Barack Obama's Plan ( Copied from his campaign website )

Invest in a 21st Century Military
Rebuild the Military for 21st Century Tasks: As we rebuild our armed forces, we must not simply recreate the military of the Cold War era. Obama believes that we must build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a more robust capacity to train, equip, and advise foreign security forces, so that local allies are better prepared to confront mutual threats.
Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.
Leadership from the Top: Barack Obama will restore the ethic of public service to the agenda of today's youth, whether it be serving their local communities in such roles as teachers or first responders, or serving in the military to keep our nation free and safe.
Lighten the Burdens on Our Brave Troops and Their Families: An Obama administration will create a Military Families Advisory Board to provide a conduit for military families' concerns to be brought to the attention of senior policymakers and the public. Obama will end the Bush administration's stop-loss policy and establish predictability in deployments so that active duty and reserves know what they can and must expect.
Build Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century
Fully Equip Our Troops for the Missions They Face: Barack Obama believes we must get vitally needed equipment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines before lives are lost. We cannot repeat such failures as the delays in deployment of armored vehicles, body armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that save lives on the frontlines.
Review Weapons Programs: We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces have the agility and lethality to succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations. Obama has committed to a review of each major defense program in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios in the post-9/11 world.
Preserve Global Reach in the Air: We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.
Maintain Power Projection at Sea: We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises.
National Missile Defense: An Obama administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.
Ensure Freedom of Space: An Obama administration will restore American leadership on space issues, seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. He will thoroughly assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best options, military and diplomatic, for countering them, establishing contingency plans to ensure that U.S. forces can maintain or duplicate access to information from space assets and accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack.
Protect the U.S in Cyberspace: An Obama administration will work in cooperation with our allies and the private sector to identify and protect against emerging cyber-threats.
Restore the Readiness of the National Guard and Reserves
Barack Obama will provide the National Guard with the equipment it needs for foreign and domestic emergencies and time to restore and refit before deploying. He will make the head of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure concerns of our citizen soldiers reach the level they mandate. He will ensure that reservists and Guard members are treated fairly when it comes to employment, health, and education benefits.
Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability
Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts: An Obama administration will build up the capacity of each non-Pentagon agency to deploy personnel and area experts where they are needed, to help move soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines out of civilian roles.
Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): An Obama administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.

Coyoteteacher, thank you. That set of clarifications is helpful. I appreciate you and the discussion.

Earthian,

Thanks for the clarification.

Due to time constraints, perhaps I did not formulate concretely enough the full context I intended.

I agree that if the superstructure is going to come crashing down, we have to dismantle it from within, and outside of it. This requires efforts of people like yourself.

What I was talking about (however poorly) has to do with rhizomes. People do not become systemically connected and therefore dependent upon a large systemic mono culture-like the energy system. People become empowered at the local level to develop and maintain systems they can control. It sets up a paradigm shift in their own minds. A world of that nature is radically different. The dead end cul de sac of our horrendous creation of the automobile fetish combined with the desire to escape the horrors of industrial cities -- in other words, suburbia -- would utterly disappear. Right now a majority of the nation sees in suburb vision, with clogged six lane highways and shopping malls. I simply don't see that a take over at the National level provides for the type of change that actually changes things. It may be a piece, but I suspect it measured against diminished returns of the effort.

Another problem I see in a guy like Hayden and the Nation Magazine is we are substituting one set of elites with another set of elites who are working against the grass roots efforts of someone like Cindy Sheehan who LISTENS TO PEOPLE and seeks to include them, rather than talk over them. Cindy is not selling out for a few crumbs off the table like Hayden and his ilk. They have long since accepted their own mythos at the expense of the rest of us. They always have their begging bowl out stretched, but I think this is particularly true for the Nation magazine and its editor. They negatively and accurately critique the right while avoiding negatively critiquing the corporate owned arm of the Democratic Party thus slamming the voice of the authentic left. Thus the real left are assigned to comment on position pieces like this a type of ghetto from which are voices are allowed access but not agenda. In fact, the system is set up to silence us by rendering impotent candidate like Nader and Mckinney.

