Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Out-Hawks McCain
Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, he argued for the need "to end the mindset that took us into" that war. So it was troubling that tonight---in the first of the three presidential debates-- a man of such good judgment called for an end to the war in Iraq in order to escalate US military forces in Afghanistan. (This holds true not just for the two men on the Democratic ticket but for too many Democrats in Washington who argue, mantra-like, that we need to leave Iraq in order to free additional troops to serve in "the right war.")
A few weeks ago, a friend sent me an e-mail. "Here is a future dictionary entry for Afghanistan," he wrote.
"Afghanistan. The place where the dreams and hopes of the Obama Presidency are buried."
I flinched when I read the note. But it rang true. Obama risks creating a bipartisan consensus that will entrap the US in another costly occupation---draining resources needed to fulfill his (already limited) promises for economic growth, health care and social justice at home. Such escalation will also crowd out other international initiatives and alienate those allies we need to reengage the world on terms other than the so-called "war on terror."
At other times, though not tonight, Obama has spoken forcefully as the first 21st century candidate---addressing the limits of military force in a world whose central challenges are pandemics, nuclear proliferation, global inequality, and climate change. These are issues which McCain has no clue how to address. He is a man who craves the reassuring reflexes of the early Cold War era, when military power was the appropriate response to any provocation. Tonight, though, at too many key moments, Obama played on McCain's turf. Instead of playing to the future, forcefully, with toughness and passion, Obama was the young hawk trying to out-hawk the old uber-hawk. Obama can do better. We can do better. I know Obama wasn't courting me --but those elusive ---and infuriating --swing, undecided voters. (And the post-debate polls show Obama beating McCain among this group!)
Still, we confront grave, new security issues : a metastasizing financial crisis that threatens to evict millions from their homes, kill their kids' hopes for college and ravage their pensions . And in the long haul, we're going to face a ferocious fight to preserve the progressive agenda. Already tonight, debate moderator Jim Lehrer pushed the candidates to tell us what they would give up considering the bailout's costs. But as economist Jamie Galbraith argues, these are times not to balance budgets but to invest in the infrastructure which has made this country strong. Obama will need to speak more effectively, more boldly, more passionately about the new challenges ahead.
If elected, Senator Obama has the chance to be a transformational president. His election, if followed through with smart and just policies, could turn a page on the reckless and destructive ones of the extremist Bush Administration. But tonight he showed himself to be a raging minimalist.
- Posted in
292 Comments so far
Show AllKatrina, Barack Obama has never been a man of good judgment. Those of us who are true progressives have been saying all along that this man is a hawk, and he is dangerous on foreign policy (and economic policy, too). I don't mind saying I TOLD YOU SO!!
Ditto!
Don't expect a life long Democratic Apologist to understand the true left. She just does not get it!
I think Obama is using Afghanistan both as a ploy to sway independents who worry about terrorism, and as a way to call for an end to Iraq without seeming wimpy.
And I'm sure he's been instructed by the masters that it's time to start making it look like we're wrapping things up in Iraq, and we need to work a little harder on that Afghanistan pipeline situation.
>>I think Obama is using Afghanistan both as a ploy to sway independents who worry about terrorism, and as a way to call for an end to Iraq without seeming wimpy.
Right. Tell that to the dead civilians we keep dropping bombs on. Oops....sorry, just a "ploy." I don't want to seem "wimpy."
You know that most people will choose the major party candidate that they consider to be the lesser of 2 evils. Too bad, because most people feel that voting for a 3rd party candidate is wasting your vote. In 1968 I voted for Dick Gregory and in 1980 I voted for John Anderson.
KeLeMi,
And Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were elected in those years.
Are you bragging or apologing?
Nice example of just how useful voting 3rd party can be. And now McCain is well positioned isn't he! Yeah, vote 3rd party for sure.
Thank You!
And the reason 3rd party voting is a waste is because they can't win. They can't win because they get a mere fraction of the votes that the "two" candidates get. The reason nobody votes for them is because most people are very ill-acquainted with any political parties other than repukes and dems.
Sure, there are Greens, and "Independents", who hold office here and there, but these alternative parties must do a much better job of making noise and drawing atttention to themselves and their candidates, while at the same time working for progressive reforms, in order to ever be competitive in a presidential election.
