Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWASHINGTON - Barack Obama's plan to build up U.S. forces in Afghanistan while keeping perhaps 50,000 troops in Iraq has triggered a deep rift among antiwar activists, a reminder of the difficult tasking facing the presumptive Democratic nominee as he tries to broaden his appeal.
The Illinois senator wrapped up three days of tours and talks in the war-ravaged nations Tuesday, stressing in a news conference that the "situation in Afghanistan is perilous and urgent" and that "we should not wait any longer" to provide additional troops.
In Iraq, Obama won a tacit Iraqi endorsement of a plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in 2010, but he also said that he backs leaving a residual force in Iraq to help train military personnel, provide security for U.S. interests and thwart terrorist threats. The residual force might total up to 50,000 troops, his campaign advisers have told reporters.
Some hailed Obama's trip as an important breakthrough.
"So far the trip has been out of the park. It's an enormous moment," declared Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, which supports Obama. He hedged about Obama's troop commitments, however: He said he wasn't fully aware of Obama's call for a residual force in Iraq and was trying to get a sense from MoveOn members on their views about Afghanistan.
Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, the national Catholic social justice lobbying group, was less enthusiastic.
"It was a significant step forward," she said, "but it was only a step."
Others were simply annoyed.
Barbra Bearden, spokeswoman for Peace Action, called Obama's comments about Afghanistan "a bit disheartening."
Ian Thompson, lead organizer in Los Angeles for Act Now to Stop War & End Racism, an antiwar group, found Obama's Afghanistan position similar to that of President Bush and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
"What this shows is that Barack Obama does not really represent any policy shift," he said.
Republicans thought that Obama supplied them with new political ammunition. Obama supports withdrawing U.S. combat forces within 16 months after becoming president, while McCain has called such fixed timetables artificial and unrealistic. He says troops should come home when conditions on the ground warrant it, and not before.
Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., a McCain backer, charged Tuesday in a conference call with reporters organized by McCain's campaign that Obama has shown he's "frighteningly inexperienced. The difference is Senator Obama's (view) is based on the calendar, while Senator McCain believes the decision should be based on conditions on the ground."
The trip's chief political goal has been to bolster Obama's stature among voters. The 46-year-old first-term U.S. senator is running against an opponent with a lengthy national security resume, and a Pew Research Center poll taken June 18-29 found 55 percent of voters thought McCain could better defend the U.S. against terrorism, while only 31 percent preferred Obama.
And they thought, by a 47 to 41 percent margin, that McCain could make better judgments about Iraq.
Experts were cautious Tuesday in measuring the trip's political impact.
Obama took on some risk by "looking like he's being tutored," said Harold Cox, professor emeritus of history at Wilkes College in Pennsylvania.
"Things seem to be going as planned, and he could be helping himself," said Kareem Crayton, associate professor of law and political science at the University of Southern California. "But we have to wait and see; we don't know the public reaction yet."
After Obama met Monday with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said that while Iraq did not endorse a date certain for withdrawal, he hoped it could occur sometime in 2010.
Some thought Obama helped himself politically.
"The prime minister clearly supports Obama's plan for exiting Iraq," Pariser said. "This couldn't really be better."
The visit "appears to have given the Iraqis the courage to express some of what they're thinking, without fear of the Bush administration reprisals," said Campbell of NETWORK.
But Obama's views troubled many peace activists.
Bearden of Peace Action said that "we've seen the results of these military actions. We create a power vacuum and try to create a government. We did that in Iraq, and now we're talking about using the same failed strategy again in Afghanistan."
Judith LeBlanc, organizing coordinator for United for Peace & Justice, said that "dealing with the threat of terrorism cannot be done on a military basis." She and other activists wanted to hear more from Obama about a strategy for dealing with terrorism around the globe, including more use of diplomacy and economic aid.
The activists agreed on this much: They're not going to vote for McCain.
But whether Obama generated new enthusiasm, let alone attracted fence-sitting independent voters as McCain continued to blast him as naive, remains an open question.
"I think it's fair to say," said Crayton, "that he hasn't hurt himself."
© McClatchy Newspapers 2008
188 Comments so far
Show Alltailcap July 24th, 2008 1:17 pm
Well you really didn't address about half my statements and you're argument techniques are very familiar. I'm pretty sure I got you figured out.
i.e.
"You believe in lesser-evilism which always leaves you screwed. If you were asked what you rather have, your wife raped on the hood of an old rusty, beat up, pickup truck with a gun rack and a Confederate Flag in the back window or have your wife raped in a comfy, brand new, shiny Lexus with a Bose surround-sound stereo? What would you say, "Gotta accept less than my ideal, rape her in the Lexus"? Sorry, I would say neither!"
You're analogy does not even apply to reality.
History shows that mankind has slowly progressed. It also shows us to be quite horrible, but getting better, sometimes taking a step backwards.
But it takes steps forward. 150 years ago there were legal slaves on this planet in mass. 60 years ago there were men and women with less rights than others in this country. It was guess who that helped facilitate that? dems, and not for corporate control.
America got fat lazy stupid and con'd in the last 15 years and some of it was due to precedent setting corruption and the nerve to break the law in bold new ways with a stranglehold on both congress and the executive branch. Some dems that did stand up are gone and replaced with neocons, and many more may have feared the same if they didn't hold on and play it safe. Cleland took such a stance and look what happened to him. I personally would have done what Cleland did at the time, but in hindsite???? If he took a lesser stance, he might be in the fight today, now he is completely helpless. That might be moot as the dems are still nearly completely helpless. They fear their biggest weapon the filibuster will be used by the propaganda machine to make them look weak come election time. I agree with you, that that is crap when the poll show how many want us out of Iraq, but they are not taking chances.
Roosevelt busted corporate monopolies but he also took the rights and imprisoned over 100,000 americans? Probably a lot worse than any rights bush/cheney have done. But, was life better afterwards in this country and the world?
Kennedy rattled sabers, we all know the ills of the clinton era, Carter was probably the best president we ever had, i have to say.
But this flawless superhero idea of men and parties and idealism is something one who only knows life from movies and TV. It's a childish view of reality that rejects the lesser of two evils, because there is lots of evil out there and in all of us. There are no golden heroes out there and life moves forward slowly with a mix of dark and light and every shade in between, but things get slightly better and you're lucky if in your lifetime to see some good change, but nearly every generation has seen some.
But there's a light year's worth of difference between trying to compromise to stay in and win against those not playing fair and running a propaganda war on a dumbed down populace, vs. those that are the ones trying to destroy this country.
