When I heard it the first time, I was stunned. But now it helps explain the Barack Obama phenomenon.
"The American era is over," said someone last year in Doha, the capital of pro-American Qatar.
"How so?" I argued. "The U.S. is still the only superpower."
"A military power and a great killing machine, yes, but not much else," he said. "We maintain our relations with the U.S. but our thinking is now post-American."
I have heard variations of the theme across the Persian Gulf, the Indian subcontinent and the Far East. This partially explains their eastward tilt: mega-investments in local and regional stock markets, corporations, infrastructure and in educational, cultural and strategic institutions, Dubai to Jakarta.
Their outlook is, of course, coloured by Iraq and Afghanistan. But it is not all ideological. They wonder why the U.S., despite spending $700 billion in those two countries, has been incapable of providing clean water, electricity, security and essentials of life. Why it couldn't do so even for its own citizens post-Katrina. Why its soldiers and army of private contractors are so incompetent.
Many Americans sense this, too, their unease further burdened by mounting domestic woes:
* A huge deficit ($260 billion last year), record debt ($9.3 trillion, with China holding a tenth of the denominated assets), a weak dollar, a housing crisis, a credit crunch, soaring fuel/food costs, massive manufacturing job losses and a bleak future for the young.
* Clogged jails (2.3 million prisoners, surpassing China's 1.6 million); busy death chambers (the only debate in the 36 states with capital punishment being whether to use lethal injection or the electric chair).
* 45 million Americans with no health insurance and another 158 million with too little coverage or too high a deductible.
* The common good lost to vicious partisanship, cultural warfare or undue indebtedness to moneyed interests; a justice department that subverts justice; and an administration that operates above the law, domestic and international. ("It's a no-brainer for me," said Dick Cheney of water boarding, a torture technique that only the Gestapo, the Khmer Rouge and the North Koreans used to approve of.)
Not all American voters are experts on all those issues but, cumulatively, they know that something is fundamentally askew (81 per cent say, "the country is headed in the wrong direction").
So when Obama talks about wholesale change and a new beginning, he stirs their souls.
That he is a black man comfortable in his own skin is an added bonus. He offers a break with a racist past and a disastrous present. When he says on the night of his Iowa win, "they said, this day would never come," his audience - white and black, in front of him or their TVs - is moved to tears. That he is young, handsome and intelligent, speaks eloquently in a soothing baritone and exudes a "presidential" presence only make him that much more irresistible.
Hillary Clinton, as hard-working, astute and well-briefed as she is, comes across as a pedantic product of the very system that needs fixing. She has managed to stay in the race thus far by demagoguery and pandering: The 3 a.m. red phone ad; the ad invoking the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, 9/11 and Osama bin Laden; the assertions that only she and John McCain are fit to be commander-in-chief, that Obama is not a Muslim "as far as I know," that Al Qaeda would bomb America to test Obama; and the striking of phony poses as a gun-loving hunter, a working mom or a champion of "hard-working white Americans."
And Bill Clinton, "America's first black president," has acted as her attack dog against Obama.
The Clintons' desperate efforts should come to an end Tuesday when Oregon votes for Obama. If not then, shortly thereafter.
And the greatest presidential race in modern history can begin, with the potential to change America.
--Haroon Siddiqui
© Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2008
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
76 Comments so far
Show AllSorry, Tailcap, but keeping troops in to protect an embassy does not mean 'thousands and thousands' of troops, and he has committed to no permanent bases -- period.
As to Al Qaeda: First of all, Al Qaeda is not welcome by the Iraqis, Sunni or Shia, and the organization, according to the Pentagon, makes up less than 5 percent of the insurgency. Secondly, the only reason Al Qaeda is there is because we're there. If we withdraw most of our troops, they'll leave as well. Third, if it so happened that Al Qaeda actually attempted to build a base within Iraq from which to conduct terrorist attacks on innocent civilians, what should President Obama do -- sit back and twiddle his thumbs?
As you quoted from his site: "He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." Just as I said.
RSJ, Thanks for your detailed response.
But here it is, straight out of the horse's mouth. From Obama's website:
"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. 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."
I think this means many, many thousands of troops will remain stranded in Iraq, fighting and dying for Big Oil, Big Profits, Haliburton, Blackwater and KBR. Al Qaeda isn't quiting Iraq just because Obama becomes president and the troops stay.
RSJ, sorry buddy, you failed my dare.
atheist [May 22nd, 2008 7:28 pm] I hope they remove the shackles soon so that you are not forced to read or post at CD. A broad-minded person such as yourself has no use for a site that features articles praising Obama and pieces by Ralph Nader, Cindy Sheehan and other Obama critics. Just too unfairly unbalanced for your taste. BTW, it's curious -- the only people who seem to think Obama is the Second Coming are those who oppose him -- I have yet to meet any of his supporters who confuse this admittedly flawed man with a deity.
tailcap [May 23rd, 2008 1:52 am] wrote: "Exactly! Can't really point out or talk about anything major that he has done on the most important issues of the day: the immoral, illegal and murderous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the highway robbery being committed by Big Oil. Except perhaps to deliver a speech a good many years ago in opposition to the war when his vote didn't count."
Tailcap, you're another poster who doesn't take the trouble to read Obama's site. Much easier to just make stuff up or repeat right-wing talking points. For your benefit, here's a URL you can read:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_reco...
After you've read that, check the 'Issues' button and read where he stands. Then read his Blueprint for Change at the same site. Disagree with him as you want, but at least have an idea of what you're talking about when you do.
tailcap [May 23rd, 2008 1:52 am] wrote: "Can't talk about what he's done, let's talk about hope, stirring souls and mind-numbing platitudes."
Uh, that would be you who can't talk about what he's done because you've never bothered to find out.
tailcap [May 23rd, 2008 1:52 am] wrote: "The party he "heads" is completely discredited and comfortably in bed with the Repugs. Today enough Democrats voted in favor of more war funding to give it a comfortable 70-26 vote in favor. Are you surprised? I'm not."
Here you're referring to the Democratic Leadership Council Dems, a group founded by Bill and Hillary Clinton specifically to get money from the same corporations that keep the GOP in business. Obama does not belong to the DLC.
tailcap [May 23rd, 2008 1:52 am] wrote: "The real choice is how do you want you your next president to look? A Black male Republican, a White male Republican or a White female Republican? Come on folks, admit it, there's really not that much difference otherwise."
Yes, there is. Again, if you took the time to do a little investigation of the matter, it might become apparent to you.
tailcap [May 23rd, 2008 1:52 am] wrote: "One thing is for sure, no matter which pro-war, pro-big business, establishment, status quo, corporate-blessed, big-money-backed candidate we get, the war will continue. I dare you to say otherwise."
