It almost seems like a gag worthy of "Borat": A smooth-talking rookie senator with an exotic name passes himself off as the incumbent American president to credulous foreigners. But to dismiss Barack Obama's magical mystery tour through old Europe and two war zones as a media-made fairy tale would be to underestimate the ingenious politics of the moment. History was on the march well before Mr. Obama boarded his plane, and his trip was perfectly timed to reap the whirlwind.
He never would have been treated as a president-in-waiting by heads of state or network talking heads if all he offered were charisma, slick rhetoric and stunning visuals. What drew them instead was the raw power Mr. Obama has amassed: the power to start shaping events and the power to move markets, including TV ratings. (Even "Access Hollywood" mustered a 20 percent audience jump by hosting the Obama family.) Power begets more power, absolutely.
The growing Obama clout derives not from national polls, where his lead is modest. Nor is it a gift from the press, which still gives free passes to its old bus mate John McCain. It was laughable to watch journalists stamp their feet last week to try to push Mr. Obama into saying he was "wrong" about the surge. More than five years and 4,100 American fatalities later, they're still not demanding that Mr. McCain admit he was wrong when he assured us that our adventure in Iraq would be fast, produce little American "bloodletting" and "be paid for by the Iraqis."
Never mind. This election remains about the present and the future, where Iraq's $10 billion a month drain on American pocketbooks and military readiness is just one moving part in a matrix of national crises stretching from the gas pump to Pakistan. That's the high-rolling political casino where Mr. Obama amassed the chips he cashed in last week. The "change" that he can at times wield like a glib marketing gimmick is increasingly becoming a substantive reality - sometimes through Mr. Obama's instigation, sometimes by luck. Obama-branded change is snowballing, whether it's change you happen to believe in or not.
Looking back now, we can see that the fortnight preceding the candidate's flight to Kuwait was like a sequence in an old movie where wind blows away calendar pages to announce an epochal plot turn. First, on July 7, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, dissed Bush dogma by raising the prospect of a withdrawal timetable for our troops. Then, on July 15, Mr. McCain suddenly noticed that more Americans are dying in Afghanistan than Iraq and called for more American forces to be sent there. It was a long-overdue recognition of the obvious that he could no longer avoid: both Robert Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had already called for more American troops to battle the resurgent Taliban, echoing the policy proposed by Mr. Obama a year ago.
On July 17 we learned that President Bush, who had labeled direct talks with Iran "appeasement," would send the No. 3 official in the State Department to multilateral nuclear talks with Iran. Lest anyone doubt that the White House had moved away from the rigid stand endorsed by Mr. McCain and toward Mr. Obama's, a former Rumsfeld apparatchik weighed in on The Wall Street Journal's op-ed page: "Now Bush Is Appeasing Iran."
Within 24 hours, the White House did another U-turn, endorsing an Iraq withdrawal timetable as long as it was labeled a "general time horizon." In a flash, as Mr. Obama touched down in Kuwait, Mr. Maliki approvingly cited the Democratic candidate by name while laying out a troop-withdrawal calendar of his own that, like Mr. Obama's, would wind down in 2010. On Tuesday, the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, announced a major drawdown of his nation's troops by early 2009.
But it's not merely the foreign policy consensus that is shifting Obama-ward. The Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens has now joined another high-profile McCain supporter, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in knocking the McCain nostrum that America can drill its way out of its energy crisis. Mr. Pickens, who financed the Swift-boat campaign smearing John Kerry in 2004, was thought to be a sugar daddy for similar assaults against the Democrats this year. Instead, he is underwriting nonpartisan ads promoting wind power and speaks of how he would welcome Al Gore as energy czar if there's an Obama administration.
The Obama stampede is forcing Mr. McCain to surrender on other domestic fronts. After the Democrat ran ads in 14 states berating chief executives who are "making more in 10 minutes" than many workers do in a year, a newly populist Mr. McCain began railing against "corporate greed" - much as he also followed Mr. Obama's example and belatedly endorsed a homeowners' bailout he had at first opposed. Given that Mr. McCain has already used a refitted, hand-me-down Obama campaign slogan ("A Leader You Can Believe In"), it can't be long before he takes up fist bumps. They've become the rage among young (nonterrorist) American businessmen, according to USA Today.
"We have one president at a time," Mr. Obama is careful to say. True, but the sitting president, a lame duck despised by voters and shunned by his own party's candidates, now has all the gravitas of Mr. Cellophane in "Chicago." The opening for a successor arrived prematurely, and the vacuum had been waiting to be filled. What was most striking about the Obama speech in Berlin was not anything he said so much as the alternative reality it fostered: many American children have never before seen huge crowds turn out abroad to wave American flags instead of burn them.
Mr. McCain could also have stepped into the leadership gap left by Mr. Bush's de facto abdication. His inability to even make a stab at doing so is troubling. While drama-queen commentators on television last week were busy building up false suspense about the Obama trip - will he make a world-class gaffe? will he have too large an audience in Germany? - few focused on the alarms that Mr. McCain's behavior at home raise about his fitness to be president.
Once again the candidate was making factual errors about the only subject he cares about, imagining an Iraq-Pakistan border and garbling the chronology of the Anbar Awakening. Once again he displayed a tantrum-prone temperament ill-suited to a high-pressure 21st-century presidency. His grim-faced crusade to brand his opponent as a traitor who wants to "lose a war" isn't even a competent impersonation of Joe McCarthy. Mr. McCain comes off instead like the ineffectual Mr. Wilson, the retired neighbor perpetually busting a gasket at the antics of pesky little Dennis the Menace.
The week's most revealing incident occurred on Wednesday when the new, supposedly improved McCain campaign management finalized its grand plan to counter Mr. Obama's Berlin speech with a "Mission Accomplished"-like helicopter landing on an oil rig off Louisiana's coast. The announcement was posted on politico.com even as any American with a television could see that Hurricane Dolly was imminent. Needless to say, this bit of theater was almost immediately "postponed" but not before raising the question of whether a McCain administration would be just as hapless in anticipating the next Katrina as the Bush-Brownie storm watch.
When not plotting such stunts, the McCain campaign whines about its lack of press attention like a lover jilted for a younger guy. The McCain camp should be careful what it wishes for. As its relentless goading of Mr. Obama to visit Iraq only ratcheted up anticipation for the Democrat's triumphant trip, so its insistent demand for joint town-hall meetings with Mr. Obama and for more televised chronicling of Mr. McCain's wanderings could be self-inflicted disasters in the making.
Mr. McCain may be most comfortable at town-hall meetings before largely friendly crowds, but his performance under pressure at this year's G.O.P. primary debates was erratic. His sound-bite-deep knowledge of the country's No. 1 issue, the economy, is a Gerald Ford train wreck waiting to happen in any matchup with Mr. Obama that requires focused, time-limited answers rather than rambling.