The only concession I make is that America and the world in general is getting dumber, and hopefully it was just a phase and life and hardship caused by this current time and regimes that dominate it will wake the inteligence again. If not, then we're really screwed.
Vote anybody but the twp parties.
I agree with safiyyah
"Let's see now? Obama is over in Israel saber rattling and threatening Iran, and some people here actually want to vote for the guy? You guys just don't get it, do you?
Since both corporate political parties rule together and have locked the system up to where we do not actually live in a functioning democracy today, who we 'vote' for is actually rather a mute point. We do not have democracy in this country at all, and we never will unless enough people get fed up enough with this dictatorship PERIOD. That has little to do with 'voting' though.
All the organizing for participation in these fake elections is organization that might well have been better spent in antiwar organizing. Don't you think?"
The rest of the comments are pure crap! There is no choice in this, or any recent election, your precious vote is worthless, we will end up with either a white version of Obama or a black version of McCain.
"a bit disheartening" – even the Brits couldn't have been able to top this gem of an understatement.
Any body who continues to pretend that Maliki is a real leader and not an appointed puppet and holds 'talks' inside the green zone can not be expected to do anything but maintain the status quo at best or escalate the conflict to include Iran.
Any Democratic Party supporter up to the task of apologizing for all the Democratic Party capitulations? Here is the debate: I make a case that progressives should not vote for Democrats because they have adopted the Republican agenda. My case is as follows:
The Democrats:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war
2) Refuse to impeach Bush
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers into the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10)Lead by Obama want to increase the number of troops by 90,000
11)Lead by Obama wants to send more troops to Afghanistan instead of ending the warming
12)Lead by Obama has fine print weasel on his web site to keep many tens of thousands of troops in Iraq
That is my argument. Please refute it if you can. If you cannot defend the Democrats without resorting to lesser-evilsm and name-calling then you will have proved that you are intellectually incapable of debate and not worth the time of day.
That's okay, I just read the tail end of your statement where you say you will not address my questions. You just proved my point. Thanks, I will not waste my time on you either.
Democratic Party supporters are the ones that refuse to answer the issues I posted above. I have been posting it for over a month and NEVER has any Democratic Party supported answered it. Then they have the nerve to claim I never answer questions and I am not capable of honest conversation.
The fact of the matter is that it is Democratic Party supporters that are on the defensive. We read article, after article, after article exposing the Democrats for the traitors they are. In case you haven't noticed most of the bloggers here would more agree with my position than that of voting for Obama.
opeluboy, I decided a while back to just identify tailcap and the others as brain-dead ditto-heads and move on. They are not capable of honest conversation.
Tailcap - You never debate, you just tear down Obama. You never answer anyone's questions, just make demands. Who the fuck do you think you are? You provide zero solutions. Your single goal is to dump on Obama. Well, have fun. Play this game with someone else. This is my last personal comment to you and will address none of yours in the future. I hope that will catch on with others here as well. You're a waste of space and I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed.
opeluboy July 24th, 2008 8:15 pm write "You're a fool. And likely a Republican troll."
-Rather than engage me in a debate with facts and attempt to refute what I say (which is actually the truth) you simply label me a "Republican troll" and a fool.
I am pretty sure you can do better than that. Is that the best you got? Weak.
Tailcap - What the fuck do you want from people here? Is your sole mission in life to run down Obama? Got a problem with tall, intelligent black men? And did you make all these same noxious statements when Hillary was still in the race about her?
All of us here who are reluctantly supporting Obama have given our reasons. All of us would prefer someone else. What part of that don't you get? there will be two, and only two, viable candidates come November. Please explain how running down the best one incessantly helps anything.
Asked to list some differences between McCain and Obama, I did so. To deny those differences takes a rare dishonesty that I have only seen equaled at sites like Free Republic.
You even had to quibble about Obama being more intelligent.
You're a fool. And likely a Republican troll.
It would be a lot more than a baby step Oceangrrl!
Good comment.
wow... still going?
The funny thing is is I think we all (for the most part) agree with where we want to be/go. In a world without war and domination where there is equitable access to resources in a sustainable system that respects the interconnectedness of all beings/animals/things and the ability to accept true shades of gray and pluralism. Where we are getting caught is how to accomplish this. There needs to be the strident extreme views on each side in order to move the mass in the middle.
From my perspective energy is much better spent looking at what you can accomplish realistically right now then how to do that. I would love to see McKinney in the White House.. could that possibly happen right now? No. Turn on the TV and look at what a majority of this country occupy their time and minds with. REALISTICALLY.. I think it is a huge leap if Obama were elected. Of course that is not going mute my personal vision for how I want the world to be or my disappointment with his right shifting... but at the same time when I go to work I wear a very conservative suit, cover my tatoos and play the professional game(I get a away with more that way too ;-) And before you jump down my throat about selling out I invite you to try to be a single mother secretary who can barely make ends meet, is constantly feeling guilty about leaving my son in school for such a long day and who can barely pay for childcare to go to work.
There is a limit to what you can do sometimes. I see progressive as being just... progressive. You have a horizon and you move as steadily (and mindfully/respectfully) toward that as best you can. I think Obama would be a good baby step in that direction. And, as my son says, "it would be cool to have a president who looked like me." That, from a social perspective in this racist country is a pretty big leap, IMHO.
Suckerbeagle, I certainly am not against Nader and McKinney participating in the debates, in fact, I hope it happens, but don't hold your breath. But, if thet are included, don't expect the issues to be blown wide open. We had strong progressives in some of the primary debates, but only the progressive base was excited by it. The real problem is that the rest of the time, before and after, the progressive voice and ideas are squashed by the MIMIC (Military-Industrial-Media-Infotainment-Complex). We need a lot more media outlets for the progressive message, so the sheeple can hear it.
Lyndon Johnson. I didn't live to regret it the rest of my life. I joined the anti-war movement instead. The anti-war movement, by the way, has no business supporting or not supporting candidates. It should remain an independent popular force to exert constant pressure on the U.S.government as long as we are at war, anywhere.
So, Lyndon Johnson...the alternative was unthinkable. So we thought.A vote for Nader doesn't put Nader in the White House. But it puts pressure on anyone running for office. It says, "This is where more and more Americans stand." And does anyone really think Ralph shouldn't be in the debates? To me, it's the only way the issues will get out in front of the rest of the country who are hearing only the mainstream media version of things.
Many folk wrote here concerning how to put pressure on Obama to deliver on his "promises". Nader in the debates will blow the issues wide open. How can this be a bad thing?
And here is another ridiculous, dumb-assed analogy from RichM- "The logic of Dem Party Apologists like opuleboy & MikeBinSC is that in an election where someone similiar to Daddy Bush is running against a GW Bush clone, we should vote for the Daddy Bush-like candidate."