No, that's not for sure, and I'll take that dare. I live in Illinois and have followed Obama's political career long before anybody ever heard of him nationally. I also know some of his relatives and have met him, both before he entered politics and after he became a US Senator. Obama is not a tree-shaker or rabble-rouser, but he is an intelligent, committed progressive who works carefully with both sides of the aisle to get legislation passed. I don't agree with a few of his votes in the Illinois and US Senate, but for the most part he has sponsored and passed progressive 'good government' bills, especially in the areas of ethics, government transparency, veteran's care, the environment, and he even sponsored an act to deny further funding of Bush's 'surge' in Iraq. He has also read the Constitution and understands it -- he used to teach Constitutional law -- and will work as president to reinstate it as the law of the land.
Adding to that, Obama has promised to withdraw all troops from Iraq within 16 months of becoming president, and he would rather talk to the Iranians than bomb them. So, he is not 'pro war,' he is not particularly 'pro big business,' he is not backed by big money -- he takes no PAC or lobbyist funds -- but he will work within the 'establishment' to change the status quo, just as he did in Illinois. If you have anybody better who has a chance of getting elected in 2008, let me know.
Here's Elizabeth Drew's take on Obama that goes to your point:
"Obama has been accused of being all flash, and of not having done much in the Senate. His record in the three and a half years he has been there suggests someone serious about the job: he worked on a nuclear nonproliferation bill that passed and backed a number of policy changes to help veterans, including more medical care for those with post-traumatic stress disorder, assistance for homeless veterans, and the extension of tax credits for military families. He pushed through the Senate a major bill on ethics reform; and introduced legislation in January 2007 to stop, or if that failed, limit funds for the surge. He also worked with the conservative Republican Tom Coburn in a successful effort to get Congress to impose transparency on government expenditures so that anyone can look them up. The criticism that he hasn't done more also overlooks the fact that during his first two years in the Senate, he was ninety-ninth in seniority and in the minority party."
-- Elizabeth Drew, "Molehill Politics," The New York Review of Books, March 30, 2008.
Exactly! Can't really point out or talk about anything major that he has done on the most important issues of the day: the immoral, illegal and murderous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the highway robbery being committed by Big Oil. Except perhaps to deliver a speech a good many years ago in opposition to the war when his vote didn't count.
Can't talk about what he's done, let's talk about hope, stirring souls and mind-numbing platitudes.
The party he "heads" is completely discredited and comfortably in bed with the Repugs. Today enough Democrats voted in favor of more war funding to give it a comfortable 70-26 vote in favor. Are you surprised? I'm not.
The real choice is how do you want you your next president to look? A Black male Republican, a White male Republican or a White female Republican? Come on folks, admit it, there's really not that much difference otherwise.
One thing is for sure, no matter which pro-war, pro-big business, establishment, status quo, corporate-blessed, big-money-backed candidate we get, the war will continue. I dare you to say otherwise.
This is NOT an objective article ! Common Dreams, COME ON !! You keep printing article after article that paints Obama as a Jesus H. Christ like figure, and article after article accusing Clinton of being evil. WTF ?????? What is wrong with this site ???? What happened to objectivity and fact-based articles ????? Very very disappointing. And I just got an email asking for money, you HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME ! You think I'm going to donate to this web site after seeing all of this crap ?
Nannie [May 22nd, 2008 10:58 am] wrote: "RSJ…I did not put your namecalling on post because it might be embarrassing to you . I can give you two occasions above where you called OTHER people names. I did not say you called ME a name.
You and I don't read the same . I have my interpretations and you yours."
You claimed I attacked you -- I quote from May 20th, 2008 8:07 pm: "Why ? because he is my choice for the Presidency and you are attacking me?"
I may have criticized Nader, or a position you took, or the Open Secrets information you've posted, but not you personally, as you implied. If I've already indulged in this 'name-calling' then I fail to see how you repeating it could further 'embarrass' me. I called Rich Griffin a 'mindless moron' because he's a drone who continually posts the same thing on every thread without bothering to check his facts first. I wrote that Formernadervoter is 'incredibly simplistic and stupid' because he does likewise on many threads here at CD, refusing to even read Obama's website, and then making broad charges against the man without factual back-up. Nannie, would you like to be speciously defamed without someone at least first checking the facts? If those are the two instances you're talking about, I'm not embarrassed.
You are, indeed, entitled to your own interpretations but, as the saying goes, not to your own facts.
Thank you for that information RSJ, i hope it coms to pass, I like your thinking. Again Nanie, thanks for your kind words.
.
RSJ...I did not put your namecalling on post because it might be embarrassing to you . I can give you two occasions above where you called OTHER people names. I did not say you called ME a name.
You and I don't read the same . I have my interpretations and you yours.
.
Nannie, I have nothing to take up with Open Secrets -- it's all explained in my post above -- you just misunderstood what they were talking about.
Also, after accusing me of attacking you and calling you derogatory names, thanks for failing to provide even one example. I wonder how Ralph Nader would feel about such a display of integrity and commitment to truth?
Ike Kay, Obama has said he will talk to Ralph Nader and it's not outside the bounds of speculation that he will offer him the director of EPA slot in an Obama Administration. (Perfect job for Ralph.) Since Edwards has now endorsed Obama and Nader said he wouldn't run if Edwards was the Dem candidate, perhaps something can be worked out between Obama and Nader. They are not that far apart on most issues.
Ike Kay...
We both agree our candidate is the best, See you in November and "may the best man wln"...
You have a wonderful way of writing that is very eloquent.Hope to read you more often.
RSJ...
If ~ YOU ~ have a problem with the TOP DONOR LIST from Opensecrets … take it up with THEM…
.
Thank you NANIE however, Nader, however good the man may be will not be elected in this country at this time. You should be congratulated for your efforts to speak to us. I understand your thinking and believe he should have a place in the new government as should Kucinich, but truth is not what the American people are prepared to accept. They need a man with vision, who is young, vibrant and an orator and therefore Nanie, Obama holds the only hope to galvanize this country at this time.
Nannie [May 20th, 2008 8:07 pm] wrote: "...I was asking why PAC money is listed at Opensecrets for Obama and he denies receiving PAC money? Take it up with Opensecrets if you are so concerned with the report."
First of all, Nannie, the Open Secrets page you keep posting does not say that Obama's money came from PACS -- it says: "This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."
In this case, since Obama has received no PAC money, as posted elsewhere on the Open Secrets** site, the money has come from individual members, employees, owners or those individuals' immediate families. Employees of Google or Microsoft give money to Obama and you think that means he's in their employ? Maybe they just want a change. Besides that, the contributors on your list account for only $4.8 million (universities exempted) of the $264,493,051 million Obama's campaign has amassed. Unless you can prove that Obama is or will do something in return for these contributions your information is useless. As I asked, and you neglected to answer, Ralph Nader has taken money from Republican groups -- does that mean he will do what these groups tell him to do?
**I suggest you read the summary at Open Secrets wherein it states that Obama has received 100 percent of his money from individual contributions -- not PACs.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Also read the detail on their methodology:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contribmethod_pop.php
Nannie [May 20th, 2008 8:07 pm] wrote: "RSJ…your attempt to nullify Nader is ridiculous. Why ? because he is my choice for the Presidency and you are attacking me?"