During Mr. McCain's last two tours of the Middle East - conducted without the invasive scrutiny of network anchors - the only news he generated was his confusion of Sunni with Shia and his embarrassing stroll through a "safe" Baghdad market with helicopter cover. He should thank his stars that few TV viewers saw that he was even less at home when walking through a chaotic Pennsylvania supermarket last week. He inveighed against the price of milk while reading from a note card and felt the pain of a shopper planted by the local Republican Party.
The election remains Mr. Obama's to lose, and he could lose it, whether through unexpected events, his own vanity or a vice-presidential misfire. But what we've learned this month is that America, our allies and most likely the next Congress are moving toward Mr. Obama's post-Iraq vision of the future, whether he reaches the White House or not. That's some small comfort as we contemplate the strange alternative offered by the Republicans: a candidate so oblivious to our nation's big challenges ahead that he is doubling down in his campaign against both Mr. Maliki and Mr. Obama to be elected commander in chief of the surge.
Frank Rich is a columnist for The New York Times.
© 2008 The New York Times
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
179 Comments so far
Show AllIT IS DIFFICULT TO GET THROUGH TO THOSE WHO HAVE A NEW OPINION WITH THOSE WHO CONTINUALLY OCCUPY THIS SPACE MAKING IT VALUELESS!
Well I totally disagree with you about those childish comments also ~Ephriam~. What I've previously written here concerning my personal opinions about Ralph Nader is quite clear and your Gore feared being laughed at is an immature and silly comment, but I agree, I don't wish to waste my time discussing anything with you either.
Well then, KEM, Gore is absolutely blameless in all things, couldn't have done anything about the theft of the election, couldn't have moved on the Congressional Black Caucus's motion to investigate the fraud, couldn't do anything at all to stop the Bush juggernaut, and certainly couldn't have said a word about global warming because he'd have been laughed at. He's angelic, Nader is the devil, and that's the end of the discussion. Thanks for your input.
1
And for Gore to have used Global Warming as a campaign issue? Oh my God, just look how the neo-cons and the Bush supporters have corrupted and currently still are denying that issue with deciet, false propaganda and lying so called scientists, who are very actively supported by a few deniers here at Common Dreams.
Imagine what the Republicans would have done during the Presidential campaign when Global warmng was not even known about by over 90% of the public. Bush, Cheney and the press and media would have had a field day and made Gore appear as a damn "Flamng Liberal", full blown idiot.
It has tken years to educate the public and even now the press and media still ignore the most serious issue humanity has ever faced. If Global warming was a Gore issue when he ran against Bush, he would have lost in a landslide. He didn't have enough time to prove his points then and I'm certain that he knew it.
Hi ~Ephriam~ I disagree that there was anthing productive Gore could have done after the Supreme Court ruling. Perhaps he did consider the Congressional Black Caucus resoltion, perhaps he considered several options. I'm sure he did, and from long experience with the ways of Washington, experience which WE likely don't have, made his final decision BASED UPON what HE was fully aware of.
Gore knew full well how the DC system and games are played. And how much time did he have to fight it and then have that fight decided once again by our Supreme Court, about 70 days or less? Do you honestly believe the Supreme Court would have reversed itself, even if they decided to hear any further legal arguments? ___ I cannot see it.
I'm of the opinion that Gore was smart enough and experienced enough, to realize there was no chance of his fighting fighting city hall or the Supreme Court and if he had done so, it is most likely he would have been percieved by the majority as just a sore loser. I personally cannot place myself in his boots, others may be so presumptious as to try. Now that's my opinion and any can have a far different opinion.
~ABRAMAWICZ~ I did write, "When it concerns Nader surely he can be blamed". Yes, and When it concerns that Gore lost his home state, surely that can be blamed also. The fact that voter fraud in Ohio can be blamed and the fact that Gore didn't run a great campaign can be blamed too.
As I clearly stated, there were SEVERAL reasons to point blame at for Gore's loss, Nader on the ballot was ONLY ONE of them. If Gore could have eleminated any single one of the SEVERAL reasons, he wins. Nader was ONE of them, ONE that can be blamed. It seems that I didn't write a book on the subject that bothers you about my words.
Thank you for the useless lesson on mental stability. LOL,___ Try to grow up before you attempt to be a teacher bud, ___ you may not sound so childish and foolish.
In his semi autographical book, Dreams From My Father, the young Obama portrayed himself as consumed with the life history of a largely absent father who abandoned his wife and son to seek a leadership role in post independence Kenya, only to lose it over what Obama diagnosed as inflexibility. Thus, it is no surprise that the candidate Obama would bend over backwards to accomodate every power block - AIPAC, the military industrial media complex, and misled religion. As president, can he balance his own psychological needs (to avoid his father's fate) against our interests as a nation? The answer remains to be seen, but we the (CD) people should hope for the best and prepare for the worse, lest we end up with another Bill Clinton.
Clinton, you may recall, installed Patriot Act beta version after Oklahoma City, beggared emergent nations to give us neo-liberal pseudo prosperity, spurred media consolidation by enabling Clean Channel oligopoly, rained missiles on wrong targets to sow the seeds of blowback.
Sorry folks, but the Gore dog just won't hunt. He refused to run in 2004 and refuses to run now. Lay it to rest.
"That's how I knew he would be a stellar President."
--What a shame then that he wasn't able to communicate how stellar he'd have been to a larger public. If it's just a matter of writing an inspiring or visionary book, I can think of dozens of people who'd make stellar presidents.
jstevens July 29th, 2008 9:37 pm
Great comment - kind of puts everything in perspective!
lisa you did not like the skin color joke? I could have been low brow and said something horrible like.....
whats the difference between obama and mccain?
Obama has full use of his arms.... HA HA HA
oh come on it funny.... that one gave me lots of laughs in st louis last week.
sixth grade humor is funny... how many times have you laughed at poop jokes and barf humor. Lighten up.
Tell ya what... send me a joke of yours i could use some new material.
Here are a few sentences from the book Al Gore wrote in 1992.
On Environment: America is not responding to environmental danger signals
Even though it is sometimes hard to see their meaning, we have by now all witnessed surprising experiences that signal the damage from our assault on the environment - whether it's the new frequency of days when the temperature exceeds 100 degrees, the new speed with which the sun burns out skin, or the new constancy of public debate over what to do with growing mountains of waste. But our response to these signals is puzzling. Why haven't we launched a massive effort to save our environment?
Source: Earth in the Balance, page 27
On Environment: Global warming is a strategic threat
Global warming is a strategic threat. The concentration of carbon dioxide and other heat-absorbing molecules has increased by almost 25 percent since World War II, posing a worldwide threat to the earth's ability to regulate the amount of heat from the sun retained in the atmosphere. This increase in heat seriously threatens the global climate equilibrium that determines the patterns of winds, rainfall, surface temperatures, ocean currents, and sea level.
