EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Jujitsu in Action -- The Smart Way to Fight Smears Against Obama
How should we respond to lies and deceptions about a person who has instilled hope in millions of Americans? The attacks, as we know only too well, have a long history of effectiveness that could keep our hopes from being realized. This is unacceptable.
The Obama campaign has just launched a new website to fight the smears. While it is encouraging that they are taking seriously the need to respond quickly to hateful distortions and fabrications, we want to lay out a more effective approach than the standard myth-busting tactic. This conventional approach to dispelling myths about a candidate is to first present and label the smear, then offer facts that contradict it. Recent studies have shown that this approach can backfire and reinforce the ideas you are attempting to debunk. Studies have shown that people often to "misremember" falsehoods as facts the more efforts to dispel the myth are repeated. The Washington Post and FactCheck have also pointed out the drawbacks of this approach to myth-busting.
Let's consider why these smears work in the first place. This will allow us to identify a strategy that works.
What is the purpose of a smear? Every smear has a proximate goal and an ultimate goal. The proximate goal is to instill some false or misleading idea in the minds of listeners. This serves the ultimate goal of subverting the moral character of the person being attacked. So when Obama's birthplace is called into question, the ultimate goal is to spread doubt about his integrity and weaken the inspirational power of his life story. When his religious affiliation is challenged by falsehoods, the ultimate goal is to instill fear and distrust in the populace through associations with beliefs that are unfamiliar to and mistrusted by many Americans.
This observation about the nature of smears leads to a piece of strategic advice: respond to the ultimate goal directly. To focus on the proximate goal is to fall into a trap of reinforcing the original association that the smear-mongerer is pushing.
A second observation can be made about the focus of a smear. Karl Rove is famous for asserting that opponents should be attacked where they are strongest. A key part of his approach that doesn't receive enough attention is the fact that the focus is always directed toward a perceived moral strength. So when Obama's integrity is challenged by a smear, we can safely conclude that his integrity is widely seen as an advantage that his opponents must overcome.
Another piece of strategic advice: respond with a focus on the moral weakness of the attacker, rather than the intended target of the original attack. To focus on the details of Obama's birthplace, for example, creates a sense of legitimacy to the controversy. All the while, the attacker remains hidden in the wings and suffers no rebuke.
Missing from responses that focus on the details contained in a smear is the story about why these smears are being conducted, and who is doing the dirty work. There is an effective strategy that deserves consideration -- what we'll call Political Jujitsu. The central feature of this approach is to turn the attacks against the aggressor by calling into question the intentions and credibility of the instigator.
Political Jujitsu, like the martial art, is a form of self-defense that is only effective when a person is forcibly attacked. Smears are intended as a weapon for character assassination, used by aggressors who prefer to remain hidden from view, which we could liken to the art of assassination, Ninjutsu.
This approach is founded upon the recognition that human beings organize our knowledge in the form of stories. Facts alone will not demonstrate the moral character of our candidate, just as they do not encapsulate the moral failures of our opponents. New information can transform the stories we tell, just as a new ingredient can transform a recipe. Adding turnips to a cake makes for a very different dining experience! Instead of simply seeking to "update" the facts, we must craft alternative stories that reveal the deception at work.
Let's attempt to clarify this with an example. How might we respond to an email asserting that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Just as in jujitsu, there must be a point of contact for leveraging a shift in the attacker's momentum. One point of contact is the role that the facts play in the story. Shifting this role can reverse the direction of the attack back upon its creator.
In the original attack, the role of facts (e.g. Obama's religious affiliation) is a point of entry for introducing a new narrative -- one in which Obama has secretly practiced something other than what he publicly professes. Here is a sample response that references the use of faulty facts to deceive people:
We need to be aware that there are people trying to use us to spread misinformation and do their dirty work for them. We live in a democracy and there are powerful interests who fear the idea of letting us choose our own leaders. Some have exploited the flaws in our democracy to get their hands on the levers of power and they don't want to let go. One of their standard tactics is to introduce an anonymous message filled with lies and distortions, trusting that we will blindly distribute it to all our friends. This is terribly destructive, not only to democracy, but to our personal lives because the tactic exploits the trust we share with those who are closest to us.
Barack Obama has devoted his life to public service. He has worked tirelessly for years to help people, like the factory workers in South Chicago who lost their jobs when work was shipped overseas (work he did through a Christian church). Whatever your political views, I'm sure you'll agree that fighting for American workers is something we can all respect.
I am happy to share with you a thoughtful speech by Obama that tells how his Christian faith has shaped his political beliefs. Weigh his lifetime of service motivated by his belief in Jesus Christ against the anonymous author spreading falsehoods through email. We need to call out the act of deception for what it is -- an attempt to assassinate the character of a good man.
A question I urge you to ask yourself is why the exploiters of power who started this lie don't have the integrity to be honest with the American people? The vast majority of Americans know that the economy is not working and the country is going in the wrong direction. But a few are profiting like never before at our expense and they are afraid of policies that would respect and value the efforts of hard-working Americans. Rather than challenge such policies head on, they prefer to use us to spread their propaganda.
Smears like the one in that email are meant to draw our attention to some moral failing in our leaders. The real moral failing is in the people who concocted this smear in the first place and thought so little of us when they sought to hijack the democratic process that makes America great.
There is more I could say about attacks on a person's faith, such as the impossibility of responding to claims by an anonymous attacker that you, or a member of your family, secretly believe something other than the faith that you profess and demonstrate. But I think it is more important to point out the level of vigilance we need to practice if we want to preserve our democratic traditions. This includes a recognition of the motives held by those who would so cavalierly distort our political process to serve their selfish ends.
We're going to see more smears by these powerful elites who profit while most Americans suffer. I hope I can count on you to help alert others when they use these tactics to try to divide us in the days ahead.
This sample shifts the role of facts from asserting a falsehood in the original attack to revealing the existence of a deceiver in the response. The emphasis becomes one of questioning the sources of such messages to confirm their validity, instead of digressing into a "he said, she said" that only reinforces the false idea as it is repeated over and over.
This Political Jujitsu can be used every time you are exposed to a smear against Obama, or any other honest candidate. The story of deception is there to be told in every instance of smear. It structures the facts in a way that is meaningful and memorable. Try it and see how well it works.
Evan Frisch and Joe Brewer are co-founders of hivethrive.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

53 Comments so far
Show AllThey don't need to smear Obama - all they have to do is tell the truth about this nothing of a candidate. Our lives would marginally improve with Obama as President, but it's not enough. Some of the attacks are legitimate ones. don't get me wrong: I DON'T want four more years of failed Repub policies. But Obama isn't worth fighting for, not one bit.
Evan and Joe Brewer
Nice points, well taken. I was thinkin along the same lines but your article helps clarify my thoughts. The sanctimonius gleefulness with which the corporate media tries to tear down Obama (who may not be perfect, Rich Griffin, but is nonetheless our best immediate hope so maybe contain your negativity or keep it to yourself)only goes to show that he is perceived as a serious danger to the status quo of corporate hegemony over our lives.
Republicans HAVE to lie, cheat and smear because nobody in their right mind(except the rulers of government and corporations and the obscenely wealthy individuals associated with them)would vote for their policies otherwise.
As David Michael Green points out in his article today, history will look back and scratch its head at the miracle of marketing on an undereducated propagandized populace that is the only reason for the disaster of right wing ideology we've suffered lo these twenty years.
Let's stay vigilant and change the course of history. As Evan and Joe point out, part of our effort must be to note and repudiate the larger point of the nitpicky attacks on Obama's pastor, his wife and his lapel which is pretty pathetically all the "dirt" they can find to throw.