My attempt to 'nullify Nader' is realistic. Please specify where I have attacked you personally.
Nannie [May 20th, 2008 8:07 pm] wrote: "I have never NEVER … called anyone a derrogatory name in CD, such as you do all the time to people who don't believe YOUR beliefs. Poor sportsmanship…"
Again, where have I called you a derogatory name, Nannie? Be specific.
Nannie [May 20th, 2008 8:07 pm] wrote: "I never have to defend Ralph Nader. His actions and deeds speak loud and clear."
You never even try. You just attack Obama.
Nannie [May 20th, 2008 8:07 pm] wrote: "VOTE NADER 2008 You will be glad you did…."
If you like John McCain.
.
IKE KAY~Very moving, but you speak of Ralph Nader not Barrack Obama.
Ralph Nader is the one who we need to lead us from this chaos. Ideas and charm are not enough to do what it takes.A record of established ethics, honesty and trust would be great for starters. Experience of 40 years of working for the people to have a better life.
The media is denied him , but he will prevail. His word is truth and cannot be denied. The powers that be are afraid to let him be heard but his message is getting through.
I cannot speak as eloquently as most of you here and that is why I cut and paste. I type with two fingers slowly. But I type and I cut & paste because I feel so strong about Ralph Nader as our President.
I am older than most here so I have seen many Presidents .Thanks for listening and vote for Ralph Nader you'll be glad you did and so will I....
.
ARMYBRAT. . .well said!
WILLY BILL. . .For many here, your post points to the obvious and so becomes difficult for them. Many people here think, give your vote to that absolute truth, MAYBE NADER and at the same time elect by default the very same thing that has brought America to this state.
I have followed patiently the dreamers, the pseudo intellectuals, and the great scholars who think they have the sort of thinking to be able to help bring the USA back from the horrid mess it has become. There are those like above who like me have seen through the sham and the shame of it all. Those here who offer their great thinking to help us to see more clearly, I hope seen by others. Few here have touched the central issue, this countries greed, the economy and your 401ks. You have been sold this as good Americans you all have become by investing in this bogus system of economics those forces one to invest in a gambling house, and believe it to be your way to survival. Greed is a very difficult and human characteristic that holds nothing or no one sacred, as of course some of you knows.
The essence of the fight for human retrieval and the reestablishment of ethics, morals and purpose, that so many who write about and are disgusted with the American system, would like to see change regardless of how questionable it might be. It is the reason people spend their time reading many of these petty responses to the problems we face. Responses grounded in the rubbish the leaders of this sorry mess of an empire have indoctrinated their people, fueled by an auto centered culture supported by the advertising indoctrination machine that supports the bogus media.
Those who respond to the articles here, written by people who are surely less than the quality of the true thinkers likes Nietzsche, Camus, Dostoevsky and so many others who wrote about human fallibility, the human condition and the abuse of power, or in the modern era like Noam Chomsky, a great American scholar and a champion of truth, who articulated it so well in his book "Hegemony and Survival.
Those who write here, are people generally frustrated and those who feel helpless in terms of where we see this entire human global adventure going and see clearly that this American election possibly holds the seeds to genuine change in the USA if not the world. Yes there are many power brokers that hold the keys to Obama's success but he is the best there is at this critical time. At the very least he has invigorated Democracy and interest in this failed Democratic, extreme capitalist experiment.
However, many are not fooled by the array of candidates and their claims to complete truth and fairness, as it should be. A healthy pessimism is necessary so long as it is not cynicism. Some of us understand that survival is surely not based in the petty politics practiced here on this blog which is a mirror for the US Congress, but a clear recognition that there are people writing whom genuinely care about the state of this power gone amuck called the USA. There are people in power who are genuinely worried about the extreme of American Plutocracy gone amuck.
Sadly, many of us know that the slate of candidates running leave a great deal to be desired. Yes, they have all dissembled, as politicians are wont to do, in the endless necessity for compromise, even to get small things done for the people. One cannot come from the masses in the USA, be a politician who aspires to become president of this woebegone culture and not have to assume the sickening compromises that would attract support to continue on the quest to accomplish change. Impossible to be pure but possible to hold new truths close until possible to employ them, with the people behind the leader if he becomes transparent in office!
I believe that is Obama's hope; it is veiled in his speech but here. We can only hope that the CIA does not kill him using some obscure assassin. When I think of the charge against Obama that he supported that toad, Joe Lieberman I have to laugh at the simplistic charges and the lack of understanding of what is necessary to be a politician in the USA.
But there are some who hold out the small hope that if Obama, the least of all the evils presented to the electorate, somehow becomes president he may become another great man in the office and in effect serve the people, the country and the globe. He is the only one, in my view, who holds that possibility, without question, if we join and accept some of the thinking written on the pages of CD and here on this blog. It is so because of his background, his actions in Chicago, despite his missteps and the fact that this is the final chance at survival for the human family!
We must take this chance and hope that the creeping filth of corporate power in collusion with government and media that has brought humanity to this pass will not assassinate him; if he truly tries to affect the changes that must take place in this country and the world.
Yes, many nations look to different models in this world for leadership and assistance but the USA can take on a new challenge- as one of the leaders of the world- instead of the lone dogmatic power driven capitalistic, globalized monster eating everything in its path for it own advantage. I believe that Obama, in recognizing the state of this world, with the idealistic vision he espouses, is able to help the USA take the lead in the world once again as it once did, based in truth, caring and concern for what humanity confronts.
Now, as never before, to the present degree, a great leader and vision is required to help draw the world back from the nightmare now taking place.
The climate, energy, food, water, the oceans, forests and so many other issues will require a man that has the youth and the guts to try to bring about the change in the USA, fundamental to his campaign alone, since he has captured the belief of so many that believed it to be impossible. However, in the end it all may be too late!
RSJ... you ask:
Can you prove he ( Obama ) has done anything to reward any of those firms through legislation he's sponsored?
I answer:
No, that was not my intention. I was asking why PAC money is listed at Opensecrets for Obama and he denies receiving PAC money?
Take it up with Opensecrets if you are so concerned with the report.
RSJ...your attempt to nullify Nader is ridiculous. Why ? because he is my choice for the Presidency and you are attacking me?
I have never NEVER ... called anyone a derrogatory name in CD, such as you do all the time to people who don't believe YOUR beliefs. Poor sportsmanship...
I never have to defend Ralph Nader. His actions and deeds speak loud and clear.
VOTE NADER 2008 You will be glad you did....
.
Good for you, Imzadi-R [May 20th, 2008 4:42 pm] and opeluboy [May 20th, 2008 5:43 pm], as a white man, I agree -- Obama as president will help bring to an end the pernicious racism that has held this country back from achieving the ideals of equality set forth in the Constitution. The racists are dying off and to a new generation color is not a big deal -- it's good to see the younger generation of all shades turning out for Obama and turning against the ghost of bigotry that has been eating us like a cancer since the end of the Civil War.
Imzadi-R,
You name my number one reason for endoring Obama: he will change the face of American politics to the rest of the world.
