ways out." John Edwards, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton drove the bus into the ditch. Voting to fund body armor for our troops marooned halfway around the world because of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and voting to invade and occupy Iraq to steal their oil are two different votes. Barack Obama has opposed the Iraq War since 2002 and half-ass hypocrites like yourself need to take a long hard look in the mirror because you're deadweight on our society.
Just how do I prove to anyone, I served TWO South East Asia tours, beginning first in 1959, and several 55 and 89 day tours there, includng a full year in Vietnam by blogging here? You say, or strongly imply Dougwagner, that I'm a liar. ___ Not surprising.
You can call me a liar and think what you like DOUGWAGNER.
YOu wrote: ___"Obama's principled opposition." ___ If Obama truly had "principles" he would have voted NO on every vote to maintain funding of the war and occupation. As I suggested previously , others here have given better documentation of Obama's votes on that issue than I. Would you reply to them? ___ No, of course not, you would look foolish attempting to. So stick with Kem D/W, knock yourself out.
Those are the type of comments you just posted, Dougwagner, that very well prove you are a soplist. In addition, you are the type who the Karl Rove types would love to have working in their offices. __ Despicable scum.___ You are intelligent, you write well and know how to distort and argue nonsense, combined with facts, and make it sound pretty good. Rave on Dougwagner. I am finished, I'll end this one. Have another hit of whatever it is you are on and rave on sonny boy. __ My speling okay for yu that time?
Quit rewriting history Kem.
Hillary damn well knew she was voting for war and I find it insulting that you impugn the integrity of Barack Obama's principled opposition to this bullshit invasion that has cost us now 4,000 lives. Barack Obama has opposed this war since 2002 and you are full of it to suggest otherwise. And you have never proven that you ever served in Vietnam and from your posts on this site I seriously doubt that. If you can't argue the merits of your position don't fall back on a crutch you made up for yourself. You've posted links to my bio on Barack Obama, and I've posted links to my progressive work at Ohio State. You are nothing but a serial distorter and I am glad the Obama Generation is wiping people like you off America in this election.
BTW kathy, I have seen Kem start fights and spread bullshit. I have never seen him end any.
Wow! That is really nice Namaste. I had no idea that any here such as yourself and Zounds, thought THAT well of me. Due to my lack of formal education, I at times have thoughts of, __ am I even quaified to blog here with so many of you exceptional people. I will attempt to live up to your opinion of me, you have given me another hill to climb, ___ a good hill.
Thank you so very much.
KEM -- You are a foundation that we all can build upon with our ideas and visions starward flung, with our deep knowing of how your roots into this Earth and Humanity provide a connection and touch point accessible for everyone.
The Rock of Gibraltar, comes to mind - but not quite, as it's way too quiet.
with Blessings, Namaste and a mudra too
I've noticed commenters here obsverving there is no instance of a president running an establishment camapiagn and then turning around and implementing "progressive" policies after they obtained "power' by gaining the office.
Well generally, that's true, but there are exceptions. I suppose Johnson signed the civil rights act and Lincoln the emacipation act, but consider the social movements surrounding them at the time pushing them in directions they hadn't intended. There's also Kennedy, but we know what happened there. Oh yeah, Lincoln
In any case, all this simply reinforces the idea that people must act to move their president towards sane policies, even if the dolts eventually take credit for it in the history books.
Gandhi once said, "I must follow the people, for I am their leader."
So the real question is whether the people are up to the task of governance, not the empty-vessel politicians that pretend to lead.
Recent history isn't encouraging.
Dougwagner, I've never seen Kem start a fight, but he does fight back. It would help the discourse on this thread if you kept the dialogue civil. Insulting name calling discredits your viewpoints for other readers and makes people disinclined to read what you have to say, regardless of it's validity.
starofthesea, I really like what you posted above. In spite of Obama's statements as a candidate and his US Senate voting record, I believe as president, he would respond to public pressure. He encourages that pressure.
kathyodat
Hi ~Zounds~ I really do appreciate those very kind remarks. Thank you.
.
BTW, that comment D/W just posted, where I offered to let him kiss my ass, was in reply to his FIRST comment, telling me I had my head up my ass, as he has said to several other bloggers here on occasion, very decent bloggers, whom deserve respect. D/W has said several times that I insult him, but he does not insult me and then he calls me a liar. He refuses to acknowledge how Obama has voted, and what Obama has said concerning how he probably would have voted on Prop 114 if he could have voted.
,
,
,
Yeah ~Dougwagner~, the entire NIE report was not altered to my knowledge. Only three important items we are now aware of concerning Iraq and Saddam. The WMDs, the uranium from Africa and Saddam's ties to Osama bin Laden. If you are aware of other alterations, I am not.
Kem,
you say "The entire report was not altered, just the important items concerning Iraq."
False.
Quit rewriting history Kem.