#
Rich Griffin June 13th, 2008 1:43 pm
They don't need to smear Obama - all they have to do is tell the truth about this nothing of a candidate. But Obama isn't worth fighting for, not one bit.
Oh, really, and who is in your opinion. Are you a reThug or just a hater?
I think he is more than well worth fighting for. Don't you hear that voice, that crackle of change in the air? Many of us do hear it and are working toward its end - change for the future!!
Those of you who think this is just another election, who do not hear that voice, I pity you.
But we will win without the naysayers and
WE WILL CHANGE THIS WORLD, NOW, THIS TIME.
It is our time , we feel it and we will answer the call.
I find it interesting on all blogs that I visit, most of the naysayers and those stirring the pot of discontent have Male screen names. What's the matter boys, bitter, jealous, racist, afraid of following your feelings, something buggin' ya?
Just wondering...
Sandyk77: Bitter? Perhaps... bitter at ANOTHER establishment hack campaigning on false promises of change... Jealous? no. Racist. Maybe.
But the problem I have with Obama is that he's lying to everyone about affecting change. As the first line of this article says: "How should we respond to lies and deceptions about a person who has instilled hope in millions of Americans?" Instilled Hope... yeah, false hope. While I do hope that Obama beats out McCain, we're still not going to see any major improvements in the way the US government conducts it's business. It'll still be a government by and for the corporations. The lives of the average person will not be improved at all and we'll still see the decline of the middle class. Brace yourselves people... we're in for some colossus disappointment.
Racist is my guess. But if that is not it I too would be interested in hearing who Rick Griffin thinks is worth fighting for. It is ourselves that we are fighting for and now have the best hope we have had in forever to get our country back and maybe be a part of saving the Earth at the same time.
Col. Ann Wright is one of three State Dept. officials who resigned over the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Her advise to readers and audiences is to support and build third parties rather than malign them.
True! Thank you Col. Wright.
Our movement needs gravity, not wishy-washy support for anyone the two-parties deem safe for empire. I haven't been able to find anything all that progressive about Obama. Can you?
There goes the gravity! It hurts to be led around by the nose .... until the nose forms a callous and you just get used to it. Now is our time. Obama is only a distraction and a movement killer.
The problem is, many of the so called "smears" are the truth and many are not.
Follow the money and the actual voting record and the truth is rather obvious.
how many of your heroes have fallen lately, my dear?
stirring speeches and powerful promises are shimmering warm breezes that momentarily comfort and inspire, but have no substance...corporate donations and congressional votes (or lack of them) are verifiable facts, and likely indicators of future actions...
there is no hope for real, meaningful change here, or anywhere within our current governmental system (although I appreciate the Supreme's recent Gitmo decision)...
individuals around the world must reject property ownership, corporatization and industry of their own volition...the consumer must cease consuming...that is all
At least to some degree, the smear machine is working. A young friend of mine, who is just beginning to learn about politics, asked me last night why people call Obama a "towel head." Since I haven't encountered this personally, I can only assume that this is a generic slur against Muslims. Apparently, my friend heard a waitress in the Cracker Barrel use that term.
Obama might not be the dream candidate for everyone, but sometimes change does come in small increments. Better something than nothing, and better progress with Obama than regression with McCain. Things rarely stand still, and a McCain presidency is more likely to take us backward to the dark ages than toward enlightenment.
Rich Griffin is a poor evaluator. Obama has a touch of genius, and is the freshest, most promising presidential hopeful in the USA. Yes, he has weaknesses, as do all humans. But he is unusually intelligent, starts with excellent values, and has shown the willingness to learn and adapt. I expect truly great things from him, greater than JFK, more on a par with FDR and Abe Lincoln. Stay home, Rich, and let those of us who appreciate this great young man's promise elect him by a landslide.
SKF June 13th, 2008 3:26 pm
Racist is my guess
All it takes is for someone to oppose Obama or not vote for him to be called a racist? Come on. Thats a joke.
Or if you oppose Obama you're a sexist? Good grief.
Lets not hurl personal insults simply because someone doesn't agree with us. Thanks.
To look honestly at what Obama stands for amid the almost cultish following is not racist, hating, and has nothing to do with male jealousy and bitterness. Most of us here have already stated that we prefer Obama over McCain, but some realize that he will not be the savior he is hoped to be. On the other hand, compared to Bush, it may seem that way. Here is an article from Counterpunch that deserves serious review:
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank06112008.html
We must look past the rhetoric and own emotionalism and be realistic. That being said, I still hope Obama wins over McCain, but have no illusions that he will bring about a radical transformation--unless and until the majority insist upon it. I wish CD was more balanced in their reporting about Obama. A saint he is not.
So do you knee-jerk Democratic Party voters think that anyone—particularly progressives (this is after all progressive website, not a Democratic Party fanzine site, you know) who disagrees with Obama on ISSUES is "smearing" him? Most of Obama's positions are not in the least progressive and his mantra of "change" without actually having to commit to changing too much of anything is wearing thin.
To quote excerpts from the (linked above) CounterPunch article by Joshua Frank, (http://counterpunch.org/frank06112008.html): "Obama supports the death penalty, opposes single-payer health care, supports nuclear energy, opposes a carbon pollution tax, supports the Cuba embargo, and will not end the vast array of federal subsidies to corporations, including those to the oil and gas cartel."
"Yet here we are again, like 2004, with 'progressives' and other lefties ogling a hope-filled candidacy. But it's not just Obama's war support that should raise our hackles."
"Obama's advisory team includes Harvard economist Jeffrey Liebman, a former Clinton adviser, who believes we ought to privatize social security. Then we have the renowned David Cutler, another Harvardite, who believes our economy can be boosted through an increase in privatized health care costs."
"And that's just the tip of a very large iceberg."
By the way, BlackSheep, do you think only the Republicans are capable of using illegal, unethical and dirty tricks against their legitimate political competitors? If so, you don't know much about your party, which has used every dirty trick in the book to destroy the Green Party and Ralph Nader. Want some evidence? Go to http://www.newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com/
"DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUED FOR ANTI-DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN TO ILLEGALLY REMOVE THIRD PARTIES FROM BALLOT."
In this regard, among many others, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. And think of all the lies the Democrats have perpetuated to smear Ralph Nader: I bet most of you calcified Democrats believe and trot out these canards—in the face of overwhelming factual evidence that shows them to be untrue—every time his name is mentioned. Most of you don't disagree with him on the issues, but you really do love to SMEAR him, now don't you? How hypocritical is that?
P.S. The charge of racism could just as easily (and just as fatuously) made against those of you who simply disagree with the real progressive candidates in the race—Nader-Gonzales (Lebanese American and Mexican American) or Cynthia McKinney (African American). But if you disagree with REAL progressives, why are you on Common Dreams to begin with? Maybe you should go to Democrats.com where you'll feel more at home.
I highly recommend clicking on the link in the main article to the video of Barack Obama's speech back in June, 2006, at the Sojourners' conference. He discusses the role of religion in partisan politics and his views on separation of church and state. It's about twenty minutes long, but well worth the time investment.
What is striking about Obama's speech is that it is so adult, so thoughtful, and so dated - these were comments delivered before a serious crowd, long before he declared for the presidential nomination, and long, long before the great shitstorm over Reverend Wright and the right wing attack campaign trying to label Obama a closet Muslim erupted. In some ways, I consider this speech every bit as significant and revealing as Barack's later Philadelphia speech about race in America, delivered in 2008 at the time that the Wright race baiting and religious demagoguery was going full blast in the mainstream media.