Source: Earth in the Balance, page 29
"It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a 25-year period." It is possible; it needs to be done; it will create more jobs, not destroy jobs. page 325-6
That's how I knew he would be a stellar President.
If you were to be elected, what would be item number one on the McKinney agenda?
McKinney:
Is it OK if I do several things simultaneously [laughs]? First of all, we have to instruct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up an orderly withdrawal process for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We would also begin work immediately on a budget to submit to Congress that satisfies human needs and doesn't reflect corporate greed as the current budget does. I would also remind the members of Congress swept into office with me as the New Broom Coalition that we could initiate impeachment proceedings. Also, I would make public the papers pertaining to certain tragedies in the life of our country, like the JKF assassination, Martin Luther King Jr., and the 9/11 Truth Movement-I would release everything the Bush administration knew about September 11. One more thing I would do is begin the process of putting into place a Department of Peace. It would be wonderful to rename the Department of State as the Department of Peace and have our ambassadors go around the world with a mission…to begin their engagement in the world based on human rights and peace.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/146263/page/3
It's also easy to superimpose today's version of Al Gore upon what he presented to the public in 2000. Now he's a passionate environmentalist, now he's raising the issue of global warming as the most important one we face as a species, now he's sounding like someone most progressives would like to see leading the country. But now is not then. Gore made only passing references to the environment, kept it vague, making no specific policy proposals and barely mentioning global warming, if at all (which he knew plenty about even then), in 2000. In no way was Gore "interfering with very powerful corporate status quo" during any part of that campaign. You're confusing Gore in 2000 with Kucinich in 2007. I'm not "bashing" the Al Gore of today; I'm saying he in no way resembles now his persona of 2000. And I never said I knew what type of president Nader might make, but neither do you know any such thing about Gore. You're clinging to speculation and guess-work and insisting that Nader spoiled our chances for a glorious Gore administration. I'm saying all that's complete and utter nonsense.
KEM PATRICK July 29th, 2008 1:08 pm
"you say that I...ONLY blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss. I wrote: Nader was not the ONLY reason Gore lost, he was just ONE of several reasons.'...[and]that if ANY of THE reasons had...not existed, Gore would have been the president....I never, ever, wrote or implied, that it was ONLY Nader that cost Gore the election-"
You have failed to understand a clear - not to mention civil - explanation of your intellectual error. Possibly, your mental confusion involves not understanding the difference between "cause" and "blame." Allow me to help out. It's really quite simple!
First, you claim I wrote that you said "it was ONLY [sic] Nader that cost Gore the election." That is not true. I clearly stated that you "recognize multiple causes."
You also state I said you "ONLY blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss." That comes closer, though you fail to comprehend the key point. I wrote that you "single out Nader as the only cause to be blamed." That is, you identify many causes, but it is only Nader you "blame" (i.e., criticize, allege to be at fault, use the word "blame" in connection with).
For example, here:
"Now there are many other factors...However, when it concerns Nader, he can surely be blamed."
And here:
"Nader is not the reason Gore lost??? If Nader had not been in the race-"
Not 'Nader is not A reason Gore lost?' Not 'Nader is not ONE reason Gore lost?' You attack the view that "Nader is not the reason Gore lost." THE reason...
Well you could also say that you don't know what type of President Nader would make.
Al Gore is unique in being a passionate environmentalist who almost made it to the top. It would be hard to make the case that he doesn't care about the environment. That alone sets him apart from any President in modern history ( since Teddy Roosevelt). That is how I know and knew that he would change the world. He believed in something besides his own advancement.
If we are ever fortunate to be in that position again, where an environmentalist gets that far--I hope we don't bash him for this or that minor imperfection. I don't have any complaints with how Gore handled the aftermath of the election. But if I did, I would still consider that minor.
It is a real trick to have a passion that interferes with very powerful corporate status quo interests and actually be electable.
It's easy to take an extreme left position and get a few percentage points every election. No trick there.
Fine KEM, I totally agree with you about anyone being better than Bush, and though you were addressing abramawicz, you're truncating what I said about how no one knew what Gore would do as prez to fit your conviction that, once again, Nader was the spoiler and we'd have been so much better off with Gore.
My point was, no one knew anything about 9/11/01 in November 2000, and thus couldn't have predicted Bush's infamously illegal war on Iraq and all the other damage he's done. I said it all before and won't reiterate. Also, you might insist Nader was *one reason* Gore lost and maybe that's true, but there were many reasons he lost, and to say that if Nader hadn't run then Gore would have won is almost like saying if Bush hadn't run Gore would have won.
If the Supremes hadn't intervened he would have most likely won the recount, almost certainly. And at the risk of "making a fool of myself," I'll hazard to suggest that there was plenty Gore could have done after the SC delivered its coup d'etat. Mainly, he could have responded to the Congressional Black Caucus resolution for an investigation of the vote fraud that everyone knew had gone on in Florida. Instead, he suppressed the entire motion, himself! He himself overruled the CBC and declared the election over and done with.
No one could have capitulated more eagerly to the dictates of the Jim Baker-led Republican Gestapo. Kerry did exactly the same thing in 2004. So he didn't need to have a prayer meeting, he merely needed to exercise his powers as leader of the Democratic Party in demanding the recount be allowed to continue and rooting out the fraud and corruption in Florida, led by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush. He opted to give the store to the Bush thugs, and Nader had no part in that.
Maybe you weren't paying attention back then, but this was one of the most scandalous aspects of the 2000 election, how Gore and the leading Dems wouldn't defend themselves against OBVIOUS criminality from the Repugs. They've behaved the same way ever since.
HI there ~ABRAMAWICZ~. Hey bud, or gal, you need some help. It is very obvious by your comments about my comments that you either don't understand what others write, or you are displeaded with any who disagree with you on a subject and so you attempt to twist what others write? In either case, you need help, whether you seek it is your business. If you do, hope it the former problem which is easier to cure. Just go back ot school and learn how to comprehend reading.
Now you say I first wrote there were several reason Gore lost the election. Yes indeedt, I did write that. Then however you say that I continued on and ONLY blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss. That comment you wrote bud or gal, is where you are screwed up, either you can't understand what's written, or you are lying about what I wrote, intentional lying or not.
I wrote: "Nader was not the ONLY reason Gore lost, he was just ONE of several reasons." ___ ONE OF SEVERAL.___ I repeated that twice and wrote, that if ANY of THE reasons had been eleminated, or had not existed, Gore would have been the president.
