Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 23, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide





The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
The Yankee Years

The Yankee Years

By Joe Torre and Tom Verducci
$17.79

more items

 
A/V Booth

‘Yes, We Can’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 26, 2008
Oabama
AP photo / Steven Senne

The full effect of Barack Obama’s transcendent victory speech in South Carolina has yet to be felt, but his historically stirring and inspirational words have already generated praise from around the country and even across the political aisle. Whether this speech proves to be the turning point in this election, we don’t know. What we do know is that Obama has made Hillary Clinton’s contention that words don’t matter seem so very small and suspect.

Watch it:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Ostrogoth, January 27, 2008 at 7:29 pm Link to this comment

“Obama DOES support Israel, and you are wrong - Israel is not a theocracy. You also present a false choice of Israel or America. The vast majority of Americans strongly support Israel for many reasons, your lies and those your David Duke fellow travelers notwithstanding.” -lilmamzer, January 27 at 2:22 pm

Lilmamzer, this thread was interesting until you started spreading your venom around. Obama, like almost every other U.S. politician, is afraid of the powerful, fanatical racists at AIPAC. He supports Israeli ethnic cleansers for reasons of political expedience, not out of conviction. I mean hey, Obama’s no racist. Unlike you.

Israel isn’t a theocracy? Go tell that to the marines. Israel was founded as a Jewish state, and according to Israel’s Law of Return, a Jew is defined as “a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.” Perhaps “racist theocracy” would be more exact.

You can try to smear critics of Zionism as David Duke fellow travelers, but no one takes you seriously, except maybe your AIPAC fellow travelers. Americans don’t have to choose between Zionism and Nazism. A plague on both your houses.

Report this

By dina Tevas, January 27, 2008 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Democratic Party is Sunk.  Get ready for a McCain-crazy, illogical and truth-challenged 19th Century thinking.  He will complete America’s devolution to a Banana Republic. He will continue the insane and clearly repudiated supply-side economics and unregulated “free-market” mumbo jumbo that enabled China and the Middle East to own half our nation, and companies like GE to continue to dictate our foreign affairs.
Obama is a Democratic aberition-he will be eaten ALIVE by the Republican machine.  These guys play dirty-they invented it. And they are chomping at the bit to get a hold of OBAMA.  The Republican machine is not dead. It is waiting. Like a panther it continues to quietly circle its naive prey.  While we’ve been debating the viablitiy of a female or black president and feeling fuzzy about it, The Republican Machine has spent the last 4 years making sure that the voting rolls continue to be purged and the voter ID laws, which disenfranchise minorities are in place. Recently the Republican party admitted to caging over 100,000 black voters in Kanses. They are doing this one state at a time.

This all brings us back to Obama’s ability to actually get elected in a national election.  He DID NOT CAPTURE THE MAJORITY OF WHITE VOTERS! Edwards got 40% white voters.  White voters still outnumber non-white voters-approximately 70% to 30%.  It makes no difference if Oprah and the world gets behind Obama.  The reality is in the numbers. Thats how we lost the last two elections with White guys running! We need both white and minority votes to count!If minority voting polls have only 1 machine per 500-1000 voters,  their votes will not count.  If the minority voters already purged have not been reinstated they will not be counted. Every Republican leader and corporate titan is laughing all the way to the bank with Obama. 
Clinton is also a disaster-the one candidate that will unite ALL Republicans. They are chomping at the bit for a Whitwater redux. 

Why are the media and so many corporate tools anti-Edwards? It is because he can BEAT ANY Republican and means to take them down.  I don’t understand Obama’s “coming together”  “hope” horse manure.  Republican and Progessive policies are antithetical. You can not sit down with a healthcare company or any large corportation or supply-side tax-cut Republican and come to an aggreement on how to rectify this disasterous ecomomy.  Thats what the Dems did with this useless Stimulus package. We need Great Leadership.  We NEED A leader who will passionately move people across this once great nation to support great change - Not just to FEEL GOOD.  WE need laws to be changed-our rights restored and programs that will enable ALL AMERICANS to feed, cloth and educate their children.  We need to create real stimulus packages that create well-paying jobs in new green businesses and desperately needed infrastructure projects. 
We were a great country-we can be again.  However, it will not happen this election.  Not with Obama and not with Clinton leading our ticket. 