Oh, yeah, and don't forget that the rulers would never let a Kucinich or a Nader actually win the election.
Voters without principles will get politicians without principles. Vote for a liar and you will be a slave of liars.
.
Nader/Gonzales is looking better and BETTER...
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
Support by giving DONATIONS to make this happen ...
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!! WORLD PEACE !!!!!!! End THE WARS......
Bring the troops home
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
I agree in sentiment, Nannie: World peace, end the wars, end poverty, end hunger, end global warming, educate our children to think critically, universal health insurance, etc.
Neither this election nor any in the foreseeable future will do that. So, that is our dilemma.
It is too bad Ralph Nader was not allowed to debate. He would have put these two clowns in their places.
Why not have all of the third party candidates invited to be in the debate? Because in 1992 Ross Perot was in the debate and he got 20% of the popular vote. Too many people feel that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. Barr is the closest to my thinking but he won't do well.
Democratic Apologist plays sympathy vote
Saw only 20 minutes at the end... but it seemed Obama was always putting his head down as old whitey took shots at the black servant boy
image is everything on TV.... and how this plays depends on who you are
You're so right. It was really painful to watch.
Reality dictates policy. Wishful thinking does not. Its obvious that what Obamqa said about Afganistan will happen, no matter who is elected.
One party of the rich in this country--2 branches--
Obama reinvades Afghanistan while McCain reinvades Vietnam. Same old, same old tragedy..
With Obama, the old Cold War Democrats ( the Senator from Boeing, et. al. )are back!
and speaking of tragedy repeating itself:
Same old, same old going on with the Wall Street Crisis
Yes that Republican turkey Gramm did author that odious bill deregulating Wall Street, but that turkey Clinton did sign it into law with Wall Street heavy hitters Summers and Rubin cheering it all on.
(Sad to say that these Cold War Dems, non-regulators, free-market fanatics will return when Obama becomes President.
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
The debates were very informative. We saw clearly that both Obama and McCain want to continue programs the bush administration. They agree on the bailout, the continuing and escalating wars and cutting our domestic programs to pay for these erroneous policies. These two similar candidates agree on sanctions on Iran, provoking Russia, drilling off shore and building nuclear power plants---they even mentioned 'clean coal'.
No mention was made of the loss of our civil rights by the deleting of whole sections of our Constitution.
Both of these corporate candidates want to continue the "reckless and destructive policies of the extremist bush Administration". If you don't like these policies you must not vote as usual. Instead, consider the 'minor' candidates. You will find that these candidates speak for the people of the nation and not for those claiming corporate personhood. You will not hear about these candidates in the major media. Just google their names and read their platforms.
"an unshakeable refusal to acknowledge any of the horrific crimes committed by the US government."
Come on RichM, they're trying to get elected!!!!
Right....f***ing on., RichM.
One party system with two right wings.
The solution is simple. Don't vote for any of them. That might bring "change" we can "believe" in.
Vote Nader. Or McKinney. Or even Barr. Anybody but these two warmongers. Show 'em you want your government back.
I believe that in Mcain's convention speech he emphatically stated that he HATES war. I believe that as some one who has witnessed those horrors first hand and has expressed his feelings as such he is far from being a warmonger. Whoever wins this election has alot to clean up. I for one would like to here how they plan to do it and specifics on where we go from here, not how we got here!
Zsa Zsa Gabor "emphatically stated" her marriage vows ... several times.
McCain hates war so much, he only wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years.
And, don't forget, he did say "...there will be more wars."
"I want a man who's kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?"
Zsa Zsa Gabor
Obama doesn't even ask that much from his millionaire corporations that he is beholden to.
Rich...what would Bush know about war? He forgot to come last time.
McCain: Old warmonger.
Obama: Young warmonger. (Who now wants to use Iraqis money to kill Iraqis--gotta love THAT one from the debate)
No real difference in either of them when it comes to murder--or anything else of consequence.
Vote Nader.
Katrina and her pals over at The Nation magazine are nothing but DPAers -- Democratic Party Apologists. .. “Cruise missile liberals.”
Katrina's characterization of Barack Obama as "a man of good judgment" is almost as laughable as trying to pawn Obama off as a "peace candidate."