Click on the link and watch that video.
Then tell me again why I'm supposed to believe Barack Obama is just another superficial politician whose success "isn't worth fighting for, not one bit."
Bill from Saginaw
Who said Obama is an 'honest candidate?'
Would an honest candidate present himself one way to the Democratic Primary voters, then turn around and change his stances before the general election?
Would an honest candidate wait until getting the nomination before naming a Wal-mart ally his economic advisor?
Would an honest candidate wait until getting the nomination before announcing a foreign policy that is heavily tilted towards Israel that many Democrats would object to?
Would an honest candidate wait until the primaries are almost done to go to Miami to declare his support for Cuban-American terrorists and denounce the various victories the left has had in Latin America?
Would an honest candidate tell the Democratic voters that he'll talk with the leaders of Cuba and Iran, then backpedal away from this by putting lots of conditions on these conversations once he has the nomination?
Lefties are annoyed with the fact that to be president requires pledging substantial allegiance to The Establishment. And I'm a lefty. But those who point out that we aren't going to have all we want in the near future are on the right track. Obama is a damnsight more decent than McSame, more nimble and intelligent. We stand a better chance of survival with him in the White House. We'll likely get more trustworthy Supreme Court Justices. I'll vote for Obama, and hope the composition of the Congress shifts to port.
What the majority 'insist on' will have little or nothing to do with the policies of an Obama administration.
The mistake is in beleiving that the Democrats give a damn what people think. I'd have thought the track-record of the Dem leadership in Congress on the Iraq War was a clear example of this.
The Obama administration will do what its big contributors want. If you are a key fundraiser bringing in six figures or more, you'll get a voice. But what the majority of Americans want is meaningless to them.
What gets me is that there are candidates on the ballot that would be great for the left. They even take positions that are favored by majorities of the American people.
Yet, so many people who call themselves 'lefty' will vote for a center-right, pro-corporate politician that these candidates will lose and the corporations will continue to control our government.
Then we get to listen to these same people complain for four years until they do it again and repeat the process.
We keep voting ourselves out of power by voting for candidates that do not represent our views.
There is much not to like about Obama, and there are doubts about what he will really do -- but most of that can be attributed to the rotten political system and public ignorance which any candidate must contend with if he has a chance of being elected. That said, he is clearly much better than McCain -- a clear choice.
As to responses to smears, the question is "who is the target of your response"? You are not going to budge the hardened right winger or propagandist -- most of whom already understand they are lying. The target should be those who don't understand or know -- often those just becoming aware of the political situation and reading passively as a 'lurker'(or repeating such smears in a mindless way).
One good way to counter this is, as Obama's anti-smear page does to a degree, is a pre-emptive defense: list the smears which are going around along with the refutations, as proof of the smear machine's activities and it's total lack of credibility.
Sometime you can mock the propagandists with humor, as by speculating what the absurd next smear might be("Obama is an agent of the Martian pre-invasion force!"; "Obama is Elvis' love child!"; "Obama is really a robot gone bad from Disney World!") -- ridicule can be a powerful weapon and need not be limited to the right wing. Actually, the Bush-bots might help spread these rumors because they will actually believe them. ,-)
But yes -- the propagandists must be discredited, and linked with all the lies which have already been told. ("Obama has a secret uranium refinement centrifuge in his basement and is smuggling uranium ore from Kenya. He was seen buying aluminum tubes from Walmart, disguised as rolls of aluminum foil"). Humor can help break the spell and return people to a state of 'common sense'.
Rich Griffin June 13th 2008 1:43 pm
Our lives would marginally improve with Obama as President.
I DON'T want four more years of failed Repub policies. But Obama isn't worth fighting for, not one bit.
First off mister griffin,you have contradicted yourself in one paragraph. Secondly, your argument is as stupid as it gets. You said that our lives would marginally improve under Obama, then you went on to say you don't wont four more years of failed republican policies, but Barack is not worth fighting for. I don't know what rock your living under, but if you don't vote for barack you will be staying many more years under it.
Saul Alinsky, in his excellent book "Rules for Radicals", outlined what he called "mass political jujitsu". In jujitsu, you use your opponent's strength and momentum against him. For example, if your opponent rushes at you, you can step to the side and throw him, instead of standing firm and trying to stop him. Here is an excerpt from Alinsky that illustrates how you can use this idea in politics:
"The basic tactic in warfare against the Haves is a mass political jujitsu: the Have-Nots do not rigidly oppose the Haves, but yield in such planned and skilled ways that the superior strength of the Haves become their own undoing. For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each other), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organization, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their 'book' of rules and regulations. This is what the great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote to the Corinthians: 'Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth.'
"Let us take, for example, the case of the civil rights demonstrations of 1963 in Birmingham, when thousands of Negro children stayed out of school to participate in the street demonstrations. The Birmingham Board of Education dusted off its book of regulations and threatened to expel all the children absent for that reason. Here the civil rights leaders erred (as they did on other vital tactics) by backing off instead of rushing in with more demonstrations and pressing the Birmingham Board of Education between the pages of their book of regulations by forcing them to live up to the letter of their regulations and statements. The Board and the City of Birmingham would have been in an impossible situation with every Negro child expelled and loose on the streets—if they didn't reverse themselves before they acted, they would have reversed themselves one day later."
(Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals", pages 152–153)
Samson June 13th, 2008 6:31 pm
[...] Then we get to listen to these same people complain for four years until they do it again and repeat the process.
____________________________________
Straight-up gradual incrementalism is a hard sell to skeptics. So much of lesser-evilist practical politics follows from the premise that by dint of constant brute endurance, persistence, and exertion of pressure on those in power, thresholds will be crossed and tipping points reached in a series of micro-domino cascades.
But in chaotic reality, the incremental motion manifests as a tidal motion, a rocking motion. There's a lot of zig-zagging, and two-steps-back for one-step-forward maneuvering and skirmishing, mendacity, duplicity, and amorality. Perhaps on some collective unconscious level, We the People are rocking conflicting and competing political ideals and values back and forth, like ancient peoples moving gigantic building stones.
It's a safer and more secure leap of faith to a moderate candidate than it is to commit to a "radical"* candidate. I'm not being snarky about this; if one really likes the cut of the anointed candidates from the Party of Cain and the Party of Judas, by all means follow your heart-- and perhaps laugh in my face a year from now. It's OK with me. But it's tragically true that lacking the boldness, courage, and resolve to break through the boundaries of convention, cautious and dogged moderates settle for running in place between bouts of falling over backwards.
*The ironic quotes denote that "radical" just means any candidate outside the duopoly.
I agree with many of the doubters, haters and closet racists that Obama is not going to be Che Guevarra.
Still, a quick look at the impression he is making on the rest of the world, gives me some hope. Restoring America's image abroad is no small thing.
But then, at my age I've outgrown pouting, listening to old Rage Against the Machine CD's, beating off to pictures of Angela Davis and imagining a violent revolution that would cause me to shit my pants.
Those of you so convinced we can do nothing and that all is hopeless would probably do us all a huge favor by sucking on the business end of a .357 and saving yourself all this angst and misdirected rebellion.
Rich Griffin is actually Karl Rove. Karl has lots of opertives reading CD and making irrational and mean comments. Come clean Karl, confession is good for the soul.
Didn't anyone here learn anything from 2000 and 2004?
We are in for the fight of our lives against very dangerous and well connected thugs, They will do absolutly anything to install McSame and it will take every one of US to beat them back.
"I DON'T want four more years of failed Repub policies. But Obama isn't worth fighting for"
Do you not get the internal conflict in these two statements?