Thanks to our naivete, McCain’s Judaic-Christian nation is now our future.  Good luck to us all:(

Report this

By Maani, January 27, 2008 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

Another soaring, inspiritional speech…

...full of hot air and intoxicating rhetoric, but little else.

When are people going to realize that the emperor has no clothes?  (Or at least only enough to keep him covered…)

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, January 27, 2008 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller and Lilmamzer:

Why should you run from my self-identification as a “left-wing evangelical minister” (which is NOT a contradiction in terms)?  Rather, you should be EMBRACING it!  I am one of a fast-growing number of ministers who, among other things, fully embrace the separation of church and state, and has been fighting the so-called “Religious Right” - and its narrow, “Old Testament Christian” positions - for years.  My “bona fides” re politics go far beyond my faith, as I have not only stated, but should be evident by all you have read from me PRIOR to finding that out; i.e., you may not have agreed with my positions on various things, but those positions are clearly “left” as opposed to “right.”

As for Leefeller’s comment that “Hillary lived in the White House,” this is one of those things in which the Obama supporters want to have it both ways: on the one hand, they claim that Hillary did not get presidential experience “by osmosis” - i.e., by “living in the White House - yet on the other hand she is seen as having been a “co-president” with Bill Clinton, and thus equally responsible for his “failed” policies (but, suspiciously, NEVER equally responsible for his GOOD ones…).

You can’t have it both ways.  Hillary may have lived in the White House, but she did not set policy or govern.  She deserves as chance to do so based on her own beliefs and positions, not on those of her husband - with whom she may very well have disagreed many times, but would not have said so publicly since he was the president.

As for her seeming lack of humility, let me ask you: is it more ambitious (which I assume is what you are referring to) to run for president after (i) having at least been in the White House (which, even if not co-president, would give one SOME experience at it) and (ii) waiting until the middle of your second term as U.S. Senator (i.e., six years), or after (i) having had no White House experience, and (ii) having served only one-half of your first term as U.S. senator?  Personally, Obama seems the less humble of the two in this regard.

As for her being bedfellows with the elite, Lilmamzer answered this perfectly: they are ALL part of the “power elite,” Obama no less than the others.

Peace.

Report this

By lilmamzer, January 27, 2008 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

“Why as a secular American citizen am I required to know anything about Jewish culture, Muslim culture, Buddhist culture, or any other?”

Are you, in fact, required? By whom and in what way?
=====================

“as for the “that’s the choice of the Jewish nation, and no one else’s,” If only it were so!”

You totally missed the meaning of my original post. Not surprising, given how many things you do not seem to fully grasp or understand. You need to go back and read carefully, in the context of the post by Chalmers to which I was replying. Not holding my breath here you will catch on, but all I can do is point you in the right direction. Oh well…....
====================

“I understand that many American Jews have to wrestle with the Zionist propaganda that claims that any criticism of the Chosen People enclave, makes you either a Nazi or a self hating Jew. Just ask Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein.”

LMFAO

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, January 27, 2008 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

Thank you Robert. Although it may seem futile, as an advocate for world peace, I think it is the only course available. To point out the hypocrisy,and possibly cause someone to think… this is for the good. When it comes to violence and weapons to solve problems… just look at the results. Remember this: If You Want Peace Work For Justice.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, January 27, 2008 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

Why as a secular American citizen am I required to know anything about Jewish culture, Muslim culture, Buddhist culture, or any other? as for the “that’s the choice of the Jewish nation, and no one else’s,” If only it were so! Without the billions of dollars funneled into that cauldron, from the country I am a citizen of, there would be no Israel, at least in the belligerent manifestation that it is at the present. I understand that many American Jews have to wrestle with the Zionist propaganda that claims that any criticism of the Chosen People enclave, makes you either a Nazi or a self hating Jew. Just ask Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein.

Report this

By lilmamzer, January 27, 2008 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

Chalmers writes:

” The other, however, means getting the shit about religion out of peoples’ minds once and for all. By that, I don’t mean to attack anyone’s religion but I do mean that the fantasy of Israel as “the chosen ones” has to come to an end rather soon.”

But that’s the choice of the Jewish nation, and no one else’s, Chalmers, including (and especially) you.

It’s called self-determination, and however the Jewish nation chooses to self-identify is none of your business.

