Barackis Dukakis?
McCain Slings from the Sewer While Obama Says Little
John McCain is a scumbag.
I choose my words carefully, and in full recognition of past sacrifices and contributions he has made.
But I am sick to death of seeing my country go down the toilet. And I am sick to death of my country wrecking other parts of the world. And I am sickest-at-heart of all that the people doing this represent the sleaziest side of American politics.
These are the Karl Rove acolytes, who learned their craft from the Lee Atwater team, who learned from the Nixon ratfucker squad. From there it may go directly back to Satan, for all I know, possibly with a stopover at Joe McCarthy's desk.
There will always be people like this. Alleged humans who are willing to do anything to win at politics. Fine, we can't control that. But it says everything about any candidate when he or she puts people like this in charge of their campaign. And it says everything about us as a society that we would ever let those who do so win the highest offices in the land, let alone frequently.
Hence, my comment about McCain. It has now become transparently clear that this man will do anything to be president. Whatever scraps of decency and uniqueness and detachment from his own sick party he once had have now all been mortgaged against that goal. The McCain who once knew Bush's tax cuts were irresponsible now favors them, despite eight years of direct evidence turning informed speculation about potential consequences into historical fact. The McCain who once criticized the sex-obsessed theocrats running his party as "agents of intolerance" now seeks their endorsement. The McCain who once stood for a cleaner politics is now firmly ensconced in the sewer, from whence he is reaching down and hurling great gobs and handfuls of what flows all around him.
It was not enough that he mocked Obama for not going to Iraq, only then to whine about how Obama was grandstanding when he turned around and went, and everybody from General Petreaus to Prime Minister Maliki to the entire public of Germany made McCain look the fool. It's not enough that he's now desperately trying to turn the very fact of Obama's popularity against him by running ads comparing the Illinois senator to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. And it's still not even enough that McCain is running ads -- based on wholesale and proven lies -- that Obama skipped out of meeting with wounded American troops in order to shoot some hoops.
No, what really proved that McCain is a scumbag is the one line -- now repeated multiple times -- that Obama "would be willing to lose a war in order to win a campaign." Even if they weren't just finishing up living through the consequences of precisely such politics for eight years now, Americans should be apoplectic in anger that the same folks are back using the same tricks again. Mostly, though, they should be horrified and enraged that such language could be used in a presidential campaign. They should be precisely as willing to elect any person uttering such disgraceful epitaphs as they would a Holocaust denier, a Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, or a serial pedophile.
This is not a policy difference. This is not a disagreement over issues. This is not even a personal critique of an opponent's professional or even character-related qualifications for office. This is an outrageous smear of the most vile kind. McCain has said -- without a scrap of substantiating evidence to back his claim -- that Obama is willing to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens in order to advance his personal career ambitions. How serious an assertion is this? I would regard such alleged behavior as among the most heinous crimes that a person can commit, not different from hiring out a murder. Except, that is, that we're talking about probably a million murders. I have no doubt, and plenty of solid evidence, that that's exactly what the Bush people did when they launched their Iraq war based on lies. I have little doubt, and some evidence, that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and John Kerry committed exactly this crime in voting for the invasion. I think they are all deserving of the gravest punishments, not least including, to start with, a complete banishment from the corridors of power and prestige. These are war criminals, plain and simple. McCain has long been one of them, as one of the war's most avid backers while surely fully cognizant of the lies forming the pretext for invasion. Now he has doubled down by politicizing yet again the gravest decision a country can ever make.
The weight of ironies here -- on top of boundless disgust -- are enough to keep a roaring Saturn V stuck on the launch pad. Start with his nauseating new campaign slogan, "Country First." I've news for you, McCainiac. A candidate who really put country first wouldn't employ Rove-trained scum-slingers to hurl baseless accusations against an opponent, all of which have the effect of massively cheapening America's political process. Many people alive today don't remember that there actually was a time -- before Rove, before Bush and his father, before Atwater, before Nixon -- when this sort of campaign ploy was considered way beyond the pale of decency. There was a reason for that, and we need to return to that ethos for precisely that reason. Willingness to campaign in such a fashion is highly corrosive to the fabrics of decency, respect and trust that are the necessary foundations upon which democracy ultimately rests. Take those away by legitimating and rewarding such vile tactics, and you're ultimately left with a tattered democracy, if any at all. Country first? No, John -- you've actually done just the opposite. When you claim that your opponent is sacrificing people's lives and American national security to win a campaign without having any evidence for that claim, you've put your own desperation to be president well ahead of the country you claim to love by undermining its democracy and by you, yourself, using the war to score political points.
This is all the more ironic because McCain knows better than anyone the consequences of politicizing war. He spent six-and-a-half years being tortured under the ugliest kinds of physical and mental duress. He has since become something of a student of the conflict in which he made these great sacrifices, the Vietnam War. If he were honest enough to allow himself to go there, he would admit the truths of that war which are undeniably supported by the documentary record, including the government's own secret history of Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers. What these reveal is that McCain -- along with many other POWs and MIA, 58,000 Americans killed, tens of thousands more gravely wounded, and perhaps several million dead Vietnamese -- was a victim of precisely the same sort of politicking of war that he and his president and his party have now brought to the lucky people of Iraq.
We know that governments from Truman to Nixon and every one in between lied to the American people about Vietnam, and not just small lies either. And we know that Lyndon Johnson, the man more responsible for the war than any other person, didn't even believe that it was a war that could be won, but fought it anyhow, in large part because he believed that commie-baiting Republicans would use the "loss" of Vietnam against him in elections if he didn't, just as they had earlier with China. Of all people in the world, John McCain should never indulge in this sort of gutter filth. He rotted away the better part of a decade of his own life, mangled and traumatized, in the Hanoi Hilton in order to help Johnson attain his personal prize of another term as president (or so Johnson thought), and because Republicans had politicized national security, also to win elections. Is he okay with that? I'm sure not. I'm not okay for him, nor for any of the John McCains of this world. Short of genocide, what greater possible crime is there than launching a war in order to advance one man's career ambitions?
A third irony is that while he was bravely serving his country and having his patriotism exploited by political hacks like Johnson and the various mutant would-be humanoids of the GOP, the very people who would later bring us the most recent version of their sociopathic amorality were back then sitting by the sides of swimming pools, sipping margaritas, and making career plans to get rich by hook or crook. George Bush had his daddy get him a free pass. Dick Cheney took five draft deferments. John Ashcroft seven. And so on, and so on. Quick: Name one person on the Bush national security team in 2003 who actually showed up for combat when it was his turn. There was only one -- Colin Powell -- who, while hardly a sweetheart himself, was not coincidentally the only one of all of them to oppose invading Iraq. McCain has hitched his wagon to a whole barnyard full of chickenhawks and their despicable war. The fact that Cheney literally said "I had better things to do in the 60s than fight in Vietnam" tells you something of what these guys must have thought about patriotic patsies like John McCain, who risked their lives in service to their country, just as David Kuo's insider revelations about how Rove and company secretly mocked the religious right congregations they used as Republican shock troops tells you more of the same.
But it gets a lot worse yet. In irony number four, McCain would be savaged by these vicious thugs once again, and it was for the same mistake of having once served his country. When it looked like he was going to clobber Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries, the serious money made sure that that wouldn't happen, and that their reliable kleptocrat, Little George, would be ushered into the White House instead. The very same animals who are now mauling Barack Obama on behalf of John McCain were shredding the senator himself on behalf of Bush just eight years ago, falsely accusing McCain in South Carolina of fathering a love child with a black mistress, and of being off his rocker from his POW days. Whatever happy news there is in the fact that a movement this evil will inevitably wind up eating its young, it remains a statement of the sad journey John McCain has taken that he would employ the very same hitmen to now do the same to someone else. Shame on you, John McShameless. Shame on you.