If we, once again, let our side split up and bicker, slight each other's preferences and make every option look pointless, if we repeat the past two cycles' performances, we'll have a third Bush term.
One look at the current Supreme Court and the age factors vis the next four years, is all it should take to focus your attention on making sure McShame doesn't get to nominate the next few.
There is only one realistic challenger to McCon. There's no organization big enough or fast enough to change that fact in this cycle. If you don't want to continue the current deathspiral of bad Republican policies, you have no alternative.
Luckily, this guy has a lot going for him and has a shot at winning a free and fair election. But don't expect the GOP to play fair. We have to turn out such an overwhelming number of supporters that there's no way they can steal it again.
But if we break up into little groups of purists and get all jaded and cranky, run down the leader at every opportunity, it's very effective vote suppression, as effective as swiftboating (it's more appropriately: slowboating). And nothing could be better for Johny McSame and the Thugs.
It's worth noting that much of the smearing in the comments above are bullsh!t, but why even bother, right?
CV-Many thanks, well said. I am all for a viable 3rd party, and could be very happy voting Green. But it is not the time for it.
Your point about the Court is timely. Just look at the narrow decision on habeus, and Scalia's dissenting opinion.
The next president will likely appoint 3 of these judges — for life!
I hope, like you, that people will wake up to the fact that now is not the time to just be petulant and fantasize about a revolution that will change everything at once. It is not going to happen, and putting McCain in office is the best way to guarantee it won't for a long time.
It is so discouraging to read an informative and thought provoking article on CD and then read the comments. So many are negative and way off the topic. It seems that some of you posters are writing only to bash the dems or Obama. Why not write for the right wingnut blogs?
I'm a progressive. Is the Democratic Party as progressive as I would like? No, but it is a world better than the Republican Party. As for Nader and the Greens, their agenda is too narrow, although I do agree with many of their goals.
I like Obama, but don't worship him. I'm a grassroots dem who will critize the DNC. I write them directly, instead of just carping.
I'm voting for Obama because McCain is McDisaster.
Boy the trolls are out in full force.
Please, stop the pathetic fawning over a guy who is not going to challenge the status quo in DC one bit. Sure, the republicans are going to attack obama and lie and lie and lie. But please, do not engage in the same behavior, corporate democrats that you are, by insinuating that Obama is going to be the least bit progressive of a president.
Let's start with the most mindless, simple question. Why not call for the impeachment of George W. Bush? After all, there are at least, as Dennis Kucinich has recently read into the historical record, thirty four reasons to do so. Well, because, it is divisive. The time isn't right. Spare me. The time for justice, for adherence to international law, of affirming the rights of human beings, is ALWAYS right now. Supporting the action of ignoring these violations is gross negligence at best, and outright complicity at worst.
But of course, Obama is running for president, not legislator. So perhaps we can by-pass his not wanting to hold accountable people who have trashed the Constitution. Maybe we can get an anti-war attribute to our president. But he confirmed Condi Rice as Secretary of State, despite being one of the main proponents of the Iraq war, which he supposedly opposed. I say supposedly because, well, he has voted for many appropriation bills for the war in iraq since then. Let us not forget he has no plans to remove troops by 2013, and states he would leave behind troops to "fight Al Qaeda". Talk about a serious caveat.
But of course, you corporate democrats say, he will have the intelligence to AVOID the kind of wars we are in right now. Maybe avoid wars, but killing civillians in Pakistan if we had "actionable intelligence" (yes, the same kind of "actionable intelligence" we had in Iraq) is quite okay. No problem? Obama, a scholar of constitutional law, knows this is against the law. But of course that did not seem to bother him when he agreed to this in an early debate. For the sake of not piling on, lets just avoid his complete coddling of AIPAC not too long ago.
But but but but, he is going to get everybody health care!! Maybe, but most likely the same crappy health care that has us ranked 37th internationally, per the WHO. The most expensive system in the world, with the worst results of any western industrialized nation. The answer, sitting in plain sight, is Single Payer health care. It is supported by a majority of Americans. It is cheaper than our current system. It insures more people than every other system(literally, without exception, everybody). It is better for our collective health as a nation. It is supported by a majority of people in the nation, despite its negative image in the news media. This one is no problem. Who is going to get upset? Oh yea, the health care industry, a major Obama donor. Think this guy is going to stand up for the masses? Look no further than this issue. He is sending a message to the establishment that he is not going to ruffle any feathers.
Go ahead and call me negative, or divisive, or cynical. I just look at his record, look at the words he has said (remember WORDS MATTER), and come to what I believe to be the most appropriate conclusion, that Obama is no different than Bill Clinton, in that he will support corporate profits over the people on nearly every issue. Obama worth fighting for? Only if you believe in an astronomical military budget, war that comes with it, the lack of single payer health care, and the continuation of the undemocratic and frighteningly powerful WTO. As Matt Gonzalez says...count me out.
For more on Obama's record, please check out...
http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html
GKL-
I admire you for admitting that Obama is not the ray of light so many believe. But Nader's platform along with the Greens, on the key issues, is supported by a large majority of Americans. To call it to narrow is to call it too narrow for the corporate media or the elite establishment. As for Dem bashing, call it an identity correction. Continuing wars, violating international law, refusing to impeach, confirming horrible appointments, no progress on single payer health care, failure to repeal Taft-Hartley, confirming and continuing the WTO are all legitimate concerns, and faaaaar from nitpicking. They are no way to earn a progressive vote. And any fawning over Obama and the idea of voting Dems into power expecting any change in these priorities is a post in need of a serious correction. That, actually, is being "on topic".
Many of us would compromise, or at least I would, on one issue. An outright rejection of war, or single payer health insurance. But these are untouchable for Obama. So before the whole "you want all your stuff at once in a perfect candidate" stuff comes out, just know that I am willing to compromise. The Dems, well, they are not.
Off22, you've hit it right on the head!
"But Nader's platform along with the Greens, on the key issues, is supported by a large majority of Americans."
That's why I'm voting for the Dem candidate, Dennis Kucinich.
I think everyone here would agree that a strong third party would do wonders for our country. I, for one, will be glad to vote Green in November. I do anyway, whenever there's a Green candidate on the ballot. In 2000 someone set up the Nader Trader website in an effort to increase Nader support without damaging Gore's chances. We all remember the idea behind it, right? Why not do something like that this year? It can be informal. Like this:
RICH GRIFFIN, OFF22, et al -- Let's make a deal. Where do you live? Is it a swing state? If so, I will vote McKinney if you vote Obama. I'm in Georgia, and I doubt Obama will stand much of a chance here. It's not a complete write-off; he'll likely increase turnout among Black voters, evangelicals are wary of McCain, and Bob Barr might siphon off enough libertarian-leaners to give Obama a shot. If, however, Obama is down in the polls by double digits on election eve, I will vote McKinney. Would you vote for Obama in a swing state in exchange? Or would you have your vote be the one that lets McCain win the presidency?
You know, I got into it with some people here in the last week or two of the primaries. It was largely over comments such as some of those that have been made above. The one thing I took away from the verbal dustup is this: People sometimes become so insistent on making their point that they lose the ability to see the tiniest bit of reason, and the far left is not immune to this phenomenon. You see, it was the heart of the "Clinton-supporters-will-vote-for-McCain-over-Obama-therefore-Clinton-should-be-the-nominee" argument. I asked why. What reason, other than racism or bitterness, would compel a Clinton primary voter to not vote for Obama or even vote FOR McCain in the general? The only responses I received were basically lists of what is wrong with Obama -- things like his voting record or his corporate donors and questionable political allies -- coupled with the usual "You can be against Obama without being racist" comments. Those responders were so caught up in raging against the machine that they failed to understand the damned question! Instead they posted a litany of Obama's supposed drawbacks -- nearly all of which could be applied to Clinton with far greater ease, so why not overlook them in Obama if you were willing to with Clinton? But, like I said, they didn't even grasp the question I asked. This is hard for me because I consider myself to be a leftist as far as my ideals are concerned. We have to look at things pragmatically, though. Obama IS different from McCain!
