Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Clear Winner in World Opinion
WASHINGTON - In a new international poll by the BBC World Service, all 22 countries surveyed would prefer that Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama wins the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 4.
![[U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks to a Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute awards gala in Washington, September 10, 2008.
(Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/obama.jpg "obama.jpg")
The 22 countries, drawn from six continents, preferred Obama over his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, by an average four to one margin.
The poll confirms the conventional wisdom that, while the race is tightening in the polls at home, the world wants to see an Obama presidency -- a notion that was mocked by the McCain campaign after an Obama speech in Berlin attended by 200,000 people.
'Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents,' said Doug Miller, the chairman of the international polling firm Globescan, who conducted the poll for the BBC with the help of University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes.
In another question in the BBC poll, more than three-quarters of the countries said that an Obama presidency would see improved U.S. relations with the rest of the world. On average, 46 percent of respondents think that relations would get better with Obama at the helm, 22 percent said they would stay the same, and 7 percent thought they would get worse.
One in five of those surveyed thought that a McCain presidency would bring better relations between the U.S. and the world. A plurality of 37 percent said that relations under McCain would stay the same, and 16 percent thought that they would get worse.
'Given how negative America's international image is at present, it is quite striking that only one in five think a McCain presidency would improve on the [George W.] Bush administration's relations with the world,' said Miller in a statement releasing the poll results.
A BBC World Service poll earlier this year showed that nearly half of the people in countries surveyed viewed U.S. influence on the world negatively.
In the recent poll, the U.S.'s allies in NATO -- many of whom did not participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as the non-NATO 'coalition of the willing' -- were the most optimistic that an Obama presidency would bring better relations.
More than 60 percent of respondents in Canada, France, German, and Italy, and over half of those surveyed in Britain said Obama would improve strained relations with the world.
Only China, Nigeria and India thought that a McCain presidency would improve relations with the rest of the world and in all three places that preference was only by a 'modest margin' over Obama.
In a separate poll released with the results of the international poll, U.S. citizens agreed with the prevailing world opinion that Obama stood a better chance of improving relations with the world. Nearly half thought that an Obama-led U.S. would have better relations with the globe, and 26 percent expected relations to be improved under McCain.
In Kenya, where Obama has roots through his father, people overwhelming support an Obama presidency -- 87 percent, the largest majority of the countries surveyed -- and nearly nine in 10 surveyed said both that they think U.S. relations with the world will improve and that 'their perception of the U.S. would fundamentally change' were Obama elected.
Nearly half of respondents worldwide -- and majorities and pluralities of 15 of the 22 countries polled -- agreed with the Kenyans on the issue of a 'fundamental change' in their perception of the U.S. Just over a quarter said their image of the U.S. would remain static if Obama is elected.
Just as in the U.S., Obama's international support was especially strong among young respondents and well-educated respondents. But the gaps with older and less-educated respondents were not significant.
While over half of those surveyed under the age of 35 supported Obama, his support among respondents over 55 years old was nearly equally strong at 47 percent. Six in 10 of those with university-level education and four in 10 of those with only primary education preferred Obama.
Turkey was the only country where significantly more people thought that U.S.-world relations would suffer from an Obama presidency rather than a McCain presidency. But in an apparent contradiction, Turks preferred Obama to be president.
Several of the countries polled had a majority of respondents showing no preference for either candidate. Most notably was recently re-emergent Russia, with fully three quarters of the respondents failing to express a preference. Middle Eastern countries Turkey and Egypt also had majorities of just over 60 percent with no preference.
203 Comments so far
Show AllVery nice but that still doesn't make him President of the US. The US needs a radical change and I don't see this happening with neither McCain or Obama. And a bit of humility would not hurt either.
The SEP issues the following warning: Neither the Democrats nor Republicans are presenting to the working class their real programs—that is, what they intend to do after Election Day. Neither the Democratic nor Republican candidate cares to acknowledge that this election campaign is being conducted in the midst of the most serious economic crisis of world capitalism since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
But the corporate and financial elite knows full well that the next president—regardless whether his name is McCain or Obama—will almost immediately escalate attacks on the American and international working class. The next administration will drive up unemployment, slash expenditures for desperately needed social programs, support the attacks of the corporations on wage levels and working conditions, and intensify government suppression of democratic rights. A President McCain or Obama will pursue the reckless militarist agenda of the Pentagon and seek the reintroduction of the draft to provide human cannon fodder for the wars now being planned in secret.
Read more: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/elec-s13.shtml
If Obama gets back to what turned people on to his campaign in the first place -That another world is possible & Yes We Can - he'll be favored here by as big a margin as he now is in Europe. What's hurt him has been his moving to the right (whether real or merely perceived) and away from what's openly inspirational. Yes, he has to parry the McCain lies, but to retake the dawn we have to switch from confrontation to inspiration. The Republicans know this, of course, which is why they've been belittling his oratorical skills, attacking him with "So he's good with words but where's the meat." Unfortunately Obama's responded to these attacks by diminishing what's inspirational and upgrading the nuts & bolts stuff, much to the detriment of his campaign. All is not lost, though, because six weeks are left which gives him plenty of time to get back on the high road to peace on earth and goodwill to all living beings.
That's a pretty tall order given the biased and shallow nature of media coverage and the extent of republican propaganda.
McCain ads
Blue Thunder
Oh Please American's , if you have a heart for the life of the children...just picture more and more children being slaughtered by the republican war machine, more and more children murdered in Iraq, Afghanistan and surely Iran if McCain, God forbid, becomes president. Ponder long and hard for you will become complicit in the slaughter of the true innocents. Will you be able to look into the mirror once the horrors of a McCain/Palin administration begin to manifest...are you ready to put into the most powerful position of the world a man who is dedicated to escalating an illegal war and who will be responsible for the murder of women and children, innocent fathers and mothers, entire families because Palin and all the fundamentalist christians are ready to inact the 'end times' scenario; an apocalypse that will ravage the world and quite possibly bring extinction to humans and possibly end all life here on earth which is God's magnificent and sacred creation! You will be endorsing crimes against humanity, crimes against the earth, and crimes against God. The Evil One will surely be raised in his glory if the unthinkable happens, the election of McCain and Palin!