Here are 18 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA. But rather, if one is truly a progressive, to vote for a genuine progressive candidate -- Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, or any socialist on your ballot.
1. Barack Obama ran as a peace candidate … during the primaries. However, once he captured the nomination, he quickly changed his tune. He now says he will defer to the judgment of the commanders in the field.
On July 2, 2008, in a speech in Colorado Springs, Obama stated:
"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.”
In other words: I may withdraw troops in 16 months; but, if the commanders in the field advise against withdrawal, we stay. … Meaning: Obama's current position on Iraq is essentially the same as that John McCain and George Bush.
2. Several months ago, Barack Obama, along with the rest of the Senate, gave George Bush the green light to invade Iran. (The Senate to Bush: “If you invade Iran, we won't object.”)
3.) Obama now wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan. In a July 14th "New York Times" op-ed piece, Obama proposed sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
Interestingly enough, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, also feel that there are an insufficient number of troops in Afghanistan. And guess how many additional troops they recommend be deployed in Afghanistan -- the same number as Barack Obama, 10,000.
And what did George Bush do *the day after* Obama's aforementioned “New York Time” op-ed piece? In a White House press conference, Bush indicated that the US and its NATO allies were already initiating a “surge” in Afghanistan.
NOTE: Afghanistan is the 20th country the United States has bombed since the end of World War II. *Before* Bush started bombing Afghanistan, one out of every 7 Afghans were either starving or in imminent danger of starving. … ... This is the country to which Barack Obama wants to send more US troops, more US firepower, more misery, more deaths.
4.) Obama has threatened to invade Pakistan. Quoting Obama from the above-cited op-ed piece:
"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents.
"We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
Indeed, the invasion of Pakistan has already started -- with nary a peep from “peace candidate” Obama.
5.) In the same July 2, 2008 speech in Colorado Springs cited above, Obama praised the US military and vowed to increase its ranks. Obama has called for an overall increase of American ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and "investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time."
Last year, writing in "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Barack Obama wrote:
"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.”
In short, Obama supports two wars now in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan) and has shown a clear-cut willingness to engage in two more wars (Iran and Pakistan).
Does this sound to you like a critic of the military-industrial complex, like a candidate who will challenge US imperial ambitions?
6.) Obama has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $500 billion.
7.) The Pentagon budget is over $500 billion dollars a year. Both Obama and McCain want to *increase* that budget.
8.) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing the US taxpayer
15 billion dollars per month. See http://www.costofwar.com/ Note: The vast majority of the 15 billion dollars per month is going into the hands of those who profit from America's military-industrial complex.
(Continued)
9.) Over 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of Gulf War II. See the following http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/
10.) Obama voted to confirm Condeleeeza Rice, as well as a host of other Bush nominees.
11.) In 2006, Obama went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman, in Lieberman’s primary fight against antiwar, *progressive* candidate Ned Lamont.
12.) In a June 29, 2008 "Times of London" article Richard Danzig quotes Obama's top military adviser as saying: "My personal position is (that Robert) Gates (Bush's Secretary of Defense) is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."
13.) Obama voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act.
14.) Obama voted for the F.I.S.A. bill – after vowing not to.
15.) Immediately after he captured the nomination, Barack Obama appointed Josh Furman, a former Clinton administration official, as his chief economic advisor, see "Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama's Economic Policy" -- http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/10/9534/
In 2005, Furman published a 16-page paper titled, "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story." In short, Josh Furman, Barack Obama's chief economic advisor, believes that Walmart's is good for America.
16.) In an interview he gave to the N.Y. Times on September 20, 2008, Obama said that "he does not rule out retaining Mr. Paulson, a Republican. The two have spoken almost daily since Treasury put the mortgage giants Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac into government conservatorships two weeks ago, and Mr. Obama speaks highly of Mr. Paulson."
Note: Paulson was the former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
Quoting from a recent article by Bill Van Auken, entitled, “Obama’s Response to Financial Meltdown: Deception and Subservience to Wall Street” --
“The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions, listed Goldman Sachs as the top source of campaign funds for the Obama campaign. The watchdog group added that Wall Street’s stake in the Democratic candidate is probably even larger. “Since his campaign has ignored repeated requests... to disclose his bundlers’ employers and occupations,” it pointed out, “these figures are probably undercounts.”