I also wrote, that IF "Gore had won his own home state", he would have been the president. I never, ever, wrote or implied, that it was ONLY Nader that cost Gore the election, because I don't believe that is so. So you otta consider seeking help bud or gal, because you are just making a fool of yourself. But maybe you don't care if you do or not and I sure don't care what you do, as long as you don't mis-represent what I post here.
I also find it quite humerous, when I read opinions from adults here, that Gore ___"GAVE UP", or caved in,___ after the Supreme Court decision, but those who write that never explain what Gore was supposed to do about it. I mean damn, should Gore have had a massive prayer service and spoken to God abou tit as Bush does? What should he have done? Never mind, don't make a fool of yourself anyone, attempting to answer that question.
And another just wrote, "we don't know what Gore would have done as president." ___ NO shit, ___ no one knows what ANYONE is going to do an hour from now, we can have sensible and rational opinions of it, based upon the person's character and past history however. Based upon those things, I'd much rather Gore had been the president than Bush and based upon th efilal vote counts in Florida, I'd much prefer Nader had not been on the ballot, because that's ONE reason Gore lost. Got it? ONE reason.
I'd far rather Imus or his wife had been our president instead of Bush, or almost anyone else. I'd almost rather there was no at all president for the past eight years and Congress had just taken an eight year vacation.
You have no way of knowing what kind of president Gore might have been, because he ducked responsibility in not challenging the theft of the election. All you can do is speculate, and speculation doesn't confer any certainties.
ANYONE would have been a better president than the current illegal occupant, but thanks to the paralysis of the Dems we've had to put up with the imbecile all these years, when he should have been impeached years ago.
I'm afraid I can't accept the mantle of fundamentalist here, seeing as I'm arguing against the fable that Nader caused Bush to win. I'm basing my position on sound research and analysis (see Greg Palast and Mark Crispin Miller), not hysteria over the fact that Nader had the audacity to run against Democratic candidates who both times refused to meaningfully distance themselves from the platforms of the Republicans.
There's little doubt Gore would have been a very different leader than Bush, wouldn't have illegally invaded Iraq and kept that criminal action going all this time. But it was 2000, a year before the Trade Center attacks, and no one had any idea what was to come. No one could have predicted Bush being as insane as he proved to be or that we'd be quagmired in an unwinnable war or anything else the idiot's done to destroy the country. If we'd all known that in 2000 I'm sure Nader would have stood aside, but Gore wasn't sounding like he'd be all that different from Bush AT THE TIME, which is all anyone had to go on.
That's what makes the Dems so frustrating and hypocritical: They push all the right buttons when they don't have any power, as Gore does now, but when they get power they act exactly like Republicans. And if they have power illegally taken from them, they roll over and play dead. Why else do you supposed there's so much animosity toward them in Common Dreams threads? And why else do you suppose Nader keeps running?
Ephraim, There is no comfort for me in blaming Nader. If Gore were defeated by Bush without Nader's help I would be over it by now. I find it very painful that Gore's defeat was caused in part by someone who should have been on his side. I don't consider it a shortcoming of Al Gore that he didn't get enough votes. That fault lies with the voting public, most of whom do not bother to educate themselves on matters of science history and politics.
I agree with you that Gore should have accepted the campaign assistance proffered by Clinton. Gore obviously was disgusted by the Monica Lewinsky event, and angered at the way the Clinton Presidency was defined from that point forward in defense and damage control. Gore didn't realize that Clinton probably would have still been an asset.
Ironically, I also feel that I am arguing with a fundamentalist creationist. I think we are suffering the inescapable conclusion every day: Gore would have been a better President by about 100 orders of magnitude.
KEM PATRICK July 28th, 2008 11:52 pm
"Nader is not the reason Gore lost???"
That is not what the post wrote. He attacked the view that "It's never anyone's fault but Nader's."
See the diff between your statement and his? You almost agree - since you recognize multiple causes. But then you go on to single out Nader as the only cause to be blamed...for unexplained reasons, the only factor that 'counts.' But that's arbitrary:
KEM PATRICK July 28th, 2008 11:52 pm
Nader is not the reason Gore lost??? If Nader had not been in the race, a re-count, or the Supreme court, would not have been necessary. Gore wold have taken Florida and been the president.
Democrats are not the reason Gore lost? If they had run further left, Gore would have picked up more of Nader's votes in Florida and been the president.
"Now there are many other factors...However, when it concerns Nader, he can surely be blamed, because he took several thousand votes in Florida."
Now there are many other factors. However, when it concerns Gore, he can surely be blamed, because he folded, giving up his votes in Florida.
Kem: I saw your post lamenting the pollution of (this?) CD thread from name calling and ugliness. I think you guessed it may have driven others away.
Yes, "Ephraim" asked me a question, but it was so laden with personal insults, with my words twisted and thrown back at me like RichM does, I did not respond.
It's just a pissing contest then. Yuck.
But the message is clear: Disagree? Then we are ignorant, stupid and worse.
Like sixth graders.
HOW OBAMA BECAME ACTING PRESIDENT - thats just it, it's all an act! The man should win an oscar for his role as the great agent of change.
Tell me what the difference between McCain and Obama
answer: skin color
The two of you can continue to believe anything you want to comfort your illusions that Nader lost the election for Gore. But believing something doesn't make it true. All this has been debunked a million times here and elsewhere but you're committed to this particular delusion so no amount of disabusing you will make a difference. It's exactly like arguing evolution with a fundamentalist creationist. The six reasons tailcap gives above should persuade anyone rational that Nader wasn't the cause of Bush's two terms in office, but neither jstevens nor KEM are capable of absorbing the obvious. You just have to have Nader to bash because you can't face the truth that Gore and the Dems lost it all by themselves. Little wonder KEM is thus deluded, as he's on record in CD for loathing Obama and supporting Hillary, and Hillary's defeat can probably be blamed on Nader also.
As for Bush and Gore not being "the same," Nader was merely saying their positions on the issues in 2000 weren't all that indistinguishable, as anyone who paid attention to what they said then knew. Of course Gore has been much better since 2000 than he ever was during his campaign. Today I would vote for him if he was running; in 2000 he sounded like a wooden robot and constantly went out of his way to assure voters he wasn't any kind of horrible liberal, was just as conservative as your average Republican, and he distanced himself utterly from Clinton's offered support. If he'd allowed Clinton to publicly support him he'd have won, because Clinton wasn't unpopular. But Gore was so scandalized by the Monica flap that he wanted nothing to do with Clinton, so on his own, he lost. The votes Nader got in Florida were minimal compared to all the votes other candidates received besides Gore, but jstevens' 3rd grade math tells her otherwise, so there's no going there. The worst of it, as tailcap relates, is how the Dems refused, en masse, to protest the SC's intervention and authorization of a coup d'etat. The Congressional Black Caucus staged a formal protest but the Party honchos, headed by Gore, knocked it down. They ran off with tails between their legs, scared to death of the Supremes and the Republicans. Read Greg Palast on how the election was stolen, or Mark Crispin Miller. They've both done all the research, as many others have, and none conclude it was Nader who lost the election for Gore. That's a myth that died 6 years ago: Too bad you two haven't got the memo.