Not only is your input unhelpful and mean-spirited, it betrays your lack of knowledge of Judaism and Jewish culture. I’ll let you figure that one out if you can. I doubt that will happen but I can’t just lay it all out for you. At some point you will have to go on a real journey of discovery instead of relying on hearsay and bigoted propaganda.

Not holding my breath, though. smile

Report this

By lilmamzer, January 27, 2008 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller:

“Must admit both are selected for us by the special interests, but Obama and Edwards at least mention the problems with the elite, Hillary is bedfellows with them.”

Obama, Edwards, and any other candidate you will see on the podium during televised debates are themselves part of the Power Elite, regardless of how they try and cast themselves as “outsiders” committed to bring “change”. To think otherwise would be delusional.
========================

“You say you are a left-wing evangelical minister, a contradiction in any term.”

Politics and religion are always a dangerous mix. When Maani broadcasts his bona fides as such, he trades in a subjective and personal moral construct granted by his choice of faith, which may or may not be recognized or even respected by others; to ignore, disregard, or loudly disagree with that is an American right, and we should all be thankful for it. Freedom from religion (and those who preach politics from that perspective) is no less important than freedom of religion.

I’ll tell you this much: whenever I hear “left-wing” coupled with “minister”, I feel like running, fast and hard.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 27, 2008 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

Obama said we need to get rid of the lobbies, what will Hillary do? Yes experience working for wal mart? Your experience claims are bogus as I stated before.  Knowing the world leaders can be a handicap as well as benefit. 

A fresh start would be nice, instead of the same old pablum.  Obama provides a chance for some new ideas to come into Washington, the good old boys are the problem,  even some change would be nice,  Hillary lived in the Whitehouse give someone else a shot, that is is bottom line. 

My problem with Hillary is her seemingly lack of humility.

Must admit both are selected for us by the special interests, but Obama and Edwards at least mention the problems with the elite, Hillary is bedfellows with them.

You say you are a left-wing evangelical minister, a contradiction in any term.

Report this

By lilmamzer, January 27, 2008 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment

Many support Israels right to exist as well as Palistine.

Myself included.
========================

I can’t imagine Barrack Obama supporting a theocracy (jewish sovereignty) over a culturally pluralistic democracy, as reflected in America.

Obama DOES support Israel, and you are wrong - Israel is not a theocracy. You also present a false choice of Israel or America. The vast majority of Americans strongly support Israel for many reasons, your lies and those your David Duke fellow travelers notwithstanding.
========================

Cut Israels reciept of U.S. AID, and rebate every American $200 bucks, now thats a stimulus package.

Your ignorance of how integrated Israel’s economy and her contributions have been in all sectors of the global marketplace in the past two decades is appalling but not surprising, given your hysterical rhetoric.

The US economy, and by direct extension the citizens of this great nation, have benefitted far in excess of the aid Israel has received. Apart from the chips in your computer - designed and produced in Israel - you use daily to slander Israel and her Jewish citizens, have a look at this nifty video - I’m going to buy one for my car soon, too:

http://web.sadna.co.il/ituran/website/demo/move.html

Report this

By Maani, January 27, 2008 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

All:

Re the “money from lobbyists” argument, who cares whether candidates take money from lobbyists, or directly from the industries and businesses they represent?  In this regard, for every dollar Hillary may have gotten from lobbyists, Obama got one directly from the industries and businesses those lobbyists represent.  There is no real difference.

Re the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, while it is true that Hillary voted for it, Obama’s vote was “NV,” meaning either he could not be bothered to show up to vote, or he refused to take a stand on it.  Not exactly a “principled” thing to do, given how much grief he gives Hillary for it.

Jackpine said, “To suggest, as Mr. Chalmers does, that Sen Clinton will clear AIPAC out of Washington is disingenuous.”  Not quite. Doug never suggested Hillary would do so, but only that Obama would NOT.

Jackpine also said, “No president is going to turn the country around.  Change, real change, comes from the bottom up…not the top down.”  Not quite.  While it is true that no president single-handedly turns the country around (legally, anyway…LOL), and while SOME change comes from the bottom up, other changes come from the president working closely with Congress, and foreign leaders.  It is Hillary, not Obama, who has the reputation of being able to “reach across the aisle” to work with the other party.  And it is Hillary, not Obama, who already has relationships with many world leaders - relationships which Obama would first have to create, at a very precipitous time.  Not good.