Oh yes RichM, Obama and Bush Senior, just like two-peas-in-a-pod! You really are committed, or should be! Don't you need to be giving Rush a status report on the CD team of "Operation Chaos"?
Umlaut July 24th, 2008 11:41 am writes "Your question makes it evident that you are against not using this as party propaganda site. That coupled with the amount of respect and compassion you display is eyebrow raising and sheds a little light to me on what the deal is here."
-number one, I am against you telling me what to do
-number two, I have a hell of a lot more compassion for the many, many thousands of people that will get killed under an Obama presidency than Obama and those supporting him.
-number three, lesser-evilism: Obama is unacceptable because he is pro-war.
Tell me this Umlut:
You believe in lesser-evilism which always leaves you screwed. If you were asked what you rather have, your wife raped on the hood of an old rusty, beat up, pickup truck with a gun rack and a Confederate Flag in the back window or have your wife raped in a comfy, brand new, shiny Lexus with a Bose surround-sound stereo? What would you say, "Gotta accept less than my ideal, rape her in the Lexus"? Sorry, I would say neither!
tailcap July 24th, 2008 10:36 am
"Umlaut July 24th, 2008 10:26 am writes: "…but I'm not going to give up dating because that may never happen."
-lesser-evilism, paternal-style"
So I take you have never settled on anything less than optimum in your life, job, significant other?
"How about we all just state what we're going to do, and stop using Cd as a party propaganda site. I've never seen anyone swayed by anyone here anyway, so you're just wasting your bandwidth."
-I assume you read every thread and every article- right?
-How do you know if anyone has been swayed?"
I've been here long before they even had postings, maybe 6 years. I read it nearly every day. I've never seen anyone say "I'm wrong, you're right now that you put it that way."
"How about we all just state what we're going to do, and stop using Cd as a party propaganda site.
-who are you to tell us what to do? Do you own this site?"
Sorry, was supposed to be a question mark at the end, but the "How about" defiantly should make it quite evident that it is a proposal.
Your question makes it evident that you are against not using this as party propaganda site. That coupled with the amount of respect and compassion you display is eyebrow raising and sheds a little light to me on what the deal is here.
opeluboy ( 9:59 pm) wrote, "...The time to vote for (a 3rd party) that has no chance is not in a life or death election. This is a life or death election, whether you think so or not...."
- Actually, it's not at all a "life or death election." It's a death or death election. The country is being killed by the corporatism & militarism that's forced on the population through the 2-party system. As long as this duopoly controls all political power, the public has no chance to vote for anything besides more corporatism & militarism.
The notion that a phony like Obama represents a "life" option in American politics is ridiculous. A look at his platform & his advisors shows he'd be about like Bush's father -- an advocate of American empire & a reliable agent of the plutocracy, who nonetheless was prudent enough to avoid starting WW3.
Daddy Bush was not nearly as destructive as his son. The logic of Dem Party Apologists like opuleboy & MikeBinSC is that in an election where someone similiar to Daddy Bush is running against a GW Bush clone, we should vote for the Daddy Bush-like candidate.
Remedyps...Judaism is a religion, Israel is a country. Conflating the two is a mistake. I'm Jewish. I don't support many Israeli policies. Many Jews don't. I do support justice for Palestinians. Many Jews do, including Israelis. Fanning the flames of racism, anti-semitism, is not helpful.
This article is misnamed. It should be named "Democrat Fake Pacifists At Odds With Anti-War Activists".
People who are anti-war, by definition, support an immediate withdrawal of US & allied imperialist troops. Period. The title serves to lend credibility to those who would continue the war and occupation, and I am disappointed with the CD editors for allowing this to be so labeled.
Umlaut July 24th, 2008 10:26 am writes: "...but I'm not going to give up dating because that may never happen."
-lesser-evilism, paternal-style
"How about we all just state what we're going to do, and stop using Cd as a party propaganda site. I've never seen anyone swayed by anyone here anyway, so you're just wasting your bandwidth."
-I assume you read every thread and every article- right?
-How do you know if anyone has been swayed?
How about we all just state what we're going to do, and stop using Cd as a party propaganda site.
-who are you to tell us what to do? Do you own this site?
It's amazed me how often Obama supporters accuse us who won't vote for him of being Repubs! I've NEVER EVER voted for a single Republican in my whole life!
I'm only interested in increasing the number of voters for alternative progressive candidates. Yes, I stupidly voted for Democrats in the past, as many here continue to do - but eventually I realized they aren't worthy of my vote. Even the few "good" ones (Kucinich, Feingold, Boxer, Mikulski, Wellstone - all with lots of flaws, and a few others) taught me that you can't ever change the system from within. "Winning" is not important - we get the same fascists corporate nonsense regardless - my home state is completely Democrat and yet nothing great ever gets done here, because the house speaker is all-powerful and he is a conservative Democrat.
We have two great candidates: McKinney and Nader for President!!! There are all sorts of other elections in which we can send a message, such as Cindy Sheehan. It's time to support alternative party candidates in all elections!
opeluboy July 23rd, 2008 9:49 pm writes: 8. Education.
-another red herring. Obama's better education will not be guiding his policy decisions and certainly not the desires of progressives, his decisions will be based on the desires of Big Business and the Military Industrial Complex.
Lesser of 2 blah, blahs, Nader, McKinney, SSDD on CD.
I wouldn't discount all those that push for now as the magic time for the Greens to rise from the ashes and take over the White House, even though they haven't even gotten a congressional seat yet, or the fact that Europe that has many greens in government, has never managed to manifest a green PM . Afterall, Cindy Sheehan posts here often, and I doubt she's a closet neocon, trying to split the left.
Let's say this. If Pew Research and Rasmussen don't have either Nader or McKinney at 33% or over by mid-October, can we all agree that Obama whether he is pandering or not will still be better for the world and cost it less lives in the next 4 years, and a veto proof dem congress might actually make some difference, even if it's not overnight utopia?
Or, if as I predict, that 99% of those left of the Clintons, either have never heard of McKinney, remember 2000 and say I'm not falling for Nader again, don't vote green, giving them a 1 or 2 percent chance in the election, will you "no lesser of 2 evils" types still vote 3rd party on principle when it will do nothing significant to help your cause?
I mean, that's the brass tacks of the issue. Will stumping for the greens on the net develop into a significant turn of the electoral tide, or if it doesn't, does it matter, and should conscience out way reality, or as many believe(or say they do)here that dems and reps are absolutely no different on every single issue.