All you need to do is imagine your beautiful little girl or boy being blown tp pieces, having there limbs blown off, there faces ripped apart by a bomb or a gun and then realize that this is what more and more innocent mothers and fathers will have to experience as they already are because of Bush/Cheney and the republican cabal. For God's sake people WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!
The US is an empire. Empires survive through violently taking from less powerful nations the means to make wealth. Obama has applied for the position of Emperor. He needs to demonstrate that he is willing to shed blood in the furtherance of empire and hence his lurch to the right and his belecosity. And he certainly sounds like he's ready:
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.
1. A vote for Obama will not end the occupation.
2. Obama wants to increase military spending.
3. Obama's advisers want to keep Bush's Defense Secretary Roberts Gates.
4. Obama wants more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.
5. Obama wants to add an additional 100,000 troops.
6. Obama wants to intensify the war in Afghanistan.
7. Obama wants to keep over 60,000 troops in Iraq to guard "our" oil.
Is Obama calling for scaling back militarism? Is Obama calling for an end to war and bringing ALL the troops home? Hell no! He sounds as hawkish as a Republican. I cite his saber rattling against Iran, Pakistan and even Russia and his speech before AIPAC.
Obama has been making a case he would be more efficient and ruthless than the Pugs and he wouldn't have gone into Iraq until he had finished off the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama is no pacifist. He will surely cause the death of many thousands of innocent people and combatants alike for the sake of dominating a resource-rich region that doesn't belong to us - yet. The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11. Twenty hijackers did. What was required was a police investigation and an attempt to apprehend those responsible not a war. The war is for oil.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD SHEEPLE OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!!!!
God doesn't exist.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
"Who still believes that stuff?? Even neo-liberals seem to buy into the old argument that "the world is waiting to return to its position of leadership in the world". I dont think they are at all! I think theyve had quite enought of it!" (KDelphi)
I never really had a problem with the United States taking a (limited) leadership role in the world provided it was a responsible one. I also expected (in its limited leadership role)that it would have promoted peaceful co-existance on this planet. History clearly shows that this has not been the case. Here I need not cite examples as most of you know the history of your government's global "leadership" much better than I. I fully agree with Delphi in that nobody is out there waiting for the United States to lead. Maybe someday in the future but for now you must establish responsible leadership at home. It is time for you all to do some house cleaning. I personally believe that you have the potential to do whatever you put your minds to do. I wish you the best of luck.
If Obama would get off his (or Biden's) "widen the war in Afghanistan," "go to war with Iran," and "stay in Iraq" positions, I would probably vote for him.
Having observed the actions, or lack thereof, of the Democratic Party since 2006, all I see is a choice of "Fascist lite (D) or "Fascist Right" (R). IF I look closely, I see a very wealthy oligarchy pulling both sets of strings. I don't think they care which side wins because, as it has been for many years, they own them both.
Can We the People effect change? With HS's ever increasing power and its "Thought Police" sending armed hit squads into homes to disrupt and arrest those even thinking of protesting, it is going to take an overwhelming number of people ready to lay their lives and their livings on the line. It is going to take massive strikes, demonstrations and civil disobedience in the face of increasingly lethal force and draconian punishments for the slightest infractions, to make a difference.
Do you see the American Sheeple awakening and rising up from their Procrustean beds?
Unfortunately, neither do I.
the "lesser of two evils" is still evil, only, by definition, slightly less so.
However, this is more like the lesser of two weasels
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
This is my personal opinion in response to all those who see just about no difference between Obama and McCain-Palin.
Just look at these two men and tell me there is no difference in the kind of people they are, or the kind of things they will do. Does Obama really LOOK as evil and duplicitous as McCain does?
Isn't it just possible that Obama, who turned down a six figure starting salary with some prestigious law firm (he graduated at the top of his Harvard class) to do community work in the streets of Chicago.. isn't it possible that he is just doing what it takes to get to the White House, and perhaps, just perhaps, start steering the huge ship he would command slowly and inextricably to the left? Maybe not, but we certainly know where McCain-Palin will steer this ship. I think it is possible, though I'm certainly not sure, that Obama, a very very smart politician who has come an incredibly long way in a short time, has taken these middle of the road positions because it is the only way to keep him competitive in American elections at this time. Would you really prefer that he had stuck to his possibly progressive beliefs (he certainly had that at least at one point in his career), and gone the way of Dennis Kucinich (whom, by the way, I adore), getting a small percentage of the vote, thus allowing a truly centrist-right Democrat to win the nomination?
And do you really want Ralph Nader (whom I also adore) to hand the election over to McCain, if that were to happen, since there is "no" difference between Obama and McCain? Tell that to the people under the bombs in Iran, who would be far far more likely to be spared the hell of war with Obama being President.
It's great to be dedicated to progressive causes, and to be passionate about insisting that our country's leaders work for social justice and compassionate governing, but perhaps seeing "no difference" between Obama and McCain is more about identifying oneself as a "TOTAL radical", and the pleasure of seeing oneself that way. Because if you see no difference between Obama and McCain, you are not very open to something very obvious.
If he had "stuck to his progressive opinions", I , and alot of other people, would be supporting him. For what that's worth.
This "Obama has chosen to be middle class" stuff and the food stamps is really so much myth. I KNOW you have to be a multi-millionaire to run for President (and thats part of the problem! Feingold calls it a legalized state of bribery). Do you live in a $2 milion house? Did your wife make $350,000 last year working for a Hospital Association? Do you think that $250,000 is "middle class"? If so, you are an Obama "class peer".
For some of us, single payer health care may be a matter of survival. Try living on Medicaid HMOs a couple of years. I have friends hwo have died on it. 20,000 a year.
I dont understand why it is so difficult for supporters of the Dems (most of who will be fine, and are comfortable)to understand that, for many people , anyway, not being able to support the DNC neo-liberal agenda may just be a matter of life and death.