“In addition to Wall Street, the Obama campaign has raised some $13.4 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sector and $2 million from the commercial banks, again outstripping McCain.
“Given this financial banking, Obama’s posturing as a champion “Main Street” and the scourge of “special interests” is just as absurd as McCain’s vow to fight “greed” on Wall Street.
“Equally dishonest is the Democratic candidate’s repeated assertion that the present crisis is the outcome of policies pursued simply over the past eight years. Conveniently ignored is the fact that the frontal assault on the working class that lay the foundations for the present economic setup in America was initiated under the Democratic Carter administration 30 years ago and that the most sweeping deregulation of the financial markets was carried out under the Democrat Clinton.”
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s19.shtml
17.) Many right-wing supporters are *delighted* with Obama’s move to the right. So delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" -- whose editorial board generally reflects not just the right-wing but the right-wing within the Bush administration -- so delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" regarding Obama's recent lurch to the right, especially as regards Iraq, that on July 2, 2008, they published an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term." In it, they gloatingly stated: "“Maybe he (Obama) is worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate running for it (Bush's third term).”
... Click here for at least a dozen more reasons not to vote for Barack Obama – “The Obama Craze; Count Me Out,” by Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader’s vice-presidential running mate -- http://newsblaze.com/story/20080302075722tsop.nb/topstory.html
(Continued)
The Democratic Party serves a crucial function for the ruling class, the economic elite.
Should things start "heating up" on the left, should economic turmoil, social unrest and the class tensions that inevitably occur given the inequalities inherent in a capitalist economy -- should such status quo-endangering rumblings develop into broad-based, progressive movements, the Democratic Party is there to co-opt, dilute and eventually betray those democratic, broad-based movements.
The first thing the Democratic Party says to the people committed to these movements is "T.I.N.A." -- "There Is No Alternative" -- that is to say, you have no alternative to the two-party choice; so you need to let us, the Democratic Party, speak on your behalf.
The Democratic Party thus becomes a political "safety valve" for any status quo-endangering movements. ... Acting on behalf of the economic elite, the Democratic Party's historic role has been to make sure that potentially radical, revolutionary movements don't get out of hand, don't go any further than the confines of their oligarchic agenda.
The Democratic Party:
-- sold out the workingclass in the 1870s (re. Tammany Hall).
-- sold out the Populist movement in the 1890s.
-- sold out the labor movement in the 1930s.
-- sold out the civil rights movement.
-- sold out the environmentalist movement.
-- and sold out the antiwar movement -- many, many times.
The Democratic Party has betrayed the antiwar movement four times -- count 'em FOUR times! -- in the past six years!!!!
1.) In 2002, the Democratic Party told the voting public that that year's Congressional elections would *not* be about whether the US should invade Iraq. … Invading Iraq was a done-deal, a bipartisan decision. .. Instead, we were told, and in no uncertain terms, that the 2002 Congressional elections would be about “other issues.” In other words, peace was, officially, “off the table.”
2.) In 2004, what could have been a national referendum on Iraq -- a war candidate, George Bush, versus a (sort of) peace candidate, Howard Dean -- soon became a choice between two war candidates, Bush and Kerry.
3.) In 2006, the Democrats captured both houses of Congress, chiefly because millions of people voted Democratic specifically to have the Democrats end the war in Iraq.
In the days that followed, the Democratic leadership wasted no time making it clear that ending the War wasn’t going to happen.
4.) Which brings us to 2008 and Barack Obama, the king of the con men. "Barack The Peace Candidate" has now become "Barack The Warmonger." How thankful we should be that Barack Obama has “clarified” his position on Iraq -- his position now being that if the commanders in the field say we should stay in Iraq, we stay (Now all we have to do is find a commander in Iraq who's a dove.)
That Obama’s now-clarified position is essentially the same as that of John McCain and George Bush has yet to make an impact on mainstream media. Doubtless, it never will.
In short, Obama wants to be a war president just as bad as George Bush and John McCain want to be war presidents. Obama supports two wars now in progress -- Iraq and Afghanistan; and has indicated his willingness to engage in two more wars --Iran and Pakistan -- with the use of nuclear weapons "not off the table."
The Democratic-Republican duopoly will never allow a national election to become a referendum on war or peace. Why? Because they know damn well that the American public, if given a chance, will vote for peace every time.