Fifth, it's both outrageous and outrageously ironic for McCain to level this charge against Obama, as opposed to, say, Clinton or Edwards or Kerry. Of the four of them (and many more), only Obama has always opposed the war. Only Obama had the guts to do so at the beginning, when the Bush people had made that an excruciatingly hard thing to do. True, he wasn't then in the US Senate, and he didn't actually have to cast a vote on the issue. Nevertheless, it was pretty widely understood at the time -- not least by Rove and the three Democratic would-be presidents listed above -- that going on record against the war was the kiss of death for any presidential ambitions. Obama not only took that risk, but he hit it just right, not opposing all wars (for there are rare ones for which the alternative is even worse), but opposing dumb wars, and labeling Iraq just such.
Lastly, the greatest irony of all is that nobody politicized this war more than Republicans did. Bush admitted to an interviewer in 1999 that he would use such a war for purposes of insuring his domestic political power. Cheney literally had a formula of "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade." Moreover, if there had ever been any question of why Bush went to Congress for an Iraq war resolution just weeks before the congressional elections of 2002 -- thus cynically pinning Democrats between the Scylla of a war they knew was based on lies and the Charybdis of the GOP using national security as a sledgehammer in this first post-9/11 election -- it should have long prior been put to rest by Rove's congressional election briefing plan, which was accidentally leaked, indicating that the party would be using national security issues as its election strategy. Add to all of that the commander-in-chief's little aircraft carrier landing stunt, the myriad times that the president wrapped himself in the mantle of American soldiers (live and dead), the plastic Thanksgiving turkey, the 2002 abomination against Max Cleland and the 2004 version against John Kerry, and all the rest, and you get a very, very politicized war. Not only should John McCain not be adding to the pile of such disgusting tactics, he should be on his knees begging the country for forgiveness of his party.
But that country -- the better country of my youth, frankly, for all its faults -- no longer exists. It appears that little can tame the GOP's taste for the jugular. And, in part, this is not entirely unexpected, since it always freakin' works. Then again, so does genocide, but many of us have made the amazing moral leap to recognize that not every prize is worth the price paid to obtain it, even if you can manage to get other poor slobs to do the paying. And so we refrain from genocide. Or launching wars to advance our careers.
So, look, it's now July. McCain has hired the known assassins, and they've already begun their work, a fact which became visibly obvious in the massively changed tenor of the McCain campaign this last week or two. So, Barack Baby, do I have to spell it out for you, my man? Can you not see the freight train that is headed your way? Must we have yet another example of Democratic roadkill, to join those of Dukakis, Gore, Cleland, Kerry and the rest, before one of you guys learns to throw a punch or two?
This is your swiftboat moment, dude. John Kerry waited three weeks to respond to the crap they threw at him, after which he might as well have gone off windsurfing and not bothered responding at all. Why are you not shredding McCain for lying about your Iraq trip and the canceled visit to wounded soldiers? (Even the media is pointing that out, despite the fact that they love McCain almost as much as they fear the GOP.) Why are you not disemboweling McCain every day of the week, every week of the month, for his outrageous allegation that you are sacrificing lives in order to win an election?
And why aren't you on the offensive? McCain has given you openings you should be able to drive a Mack truck through, and you need to be saturating the airwaves with these. Why isn't every other television commercial a viewer sees one of yours, showing Phil Gramm calling Americans "whiners" for feeling economic pain, showing McCain saying "Gramm doesn't speak for me," then noting that Gramm in fact spoke on behalf of McCain to the Wall Street Journal on that very same day? Why aren't you running ads turning McCain into George Bush's long lost Siamese twin? Why aren't you hammering McCain at his point of greatest strength, undercutting his so-called national security credentials by showing clips of all his errors, including before the war began when he said it would go easily, during the early parts when he said it was going fine, his absurdly bogus Baghdad market walk-through, and his myriad recent gaffes which suggest his brain clicked off sometime in the 1980s?
Despite the fact that the candidate has now issued a semi-strong rebuttal spot two weeks into this ugliness, I must say, I liked the Barack Obama of the primary season better than the current model. I liked his politics and his integrity more, but most of all I liked his fighting spirit, and his immediate response to scurrilous attacks.
Now that the attacks have gotten worse, I'm wondering what happened to that guy?
Hey Barackis: One Dukakis is per lifetime is more than enough.
McCain and his Gang of Rove have more than transcended the threshold of decency these past weeks, and have done so repeatedly.
It's time for you to take him down.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
122 Comments so far
Show AllWhere to start? Okay, the Fascistcans are just better at throwing the mud around, they know most Americans are stupid idiots who don't read and listen, and they own the corporate media that doesn't want to pay any taxes. It's that simple! The Dimocracts don't know how to fight back anymore, and Obama better start showing some spine instead of being as spineless as Pelosi and Reid.
Now the Repugnantcan tactics of suddenly making the price of gas an issue, tying it to more drilling off the coast, seems to be working. So why hasn't George soros or Move on bought some TV ad space and create a commercial showing oil spills, dead birds and sea life; and why isn't the latest in solar and wind technology shown on other commercials, pointing out the folly of fossil fuels? So this isn't just Obama not standing up at the plate! It's the progressive side not taking the offensive.
So think of the consequences: Mcinsane as prez, more war, more moneyfor teh oligarchy, more foreclosures, less gas mileage, and then finally the people maybe getting pissed off enought to take up arms against the fascist and lets have a civil war!
"They should be precisely as willing to elect any person uttering such disgraceful epitaphs..."
I think you meant to say "epithets".
McCain killed 40 sailors on his aircraft carrier Forrestal (due to his wet-start of of his Jet) which sends out a huge visible flame you see directly behind his jet was another parked fighter jet which suffered the discharge of its wing missle due to McCain and it when thru the deck of the carrier and caused the worst ever ( in 200+ years US Navy) mishap done by US personnel. instead of being court-martialed, and life in Leavenworth, KS
his Daddy got him to leave w/o penalty
to another carrier where then he was shot down.
When will the American people wake up from their stupor?!
If a candidate uses falsehoods, innuendo, puerile logic and war-mongering silly little jingles during the campaign....What will the candidate's action and behaviors look like if elected to the Presidency?
McCain - Not just a scumbag, but a world disaster-in-waiting!
For the love of peace and all humanity can we talk about the issues and have some debate? No. McCain wants to have "fun" in the campaign. OMG!!
Dennis Kucinich could do for all of America what he did for Cleveland...how DOES one bankrupt an entire city?...guess it takes a special financial whiz...like a Dennis Kucinich or Abraham Bean
still...he did manage manage to garner a whopping 1% of the vote...while the other 99% of us looked at his candidacy and laughed
Dennis Kucinich shouldn't be running loose let alone running for President
The only one person who would really be commited to the kind of change we need is Dennis Kucinich. Of course he would probably get killed trying.
Personally, I think we are screwed. I hate to give up, but I think I have.
I flew the flag upside down over the 4th of July weekend. That will be the last time it will ever be flown here. There will be no reason to ever fly it again in my lifetime.
Wow ... once you get Obama's cock out of your mouth, maybe you won't be so angry.
I'll never understand why liberals are always so angry and have to resort to such name calling and whining (yes, I know that I have resorted to that as well).
Hell Yes Obama needs to fight back more! Gore and Kerry made the mistake of trying to take the "high road" and "play by the rules" when they're aren't any rules anymore. No more Quaker Democrats, Damm it, shove it back in their hipocritical Republican faces!
Here are two campaign commercials for any progessive out there who wants to win in November
A. Use the 1960's TV theme to the show "Flipper" and should
how many times McCain has flipped on key issues,
including being against two bills THAT BARE HIS
FRICKIN NAME!