You pretty?
Of course you are.
Ephraim: You have resorted to hyperbole and aggression which gives the impression that your points can not stand on their own.
Nader was a deciding factor in the 2000 election. This conclusion is brought to you courtesy of Third Grade Math. As Kem Patrick pointed out better than I did, only one of many scenarios was needed to change the outcome. Nader could have been that scenario but he wasn't.
I could write a few books on the topic of how Bush and Gore are not the same, but I think I'll let you figure that one out.
Al Gore was being quite generous to Ralph Nader with his statements. I honestly don't think he meant it. Al Gore wants to save the planet before its too late, and alienating Nader wouldn't help that cause. Too bad Ralph couldn't return the favor. I have never seen him compliment Al Gore. I've never seen him admit to any mistakes. Maybe he did and I missed it.
I never said or implied that Nader determines the outcome of every election. He just determined the outcome of the really important election. The most clear depiction of good versus evil that elections have ever provided. The election where the only man who could save the world lost by about 500 votes.
By the way, I am not a man.
Nader is not the reason Gore lost??? If Nader had not been in the race, a re-count, or the Supreme court, would not have been necessary. Gore wold have taken Florida and been the president.
Now there are many other factors. If Gore had won his own state, he'd have been the president. However, when it concerns Nader, he can surely be blamed, because he took several thousand votes in Florida. Gore only needed about 500 more in that state. Once again, if Nader had not been in it, Gore would have won. That's the statilstical odds and probabilities.
Ya know, when an aircraft crashes, there are several reasons. Eliminate just ONE of the several and there is no crash. Nader was not the only reason Gore lost. He was just ONE of the reasons, and if he'd been out of it, NO Bush in the White House.
I personally admire Ralph Nader for many reasons and realize he has his human flaws like all of us do. Nader is a spoiler when he gets his name on the ballot as he and everyone else knows with absolute certainty, that he has no chance whatsoever on the Presidential ticket, just as none of us blogging commments here do.
So why do it to send a message? Nader can send messages without being a spoiler. If he'd support and endorse the better candidate, he'd be far more liked and respected. Now of course there are no better viable candidates to support.
jstevens just reveals his complete inability to think, reason or analyze the simplest events. What a clown, though he echoes the same stupidity too many progressives labor under--that no matter what the actual chain of events, Nader lost the election for Gore, or Kerry, or whatever other dimwit Dem Nader ever happened to run against. It's never anyone's fault but Nader's.
Jesus H. Christ, how long can you cling to the same moronic theme? According to jstevens, Nader is to blame because he dared to say Bush and Gore were the same. And he won't even apologize! The rest of his "reasons" are too stupid and senseless to even respond to. But ask yourself this, jstevens: If Nader is soooo porwerful that he alone can cause every Democrat to lose elections, why can't any of these Democrats cause Republicans to lose against them? Is it all to be explained solely by the Nader Factor? Only Nader can get Republicans elected to office. He's being paid by them to ruin Dems chances. Probably he's an alien, from somewhere near the Crab Nebula, sent here to sabotage elections to keep Republicans in power.
A few years ago it was reported that Nader and Gore met at some gathering and Gore admitted to Nader that he didn't "cause" Gore to lose in 2000. Gore is intelligent enough to realize the obvious. It's sad and pathetic that so-called progressives like jstevens and lisa3120 cannot stop beating their drums of hatred and resentment against Nader and anyone who ever voted for him. Full disclosure: I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000, and only regret I threw my vote away on the idiot Kerry in 2004.
jstevens, tailcap isn't being honest with you here when he writes - "The favorite Democratic lament about Nader causing Gore to lose is a myth. What makes you think Democrats own progressive votes when they aren't even progressives?"
Will he say this after McCain wins the election, after he has worked so hard to switch progressive votes HERE from Obama to Nader? No, he'll tell you that all the people who voted for Nader(at tailcaps request) wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway!
Here are a few of the reasons I blame Nader:
He stated that Bush and Gore are the same. Worse yet, he refuses to apologize for that statement. It was quite apparent in 2000 that Bush was the darling of the oil and coal industries. A very unscientific man devoid of curiosity, judgment, etc. The kind of man that says "Let's git em." I knew that before the election. I wonder why Nader didn't.
In interviews, Nader exhibits the same kind of behavior that I despise in George Bush. He has the nerve to say things like : "Al Gore didn't even win his home state."
As if this exonerates Nader. Nader didn't win any state.
He doesn't try to win. He knows he's not going to win.
You don't become President of the (previously) most powerful country in the world by throwing out a few lines, giving the occasional speech, knowing all the while that the Republican Party will help you out with signatures if you fall behind.
Anyone could list several ways that Gore could have won. The Supreme Court could have ruled another way. Brother Jeb could have helped Gore out.
But with election 2000, it's like we didn't just lose the ball game. We lost the ball game because Nader was making shots in the opponent's basket. Then he had the nerve to say it was his team's fault for letting the game get too close.
There is a time and a place for a Third Party candidate. A tight race between Gore and Bush was not the time.
jstevens July 28th, 2008 5:31 pm writes "I am just loathe to state the obvious. But here goes: When the Supreme Court ruled, the election was over."
1) I disagree. Congress could have conducted an investigation. The Democrats refused to do it. You never mentioned that.
2) Gore "lost" by 543 votes, all third parties received more than that so you could just as easily blamed any 3rd party.
3) Votes are not an entitlement program. Why do you assume that those that voted 3rd party were supposed to vote for Democrats? Maybe they wouldn't have voted at all if Nader wasn't on the ballot.
4) More Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader in Florida in 2000.
5) Many, many thousands of Democrats (12% or 200,000) didn't vote at all.
6) You wrote: When the Supreme Court ruled, the election was over."
-Why aren't you blaming the Supreme Court instead of Nader or blaming the Democrats that voted for Bush?
There was also all kinds of documented dirty tricks like the famous one where Republican storm troopers invaded a building where poll workers were recounting votes and scared and intimidated the hell out of them. Numerous books have been written about the Florida fiasco. Democrats did nothing.
Ralph Nader didn't elect Bush, it was rigged voting machines, disappeared ballot boxes, butterfly ballots, weak candidates, disenfranchised blacks in Florida, dirty tricks in Ohio, a rubber stamp Supreme Court and most importantly a spineless Democratic party that just rolled over when all this happened and squeezed their eyes shut and refused to do anything about it, starting with Al Gore.