It is NOT "fun" for me to remain a Socialist year after year and see the US deteriorate into a capitalist pigs wet dream. I left , to re-register as a Dem in 2000-2004. I didnt work. So much for the Dems, whom I have voted for half my life. Alot of good it did.
I thinkI'll spend the next half of my life working for something better.
Yes so true. Keep your mind open to Hitler, Stalin and Bush. Good idea.
If the USA is going to nominate itself "Global Policeman" and give itself licence to march into any country it feels like to enforces its own laws, then the rest of us should get a vote on who the new sheriff will be...its only fair.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Little Brother September 13th, 2008 12:23 pm
Very nicely done. Well articulated and very true.
Europe's view of Obama
http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3090984
Obama may not be the second coming, but he's still against starting wars so that Exxon could make more money. Obama may not be the second coming but he still respects human rights and the rule of law.
The former statement may be-- MAY be-- narrowly true, but it doesn't say much for Obama.
Typically, no politician campaigns on a promise or propensity to "start" wars. Yet, because Amerika has always limped along on the primitive, lizard-brain dictum that a head of state must first and foremost demonstrate his or her bona fides as a mighty Warlord who will protect and secure his or her quivering populace, our degraded politicians must assure We the People that they will pop a superior War Boner at the slightest pretext.
Obama is no exception; he freely accepts and uses the propagandistic terms crafted by the present warmongers, not excluding the premise of a "Global War on Terror" in which the US remains the white-hatted Hero. As Democrats will, he lavishly praises and obsequiously flatters the military with the usual martial sentimentality, and differs himself from his opposition only insofar as he affects to prosecute war more prudently and effectively than the incumbent and his opponent.
He's avidly advocated military aggression in the form of "smart(er)" military operations, and promoted the necessity of "finishing the job" in Afghanistan.
It's disingenuous to argue that he won't "start" wars so that Exxon can make more money. The reality is infinitely more complicated, obscure, and devious than that. Obama hasn't risked blunting the above-cited Warlord bona fides by extolling the virtues of DE-militarization, or supported initiatives like that pansy Kucinich's call for a "Department of Peace"; he's eager to perpetuate and increase funding for the bloated military-corporate juggernaut.
And as far as "respecting human rights and the rule of law", that can be answered in a single acronym: FISA. Let's toss in his resounding lack of denunciation for the Imperial Stormtrooper tactics employed at both political conventions for good measure. I get a strong sense that he finds anything reminiscent of the political activism of the Sixties repugnant.
Finally, anticipating a predictable response to the foregoing, I also don't buy into the logic or argument that Obama is "running to the right" for strategic and tactical purposes.
Those who accept such arguments are mired in the impossible bind of willingly suspending criticism and disbelief, and generously allowing their preferred candidate the liberty of being as much of a liar and hypocrite as necessary to achieve the desired end. And yet we are to believe that such a candidate is at bottom a moral person of great integrity and rectitude! How exactly is one supposed to trust and have confidence in a person who will say or do anything to acquire power?
Then there's the alternate argument that at least an "open-minded" person of profound intellect and character is malleable; thus, We the People are tasked to "keep the pressure on" to melt the dross out of the new president's philosophy and policies, and "push" him to promote progressive values. Good luck with that.
FDR is often held up as an example, which ignores the very different circumstances of his era-- when left-wing populist forces were much more powerful, and working-class citizens were far more amenable to resist and oppose the financial oligarchy. FDR and the political class perceived a dire threat to the established social order, and the New Deal's virtues were, in part, a function of the political leadership's desire to nullify the prospect of something like revolution. There's simply no basis to expect Obama to heed the cries of the dispossessed over the murmurs of the political and financial elites with whom he will interact daily.
As I've said over and over, I think it's likelier than not that when you hold his feet to the fire, you will discover that they are in fact cloven hooves which remain quite comfortable in a warm place.
Sigh..."starting" (wars) is the key word here, isnt it?
Rule of law?? FISA. DC gun (un) ban. Separation of church and state.
Little Brother,
Your comment was beautifully written. I am a Canadian and I too stand guilty of hoping that the citizens of your nation will chose the lesser of two evils. (We watch you very carefully up here.) (lol) I am not so much for Sen. Obama as I am against the current crop of Republicans running your nation today. In my opinion a vote for a third party presidential platform would like the bridge to nowhere. John McCain or Barach Obama will be the next President of the United States of America. Not Ralph Nader or any of the others.) (With dread I now expect McCain to be the president-elect come November) As a nation you must dance with the shoes you have on, not the shoes you would like to be wearing. My dear cousins, if you thought Bush caused your nation problems, (with McCain in charge) you ain't seen nothin yet.
If people in Canada and around the world can see so clearly what our options are, isn't it time we opened our own eyes? If the prospect of Sarah Palin getting within shouting distance of the White House doesn't scare you to death, if the Rovian 'big lie' technique is still pushing your rebel buttons, if you still believe that everyone commenting on this site is a do-good progressive, then, please, go ahead and vote for a third party, and we will all get what we so richly deserve: More stupidity, more McCainism, more divisiveness, more elitism, deeper and more pervasive disregard for the dispossessed (who have become that way BECAUSE of the past 40 years of lies).
How the Dems can be so stupid and still be standing is, yes, beyond me, too, but politics has always been a carny gyp-game, and we will lose it if we let McCain and Palin steal our own issues. Yes, I hope Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi got a group rate when they went in for their lobotomies. Yes, I know money is running this political machine, on both sides. Yes, I know that we are sick and tired of the "good-old-boy" biz as usual, and Palin is every bit one of those GOB acolytes.
But her entry into the mix has galvanized me as nothing before has been able to do, precisely because she is the antithesis of all things progressive. More frightening than that is the popular support she is generating, even though she is a cross between a bad SNL skit and a shallow Reality TV show. That alone should show us all that issues and brains are not the crux of this election. We are fully into the most cynical carny-time now, a Rovian manipulation that, once again, is driving us into that corner of voting against our own interests by voting our conscience. Our beliefs have nothing to do with it now, and our reasoned arguments about our positions are only so much fluff. We're down to that visceral level that politics has always been about: It's us or them, and Obama (despite Biden, despite old alliances, despite throwing away 18 million votes, despite a sophomoric campaign that is actually saying "The McCain campaign has finally admitted that this election is about change . . . .") is closer to being ONE OF US!