See the following site, and tell me how you would like to see your government spend all these billions of dollars -- on war, or on health, education and welfare -- http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
wsws.org site
Your comments simply nailed how Obama is just as much of a warmonger as is McCain. The difference is that Obama's hawkish proposals are not as overt as that of McCain while Obama's militarism is disguised as neoliberal rhetoric designed to sway the American populace that he can order American soldiers into foreign countries in a supposedly more efficacious way than McCain can.
wsws.org thank you. Your reasons should be enough for a 12 yo. to never EVER vote for a Democrat in his/her entire lifetime.
Wonderful post. Maybe its just because I agree with you, but its nice when I see other people 'get it'.
Note that #1 in 2002 was even worse than described above. The Democratic leadership in Congress deliberately supported the Iraq war vote weeks before the elections to try to make it a 'done deal'. That's not just something that happened to the Democrats by accident. That was the deliberate strategy of their party leaders.
Think about that for a second. The Democrats were perfectly willing to start the Iraq war because they thought it would help them win an election. Think about all the destruction. Think about the millions dead. Think about the more than 4000 Americans dead. Remember that this is more than who died on 9-11. Think about the trillion or so that we've spent. Especially when we need it right now.
And remember that the Democrats were perfectly willing to make this country, make this world pay all of this, just because they thought it might give them a better chance to win an election.
I'll never vote Democrat again.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Thank you for this absolute gem:
Should things start "heating up" on the left, should economic turmoil, social unrest and the class tensions that inevitably occur given the inequalities inherent in a capitalist economy -- should such status quo-endangering rumblings develop into broad-based, progressive movements, the Democratic Party is there to co-opt, dilute and eventually betray those democratic, broad-based movements.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
gotta kill... gotta kiiilllll.... gotta KILLLLL!!!
OH LORD, PLEASE LET ME BE THE ONE TO PUSH THE BUTTON!!!
I SO much need the world to believe that I am not weak. I NEED TO KILLLLL!!!
in your name, amen
"It is too bad Ralph Nader was not allowed to debate. He would have put these two clowns in their places." (gracchus September 27th, 2008 12:32 pm)
I am not sure if he would have put anyone in their place but it sure would have expanded the dicussions beyond the narrow narrative presented in last night's debate.
Discussions. (correction)
These comments pretty much show the reality of CommonDreams. Is anybody suppose to take these left wing comments seriously? 90% of the comments here are critical Democrats and Obama. Ever hear of a something called the Republican Party? You are all just jokes, and very bad jokes at that.
CommonDreams is just a tool of the right wing to get McCain votes isn't it?
Come on right winger CD posters...expose yourselves as to who you really are.
kman2
You seem to have somehow missed the point which is that the criticisms directed against Obama is to demonstrate, I believe, that despite what Obama and his loyal followers claim, Obama is much more similar to McCain, especially in regard to foreign policy. I suggest taking off your rose colored glasses and read the comments of wsws. org in order to see the accuracy of those assertions.
Glad to see you taking time away from your busy lying about donations schedule to tell someone to get the World Socialists viewpoint.
kman,
You write:
"Ever hear of a something called the Republican Party?"
Indeed! That's the party the Democratic Party has accomodated and enabled for the past 7 years.
The Bush Administration does what it does because it knows the Democratic Party will let them get away with whatever they do.
Millions of voters voted Democrats in 2006 assuming that if the Democrats won one or both houses of Congress that they would a.) end the war, and b.) impeach Bush. ... Did they?
The Democratic Party is complicit in the war crimes commited in Iraq. They're complicit in the current financial meltdown. And they're complicit in the systematic exploitation of the poor and shrinking of the middle class.
In short, if you're a progressive, don't look to the Democratic Party to represent your values.
It's evidently hard for you to believe that at what's supposed to be a progressive website, CommonDreams.org, there are actually people who support the progressive candidacies of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney!
If I may be permitted a question, kman? ... Does the following excerpt from a recent article by Donna Volatile ("The Obama Construct") make her a McCain supporter?
Ms. Volatile writes:
"McCain is a war mongering bully who is in your face. Obama, on the other hand, is a smooth talker, whose own foreign policy positions aren't too far removed from McCain's, and one has to wonder which is worse, or indeed if there really is any difference at all.