I've never seen anyone here say that the dems are better than the dems ideology wise. That's a no brainer. I think everyone here agrees the Greens are the ideal. We don't need reminding.
How about we all just state what we're going to do, and stop using Cd as a party propaganda site. I've never seen anyone swayed by anyone here anyway, so you're just wasting your bandwidth. I'll refrain from the Special Olympics analogy.
I'll go first. (as if I hadn't before) I wanted Kucinich, Nader would be great, but in order to have a decision in government, you have to win. I'd love to have Linda Fiorentino as my girlfriend too, but I'm not going to give up dating because that may never happen. (well, maybe that's a bad analogy, on the never dating part. recently separated and well, you get the point) Better said, most people don't give up relationships because they can't be with the person they find the most attractive in the whole wide world.
So from my point of view it's a gamble. 3 possibilities. Vote green for a win, has the worst odds, maybe 1 in a hundred, with the chance of splitting the left and giving the vote to the worst possible scenario. McCain, next lowest odds, and as previously stated worst possible outcome. Or a guy who was against Iraq from the beginning, and is even in the face of the elections and aipac is still harping diplomacy over isolation and possible use of force. He's not my first choice, but from what I can see the best.
That's it for the lesser of two evils vs. pragmatism argument. I may still comment on the crap of the day, but I'll leave this particular subjectiveness until after the election.
opeluboy July 23rd, 2008 9:49 pm writes: 6. Intelligence. No need to elaborate.
-another weak argument. Obama is already swamped with over 300 advisers which he has been listening to and making bad, right wing decisions based on their counsel, like the FISA capitulation.
An Obama presidency will not be guided by intelligence, it will be guided by the interests of the ruling elites. I concede Obama will benefit the PTB (the powers that be) more than McCain. But is that a good thing?
opeluboy July 23rd, 2008 9:49 pm writes: 3. Supreme Court. Want McCain picking the next 3 for life?
-lesser-evilism
This is a very weak argument because Democrats confirmed all the right wingers on the Supreme Court, including Roberts, the Chief Justice.
"His very first vote was for Condi Rice and it went down hill from there… He later voted for either Roberts or Alito (for the Supreme Court) and the outcry from his constituents seemed to give him pause on the other …."
http://www.americantorture.com/2008/05/want-to-end-torture-call-obama.ht...
The slow but steady reduction in the civil rights of Americans is exactly how the NAZI made the 1930's Germany into a fascist dictatorship.
It is happening here, too. Soon we may see a law titled "The Civil Rights Restoration Act," which will make it a crime to criticize any federal employee.
As long as the ruling elite stepped upon the rights of "others" we never said a word. But, now we have no one to stand up for us.
Welcome to the American Dream.
No one gets into whitey's house or congress unless they have kissed the right asses, Obama is no exception. What will happen in November, some call it an election, will be according to the whims of the nameless faceless ones who call the shots. Obama may well be their choice. He is certainly positioning himself accordingly, and who knows what goes on in secret.
The real issue, in my mind anyway, is...at what point (if ever) will citizens of the US reclaim (and in fact actually claim for the first time) self determination? What will it take? Those in power are making damned sure that, if there is claim made to democracy in the US, it will cost lives. The new crowd control weapons are pretty scary. The laws that have been passed to label dissidents (real patriots) as terrorists are pretty scary. The legal and illegal surveillance being carried out on US citizens is probably far more than most of us suspect.
So what's going to happen? We can't know, and I for one decry violence, but it seems that the government is making sure violence will occur by doing everything they can to frustrate people, drive them into desperation through economic policies (this is certainly not a new tactic) so they can bring out their mercenary army to quell the citizenry. We may, for a while, end up with an out and out totalitarian "secured" nation, but nothing lasts forever. Empires rise and then they fall. Time will tell.
The attacks of 9/11/2001 were planned by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
This is what Barack Obama said in 2002:
"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
Barack Obama, Chicago 2002
I have been so upset with Obama's remark about increasing troops in Afghanistan and staying there "until we win."...it seems that the accepted mainstream way of thinking is that Afghanistan is the "right" war and once again the Left, media and politicians are not questioning US involvement and Obama's warlike solutions..
read this article and judge for yourself...
m
Thursday, Jul. 17, 2008
How to Save Afghanistan
By RORY STEWART / KABUL
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1823753,00.html
Oceangrrl, zzz doesn't want to discuss anything other than why you should not vote Democratic, and why you should waste your vote on an unelectable candidate and end up with McSame instead of Obama. Don't waste your time with him.
Anyone who votes for a known liar does not deserve that vote, but deserves to be a slave of liars. Do not justify lies with any excuses. If the voter does not have principles, then do not expect the politcians to have any.
oceangrrl:
"I guess puerile and rude paternalisms are part of your values here? Nice. Obviously you can't keep personal judgments out of your arguments so I guess that makes me pretty suspicious about your intent. Is it to discuss opinions, or to put people down to bolster a fragile ego?"
Yes, I called you a sincere idiot. That was inappropriate. I apologize. I don't know you. What I meant was that your support for Obama is sincerely idiotic. Nothing personal, I am referring to your political beliefs.
I'm not sure how you would address someone defending Bush's policies (if you would say their opinions were idiotic, for example) but I don't put an Obama supporter too far from that category, because Obama's policies are not too far from Bush's.
But you were saying that I was trying to "bolster (my) fragile ego", so now we could go tit for tat with the insults, but that's pointless, right?
What I was trying to do is defend anyone's right to comment here.
You say you want to have a discussion, but all you are saying is to vote democrat, vote lesser evil, over and over again. You haven't addressed any of the more problematic elements of an Obama Presidency.
You are about to vote in favor of universal spying, an expanded military, an expanded war in Afghanistan, continued occupation of Iraq, a new war in Pakistan, a criminal partnership with Israel, the removal of the option for impeachment, increased usage of Special ops, torture, secret prisons, sanctions or war against Iran, a lack of universal health care, a continuation of NAFTA, and an expansion of nuclear power - to name just few of the crimes you are willing to endorse with your vote.
If you want to discuss, I would love to hear you defend these stances, or explain why they don't matter. But if pull out the tired old "McCain is creepy" defense, then you are simply dodging the issues, not discussing them.
kc July 23rd, 2008 10:01 pm, you should just let people think you are an idiot, instead of opening your keyboard and removing all doubt!
hoytdouglas July 23rd, 2008 11:36 pm, your time would be better spent preparing for the bankruptcy, as one of the two, McSame or Obama, will be the next president. That is, unless it all collapses before inauguration day in January, in witch case you will be living under Bushitler with martial law. Go figure!