I am scared enough to go out and sign up voters and campaign FOR Obama, because the alternative is too dispiriting to contemplate!
Dante--now this is an appeal I might respond to (depending on where my swing state seems to be going or if it is close). The ones screaming at me about how perfect obama is, and that i must be a racist--not so much
You Yankies are perfectly entitled to have your McCains and your Palins. What you're not entitled to under those circumstances is global hegemony.
gracefulswan September 12th, 2008 8:01 pm
so why is this type article the headliner on this website? is it because CD wants to somehow send a message that we should be supporting obama?...and then the negative one on palin above as if to constrast. i thought this website and its promoters would at least stay neutral if they can't back true progressives in the race. very disappointing to see this upon first waking up.
___________________________________________
[NB: I don't trust the "reply" feature unless the comment is relatively fresh; I don't expect that many commenters check yesterday's comments for belated responses.]
I had a similar reaction, gracefulswan. I would've felt better if the headline read: Fifty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong!
I know at least one expatriate who's been reporting all year how impressed Europeans are with Obama, including the expatriate himself. This phenomenon must be taken with a boulder of salt. It closely parallels the nostalgic reaction of mildly progressive Democratic supporters to the Clinton administration, and it's to be expected given the superficial attractiveness of the lesser-evil perspective and sensibility.
I assume I'm not the only person who's triggered wrath and scorn, especially during this century's presidential campaigns, by expressing unfavorable opinions of the Clinton administration. Invariably, my wrathful interlocutor is so overwhelmed by the monstrosity of the illegitimate reign of President Unitard and his criminal henchpersons that the Clinton years seem idyllic by comparison.
The fact that Bill Clinton pursued policies identical in kind, if not degree, with the succeeding Monsters of the Midway, and that his opportunistic, diffident, neo-liberal, Hollow-State, corporate and Wall Street-friendly policies is difficult to see when one is standing in the devastated lunar landscape created by the current Dark Lord. Bathed in this acrid miasma, the less penetrating mind naturally hearkens back to a memory of an intelligent and articulate president whose administration was marked by "peace and prosperity".
I submit that the ultra-domestic adulation for Obama parallels this uncritical positive regard for the Unitard's predecessor. Just based on months of comments from my expatriate contact, buttressed by reports similar to this one, it's obvious that Obama is seen as at least a Dr. Jekyll, a welcome replacement to the xenophobic and barbaric Mr. Hyde who has left such a broad and deep wake of international discord and ruin.
Obama is the un-cola-- Not an Uncultivated White Chauvinist. Obama is non-white, handsome, articulate, "intellectual", civilized, cosmopolitan. "Clean", as Joe Biden famously observed earlier this year. What's not to like? Obama has that youthful panache and freshness not seen since JFK! Again, consider these attributes not standing alone, but IN CONTRAST to the abominations fouling Amerikan government during this century.
I would expect the "average" European Obama-supporter to be as puzzled and resentful of the opinions of those of us who don't support him as the domestic lesser-evilists here are. It must seem as cavilling and nit-picky to complain about his exceptionalism, militarism, neo-liberalism, etc. as it seemed to the Clinton-admirers who become so exasperated with similar criticisms without even considering them on the merits.
Of COURSE someone like Obama would provoke a vast collective sigh of relief and "support", especially when seen through the haze of distance and the fumes of the blighted present.
Duh.
But, to return to gracefulswan's observation, this headline got under my skin, too. I've already seen sites like Salon.com become Obama platforms (I only subscribe for Glenn Greenwald, and Tom Tomorrow-- but even the latter is suspect), and this choice of LEAD headline is unfortunate at best. It reminds me of the nitwits who argue that even Howard ZINN recommends voting for Obama, with the implicit scornful question, "... so who are YOU to think differently?"
Remember, the crowd overwhelmingly cheered, "Give us Barabbas!"
Well, will ya look at that, Sadie, the wurld lawks Ubahmma.
More reason to vote fer McCain, I guess.
Yer darn tootin!
--fake conversation heard over and over in my brain pertaining to the American numbskull factor in politics.
"Reject Obama and McCain! Support the Socialist Alternative in 2008! Build the Socialist Equality Party!"
Click here --
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/elec-s13.shtml
Thanks for the link.People should chekc it out.
NADER had 4000 signatures to get on the Michigan ballot four years ago. Not enough.
The Republican Party collected 43,000 MORE signatures on Ralph's behalf, more than enough. Well, "You gotta dance with the one that brought you."
Also, Nader is invested in Raytheon (cluster bombs) and Halliburton.*
Ralph is a Republican Tool. Like many of his 'supporters'
His run in 2000 helped provide a smoke-screen for vote rigging and fraud and likely cost America it's most Green president ever.
*via Fidelity Magellan.
Nader is also HEAVILY invested in Cisco, who Naomi Klein says works "hand in glove" on surveillance systems for the mainland Chinese Government, repressing dissidence in this police state.
Who's gonna build a third party voting for Ralph The Puke? He has been running for twenty years and is older than Grandpa McCain.
You can fool some of the peoople some of the time. Nader lovers are a good example.
Democrats lost because they had a weak candidate, and rolled over after the theft of the election. Not one single Democratic Senator could be found to investigate the matter and resisted pleas from House members.
“Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush” Gore lost by 543. Nader is not to blame, the Democrats are. They refused to investigate the fraud in Florida. Nobody seems to blame the Supreme Court, the Dems that voted for Bush and the many thousands of Democrats didn't didn't bother to vote at all.
Gore couldn't even win his own state of Tennessee which would have made Nader irrelevant because he would have had enough electoral votes to win.
Democrats love to blame Nader. Bull.