Some people consider this a smmall thing. I know that is not how his presidency will be viewed abroad.
MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ARE NON-CAUCASIAN! Obama may be able to do things as president of the USA that NO OTHER PRESIDENT COULD DO!
God bless him! He's PUTTING HIS LIFE ON THE LINE FOR HIS COUNTRY by running for the presidency! That is also PATRIOTISM!
If he gets to be president, he will have a CABINET to advise him. He will have those Daily Presidential Briefings from the INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.
Obama can bridge the gap between countries. Hopefully, a new day of understanding will come.
(Just so you'll know, I am an EDUCATED senior citizen American Black woman. I KNOW what it used to be like in the USA under segregation!)
formernadervoter [May 18th, 2008 1:10 pm] wrote: "And why do these people need to be inspired anyway? Actually all the inspiration most of his voters will get is to vote for him and expect Obama to do everything for them."
This is incredibly simplistic and stupid: Nobody I know who supports Obama expects him to 'do everything for them.' He is just the first step to reversing the destruction and corruption of the Reagan-Bush years.
formernadervoter [May 18th, 2008 1:10 pm] wrote: "This change voters want won't happen. Obama is a corporate Democrat with a neo liberal, imperialist vision on foreign policy. All his moves will definitely be inside the framework of the corporate captains who bankrolled his run."
He has a 'neo-liberal, imperialist vision' which is why he wants to get out of Iraq, focus on solving our domestic problems, concentrate on finding Bin Laden, and negotiate rather than war with Iran and other countries Bush has designated as part of his goofy 'axis of evil.' Some imperialist. Provide some proof that as an Illinois State or US Senator he has proposed or passed legislation that benefits these 'corporate captains' you babble about.
Is Ralph Nader a Republican sympathizer? He's taken money from Republican organizations -- does that mean he's going to carry out their agenda?
continually amused [May 18th, 2008 1:16 pm], keep laughing, MF -- yeah, damn that phony half-black Obama -- he ain't gonna do nothin'! You just know that Big Daddy McCain will take good care of all the black folks out there -- hey, he went and talked about Katrina in New Orleans!
Yeah, Huck [May 18th, 2008 1:34 pm], go ahead and cast your 'protest vote' and then watch what President McCain does to the environment -- Flyboy Johnny has more lobbyists on his staff than any other candidate and many of them work for the energy industries you hate. Guess who's going to get rewarded if Bush III gets in? But you teach that Obama a lesson by electing McCain. You can pat yourself on the back for your uncompromising position -- I hope you can see your hand through the choking smog.
zoya May 18th, 2008 3:08 pm wrote: "Haroon does have a point. But Americans are grasping at straws when what they need is a lifeboat. Obama's no lifeboat."
McCain's a lead weight straight to the bottom and one of the two of them is going to be president, so take your pick.
Thoughts_Into_Action [May 18th, 2008 3:22 pm], your history lesson is wrong. We supported the Mujahedin in Afghanistan AFTER the Soviets invaded, not before, so they could not have been used to provoke the USSR into invading. And Brzezinski is only one of Obama's foreign policy advisors; he also has others like Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and Sarah Sewall, who heads the human rights center at Harvard, progressives who are nothing like Brzezinski. The only common thread among Obama's foreign policy advisors is that they all opposed Bush's Iraq disaster from the beginning.
Rich Griffin [May 18th, 2008 4:18 pm] wrote: "oh brother, another pro-Obama article with zero substance, just spouting the same old rhetoric about souls stirred, change and hope hope hope. I hope for a real change and it isn't Obama! No mention of: zero leadership as a U.S. senator; no vision; no passion; terrible policy positions; beholden to Wall Street; lack of experience; and IMO he IS the worst Democratic nominee in my lifetime."
Oh, brother, another Rich Griffin post where he refuses to check any facts on Obama's record yet shoots his mouth off anyway. What a mindless moron. Here, Rich, for the umpteenth time, check the damn link:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_reco...
armybrat [May 18th, 2008 5:39 pm], good post!
Nannie [May 18th, 2008 8:53 pm], as I have posted on another thread, the amount given him by employees of these firms, exempting the three universities, amounts to $4.8 million, a small percentage of the $240 million Obama's campaign has collected, more than half of which came from donations under $200 dollars. Can you prove he has done anything to reward any of those firms through legislation he's sponsored? Otherwise, this is meaningless. To reiterate: Ralph Nader has taken money from Republican organizations -- does that mean he's going to carry out their agenda? BTW, Nannie, you do know that Obama has offered to talk to Nader, don't you?
pdf [May 18th, 2008 9:05 pm], Oh, right, now Obama is a baby killer. I checked your links and you've got to be kidding: the right-wing, anti-abortion Catholic News Agency, and the neocon nuts at World Net Daily and Townhall.com. Your entire case is based on one extremist anti-abortion nurse, Jill Stanek, and she has no corroborating evidence for her claims of finding an aborted living fetus in a hospital utility room nor anywhere else.
Obama believes in abortion rights for women and that abortion, even late term, should be between the woman and her doctor. If you're against women's rights, that's your sad opinion, but don't then say Obama wants to murder healthy babies, that he advocates -- for cripe's sake -- 'infanticide.'
Here is a quote from a CBS News article on your silly 'infanticide' charge:
"Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.
"Obama — who joined several other Democrats in voting 'present' in 2001 and 'no' the next year — argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.
"'It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute,' Obama said in the Senate's debate in March 2001.
"During his 2004 run for U.S. Senate, Obama said he supported similar federal legislation that included language clarifying that the measure did not interfere with abortion rights."
-- From "Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics," CBS News, Jan. 17, 2008.
It should be noted that while in the Illinois State Senate, Obama sponsored and passed a Health Care Justice Act that started the implementation of a state universal health care system that would greatly benefit mothers and those babies that he supposedly wants to kill.
Do you people ever consider how much harm you do your cause with ludicrous nonsense like this?
starofthesea [May 18th, 2008 9:28 pm], hearing from people outside the US, the EU, Russia, China, et al, are doing business around us, waiting for the Bush Era to close. We aren't even really that militarily powerful now, since Bush has ground down our combat effectiveness, we just have nukes and a navy.
usrcjp [May 19th, 2008 12:08 am] if the aim is to destroy the two-party system, then why has Nader accepted money from Republican groups? In 2004, he took money from two organizations who openly supported Bush -- how does this help get rid of the two-party system exactly?
Nannie [May 19th, 2008 1:24 am] wrote: "What does Obama want to CHANGE? anybody know? has anybody aheard? Is it written?"
Yes, it is. Go to www.BarackObama.com/blueprintforchange/pdf. It's really stunning that you have been criticizing this guy for so long and yet have never bothered to read his website to see what he says.
here is the web page once again:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
It explains far better than I…
This table lists the ~ top donors ~ to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather ~ the money came from the organization's PAC~ its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
If YOU have a problem with the TOP DONOR LIST from Opensecrets … take it up with THEM…
.