Apparently the definition of a dittohead for MikeBinSC is anyone who isn't a partisan hack. That's useful.
People, are you idiotic zombies or do you have a brain? Anyone other than idiotic zombies need not apply. The Democrats can lose another election without you just as they have consistently until now.
Oceangrrl, you may want to check out-
www.truthout.org
It's another good news site that has recently changed their format and opened its articles for comment, but I have not been able to comment there yet due to technical problems. They may be having problems with ditto-heads bombing their site too, I don't know since I haven't been there in a while.
Oceangrrl, of course you are right in your reasons for supporting and voting for Obama, and those reasons were well summed up by opeluboy July 23rd, 2008 9:49 pm. These other ditto-heads like tailcap, RichM, Jerome and all the rest, should spend their time better on right-wing sites getting votes for Barr and Paul. It's getting really bad around here, smells like Rush Limbaugh's breath - flatulence.
oceangrrl (1:32 am) asks, "...But seriously… any other recs for sites that are a less combative and more collaborative?"
- Yes. If you want to be in an environment where everybody pretends that Obama & the Democrats really deserve to be supported, go to Democratic Underground. There, it's almost illegal to criticize Democrats. If you try to do it, you get banned by the site's owners. All of them are exactly like ezeflyer.
oceangrrl:
I have no idea who you are, and I do not recall ever addressing you, unless you are also ezeflyer. So what you mean when you say I misunderstand you is Greek to me.
I also don't know what you mean by the liberal litany. I do not consider myself a liberal. If I did, I would be pro-Obama. I'm a progressive to the bone.
I have absolutely no malice towards you. I don't even know who you are or what you believe.
What I do know is that Obama is a sell-out through and through. There's nothing that you can rhetorically say to change that. It's simply a fact.
I assure you there is absolutely nothing extremist in my positions. In fact, the majority of the world agrees with me regarding the war in Iraq, health care, U.S. hegemony, etc., etc. In reality, I am as mainstream as can be, but you'd never know it from listening to sell-out politicians like Obama.
Obama as the "middle path" will be about as effective as Blair was as a "middle path", but you go right ahead and try it out for yourself. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the results, but I really do already know the outcome.
oceangrrl July 24th, 2008 1:26 am writes: But I do not want McCain to win.
-run of the mill, garden-variety lesser-evilism, straight up, no twists
But seriously... any other recs for sites that are a less combative and more collaborative?
Enojada July 24th, 2008 1:13 am You're are wasting your time. Some bloggers here that are Democratic Party supporters become very irritated when you point out what a lousy pro-war candidate Obama is.
Rather than engage you in a debate with facts and attempt to refute what you say (which is actually the truth) they simply label you a "Republican shill", dirty Republican, or a fascist etc.
For example, if you point out that Obama votes to fund the illegal war and reversed himself on the FISA capitulation from being against it to supporting it, they get angry and start calling you names. The truth really pisses them off.
I only debate someone who is capable of coming up with an argument that is logical.
Someone lacking the intellectual ability to engage in a logical debate is not worthy of my time or yours. Trust me I know, and now I avoid them entirely.
Enojada,
Obviously you are misunderstanding my posts. I would love to discuss actual views... it is the personal and malicious tones that I find offensive. I am not a partisan at all... in fact I have always been an independent and differed in many of my views from the "liberal" litany. I abhor mindless adherence to any agenda based on name/club/clan alone (that is why I am buddhist... I prefer to come to my own conclusions.
I am though an absolutely practical and pragmatic realist. I am disappointed (like much of Europe - per BBC) in his conservative backpeddling. I would hope that he would be able to maintain the spirit of his beginning messages which were much more in line with my personal politics. I have extremely liberal in my foreign policy. I am Arab american so I will let you extrapolate from there.
BUT as I have matured over the years I realize that I can't maintain my personal agenda or extremist positions all the time. It is again that middle path stuff. It is sometimes you have to look more at being "effective" (ie: what goal do you want to accomplish) than right/perfect. You end up cutting off your nose to spite your face. I think Obama is walking a delicate line. But I do not want McCain to win. And I think Obama (again I am having trouble with your equation of my "not perfect" = to your insinuation I see him as a saint) will bring a lot to this country and to international politics just based on his ability to bring people together and actually... wow... speak English at more than a 4th grade level. I have no illusions about him being perfect... even if he would be pretty darn good in a system that were not totally corrupt.
The fact of the matter is that the American electorate is not intelligent, acerbic nor principled enough to discern from Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" rhetoric and real, genuine change such as put forth by Nadar or McKinney.
The electorate only thinks in terms of immediate wins and losses and politics of the possible rather than inviolate principles and the visionary politics of what could be. Hence, the Nadar's and McKinney's are always diminished and dismissed.
All the electorate looks at is the Obama rhetoric that promises to diminish, not withdraw, troops numbers in Iraq and that it's not so bad that he will only increase troop numbers in Afghanistan by one or two brigades.
The electorate doesn't stop to think that, "Hey, hold on. If Obama is pitching a change we can believe in how is continuing Bush I & II's "War of Terror" going to bring about real change? Obama already has intimated that he will reserve the right to re-enter massive troop numbers in Iraq if conditions demand. In other words, he plans to keep American troops in the Middle Eastd for years and years to come as the oil cops for America's oild flow. How will increasing troop aggression in Afghanistan ever going to address the fact that Obama will still continue to violate Afghanistan's sovereignty and the international rule of law by continuing to occupy that country? Does any fool really think that some !7,000 troops are going to miraculously turn the tables on an Afghani way of life that for centuries has seen one conqueror after another come and go? Where will that bottomless black pit lead us?
But the electorate can't see that Obama already has caved to the political realities of oil by his committment to militarily support the oil garrisons in the Middle East - Oil Garrison #1 Fortress Baghdad, Oil Garrison #2 Fortress Kabul, and, in the future, Oil Garrison#3 Fortress Tehran.Obama is playing to fear and terror every bit as much as the other Demorats and Republthugs.
Obama is as much a prisoner of world geopolitics as is McCain. The best that the genuine anti-war, pro-peace and freedom movement can hope for is not to vote Demorat, and thereby get lost in the right-wing shuffle, but to vote their conscience and priciples and hope that if enough people do the same that their numbers on election night will make as powerful statment as possible that the future will not be business as usual but that a real revolution in the streets is coming if real change does not happen.
Hopefully the electorate will wake up in time, vote its conscience and principles, regardless of who wins or losses, and cast a vote for Nadar or McKinney.
