Obama also said that Israel is a success which it is, depending on how you define success. And he pissed every liberal off by his comments to AIPAC. But hardly anyone can win an election unless they have their support.

Bush won (stole) the election with a lot of empty promises. Then he did just the opposite. Instead of freedom and economic and environmental progress, he gave us poverty, pollution, slavery and death. Politicians often do a 180 after getting into office.

McCain is Bush warmed over. Obama can say things necessary to win the election, but who knows what he will do afterwards. We can only be guided by what he has done in the past. And we can push him to do the right thing.

Republicans like to say that Obama is the most liberal member of Congress. That's good enough for me to support him.

"Obama can say things necessary to win the election, but who knows what he will do afterward."

THIS is the level we have come to expect from politicians. What a sad, sad commentary on this country's idea of Democracy and politics.

If you want a real anti-war candidate:

V
O
T
E

N
A
D
E
R

I agree 1000% that Nader or McKinney are by far the better choices...that being said, we cannot, as a free people struggling against a fascist federal government cannot afford to allow McCain into the White House...the balance of power in the Supreme Court is at stake...we cannot allow any more fascists onto that court!

Air strike kills wedding party. Government says they were terrorists.
Dead women and children ID'd, government says it was an accident, apologizes, offers a graduated scale of dollars to survivors to compensate for their dead wives and children and agree to shut up.

Air strike hits village. Government says they were terrorists. Dead women and children ID'd, government says it was an accident, apologizes, offers a graduated scale of dollars to survivors to compensate for their dead wives and children and agree to shut up.

Over and over and over again in both Iraq and Afghanistan and now the Pakistani border.

Please, what the f#*k are we doing there? We have the greatest collection of WMD's in the history of the world and we scatter them indiscriminately upon the poor and disenfranchised of the world, and offer a handful of paper to the survivors.

We need to stop being the world bully and try to regain the respect as a nation of laws, guided by a Constitution, as we once were.

We need a president and a legislative branch that will reaffirm the Constitution and work within its framework to help humanity, starting here at home.

If you just took fifteen or twenty percent off the top of the Pentagon's bloated budget, they'd hardly notice and we could have clean water, medical care, and schooling for all, as a start. The huge surplus left could help the poor in other countries.

Ah, well, I'm glad I'm an old man. I won't have to watch us self-destruct too much longer, but I wish these bastards wouldn't try to take the planet down with them.

Eli Pariser believes that American and Israeli lives are more important than others. His endorsement is not a good sign.

Move-on is long overdue to change their name to "sold-out".

Then again, in their unqualified defense of Clinton, they never represented the genuine left.

...

I apologise for the blank posts - but it is the only way to make edits appear in a timely manner.

from the article:

"The trip's chief political goal has been to bolster Obama's stature among voters."

...not to hear the views of enlisted personnel, which may differ significantly from the pronouncements of their officer corps;

not to hear from iraqis who've borne the brunt of the occupation, nor those who must live with their neighbor's suspicion of being collaborators;

not to hear the experiences of the few remaining professionals in the fields of medicine, education or engineering;

in short, not to learn what he needs to learn, and especially not to relate any of that accurately to us whose trust he expects to win.

his priorities are plainly not ours. how, therefore, can we "push him to do the right thing" as per the post from 12:18pm above? by "holding his feet to the fire?" (snorts derisively, having heard this empty phrase used as a substitute for an actual political strategy WAY too many times).

...in short, not to learn what he needs to learn, and especially not to relate any of that accurately to us whose trust he expects to win.

That would have got in the way of "the trip's chief political goal", which was "to bolster Obama's stature among voters."

As George Santayana said:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

America is in a deep sleep that, for some reason, we can't wake up from. As we come closer to the election it is time to WAKE UP!!! Both candidates are pretty much offering the same future for America. If you want a real change write in your vote for Ron Paul. Dr. Paul has already predicted much of what is happening to the economy and he believes in a NON-INTERVENTIONIST government. It's time to get our troops home and protecting our borders instead of other countries. You can WRITE IN a protest vote if you don't agree with the candidates the government has appointed for you. MORE LIBERTY, LESS GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.

klakin is correct: Vote nader.