I hope that clarifies my position.

I'm very sorry I've misrepresented your views or gave the impression of a dishonest ideology.

If I've distorted or represented in a dishonest way what you wrote, please correct me.

Below, I'll respond to your comments:

Actually "consciousness first" is my paraphrase of your statement:

"Any authentic transformation toward sustainable practices
will happen - in my view = by transforming human
consciousness. In other words, it always happens first from the
bottom, and then flows upward into political praxis."

In your sentence "it" from "it always happens first" refers to
"transforming human consciousness . . . from the bottom". (I think. If not, what
does "it" refer to?)

You thus said "it always happens first" with the "transformation
in the political realm" not happening "until a collapse kicks in
bringing down the economic order."

If you don't mean that transformation in the political is dependent
on economic collapse and that all we can do to move towards "sustainable
practices" is through "transforming human consciousness," then what
exactly do you mean?

In my (honest) opinion, your language meant what you said, which I recount
above, and in my original post: "consciousness first" versus consciousness *and*
direct change in the political realm, simultaneously, and *not* as you said
*after* economic collapse.

A case in point, I and others co-founded a new progressive caucus in my state
Democratic Party in 2004. This new organization is now in the Bylaws of the State
Democratic Party. This is not only a matter of transforming consciousness (which I
completely agree with, such as the Dalai Lama's suggestion that we need "a feeling
of compassion with a sense of responsibility.") It is *also* a matter, simultaneously of
working directly, successfully, diligently in the political, institutional realm.

I you want to clarify your views, and if I misunderstand you, just clarify, please, what you
actually believe and advocate for change.

As for your comment:

". . . nowhere in your missive did you offer an explanation why your ideology and those
who agree with you, has not moved Obama to what most people on this site refer to
as the "left." In fact the converse is true, he is moving to the right. "

That is true. My (our) ideology (the progressive worldview and platform) has not moved Obama
in a progressive direction (left). I agree he has become more conservative in his rhetoric. I think
we need a strategy for 2008 to 2016, no matter whether Obama the neoliberal, militarist,
corporate Democrat wins the presidency, or whether McCain the neocon, militarist, corporate
Republican wins the presidency. Both have and (I suspect) will support the American totalitarian
corporate regime, the nation's third since the Civil War. I'm interested in opposing them and helping
to bring about a progressive revolution in America, and a revolution of values and consciousness
as well.

I suspect you and I agree on most things. I simply value multiple, simultaneous efforts, including
*both" the progressive transformation of consciousness as you suggest, *and* working
for change in the political realm. And *not* waiting for an "economic collapse* to pursue the latter.

I'm not in this thread with you to "win" or to demean you or anyone. I'm in it to discuss how we can do
as you advocate, towards "sustainable practices" (and more) without the sense of powerlessness and
cynicism of waiting for "economic collapse" in order to pursue change in political and institutional
realms.

And I'm not the author of this article. THAT would be dishonest. I have nothing to do with Tom Hayden
or with The Nation," and have never met him. (Though I have great respect for him, *and* differ completely with
his support for Obama in his election.)

With respect,

Earthian

And if this is true, why not show the guts to defend your ideas from an ideology of honesty?

" I believe the either/or thinking your statement demonstrates in reference to
"consciousness first" is insufficient and provides excuses for inaction with
regard to efforts to change institutions."

Actually Earthian, that represents your misinterpretation of my words. I also noted you linked two of my words together in quote from two disparate sentences: "consciousness firsts" as though that is what I said, when it was not what I said. These types of practices to morph personal language represents the kind of dishonesty we find in our contemporary moment with regards politics in general which is based on misdirection, obfuscation, and absence of integrity. And as I noted, I asserted your ability to engage the system any way you choose to.

While you have obviously given a lot of thought to the issues, nowhere in your missive did you offer an explanation why your ideology and those who agree with you, has not moved Obama to what most people on this site refer to as the "left." In fact the converse is true, he is moving to the right. And given his history with corporate investments, it is difficult to acknowledge any hope that he will become a born again progressive if he is elected.