No single factor can be isolated in the stolen 2000 election.
Purged voting roles.
Threatening calls made to voters.
Nader.
The machines themselves.
Crooked counts.
But well before the election others and myself clearly saw Nader's entry into the 2000 race would help Bush, hurt Gore, which it did.
That is why Republicans work to get him on ballots, bundle contributions to him and get him on Fox News to bash Democrats.
Bull.
What evidence is there that those that voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader weren't on the ballot? The evidence doesn't exist. The day my choices are limited to Dems and Pugs is the day I stop voting because to me that isn't much of a choice.
Why are people so insistent on duopoly and against having more choices? Why should I vote for Obama if he doesn't represent my views?
But he takes the money and puts it to worthwhile progressive/liberal causes. Sure I wished he could do better but he's a hell of a lot better than the current crop of Democrats who let the same corps bully them to the rightwing with corporate hush money !
If a third party canditate were to somehow get elected to the office of President would he or she not be a "lame duck" from the get go? I ask this question because many who post on this site seem to be advocating for people such as Ralph Nader and others.
"If we are the world's police (empire) and the president of the USA IS THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, then the people of the world should get to vote. (if you believe in democratic rule,,," (myconscience) lol I can just imagine the Sunday morning talk shows if that were the case.
No. He could veto bad bills pushed by Dems and Pugs and they would need 2/3 to over ride his/her veto. It would shake up the establishment and is what we need. 3rd parties could get federal matching funds once they get 5% of the vote and we're off!
I am pretty sure this will never happen in my lifetime but that's what I believe in and that's what I want to work towards. As long as the distinctions between the two establishment parties advocating war and imperialism are blurry and almost nonexistent in some areas I will never for for them. Call me whatever you want.
not only that, but didn't reagon have this trick--in order to get the house/senate on his side more often than not, he'd go on national television to appeal directly to the american people. and he usually got things done his way in the end good or bad with using effective communication techniques. and i'm sure that nader would have more incentive and more guts to put his foot down too when it mattered as he doesn't pander much and he's not subject to bribery. he is about taking money out of politics in the first place.
of course one has to change the system from the inside too, not just the candidate. but none of it comes with voting for one of the establishment parties, you can be sure of that. i agree.
Cant we just STOP being the leader of the "free" world?? Are we really stil the "leader" of--what? We're not the richest. We're not he freest. Why the hell do US citizens keep acting like we rule the world, or better still, that the rest of the world would want it? Dont you think Obama's speech as "citizen of the world" helped alot in the rest of the world? It was one of the things he said that i really liked/
A recent survey showed that, even among our allies, most would prefer for China to be the sole superpower than the US. (Neither is going to happen soon--it will be multi-power for awhile--GOOD! This could change as China becomes more imperialistic and Dubya leaves)) I dont WANT to run the world. I want to be free and decent--to our citizens and the world.
No surprise here when in a recent popularity poll even Osama Ben Ladin beat the Republican Bush hands down.
It would be interesting if the next poll compares Bush with Hitler. Since WWII no head of any country has brought misery and death to over a million human beings.
I assume here is somewhere in Arabia; of course they love Islamo-fascist leaders. That is why the Muslim religion ("Cut off the Pope's head! Riot over fricking CARTOONS!") is so backward that it makes snake handling Christianity look like a collection of Rhodes Scholars.
Modern democracies should be considered as elected oligarchies. In these systems, actual differences between viable political rivals are small, the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an 'acceptable' and 'respectable' political position, and politicians' careers depend heavily on unelected economic and media elites. (wikipedia)
-very enlightened, not backward at all!
I'm Convinced that as an Ideology Islam is dangerous and will eventually have to be eradicated for the sake of Civilization
I agree. 100%. I also agree that fundamentalist religion of all sort is dangerous. However, Islam is the threat at this time. It's easy to simply throw out Christian missionaries and I encourage every country to do so, but Islam is much harder to root out. We need to do it though or pay the price for centuries.
So the US is judge, jury and executioner. Simple. The problem is that we were supporting the Taliban against the Russians not that long ago. The US has no business sticking its nose into everybody's business. Let them sort it out themselves.
That would be the mujahideen, lead by one Osama Bin Laden aided by the Pakistani ISI supported by the CIA, not the Taliban. The Taliban were formed after the Soviets fled Afghanistan.
Otherwise I agree.
Oh yes, you're absolutely right, thanks for the correction.
I agree--and fundamentalist christianity, and fund. Judaism, and fund. religiosity of all kinds. (I am not serious about "irradicating" people--maybe you are) But if you think that christianity is any less violnet or lses a threat to peaceful civilization--you must be an Evangelicsal in denial
Partisan rightwing BULLSHIT.
Sam sez...
"Oh Really? How do you know that or do you just wish that's the case? I haven't seen any politicians since 2000 "shift away from Empire" who were not already intended to go there."
That''s because the people haven't been raising enough hell. Obama may not be as left-leaning as we want him to be, but he's not a right-leaning as McCain. He doesn't appear to have the tunnel vision that McCain suffers from.
"That reminds me of all the wishful-thinking people who talk about "holding his feet to the fire." It's BS. 'We' have been 'holding Pelosi's feet to the fire' on impeachment and one sees where THAT is don't you? Same place it was to begin with. 'Off the table.'"
It's not wishful thinking. It's happened before, and it can happen again. SOME people might have on Pelosi's case, but the outcry and protest hasn't been strong enough.
"The snag is that these people (most of them) don't care what 'we' think."
They'd better care. We have the strength of numbers behind us. It's going to be their ruin sooner or later.
"They listen to and take their orders from the same people the Repugs listen to and take orders from. That should be as clear as day to most thinking people at this point in time. Because despite all the e-mails, phone calls, faxes, visits to their offices, sit-ins, protests, petititions, demonstrations LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE."
The "e-mails, phone calls, faxes, visits to their offices, sit-ins, protests, petititions, demonstrations" you mention haven't been nearly enough. The subculture of the Left isn't going to be enough. The actions you mention need to be multiplied by 100 at the very least.