B. Voice Over, "John McCain often talks about honor and
duty to country, but what does it say about him when
Karl Rove is helping to run his campaign, even as Rove
is being help Contempt of Congress for refusing to
testify about his role in serious, alleged abuses of
power in the Bush administration?"
"Is John McCain so afraid of running on his record that
he has to resort to Karl Rove's dirty tactics to win?"
"If you've had enough mud politics and non-issue
distractions, vote for Barack Obama!"
You've just:
1. Linked McCain to Rove and sleezy politics,
2. Pointed out that the GOP has nothing to offer the
American people.
3. Presented Barack Obama as a break from the past and as a
chance for a new direction for the nation.
Honest to God, who is running the Democratic Party anymore?
This business about Senator Clinton votiing for the war.How soon you all forget your owen calls to nuke Afghanistan,and you good old people believing about weapons of mass destruction.
Bush an his 90 percent approval.
Come Senator clinton was representing your wishes.
As far as OBAma Who did he represnt a maybe a million or 2 as a state senator.plus he had them all in his pocket along with crupt supporters Illinois is famous for.
Don't you just love Obama telling us he forsaked Kansas a place where democrats are as scarce as snow flakes in Hawaii.
And Obama being supported by the Kennedy's .
Funny I do not rememenr John forsaking his home state.
True Bobby became a New York Senator because Teddy held the Massachusetts seat. But comparing Obama to any Kennedy. I can not recall, any of the Kennedy''s backing down from issues. and The Kennedys still are out there doing things for others without asking to be pattec on the back llike Obama,
By the way the Kansas farmers were losing their farms. Why didn't Obama go there to help.
Bill Clinton went Back to Arkansas after he graduated from a major university. And good old Bill also could make those spellbinding speeches if you recall.
an as far as old Dukakis losing You were the ones that stayed at home or held you nose and voted for Daddy Bush. why is it you always forget that.
You know if this Democratic Circle Firing Squad keeps going on much longer . The DEms will be on the endangered speaces lists
I don't think Pelosi is anything to celebrate either. Skill set is important. (I don't care where the word allegedly came from. My use of it describes what a person brings in personality traits and actual knowledge of doing certain tasks.) I just don't see the point of replacing one inadequate person with another. We need exceptional people. This doesn't mean she isn't good and full of integrity, it just means that once there, I don't see how she can achieve much. My issue is that all I see from her web site is that she is academic. What has she actually done?
Again, it doesn't make me happy to say that but it is what I believe. We need to do now, the ideology alone isn't going to save us. YMMV
Amusing as it is to read all the comments already posted, I am also saddened. Neither McCain nor Obama will be able to save us, even if they were so inclined, so you're wasting your time and your words arguing and calling each other names.
While we still like to live in our little fantasy world, American society has not been free and our elections have not been open and honest for quite some time. Now that we have these handy electronic/computerized voting machines it is ever so much easier to ignore the public and just make up numbers while installing the pre-selected candidate.
What we have now is a government run of, by and for the corporate elitists and globalists, who think it great sport to run these little charades every four years, just to keep the common folk distracted - while they pull the "rug" out from under us. Our political system runs on the profits of war and the blood of its citizens, while the fat cats laugh all the way to the bank.
It is so far gone, that the Cheney/Bush administration doesn't even to bother to try and hide their insidious power grab. They have shredded the Constitution, committed heinous crimes both domestic and foreign, yet the "representatives of the people" in the Congress look the other way and vote more billions to fund the war and bail out corrupt and bankrupt financial institutions - at our expense. The Fed just prints more money, destroying the currency and causing spiralling inflation that will make the US a third world country in a very short time.
So, I suggest that instead of calling each other names and arguing over the "merits" of the candidates of the two corrupt, fascist parties directing our demise, that you put your brain power to work to come up with some concrete ideas about how we might rid ourselves of this terrible blight. I did see one or two suggestions already.....
I always like David Green's articles, but this one seems a bit myopic in depicting Obama as a leading anti-war candidate. How can he have opposed the war when he voted EVERY TIME to continue funding it? How many times have bills come before the senate to send umpteen billions more to wage the illegal war on Iraq, and Obama voted in favor of the funding every last time? This is what it means to oppose a war--keep shoveling money into it no matter how failed an adventure it is? How does Dr. Green explain this?
I love this argument. It's Flag Wavers (DPAs) vs. Statistics Keepers (informed progressives).
Since I think that we all pretty much agree what the final goals are (ending the war, ending the tyrannical grip of the financier class, etc.) let me offer a little insight into how I see this argument playing out by way of analogy. Please forgive the datedness of any team or player references, as I do not follow sports.
So, if you were to go to Vegas, and wanted to make a little money on a sporting event series (multiple games = multiple issues), who do you ask what the outcome of the event might be? Do you ask the guy wearing expensive team logo clothing, waving a banner with one of the teams' logo on it, or do you ask the guy who keeps track of the performance of the players themselves, updating his data after every game in order to determine trends? Seems pretty obvious. What if you're from the home city of one of the teams playing? How much stock do you put into shouts of "traitor" and "fairweather fan" when making your decision? If this were a game of pure enjoyment, meaning nothing but a loss of pride, then perhaps those would be fair (well, no, but acceptable) arguments for picking a team, but it's not, it's real money on the line, so the emotional pandering has no value, no matter how much it tugs at my heart.
Another point to consider, perhaps I want to bet on baseball (nuclear disarmament) and football (ending resource-grabbing imperialism)? What possible consideration do I give to the guy waving his flag and screaming "Detroit Pistons, or you're a TRAITOR!!!" in my face? The guy that tells me "Bo Jackson (please excuse the dated reference, and run with it for a second) is looking good this year, and is a significant asset to any team he is on", and then proceeds to show me data to that effect will have a whole lot more influence to my thought process.
Sorry if my analogies are poor, but I'm just trying to say that the content of an argument is far more potent of a persuasive agent (at least to thinking people, like progressives are supposed to be) than any emotional kneecapping you may employ. No matter how much it stings, or how wittily you present the emotional pandering, it's still informationless pandering.
"presidential politics almost requires candidates to bathe themselves in filth and stench. it is no accident, or incidental by-product. it is part and parcel of the american way."
Thanks for the quote "starkraving."
But filth, stench and lies are corporate values, values internalized by corporate lackeys, and these are the values that dominate American life and the mainstream media, and are crystallized in American elections, hence mud-slinging, lawless wars, support for a vicious Zionist state, attacks on Venezuela, invasion of Iraq, clandestine invasion of Iran, threats to all nations not joining the "Washington Concensus" and the US garbage slinging and violence goes on endlessly.
Freud was right: "America is a mistake."
I want to make a correction. I have stated Obama voted to fund the war. Mostly that's true. But the last time it came up for a vote (H.R. 2642), he didn't bother to vote at all. I believe he was in D.C. at a fund raiser, not sure.
Obama, being the political calculator that he is, wasn't sure what to do. If he voted for it, he might lose some antiwar votes, if he voted against it, he might lose pro-war votes. Hence no vote at all.
Unprincipled cowards like Obama prefer to play it safe, unlike someone has been been favorably compared to, MLK. MLK risked it all, lost his life and that is one of the many reasons he's a national hero. Obama is willing to risk nothing. That's why he supports the immoral and illegal wars/occupations.
Not voting is a cowardly act itself and a failure to do his job and what he is getting paid to do. Anybody know why he claims he skipped the important vote?
Prior to the campaign season his vote for war funding was fairly reliable and the Republicans could count on his faithful support of their policies.
Well, granamica, we don't buy each other's arguments, so that's that!
But to elaborate a bit more: You reject Cindy as a producer might have rejected an ingenue auditioning for a Broadway play in its heyday for lacking stage experience. After all, this is BROADWAY! We can't risk investor money on some amateur, however promising, who doesn't have a proven record of CUTTING IT during a grueling run.