In psychological terms this is referred to as "denial." I might also refer you to a axiom that the simplest explanation is often closer to the truth than complexity provides for.

You are a smart guy, smarter than me, and I suspect the author of this article.

Lelie Kagans group is a bunch of rich yuppies who read the Nation Magazine and would rather we kill another million Iraquis than run the risk of being called a conpsiracy theorist in the New York Times..

It is incredible how little they have done. They are less visible than the commet Kahotex.

Coyoteteacher, you said:

"Any authentic transformation toward sustainable practices
will happen - in my view = by transforming human
consciousness. In other words, it always happens first from the
bottom, and then flows upward into political praxis."

That is true as far as it goes. But your idea of "first" is in my view
faulty, insufficient and cynical. It is either/or thinking.

Consciousness and the varied concepts human beings use to
make meaning in the world, to plan, and to act, indeed can be
changed by individual effort.

And institutions such as the Pentagon, Congress, the Judiciary, our media
system, our educational system, and more act on and influence the consciousness of
individuals.

And the consciousness of individuals influence institutions through
political processes, movements, activism, and day-to-day interactions.

Any model for a progressive revolution that relies *only* on individual
transformation in consciousness leaves out
efforts towards transforming institutions, as Dr. King pursued.

New Zealand directly changed their two-party system into a multi-party
system in the period from 1993 to 1996. While that depended on the
consciousness of Kiwis, it also is a realm unto itself to decide to
create a commission to examine their electoral system; to have a
national referendum to chose among the recommended systems; and
to have a national referendum to chose between their two-party system
and their new MMP (German type) system.

I believe the either/or thinking your statement demonstrates in reference to
"consciousness first" is insufficient and provides excuses for inaction with
regard to efforts to change institutions.

In place of either/or thinking is both/and thinking, which suggests that, for example,
institutional transformation and individual consciousness transformation are both
valid and important simultaneously. This suggests that we need not wait, as you suggest,
for some kind of 1929 collapse before institutional change can commence.

Progressives can pursue a progressive revolution now, which involves a
revolution of values and consciousness, as Dr. King suggested *and* a
revolution of institutions such as Congress, the media, the educational system,
the Constitution, the military, and more.

That thought that we cannot transform our human institutions until some
future "collapse" is a demonstration of cynicism. Cynicism is a self-fulfilling
psychological worldview of weakness to power. I think you can do better than that.

I urge you to expand your consciousness about such cynicism and about the possibilities
of institutional changes now. Our efforts towards a progressive revolution in consciousness
*and* in institutions needs smart people like you.

Earthian, nice sentiments and none of it new. I've heard the same
thing for the last 20 years, maybe longer. Of course, people
are free to engage the system as they wish.

Any authentic transformation toward sustainable practices
will happen - in my view = by transforming human
consciousness. In other words, it always happens first from the
bottom, and then flows upward into political praxis.

The status quo will remain so in the absence of cultural turmoil of
an order of magnitude necessary to move political entities to compensate
for the anomalies both environmental and economic.

Until a collapse kicks in bringing down the economic order
that we nurse ourselves on, and are addicted to, change and transformation
in the political realm will forever remain a pipe dream.

A 1929 economic correction might change all that, and I suspect
we are teetering on such an event currently.

Coyoteteacher, your description of what Hayden is thinking in supporting
Obama over McCain is what I mean by a tactic. I can't predict the future. I don't
know if American and the world, in the long run, would be better with McCain
or Obama. What I mean by "tactic" is a short-term plan. In this case, Hayden
is describing a tactic of supporting the Democratic Party when it comes to Obama.

What I mean by a strategy, which I outlined in brief in my post, is a long-term
plan. In the context of the US that would be 10 to 20 years. Hayden is looking at
what to do over a span of a few months.

Hayden has a long record of supporting progressive causes dating to 1962
and Port Huron. That means a lot to me. I don't agree with taking progressive
tactics out of the context of progressive strategies like Hayden does in this article.
I think we need to articulate the big picture while looking at the little picture.

