MariusP and Colleen - Thank you for two well-written, intelligent responses. I accept both of your points and truly appreciate being able to interact here with adults.

colleen understands. The people of the US are too violent and prone to use violence to solve problems. Is Obama one of them or just pretending to be? I, for one, have no idea.

Folks, this is the reality. If McCain wins, the killings in West Asia and Central Asia would continue for a foreign policy that will be seen by a growing number of Americans to be bankrupt and immoral SOONER.

If Obama wins the Democrats would have a new "fresh" mandate to continue if not to escalate the killings clothed in new and more appealing lies. The killing would then go on for longer before this second set of rationale and lies of the Democrats are exposed

We American voters have this choice. I recommend that we let McCain win and do the killing supported by the old "decrepit" rationalizations which will be exposed as a horrible American genocidal fraud SOONER.

Amen, karloff. I thought exactly the same thing as I heard that line in his speach. The sad part is, would anyone in the media dare to ask him that question?

Of course not. They are part of the machine.

But, gosh, doesn't Obama sound wonderful when he talks? So articulate and inspirational - unlike President Foot-in-Mouth. Isn't THAT reason alone to elect him?????????

(Sorry, getting punchy after reading all of the pro-O responses. Must get sleep!)

Obama has called for a "world without walls" in his Berlin speech. The USA is responsible for the erecting of the most recent walls: in Baghdad, in Israel, and on the border between Mexico and the USA. It will be quite interesting if anyone questions him on those facts and asks if he'll knock them down. Go blogosphere go!!

kman2 July 24th, 2008 10:29 pm writes "The facts are that Obama has not flip flopped on Iraq and he was brave enough to speak up against the war when >70% of the country was for it in 2002-2003."

Try to understand this "logic", he claims Obama was against the war(before becoming a Senator and when it didn't count).

So that is good, but reconcile it with the fact he has voted to fund the war ever since. This fact appears to elude this blogger altogether which is hard to believe.

The fact that Obama is now as hawkish as McCain and wants to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is apparently unknown to the blogger who appears to believe Obama is an "antiwar" champion.

Here is the $24,000,000 question: Do they actually believe Obama is against war in spite of all the abundant press coverage about his wanting to attack Afghanistan and add more troops to the military or are they deeply delusional?

[Obama]His call for an additional 10,000 American troops for Afghanistan,
-DEMOCRATIC SURGE

"Not all of Obama's policy positions are perfect, obviously."

How dare you!

www.cindyforcongress.org

opeluboy

When I read the article aobut the Isralei poll there was about 30% that was choosing others...maybe they were choosing Bloomberg among the others?

What I find strange is that people believe what any politician says..they want to get elected... they say what they need to say to get votes...and to get money to campaign with.

I think Obama will edge us towards liberal policies..because of his choices in his life before he ran for office..and if people here want to have an effect then talk about policies with people who don't agree with you...and change their minds...because it is the American people who are making these choices ...what percentage of Americans was it that supported the Iraq invasion? Was it 80%??? Theres your problem. The American people are too violent, and they chose violent solutions.

But I am very thankful for people like Cindy Sheehan who will honestly try to change the system by being elected. I hope she wins.

Oceangrrl:

Obama does not have to drink the Kool-aid. He knows perfectly well for whom he toils. It's in his job description to SERVE THE KOOL-AID. By the way, how many cups have you had already?
The comment you made about opposition to Obama being "race-based" indicates you need to put that cup down and get some rest. It's obvious that it's affecting your ability to focus upon what people have been saying.

Kman -

He was "brave enough to speak up against the war..."

Unfortunately, he wasn't required to VOTE against it though. Would love to see how he would have voted in 2003, were he a US Senator. Now, we can't hold it against him that he didn't get a vote. But we can't give him credit either.

Talk is cheap.

Obama said he would fillibuster any FISA bill which granted retroactive immunity to the telecom companies. BUT THEN HE HAD TO VOTE, and look which way he voted!

Why am I supposed to believe what he says about the war?