I myself voted for Nader in 2000. If Nader would not have been on the ballot I would have voted for a socialist or not voted at all. The favorite Democratic lament about Nader causing Gore to lose is a myth. What makes you think Democrats own progressive votes when they aren't even progressives? If anything, Gore lost it himself.
How's it been working out for you, lisa3210p, voting for Democrats all those years when Nader was in it just to piss you off? Noticed lots of "change" over those years, with or without the Democrats help? How it may have "worked out" to vote for Nader is narrow-minded in the extreme, since the reason it never does much good has to be traced back to the stranglehold the two-party system has on anyone trying to challenge it.
You don't want to challenge it and you hate Nader for trying, therefore you want the status quo to prevail forever. That makes you like most American "progressives," feckless, useless and endlessly blaming Nader for the failures of the Democrats to do anything that makes them different from the Republicans. Stay on that track, lisa, and find out how well that "works out" for you.
elmysterio: Not exactly. What I actually asked was how voting 3rd party/Nader these last 20-24 years had worked-not just 2000.
Nader has been running for a couple decades.
Now, how HAS that worked? Based on the last few years?
Because if the problem is a brainwashed public as you say, that's enough time to raise a new generation. And guess what, that has happened and most of them never heard of Ralph.
Just maybe Nader ain't NEVER gonna help. Like So Far.
Obama
Kucinich
Gore
elmysterio July 28th, 2008 7:25 pm
You should know by now that AMERICA CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
MikeBinSC said: "If you want to get an idea of how the MIMIC would have responded to Obama apologizing for all the misdeeds of America, take a hint from the way they reacted to Michelle Obama's statement of, "This is the first time in my adult life, that I am proud of my country."
Ok... so even if Obama *thinks* like we do here at CD, it's perfectly correct for him to swallow any sense of morality and justice because the "media will attack him"? That seems pretty chickenshit to me. Just makes me think of Jack Nicholson screaming "You can't handle the truth!".
Siouxrose made a very astute observation on July 28th, 2008 11:28 am
lisa3210peace said: "How did voting for Ralph work out for you in 2000?"
I would argue that is because of the whole "3rd parties can't win... don't throw your vote away... vote lesser of 2 evils" type mentality. Has nothing to do with the 3rd party itself... more to do with the brainwashing of the public.
Nelson Said: "President Obama has begun raising America's image again to where it should be"
Here's a word to describe Obama and his "Hope and Change"... FACADE. Look it up.
tailcap, I am bringing up Al Gore because not very long ago (all though it seems very long) a Third Party candidate helped to bring us the worst President in modern history.
Now liberal zealots (with a lot of help from the Republican Party and oil companies) are doing the same thing in the current race between Obama and McCain. Obama is not perfect. In fact he's a far cry from Al Gore, but John McCain ascribes to and actually augments the failed policies of Bush. Our Third Party Candidates not only don't have a chance this year, they are both highly flawed.
You claim that I am trying to change the subject. I am just loathe to state the obvious. But here goes: When the Supreme Court ruled, the election was over. The Supreme Court has the final say. Al Gore won the popular vote, not the electoral vote. As for voter fraud, that almost certainly occurs on both sides to the extent that they can get away with it.
Hey ~TAILCAP~ I wouldn't give Fidel any orders, just privately discuss the pros and cons with him. Like Lee Iacocca did. Maybe he never read Animal Farm. ___ Maybe you never did either.
To vote for a known liar will only make one a slave of liars. If the voter has no principles, then don't expect the politician to have any.
colleen July 28th, 2008 2:41 pm writes "If the economy gets worse there won't be a liberal ups rising..more conservatives will start carrying guns and killing people who are opposed to their point of view…"
-I'm not certain, but I think this blogger is saying vote for Obama or you will be shot and killed by a dangerous, gun-toting, conservative.
colleen July 28th, 2008 2:41 pm
I don't think you need to worry about conservatives because of one nut case.
The dimwits are the people who think the US is a nation of "progressives"
Look at the man who killed the people in the Unitarian Church in Tennessee. I am a Unitarian and I have lived in the South..Tennessee and Georgia. I protested in PA against the war early on and I was worried that I would be shot while protesting...My son was worried for me also..
People who think voting for Nader, or Kucinich will change America do not know what America is like..McCain is carrying 40% of the votes and look at the nonsense he has been saying..and the inaccuracies.
If the economy gets worse there won't be a liberal ups rising..more conservatives will start carrying guns and killing people who are opposed to their point of view...
these people are dangerous!
In their twisted minds they will blame liberals..like the killer in Tenneessee who walked into a Unitarian Church where the play Annie was being put on by children ..and opened fire killing people....
That's America!
We don't have any solutions here beyond blogging points, and we can't possibly have anything else because we have no POWER. Obama was chosen as the party's candidate because they have the power to do that, under the guise of primary voting which is entirely manipulated by the ad industry, major funding sources, and corporate media, all of which had a keen interest in ensuring the obliteration of Edwards, Kucinich and anyone else not kowtowing to the corporatists who run the whole fucking show.
To now be bickering over whether Obama is "evil" or the "Anti-Christ" only underlines our collective, atomized powerlessness. The same goes for hurling insults at Nader, always at least half of progressives' favorite whipping boy. I find it endlessly amusing how often Nader is vilified for being an egomaniac, while no one ever calls Obama, McCain, Hillary or any other "legitimate" candidate (meaning one vetted and approved of by the party structures) an egomaniac. But Nader was only "destructive" when he ran in the past because he dared to challenge the duopoly, making him childishly egocentric.
Progressives who continue making charges like this only reveal how immensely brainwashed they are regarding the sacredness of the two-party stranglehold against any possibility of the kind of change we all talk about and futiley await from these very parties. RichM, tailcap and several others have said as much over and over in here to no avail. Real challenges to the duopoly (a joint monopoly) are viewed by people who consider themselves some sort of progressive as nothing more than egoistic distractions from the important work of maintaining and protecting the duoploy from any serious threats. No wonder American pwogwessives are so reviled as dimwits by the rest of the world. Most of us want anything BUT change.
If you want to get an idea of how the MIMIC would have responded to Obama apologizing for all the misdeeds of America, take a hint from the way they reacted to Michelle Obama's statement of, "This is the first time in my adult life, that I am proud of my country."
RichM July 28th, 2008 12:52 pm
Kem Patrick (12:15 pm)-Great platform, but I agree with RichM on his reservations on Cuba.
What happens in Cuba, or any other country for that matter is not the US's business. That's called imperialism and is no better than the way communism is practiced in Cuba as far as the rest of the world is concerned, actually it's probably worse.
Chomsky is obviously a lesser-evilist, other than that I really like the guy.
RichM-
Exactly where did ezeflyer accuse you of being a Republican?
Nice straw man.