What is a true progressive? Someone who advocates the progressive platform
as represented by the platforms of Kucinch, the Green Party, the Congressional
Progressive Caucus, Ralph Nader, and the 20 or so Progressive Caucuses in the
State Democratic Parties. Together their statements on issues and solutions
constitute a coherent, consistent worldview and set of progressive policies.

Hayden is a true progressive. So are most CD posters and readers. I think it
important to find common ground with progressives like Hayden even if we
disagree on short term plans and tactics.

I find the idea of supporting Obama bizarre, for he is a corporate, militarist,
deceptive, empire-supporting Democrat, posing as a progressive Democrat.
Obama is similar to his predecessors, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton, and as such
is a very scary guy.

And I find the policies, worldview, and psychology of McCain completely
horrible, and in some ways waaaaay worse than Obama.

So in the long run, progressives have a lot to do to create a unified opposition
after this election. In the short run, who knows what to do?

Electoral system denial is not a good idea. A Democrat or Republican will win the
Presidency and nearly every seat in Congress. That is what winner-take-all, single seat
elections do--they create dominance by two parties.

In the short run, I disagree with associating with Obama or in supporting him in any
way. Hayden does. That's okay. I prefer seeing about getting McKinney and Nader in the
debates. And I prefer pursuing a progressive revolution in America in the period from
2008 to 2016. That will involve, at least, uniting our opposition to the corporate regime
both in the Green Party and by infiltrating and supporting the Democratic Party via
progressive caucuses. And putting our people in state legislatures, and as precinct officers,
and much, much more.

correction on Instant run off voting: I meant to suggest that the concept is inimical to Democrats. Nevertheless, it remains a progressive position for breaking
the strangle hold Democrats now enjoy and delight in to the angst of those of us who will never again vote for a Democrat.

Earhtian,

What tactics are you referring to with regards Hayden?

Frankly, the only tactic I can discern within his rhetoric is the following:
Vote for Obama and hope for the best.

I assume you are maybe referring to a strategy and not tactics. It goes something like this: progressives stick together and elect
a Democrat and then use our leverage to move them in the direction we want. If that is what you are referring to then
I think you are way outside the margins of reality and more in the domain of the elusive and undefined realm of hope.

Ive herd that strategy for a long time now, and believe that the opposite is actually true based on Obama's voting
record and that of his wayward kin - the rest of the Democratic Party - with a few heroic exceptions like Kucinch.

If it were indeed true that they can be moved in a progressive fashion how do you explain Obama caving on FISA, remaining
silent on impeachment, voting for every Iraq funding Bill put before the Senate, diminishment of habeus corpus, supporting coal, nuclear, and
bio fuels as a linchpin of his environmental plan, his cozyness with the Jewish lobby and sword rattling on Iran, his speech
asserting he would bomb Pakistan to get Bin Laden, his corporate donations by the coal industry to name one, the absence
of meaningful reform legislation on voting machines and paperless ballots, ignoring the voice of the people in favor
of instant run off voting, excluding true progressive voices like McCinney and Nader from the debates, the Democratic Party
working overtime to smash ballot efforts to put Nader and McCinney on state ballots, a minimum wage Bill instead of a Living
wage Bill, to name a few.

The truth is, the move to move the Dems to the left is nothing more than a marketing slogan intended to obfuscate the truth of their efforts undercutting
our rights, killing sustainable practices, and corporate hegemony destroying life on planet Earth thanks to both the Dems and Republicans.

Go back to the drawing table.

It's pretty simple really. "But in the meantime. We can bitch about
Obama, but he is the best candidate the corporate mass media will allow;
and will remain so until WE figure out how to construct our own
networks of communication without relying on THEM." No. Not true.
Obama and other candidates will remain "the best candidate the
corporate mass media will allow" until the people no longer allow it.
That means right now, no more voting for any candidate of the One
Big Corporate Party. Common Dreams is supposed to be an, albeit,
small network of "progressives". But Obama supporters, Democrats
continue to support Obama the Corporate sock puppet. Deep inside
they know the rot that is the Democratic Party and its candidate.
Unfortunately, a victory with a unpleasant but familiar stench
appears to them to be better than voting for the ideas, programs
and platform of a Ralph Nader with which they agree. Stop
waiting for change to happen. Be it! Run Ralph. Run!
_
"I think true progressives (which I believe Hayden is) can differ
on tactics." What the hell is a "true progressive"?