Bad analogy time! OK -- The candidates are STDs. With Bush, we're already starting out with Syphilis, and it's entered the third stage already. Our options are: (A)McCain -- change nothing and pray you live for 4 years because that's the next time you get to choose
(B)Obama -- cure the Syphilis but contract Chlamydia; not completely well but life's not at immediate risk
(C)McKinney -- completely disease-free, but it's a long shot and if it fails, you're assured of Syphilitic brain fever...
I'd personally choose B. I don't take big risks. How about this:
Russian Roulette -- McKinney's an empty chamber. McCain is a big, brain-splattering bullet. Obama is a blank that might not feel good but won't permanently damage you. The gun currently has 3 Obama Blanks and 3 McCain slugs. You can rag on Obama, removing a blank and leaving a chamber empty, but to do so gives McCain the opportunity to load live bullets in place of the other blanks. Or you can throw your support behind Obama and maybe add another blank in place of a bullet. If you value your life at all, you'd do the latter. A 2 in 3 chance of having a headache beats a 1 in 6 chance of not dying.
Look, Obama's not perfect. Yes, he's gotten a lot of corporate money, but that is due in part to the fact that corporations see how upset the public is with the current powers that be. Suspecting a Democrat may win, they've been donating more to the Dems the whole campaign. And there are signs Obama will put the money to good use. Money, sadly, has been a deciding factor in our recent elections, and having plenty will help ensure a different result this time around. There's talk of Obama spreading that money around, campaigning across all the states, helping Dems win down-ticket races. Securing a filibuster-proof 60 seats is not out of reach. Make that a reality and get Obama in the White House and Dems control the agenda. They'll have no excuse for not making progress.
Let's channel our energy into helping Obama beat McCain. Then, from the election to the inauguration (and after) we pull Obama to the left as best we can.
Scholar George Lakeoff has already written about the tactical means that should be deployed to respond to such attacks as described in this article. However, what Lakeoff says is that the candidate who is so attacked should use the occasion to emphasize the Party's strengths and move closer to the Party's base in doing so.
Alas, Obama has been moving steadily away from his voter base - that is, if you think his base consists of liberal and progressive voters.
Of late, Obama has praised Ronald Reagan. He's emphasized violence as a means of conflict resolution by suggesting Pakistan be bombed. He's praised the state of Israel when it violates international laws and norms. All of these positions are not smart politics to win the support of the base. Obama has taken these positions unilaterally, without being attacked. Loyal Democrats should reconsider what sort of candidate they are getting behind.
Certainly, scurrilous political attacks should be condemned. However, let's not suspend criticism. It's our responsibility as voters to be clear thinking and objective, and also to avoid the sway of emotionally potent oversimplifications that can blind our assessment of the candidates.
I find this article's weakest point to be the idea that there is some need to prove Obama is a good Christian. Unfortunately, Obama condemned his own pastor for expressing quite defensible points of view. It wasn't very Christian of Obama to do that, nor was it a good approach in a land that supposedly defends free speech.
Anyway, Christianity isn't ethics. It's no secret that Christians in America have remained silent or cheered on the wars. Christianity has quite a bloody history. Read the Book of Joshua in the Bible for a cheerful account of mass slaughter, backed by God.
My voice is not important.
My opinions are not important.
My beliefs are not important.
But you know what, neither are yours.
I will not take part in war.
I will not take part in occupation.
I will not take part in apartheid.
You have the luxury to look away. How easily you forget, not looking in the past for more than 4 days. How easy it is for you to take part in someone elses destruction.
I will not support injustice.
I will not support lies.
I will not support hypocrisy.
I cannot support the killing of some mothers child. I cannot support the destruction of someones home. Could one ever compensate for a mothers tears or her heart breaking sorrow and sleepless nights over her lost child? I have been robbed of everything, but I will not sell my humanity.
http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SpeechesByPolicymakers/Barack_Obama_-_AIPAC_Policy_Forum_2007.pdf
Does his speech at AIPAC leave any doubt?
Do you not see the lust for innocent blood he has?
Will you regeret, when thousands or hundred of thousands have been killed?
This is the transcript of Obama`s speech.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432
I agree with many of the doubters, haters and closet racists that Obama is not going to be Che Guevarra.
This is someone you want Obama to be like?
And how about we get off the impeach the little man and move on, not only is it not going to happen, it's a "diversion" from important things.
Thomas More:
Impeachment is not a diversion. Bush is a war criminal and mass murderer, he has a policy of tirturing people, he lied the country into war, he's trashed the Constitution and the rule of law, he's bankrupted the treasury through corruption, and he has destroyed the ethical and moral core of the nation (the short list!). What could be more important than dealing with that?
We talk about democracy, values and morality, and then ignore the most grevious and outrageous offenses? What this election is mostly about is what sort of nation the US is going to be -- one which makes attempts to honor human values and decency, or a rogue nation which spreads terrorism and destruction over the world.
This is what must be at the core of Obama's stance and campaign: Bush established the Manichean ' good or evil' division in the nation and world, and Obama must stand on the good side of that -- the side of the people. The more capitulation and appeasement he does the more he blurs that crucial distinction -- and the less able he is to defend against smears and lies. To quote the Florence Reese old song, "Which side are you on?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iAIM02kv0g
While I agree with the general notion of fighting the 'ultimate goal of the smear,' I'm also familiar with the Big Lie technique pioneered by Goebbels in Nazi Germany -- say something so outrageous the public can't believe it is fabricated. During the 2004 election, I talked to people who gullibly bought the Swift Boat stories demeaning Kerry's conduct in combat simply because they couldn't believe that anyone would be vile enough to make something like that up. No amount of evidence to the contrary would change their minds, nor even pointing out what Bush and the GOP had to gain from casting Kerry as a coward who somehow awarded himself his combat medals.
Kerry added to this, of course, by waiting to object to the charges, and then, when he finally did respond, treating them as some kind of academic debating point -- his delivery was unemotional, pedantic and flat. As a decorated Vietnam vet said to me at the time, "If somebody did that to me, I'd be hoppin' ass mad and show it."
But this time around is different -- the economy is much worse, Bush is even more disliked (he was at 49 percent approval before the 2004 election; today it's 28 percent), the Republican Party is losing big all over the nation (the recent Dem special-election victories in what were 'safe' GOP districts in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi prove this), the Bush GOP has shown itself to be incompetent to handle basic domestic emergencies like Katrina, and Junior's occupation of Iraq is widely recognized as a disaster. Plus, the majority of Americans now know that BushCo has been consistently lying to them about nearly everything they've been doing for the past seven years. For most of America it is, as the saying goes 'time for a change.'
As Obama has proven by winning such white states as Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa, once he introduces himself to the nation and voters perceive him as a person, rather than the representative of a race, he does well. Moreover, the smears against Obama have become increasingly shrill and ridiculous -- he's a Muslim with a Christian pastor? -- and the public is less likely to believe the right-wing these days, thanks to BushCo. He also has the advantage of running against John McCain, a man who has abandoned all of his 'maverick' values of 2000 and flipped-flopped more often than a Sea World dolphin, and who will resemble an elderly, hunched, blinking Nosferatu in debate with the youthful Obama. (There is even a good chance McCain will lose his temper or go completely blank -- game over.) I don't think the same old Rove smear tricks are going to work in 2008 -- the situation is too desperate now, and the audience has spotted the cards up the GOP's sleeve.