Who is running Obama's campaign? McCain?

Every time McCain criticizes Obama he answers by adopting the frame of reference of that deluded former POW. Obama is running his campaign themes safely inside the bounds of thinkable Republican thought:
smart wars
black people get your house in order and stop asking for hand outs
standardized testing and teachers if you want more money quit or raise test scores (which are basically meaningless)
free markets solve everything
more nukes (another words more taxpayer hand outs)

etc.,etc.

If Obama gets elected we will have a black quarterback but he is going to run the same plays.

The voters of the USA have the opportunity with this next presidential election to make the control switch change hands.
But until they change the political process that makes the entire system operate in its present manner they will end up with most of the same that they have had.

The Presidency and all of the other "public servants" from both houses, from any party, whether Demo. Rep. Ind. Libertarian. etc are simply there to do the bidding of the "ones who pay the most". They are prostitutes (which in most cases is an insult to prostitutes who in most cases will admit to being prostitutes, whereas the "others" insist on calling themselves "others") and will say what they "customer" wants to hear, and do what the customer wants them to do.
Only when the American people eliminate the bidding process, or learn to out bid the "johns"----will they get the "prostitutes" to do what THEY want them to do.
Mr. Obama is simply the "new prostitute on the corner", the only change he most likely actually represents is his skin color.

Actually the American people should take some consolation in what has evolved into the present political arena. If your "on the market" for "favors" and you know the price, the only thing standing in your way is how to get the money to the recipient, and then collect the favors. They also have a very powerful tool that is so far un-utilized-----
an "apportioned Income Tax"--------but that is another story for another posting.

Didn't we hear this before? something about military invaders in Afghanistan NEVER succeeding? So the US of A is going to rewrite history?

And then, in order to take on the Taliban, what kind of deal to we have to make with their Iranian oppostition?

Seems to me that if you want Afghanis to throw flowers at your feet, don't point guns at their heads. Also, don't mess with the poppy crop. Also, G Washington's advice on "entangling alliances" applies to Muslim countries in the 21st century as well as 18th century European ones.

Wisdom, wisdom, where art thou? Certainly not in the M/I complex.

You want change then do it yourself. Stop the war by stop paying your taxes. Its that simple. Leave the Cystem and build relations with your local community, grow your own food, support each other. We don't need to be wage slaves anymore for the corporate fascist state. Its fear that is stopping us from taking back what has been taken from us. Discern, intuit, and know what is being feed to you, believe nothing but explore everything

Obama will , no doubt, escalate US involvement in
Afghanistan and he'll (that is , we) face the same opposition that the Russians faced. Many died, they left and now we come again.

Obama is like LBJ in 1964, Nixon in 1968--promises to end the war but escalates instead.

This American Empire is a stubborn beast.

I am beginning to suspect the mythical "success" of the surge has led some to feel more optimistic of a "military solution" ... you know, those millions who supported the war until the occupation became an embarrassment ...

Karzai's up for reelection next year and his popularity seems to be tanking (and I get the feeling his in-house approval rating with Washington is in the toilet too) ... do I smell pre-positioning for regieme change part deux?

Apparently, the British are gradually pulling out ... what about the rest of NATO, y'know the folks who has been doing the heavy-lifting in the "nation building" department ... while we go on joy rides, get into trouble and need to be rescued by the previously mentioned "air power."

We don't need a new president. We need a new constitution.

Americans love the idea of 'choice' in their democratic fantasy. We can choose either the Old, Reliable corporate candidate or the New, Improved corporate candidate. The world's laughter is ringing in my ears!

Boy, that is a scary thought. Obomba is an articulate form of McBush. Go Nader!

We will get fascists on the supreme court regardless of who "wins"; we have two corporate presidential candidates who are allowed to "win" - I hope more and more people come to their senses and vote for alternative independent candidates and parties.