I agree with the posters above who see Obama as a militarist himself.

If we are to raise money to end the current occupations and prevent
future war crimes by the US we need to do two things:

- Work to get McKinney and Nader into the debates
- Raise money to oppose the deceptive, corporate militarism of Obama or the honest,
corporate hyper-militarism of McCain, whichever one wins the presidential race

As for Tom Hayden, my differences with him are tactical, not substantial.

I think true progressives (which I believe Hayden is) can differ on tactics.

The resolution of our US electoral dilemma which requires adaptive tactics
is a true multi-party democracy.

That way we won't have to choose between the two bad choices offered by our
electoral system:

- Vote for the lesser evil and betray your conscience, while still opposing the worst candidate
- Vote for the true progressive candidate, honor your conscience and help the worst candidate

These are the choices. But New Zealand went through the transition from a two-party system
to a true multiparty democracy, choosing the MMP system of Germany in a national referendum.

We can do that. The ninth and 10th amendments to the Constitution support such a process.

So does the Preamble of the Constitution. Doing this will require massive efforts and educating
progressives; and state level organizing for a constitutional convention and key amendments.

Are we up to it? We'll find out after the election, whether the horrible candidate wins (McCain)
or whether the slightly less horrible candidate wins (Obama). Either way, progressives will have LOTS of work
to do.

Obama is a corporate owned yes man: who would sell his soul for a pocket full of cash, always on the lookout for his grand obfuscation via what he terms a "compromise."
His definition of a compromise is actually a fundamental 'sell out' of key features of the progressive movement also referred to as "shelter Bills."
People like Hayden are selling us down the river while lovingly referring to themselves as "leaders" when in reality they are power hungry, celebrity seeking,
inside the beltway, groupies.

This is too hard to read, having to scroll left and right on the page. What happened, Common Dreams?
Most of the articles aren't like that. Please keep your pages readable.

But in the meantime. We can bitch about Obama, but he is the best candidate the corporate mass media
will allow; and will remain so until WE figure out how to construct our own networks of communication
without relying on THEM. More than alternative parties and candidates we need alternative methods
of organizing and communication. When we really learn to work together, THEN we can talk about a
New Politics. Obama and the Democrats may come through in giving us card check off for union
membership. After that it is up to us.

"It was downhill from that point, for reasons that may never be explained. "

I'll second the idiocy of that comment.

It is obvious. When people gave money to peace and social movements that supposedly supported an end
to the war, and those organizations (like moveone and common dreams)
just turned that money over to support and promote the corporate democratic
candidates without ever getting a concession, that is when I stopped supporting them.

Has common dreams really ever supported a progressive candidate, other than lip service?

Did they ever really give Kucinich and Mike Gravel, much less Nader and Green Party McKinney
a voice? Those are the candidates that spoke of issues that the peace movement wanted
to hear. And they were silenced and excluded from the debate. I didn't see Hayden talk
of the outrage of that action (or Obama or Hillary). Why? They don't care about protecting
the democratic process when it gets in the way of their victory.

Obama has been accepted into the privileged class and as such must tighten his underwear to the point that his balls are squeezed as to making him impotent. Once they crown him president then they will teach how the whites do their dancing.

"It was downhill from that point, for reasons that may never be explained. "

Uhmmm, no, it's because hacks like Hayden were diddling themselves with joy because Obama was the Messiah. He is not, so when the people who cared abandoned caring in favor of "believing" in Obama (Hayden has been (yes, he is a hasbeen as well) a relentless flack for Obama from the beginning, the whole thing fell in to disrepair.

And now Hayden is trying to explain his way out of the deadend he was so eagerly pursuing. I do wish Hayden and the rest of the hippie/yuppies would just go somewhere and chant and burn incense. They've done nothing but lead their kids down the hollow path of being "Democrats".

I can read the article and posts, but the guy who posted the HAHAHA... post
messed up the page formatting because he didn't use spaces or carriage returns anywhere.