Does anyone need more evidence that the Democratic Party, and any politician who has a 'D' next to their name, are part of the problem? We will NEVER have a just world under their leadership.
I used to think otherwise, but these days, I cannot support voting for Obama for any reason, since voting in a reformer (however mild) will only serve to legitimize the rotten imperialist system, and slow its overthrow by the rightful masters of society, the working class.
Build the party of global proletarian socialism!
The Obama candidacy, whether he is ultimately successful or not, is thus being used to effect a shift in foreign policy. During the primary elections and caucuses, millions of people were mobilised on the pretext that Obama was the leader of a grass roots movement against the status quo. As soon as Obama captured the nomination, he began a lurch to the right, embracing policies of the Republican right. Now it is clear that whoever wins the presidency, the wars will continue.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/bara-j21.shtml
ezeflyer:
Since you somehow think you are the perfect "progressive", may I enquire into your actual progressive credentials?
Are you against U.S.empire - as Obama is NOT?
Are you for universal health care - as Obama is NOT?
Are you against unnecessary wars - as Obama is NOT?
Or are you merely pro-Obama - as a run-of-the-mill Democratic party hack would be?
It wasn't always like this oceangrrl. We're surrounded by assassins and idiots from the Repug party now but its not surprising. Conservanazis will do anything to keep their "most liberal Senator out of office". They own the corporate media and now they are scrambling to control the Internet and bombing liberal sites.
An easy way to tell who is a dirty Republican shill is by his or her reactionary bile when they take it personally as they should when one berates them. Progressives have no such reaction because they realize our attacks are not directed at them.
Which progressive ideals are not getting discussed here? The progressive ideal of not being an imperialist nation? Obama-increase-the-troops-in-Afghanistan wants us to continue being a militaristic empire. The progressive ideal of honoring the constitution? Obama pro-telecom-immunity could give a damn about that. The progressive ideal of not surrendering your values to corporate lobbyists? ... The fact of the matter is, Obama is much more of a traitor on progressive ideals than anyone in this forum attacking him. So, sorry, but if you're offended by the legitimate criticism of the Saint it means you're a partisan, not a progressive - not even by a long shot.
zzzzzzzzz:
"No need to block them. That would be a solution contrary to many of our values here at CD. The simplest answer is don't engage them. Let's start by urging folks to boycott talking to real shills like Ariel Sharon and Daniel David, opeluboy and oceangrrl at least seem like sincere idiots."
I guess puerile and rude paternalisms are part of your values here? Nice. Obviously you can't keep personal judgments out of your arguments so I guess that makes me pretty suspicious about your intent. Is it to discuss opinions, or to put people down to bolster a fragile ego?
I just recently signed on to CD online thinking that I could discuss issues I cared about with progressive people who, if they didn't agree on everything could at least have an intellectual discussion. I am not enjoying this banter at all... I might as well go onto the 'pug websites or better yet the lunchroom (opeluboy I am also from/in Hawaii - mahalo nui - and find it frustrating that it is difficult to find like minded and progressive people.)
Anyone know a site where we can actually have an adult discussion? I have been reading Common Dreams forever, but thought it might be nice to join a forum.
Ezeflyer... I concur and I sincerely hope the divide and conquer approach doesn't cost us the next 4 years. I myself prefer to focus on the "common" part of dreams. And if we are unable to set aside our differences to move forward toward a new direction (or at least *try* to)... we are going down. (I mean everyone who is not invested in oil stock and military contracts... they'll be alright because they will be able to afford their impenetrable fortress when their greed and refusal to look at long term investment in relationships, environment education etc create the fireball that is already flickering.
ezeflyer,
"I never thought I would be saying this but I think its time CD started blocking the Repug shills from this forum. Anyone can see who they are. Let them go back to Republican sites where they belong."
No need to block them. That would be a solution contrary to many of our values here at CD. The simplest answer is don't engage them. Let's start by urging folks to boycott talking to real shills like Ariel Sharon and Daniel David, opeluboy and oceangrrl at least seem like sincere idiots.
opeluboy and oceangrrl:
It's getting hard to discuss progressive ideas here when we are forced to surrender to the Repug's goal of keeping us on the defensive. These Repug shills are well paid and dedicated to planting unrest, like online agent provocateurs.
I never thought I would be saying this but I think its time CD started blocking the Repug shills from this forum. Anyone can see who they are. Let them go back to Republican sites where they belong.
This is almost off topic, but not quite. I got this link from a friend and I watched the whole thing, all of the You Tubes describing the weapons, etc,
As you read the descriptions of the weapons, the fighter-bombers, the air to air and air to ground missiles, etc., and their cost, one theme is repeated over and over.
"The aircraft have been supplemented to Israel's specifications and are different from any other F-16, even in the service of the US Air Force. They are being paid for from the annual US military grants given to Israel, which this year stands at about $2.2 billion."
Please read that last sentence carefully. I cannot bold or highlight it.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-16i/F-16I.html
Israel has almost the most modern and most deadly air force in the world, and almost all of it comes from our tax dollars! And Obama says they deserve even more support? A lot of this hardware is delivered to Israel from Boeing and Lockeed Martin, et al, and our government or the pentagon just pays the money over. But Congress has to cut 10 percent from medicare.
To me it is not only disgusting, but criminal. Nothing new there, it is our "government."
opeluboy July 23rd, 2008 9:49 pm
-presents the same old, tired, lesser-evilism, which is the only argument the Democratic Party supporters have left. They have been clever and managed to spin variations around the theme to make them seen new, but basically it's the same old crap.
At the same time, the Democratic candidate is seeking to reassure the ruling elite that he would be a reliable defender of US imperialist interests in Iraq and the Middle East. The withdrawal of "combat troops" is a code word for the shared plans of both the Republicans and the Democrats that would retain a force numbering anywhere up to 60,000 in Iraq in remote and heavily fortified bases such as Balad, Al Asad, Talil and Taji. Iraq will remain an American client state, with the massive US embassy in Baghdad serving as the real centre of political power.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j23.shtml
Remember what Osama Bin Laden said he wanted to do to the USA?
He said he was not intent upon military conquest of the USA; he said he would drive us into bankruptcy with unending foreign wars.
Bin Laden was our guy against the Soviets. The USA taught him the strategy to bankrupt the USSR. He learned from the USA; he succeeded.
Now Osama is doing it to the USA.
Do you get it. Osama has won; the game is over. The USA is going down economically.
Obama and McCain will continue the path to bankruptcy.
opeluboy July 23rd, 2008 9:49 pm writes: 5. War. Yes, Obama is pounding his chest like all candidates must. But do you believe he has the same bloodlust as McCain? Think he ever referred to anyone as a gook? Did he spend his military career slaughtering civilians from 30,000 feet?