Excerpt 1
"It is noteworthy, then, that Senator Clinton voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.
If Senator Clinton believes the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq because of that country's violation of Security Council resolutions, other Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other states that are in material breach of UN Security Council resolutions, such as Israel, Morocco, Turkey, Armenia, Pakistan and India . Her insistence on the right of the United States to unilaterally invade foreign countries because of alleged violations of UN Security Council resolutions seriously undermines the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and thereby opens the door to international anarchy."
Excerpt 2
Although top strategic analysts also correctly informed her that there were no apparent links between Saddam Hussein's secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton insisted that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members." This came despite a subsequent definitive report by the Department of Defense which noted that not only did no such link exist, but that no such link could have even been reasonably suggested based upon the evidence available at that time.
Clinton's supporters have defended her false pre-invasion allegations by citing the public summary of the 2002 NIE which appeared to confirm some of the Bush administration's claims. However, there were a number of reasons to have been skeptical of this summary: this NIE was compiled in a much shorter time frame than is normally provided for such documents and the report expressed far more certainty regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities than all the reports from the previous five years, despite the lack of additional data to justify such a shift. When the report was released, there was much stronger dissent within the intelligence community than about any other NIE in history and the longer classified version, which was available to every member of Congress, included these dissenting voices from within the intelligence community. It was also well-known through media reports at that time that the administration was applying enormous pressure on the intelligence agencies to put together a report emphasizing the alleged Iraqi threat.
Despite this, the NIE also challenged the notion of any operational ties between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaeda and questioned some of the more categorical claims by President Bush about Iraq's WMDs. However, Senator Clinton didn't even bother to read it. She now claims that it wasn't necessary for her to have actually looked at the 92-page document herself because she was briefed on the contents of the report. However, since no one on her staff was authorized to read it, it's unclear who could have actually briefed her.
Whether Senator Clinton lied in order to frighten the American people into accepting a costly U.S. takeover of that oil-rich country or whether she was simply naïve and ignorant, her false statements regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities - given that this was her central argument in justifying the invasion - raises serious questions regarding her fitness to become president of the United States. There is little reason to doubt, therefore, that she would again be willing to either lie or to blindly accept transparently inaccurate and alarmist intelligence data in order to lead America into another tragic war.
Indeed, Senator Clinton later admitted that she supported the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq regardless of the fact that Iraq did not really threaten U.S. national security. Many months after the U.S. invasion and the formal acknowledgement that Iraq neither had any WMDs or WMD programs nor any ties to Al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton declared, "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote" and was one that "I stand by."
Stephen Zunes
Why Hillary Clinton's Iraq Vote Does Matter
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/23/7245/
KEM - You have a fine head and spirit and many of us count on your unrehearsed, cooly-enlightened humanity to hold itself against ad hominem attacks occasionally directed your [and by implication, Our] way.
Hang in there, collectedly. I wouldn't presume to tell you to never blow-off at somebody --because sometimes that's just what's needed.
Just be aware that you've proven yourself as a deeply good man here for a long while and have a lot of respect and support. Unless you happen to go bonkers at some future point, you'll never need to prove anything to those who respect you. We know who your are, and we love the inspired and keen decency in your being.
Wow, the posting's here on CD have taken a turn lately, lots of newcomers or just new posters. Fever's running high, but talking. Typos are just that, yeah I could draft in word, check cut and past, but the msg is clear.
Typo: I'm in the process of learning Spanish and making a serious effor check out the good things in Venezuela first hand. Obama talking to all leaders, with an open mind, not a clenched fist. That's a start and the world will take note.
~~DOUGWAGNER~~~ , I have never said the 77 senators voted correctly on Prop 114. Obviously they erred. I have said why they voted yes, as it is the reasons THEY gave and I understnd how they were mis-lead. Your last most insulting post, is exactly how you began with me months ago, because you disagreed with one of my posts and my personal opinions. I do hope that someday we can meet personally and have a discussion face to face. ____ I really do mean that.
What I wrote here on this thread is essentially what I have always written on the issue. I didn't go into full detail this time, the other good bloggers here don't need this insane, disruptive argument, you have once again initiated ____ ~BYE~.
Bethany don't let these cynical armchair ultra left burnouts get you down. It's a process, not perfect, but still a process that results in the current crop of candidates. We go with what we think is best, some have plusses and minuses, add them up and vote. I'm a staunch Dennis K dude, but I'm in California, and he's in Ohio, oh well. So I go with what's left, and it's Obama for me and I was making cell bank calls Sunday evening, everyone one of us different from the next but all together for Obama. IT's the real thing, I've left my house and actually met and talked to people outside of this cyber rhetoric website. Bottom line, vote how you want, and let Pelosi, Reid and blue dogs know they are a major disappointment. Donna Edwards yes, Al Wynn, good bye. Other enabling Dems take note. I'm in the process of learning Spanish and makign a serious to check out the good things in Venezuela, Obama talking to all leaders, with an open mind, not a clenched fist.