And getting back to politics: it certainly sounds well, and can't be refuted in the abstract, to seek and rely on the conventional attributes, or "skill set", you reference. ("Skill set" being itself a technocratic term, incidentally.)
Personally, I've gone back and forth over the years in paying attention to politics. But even by osmosis, I'm familiar with the conventional virtues: the "electable" politician runs on the "proven track record" of Administrative Ability, Dedication, and Experience, accompanied by Sterling Ethics and Unimpeachable Integrity.
The former "selling points" have been almost fully eclipsed in recent years by vicious negative campaigning that aims to discredit the opponent's claims to the same virtues, but they're still the standard "skills" pitched as proof of political acumen and optimal representation of the politician's constituency.
Since you can't bring yourself to trust an amateur, which is OK with me, do you ask yourself how your conventional standards have worked out? Isn't it the case that all of the hacks, hams, mountebanks, charlatans, and elitist parasites warming seats in the Capitol have gotten there by proffering their "proven track records" and expert knowledge of the arcane machinery of legislative sausage-making?
If it were possible to have a hybrid with the natural leadership ability, and moral and intellectual clarity of a Cindy Sheehan and the expertise of, say, a Russ Feingold, both of us would be happy.
Meanwhile, as the 2006 election demonstrated, half-decent Democratic candidates proved quite adept at practicing the subterfuge of sweetening their conventional bona fides with intimations of progressive leanings. I still get e-mails from them, because in my despair I was vulnerable to being suckered by the prospect of "qualified" politicians who might form a progressive movement within the party that would reach a tipping point and overwhelm the old guard.
Once they got they keys to their own franchise within the para-corporatized institution, the demands of para-corporate allegiances and the endless campaign marathon asserted themselves. The cosmetic progressive makeup flaked off, just as it has already done with the presidential campaign.
So I'm more inclined to take a chance rather than stick with More of the
Same.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says: 'Fool me once... shame on... [pause] Shame on you... [pause] If fooled, you can't get fooled again.'"
Don't waste your time and energy worrying about how a corporatist militarist runs his billion dollar corporate-fueled campaign.
Scumbag McCain's role as a cheerleader for the NEO-CONs' illegal invasion of Iraq has been carefully and persuasively documented by Scott Ritter in articles reprinted here on Common Dreams. I agree with Wesley Clark: being shot down over North Vietnam doesn't make McCain a hero or a qualified candidate for POTA. The specter of a McCain presidency seems an increasingly alarming and frightening one. Please folks, don't throw away your votes on Nader if you live in a swing state, or even a Red state. Once we put Obama in the WH we can take to the streets to force him and the Dems to act "progressively" without too much fear of having the troops sent out to herd us into concentration camps.
Thomas More August 2nd, 2008 11:36 am
That speech is very old and stale.
Obama said he was opposed to a dumb, rash war in 2001. Now he says he is in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq (which he considers a distraction) and sending them to where they should be, Afghanistan.
Questions:
Is Afghanistan not a dumb, rash war?
In otherwords, is it a "smart" war?
Should we be fighting in Afghanistan?
What evidence is there that al Qaeda is in Afghanistan?
Why should we be in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban?
What have the Taliban done to us?
Obama's a loser, like all dems. Without opposition and plenty of swift-boating, McCain will win by a landslide.
"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 Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, 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 Roves 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 thru the worst month since the Great Depression."
File this under beautifully said and wish I'd said it.
marc melchiori August 2nd, 2008 9:15 am
littlebrother and SnowWolf are absolutely correct, personal insulkts are not needed and there is no humor in that. Please refrain.
Daniel David August 2nd, 2008 11:20 am
tailcap,
Circular logic does not produce progress. "Dem Party Apologists" are not Republicans as you allege.
-yes they are.
Both favor war candidates and candidates that voted to diminish our civil liberties.
DO YOU DENY THAT?
The Republicans are more extreme right wingers. Democrats are moderate right wingers.
This is what Democrats have 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______________________________________.
Thats exactly what you are DD, a moderate Republican.
granamica August 1st, 2008 11:51 pm
Cindy can you tell us how well qualified you are to be able to make any dent in congress. Basically, what skill set do you have?
-excuse me, skill set?
What "skill set" does Nancy Pelosy have? Have you asked Nancy Pelosy a similar question?
granamica is concerned about the qualifications of someone running to replace our enemy Pelosy. I have full confidence that Cindy has the good heart and common sense to make decisions that favor people not the Military Industrial Complex and Big Business Inc. unlike Nancy Pelosy.
tailcap,
Circular logic does not produce progress. "Dem Party Apologists" are not Republicans as you allege. If we were, we would be singing the virtues of Republicans. You don't see real Republicans out praising the Democrats or attempting to enact the policies of Democrats, and yet you somehow imagine that the reverse must be true. It ain't.
I don't buy your argument. I have been led by good intentioned people who didn't accomplish a thing. I wish she could but just making it to speaker of the house isn't the end goal. Who is going to work with her? It is the same predicament that Pelosi has run into.
It isn't that I want to be right on this but have you ever tried to lead fifty people with minds and agendas of their own?
Reject her at my own peril? When the collapse comes,I am sure my dismissal of her abilities won't be number one on my list.
Just passing through belatedly on a thread that has degenerated into the casting call for a remake of "Animal House".
If Cindy has the misfortune of checking back in, I'm not worried that she'll be too upset by the crass and ignorant personal remarks. But I don't mind saying: Cindy, don't change a thing-- you're beautiful! ♥ ;)
Otherwise, I suggest that sober commenters rethink the concern that Cindy lacks a "skill set" to function as a Congressperson. Our political institutions are in end-stage decadence precisely because they have become over-professionalized to a point where politicians have transmogrified into para-corporate, business-oriented technocrats: power, money, and process is all.
If our political institutions are to be rescued, which is doubtful, it will be by citizen-politicians, "amateurs" in the best sense of the word, returning virtue to the wholly corrupt status quo. When elected, Cindy will surely find experienced allies and advisors who can assist her with the technicalities.
Reject her at your peril in favor of a "savvy" lawyer or other ambitious Alpha (Fe)Male who strikes you as being suitably skilled and competent. Then ask yourself a year later, "Gee, what happened to X? He (she) used to be about progressive values, but now all I get are e-mails to donate to his (her) re-election campaign."
What will come as a shock to DPAs (Democratic Party apologists) is that to me they are the Republicans! The Democratic position on the war/occupation is actually very similar to that of the Republicans.
"Barack Obama is ultimately articulating a position of sustained troop levels in Iraq based on the conditions on the ground and the security of the country," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. "That is the very same position that John McCain has long held."
So you see, old friends, those accusing us of working for Republicans are actually advocating for a candidate that is endorsing Republican policies.
-And that's the truth!
kitty_tc August 2nd, 2008 1:48 am writes "I still wonder how many of the Green/Nader pushing Obama-bashers are actually on the payroll of the Republican party."
-kitty displays the basically right-wingish slant typical Democrats possess. They cannot conceive of anything to the left of a centrist Democrat which is actually similar to a moderate Republican.
To them, the thought that there exists the possibility of anything to the left of Democrats and opposed to war is completely alien. They live in a black and white, good vs evil, Lakers vs Celtics world where anything outside the artificial construct designed as a trap by the PTB (powers that be) is not possible. It must be a Republican trick!
It seems incredible to them that someone might be opposed to both Democrats and Republicans and sees them as being basically the same thing. Not because we are nuts but because they coddle and protect Bush and refuse to stop the war ( to name a few). Being opposed to Democrats capitulating to Republicans to them means you must be working for Republicans.