Again, I'm not saying McCain is better. He's worse. I'm not voting for him.

BUT I'D REALLY LIKE TO VOTE **FOR** A CANDIDATE AND NOT JUST AGAINST THE OTHER.

www.commondreams.org/nutjobs

I am so friggin' glad the lefties on CD aren't running the country and have no say in the Democratic party.

The facts are that Obama has not flip flopped on Iraq and he was brave enough to speak up against the war when >70% of the country was for it in 2002-2003. He said antiwar statements during his U.S. senate campaign. As for Afghanistan, he will inherit this mess as well. He will have pragmatic decisions to make that are based on real world facts, and not based on the purist, loony, fairy tale bullshit of the far left wing.

Well, by "Obama-mania" I just meant the number of supporters - even though its a minority on this site.

And for good reason, I believe.

Can Nader win in 2008? Of course not. Is the choice in 08 between McCain and Obama? Sure.

My point is - how do we ever get past the lesser of two evils? By constantly supporting the Democratic candidate, I believe we are inviting them to run further and further to the Right. WHY? BECAUSE THEY KNOW WE HAVE NO **VIABLE** OPTION.

And, so it seems to me, the only way to get a viable option, is to start supporting one.

Opeluboy - I understand your perspective. And I respect it. A McCain presidency would be horrible. For Americans, Palestians, for most of the world. I get that. I simply don't believe Obama would be MUCH better. Certainly not in the long run. And I would prefer to sacrifice something now, to build a strong movement which will lead to a much better, VIABLE candidate 4 or 8 years from now, and the chance for real progressive change.

In 1992 we elected Bill Clinton as a "progressive." And what did he do for Americans (or the Palestinians, for that matter)? NAFTA, The 1996 Telecommunications Act, Welfare "reform," "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And that atrocious deal from Barak that Arafat was crucified for turning down.

The problem is not the person, it's the party (or, more accurately, the system). NO Democrat can stand up to corporate America, because they are totally beholden to it. I don't see how we can ever expect positive, lasting change when we keep electing people who don't have the power to bring it.

Respectfully,
MariusP

Colleen - I don't buy that poll for a minute.

MariusP - Obama-mania? You've got to be fucking kidding.

There is maybe 1 pro-Obama response to every 10 anti-Obama responses on this site.

Sorry we can't all be as smart as you.

Oceangrrl - Let's hope other Arab-Americans see it your way. Keep injecting sanity and reason into this dismal site.

Common Dream seems to exist these days for one purpose only: to undermine and derail Obama.

Few of us here who are supporting Obama are "maniacs." We are realists, pragmatists who see only two viable choices: McCain or Obama. That's because those will be the only men who can become president in November. Even fewer are happy about this, myself included. But Kucinich will not be on the ballot.

You can bleat on about Nader and McKinney but no one in their right mind can possibly see this as a choice. Both are preferable, neither have a chance whatsoever. To deny this implies delusion at best. So call it a protest vote. Wow, that'll show 'em.

But what I find most troubling, in a conspiratorial sort of way, is all this talk about Obama and Israel. As an ardent, decades-long supporter of Palestinian liberty, I am disgusted with Obama's positions. I wish he would stand up to AIPAC, American Jews who put Israel ahead of my country, and to Israel itself. However, I understand what would happen if he did.

Which brings me to the conspiracy part.

So very many here demand this of Obama, knowing it would mean his sure demise. So many here are working against him, and therefore helping McCain. They will of course deny that, but if Obama keeps losing ground, who the fuck is the beneficiary? Nader? Get real.

Israel would love to have McCain in the White House. 50% of her citizens still support Bush. Not very many would choose Obama. In fact in a Ha'aretz poll, he was listed as least friendly to Israel (this was during the primaries). He is still not trusted.

So I have to wonder if the pressure on Obama is not intended to give Israel what they really want: John McCain. And I have to wonder if many of the regular Obama-bashers at CD (who were eerily quiet about these issues when Hillary, Israel's darling, was still running) are not intentionally working to provide this.