You say you have never insulted me ~DOUGWAGNER~ ?? You started out with your first post here, by telling everyone here, that I'm a psycopath. And then you mock my eyesight and make fun of my spelling errors. We've discussed my poor spelling and my piss poor eyesight previously. You have done that type of attacking against me for weeks now. You started this sensless, petty, childish and very disruptive feud, __ not I.
So don't come here Dougwagner, mealy mouthing that you are the poor picked on victem, you must be crazy to write that bull-shit, when your prior post here at (4:45 pm) is self evident.
We don't agree about several things, I don't agree with some of my friends here or my mate, but I don't START fights with them and insult them. I am not the only one here who fears that Obama is not what he protrays himself to be. Argue with those who have offered far better arguments about Obama than I have and have offered excellent backup evidence to support their opinions.
If you wish to argue with insults and venom, PLEASE insult their character and intelligence __ sonny.
Sorry, we ALL had full access to the NIE report, the same day the 'altered' report was read to congress on national TV stations. The entire report was not altered, just the important items concerning Iraq. We could then get the full NIE report on the internet.
Again, it was not just the NIE report, it was Bush's continual assurances, he WOULD most certainly allow the UN inspectors to continue ___ and he lied. I never dreampt Bush would order the inspectors out of Iraq, and am sure the Senate didn't either. I have NEVER said the Senate didn't err, ___ they did. I have said, Obama stated more than once, that had he been a U.S. Senator, he probably would have voted yes also. HYPOCRITE. He should not use that issue as a campaign attack against anyone, it's nothng but HYPOCRITICAL.
He has consistantly voted TO FUND the war since he has been able to vote YES or NO. That is very important to me personally and is an obvious flaw of true character. Not that he has voted YES every sinlge time, but that he says he has ALWAYS been against the war and occupation. It is a damn lie, and this is only one good example of that hyprocracy. Any who refuse to acknowlege those factual and important things, are being obtuse.
I do not say Hillary is better in many respects. I am sayng Obama is not what he is presenting himself to be. If he's the Demo nominee, I will vote for him and HOPE, he's at least half as good as he protrays himself to be.
1. NIE Facts
"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
2. "thats well documented facts fact and that's about all I've ever said about it"- Kem now
:) If that were only true. You are a serial distorter of the truth Kem. And I'm sick of hearing your bullshit.
Evidence of your shitty JUDGMENT
"I don't believe many thought at that time, that Bush would actually go to war, until after Hans Bliss had finished his inspections and had possibly declared that Saddam was hiding WMDs.
So the Senate may have also voted with that assumption, add then the falseified NIE report and the vow from Bush, that he would not go to war unless there was no other option. Remember too, Bush had not proven to be a total nutcase at that time either. He had a fair degree of creibility with the majority of the American public and the Senate, which was mostly Republican then."- Kem Patrick defending Hillary Clinton's vote for HR 114
Evidence of your psychosis
"DOUGWAGNER, ths is the second time injust this week you have sort of insulted me; __ how come, Have I ever offended you? If I have I apologize, I'ms orry. If I haven't then please tell me what it is that you feel it necessary to post that I'm so full of it?
I often am, but I didn't know you were that familiar with my ass. Of course with that code name, you may be someone I know who has kissed it, if not, __ your very welcome. I'll even rent the community hall and have some kegs of suds and invite the whole town to come see it. ___ Hope you are as cute as you write."- Kem Patrick
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/27/6016/
Get a life. Quit spamming the boards with your bullshit.
Bush attacked Iraq virtually his first month in office Kem.
"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
UNCommon Dreams and BeForKids----thanks for the kind words again!!!! After taking abit of a swipe or two on a different thread, I was beginning to think that I had worn out my welcome on this site.
These are hard times to be a soul having a human experience on mother Gaia, but I do believe we all agreed to be here to try to move humanity's collective consciousness forward.
I apologize that I do not recall who it was who said on this thread that they were not excited about Obama per se, but rather that his candidacy was helping us remember that we are the ones who bring change ( or not). We don't need a savior and I do not believe that is what young people are resonating with. I think they are waking up to their own power and its right use. They are not babes on the woods as lost my tribe has so eloquently and clearly stated.
What we all need at this time is a reason to roll up our sleeves and get to work to start taking back our own power. Leadership matters to the degree that it can inspire, but Obama has made it clear that he cannot and will not do this himself. He needs all of those who support him to be the propelling force for change. If he ultimately regrets unleashing this sleeping giant, too bad----that was his message and he'll have to live with the consequences.
If we want to give Bethany and others like her wise counsel, let's tell her, electing Obama is just a first step---before the real work begins. I do believe this young