Bernice May 18th, 2008 1:38 pm - i hope so..
----------------------------
armybrat May 18th, 2008 5:39 pm - i agree the crisis extends beyond one government's petty political differences. so perhaps we address one issue at a time. the russian revolution occurred when czarist russia militarily overextended itself. revolution is certainly change. obama is the reformist answer to the status quo (yes he is not studs terkel or che guevara). the alternative is john mccain and a rapid descent into more 'real' fascism. thanks for your post...
------------------------------
prof May 18th, 2008 10:38 pm -- seemed like race was played by his opponents, demonstrating that america still has huge blocks of racists -modeling the appalachian mtn range ?- says a lot about our failures as a society (education - interaction - understanding).
------------------------------
ThadStone May 19th, 2008 1:28 am -- thank you. you are correct... yes wealthy dems have contributed to his campaign - but he hasn't accepted PAC money..
...peace...
Haroon Siddiqui, thank you
i agree w/ your critique of america, i don't think obama is a be all solution. but he is a substantial improvement over the SQ. as everyone else in the world seems to understand..
obama has run a campaign straight from the play book of h dean using the inet to generate massive amounts of money from individual contributers, he also approached the election from a state by state approach, organizing from the ground up - hence the victories in the caucuses. he can win the general election, it's becoming more clear every day.
mccain is strapped for money and will be soon excepting very large contributions from specific lobbyists to offset obama's decentralized war chest - of course mccain will have swiftboat surrogates that will carry the financial burden of the message.
nevertheless, america is poised to reject additional military adventures (considering the 3 trillion dollar war) and america is beginning to experience a severe recession (that will be pinned, appropriately, on the president).
it's not everything i want (impeachment, socialized medicine, one state solution in israel, living wage, demilitarization-retooling of america, green energy, etc..). in fact it's just a little bit of what i want ( a leader that will speak w/ iranian govt, a person who has used their first amendment rights to speak in public against war - and w/ t kennedy for rights for migrant workers on 5/1/06 - one of only 2 US senators).
yet obama is not 2 family rule, nor is obama a military flunky who's stumbled his way to the US senate - and is now advocating military aggresion against iran (as some kind of solution, or blood tie w/ israel - israel has no problem bombing people anywhere for any reason).
yeah, i wish i could close my eyes tap my heels three times and say take me to a place where democracy rules and the people have their wishes fulfilled and our ideals flourish about us, - that maybe true at a rainbow gathering (where no money is exchanged).
it certainly has never been true here in america. vote 3rd party if you feel compelled, let's hope the greens pick up those 220 congressional seats and 52-53 senate seats so we can really see those progressive ideas here, in america.
our best hope is the candidate who hopefully will not lead us further into war, and who will mimic his campaign tactics (grassroots - ground up) while he is president. that would give people who think about poverty, war, eco-destruction at least a voice at the table.
also to greeners and socialists -
it's true the government is us/not one person. if people want to abrigate responsibility to participate in the political process (writing letters, demonstrating, voting, organizing) that's their prerogative. but, clinton because of his neo liberal policies - actually activated the nader vote in 1996. obama opens up the same opportunity. with a solid house/senate majority and the white house, newly activated voters will be primed to move to a progressive party like the greens - when the dems fall through (health care, war . etc..). the greens need to organize to acquire congressional seats. until they make an effort to have substantive federal representation (w/ real voters in real districts) it's a pipe dream.
...peace...
People who state that "the powers that be" seem to favor Obama are apparently living in some alternate reality.
Obama got a fairly easy ride from the media in the beginning because they did not expect him to win. He was new, Black, and likeable. But they knew Clinton would be the nominee, so why bother?
When that changed, they began sharpening their knives. Or have all you who make this unsupportable and downright ignorant claim forgotten the ABC "debate" and non-stop Rev Wright coverage?
And of course the media is attempting to establish that Obama does not sufficiently adore Israel. You'll see more of this. A lot more, as they push "The Maverick."
As you will more on Rev Wright and anything else they can dredge up to make him a scarey Black man.
Meanwhile, I cannot think of anything like this being thrown at Clinton, and there's plenty to throw.
Of course one thing that makes this just so goddamn hard — convincing the public Obama's an "empty suit" and an "anti-Semite" and "unelectable", etc. — is little things like 75,000 people showing up to hear him say "nothing."
realitychecker May 19th, 2008 10:50 am ...
here is the web page once again:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
It explains far better than I…
This table lists the ~ top donors ~ to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather ~ the money came from the organization's PAC~ its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
"Actually all the inspiration most of his voters will get is to vote for him and expect Obama to do everything for them."
The people who are voting for Obama are not asking what their country -- or president -- can do for them, but what they can do for their country.
These are people who are already engaged, and want to be engaged more, in the daily local battles, who don't want to get on the inside & play Risk with the planet.
The indication is that Obama has not at any time pointed to his own virtues as some sort of reason to vote for him. He is plainly embarrassed by flattery & fulsome introductions; when HRC is praised, she basks in it.
It also speaks eloquently that Michelle Obama openly tells the press that she discouraged him from entering politics, that "those people are MEAN".
No one who has read Obama's books, which he himself wrote, can possibly regard him as "an empty suit".
Nannie May & pdf,
I never said that Ralph Nader would not be a good President. I think that it would be a wonderful thing for the American (and world's) people. His election would necessarily mean that the citizenry had turned the corner and were finally electing governmental representatives whose knowledge and policies would put the country (and world) on the road to a truly just society. A citizenry that would elect Nader President would also elect a like minded Congress (as well as representatives on the state and local level), which would be needed in order to make the changes necessary to accomplish
this goal.
I would be ecstatic if this were to happen. However, it is not going to happen in this election cycle. We can, and should, work toward these goals. I hate to paraphrase Donald Rumsfield; but you do have to work with what you have, not what you wish you had.
We are on the same page as to what we need; we just differ with regards to how we are to get there.
PEACE.
There is no doubt that Obama is almost a total unknown in terms of his core beliefs and political positions, but that can only be expected. Gaming the system is an essential factor in getting elected. Without getting a majority of voters in enough states to win enough electoral votes, the game is over. All I can say is that Obama offers more "hope" for change than does Clinton - and as for McCain, he offers worse than "more of the same".
And even if elected, Obama can only "lead" or "obstruct". He cannot compel anybody to "follow", nor can he prevent a veto override.
In the final analysis it is the voting public that holds the power to make things happen, but they will need to get a lot sharper and more informed to become effective.
armybrat (post on May 18, 5:39 p.m.),
You nailed it! Great post.
nannie... those numbers you listed add up to less than 6 million dollars.... according to Time magazine Obama raised over 100 Million in 2007 alone.
That says it better than I can.
And 'continually amused' is obviously white, and my guess is that they don't live near or probably even know any black people.
Who said Bill Clinton was America's first Black President, Toni Morrison? He may have been to her and White America, but not to the rest of Black America. Playing a saxophone while wearing dark glasses on TV does not make him a man of African Ancestry. If you want to continue refering to him as the unofficial first black president do a DNA test and let's see. Maybe his natural father was a Black man. How about that?