"NONE OF THOSE ACTIONS HAVE CHANGED ANYTHING."
But that action hasn't been enough. Again, it's been was a relative fraction of the populace doing that. It's just been the politicos, not the average American.
"-----------> Nader/Gonzalez 2008, if there is an 'election.'"
You know what? I'm with ya there Sam. I'm casting my vote for those guys too. But I'm being realistic. I'd give Nader a billion dollars if I could. However, his chances are slim. Let's face it.
I also wrote in Kucinich in the Democratic primary.
Theoretically, I do believe that we could elect Empire away and all the things it brings. But at this juncture, I don't think it's going to happen. Obama's not as bad as McCain, and I do think he at least has a trace of Progress in him. We the people can act like the great producer who draws out the best from a singer or editor who draws out the latent talent in a writer.
You can laugh at me, but did FDR enact The New Deal just because he was feelin' groovy? Or did he do it because it was what the people demanded?
We have more power than we will ever know. We are a sedated behemoth that just needs smelling salt.
Lesser-evilism still gives you evil. Vote 3rd party. Throw out the trash! Throw out the evil with the bathwater. Perform an exorcism!
Within a recent CD article it was noted, partly humorously, that only non-Americans should vote for POTUS; this since what the US does primarily effects other countries.
This poignancy was quite embraced on the thread below it.
But now that the rest of the world sees clearly how different from, how preferable, Obama is to McCain,
You Common Dreams Obama-Attackers don't just know more than all Democrats and Obama, you are more wise than than all the people of the Earth!
Obama Clear Winner In World Opinion. (Dumb World; must not read CD threads.)
Obama '08. Or war with Russia and Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan (and Somalia) and Pakistan simultaneously.
Thanks!
The envy of Obama among white males is unpalatable. Perhaps the descriptive ought to green males
My great, great grandma was 1/2 Black! It's not the color. Obama is a typical mainstream politician doing the bidding of Big Business, Big Oil and the MIC. If he wasn't he'd never have become the candidate. Think.
It's clear you can't see it. Keep voting for Dems and keep getting sold out without realizing it. Let me know how it goes for you Slick.
Obama is a sell out. Only deeply delusional-types can't see Dems for what they are. Both Dems and Pugs are owned by the same masters. The prez is a glorified water boy, the system ($$$) makes the policies and the politicians carry it out. That's why the wars continue and we can't have single payer. Get it? Wake up!
Maybe the world can see the United States more clearly than the United States can
see itself simply because the world has some distance on us.
Obama/McCain are a Military Industrial Complex wet dream come true.
Obama is the epitome of the American dream when he becomes president, so it seems that ordinary Americans who vote against him seem to be voting against the American dream.
The America "dream"?? Who stil believes in that crap? Its a fricking nightmare--using up resources, impoverishing the many for the benefit of the few. I dont have squat, but , if I did, I sure as hell wouldnt buyt eh "American dream".
People of the world prefer Obama over McCain because they probably know squat about either one of them. They probably know Pugs are greedy imperialist, xenophobic and homophobic warmongers out to dominate and make the world safe for US exploitation by multi-national corporations, which doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to figure out. What they haven't figured out is that the Democrats are hardly any better. Both aren't worth a bucket of warmed-over tobacco chewed spit.
Sorry but the fact that he is Black and worked himself up to a position of power and privilege doesn't get me all worked up. Other than some community organizing a few decades ago seems to me he hasn't done squat for Black people. What has he done for us? What has he done to end the war? What has he done to protect our civil rights? Vote for FISA?
Why else should we vote for him? Because he promises to escalate the war in Afghanistan and is going to implement a draft to to "recruit" the 100,000 troops he wants to add to the military in order to ready it for more imperialistic wars of aggression? Now that's a great reason to vote for Obama. By the way in terms of war policies what's the difference between the two?
If Obama was interested in peace he wouldn't be pushing for increasing military spending and troops. Instead he would be talking more about completely ending wars and spending the long-forgotten "peace dividend" on domestic programs that help people not help the MIC.
I have worked with lots of immigrants from South America, Central America, Russia and Near and East Asia. On the whole, they knew a lot more than my colleagues born in the United States. They all read several sources of news daily and habitually discussed politics during lunch etc. They actually know where countries are located and are familiar with their leaders and recent history. You get no blank looks from them if you mention people and events. If they are any reflection of the world outside our borders, I assure you they know more about political history of the four mainstream presidential candidates than most of us.
That may be true but if they were better informed when asked who they prefer Obama or McCain they would say neither.
So you will vote for McCain because he fulfills your apocalyptic vision
No my friend I will vote for Cynthia McKinney. Notice how similar the Republicans and Democrats are:
Green
Republican
Democrat
Invasion and Occupation of Iraq
Oppose
Support
Support
Patriot Act
Oppose
Support
Support
Invasion of Afghanistan
Oppose
Supported
Supported
Kosovo War
Opposed
Supported
Supported
Military Budget
Reduce
Increase
Increase
Israeli Occupation of West Bank and Gaza.
Oppose
Support
Support
Global Warming - Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Support
Oppose
Oppose and Failed to Act.
Right to Choose
Support
Oppose
Support (?)
National Health Insurance
Support single-payer national health insurance
Oppose
Oppose
Clean Water
Support
Oppose
Weak Support
Death Penalty
Oppose
Support
Support
Labor: Wages and Unions
Support
Oppose Workers
Minimal Support
(Global) Corporate Power Trade Agreements and Institutions (NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA, WTO)
Restrict
Expand
Expand
Dude you win!
Your the "Least convincing troll" on this thread!
Congratulations!
"Voting against the American Dream" if we vote "against" Obama? Great!
(By the by, that's not actually possible. In national elections in the U.S. one may only vote for someone, not against)
AND the assumption that if one does not vote for Obama one votes for McCain? Fantastic!
Totally, hilariously awesome.
I hope your real! You're funny!
Have Fun,
-matti.
matti; hi,
Millions of people will be voting 'against' someone in about six weeks.