Tom Hayden -- why does he bother? -- writes:
"MoveOn is so far alone among peace groups in having the ability ... "
-----
Oh, baloney. "Peace group" certainly isn't the first descriptive phrase
anybody with a brain left would apply to that money machine.

"Obama's endorsement of a NATO role for Georgia will divide or alienate the rank-and-file even further.

"Obama's solid peace position now seems to be against the war in Iraq or military escalation to Iran,
which sets him apart from McCain. But Obama is sinking dangerously into orthodox paradigms on the war
on terrorism, the new cold war and even the war on drugs in places like Colombia."
-----
Screw Obama, the Democratic "leadership", and the pussy-footing celebrity left.
Maybe Hayden, Alice Walker, and Norman Solomon can go door-to-door collecting "peace" bucks.
Just forget it, why dontcha? Anybody who cares is going to vote for Nader or McKinney, or
emigrate.

[Note to CommonDreams: this article seems to invoke some browser problem in either Firefox or IE, such
that one can read only the comments. I saw the piece in email, or couldn't have read it at all,
which would have been a small loss. Only the comments are readily readable at the moment.]

I thought the response to the Petraeus ad was absolutely, totally predictable ... I thought the HEADER was self-indulgent and juvenile ... I'm doubtful ANYONE read below it ... what a waste.

Great way to neutralize MoveOn's effectiveness for the election cycle ...

Way to go!

(they lost me a few years before that with their "poll" that wasn't exactly a "poll" and their frequent assertions that MoveOn was not a "democracy". A tightly clenched bunch of egos more like it. )

Come on, Tom, "MoveOn is so far alone among peace groups
in having the ability to raise one or two million dollars
in the coming months." You know that MoveOn.org is really a
front group for the Democratic Party. That's why many anti-
war activists have bolted from this Democratic Party special
interest group. Tom, you are incredibly wedded to the
status quo. What happened to ya, Tom? We hardly know you.
I suppose your bio line says a bunch: "Tom Hayden is a
former state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice
and environmental movements.? That was then. This is now.
What a shame. Run Ralph. Run!

homeward-angel: I agree.

I don't understand why comments threads remain so vulnerable to such virtual vandalism.

jesus was a peace movement and did not require funding. its amazing what we can do without a government.

lesser evil, thanks for that, now the article is a bitch to read. limit your asinine statements next time.

Uncle Sam has evolved into a poisoned hermaphrodite capable of raping itself and giving birth to monsters like George Wanker Bush. No longer does anyone have to tell the USA to go screw itself. Now, the other "love child", John McCain, is a few months away from assuming the dark throne of homicidal American power. Read this from Paul Craig Roberts, a conservative who once worked for Reagan:

"The success of the Bush Regime's propaganda, lies, and deception with gullible and inattentive Americans since 9/11 has made it difficult for intelligent, aware people to be optimistic about the future of the United States. For almost 8 years the US media has served as Ministry of Propaganda for a war criminal regime. Americans incapable of thinking for themselves, reading between the lines, or accessing foreign media on the Internet have been brainwashed.
That such evil people have control over the United States government and media damns the American public for eternity.
America will never recover from the shame and dishonor heaped upon her by the neoconned Bush Regime.
The American media, aka, the Ministry of Lies and Deceit, again accommodated the criminals."

Truly, this has got to be the most stupid nation on the sagging, unshaven face of the earth. No wonder there is no peace movement with any real moral or political power.

There's a peace movement?

I know we have annual parades, is that what is meant by movement?

Yes, Obama and Pelosi of the same cloth ... embarassing ... each a token ... each a collaborator.

What happened is pretty obvious. The anti-war movement chose not to remain independent of the Democrats, who are, and always have been, collaborators
in the Iraq war effort. Progressives were falling over themselves to blame progressives who would simply say "no" to any funding, constantly allowing the
Democratic Party "we must have 60 Senate votes to do anything" Kool-aid to be seen as legitimate, even after the budgets were approved 94-1, etc.
and a Democratic Senate confirmed torturer, executive-power-uber-alles Mukasey. So there is no independent peace movement at the leadership level.
However what is going to happen is a combination of the fact that Obama is really a hawk and millions of progressives know the Dems don't represent
them is going to lead to a huge vote for Nader and Cynthia McKinney, much greater than any of the pundits, including, unfortunately, Tom, are
predicting.