-so less bloodlust is acceptable and that fact that Obama hasn't called someone a "gook" which was before his time is supposed to count for something so great that he should be elected president.
-Obama claims to be an "antiwar" president which is a load of BS.
From Obama's website:
He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda
We all know this is a complete crock of shit and is actually the fine print weasel that allows him to keep many 10's of thousands of troops in Iraq to ensure the profits of Big Oil, Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater and a host of other profit-seeking vultures. These so-called "targeted strikes" always seem to kill some innocent kid looking out the window or a group of people at a wedding.
-http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/89833/
Raising eyebrows over his Iraq approach, a new report suggests Obama could recruit none other than Robert Gates if he becomes commander-in-chief.
-Richard Danzig, Obama's top military adviser and a former secretary of the Navy in the Clinton Administration, saying:
"My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."
-Obama's top foreign policy and national security advisers are pressing the case for keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon after he won widespread praise for his performance. The move would be in keeping with Obama's desire to appoint a cabinet of all the talents.
-The Post recently reported:
Some advisers acknowledge privately that Obama is now emphasizing the need to be "responsible" in handling Iraq — rather than emphasizing urgency in getting troops out — to appear more centrist, a substantial adjustment of his original antiwar stance.
This is what "antiwar" candidate Obama is up to, becoming Barak Bush lll.
opeluboy July 23rd, 2008 9:49 pm writes: I'll give you a handful of reasons,[to vote for Obama] not that it will alter your opinion.
-(like he is likely to have his opinion changed)
2. Alternative energy development. Who do you think would do more in this area? McCain or Obama?
-Tweedledeeistic debates. I watched watched two videos on Youtube where Obama discusses nuclear power. In one, he was in a presidential debate, there he said: "I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix." Sounds like he's for it.
Then in a town hall meeting he says, "I am not a proponent of nuclear energy." Sounds like he's against it.
Obama studies his audience carefully and then calculates on what to say to avoid loosing votes while simultaneously calculating on how to win votes. The man is a human vote calculator that can talk out both sides of his mouth simultaneously.
Let's see now? Obama is over in Israel saber rattling and threatening Iran, and some people here actually want to vote for the guy? You guys just don't get it, do you?
Since both corporate political parties rule together and have locked the system up to where we do not actually live in a functioning democracy today, who we 'vote' for is actually rather a mute point. We do not have democracy in this country at all, and we never will unless enough people get fed up enough with this dictatorship PERIOD. That has little to do with 'voting' though.
All the organizing for participation in these fake elections is organization that might well have been better spent in antiwar organizing. Don't you think?
According to Olbermann tonight Obama's far enough ahead that if this keeps up I won't look back as I vote for my preferred candidate ... and it's not Obama (oh, and since the Obama paranoids are with us in abundance, no, it's not McCain who appears to helplessly losing viability as a candidate daily -- McFlubb is more like it. )
It is an insult to one's intelligence listening to fanatical die-hard Democrats, that if anyone votes for a candidate best representing their views, other than Obama, it will be a vote for McCain. Nonsense! This November, I will vote for my Party's candidate, the person who's interests and values are similar to mine, and the person of MY CHOICE, Cynthia McKinney. Obamba represents big business, the Pentagon, and the state of Israel.
If enough people vote for Bush's buddy McCain, then the United States deserves what it gets, and don't cry when this country deteriorates even further along a dangerous path. Oh yes, it can get worse!
Oceangrrl - Mahalos! And well said on your part. I agree with every punctuation mark. The problem is, you are talking about reality and so many here just don't want to address the FACT that we will have a choice in November between Obama and McCain. Nader won't even be a speed bump this time, though Barr might pull off some Republican votes.
Anyway, thanks for being one of a handful of voices of sanity here. Geez, you'd think we were criminals for preferring Obama over McCain.
ezeflyer - It may be. There are more rants against Dems than Repugs here. Stalin called them "useful idiots." But I suspect that many of these have been here for some time, first posing as Hillary supporters, now doing nothing but advocating political suicide. Hope they will enjoy their President McCain and his lovely wife Cindy.
Of course there's another possibility. Racism? Yes, many of these claim to be McKinney supporters, which is fairly easy since they know she has absolutely no chance of being elected.
Yes, the Dems suck (with exceptions), but handing this thing to the Repugs is hardly the answer. Seems to be the plan, though.
opeluboy - Loved the last post. I agree - you put it much better than I could.
Grumpy, rude and dirisive RichM writes:
- Being intelligent has little bearing on a candidate's desirability, compared to his/her political loyalties, perspectives & motivations.
I disagree on this. 1. If the candidate picks his top staff - like picks like. 2. I am sick of having a figurehead who thinks they speak Latin in Latin America and who is chewing like a horse on piece of bread while he uses such expletives as "shit" and an international meeting with the very well-spoken Tony Blair. Regardless of what you may think of other countries.... their leaders generally are the creme de la creme of their society: well educated, well spoken, informed. I think having someone who can portray America in an eloquent and elegant way is crucial (esp in this volatile time) and having someone who can use more than 2 syllable words would be nice too.
Again RichM:
- Obama doesn't "get it." There is no evidence that he's different from the rest of the pack when it comes to putting corporate profit above the long term success of the country & the world. Making empty assertions about who "gets it" and who doesn't "get it" is silly, cheap & meaningless. If Obama really "got it," he wouldn't have voted to destroy the 4th Amendment 2 weeks ago with his corrupt FISA vote, and he wouldn't be making noise about escalating the war in Afghanistan.
If you have read his books I think he gets it a lot better than most other politicians. He has been through very unique and American experiences that all of our other dyed in the ivory tower career politico families haven't. Is he perfect... hell no... but to find a candidate who can motivate several generations who haven't given a damn to be a part of the political process is pretty amazing and important. I think it is easy to underestimate the difficulties of navigating in a pluralistic and concurrently corrupt system. It is easy to take extreme views (that I may or may not share personally) but in the end I think the Middle Path gets you there a lot more successfully. One thing is for sure, I don't know if we or the international situation can endure republican rule.
If you can't see the positive things I admire about the (imperfect) Obama and what his election would do for this country, then I ask you to consider an "appropriate development strategy" that works when perfection cannot be acheived: Harm Reduction.
This is starting to look like a Republican forum.
I only hope that many kind SOULS will stomp out the DemocRATS like a lit cigrette on a cold wet pavement!
Remember that acigorette is an appeaser that brings you cancer just like O-BAM-A-NATION any nation for the good old MIC !