And if you think that Obama — no matter what stupid statements he has made — would be as deadly for the Palestinians as McCain, you are simply fooling yourself.

Would Nader, an Arab-American, be better for the Palestinians? Oh hell yes. And the fact that he is an Arab-American guarantees he will never get farther than he already has. So that leaves Obama or McCain.

That leaves Obama, warts and all.

But how can he take the oath of office " to protect the constitution of the United States of America" when he voted to suspend the 4th amendment.

Sorry - forgot ...

Defenestrator- you're quoting Brzezinski?

The man behind the brilliant idea of arming the Islamic Fundamentalists in Afghanistan to defeat the Soviet Union.

Look how well that's worked out.

Vote all Republocrats out of office!

Wow, the Obama-mania here is frightening.

Oceangirl - you cite Bush "posing as a moderate" and then showing his true colors once elected, and - in the same breath - claim that Obama has to "play the game." Yes, "the game" is his liberal rhetoric - in order to win the Dem nomination - and then continuing the status quo policies of the elite once elected.

Jlover - you want a new direction? Then vote for a new party! Not one of the Republocrats. He's aleady advocated increasing troops in Afghanistan, enlisting more soldiers, and he's voted for telecom immunity and an evisceration of the 4th amendment (after vowing to fillibuster).

How much more evidence do we need?

Vote third party -- vote for someone with courage to stand up for their convictions -- stop the cycle of "lesser evilism."

www.votenader.org

www.cindyforcongress.org

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/24/10571/

Gosh... I really cannot understand all of this just untempered hatred for the guy unless it is race-based at its core.

I am arab... I am disappointed in him visiting Israel etc (ie: I have very leftist political views)... but the man is trying to WIN and election. And, unfortunately, most of this country are so prejudiced and stupid that 10% still think he is a muslim. I mean look at bush posing as a moderate and then BAM got into office and all that melted away. This is a game, and I think he has to play it to win.

HOpefully he will gracefully navigate back to his stances once elected, but even if not, he will do a better job than McCain. Gosh I just don't get the inability to see that. Is it some sort of rebellion against his mass popularity or something? I have voted for Kerry etc who I didn't really like just to keep the other guy out. And I really don't think Obama has drunk the koolaid. He understands oppression from a personal perspective - I think he knows exactly what is going on... but he has to play the game.

Extremists like the bush regime who refuse to even talk to people are the ones who alienate and increase tension. If he is able to talk to everyone, that will be a step in the right direction.

You can't turn the titanic on a dime without getting thrown over the side.

"...Not all of Obama's policy positions are perfect, obviously..."

NO S__T, Sherlock!

Do y'all have the sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach that Obama will be as bad or worse than Bush? I never thought it could ever be possible for ANY president to be as bad as Bush has been, but Obama has surrounded himself with some very scary people (Brezinski, et al), and he seems to have drunk the "Israel First, Last, and Always" Kool-Aid big time. Add to that putrid mixture his apparent enthusiasm for Bush's so-called "War on Terror" B.S., and you've a pretty toxic brew.

People in Israel would elect Obama over McCain

Israelis in the Liberal party and in Kadima would support Obama..but Likkud party members would support McCain...

In order to make change you have to get the support and trust of people...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/new-poll-israelis-prefer_n_114735.html

New Poll: Israelis Prefer Obama

"When asked "who would you rather see elected as the next president of the United States," Obama bested John McCain by a 37-28 margin. While far from a decisive advantage -- 35 percent of Israelis chose "no preference" or some other answer -- the poll reflects a notably different state of affairs from previous surveys, which generally showed McCain with a large advantage over Obama."

More Obama bashing from this website. McCain is worse, by any measure. And enough with the scare tactics on Obama and Afghanistan! So much B.S. hype coming from posters and these articles.

Chief Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski: "It is important for U.S. policy in general and for Obama more specifically to recognize that simply putting more troops into Afghanistan is not the entire solution," he said. "We are running the risk of repeating the mistake the Soviet Union made ... Our strategy is getting in deeper and deeper."