The fact the Democratic controlled Congress has a 9% approval rate doesn't register. Somehow to a DPA anybody opposed to the Democrats MUST BE A REPUBLICAN.
To them if you are not a Republican YOU MUST SUPPORT DEMOCRATS!
It's a knee-jerk reaction for a DPA. Anyone not with Democrats has to be a Republican spy! HAS TO BE!
kitty_tc August 2nd, 2008 1:48 am writes "I still wonder how many of the Green/Nader pushing Obama-bashers are actually on the payroll of the Republican party."
-kitty_tc is a classic example of a typical DPA, having no arguments to refute the facts about Obama she resorts to name calling: Green/Nader pushing Obama-bashers
I have quoted Obama repeatedly on CD (ad nauseam):
Obama: "And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?"
-Now kitty does Obama sound like an antiwar candidate to you? I don't like pro-war candidates kitty. I am not a Republican. Get it? I doubt it.
Lacking anything to say to refute the direct quote of Obama promising to fight the "right war" the DPA simply does what DPAs do: call the truth-teller an Obama-bashing Republican in an effort to discredit the person not what they say which is indisputable.
Firstly quoting Obama and what he says is not Obama-bashing it is saying the truth. Did he not say that kitty?
The Facts:
That Obama pawned himself off as antiwar and then once he became a Senator he voted to fund the illegal wars/occupation IS FACT.
That Obama want to increase military spending IS FACT.
That Obama wants to withdraw troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan IS FACT.
That Obama want to add another 90,000 troops IS FACT.
That Obama has saber rattled Iran and Pakistan IS FACT.
What is it about THE FACTS you dispute kitty?
if she the spark that lit the flame - let me be the gasoline that starts a prarie fire!
Oh come on - lighten up. She is not the only person with bad teeth - most europeans are in desperate need of dental care.
I love cindy and I hope she stomps on that glassy-eyed, hair dyed, emotionless c-bag pelosi. It could happen - her district is ground ZERO for progressives. Can anyone tell me how I can donate or help Cindy financialy. I'm serious about the last sentence. I'm ready to help.
Dude...the teeth comment was uncalled for...
Frankly if she can get that twit Pelosi out of power the country would be a lot better off
Oh..if you want a laugh go read the Reviews of Madame Speakers book over at Amazon.com...what makes them priceless is they are mostly by Liberals
i support cindy and i'm a f-ing conserv. Now how about some dental work, cindy - its either that or do not smile.
granamica August 2nd, 2008 3:06 am
"I have no confidence that you will be able to do much of anything."
Cindy will have done something just by getting elected. She isn't running against just another congress person but the Speaker of the House.
That alone will rock the inside the beltway D.C. politicians right back on their rears. If an independent can beat the Speaker any of them could also lose their jobs which is what they fear most.
Lobo Gris
McCain is a scumbag? Isn't that treason?
Aren't all Americans ten feet tall and noble to a fault?
Shouldn't America, being under God, rule the world?
I'm ready to be a slave and work on the plantations for a coke and a Big Mac each day. What more can I do?
P.S. Human Nature Revealed. Check out www.dangerouscreation.com
Cindy, I am sorry for your loss and I liked that you picketed outside the ranch. However, upon reading your own site, I have no confidence that you will be able to do much of anything. Peace out
I still wonder how many of the Green/Nader pushing Obama-bashers are actually on the payroll of the Republican party. It's a known fact that Republican interests have organized and donated on Nader's behalf in the past, for the specific purpose of splitting the left-wing vote. It's hardly a stretch to imagine a few paid "viral marketers" on progressive sites like this one with the same basic purpose in mind.
The question remains: how many of you are doing the Republican machine's work for free and how many of you are being paid for it?
I haven't read all 84 comments (up to this point), but has anybody pointed out the possibly worst problem? The Mirror of London stated it succinctly the day after Bush won the election for his second term:
"How can 59 million people BE SO DUMB!"
www.CindyforCongress.org
Cindy can you tell us how well qualified you are to be able to make any dent in congress. Basically, what skill set do you have? Have you worked in large bureaucracies, do you understand how a bill goes through? Anything of any concrete use or do you just feel the calling. I ask this because we really need people who can do instead of just believe or talk. We have a lot of things just about to implode our economy and ecology and I don't just want a statement.
I want to support active doers and not just voices.
Repectfully
Hi RobNichols
Yep..it's me!
I drop in every once in awhile to say "hey" and offer my two cents.
Peace
Cindy
For the intelligent posters who regularly post on CD, my sincere apologies for my vulgarity. It is inappropriate and uncharacteristic of me.
Wow, the Repugnican trolls are out en force tonight. And just as one might surmise, they demonstrate the intelligence of well, Marc's yellow balls. I hear Karl Rove is feeling lonely and frisky tonight. Perhaps Marc will satiate is friskiness by letting him play with his yellow balls.
I'm sort of new to the comments & discussion side of this site, though I've been reading the articles for years. Is that really you, the Cindy Sheehan August 1st, 2008 2:02 pm? If so you've made me proud, in the tradition of the ideas that this country should be representing by its actions, and by the clarity of the things you've said over the years. Thanks for that.
Annabelle, above, bemoans not running on the issues. Easy to agree with that, much preferable to the personality approach. But is it possible to do so in a meaningful way?
Let's see: If there are two candidates and one issue, then each candidate could espouse one alternative and we could express our preference clearly. No problem.
But what if there are two issues? Two sides to two issues means four possible positions: yes yes, yes no, no no, no yes. We need four candidates.
In general, we need 2 to the nth power candidates for n issues. Four issues, 16 candidates. Eight issues, 256 candidates, assuming that all issues are yes/no questions.
Now is it clear why I keep saying we should vote on issues considered one at a time instead of choosing candidates to 'represent' us? They cannot, folks. Even if they tried.
I read the first 27 pages of "The Audacity of Hope" today.
Obama is very smart and has a great sense of humor.
His philosophy in a nutshell thus far could be that more things unite us than separate us. Unlike Bush, he sincerely if not naively, wants to stay true to his uniter message. That would explain why he is reticent to take the low road.
He is dismayed by the political polarization today and awed by the courtesy shown between old Congressmen from both parties. That may explain his insistence on staying civil.
His core beliefs are a litany of progressive thought.
He would make a great president (after Bush, that's a gimme).
But in America Inc., if you want to win an election you have to bow before Mammon.
Maybe he should have hired Rove.
Sen. John McCain is a blooming idiot, warmongering conservative, imbecile, SnowWolf. The imperialist bastard is pushing wars he doesn't have to fight. The fight looks different from the ground. He is used to it from 30k ft.
On what basis are we fighting in Iraq? We went in for WMD-none there. Even if they would of had it-so what? Doesn't Israel have WMD? China? Pakistan? India? France? Britain? What gives us the right to decide who can and can't have WMD?
Afghanistan? We have no business there either-none! Taliban? Not our problem. The US needs to stop trying to rule the world by the barrel of a gun when it has no moral standing to tell anyone, Taliban or otherwise what to do or where to do it.
Heh.
It was a stupid statement, not knowing about community organizer, now wasn't it?
heh
granamica
awwww...you're gonna hurt my widdle feelings if you keep that up
As Abe Lincoln once said, 'Never wresle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it!"
"The enslavment of Dwarfs" - sounds like a good porno for those into little people.
maybe it could feature Cinder Sheehan and Vern troyer locked in an erotic embrace. Maybe some kama Sutra stuff like flowering lotus position or.... use your imagination.
besides, vern and cindy have something in common - they both have bad teeth and need dental work. Love ya cindy! Marc
snowwhite, you may have not heard of a community organizer because your community runs well on the back of all the little people you like to call dwarfs.