Rich Griffin [June 13th, 2008 1:43 pm], don't you ever get tired of grinding the same axe? You admitted that our lives would be marginally better under Obama -- fine, vote for that then.
SKF [June 13th, 2008 3:26 pm] I don't think Rick Griffin is necessarily a racist, just a disappointed perfectionist who immaturely believes that somewhere out there his Political Prince will come. As I have challenged other anti-Obamaites in other threads at CD, if you have the perfect progressive candidate who has a chance to get elected in 2008, tell me who it is and I'll vote for them. Short of that, Obama is our best bet.
Hank Fur [June 13th, 2008 3:38 pm], actually, Obama has a pretty impressive record. Read it here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/
I agree that we need a strong third party, but there's no time for that this year. The Greens are disorganized and Nader's a lone wolf with less support than he had in the previous two presidential elections. The Libertarian Party is the strongest alternative to the big two, and they just nominated Bob Barr as their candidate for president. I haven't heard yet if Barr has changed the anti-choice, pro-drug war positions he held as a Republican congressman.
KEM PATRICK [June 13th, 2008 3:55 pm] wrote: "The problem is, many of the so called "smears" are the truth and many are not."
Which smears would be true, Kem?
KEM PATRICK [June 13th, 2008 3:55 pm] wrote: "Follow the money and the actual voting record and the truth is rather obvious."
I have and what it points to is that Obama has collected about $277 million in campaign contributions, none of it from lobbyists or PACs. He has received, according to Open Secrets.org, about $8 million from employees and relatives of employees of Wall Street firms and other large businesses. Obama's voting record shows he has consistently supported and sponsored legislation to make government more ethical and transparent, including what lobbyist was paying for what politician and where the money was going. This was the case when he was in the Illinois State Senate and it has been the case in the US Senate. All in all, he's a pretty clean politician. Next time you try smearing someone, Kem, you might try using more than innuendo. Like Rick Griffin, you seem to be stuck in a rut as well, although in other threads you have said you would be voting for Obama. Why try to rip apart the candidate you are supporting?
elmysterio [June 13th, 2008 4:02 pm], in fact, you can't prove what you wrote, you have no idea what Obama will do as president, so it's all supposition on your part. And yet you're another Obamaphobe who says he hopes that "Obama beats out McCain." This doesn't make any sense: Why would you care if they're both the same?
I can give you one big reason -- Supreme Court appointments. The Constitutional right to Habeas Corpus was just saved by one vote -- McCain has promised to nominate more Alitos and Scalias, Obama will not. As Juan Cole summed it up: "If you liked the Supreme Court's reinstatement of Habeas Corpus, vote Obama." Something for you Obamaphobes to think about while you're digging up petty complaints and indulge in wild speculation to undermine him.
chessgames56 [June 13th, 2008 5:51 pm], could you point me to the article or comment wherein it said Obama was in any way perfect or a saint. I must nave missed that one.
As far as Joshua Frank's CounterPunch article "Why I Can't Support Barack Obama," Frank is wrong.
Joshua Frank wrote: "Obama supports the death penalty, opposes single-payer health care, supports nuclear energy, opposes a carbon pollution tax, supports the Cuba embargo, and will not end the vast array of federal subsidies to corporations, including those to the oil and gas cartel."
Death Penalty: Actually, in Illinois he initiated a review of the death penalty and advocated reform to narrow its application, with the result that it was suspended by then-Gov. Ryan. While he may support it for certain crimes, he wants to lessen its use.
Health Care: He supports eventual single-payer health care, but he also realistically knows that is not going to pass the Congress in the near future.
Nuclear Energy: He supports only temporary use of nuclear energy as a transition to greener sources such as wind and solar power. I suggest you read his Issues section at his website for a fuller explanation, something Mr. Frank apparently didn't bother to do before he wrote his article.
Carbon Pollution Tax: This is a complicated issue that can't be fully addressed in a brief paragraph. He has supported various taxes on polluters, however.
Cuban Embargo: Did I mention Obama is a politician trying to get elected? Yes, he supports the embargo on Cuba that has become a public joke since there are plenty of goods from around the world arriving in Cuba these days. Most likely, he didn't want to give the right-wingers another 'too liberal' attack point by opposing the fading issue of the Cuban embargo, and he could use those Cuban expatriate votes in Florida.
Federal Subsidies to Corporations: He has advocated a Windfall Profits Tax on oil companies and taxes on other multi-national corporations. I have no idea what Frank is talking about here.
As The Politico reported on March 31, 2008: "During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion—positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign.
"The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group's detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat." [Incidentally, he won the endorsement of the questionnaire's authors, the Independent Voters of Illinois -- Independent Precinct Organization, a very progressive populist group. As Lois Dobry, a board member of the IVI-IPO, is quoted as saying, "He always was right from the start very, very clear on where he was coming from on most issues, and he certainly wasn't letting anybody else decide that for him."]
Joshua Frank also wrote: "Obama's advisory team includes Harvard economist Jeffrey Liebman, a former Clinton adviser, who believes we ought to privatize social security. Then we have the renowned David Cutler, another Harvardite, who believes our economy can be boosted through an increase in privatized health care costs."
Yes, and his advisors also include liberals like Lawrence Korb, Joseph Cirincione and Denis McDonough from the Center for American Progress. Unlike Bush, he hasn't packed his advisory team just with people who agree with him on every issue, and he hasn't advocated privatizing Social Security or said he believes our economy can be improved through increased privatized health care costs -- just the opposite. This is a nicely-played guilt-by-association trope -- if Obama knows or listens to someone's opinions, that must mean he agrees with them whole-hog. It's idiotic and childish.
Obama, like the pragmatic FDR before him, believes you have to be elected first to make a difference, and if you are perceived as some wild-eyed liberal, the Big Media and the GOP will drub you to death and you will not be elected. The political perfectionists here may not like that reality, but there it is, that's the way the system works. Obama could make all kinds of speeches of the sort some of the people here want him to make, and become another Kucinich. Dennis is a fine man, but he's never going to be president. Obama is, to quote a line, "in it to win it." This election, he's our last, best hope.
But keep dragging Obama down; perhaps you'll wake up November 5th to the joys of President McCain's America.
BTW, I don't know what has gotten into Alexander Cockburn of CounterPunch, but he's become as much of an anti-Obama nut as ex-liberal Christopher Hitchens has been a fool for Bush's Iraq catastrophe.
Sorry, Hank Fur [June 13th, 2008 3:38 pm], wrong URL. Here's the correct one:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php
RSJ, I just want to say thank you. I don't have the energy to respond to the distortions of Obama, his voting record and his policy stances, but I'm so, so glad you do. So thanks!
"Impeachment is not a diversion. Bush is a war criminal and mass murderer, he has a policy of tirturing people, he lied the country into war, he's trashed the Constitution and the rule of law, he's bankrupted the treasury through corruption, and he has destroyed the ethical and moral core of the nation (the short list!). What could be more important than dealing with that?"
You left out a lot of GWB's corrupt policies....but my point is that we can deal with all of these guys later. Impeachment won't happen. Period. So I believe its a waste of time to even talk about it any more. Lets see if wee can get some other Congressmen, senators in there that will start with the no bid contracts and work their way up. Bush is simply three day old fish now.