My son and I will be.
Against McCain and the Republican Gangster Rapist Scum.
We see Obama a vastly better hope than the horrific illiterate war-mongering McCain and that crack-whore Palin.
But we'd vote for Satan and Mata Hari, gladly, before we'd vote for a Republican plutocrat.
Peace from norcal
Good for you. Your simplistic and typical Democratic mainstream lesser-evilism logic would be used to justify McCain if he ran against Stalin.
The point many are trying to make in this thread is that if you want to vote against the status quo, you should not vote for Obama. Of course many will vote as you say, and they may think they are voting against something, but they are not really. Both parties support America’s imperial expansion by preemptively invading whatever countries best serve the Military Industrial Complex at the expense of most its own citizens. An Obama presidency will only give the illusion of a change of direction for a short period of time. To truly vote against the status quo you must not vote Democrat or Republican. What I can’t figure out is why so many people who are dissatisfied with the direction that the country has taken cannot work up the courage to vote independent or Green? After all, what’s the harm? No, don’t tell me you would be wasting your vote. The way I see it, a vote for either Republican or Democrat IS a wasted vote. It only contributes to wasting this country. And it’s not as if you will be punished for voting something other than Democrat or Republican. We still have secret ballot in this country. No one will punish you. And the next morning when you see that whoever you did vote for did not get elected you will not be given a bad report card.
The only way to end the insanity is to get off the “Insanity Express” train to nowhere that America is riding on full speed ahead.
One should also remember (hard to do in the American "cult of personality" contests) that a vote for Obama is a vote for the DNC/DLC. Better than GOP? Yep. But, if you think he will go outside the bounds of what the DNC expects of him, you see a revolutionary, where I see a conservative democrat.
Several of the countries polled had a majority of respondents showing no preference for either candidate.
-put me in that camp
I, for one, do not rely upon "world opinion" when I cast my vote. Neither do I even consider "world opinion" in my decision making, nor to I give one whit about "world opinion" as to who our next President should be!
If anything, I'm strongly inclined to vote AGAINST world opinion in this matter!
I see what is going on in Europe, and frankly, I don't want any of it here in America!
Interesting. What exactly wouldn't you want?
No legal employment without social security?
Health care so that no disease can ever drive anyone to bankruptcy?
Unions to protect you against big corporations?
2 years of paternal leave?
Affordable child care facilities for everyone?
Public transport?
Good food?
Proportional representation?
Many parties to choose from in an election?
TV that's not interrupted every 5 minutes by commercials?
No adoration of the military?
Take you pick!
If laws were ENFORCED here in America; you wouldn't have employment without a social security number. With all of the "sanctuary cities" we have, the concept of citizenship has been reduced to a joke.
Unions have their place, but worldwide unionization is headed toward zero.
For all employers to be forced to supply two years of paternal leave explains why the employment levels are SO LOW across Europe. Businesses cannot afford to stay open with such policies. You institute two years of paternal leave in America and you'll see employment levels plummet to European ones. But then again, their view is to encourage unemployment. Unemployment insurance benefits in the United States typically are exhausted after six months. However, a number of European countries pay over 40 percent of previous wages in the second and third year of unemployment. A few countries keep the benefits flowing even into the fourth and fifth years of unemployment. Who pays for this? Employers, through usury taxation.
To keep people employed, you MUST have businesses. To keep businesses, you MUST have a means to keep them running profitably. "Free" child care? Do you really think it's free? It's paid for in the form of lowered ability to hire workers.
I've travelled all over Europe; and while I have to agree that there is good food to be found there; I can also tell you horror stories about awful crap that I wouldn't feed a stray dog ~ so I don't agree that food is any better overall. The produce in America is much, MUCH better in fact.
Multi-party politics is not a bad thing; and I would welcome having a more diverse spectrum of opinion in America. Nothing is stopping that from happening, it's simply a matter of people collectively identifying themselves with a group of policies and getting majority agreement from the population.
http://americanprogressiveparty.com/
Television is a business that has costs and expenses. It must be paid for in some manner, and in a free market society, advertisment is what is being used to derive that income. Short of everything broadcast being state funded, what would you propose as a solution to broadcast advertising??
I'm personally thankful for the military and everyone who serves in it. If you have ever spent any time in a country that does not have the freedoms provided by a strong military, you'd understand why.
If you've ever worn to the uniform and stood in harms way, you'd understand why.
There, that about does it....
I traveled through most of Western Europe--I dont understand what you are saying.I was on a Work/Study program. They had/have the highest standard of living in the world for the most people. (Unfortunately ) they tend to join us in alot of our miliatary misadventures (their govts do--oh! Theyre still allowed to protest in the street--there;s no "freedom zones"). But the people of the EU would NEVER put up with the crap US citizens do.(Did you notice public reaction to Sarcozy "privitizing the postal system"? LOL He wont last long!) They may have constitutional monarchies, but at least their PMs arent considered "commanders in chief" (the term makes me sick!) and cannot decalare war! (What CIC cant here , either?? Well, youd better tell the Dems that!) It's insane that we have a popularly elected perosn runnign for "commander in chief"!
A vet in the UK, who lost both legs in the "war" in Afghanistan, just received 1/2 million pounds , and took it to court , as not enough to live on and go to school.(In most of the EU, yo dont have to go get blown up to get free college--they consider it an investment it he future of their country) Here, vets are treated like trash! I wish I could go back to Europe--or anywhere. I dont suppose I would be treated as kindly as before, with all of our new enemies.Try to sell a house for a decent price in the uS!
The Media should NOT all be a business--everything should NOT be "for profit"! The founding fathers ( i know that alot of them were assholes) considered the media/press to be the fourth branch of govt. Today, it is just bullshit.
I dont know about the "produce " stuff these days--but ours is covred in e coli and salmonella these daysand tastes like styrofoam!(Unless you can afford organic--and the labelling on that is often questionable!) Just when the govt is telling people to eat more produce and fish,(pkgs. with CO2, to hide deecomposition) we find it is embedded with genetic anti-life, radiatin and chemicals that are banned all over EU and Japan. They wont buy our crappy stuff.(All we sel is BOMBS!) If they turn away Chinese stuff that is old or unfit, the Chinese govt knows where to send it! US wil take it, if they can make a fricking buck!