The wicked witch, your relative.
go cindy go. you guys seek perfection from ordinary men. Give it time, cindy will F up somehow and be in Kahoots with the wrong crowd and then she will be in the toilet like last nights dinner. I'm so glad snowbird has to point out she would vote for a BLACK MAN. HOw wonderful that you have made your confession to the high priests at CD. Now do a couple of hail mary's and one ave Maria.
SnowWolf: You are correct. Obama is an empty suit. Each week blackagendareport.com points out the many, many flaws in an Obama candidacy highlighting his pro corporate economic policies and his imperialist foreign policies.
And I'd like to add that the reason Obama can't hit McCain too hard on Iraq is that his policy is essentially the same: we belong there. In reality, we don't. That is why the election will be close. There isn't a fundamental difference on policy, thus the election turns on perceived personal qualities generated by tv ads, reinforced by corporate "news" "repeaters" (and not news reporters).
I actually think Obama is losing not because he's Black...I'd Vote for a Black Man...but because he is a total empty suit...he's for whatever you want to hear...
He's an excellent Speaker but His resume is vacuous...what the heck IS a "Community Organizer"?....I have honestly never heard the term in my life...
marc melchiori,
I don't give a shit what the Congress does. You are incredibly foolish and hopelessly naive if you think it is a vote for the people. It is a vote for the CORPORATIONS. But go ahead and keep drinking the kool aid. Otherwise, I do agree that the people need to be heard. And they will be heard when we have real politicians like Cindy Sheehan who listen to them and represent them, not these empty suits who only represent corporate interests.
fear.......................run.....................the wolf...........................trembling little chins...............more fear.......................the big bad wolf................fear................and more fear..........run!.......................but wait!.....................Don't fear!....................don't run.............The Democrats will save us! Hooray!
After reading this article about McCain being a piece of shit, I wondered how many comments I would have to read through before the Obama-bashing started.
Answer: One.
I am beginning to truly hope McCain wins. See, I live on an island and am for all practical purposes off the grid. I look forward to hearing the weeping, whining and gnashing of teeth from the mainland. It's going to get even worse there, kiddos, and double that and in spades if McCain wins.
So please vote Nader. I haven't been able to enjoy a really good dose of schadenfreude in some time.
Bottle - I'm a pro-comedian. I would be more than happy to be part of that team.
Listen to this - Everytime McCain makes a snide remark, I would have Obama respond that if the old man does not shut up he gonna stuff him in a 5 x 5 cell and beat the shit out of his till has face become deformed and his arms are broken! What a f-in' hoot that would be.
What do ya' think - its SNL material.
Tennis player 'eh. I love to play with yellow balls to. Think George Takei from star trek. Now thats good! Ya gotta admit
It's so neat to learn that Cindy Sheehan reads these posts even when she doesn't contribute herself. Ought to be enough to make all of us sneck up a little bit!
I just think that Barack Obama should brainstorm with ten very good writers, including five comedy writers, who, every time another of the inevitable low road attacks comes can work up a smarter and even more immediate reply, turning the energy of the shot back on itself. (Yes, I'm a tennis player. Take the ball on the rise.) Include Michelle Obama in the group.
Obviously, Barack Obama is a very good writer himself. But give everybody in the group a shot and come up with the shrewdest reply possible, go with it, and if Obama loses the election, it won't be for lack of trying-- the country was still too stupid.
I don't agree with emkay, who thinks Obama has already lost, and has distanced himself from him anyway.
"More aggressive" means "more dramatic." Repeatedly whacking an addled buffoon across his little snout should be great fun! In contrast to all of Obama's heavy
responsibilities to get himself elected for the sake of all of us, this job should be light though necessary work.
It's too easy to be cynical. But cynics should not underestimate the power of laughter. Hasn't it had a belated effect on George W. Bush's reputation? Well, do a similar thing with McCain but start now.
And get his horrid cronies, too, who constantly congratulate themselves on their "irreverence."
Bush's missdeeds should impeach him. But I don't think they are the factor in his decline of popularity. It was laughter, pure and simple, even though no one ever seemed to get around to compare him to Bevis or Butthead, whichever one looks he looks more like though both names would work.
Laugh these barnacle-encrusted slime-boaters right out of the water. They are NOT clever (or they wouldn't lie).
Just assemble some clever people and do it.
claudious
Why not have the vote in Congress? Let the will of the people be heard - good or bad the people must be heard. I might not like the outcome of the vote, I will just have to deal with it. But not to vote and then go and run for cover during a recess? It smacks of cowardice and poor politics.
Obama started to lose the election just these past days by reminding white America once again that he's black. Not exactly reminding, rubbing in their faces.
He should leave it alone, America is a racist, bigoted society. Whites who would stay home will now vote for McCain.
And let's not forget that votes are not honestly counted in the US. If the election is close, the elite might prefer a white president, even though they have a perfect Uncle Tom this time who would serve them just as beautifully.
McCain is a truly despicable person?...I don't see that at all...say what you will but McCain is the closest thing to a true American Hero thats run in years...probably since John F. Kennedy...are you basing that on what Harkin said about bombing civilians? from high altitude...take a look at the after action photo's of targets in north vietnam...see how close the craters are to the actual targets...thats because instead of taking evasive action they stayed "on target" to minimize civilian casualties...thats why some of them were shot down
Harkin claimed to be a Navy Combat Pilot...an examination of his record shows he was flying the mail plane out to the carriers in the Tonkin Gulf...doesn't get you a lot of "Green ink" entries in your pilots logbook
Oh...and the title of this article...am I the only one that can't get that scene from Monty Python's life of Brian out of my miond?...you know..."Biggus Dickus"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FByERYetqI
wsws.org website
While your posts are interesting, it's very distracting to have them broken into short continued ones. Are you aware that you can make long posts?
=====
starkraving
presidential politics almost requires candidates to bathe themselves in filth and stench.
I don't agree. America hungers for politicians who have integrity, honor, gravitas, and courage. God, we've had those bathed in filth and stench in the Bush administration, and some before that, too.
I think the political parties are the guilty ones -- they're entrenched in one style of politicking with a few variations, but those variations don't include honesty or integrity of the candidates or legislators themselves, with a few exceptions. And politicians end up interacting with each other in less than admirable way rather than remaining "true" to and being in relationship with those who elected them.
I think Congress meets far too often, does not have to be continually playing games with each other, trading favors, aiming for one-upsmanship, doing political plotting and battle. They're surely bored out of their minds with the unending posturing speechifying of the fellow cohorts, and nothing is urgent to them. Their priorities are wacky and off-balance. (Did you ever watch C-Span?) That isn't how it is for Americans who voted them into office.
Obama 2002:
"I don't oppose all wars.
And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
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 Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, 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 Roves 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 thru the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what Im opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics...."
Sir Thomas More, if you go to www.Google.com and type in: "obama antiwar speech" a search engine will give you a list of sites pertaining to your search. Click on them until you find what you want. I hope this helps.
I found the part of the speech I quoted above at: http://lessig.org/blog/2008/01/barack_obamas_2002_speech.html
tj,
Yesterday, I just mailed my check to Cindy's campaign and now should be well over the $1,000 mark on my way to $2,300.
On a separate note, Pelosi took another hit today when 45 Repugnicans stayed after the House closed (lights and microphones turned off) to try to force a vote for off-shore drilling. Apparently, Pelosi sent in the cops to shut down the session. Now all of the Repugnicans are coming out in force to pressure Shrub to order Congress back into session next week. Boner, excuse me, Boehner's office is pushing it (sorry for the spelling error). They are trying to embarass the Dims. and are succeeding.
Uh oh. What if Obama doesn't win and you can't be progressives kevetching about a centralist democrat but instead are trying to find bandwidth and a forum that hasn't been shut down yet under McCain.
Sometimes the lesser of two evils is all we have.