RSJ June 14th, 2008 9:33 am
"Hank Fur [June 13th, 2008 3:38 pm], actually, Obama has a pretty impressive record. Read it here:"
I didn't see any type of record there.
"I can give you one big reason — Supreme Court appointments"
Now thats an extremely good point.
I don't think "Obamaphobes" should be applied to someone simply because they have questions about Obama. I do myself.
His "record" is paper thin and refuting that simply means you aren't being realistic. He hasn't had time to build a record like McCains....doesn't mean its a bad thing, but it is the truth.
People have a lot of questions about Obama and his church and rightfully so. Being a Muslim is not one of them. But there are people that will say he is and you can talk till you are blue in the face. They won't change their mind. They are part of the small minority that aren't going to vote for him because he is black, because he is a Democrat and because he is very liberal. They won't have ant effect anyway, they are a small bunch.
How far left is he? That bothers a lot of people. Two of his biggest campaign contributors are The University of California and Harvard. And he's taking plenty of Corporate money. But everyone does, so what.
There are smears, there are Obamaphobes and Hillaryphobes but just because you don't buy the company line doesn't make you one of them.
What it probably makes you is a member of the vast majority that neither one can win without.
I would love to see the lobbiests fail, the minimum wage increased to a livable wage indexed to inflation like social security is so everyone gets a raise every Jan 1, Social Security secured by taxing those who make more than 250,000 year. Jobs brought back into this country by taxing corporations that have all or a portion of their workers overseas, and not taxing those corporations that serve Americans. Auto mfg's given tax breaks for the number of cars that get at least 32 mpg. In other words he gives tax breaks where they are deserved.
Have any of you Obama haters read his website, I have.
Namaste
OT Japan has made a car that runs on water.
"Do you not see the lust for innocent blood he has?"
Exaggerate much? I mean, wow. This is exactly what I'm talking about. We want someone who is a true progressive, but we aren't willing to let them say ANYTHING that EVERYONE knows HAS TO BE SAID in order to get elected. AIPAC is about as powerful a lobby as there is. He HAS to go before them and say what he said. If he says anything else, AIPAC does everything they can to demonize him. Same if he just doesn't show.
We have to realize that most of us here ARE relatively far to the left on the spectrum. Face it -- a real leftist has no chance of winning the presidency. The nominee *always* steers his rhetoric toward the center once the nomination is sewn up. Unfortunate, yes, but also expected and largely necessary. To seize on it as if he's aching to go to Israel, get in a bulldozer, and personally raze a Palestinian home is to descend into histrionics.
What alerted me first to the non-progressive nature of Obama was his stated opposition to the occupation of Iraq because it deflected our resources from the good war in Afghanistan. What did the Afghani people do against us that they merit such a war by us against them? This disappointment has been magnified by his abandonment of the suffering of the people of Palestine. He once called them victims. Now he refers to them as victimized by their own leadership--as though Hamas invaded the West Bank in 1967 and has occupied the West Bank and Gaza thereafter. Sure, compared to McCain, Obama may be the lesser of the two evils, but that still amounts to an evil, no? To vote for Obama requires one to hold one's nose.
If the smears by ExposeObama.com + FreedomsWatch.org will work, I am looking forward to the Presidency of Senator McCain. He will be the right guy: "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran", the poor will even get poorer (they have to eat grass).
Heil the Obama-smearers! There seem to be quite a lot of racists in this country.
Oh, I forgot, I am a 71 year old German who has lived for 40 years in NYC, it has been fun.
My heart goes out to the young people
Amen
Thomas More:
"Bush is simply three day old fish now" ... except he can still do a lot of damage, including attacking Iran, which could start WW3 (the real thing -- not the crap the neocons prattle on about).
As for Obama, he is not a true progressive, but a centrist, maybe conservative in some areas, such as supporting the idea of empire; he only looks leftist to some in comparison to the rabid dog fascists we now have running the country (including Senator McCain). Even Kucinich isn't very far left on the broad political scale of history and the world.
"Don't attack Iraq?" It's now supposed to 'leftist' to not lie a nation into committing aggressive war and genocide?! Leftist to Mussolini, maybe...
Equality among all citizens and the ability of everyone to be able to meet their basic needs for life (and liberty & pursuit of happiness)? This is now "left" or "Marxist"?!
Adhering to the Constitution as written by the founding fathers 232 years ago and to habeas corpus (first used in 1305) is now being called 'leftist"?! Maybe to Attila the Hun!
Let's keep all this in the proper perspective: Obama would not be a shoft to the left but somewhat of a return to what had been calling 'normal' for the US empire for most of our history.
Obama can perhaps be a vehicle to meaningful change, or the beginning thereof only if we ourselves see truly. If we idolize him, like some here seem to, we will be sorely disappointed if/when he gets to be president. I'm a realist when it comes to Obama, and am not expecting miracles, because I know his hands will be tied in many ways if/when he becomes president. We must free his hands through understanding, and not through idolization, or naive expectation.
If he is 'pretending' to be something he really is not, as some have suggested, he is already practicing deception. You cannot do this and claim to have integrity at the same time. So shoot me if I'm not a zealot for Obama. We should not let desperation blind us, regardless of how badly we want change. And I agree, electing McCain would be a disaster, but what are you going to do if the majority choose him out of ignorance or spite? This essentially means that they are not yet awake enough to choose meaningful change. Will Obama brings meaningful change if he is elected? Time will tell.
"except he can still do a lot of damage, including attacking Iran"
True, but I don't believe they have the push left to get it done. He's a nothing whicj will become clear later when the investigations show the one running things was Cheney, the real culprits were Wolfie, Rummuy and the boys.
Obama certainly isn't anything close to a centrist as I know them. He is most definately left. The question is how far? A liberal? I hope thats it. A Marxist/Socialist? I hope not. We've had enough of radicals in charge.
I don't remember suggesting any of those other things were leftist.
My point was that no one really knows enough about Obama till he address's the questions about his judgement in many instances and explains and answers valid questions about them. .
Samson [June 13th, 2008 6:31 pm] wrote: "What gets me is that there are candidates on the ballot that would be great for the left. They even take positions that are favored by majorities of the American people."
Samson, I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and we got Bush (not entirely Ralph's fault, though -- Gore ran a lousy campaign and bungled the Florida recount). I know people who voted for Nader in 2004, and we got Bush again. Here's something to consider when talking about voting for a third party candidate:
"[I]f Sen. John Kerry had received ten additional votes per precinct in 2004, he would have won Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico, and, subsequently, the White House."
-- Sam Stein, "Obama And Howard Dean Team Up to Recast the Political Map," AlterNet, June 6, 2008. http://www.alternet.org/story/87191/
I'm not a big fan of Kerry, but I have no doubt he would have been a better president than Bush.
Perhaps you third party voters will manage to siphon off ten votes a precinct in key states in this election, and then you can live with your 'clean' consciences as President McCain completes the Bush agenda: More death, maiming and destruction in our new war with Iran and the ongoing endless occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan; more shredding of our Constitutional rights; the further collapse of our economy; no affordable health care for most of us; elimination of most social safety-net programs, the GOP's corporate cronies feeding at the public trough; more tax cuts for the rich and higher taxes for the rest of us, ad nauseum. Say, maybe we'll even get really lucky and McNasty will send all of us progressives to Gitmo or some other Halliburton-built 'containment camp' -- perhaps you'll even meet your hero Ralph Nader there, reduced to scrubbing out the Blackwater guards' latrine. (One more Scalia-clone on the Supreme Court and it would all be legal.) Then, as you lay on your bug-infested bunk, trying to digest the indigestible greasy gray gruel you were served for dinner (from the filthy, verminous kitchens of your friends at KBR), you can pat yourselves on the back that you didn't vote for that corporate creep Obama who, you knew, was just like his Republican opponent and would have done exactly the same things as president. Excuse me, but there is only one word I can think of for folks like you: 'idiot.'