Jackpine also said, “A hopeful population might have stood up against the Iraq invasion…”  Are you forgetting that over 35 MILLION people in 102 cities in 60 countries - including millions in the U.S. - protested the weekend of February 13th, 2003 against the planned invasion of Iraq?  Yet not even THAT - the largest single protest against two leaders (Bush, Blair) in the history of the world - stopped it.  Which brings me to your final comment:

“But if he can make Americans believe “yes we can”, then he doesn’t have to make those changes.  Americans can make those changes.”  Nope.  And this was the point Hillary was actually making re MLK and LBJ: that all the grassroots organizing and issue-building is for nought if the president (or Congress) simply chooses NOT to go along with it.  Nothing could have FORCED LBJ to pass the two Acts, no matter HOW much pressure there may have been.  Look at the E.R.A. - the women’s movement worked tirelessly - and as hard and long as the civil rights movement - to get the E.R.A. passed.  Yet no president was willing to pass it.  End of story.

Finally, Doug says, “That is rather hard to do while so-called Christian churches are still insisting on proselytizing such garbage in the first place. They all (the preachers) need to urgently get their minds into the 21st century and realize that they have not only led their flocks into a blind trap but that it also means the end for the world through nuclear anihilation.”  As a left-wing evangelical minister, I can assure you that there are an increasing number of ministers who agree with you, and are trying as hard and as quickly as possible to stop the madness in this regard, as well as others.

Peace.

Report this

By lilmamzer, January 27, 2008 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment

Abourezk’s unfair treatment of israel notwithstanding, Israel’s right to remain free and independent as the embodiment of the Jewish national homeland will always be a core platform position of any major candidate, including Obama.

Perhaps Abourezk should think more about the huge injustice of Arab and Muslim genocide against the Jews and address that core issue if he wants to be taklen seriously by more than just the typical (re: Robert) <strike>Truth</strike>CrapDig leftist terror-appeasing shill.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, January 27, 2008 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

Yes, I think of you as a crack up too.

Many support Israels right to exist as well as Palistine.

I can’t imagine Barrack Obama supporting a theocracy (jewish sovereignty) over a culturally pluralistic democracy, as reflected in America.

Cut Israels reciept of U.S. AID, and rebate every American $200 bucks, now thats a stimulus package.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, January 27, 2008 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

THE HIDDEN COST OF FREE CONGRESSIONAL TRIPS TO ISRAEL

Branded as ‘educational,’ these trips offer Israeli propagandists an opportunity to expose members of Congress to only their side of the story.

By Jim Abourezk

SIOUX FALL, S.D. - “Democrats in Congress have moved quickly – and commendably – to strengthen ethics rules. But truly groundbreaking reform was prevented, in part, because of the efforts of the pro-Israel lobby to preserve one of its most critical functions: taking members of Congress on free “educational” trips to Israel.

The pro-Israel lobby does most of its work without publicity. But every member of Congress and every would-be candidate for Congress comes to quickly understand a basic lesson. Money needed to run for office can come with great ease from supporters of Israel, provided that the candidate makes certain promises, in writing, to vote favorably on issues considered important to Israel. What drives much of congressional support for Israel is fear – fear that the pro-Israel lobby will either withhold campaign contributions or give money to one’s opponent.

In my own experience as a US senator in the 1970s, I saw how the lobby tries to humiliate or embarrass members who do not toe the line.

Pro-Israel groups worked vigorously to ensure that the new reforms would allow them to keep hosting members of Congress on trips to Israel. According to the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper, congressional filings show Israel as the top foreign destination for privately sponsored trips. Nearly 10 percent of overseas congressional trips taken between 2000 and 2005 were to Israel. Most are paid for by the American Israel Education Foundation, a sister organization of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the major pro-Israel lobby group.

New rules require all trips to be pre-approved by the House Ethics Committee, but Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Mass. says this setup will guarantee that tours of Israel continue. Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported consensus among Jewish groups that “the new legislation would be an inconvenience, but wouldn’t seriously hamper the trips to Israel that are considered a critical component of congressional support for Israel.”

These trips are defended as “educational.” In reality, as I know from my many colleagues in the House and Senate who participated in them, they offer Israeli propagandists an opportunity to expose members of Congress to only their side of the story. The Israeli narrative of how the nation was created, and Israeli justifications for its brutal policies omit important truths about the Israeli takeover and occupation of the Palestinian territories.