Seems that Canadian as well as U.S. journalists are so dazzled by Obama's "tone" that they don't consider the "tune" that he's singing about American foreign policy. It's exactly the Bush tune, sung a little off-key by McCain, and his presidency promises to be more dangerous if anything than the Bush one because it attracts by its elegant "tone" the support of people who just LOVE to hear him talk and are more accepting of a policy that will continue and deepen the disaster of the Bush policy. But that's a U.S. presidential campaign, the effort to brand a product of candidate as being "presidential": well-spoken, confident, makes you "feel good" like it's morning in America again. Come to think of it, not that much different than any other confidence racket that lures you into an agenda that will be hazardous to your well-being. As Justin Raimondo warned the anti-war community about Obama's foreign policy: caveat emptor.

Obama got a new direction for Americans? It is beginning to look to me like a NEW DIRE-ERECTION. Afghans should stop protesting and learn to "enjoy" the rape. He has a plan to bring the number of deaths in Afghanistan to the level achieved by Bush in Iraq.

Obama and McCain are so similar that I really don't care who wins. People speak of change, so does Obama. I have yet to see any change. His pro-gun policy in DC speaks republicanism; so does his unequivocal pardoning of the Bush administration's spying on Americans; as does his recent vote to allow for telecommunication and government spying; as does his neglect of recognizing Palestinian statehood.

I find it funny and sad that so many people see Obama's physical beauty and charm yet do not see beyond this. Personally, between voting for someone who changes his mind on most every promise he made a year ago to voting for someone who acutally has fought in wars and is more trustworthy, I would rather vote for the latter, even if he is a Republican. I like neither candidate quite frankly, but I trust McCain much more.

So let's say Israel agrees to pull back to its 1967 borders.

lets say that those in the neighborhood still refuse to accept israel's right to exist.

Israel thereafter may or may not survive such hostility.

How would Israel's fight for existence advance America's interests?

Admit it. Its all about the oil.

Obama will continue the care and feeding of the Pentagon, dance to Israel's tune, expand the empire, antagonize Russia and China, continue neo-liberal economics, and make other changes we can believe in.

In December of 1941, following the debacle of the German armies at Moscow, Adolf Hitler assumed both the supreme leadership of Germany and the supreme command of the German armed forces.
Slowly but surely a similar development has happened in our country with the result that our Presidents not only determine the objectives and missions of a war but as commanders-in-chief also determine how that is to be carried out. That, folks, is known as dictatorship.
There is not the slightest indication that a President Obama will be any different from Bush. He will "consult with the commanders on the ground" when, instead, he should consult first and foremost with my elected representatives in the US Congress. It is Congress that should determine objectives and missions for the commander-in-chief to avoid that we get what we in essence already have, namely a commander-in-mischief.
I hope that the Congress, even a Democratic Congress, will have the guts to set firm time lines for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan when President Obama comes begging for funds next year which he will have to. I fear that they will say: "well, President Obama is not President Bush, so let us trust him" and leave the dictatorship in place.

Obama's reference to his two daughters being hit by a (Palestinian) rocket without mentioning the numerous deaths and injuries caused by Israel's bombing in Lebanon is obscene.

"Never before has a lame-duck president looked so lame and hobbled his party's presidential candidate as much as Bush has McCain."

McCain does not need any help to be hobbled.

John McBraindead makes Joe Clark look like William F Buckley by comparison...that creepy grin of his freaks me out...and that little Mr. Burns wheezing noise that he makes with it is even creepier...

"Hi, I'm John McBraindead, hnnnnn?! I will not leave Iraq until we win the war..hmmmmm?! Of course, its not actually a "war"..Hmnnnn!? More of an occupation...hnnnnn?! Want some candy little girl? hnnnn?!

obama is not perfect ,as no man is perfect.....but i'll take obama over mccain any day..........iT'S TIME FOR A NEW DIRECTION,people want fresh eyes and fresh ideas....for me mccain is not the man for the job,because he is a cold war warrior .......

O'bama seems to be moving toward O'sameas