The title of this peace is : "Antiwar Activists Split Over Obama's Troop Plans"

Are there any antiwar activists quoted here that support Obama's troop plans? Does moveon org qualify? Is it not a fundraiser for the Democrats? Are the Democrats antiwar now?

So if the piece is claiming that antiwar activists are "split", what does it base this on?

This is not good journalism. I mean, just logically, the article aside, how could antiwar activists be supportive of more war (on Pakistan) and more soldiers for occupation (Iraq and Afghanistan)?

If all the whining purists on this blog really wanted to make a statement to those in power, wouldn't it make more sense to pluck Nancy Pelosi from her lofty position as Speaker of the House and replace her with Cindy Sheehan or a Republican to send a message to all of them? While we can't afford a Bush III, we can afford to give up a Dem seat in the House if our efforts to get Cindy in are not successful, as we already have a significant majority there that is likely to increase after the elections. You should be going all-out, damn the torpedoes, to get Cindy elected and Pelosi out.

Why aren't you doing that instead of asking everyone to engage in political suicide by putting McSame in the Neo-Fascist throne of the Unitary Executive? You aren't doing that because you are ditto-heads working with Rush in his "Operation Chaos" program!

Two choices:
1. vote
2. don't vote

If you vote, you get to choose between either a Republican or a Republican posing as a Democrat

Isn't America sick and tired of the results of elected liars?

Do not vote for the lesser of two evils.

Damn, Democrats DO know how to lose even if it should be a landslide election! If Obama were a pure progressive, he'd have never made it this far in war-loving America.

He's for women's right to choose for one thing -- which McInsane is not. If a girl gets raped and pregnant because of it, or is just too young and poor to become a mother, McInsane, like the rest of the so-called compassionate conservatives/Rethuglicans, would block the abortion the girl/woman would want. "Nice" people.

"I agree 1000% that Nader or McKinney are by far the better choices…that being said, we cannot, as a free people struggling against a fascist federal government cannot afford to allow McCain into the White House…the balance of power in the Supreme Court is at stake…we cannot allow any more fascists onto that court!" Have you not noticed that the Democrats have enabled the "fascist federal government" for the past 7 plus years? "...the balance of power in the Supreme Court is at stake.." is a specious argument. Democrats routinely approved the Republicans nominees. Sorry, but Democrats are to blame just as much for the Supreme Court as Republicans. Obama is MORE OF THE SAME. You don't get to where he is by not being more of the same. Moveon.Org has from the get go been a front for the Democratic Party. How can any "progressive" approve of Obama's troop plan? The presidential election is a fraud. Perhaps, today, that is more obvious than ever. And yet. home team Democrats root for their team as if it matters. It doesn't. Nancy Pelosi is proof enough. So Ralph, you run, and you run hard. And perhaps, some day after you and people like you are gone, liberals and "progressives" will finally get it, when they are inside barbed wire detention centers. Voting for the lesser of two evils gets you both.

So you're saying, vote for the greater evil instead? You conservatives kill me.

The ditto-heads like toast, tailcap and the others are pushing a false dichotomy, that they have manufactured and fine-tuned, in the whole concept of "lesserevilism".

As Orwell was well aware, as are those involved in marketing the Republican Party and right-wing positions, the labels and terms used to couch an argument can make all the difference needed to pull the sheeple around by the nose.

The argument is not about lesser-evil, it is about making the best choice possible to move the country, and the world, in a more peaceful and more progressive direction, away from the destination of jack-booted fascism that we are currently racing toward under Bush, and it won't slow down under McSame.

Obama is the only choice with a chance of achieving that goal.

Obama said he wants to keep small numbers of troops there to protect our embassy and carry out covert anti-terrorist operations within Iraq.

I doubt 50,000 troops will be necessary to do that.

For a more complete list of the ditto-heads posting here at CD, read the comments on this article-
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/19/10478/

MikeBinSC July 23rd, 2008 2:05 pm

-"Why aren't you doing that instead of asking everyone to engage in political suicide by putting McSame in the Neo-Fascist throne of the Unitary Executive?"