What the pro-Israel lobby reaps for its investment in these tours is congressional support for Israeli desires. For years, Israel has relied on billions of dollars in US taxpayer money. Shutting off this government funding would seriously impair Israel’s harsh occupation.

One wonders what policies Congress might support toward Israel and the Palestinians absent the distorting influence of these Israel trips – or if more members toured Palestinian lands. America sent troops to Europe to prevent the killing of civilians in the former Yugoslavia. But when it comes to flagrant human rights violations committed by Israel, the US sends more money and shields Israel from criticism.

Congress regularly passes resolutions lauding Israel, even when its actions are deplorable, providing it political cover. Meanwhile, polls suggest most Americans want the Bush administration to steer a middle course in working for peace between Israelis and the Palestinians.

Consider, too, how the Israel lobby twists US foreign policy into a dangerous double standard regarding nuclear issues. The US rattles its sabers at Iran for its nuclear energy ambitions –and alleged pursuit of nuclear arms – while remaining silent about Israel’s nuclear-weapons arsenal.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0126/p09s01-coop.html

Report this

By lilmamzer, January 27, 2008 at 2:14 pm Link to this comment

Maybe, just maybe, Barack Obama supports Israel and the preservation of Jewish sovereignty in Israel because it’s the right thing to do.

Catch a clue - Obama does support Israel and the prevention of Arab genocide of the Jews in their national homeland precisely because the Jewish national cause is a just cause.

Justice isn’t justice unless it serves everyone - so-called “Palestinian” Arabs as well as Jews.

And contrary to what Amy Goodman and Ali Abunimah and the other genocide promoters would have you believe, it’s not a zero-sum game. That means Israel as the Jewish national homeland is here to stay, whether you and the rest of the far-left, and the terror-engine of radical Islam, approve or not.

None of you <strike>Truth</strike>CrapDig party-line apparatchiks seem capable of digesting that fact.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 27, 2008 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

Well if that is true, why was Bush and Clinton so successful or did Congress eat their lunches too?

Hillary plays the experience card so well, when her Hubby went into office he had as much experience as Bush.

Not buying experience as anything except a talking point for Hillary.  With all her experience Hillary supported the Iraq war, so much for experience. Weak argument for politics. If you said telling lies was important, I may accept the argument.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, January 27, 2008 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment

Thank you. The idea here is to get everyone to think.

Report this

By Artist General, January 27, 2008 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

DEMOCRACY NEOCONSTIPATED?
A SENSIBLE PLACE TO START…

FOOL-SOFTENER:
APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE WARHEAD($)
(An Aid to Impeachment, Infected-Regime-Change, and the General Moral Health and Well-being of Vital Opposition-Party Body Politic, Historic American Principle & Constitutionally-Cherished Commonwealth)

WARJONE$:  DEBAIT THE HOOK
Martial Planners Unrecu$ed?!
But WHY?!
just asking… NOT!

...that is, till NOW!

RE: ‘BETRAY US’ CONDEMN MOVE-ON ‘RESOFIASCOLUTION’

ANTI-WAR PROGRESSIVE RESPONSE—

‘AN ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION’

—A COMPARABLY-OBVIOUS POLITICAL ‘GESTURE’ FAVORING OUR SIDE—ON SALIENTLY ABSOLUTE MORAL HIGH GROUND—

FORCING THE GOP TO VOTE IN GLARING FINAL EFFECT:

TO “INSULATE” FROM POSSIBLE “PERSONAL” SACRIFICE
A WAR CABINET OF MULTI-MILLIONAIRE CHICKENHAWKS.

IN THIS AGE OF ‘BLIND-TRU$TED’ OFF-SHORE LOOP-HOLED DEFENSE-INDUSTRIOU$ ‘HEDGE FUNDCETERA’

~AN “OATH” OF MARTIAL OFFICE~

IF NOT, WHY NOT?