"The idea of voting for the lesser of two evils, McCain being the more evil, according to Obama supporters, seems ludicrous given that both of these candidates will ultimately do the bidding of their masters and the master plan is the same for both parties.
"This should be quite apparent by now and if it isn't, well, by all means vote for Obama and reap your just rewards. ... Do you really think 'Obomba's' idea of war will be kinder and gentler than McCain's?
"Obama supporters will tell you “but he's honest and so sincere”, and “he's run a clean campaign” or “he's one of us” (that one always gets me) but they remain blinded to what is obvious to many on the radical left and many on the traditional conservative/libertarian right: Obama is a player and he is playing the game of the global elitists.
"Since he has all but secured his party's nomination, he's becoming more militaristic by the minute, in both tone and by his stance on several key Foreign policy issues.
"Obama and his VP Choice, Senator Biden, however, are not the crux of the problem but rather the mainstream voters are the problem as they continue to enable the corrupt two party system by consistently supporting the candidates being foisted upon them by controllers who select them in the first place and who are reinforced by the mainstream media machine in the second. These are not choices, these are lack of choices and if voters continue to participate in this sham, then they truly get what they deserve!
"With Obama supporters, the phrase “blinded by the light” takes on a whole new meaning. What part don't you get?! (This is the party threatening to place demonstrators at the DNC in recently erected detention camps and the party whose House majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, ridicules the anti-war movement and the homeless: “If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they'd be arrested for loitering but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment.” Funny how both parties get upset over that whole free speech thing.)
"What is most stunning about delusional Obama supporters is, when confronted by the aforementioned facts about Obama, they counter with this inane idea that Obama is only “saying” these things, he doesn't really mean them, it's only to get elected and once he gets elected the true altruistic essence of the man will save us all from tyranny! (Can we say reality check?!)
"Their indefensible support of this double talker is beyond comprehension. ...
"If you want to help put a stop to the rigged election game, if you really want to make a difference and you want your voice of disapproval to be heard, then VOTE! Vote for ANYBODY but the two buffoons, who have been pre-selected for you by the global elitist machine. Send a message, loud and clear: We refuse your choices.
"Vote Nader, vote McKinney, vote Ron Paul, vote Bob Barr, write in a vote, do whatever but don't support the corrupt system. Commit to a protest vote. Vote your conscience, do not vote under the “lesser of two-evils” threat because then YOU are part of the problem, not part of the possible solution. (We've been on this trip too many times before. From “hope and help is on the way” Kerry to Obama's constant harping on “Change We Can Believe In”, you have been sold a bill of goods from first to last. For all of Obama's talk of change, his words and actions show quite clearly, he means more of the same...)
"For those die hard Obama supporters who refuse to see the hand writing on the wall. ... YOU are the problem. ... For those die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters, promising to vote for McCain because your war-monger wasn't the chosen one, seek psychiatric help immediately.
"And one more thing. ... Evil is evil, bad is bad, wrong is wrong regardless of sex, race, creed or color.
"And another thing. ... If you vote for Obama, you are neither liberal nor are you progressive, so let's get that straight. If you vote for Obama, you are a neoliberal, so get use to it.
"Stop making excuses, there are none and time is running out as an even larger war may be in the making.
"Get those blinders off!
"This is your wake up call!"
(Words in parenthesis Ms. Volatile's)
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.counterpunch.org/volatile08282008.html
Thank god for this comments section. It's the only redeeming feature of CD. I'd support CD's latest fundraiser if they didn't have the obnoxious mandatory default cloaking of the readers' board. What did the CD editor say? that "1000s" had complained about this message board (all Obama drones and people on the Homeland Security payroll no doubt)? Wake up dudes. Even this site is toast with another false flag event.
***
911 was an inside job. Cheney suspended the Constitution via the imposition of Continuity of Government on 911. Congress has been denied access to the COG details. COG is martial law. For more information check out http://prisonplanet.tv/alex_jones_l
Poor Derek. He has to push a button to read the comments.
So who do world socialists support? Is it the socialist candidate?
Note carefully the argument.
If you oppose us fighting a wasteful and deadly war in Afghanistan, you are 'right-wing.'