Though I think Mr. Nader would make a better president, I hope Mr. Obama picks an Native American as his VP.
roncypert ~
I do think long and hard about this, and I cannot make a consious decision to cast my important and meaningful vote for a man who calls himself "godly" who also has been a strong supporter of infanticide. If you research Obama's voting record, you will see that he has taken his suppport of abortion rights outside the birth canal and supports the concept of letting a live, healthy baby die because this child beat the odds in an attempted abortion.
This is wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin to describe it.
In any case, once I read about Obama's support for this hideous and literally inhuman policy ~ I could never, ever vote for him, regardless of how well he speaks in public.
And I will explain to my children, grandchildren and whomever will listen that this is the correct and logical opinion to have. No problem with that stance whatsoever.
pdf
l_vacek - Plenty of people opposed the Nazis - and they were both an economic and military powerhouse (thanks to certain corporate and financial supporters). There is no reason why Europeans (and others) can't challenge the US right now. My family risked their lives, sacrificed, and some died fighting the Nazis - how about a little payback, now that Americans are in a bind? We're living under fascism - not as open as were the Nazis, but these guys are just getting started...
I guess you could call it " beating around the bush"...
It is or it isn't.
here is the web page once again:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
It explains far better than I…
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Nannie May 18th, 2008 8:53 pm:
Contributions made to Obama 2008
...
University of California $371,266
Harvard University $292,441
University of Chicago $208,007
...
If you read the fine print in opensecrets.org, which you linked to, you will find that these organizations did not make donations. Under 'Summary, Source of Funds', Obama took 0% PAC money (well, $250). His funding is all from individual contributions. Under federal law, all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor's occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided.
So, that $371,266 from University of California ? It could very well be 1,856 grad students and professors, that all happen to be paid by U of C. If Harvard, Univ. of California, and University of Chicago are the 'special interests' Barack is beholden to, I really don't mind. :-) And how many people work at Google ? (Google Inc adds up to $293,974 donated) If 1000 people working there gave $293 each (for example), does that give them lots of sway over Obama's future Internet policy ? People giving over $200 are usually working somewhere.
Compare small contributions going to Obama and McCain:
In the $200 - $499 donation category, Obama has 39,978 donors. McCain has 9,013.
Which one will be more beholden to large contributors ?
Also note: 100 million Americans vote for President. Only 10's of thousands are backing their choice for the future of the country with money ??? It's kind of pathetic, when you think about it. If only corporate officers bother to donate, guess what kind of President you will get ?
What does Obama want to CHANGE? anybody know? has anybody aheard? Is it written? Why is it a secret?
I know what Ralph Nader will do.
To bet all your chips on one man is foolish. There is only so much he can do. Unless, of course, the "change" he talks about is to further increase Presidential Power.
Maybe Americans really want a dictator. Just give them plenty of entertainment and a lot of money on credit. That's freedom right?
Nader cost Gore nothing. I and everyone I know who voted for Nader oppose the 2 party system and are trying to eliminate it.
Closet Republicans we sure aren't. Neither are we closet Democrats.
How long is going to take for people to understand? The idea is to break up the 2-party system. We are against it. We will vote against it.
As an onlooker from the other side of the Pacific it seems to me that the
2-3% who voted for Nader in 2000 cost Gore the presidency.
It would appear from some posts here that the same could happen again this year.
Speaking from a unbiassed perspective, I suspect Nader and some of his supporters may be closet Republicans. I have read many fine words from Ralph over the years but where the 'rubber hits the road', actions speak far louder than words.
I find it so ironic how some people here continue to attack Obama for lacking substance or being inexperienced. Suddenly, so many of the very same fools that helped put Bush in office are now demanding absolute perfection from a black man. They've even tried to attack him for his name, for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel, for not putting his hand over his heart while standing during the national anthem, or for having lived in Indonesia as a child. They attacked him for being a Muslim (implying that all Muslims are terrorists) even though he was always a Christian and they attacked him for the supposed controversial words of his pastor. Call it whatever you like but in my book it's crude racism. Indeed, racism comes in many guises and is now often coded (like the racism in Hillary Clinton's "hard working white Americans" remark). Yeah, racism.
What will help get this country back on track is a reasonably intelligent and sophisticated president with real compassion and absolute respect for human rights, someone that will, once again, enshrine our Constitution and not tear it to bits. It will also take constant vigilance and pressure by all Americans that the next president keeps his promises. Obama's not perfect but at least he has demonstrated integrity and intelligence. More than anyone, Obama has earned the right to be a candidate for POTUS.
Hillary is certainly a close second in intelligence and sophistication but her scorched-earth campaign style has left me cold. What's more, as someone aspiring to be the first female president, her reliance on her ex-president husband is unseemly and off-putting. Nevertheless, I'd vote for her if she was the Democratic candidate.
As for McCain, he's just a senile flip-flopping tool that sold his soul to the neo-con fascists. Talk about an empty suit, McCain now aspires to be a clone of George Bush, the worst president in American history and the very same man that destroyed McCain's chance for the presidency in 2004 with vicious lies and ugly rumors. McCain, the man that was implicated in the Keating scandal, a man without principles, without scruples. Like Bush, the present-day McCain is just a puppet that will dance to any tune when so ordered by his sponsors. He's an absolutely perfect fit for the neo-con fascists that hijacked the Republican Party.
This election is no longer just about left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican (or Independent), this or that domestic policy. It's about saving this nation.
The powers that be seem to favour Obama. Thats enough to scare me off. Makes you wonder, has Obama sold his soul to be President. You dont get favoured by the PTB w/o kissing their arse and promising to do their bidding.
This guy came out of nowhere, the Media destroyed his opponents in the Senate race, had a do nothing record in the Senate, and today is going to be the democratic nominee.
He is backed by people like Paul Volcker who destroyed our productive economy under Jimmy Carter and then Reagan, Zbig Brzezinski who gave us Islamism and is a Russia War Hawk, and also one of the founders of the TLC whose mission is globalization and lowering living standards for Americans.
I don't care that he is black. In fact, if he came out and discussed frankly some of the issues Wright brought out, which I believe to be true, I might have overlooked some of the above.
Wasn't his claim about US waning power clear when Bush went a beggin to Saudi Arabia to churn out more barrels of oil and they said, "sorry, buddy." Even with our alleged military superiority, the rest of world knows "the USA is soooo yesterday!" And it won't bne too long before our population starts waking up to that fact as well.
Good, because maybe before I die, I can actually feel good about being a citizen of the US. If we develop some humility, compassion and wisdom.
roncypert May,
Nader's Honesty, Truth, and accomplishments are my reason to wnat him for the Presidency.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Nader Issues:
Adopt single payer national health insurance.
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget.
No to nuclear power, solar energy first.
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare.
Open up the Presidential debates .
Adopt a carbon pollution tax .
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East .
Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law.
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax .
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism .
Work to end corporate personhood.