I think the argument being made by those of us who are sick of the left attacking Obama much, much more vitriolically than they attack McCain is articulated very well here by Chomsky, talking about Kerry's candidacy in 2004. Replace the word "Kerry" with "Obama" and that is what many of us who live in swing states are thinking. I can list the things that Obama is bad on just as well as you or any of the other posters who keep calling us "stupid naive sell-out zombie, whatevers" can. And I will still vote for him, because McCain will be worse by almost any measure. Europeans know that as well.
Chomsky:
"Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."
"Large outcome" = "Human lives"
Every time I do that I feel like an attack dog.
Every time I don't do it I feel like a coward.
Both feel lousy.
Now I'm ready to listen. Thanks Abramawicz.
Humans are products and identities of their life experiences; ergo, Mr. McCain's apparent identity is being a POW, the experiences he had during a war, and living in the past. Asking him to become a present member of society in 2008 may not be within his capabilities and all the discussion in the world is not going to change his perceptions and psychological views of the world (unless he has been cured of his PTSD). Humans tend to go with what they know and trauma only complicates the thinking/feeling process; this is the fearsome piece of Mr. McCain running for an office with such power. McCain reminds me a bit of Hank Hill's father on the television program "King of the Hill". Both have dogma for war and live primarily in the wartime past. Quite bothersome.
Kem Patrick (12:15 pm) - That's a very good platform. (I have a minor quibble with your proposal to ask Castro to "begin to phase out communism," but that's not worth going into, here.)
On the rest of it, there's no doubt that you'd be a much better president than either of the two major-party shitheads. I'd vote for you long before I'd vote for either of them. I think Nader's platform is quite similar to yours.
It will stand as the official American historical record that the Democratic Party acquiesced to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, but refused to even consider removing his loathed, warmongering successor when they won a majority of Congressional seats in 2006.
Democrats have diddled for two years while Bush and his crew plan very cushy retirements. Do today's Democrats believe Clinton is more deserving of punishment than Bush? It looks that way to me.
Bring this up the next time someone tries to scare you with the possibility of a Republican winning office. Democrats obviously don't think Republican leadership is all that bad, so why should you?
jstevens July 28th, 2008 12:28 pm
Typical Democratic Party supporter obfuscation and avoidance of the inconvenient truths:
tailcap July 28th, 2008 11:44 am: "Some bloggers like to state that Gore would've been better than Bush.Question- Why did not one Democratic Senator agree to sign on to an investigation of the theft in 2000 when house members begged them? Not even Gore himself signed on? Why did the Democrats capitulate?"
1) Gore actually won. Why did he capitulate and so easily? Why did he not sign on to an investigation?
2) You cannot know what kind of president Gore would have made, you can only speculate.
3) If Gore capitulated why is that an argument for why we should vote for Obama? What does Gore have to do with Obama?
4) Obama is a Democrat. Why should we vote for Democrats? What have they done?
Why are you bringing up Gore during a discussion of Obama? Another classic example of the Democratic Party supporter's red herring argument. Lacking strong arguments to refute the truth about their candidate and what he's up to, they attempt to change the subject.
Nietzsche, today you're my hero.
tailcap. The questions you posed are about the failings of the Democrats. This is really irrelevant to the Bush versus Gore scenario.
Yes, Gore is a Democrat. But he is a powerful, intelligent and inspired Democrat with world renown, a Nobel Peace Prize, and tireless devotion to the world's biggest problem.
It is not relevant to lump him in with Nancy Pelosi. Or to dodge the issue of who would have been the better President in this fashion.
Write in ~KEM PATRICK~ when you vote in November.
I promise, that in the first seven days: I will work to have a bill passed that will outlaw all lobbying, forever unto perpetuity.
I will have the Pentagon shitheads immediately draw up a plan that will have all of our troops and their equipment in Iraq and Afganastan withdrawn within seven days and the Blackwater personnel rounded up and placed in mental institutions for serious personality evaluation.
The Baghdad Green Zone will be destroyed and that damn embassy turned into an Iraqi medical college and hosptial. DU ammo and bombs will be outlawed forever as will cluster bombs and tasers.
We will have a massive energy program initiated to develop solar, wind, geo-thermal, tidal and wave energy and have those clean alternative on line and all coal and nuclear plants shut down within eight years.
There will be arrests and chagres brought against all politicians and CEOs of companies that have committed crimes against humanity and the enviroment. That will be
the first seven days and during that time frame, I will personally visit with Castro and see if there is anything we can do to assist his country and I'll also ask him if he could begin to phase out communism. Then I'll visit with Putin and attempt to restore some good will with the Russians as we stop the crazy shit of placing a missile defense system in Europe.
I'll ask Cheney to be my running mate so no one will attempt to assinate me. He can serve in that position, locked up in a deep and dark cave until he's found gulity and placed in solitary for the rest of his miserable life. Oh, and Monica will be my chief White House advisor. ___ Bill had the right idea on some issues.
re: either-or-ism
purvis ames July 28th, 2008 11:20 am
"If the progressives on this thread really want to do something, it's time to stop whining about the corporate candidates and...[instead, explain]your viewpoints to anyone who will listen. Things evolve from the bottom up, not the top down. And please forget...Nader and...McKinney...If you're expecting a vision from on high, ain't going to happen."
1) Shrug. It's not either-or.
Time permitting, I work w/my teacher union's political action arm - with urban parents, on NYC education issues that, necessarily, touch on state and federal education funding and policy. I also criticize the two "corporate candidates" and will vote third party.
2) What "progressive," "bottom up" work do you do? As a teacher, I do not simply tell my students what to do, but model the activity - what do you do that CD readers should emulate...besides hang out on a website and scold them?
purvis ames July 28th, 2008 11:20 am writes If the progressives on this thread really want to do something, it's time to stop whining about the corporate candidates and get involved in cogently explaining your viewpoints to anyone who will listen.
-This blogger epitomizes the classic Democratic Party supporter's red herring argument. Lacking strong arguments to refute the truth about their candidate and what he's up to, they attempt to switch the topic over to YOU, and have YOU explain YOUR view points. That way it's now about YOUR viewpoints and no longer about Obama.
The answer: I am not running for president and this article wasn't about ME and MY viewpoints, it was about Obama. Try refuting anything I said instead of changing the subject.
This argument can be called: The "WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?" argument which is really not an argument at all. It's an attempt to change the subject. Nice try.
jstevens July 28th, 2008 11:07 am writes "I can say with great confidence that the difference between 8 years of Al Gore as President versus 8 years of Bush is enormous."
Some bloggers like to state that Gore would've been better than Bush.
Question- Why did not one Democratic Senator agree to sign on to an investigation of the theft in 2000 when house members begged them? Not even Gore himself signed on? Why did the Democrats capitulate?