RichM - Sorry, it's not BS. There is no viable third party right now. And the way to form a strong one is to start at the grassroots level. They don't sprout overnight like mushrooms. They take time.
The time to vote for one that has no chance is not in a life or death election. This is a life or death election, whether you think so or not.
But continue on in your adolescent fantasy. Got a poster of Che on the wall?
locust - I'll give you a handful of reasons, not that it will alter your opinion.
1. Improved foreign relations. See what the rest of the world is saying about this election. Who does 99% of the rest of the world hope will be our next president. I know, I know, they're just fucking ignorant foreigners, but they prefer Obama by enormous margins. Maybe that's because he's not a cowboy or certifiably insane. He gives a new face to our country.
2. Alternative energy development. Who do you think would do more in this area? McCain or Obama?
3. Supreme Court. Want McCain picking the next 3 for life?
4. Diplomacy. Happen to notice how well received Obama was in all his stops? Who do you think would do a better job of dealing with our enemies? Obama or McCain? Obama still plans to TALK to Iran. McCain would just bomb them and get it over with.
5. War. Yes, Obama is pounding his chest like all candidates must. But do you believe he has the same bloodlust as McCain? Think he ever referred to anyone as a gook? Did he spend his military career slaughtering civilians from 30,000 feet?
6. Intelligence. No need to elaborate.
7. Personality. By some considered not a big thing. Compare the two men. Obama stayed unruffled through a campaign that sunk to new lows. He displays an inward calm and assurance that is remarkable for one so young. McCain on the other hand is legendary for his short fuse and volcanic temper. I'll bet diamonds to donuts Obama never called is wife a cunt. She'd have kicked his ass.
8. Education. McCain, like Bush, barely made it out of school alive, and probably had help from family. Obama did it on his own, what's more, he knows there is now a Czech Republic, which countries border which, the difference between Sunni and Shia and without a doubt can google himself.
9. Less likely to make an ass of himself. No contest.
10. Involves people. No one has involved more people in the political process than Barak Obama. A good thing. McCain could be used as a sleeping aid. Even his own party is underwhelmed.
I could go on, but these are just a few. I could name some faults as well, but you asked for differences between the TWO candidates.
opeluboy (8:59 pm, or any of his other posts) spouts the usual shameful BS about "pissing your vote away" by voting for someone besides a Democrat.
He writes, "...I am...all for additional parties that represent liberal/progressive beliefs. I would hope these parties replace the two existing major parties. But those parties do not yet have any clout whatsoever ...I am not willing for the sake of petulance to piss my vote away in a meaningless protest that no one will give a fuck about...."
- Does it ever occur to you that somewhere along the line, in order that "additional parties representing progressive beliefs" may come into existence, some number of people have to be willing to depart from the usual behavior of voting only for Democrats? You're saying you hope this will magically come about (presumably from the labor & risk-taking of others); & indeed that you'd consider voting for such a party if others did the hard work of building it. Once it gets to the stage where lots of people are voting for it, you'll be willing to vote for it, too.
Those who are going to build this nice 3rd party have to struggle against attitudes like yours in order to build something that you yourself want, and (at least in theory) believe to be necessary. It's an delicious paradox, that they should be working to build this nice thing for you; while you are ridiculing their efforts, and making their job more difficult.
Suppose for the sake of argument that a new "New Progressive Party" (NPP) was founded, & that in the next election cycle or so, achieved 9% of the vote. Suppose they had a great antiwar, pro-single payer health-care, pro-environment platform that you were excited about. Suppose that this 9% was enough to make you vote for them too. (When they were still down at 2%, even with the same exact platform, you would still be shitting on them because they "weren't viable.") So now it's 2016, and you are ready to vote for the NPP for the first time, and you want your friends & family members to vote for them too. But they all say to you, "Nah,... it's just pissing away a vote. I won't do that, just for the sake of petulance." How would you feel about their attitude?
Who here really believes the country is split 50/50 yet again?
I would like to hear form the Obama supporters.
Are they aware that there are as of 2004 there were 42 million independents, 72 million registered dems, and only 55 million registered repubs?
Does it strike any of you as strange, that regardless of the current political climate, our country has remained evenly split between dem and repubs for the past eight years?
This article by David Lightman (Jewish of course) is another example of how Americans are being poisoned, even in progressive sites like Common Dreams.
They must have taken us for fools to poison our mind with this non-sense about differences in Democrats and Republicans' foreign policy. We all know who makes those decisions in occupied U.S.! Who? AIPAC!
MoveOn fooled millions in the name of peace and turned out to be nothing but a huge campaign for the Democrats.
Don't be fooled! Third Camp is the only answer!
Democrats for Bush, Democrats for nobody"
"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000
Even if none of the factors mentioned above had happened, the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush's presidency. If one percent of these Democrats had stuck with their own candidate, Al Gore would easily have won Florida and become president. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother going to the polls and voting.
The Florida Vote
Republican
2,912,790
Democratic
2,912,253
Green
97,488
Natural Law
2,281
Reform
17,484
Libertarian
16,415
Workers World
1,804
Constitution
1,371
Socialist
622
Socialist Workers
562
Write-in
40
The Final Count
According to the official 2001 Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election of November 7, 2000, George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 543 votes. It is noteworthy that every third-party candidate received enough votes in Florida to have cost Al Gore the election.
Conclusion
Green Party Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader did not work for the Florida Secretary of State, the Palm Beach County Election Commission, the Al Gore campaign committee, or the United States Supreme Court. Yet, he has become a scapegoat among many Democrats for Al Gore's loss of the 2000 election, and, beyond the election, the person to blame for the resulting policies of George Bush. These diehard Democrats are averse to looking at the failings of their candidate, and they are not blaming voters for failing to vote at all. Instead, they are upset that Ralph Nader did not acquiesce to dropping out of the race as many urged him to do. As a side note, if Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he would have had the necessary Electoral College votes to have won the election and the Florida results would have been irrelevant
http://cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
One thing I'm 99.999999999999999999% sure of is that Barack Obama sure ain't no Martin Luther King.
oceangrrl (8:37 pm) writes, "Obama is a very intelligent man. He is the one of the most erudite and articulate candidate we have had in a long time. And I think he is the only hope for restoring any hope of relationships with the international community ..."
- Being intelligent has little bearing on a candidate's desirability, compared to his/her political loyalties, perspectives & motivations. Most of Bush's henchmen are very intelligent -- for example, Condi Rice, Cheney, & Rumsfeld. Plenty of rightwing journalists are intelligent: William Krystol, David Brooks, etc. It would be much better to have a candidate of average intell