.
You too, pdf.
Nannie May,
"Vote Nader 2008… You'll be glad that you did."
If you are successful in convincing enough citizens to vote for Nader, to actually elect him President in 2009, I am fine with that. However, if you fail to do so, then you have an obligation to explain your reasoning to our children, our grandchildren, as well as the majority of the people who reside on the planet earth.
Obama has the ear of the masses; that's for sure. I was leaning that way until I read up on his support of infanticide, which tossed me off his train.
No, it isn't a neocon october surprise, it's what he does. Google it, read it, consider it before you vote.
Nader '08
"When I heard it the first time, I was stunned. But now it helps explain the Barack Obama phenomenon.
"The American era is over," said someone last year in Doha, the capital of pro-American Qatar."
If the author of this piece was stunned by this observation, and only a year ago at that, then they have not been paying attention.
During the 2004 Presidential campaign Howard Dean was crucified (or maybe just raked over hot coals) for only hinting that the U.S. would not always be the world's foremost superpower.
It was probably inevitable that the United States would, at some time, cease to hold the position as the world's most powerful nation (no nation/state has ever maintained that position), Our policies have made it a forgone conclusion; the Bush administration and their ilk have only sped up the
process.
Our only ranking as a super power now, is militarily.
.
Vote Nader 2008… You'll be glad that you did.
.
Contributions made to Obama 2008
Goldman Sachs $544,481
University of California $371,266
Ubs Ag $363,257
JPMorgan Chase & Co $353,808
Citigroup Inc $331,946
National Amusements Inc $313,511
Lehman Brothers $312,597
Google Inc $293,974
Harvard University $292,441
Sidley Austin LLP $287,795
Skadden, Arps et al $266,413
Morgan Stanley $253,576
Jones Day $245,875
Time Warner $245,828
Exelon Corp $229,861
Wilmerhale Llp $215,231
University of Chicago $208,007
Latham & Watkins $199,966
Microsoft Corp $196,093
Kirkland & Ellis $190,976
here is the web page once again:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
.
It explains far better than I…
"...His father taught him that being brilliant is not enough..."
How did his father teach him anything, never mind that! I believe that they had "parted company" by the age of two.
Just what is the real story of Sen. Obama?
Armybrat: It is true that especially some European countires (UK, France for example) can be indirectly blamed for many bad things happening in particulary Africa, mostly becuase of post-colonial policies, but accusing the Europeans of "sitting on the sidelines" and doing nothing is rather silly. What should we do, declare sanctions on USA? After WWII people here realized that direct confrontation is not a solution but rather the problem itself.
USA was and for now still is the sole superpower both in military and economic terms. You do not go into direct confrontation with country like this, especially not when lunatic like Bush is the president...
But I have to agree with you on the Cuba issue, good point there...
willybill.....rich griffin will never answer your question....HE'S A TROLL ! AND JUNNA WAS CORRECT,,,SOME ARE jealous of barak obama
I think Americans are finally starting to catch on to what the rest of the world has already figured out - we are a bunch of losers, bullies, liars, cheats, and sheeple. But let's not forget that most of the rest of the world was just as clueless such a short time ago.
Despite global outrage at the then-pending invasion of Iraq, world leaders did not respond to their own constituents - despite the greatest outpouring of protest in the history of the world. Much of the world swallowed American propaganda - as it has done since WWII - hoping the US would turn out to be 'the Good Fairy' - which was never more than a fantasy that had its roots in defending Europe from the Russian troops that defeated Hitler and his Nazis. Europe was decimated and could not have held off Stalin without Allied help - at the time. But they too allowed the illusion (fantasy) of American 'goodness' to blind them from the facts - the US was always acting ONLY in its own best interests.
Even when it became clear that the USSR was not the threat blown all out of proportion by Cold Warriors who lied their way through billions upon billions of needless wasted dollars on war machinery - those greedy opportunists with nothing more than wealth and job-security on their agenda - the rest of the world turned a blind eye to egregious attacks on vulnerable countries upon which the US Corporate State preyed (backed by US-sponsored military coups, genocide, 'brush wars' and iron-fisted dictatorships).
While Europe and Scandinavia embraced basic socialism (the 'mixed economy' model of regulated capitalism) and rebuilt their nations on a more humane scale, they effectively denied the same opportunities for others in the post-colonial era by ignoring US interference in Latin America, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, etc. Millions of people were executed - socialists and communists alike, exterminated - simply because their ideology clashed with the new imperial model. We are all well aware of the 'dirty little secrets' of the Cold War era, as well as open support for anti-democratic purges, and even open warfare against anyone who dared challenge the US economic model - neoliberalism - that impoverished and/or silenced the survivors.
Let's face it - the US HATES freedom, democracy, human rights, and prosperity for anyone outside their privileged circle of corporate co-conspirators. Cuba has been a thorn in the side of the US ONLY because of the threat a successful socialist nation would pose to the US model imposed on the rest of the world. What would have happened if the US had simply reimbursed those who lost property on that tiny island, and then treated it fairly - as a friendly neighbor? (After all, Castro DID get rid of a nasty dictator.) What if Cuba had received 'Most Favored Nation' trade status - like COMMUNIST CHINA? What would Americans - let alone other peoples - expect if the Cuban socialist system actually worked? Yeah. That was the REAL threat all along: that another - more humane, more egalitarian, less predatory - model might succeed. Couldn't let that happen - the world might go to hell in a handbasket... oh wait, that's already happening... and Cuba sends teachers and doctors all over the world, as well as disaster-relief teams - like the ones turned down to go to New Orleans after Katrina. The US sends 'contractors' and death squads and the MIC war machine. And we ask "Why do they hate us?" Give me a break. I just don't understand why Europe gets a pass - perhaps for being 'the lesser evil' - but people in the Third World are finally getting wise to that too. Agricultural protectionism (among other man-made causes) is driving up food prices, and once self-sufficient nations - even those who once exported foodstuffs - are suffering from food riots and starvation. US-European 'dumping' and monoculture are taking their inevitable toll.
It isn't just 'fat lazy apathetic Americans' causing the current problems - it takes the combined acquiescence of the entire planet to allow things to get to this abysmal point. China won't complain because they're taking our future to the bank. Russia is trying to avert another Cold War - under vicious provocation, I might add. And Europe (and Scandinavia, the UK and the whole Anglo-centric world) are just sitting on the sidelines - hoping they won't end up in the crossfire. Fat chance. They should know better - they let Hitler and the other fascists destroy their world before, always thinking they'd somehow dodge the bullet. Ain't gonna happen - the world is too globalized - too interconnected - for any one region to survive the devastation at the expense of others.
Haroon Siddiqui has a point - but he's still missing the Big Picture. It isn't just the US, but the entire 'First World' is complicit in the catastrophes we now face. And I'm not about to let the rest of the world off the hook by solelly blaming the US. That myopic perspective is how we got into this mess in the first place - and we can't get out of it by using the same principles and strategies that got us into it. It's time for a few 'mea culpas' from the others - including Canada - and time for all of the industrialized world to take off their blinders. America is only part of the problem - the enablers have to own up to their responsibility as well, or the situation will only degenerate further.