But somehow if you support Obama's plans to expand the size of the military, expand military budgets, keep us in Iraq, expand our war in Afghanistan, attack across the borders into Pakistan, and attack Iran if Israel wants it, then, what, you are not right-wing?
Note how the Dems do exactly the same propaganda techniques as the Republicans with these Orwellian "War is Peace" type of arguments that turn reason on its head.
Then you see the true nature of the pro-war, pro-corporate Democrats.
If you love war, death and destruction, then vote Obama. Because that's what he's bringin.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
True progressives are not Democrats, just like true conservatives are not Republicans. Anyone who has been paying attention sees the Republicans and the Democrats as our one-party ruling cabal, controlled by the guys with their hands out for a $700B bailout.
"Reality dictates policy. Wishful thinking does not. Its obvious that what Obamqa said about Afganistan will happen, no matter who is elected." (Thomas More September 27th, 2008 12:46 pm)
Thomas I would consider that to be the reactionary approach to foreign policy. Unfortunately I also believe you to be correct where you state that regardless who is elected the war in Afghanistan will escalate.
"Thomas I would consider that to be the reactionary approach to foreign policy."
I would say it is....but unfortunately, I agree, I believe I'm right.
Awesome posts wsws.org site.
I used to have some links to you at an old website of mine before government agencies started crawling all over it last November as they built their 3 million list of domestic dissidents slated for extermination in the FEMA camps.
I despise Obama. And I have extreme doubts about why the f*ck Nader's got to be running against McKinney and the Greens. People against the dictatorship by the elites here in the US must consolidate their base. Ralph could be the goddamn New Deal Czar / Treasury Secretary in a McKinney administration. Why must he be flaming out in his usual egocentric way, using his name recognition to float his campaign rather than the hard stump work that a real movement/party is founded upon? Is he a tool of the "New World Order" bent upon dividing the majority US opposition to the very last breaths of our Constitutional republic?
The US needs a mass movement like some Green/Constitution Party (limited government, disband the Fed, uphold Constitution and Bill of Rights).
What we don't need is another Messiah figure who doesn't care about building a movement.
***
911 was an inside job. Cheney suspended the Constitution via the imposition of Continuity of Government on 911. Congress has been denied access to the COG details. COG is martial law. For more information check out http://prisonplanet.tv/alex_jones_l
Actually though, you are partly right. America does need another political movement. We do need to be building it.
But what's beyond me is why the attack on Nader? He's not doing anything that hurts anything you want. He's talking to people. He's got 5% or so of the people supporting him in polls. He's holding rallies. He's organizing.
Here in Denver at his super rally, he had the Green party in the hall where they could organize themselves too. He got a crowd about 20 times the size of what the Green party could draw, then had both Cynthia and Rosa speaking to the crowd. Both probably spoke to more people that night in Denver than at any other time in that week.
How's he hurting anything?
And, there's nothing to stop anyone from voting for Nader and supporting the Green Party. You can do both at the same time.
And this comes from someone who likes McKinney a lot. I used to live in Atlanta, so I've followed her career and listened to her speak since she first went to Congress. Heck, I was a fan of the McKinney's long before that, dating back to the time when her dad Billy McKinney punched out a racist Republican on the floor of the georgia state house.
But, one thing was clear here in Denver. Nader is the more effective candidate. Nader has a much better organization. Nader's event was far more effective than anything McKinney and the Greens did.
Why not choose the better candidate and rally around that one? I love McKinney, but she struggles to get above one percent in the polls. Why not rally around the stronger campaign?
When you look at it that way, the question turns around. Why are the Greens not supporting Nader?
While I would love to see a president Nader, I just don't know if he has much of a chance getting anywhere even if he were to make it to the White House. I love his ideas and Nebraska would see a new shining light of hope after 50 years of a slow but steady dip into state depression. It's just that there's still Congress, the courts, and the media who would attack him in every way and even go out of their ways to force him out of office. What do you say about the need to reform Congress?
P.S.: If only Nebraska were like Denver. Just yesterday, I tried to talk to a few suburban Stepford wives as you could call them given their staunch support of Palin and conservatism and tried to bring up Ralph Nader. One of them replied "Ralph who?". I don't think most of my state even knows him except for blaming/crediting him for Bush's presidency.