Cindy:
I'm originally from Chicago where it often took more than a 40% margin for honest candidates, so I'll be more nervous than you seem to be til it's official (Monday?). Glad to see that you have the smarts to keep your folks on the streets until then.
You'll have to do that for every vote, every step of the way. You know the drill: Florida, Ohio, wherever, blah, blah, blah...
In any case, I'm re-stating my challenge to all CD users. I just filled my Aug pledge to Cindy Sheehan's campaign. Match with whatever you can afford. (And if you have any left over, send to CD, and/or Nader/McKinney).
They're all doing the work that our times demand.
Thanks and Good Luck, Cindy.
Even though I'm now from Texas, maybe you'll shake my hand when you're in your DC office representing the interests of the PEOPLE of the United States and not corporations and the rich.
tj
tj
i don't know if your challenge was monetarily successful, for sure, but i know that we have been very successful lately in fundraising.
also, unfortunately, we just heard from the department of elections and it doesn't look like our signatures will be certified today.
So now, it will be Monday at the earliest.
I am sure since we turned in 40% more than we needed, we will be fine and we have people out getting supplemental signatures as we speak, just to be sure.
cindy
RichM and tailcap sort of beat me to this.
"Only Obama had the guts to do so at the beginning, when the Bush people had made that an excruciatingly hard thing to do. True, he wasn't then in the US Senate, and he didn't actually have to cast a vote on the issue"
I keep hearing this, but I can't find any place where he spoke against the war back then.
Does anyone know of any evidense of this claim?
Tailcap....you appear not to agree with Mr. Green, such language!
"Democratic would-be presidents listed above — that going on record against the war was the kiss of death for any presidential ambitions…"
Allow me to use the word Crock and extrapolate from there. Most Americans have been opposed to this war for years, no matter their political persuasion.
"Despite the fact that the candidate has now issued a semi-strong rebuttal spot two weeks into this ugliness, I must say, I liked the Barack Obama of the primary season better than the current model. I liked his politics and his integrity more, but most of all I liked his fighting spirit, and his immediate response to scurrilous attacks." You liked him when he was encouraging misogyny and spouting empty speeches leaving all the room he needed to make the U-turns that have revealed him to be a wriggling opportunist as invested in war and free market profit as McCain? You deserve to be governed by amoral egotists like Bush, McCain and Obama. And since whichever is elected, the US's policies will stay the same, why not just copy Caesar, set up a triumvirate and then see which of the jousting wannabee emperors winds up on top without even having to bear the expense of the farce of an election the US staged in 2000 and 2004? I'm sure the voters would rather be phoning into mindless reality shows anyway.
A question for those of us who think the electoral system is some crap--
Is it possible that Obama does NOT want to blow out McCain? If it became clear he was going to win with 60% of the vote or more -- wouldn't a lot of "progressives" start voting Nader/McKinney and give them some respect? Is it possible they want to keep it close enough so Nader or McKinney can be marginalized and labeled as "spoiler"? Just a thought.
we are not absolved of responsibility for decisions of our representatives simply because we voted for someone else. this means that continuing to live here - and vote - carries with it an enormous burden. to the extent we are paying taxes, we support the madness that passes for our government.
yes, many of our leaders, and soldiers, are criminals. how then do we make the appropriate adjustments in our lives?
as much as possible, withholding the means by which they promulgate their criminality is vital. if self-employed, doing your work under the table, while risky, is always an option. you also can openly refuse to pay taxes and take your chances (it helps to not own anything).
but more than this, it is paramount that we commit ourselves to significant lifestyle change - simplifying whenever possible, and becoming familiar with an increasing range of issues and information, communicating more and more often with those who perhaps feel differently.
bottom line, we cannot let the loss of humanity at the "highest" levels of society become the template by which we live/think/feel. we cannot allow ourselves to accept the loss of vision, magic or spirit simply because it is so absent in those around us.
Other than David Michael Green's first sentence this entire opinion piece is:
A COMPLETE CROCK OF SHIT!!!
"John McCain is a scumbag."
-so true!
"Lyndon Johnson, the man more responsible for the war than any other person..."
-another warmonger Democrat
"Truman to Nixon and every one in between lied to the American people about Vietnam..."
-now Obama wants to continue the wars started on lies and is no better than Truman to Nixon, Obama won't commit to removing all the troops but plans to leave many, many thousands there fighting and dying to prop up the colonial-style rape of Iraq
"...that Obama is willing to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens in order to advance his personal career ambitions."
-that is exactly what this cowardly chickenhawk plans to do! Has he committed to stopping it? Oh hell no!
Dick Cheney took five draft deferments. John Ashcroft seven. And so on, and so on. Quick: Name one person
-Obama has never fought in a single battle but is more than happy to send my son and yours off to fight and die in Afghanistan and Iraq-all for documented lies and for the profits of BIG OIL and the MIC
"McCain has hitched his wagon to a whole barnyard full of chickenhawks and their despicable war."
-Obama is a classic tough-talking, saber rattling chickenhawk especially when addressing AIPAC
"Only Obama had the guts to do so at the beginning, when the Bush people had made that an excruciatingly hard thing to do. True, he wasn't then in the US Senate, and he didn't actually have to cast a vote..."
-a complete crock of shit!!! Now that it counts the coward Obama has jumped on the war wagon
"Democratic would-be presidents listed above — that going on record against the war was the kiss of death for any presidential ambitions..."
-complete BULL! Polls show most Americans are against the war, David Michael Green is just repeating the lie that you can't be against the war and get elected-bullshit!
"...indicating that the party would be using national security issues as its election strategy..."
-bull, polls show Americans want peace not war, David Michael Green repeats the lie
"...better country of my youth, frankly, for all its faults — no longer exists..."
WHAT THE FUCK HAVE THE DEMOCRATS DONE TO STOP IT DAVID GREEN?
"Or launching wars to advance our careers."
-exactly what Obama has done, he was against it when it didn't count, now what counts is that HE'S FOR IT NOW!!!
I liked the Barack Obama of the primary season better than the current model
-I never liked him, and despised him from the word go!
THE OBAMA PRINCE OF PEACE BULLCRAP MYTH:
Obama: "And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?"
Obama: "We're going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support," Obama continued. "We're going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We're going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective."
Obama:"Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines."
Obama: "We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator in the Afghan border region...etc.
dubet: "remove the profit from the system…"
Good insights in your post there. But if we remove profit, they will game the system in other ways, endless ways, but always toward the goal to concentrate and abuse power. If we ban only power abuse, concentrated power may overcome the enforcement mechanism. The best approach then is to vigorously limit both power concentration/abuse. This doesn't mean that we can't do big projects. Rather it means that big projects will progress under very strict limits. Draconian? Yes. But it makes perfect sense, if you want to live in a classless society. This is not a new idea. It was the common sense response under Enlightenment principles to the wicked excesses of the British East India Company. It's effective against any and all types of concentration anyone cares to cook up.
Of course, Gen Wesley Clark is also a war criminal for his bombing of civilian targets in Yugoslavia during that Democratic war.
To wsws.org .... anyone who has voted in favor of any of the supplemental bills to fund the war is equally criminally liable for this attrocity.
Hank Fur ...
Actually, the story of Obama and the war was a little different from you describe.
Obama ran for Senate in 2004. The debate over the war was in late 2002 and early 2003. At the time, Obama was a State Senator representing a heavily minority urban district. I was in Atlanta at the time, and if the area of Atlanta I lived in was anything like Obama's district, then his constituents were heavily against the war.
So, it wasn't exactly an act of political bravery for Obama to oppose the war as a State Senator. He was just taking the position of what was probably 75% of his constituents.