Thomas More [June 14th, 2008 11:19 am] wrote: "I didn't see any type of record there." [...] "I don't think "Obamaphobes" should be applied to someone simply because they have questions about Obama. I do myself."
Thomas More, I wasn't referring to you as an 'Obamaphobe' -- I was talking about those who don't care what the facts are and keep repeating the same falsehoods and distortions even after the facts have been presented to them. As far as Obama's record, it's hard to understand how you could have checked that website (did you notice the corrected URL I posted in the next entry?) and missed these items:
-- Obama Was a Key Player in Assembling and Passing the 2007 Ethics Reform Law, Which Curbed the Influence of Lobbyists and Was Described As The "Most Sweeping Since Watergate." [The Obama/Feingold Ethics Bill.]
-- Obama Co-Sponsored and Passed a Bill Creating a "Google-like" Database For The Public to Search Details About Federal Funding Awards
-- Obama Sponsored and Passed Into Law Legislation Requiring Lobbyists to Disclose Their Bundling Activity, Making Him Unpopular Even Among Other Democrats.
-- Obama Sponsored and Passed a Bill to Create Hospital Report Cards To Assist Consumers.
-- Obama Sponsored and Passed An Amendment Into Law That Pressured the EPA to Comply With New Lead-Paint Regulations After Seven Years of Delay.
-- Obama Sponsored and Passed An Amendment to Fund Research For Hybrid/Flex Fuel Vehicles.
-- Obama Co-Sponsored and Passed An Amendment Preventing the VA From Conducting Reviews Of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Cases Aimed at Reducing Benefits.
-- Obama Sponsored and Passed Legislation Improving and Increasing Services For Homeless Veterans.
-- Obama Sponsored and Passed An Amendment to Require the VA to Inform Disabled Vets Of Disparities In Compensation and Explaining Their Rights To Seek Review.
-- Obama Sponsored and Passed Legislation Prohibiting DHS From Entering Into Open-Ended, No-Bid Contracts For Emergency Response Activities.
-- Obama Sponsored and Passed a Whistle-Blower Protection Act.
-- Obama Sponsored and Passed a Bill Requiring Advance Notice Of Mass Layoffs And Plant Closings.
-- Obama Sponsored and Passed a Law Requiring Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction Strategy to Secure Weapons and Usable Nuclear Material.
-- In Illinois, Obama Passed Illinois Campaign Finance Reform, Heralded As the "Most Sweeping Good-Government Legislation in Decades."
-- In Illinois, Obama Sponsored and Passed Bipartisan Legislation That Expanded Health Care Coverage to 154,000 IL Residents, Including 70,000 Children. [The Illinois KidCare Program.]
-- In Illinois, Obama Sponsored and Passed the Health Care Justice Act; IL's Largest Health Care Coalition Applauded Obama's Leadership In Passing the Bill.
-- In Illinois, Obama Sponsored and Passed Death Penalty Overhaul Package.
-- In Illinois, Obama Sponsored and Passed a Law to Require Videotaped Interrogations In Capital Cases.
-- In Illinois, Obama Sponsored and Passed a Law Creating The Illinois Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Program.
-- In Illinois, Obama Sponsored and Passed an Equal Pay Act to Give 330,000 More Women Protection From Pay Discrimination.
And there's more at the website:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php
Also:
-- In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008, contrary to the spin that he has done nothing to try and end the war since being elected to the US Senate in 2004.
-- Obama's Plan to End the Occupation of Iraq: As President, he will immediately begin to bring our troops home from Iraq, removing one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama has made 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 some troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out limited, targeted strikes on Al Qaeda. (This last part should be unnecessary since the Iraqis don't want Al Qaeda in their nation any more than we do.)
BTW, Obama has also said that his AG will investigate and prosecute any members of previous administrations who have violated the Constitution or international treaties while in office. It may not be impeachment, but it's the next best thing.
It continues to amaze me that you dedicated Obama critics refuse to read his website before you engage in your critiques. At least read what he has to say before you criticize him based on what someone else has said about him, that 'someone else' usually being a political opponent with a vested interest in smearing him. As I previously posted in this thread, I have no idea what Alexander Cockburn at CounterPunch has against Obama, but Matt Gonzalez is Nader's VP, Pam Martens was a Hillary supporter, and Joshua Frank's article was misleading and incomplete.
Thoughts_Into_Action [June 14th, 2008 5:06 am] wrote: "Of late, Obama has praised Ronald Reagan. He's emphasized violence as a means of conflict resolution by suggesting Pakistan be bombed. He's praised the state of Israel when it violates international laws and norms. All of these positions are not smart politics to win the support of the base. Obama has taken these positions unilaterally, without being attacked. Loyal Democrats should reconsider what sort of candidate they are getting behind."
That's playing very fast and loose with the truth. Obama did not 'praise' Ronald Reagan, he simply pointed out that he inspired people. Obama went on to say he hoped to inspire Americans, but certainly not to be conservative Republicans. He said we should bomb Al-Qaeda hideouts in Pakistan, if the government there refused to arrest them -- not the entire country or Pakistani civilians. He has not praised Israel for violating international laws, and has advocated a peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestinian divide. Since Obama did not actually take these positions, but was attacked by some Hillary and McCain supporters for *supposedly* taking these positions, your criticisms on these topics are unfounded and without merit.
However, Huzzah [June 14th, 2008 4:35 pm] is absolutely right -- should Obama incur the wrath of AIPAC, his bid for the presidency would be over. Unfortunately, they are presently one of the most powerful political organizations in Washington. That does not mean, though, that a President Obama will dance at the end of a string for them. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama's mentor was a veteran Chicago lawmaker named Emil Jones, and Obama showed he would not be Jones' puppet once he was in office. He sponsored and passed ethics legislation that directly affected Jones by exposing his contributors and cutting off pricey gifts to his mentor.
Outside the Loop [June 14th, 2008 6:14 pm], you're incorrect. Obama has not advocated all-out war on Afghan civilians. He has specifically said he would only go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
As far as voting for the lesser of two evils, let me repost here my comment from another thread: We aren't electing the lesser of two evils, as some try to cast it; in an imperfect world, it is not the lesser of two evils, but the least imperfect of two imperfect candidates.
To me, Obama is the least imperfect candidate that has a chance of being elected next November. Nader, McKinney, et al, have no shot unless they can raise large amounts of money and get major media coverage, both about as likely as Junior Bush giving away his fortune to the poor and joining Greenpeace. In the current political environment, they can only serve as potential spoilers of an Obama presidency.
chessgames56 [June 14th, 2008 10:03 pm], I agree with some of what you wrote. I do not expect miracles from Obama either and I don't know anyone who does. He is simply the best game in town at the moment and I believe he will turn the country away from the disastrous path the Bush neocons have set us on and McCain will perpetuate.
It's easy to be cynical, just as many Americans were cynical of Franklin Roosevelt when he was elected in 1932, not expecting him to make many real changes -- but he did. As I see it, we have no choice this year -- at the very least, Obama could not possibly be worse than McCain, and he might be much better.
anne faith [June 14th, 2008 10:30 am], thank you, Anne, and I know just how you feel. I often don't have the time or energy to respond either. As Mark Twain said, "A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." The same applies to political smears and distortions.