If "mcsame" is put on the "throne", it will be by the same people that put Mr. Bush there, the Democrats. Healthy democracies have opposition parties.

The rest of your "argument" boils down to name calling, does it not? "whining purists"etc.

You may not like it, but the cold truth is, if you want peace and justice, you'll never get it with Obama.

You want more of the same? Vote for Obama.

You want peace and justice? Vote for Nader.

Otherwise, quit your carping.

When it comes to withdrawal from Iraq, or impeachment, democrats are truly a wasted vote.

jlocke123, I'm all about building a viable third party, but you can't do it between now and November. I say again, if you really want to make a statement to those in power, wouldn't it make more sense to pluck Nancy Pelosi from her lofty position as Speaker of the House and replace her with Cindy Sheehan or a Republican to send a message to all of them? While we can't afford a Bush III, we can afford to give up a Dem seat in the House if our efforts to get Cindy in are not successful, as we already have a significant majority there that is likely to increase after the elections. You should be going all-out, damn the torpedoes, to get Cindy elected and Pelosi out. Why aren't you doing that?

5280-"You want peace and justice? Vote for Nader."

Would you like to explain how wasting a vote on Nader brings about peace and justice? I'm sure we would all like to see the plan!

re MikeBinSC July 23rd, 2008 2:30 pm:

you wrote "For a more complete list of the ditto-heads posting here at CD, read the comments on this article-" followed by a link.

i read the article. there were 40 posts. nine of them were yours---the most from any one individual. what exactly was your point?

that whining sound you allude to (an echo perhaps?) is the ususal crowd of obamabots complaining that some of us are unfairly withholding our support from your idol, simply because he hasn't earned it---in fact, has taken it for granted. he's just like madame speaker pelosi and rep conyers, who seemed such pit bulls when they were in the minority, but have, since taking power, revealed themselves to be merely two more corporate pussycats fattening on MIC and AIPAC cream.

Nader has never even broken 3% of the vote.

Nader has no chance. He won't even break 5%. So, how exactly does that bring about peace and justice??

I voted for him in 1996 and 2000. In 2000 he had the best chance to make a positive impact, to get matching funds for the Green Party. More press than he's getting now, huge rallies, and people fed up with Third Way Democrats, sanctions on Iraq, etc.

This time around, he's split the vote with the Greens! Now NEITHER group will break 3%! Even if that weren't the case, he'll do worse in 2008 than he's done before.

If I lived in a "safe" state like Mass. or even Texas, then I'd vote for Nader. But I live in a swing state, so I am voting to keep McCain out. It is much more likely that McCain will attack Iran and interfere with other elected governments worldwide. Also, McCain's plan is to further decrease taxes on the richest 1% by another 21%! Obama's plan is to undo some of those regressive tax cuts.

The fact is that Obama is quite deliberately made himself to be a blank slate. Some of the comments here are more about the emotional state of the poster than about Obama's stated policy goals. And I'm guessing that quite a few posters here are Republicans pushing Nader.

MikeBinSC July 23rd, 2008 2:47 pm: "I'm all about building a viable third party, but you can't do it between now and November."

Consider baseball. You know baseball right? Say you were a supporter of the Yankees but they were feeble. What do you do? Do you switch teams whenever they are losing? Without fans they will never win. The team will fold.

America will be around long after November. If progressives have something to say on the American political scene then they need to build a team that will last as long as America because their country needs the left's star players like Nader and Mckinney.

The idea that Obama is an anti-war candidate simply is mistaken, just like it was mistaken to think that Kerry was an anti-war candidate four years ago. Every day the Democrats demonstrate why it is impossible to take them seriously as an alternative to the Republicans. If the Democrats are the lesser of two evils, then this is only because the Republicans are so appallingly bad. Every day I find it harder to sustain an argument that one can hold one's nose and vote for the Democrats. Their positions simply are too unethical.

Presidents have been elected when the rich and wealthy were against them because the poor supported them. In Obama's case. he has some trouble with the "red neck" poor people who are afraid of him.

That is why we-- leaders of the progressives have an important part to play and not to vote for any third party.