It's all too easy to point fingers and choose a bogeyman - but as an American, I'm not about to let them appoint me or my country as 'It' in this stupid game. Yes, we have wackos running the government and yes, we have a Frankenstein monster instead of a defensive miitary - but whose fault is that? Who allowed the US to become the world's bully? Who looked the other way? Who stayed silent while the abuses piled up?
I've got one thing to say to those countries who look upon the US with revulsion - get the damned log out of your own eye first!
Rich Griffin May 18th, 2008 4:18 pm .....And who in PRESENT politics has SUBSTANCE and is ELECTABLE??
For:formernadervoter May 18th, 2008 1:10 pm
"Obama is an empty suit! He inspires people because you can read anything you want into his content free oratory."
Please, read David Mendell's 2007 biography "Obama (From Promise to Power)".
The "content" in his oratory cosists of equal parts compassion and integrity. He cares too much about those who cannot defend/care for themselves while caring not at all for the CEO's struggling to pay their taxes.
Michelle Obama finally accepted his quest for her hand after he showed her that he was really committed to public service. His father taught him that being brilliant is not enough; that a man must reach for that which completes and serves the whole community.
There is much to like about Barack Obama. A sincere, honest politician seems like an oxymoron, but after many, many hours of study and observation, I know that this man I can believe in; that if he fails it will not be that he cared too little, but that he believed in his fellowman too much.
No one man is our Saviour or our Hero, but the movement that is presently coalescing around this man is our best hope of survivng and leaving for our heirs a habitable planet and a social system that allows for the least of us to survive and even prosper a little.
Ray O. Driskill
Houston, Texas
Post-America indeed. But empires do not go down easilly, and can do a lot of damage during the process, especially with nuclear weapons.
Even if Obama gets to be elected, he will have to deal all that disasterous consequences of Bush era, which can get McCain or other Republican lunatic elected in 2012...
oh brother, another pro-Obama article with zero substance, just spouting the same old rhetoric about souls stirred, change and hope hope hope. I hope for a real change and it isn't Obama! No mention of: zero leadership as a U.S. senator; no vision; no passion; terrible policy positions; beholden to Wall Street; lack of experience; and IMO he IS the worst Democratic nominee in my lifetime. He still might win, if winning is what matters, but it's less important to me than substance. He doesn't have any.
Thoughts_Into_Action: excellent post.
Perhaps I'm less 'evolved', but I actually agree with Brzezinski/Carters's actions and positions re the Russian/Afghan War. I believe that war is sadly sometimes necessary, but that tactically it should be fought by those with a real stake in its outcome (i.e. Afghan rebels in Afghanistan) rather than by U.S. soldiers (i.e. Iraq). Carter saw a chance to take the Soviets DOWN the hell-hole of their own personal Vietnam. It, more than anything Reagan did, ENDED the Soviet union, and I think on balance that that was a good thing.
Perhaps, though, as you say, a peaceable action is ALWAYS the right action. I don't really know. I only know that, if Obama feels that wars aren't always unjust, that reflects what I feel.
God damn us both, I guess.
Obama is the spoon. But the hand that holds the spoon is corporate America. They will continue to use Obama for their own purposes, for as long as they think it benefits them. Then he's history.
Hoa binh
I think some men are jealous of Barack Obama.
It's true as the author suggests that American empire is collapsing for a number of reasons, including its criminal foreign invasions, lack on infrastructure spending, home loan fraud and deficit spending on a bloated military infrastructure. The next president will be a small part of the solution because these problems have become systemic and distant from political control.
Let's examine the idea in this article that a good speech-maker, like Barack Obama, can inspire change, and will push for change, given present circumstances.
One of Obama's advisors is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former Carter administration national security advisor. Brzezinski boasted about supporting the mujahedeen to provote the Soviets into invading Afghanistan. The Russians took the bait, giving them a protracted Vietnam-style unwinnable war. It's led to senseless carnage. Ironically, it's butressed the cause of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Does the hawkish Brzezinki represent a sign in Obama's camp of a more peaceful and hopeful tomorrow, given that Brzezinki boasted about doing this to the Soviets only a few years ago?
Obama has made public statements about wanting to bomb Pakistan. He made public statements about supporting Israel at time of widespread reports that tanks were rolling into the Gaza Strip and killing Palestinians. He's not balanced that talk by noting Israel's continuing defiance of UN resolutions regarding borders and Palestinian human rights. Do Obama's public pronouncements in these respects differ from current U.S. policies, leading to progressive change?
It used to be axiomatic that people examined the record and issues before making voting decisions. Speeches are one form of the record, but we all know that the point of the speech is more akin to advertising. It's like getting someone to buy a product. The emotional affect of a speech has meaning, but it's less important than the candidate's past actions, and it can be deceptive (as we learned with Bill Clinton's "real change" campaign).
Sure, this country needs a change from leaders that openly boast about torturing and murdering people. I'd feel more "inspired" by Obama if he were speaking to issues of militarism and empire that are killing the planet. However, he's got hawks as advisors, and his so-called anti-war speech wasn't strong at all ("I don't oppose all wars," he said three times in that speech).
I don't know why people write about inspiring speeches, without listening to policy statements and checking the record. Is it because we've actually lost hope that the agenda will be different this time, and we have to fool ourselves to have a modicum of hope?
This winner-take-all system has produced three candidates with rather shockingly similar positions on foreign and domestic policy. I feel that the root causes of domestic corruption, namely corporate control of the public sector, can't be addressed by any of the frontrunners, who are well funded by wealthiest of companies.
Articles such as this one - that praise political stagecraft while leaving out the context of the candidate's record - are not helpful to our political understanding. Obama, Clinton and McCain represent odious "choices," and the parties they represent are status quo corporatist parties. I just wish for a little truth telling among our writers.
The aim of truth telling is not to be hopelessness. It's so we can properly respond.
Haroon does have a point. But Americans are grasping at straws when what they need is a lifeboat. Obama's no lifeboat.
formernadervoter said: "Obama is a corporate Democrat with a neo liberal, imperialist vision on foreign policy. All his moves will definitely be inside the framework of the corporate captains who bankrolled his run."
Why should that be? When you're president don't you finally get to act with 'no strings attached'? That's what's so uncomfortable about the Bush administration: you eventually realize he actually thinks he's doing the right thing, so your mind turns to the next question: how did such an imbecile become President??
If you were to tell me that Obama was an imbecile, I might be concerned. But to tell me that, as President, he'll just be a corporatist tool, doesn't sound right, unless I'm missing something.
The U.S. lost its soul in 1968.
formernadervoter May 18th, 2008 1:10 pm
Totally agree......
"Anyone but the two parties" is the mantra....
Yes, continually, like most american blacks your first response to any success by a fellow member of your race is to put them down. You could be a white troll I guess.
RickM is right, Obama can slow the race to the bottom, but it will take LO