Question- When Democrats do get elected into office in sufficient numbers (like now) to be able to thwart the Republican agenda why do they continue it instead?
Question- Democrats are now the majority party, why have they not impeached Bush?
Question- Democrats are now the majority party, why did they grant Bush and the Telecoms immunity?
Even when Democrats have the power to stop Republicans Democrats refuse to. Witness the latest political stunt where the Dems wait until a few months before Bush leaves office to look at his "controversies" when they could just have impeached him years ago. Democrats are part and parcel of the problem not the solution.
Just what have the Democrats done in the last two years since taking over the Congress that would merit a vote?
This is what they've done
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) Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here
Democrats are the problem not the solution. Obama is just the latest pro-corporate, pro-Big Business, pro-MIC the Democrats offer as "hope" and "change". The "change " will come when the troops are withdrawn from Iraq and sent to Afghanistan as Obama has promised to do if he becomes president. Vote 3rd party and break with the sell outs or vote for them and continue the same old, same old.
I believe Obama's poll numbers actually went down after his Europe trip. That's a good sign, perhaps. It shows that enough people in the States were paying attention to substance, and not simply the famous Obama-style. Hopefully people will see that, as many here have noted, Obama merely intends to put a more attractive face on military empire.
Mr. Wilson? Pretty good. How about Elmer Fudd? Yeah. The Misadventures of Johnny McFudd. I like it.
It's the election that is stirring the antipathies and pushing us into competing camps. What would Pavlov have to say were he alive today?
KEM: I noticed the same thing. When I was 5 years old I went to sleep away camp. A small plane flew over the campers and threw something out... it was the announcment of (a ritual called) COLOR WAR in which case the campers were divided into teams that for the rest of the season would compete vigorously against one another. It was quite a spectacle for my impressionable little mind to observe, one that never left me. I saw friends become enemies overnight merely because they were cast to the fiction of opposing teams. In a sense, WE are conditioned to this type of behavior due to the legacy of religions treating their constituents like members of competing teams. The same psychology operates in nationalism, and of course in America's other religion: sporting events, the new opiate of the peoples.
It is scary to see that mentality here on CD where the posters are FAR more intelligent than the mainstream, and yet alas, the conditioning shows its ugly face.
If the progressives on this thread really want to do something, it's time to stop whining about the corporate candidates and get involved in cogently explaining your viewpoints to anyone who will listen. Things evolve from the bottom up, not the top down. And please forget Ralph ("We as consumers!") Nader and the fruitcake McKinney. Better to get involved with electing your local representatives and holding them accountable for their contributions and votes in the legislature. If you're expecting a vision from on high, ain't going to happen.
BetheChange. I am happy to tell you what I know.
I know what happened in 2000. Ralph Nader declared that Gore and Bush were the same.
Right off the bat, just from this statement, I know that Nader is too stupid to be the next great hope if he actually believes this...and too egocentric if he doesn't really believe it but realizes that such a supposition validates his candidacy.
I can say with great confidence that the difference between 8 years of Al Gore as President versus 8 years of Bush is enormous. For starters, we would not have gone to war with Iraq, and we would have made huge strides toward dealing with climate catastrophe.
Now let's compare Obama to McCain. I know that MCCain has a hard time getting out a coherent thought. I know that he had a big smile on his face singing Bomb Bomb Bomb. I know that he is Mr. Surge. He was so confident of his war and foreign policy prowess that he tried to make Mitt Romney feel ashamed over being against the surge. Ludicrous for this unpopular and disastrous war. I know that McCain is like Bush in almost every way. Bush was a little less intelligent. McCain makes up for it with dementia.
Obama has uttered some novelties during his campaign. He wants to use diplomacy in the Middle East. Hillary jumped all over him on this one, but the public didn't buy it. He has labeled the war a failure and set a time table for withdrawal.
Meanwhile, McKinney slugged a security guard then blamed it on his racism. Now that's Presidential. That's what you want. She should be thankful she didn't end up in jail.
Now you tell me how people like those two (Third Party Candidates) are going to change the world before it burns up.
Nietzsche,
Obama has proved that you don't have to be white to worship at the military/industial/congressional alter. I was a big supporter of Obama here in Illinois and campaigned diligently on his behalf. It didn't take ten minutes of him in the senate to show me his true colors (LOL). He's not black. He's not white. He's transparent!
Nietzsche July 28th, 2008 10:07 am
I think you're on to something, but wrong
The poster's comments are suspect, but you're off-base - the 'Golly-I'm-really-disturbed' brow-furrowing and 'which anti-Christ is worse' is a right wing tactic. Likewise, the 'overreach' BS belongs to the Republican effort to depict Obama as young, and inexperienced in foreign policy vs. the decrepit Republican. Something like, 'How can the young pup think to step into international shoes'?
I repeat Rich, it's called campaigning. No candidate in his right mind is going to stand up and list all the mean, sneaky, ugly things the US has done over the years.
I don't know Obama well enough to defend him, but I know McCain.
I see one distasteful thing. This Obama/Hillary, and now Obama/McCain struggle, has turned the Common Dreams site into a Common shit fight, with a lot of decent but disgusted and hurt people angry at one another and a goodly number of fun and decent bloggers have left this site because of it.
abramawicz (10:12 am) - Of course, you're completely right. After all, that was CNN, & the "journalist" asking the question was Candy Crowley -- a servile conformist if ever there was one. It's certainly true that the question itself was a vintage example of what the US media does, day in & day out. It's simply a never-ending process of rigid ideological enforcement. Anyone who doesn't give the desired "patriotic" answers gets pummeled to a pulp.
One could argue that Obama really had little choice about how to answer, since (for example) when his wife made the remark about "It's the first time I've ever felt proud of this country," or when Obama himself didn't wear a flag pin in his lapel, we all saw what happened. If he'd answered any differently, the same media would have been at his throat in a flash.
However, anyone who listened to Obama's 25 minute speech to the Berliners would have heard his slanted history of the Berlin Airlift, & the West's "struggle against Communism." And this speech reflected the very same sanitized & overly glorified view of America's role in the world that his answer to Candy Crowley did. So I think that the "real" Obama really does hold a worldview in which the US is the "last best hope of mankind," & where its natural & rightful place is atop a global empire. In his heart, mind & soul, Obama is just what his supporters on Wall Street want him to be: a nationalist, a corporatist, & a militarist. This is the mainstream of American politics. No deviations from it are tolerated, & Obama fits very comfortably into it.
Based on nothing Rich? I was wondering when you would jump in to say nobody should pay attention to me.
Rich, if I don't deserve your attention just don't bother. My feelings won't be hurt.
Anybody else reading this examine the above comments carefully. I don't think I'm out of line here. Taking the race bait has always been expensive, but now everything this country once claimed to stand for is at stake.
RichM July 28th, 2008 10:16 am