We need to devote time to register the poor and do what we can to get obama into office

You do not want to wake up on Nov 5 and McCain is in office!!!!!!

Inform yourself about Obama all you can. Right now a 55 minute press conference in Amman Jordan last Tuesday is inspiring, encouraging, just plain great--- good to see a politician stand up against the military !!!! Obama states why he is not going to follow General Petraeus blindly as Bush and McCain are doing-- Obama explains that he has responsibility for the entire nation not just the Iraq war and he will need resources to be redistributed. Malaki agrees with Obama!!! They will do it without a massacre.

The Obama press conference I mensioned above is on C-Span.org

By the way the latest is to go around and say the opposite of what a person really stands for. For Example- someone here was complaining that Hillary was supported by Mov-on dot org. Wrong- Hillary complained about that organization and they supported Obama fully.

Just an example what you can get away with when people are getting so much info that they don't remember what happened from one day to the next.

jlocke123 July 23rd, 2008 3:08 pm, that has to be about the most ridiculous, dumb-assed argument I have ever heard! This is not a damn baseball game! The literal future of the world rests on this election. McKinney was a Democrat, remember? She was the first to introduce articles of impeachment. Nader endorsed John Edwards, a Democrat, remember?

The same logic used by all you whining purists should tell you that Nader is the lesser of three evils, and doesn't deserve your vote either!

hazmat July 23rd, 2008 2:58 pm, what are you whining about, did you not find the list there?

For a more complete list of the ditto-heads posting here at CD, read the comments on this article-
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/19/10478/

Iraq has failed... so the Military Corporate Puppeteers are steering their dark horse candidate back to the original focus... putting the squeeze on Russia and China through Afghanistan. Welcome to Cold War Part II. A two party production.

Barack Obama said on Wednesday in Sderot, Israel that a nuclear Iran would pose a "grave threat" and that the world must stop Tehran from obtaining an atomic weapon and if elected, he would take "no options off the table" in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed.

Does this sound like a broken record pressed by the neocons? Obama bowing to the demands of Israel just makes me sick. Time to unify for a write-in come Novemeber. Either way, McCain or Obama will use the same failed and worn out arguments to pursue an aggressive foreign policy.

Yes, yes, a write in campaign! As I've said before, why don't you purists just write in your own name on the ballot, as that would be the only candidate that could satisfy you? After all, your chances of winning are about as good as Nader's.

MikeBinSC July 23rd, 2008 3:25 pm: "McKinney was a Democrat, remember? She was the first to introduce articles of impeachment. Nader endorsed John Edwards, a Democrat, remember?"

MikeBinSC, let me get this straight. You can't vote for Nader because he supported a Democrat in the past. You can't support McKinney because she was a Democrat in the past. So you will vote Democrat. Is that about it or should I expect some more name calling?

"Would you like to explain how wasting a vote on Nader brings about peace and justice? I'm sure we would all like to see the plan!" YOU look the plan up. Ignorance. Excuse me. If YOU and Democrat appartchiks voted for Nader whose platform I'll bet you would agree with if you read it then you wouldn't be asking this question. YOU are the reason nothing changes. YOU! As for the asses that call anyone who disagrees with the Democratic Party dittoheads, you should review your strategy. How are your ignorant insults going to gain Saint Obama votes that way? The votes that he needs to win. The Democratic Party is simply stupid. I would have long ago made an accommodation with Ralph Nader that leans in the direction of causing mostly grief to the John McCain campaign. But Democrats are not creative enough, nor do they have confidence in their candidate. If they did, then there would be no fear of debating Nader. Progressive, my ass. Reactionary, like Bush and Cheney, Democrats are of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mindset. It's a position that comes from insecurity. It's a reaction that comes out of ineptitude.

One more Obama mask off: he has appointed Dennis Ross as his Middle East adviser. Anyone who believes that Obama will end war has to have his/her brain checked. Ross is a saber rattling war hawk in league with AIPAC. Goodbye Obama! Your war in Afghanistan will be an even greater disaster than Bush's war in Iraq.