With Hayden it is always about the Democratic Party ad nausea. As if they represent the only legitimate progressive voice in the country. Man, how far they fall once they get married to the status quo~

USAn, the Democratic shenanigans you are describing remind me of the ridiculous practice the Republicans have of going on bogus voter registration drives to sign up the Democrat's supporters, only to throw the papers away and fool the voters into thinking they were properly registered, what a scam.

ArthurM, shhhhhhhh! Don't let on that there are choices. McCain is the grim reaper remember? …End of the world and all that, like Reagan! Everybody get you lobotomized asses out to vote for Tweedle-dee, or is it Tweedle-dum?

Obama does not want to be associated with any "peace movement" -- he's made that clear.

In fact, as the days go by, it become clear that in order to vote for the man, I would have to vote against so many of my "core beliefs" it's staggering. I don't think this is going to work out in his favor.

I am only hopeful that the Obama campaign notices the train that is barrelling in their direction ... but I'm not hopeful.

Like Gore, this election is his to lose, yes indeed.

In this case, I don't want to be a member of any group that doesn't want me ...

It is not the function or purpose of the federal gov't, whether controlled by Dems or GOPigs, to promote peace. The federal gov't functions to act as the guarantor of the wealthy. We Americans foot the bills in blood and treasure so that the top 1% of the world's wealthiest people can maximize their gains and concentrate their wealth. This process causes backlash among the brown froggy people who, for some reason, seem to resent watching their children starve while they work themselves into early graves. If the Dem Party was actually a party for peace, it would become disqualified from participation in the federal gov't. WTF Hayden. I thought you figured that shit out when you were a kid. What's the matter? Alzheimer's?

Peace comes not through an enlightenment process. MoveOn and the rest of those bullshit fraud organizations only serve to foster more partisan politics-- the choice between Evil and Eviler-- on us peasants. Peace comes through the exhaustion of the state and the FORCED REALIZATION that continued war would result in a sufficient break down of authority that economic disruption becomes imminent. In other words, when the cost imposed on the elite exceeds the profits gained by war and the imposition of imperial authority on brown froggy people, wars wind down and "peace" sorta happens.

So, suspend the bloviating and get back some balls, my man. You old farts start hitting the streets and getting your asses whipped by fat cops, and show us again how it's done. I swear, somebody just needs to get the ball rolling...

I'd say we need to stop letting anyone say there are only two candidates for president, and only two positions on war and peace.

Having Nader (independent) and McKinney (Green Party) in the debates would accomplish more than a million door-knocks.

MoveOn is Sold Out. They are not for peace. They a project of the so-called Democrat "centrists" to subvert the formation of an effective geninely progressive movement.

Pardon me for going off-topic, but the latest of MoveOn's shennanigans is to hijack the movement for single payer/HR626. They are joining a steering comittee and sending $500,000 of members funds to an organization named "Health Care For America Now" which is DOES NOT support single payer healthcare, it's name being deceptively similar to the Hellthcare NOW coalition, which DOES support single payer. This is a deliberate effort by the "moderate" leadership of MoveOn to decieve the MoveOn membership, who are overwhelmingly for single-payer.

PLEASE go here and sign the petetion:

http://pdamerica.e-actionmax.com/takeaction.asp?aaid=3436

Mmm. Like yeah. Some kind of like Voting Democrat Thing is going to set everything straight. Common Dreams was better before this whole Join The Discussion thing was set up.

Tom, if you weren't so naive about Obama (and the Democrats), you wouldn't have been so optimistic.

"As things stand today, if the projected millions are to be spent on an anti-Iraq, anti-McCain message, it will have to come through the Obama campaign or not at all."

Good luck with that!

Obama is NOT antiwar. He just picks his military interventions in a slightly less wanton way than McCain.

He's not taking on the military-industrial-complex now, nor will he as president.

NADER/GONZALEZ 2008