However, when he ran for Senate 2 years later, he tried very hard to stay away from his earlier anti-war comments. He very much muted his tone to suit his new campaign. The story I heard was that he first tried to ignore his earlier comments, then when forced to later he acknowledged them but down-played them.
And, it was in the midst of this campaign that he made his speech to the Dem convention where he said nothing at all against the war. And it was during all the interviews at the time of the convention that he made the quote that said there was little to no difference between himself and Bush on the Iraq war at that time.
Then of course, as Hank picks up the story, he took his seat in the Senate and became a reliable vote in favor of war funding and pentagon budgets. This lasted until this year when during the Dem primaries he switched and voted against the funding of the war. That was now obviously a part of his 'lie to the democrats to get the nomination' campaign.
At the very best he adopted the Democratic congressional 'fake-withdrawal' proposals. The ones that pretend to be a withdrawal plan, but which have giant loopholes for keeping tens of thousands of troops in Iraq to 'fight terrorists' or 'train the Iraqis'.
And that's still pretty much the current plan. He's promised that we will still have troops in Iraq at the end of his term. And of course, the troops he does move out of Iraq look like they won't be going any further than Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight what Obama calls 'the right war'.
Although, that plan might be in doubt if he completes his recent promise to the Israelis to attack Iran if Bush doesn't. That will tend to tie down a lot of troops in Iraq and Iran as we start a war against the Shite muslims.
"It has now become transparently clear that this man will do anything to be president. Whatever scraps of decency and uniqueness and detachment from his own sick party he once had have now all been mortgaged against that goal."
Of course, that sentence is equally true about Obama.
David Michael Green, you know better so I have to assume you're practicing bad journalism in order to mis-represent the truth. creepy.
Obama never voted one way or the other on the invasion of Iraq. He was not in the Senate at the time. I could not care less about his words at the time. He was campaigning for a Senate seat while in Congresss and saying he's against the war was the way to do it. Once safely in the Senate, however, he began to consistently side with George Bush on the occupation of Iraq and many other Bush agenda items.
One salient example: Obama sided with Bush and the telecom corporations on illegal spying of Americans. He does not believe the president and corporations have to follow the rule of law! Spy away, says Obama. This is scary because Obama has "charisma" (Ted Bundy had that, too) and he could easily get Americans to think spying is just fine. Really, he has the power to do that, I see it coming. Trickier than Clinton!
DMG, your article is shallow and biassed. Aren't you supposed to be a professor. I hope some of your brighter students see this sham of an argument and call you on it.
Thank you David Michael Green for exposing the Repuk monster to Common Dreams readers. Now we progressives want John McKane to expose the monster more fully to Thime/Newsweak readers, and American Idole watchers. So we progressives are voting our third party principles in the elections and also in our general exchange/association. If McKane wins, we blame it on the Demoks for failing to move their sorry butts to the left, and then we prepare for the final self-destruction of the class war aggressors, the hapless elites. Then we'll throw them in the slammer, and accelerate our building of the Progressive World, with strict size limits on everything.
Green's just upset because his Jeezus isn't winning.
David, you ask a very good question:
"Why are you (Barack Obama) not disemboweling McCain every day of the week, every week of the month, for his outrageous allegation that you are sacrificing lives in order to win an election?"
That's my question as well! And the answer is simple. Because Barack Obama is not a true oppositional candidate, and the Democratic Party is not a true oppositional party.
For Obama to atttack McCain, as McCain SHOULD be attacked, Obama would have had to move to the *left* after he captured the nomination --not lurched to the right, as he so calculatingly and so cynically in fact did.
But none of this should come as any surprise. Historically, this is "standard operating procedure" for any Democratic presidential nomineee. ... Capture the primaries by appearing to be on the left, then once the nomination is in hand, a.) move to the right, and b.) remind the voting public about ... T.I.N.A. ... "There Is No Alternative: we're the only game in town."
All those voting millions of people who will vote for Obama as "the lesser of the two evils" need to dwell on the last word in quotes in that phrase – *evil.*
Vote Nader. Or else vote McKinney. Or else vote socialist. Only by establishing a viable third party in the US will real change come about.
if you don't watch tv, you don't have to stress out over all this crapola...I pick up all kinds of fascinating facts via the internet, most of which come from sources outside the MSM, and have very little to do with the presidential race, which is notable for it's virtually complete and total absence of fact...who cares what McCain or Obama say about anything? Can't you look around, dig a bit and figure out what's going on? The world is one big 'arrangement', and the only thing allowing it to continue is the continued, denial-enabled participation of it's competing working\consuming citizens...all of us ratcheting down is the only way out...these political people are insulting to one's intelligence...unfortunately, as long as they are able to keep manipulating the populations via fear and hatred (while soaking them for money\power), they are also very dangerous...deprive them of their money and power by loving one another and living with less...remove the profit from the system...
Cindy:
Since you're on this string and check into CD on a regular basis, I have a question:
About a month ago, I challenged CD readers to match a contribution to you (I didn't name the amount) and pledged to contribute what I can every month -- which I am doing.
Did the match ever turn into anything? The other part of it was urging you to get alot more signatures than necessary because of inevitable challenges (largely by Dems).
Have your petions been verified yet?
In Struggle There Is Hope,
tj
You write,
"Of the four (Kerry, Clinton, Edwards and Obama) of them (and many more), only Obama has always opposed the war ...
"Only Obama had the guts to do so at the beginning, when the Bush people had made that an excruciatingly hard thing to do. True, he wasn't then in the US Senate, and he didn't actually have to cast a vote on the issue. Nevertheless, it was pretty widely understood at the time — not least by Rove and the three Democratic would-be presidents listed above — that going on record against the war was the kiss of death for any presidential ambitions. Obama not only took that risk, but he hit it just right, not opposing all wars (for there are rare ones for which the alternative is even worse), but opposing dumb wars, and labeling Iraq just such." (Words in parenthesis yours.)
But what you write is not correct, David. ...
Quoting from Matt Gonzalez's February 2008 article entitled, "The Obama Craze: Count Me Out" —
"First, he (Obama) opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, 'There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.'
Gonzalez continues:
"The Tribune went on to say that Obama, 'now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation;¬ a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.'
"Obama's campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he's done just that."
Click here for the entire article -- which includes loads of *other* reasons not to vote for Obama -- http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html
Obama supports two wars currently in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan); and, moreover, has shown a willingness to start wars in *two more* countries (Iran and Pakistan) ... This sounds to you like someone who is opposed to starting, as you put it, "dumb wars" ???
(Continued)
Interestingly enough, David, you acknowledge that Democrats such as Kerry and Hillary Clinton and all those others Democrats who voted to authorize the Iraq War are just as criminally liable as George Bush and Company. ... But what about Obama? ...
Obama favors two wars in progress and has shown a clear-cut willingness to engage two other countries in war – Iran and Pakistan.
(Continued)
Obama is not swamping McCain in the polls because both major political parties are mouthpieces for Corporate America.
One way the Democrats serve the economic elite is to act as a "safety valve" in times of political unrest. As things start to heat up on the left, the Democratic Party goes to the American public and says: "Vote for us. We will represent your interests. Besides, don't forget T.I.N.A. -- "There Is No Alternative" – there is no alternative to the current political system, it's either us of the Republicans, that's your only choice."
And then taking the bait buying into the con
("T.I.N.A"), the American public, as it rumbles, heats up and organizes on the left, instead of breaking away from the Democratic/Republican duopoly, *enables* the Democratic/Republican duopoly. Allows the Democratic Party to co-opt their broad-based mass movement, dilute it and, eventually, sell it out.
The Democratic Party has done this with any number of broad-based grassroots progressive movements. They did this with the Populist movement in the 1890s ... the labor movement in the 1930s ... the civil rights movement, the environmentalist movement, the antiwar movement.
And the result is that nothing changes.
(Continued)