I worked at a Vet Center for years. It is a total disgrace the way veterans are treated it the US.Alot of good it does them to sacrifice their youth and blood for the uS, who leads/orders them into ridiculous militaristic blunders for the benefit of BIG OIL and th multi-natls.(Its all about 9/11!! Right...)! Then, if you become disabled --screw you! We'll cal it a "personality disorder" (never PTSD, unless someone get s really good lawyer!). That is "not caused by battle stress" (he always hit the floor at loud noises), and they can get out of paying a pension, disablility and for medical care for the rest of that persons' life, however long or --Short, they hope--it may be.
Screw US foreign (and domestic ) policy! Viva Chavez!
take your military out of all foreign countries and stop dropping bombs on children..who do you think you are?
what is going on in europe?
ooh, aren't you butch
I guess this means we should have a global election for the US Presidency. Heck, just call DC the Global capital (US can share it) and covert them to a Global Government. Thats what they are anyways, they certainly are not actually doing anything to improve America, are they?. Obama for Global President! McCain can be Americas president. Win-Win.
Don't laugh. Coming soon to a theater near you
so why is this type article the headliner on this website? is it because CD wants to somehow send a message that we should be supporting obama?...and then the negative one on palin above as if to constrast. i thought this website and its promoters would at least stay neutral if they can't back true progressives in the race. very disappointing to see this upon first waking up.
***With McCain the chances are far far greater that my kids and Afghan, Pakistan kids will suffer. Under Obama, despite his required-election-year-sabre-rattling, far far less.***
There is nothing that Obama has said or done that would suggest that he will be any less of an imperial monster than mccain.
There is nothing in any election year, that requires anyone to saber rattle. (That is the liberal Obama fanatic refrain, whenever someone points out how much Obama sound like Bush/McCain - i.e. more of the same.)
In fact, McCain is the lesser of two evils when it comes to Pakistan, Obama is the one who advocated the current Bush policy of expanding the war to Pakistan:
"Sen. John McCain of Arizona, close to clinching the GOP nomination, called Sen. Barack Obama 'naive' today and...blasted him for advocating a bombing of Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan," the Los Angeles Times "
Juan Cole, an Obama fanatic, has also admitted that McCain is better than Obama in this area:
"Sounds like she, Palin, has the Obama position on this one, not the McCain position. Too bad, since this is one area where McCain's is the wiser."
In fact, Obama was ahead in the polls when he was somewhat half heartedly talking about withdrawl from Iraq, but he won't do more of that talk - he is now, and has been seeking to be a better administrator of American imperialism.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
"We couldn't care less what the rest of the World thinks...MOST of us don't want to be like you....which is why MOST of us (or at least a Majority of us) are going to make John McCain The next President of the United States..."
Surely you agree that there is room for improvement. I am sure even Senator McCain would agree with that. Is he not now running on a platform of "Change?"
"The rest of the World believes they can trade their freedom for security"
Would you like to reconsider this remark? Exactly who traded away their freedoms in exchange for security? Think very carefully about this one.
Absolutely there is room for change...but we'll do it OUR way
Let me clarify my security remark as I meant that they seem to be surrendering their freedom to be taken care of by a benevelent Government that "gives" me everything...I can still work...I can still make a budget and live within it...I didn't buy too big a house and now I expect the Government to bail me out
I'm still a grown up and I'll fly or fall on the merits of my own decisions...and that is America to me
Cue the Air Force band! YOU can still work. YOU could afford a house. YOU are (now?) a "grown up". It seems to be all about YOUYOUYOU.
And THAT, my wolfie friend, is AMERIKA to ME!
"Absolutely there is room for change...but we'll do it OUR way"
Like, eh, Mccain pretending change and then writing up a bill to give incumbents and monied elites more power? Yeah, that's change ! LOL !
Promise me you won't do anything to hurt yourself the day after the election ok?
Nah, I'll still be fighting like an economic vigilante regardless of who wins. And you think Mccain's a "libertarian" ? Pathetic !
I think he's a Moderate...
I recall a story from the last (Presidential) election...the day after a young man went to ground zero in New York and shot himself with a shotgun
as my Italian Immigrant Grandfather once said..."It doesn't matter who wins I still gotta to go to work monday morning"
Keep fighting the good fight
Unless of course there is no work to go to in the morning, the Bush McCain may make that a probability
After the GIANT bailout of all the mortgage thieves, you have the nerve to still bitch about the little guy who took out an "equity loan" to pay his medical bills, cause you guys are to fricking cheap to help him??
its a bit more complicated than that...a Crappy Economy and a Spike in oil prices is primarily the cause (the timeline of which seems to correlate remarkably with the Democrat Majority in Congress for the last 20 months)
Neither Party has clean hands in this but the cause was mainly giving mortgages to irresponsible people
Dude you are completely insane. The bundling of mortgages became so profitable that people were encouraged to buy homes without credit checks, without even looking at a pay stub, and certainly without any sort of full disclosures. Some made millions in bonuses and companies had billions in worthless investments. This you seek to slough off with some impossibly childish one liner? What a buffoon....
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
snowwolf what correlates with me is that in the late 80`s when the republicans were in the whitehouse there was a spike in house prices followed by a fall in house prices where the brokers made money and the banks lost large sums of money. Now, twenty years later it happens all over again, except that this time it is alot worse and guess who is in the whitehouse, a republican. It seems to me that the pattern with republicans is that they run up record deficits, 930 billion in 1980 to 4.2 trillion in 1992 then back down to 4.2 trillion at the end of the Clinton years and now over 9.3 trillion.
It is clear that republicans our out to fatten their pockets and empty ours. By the way I was a republican until 2006 and now I have empty pockets.
In the fall of '92 I couldn't even give away my condo in a very excluse community in CA. G.H.W.B. was running for a second term then.