DEMAND FROM ‘WAR PRODUCT-LAUNCHING BUTTON-PUSHERS’ AND ACTIVE OPERATIVES A SIMPLE “YES” OR “NO”

(FROM CHENEY-BUSH RIGHT ON THRU TO RICE, RUMSFELD, LIBBY, WOLFOWITZ, CARD, ROVE, BREMER, ETC—)

THEY OWE AMERICA AN ANSWER TO THIS
“RECU$AL-FOR-LIFE” QUESTION

FROM THE WAR CABINET ITSELF AND ‘JOINED-AT-THE-HIP-OF-THE-[“OUR DUE”] VICEBERG—WHIGS, NEOCONS:

IN THEIR COLLECTIVE FACE

~A MEASURE OF CHARACTER IN A QUESTION OF HONOR~

‘UP CLOSE & PERSONAL’ AS HILLBILLY ARMOR

~TO ANY AND ALL MEMBERSHIP IN THE FEDERALLY-PAYROLLED, ELECTED & APPOINTED SECTOR OF THE PNAC GALLERY

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

BY THOSE IN THE WHEELHOUSE OF WAR,

THERE CAN BE NO HONORABLE RECEPTION
OR ACCEPTABLE INHERITANCE
OF PRIVATE TREASURE FROM PUBLIC BLOODSHED

...NO “OTHER PRIORITIE$” ...
NO BLESSING$ TO COUNT OR COURT
IN THE RUTHLESS CURSE OF WAR

AND NO OUTCOME TO MORE OBTAIN
THAN THE SOONEST POSSIBLE PEACE

THAT ANY COLLATERAL IMPULSE TO FREE MARKET OR FAMILY FORTUNE BE PURGED FROM THE MEANS TO THAT END…

(Complete text @ http://artistgeneral.com )

Report this

By waxman, January 27, 2008 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

CONGRESS WOULD PREFER OBAMA AS PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY CAN CONTROL HIS INEXPERIENCE EASIER THAN MCCAIN OR HILLERY…THE GOOD OLE BOYS WILL EAT HIS LUNCH….

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 27, 2008 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

Obama stated we need to get the lobbies out of Washington. That is one change.  Listen to his South Carolina Victory speech.

Report this

By Margaret Currey, January 27, 2008 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Whatever happens Obama or Clinton both are qualified but Bill Clinton sort of made it look like Hilliary will not be her own person as president, and the other side will be sure to let people know about Bill and what he did in the WH and they will put it into the minds that he will do it again, of course one would wonder why he would shoot himself in the foot again, but the masses don’t always think.

The deep south will not vote for Obama unless the vote is fair then maybe the deep south will change, but not as fast as people would want.

Obama would make a good president, what he lacks in experience he would make up for in good judgement, after all he did write a book something that Bushie Boy could not do he does not even have a good command of the English language.

I bid you’all peace

Report this

By troublesum, January 27, 2008 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

I think Obama needs to say specifically what changes he wants to bring about.  He can’t run on a one word platform.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 27, 2008 at 11:06 am Link to this comment

By thebeerdoctor, January 27: “These are taken from Barack Obama’s official web site…. I have heard Mr. Obama compared with MLK…. Obviously he must have skipped the part where Dr. King said that America was greatest purveyor of violence in the world…”

Change we can believe in…??? Hardly, thebeerdoctor, and words like “the crucible of the sword” and “I am not against all wars” will also go down in history along with some of the more fantastic erroneous idealizations on BO’s ring-thing logo website as regards foreign policy.

This is, after all, where the USA engages the rest of the world, whether for trade and commerce or security. Strangely, security has come to mean war and you can be sure that BO would never be opposed to that kind of war, especially if it was for his precious Israel and as long as it benefitted the military-industrial complex!

Judgment You Can Trust??? http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

Ending the War in Iraq - “As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq…”

That was the very “I do not oppose all wars” hypocrisy of addressing a 2002 anti-war rally and then calling his duplicitous statements “anti-war”, uhh. The idea that white men fancifully went to war to kill each other over a bunch of black slaves seemed to amuse his delusions of how to achieve freedom by spilling someone else’s blood!

Iran - Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: “Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.”

That was NOT his position in August last year when he supported the Bush administration’s intention to escalate military attacks on phantom Al Qaeda bases in Northern and Western Pakistan. Many innocent people had already been killed in repeated errors in targeting by the US forces!

As it is, the Bush administration no longer needs the approval of Congress to launch a war and any excuse for a nuclear pre-emptive strike is being diligently worked towards, even in the past few weeks - Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,,2244782,00.html

Obama has actually effectively demonstrated that he has been totally under the control of the Foreign Relations Committee’s Condoleeza Rice!!!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 27, 2008 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

Agree with you TW.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 27, 2008 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

Chambers,

I am talking about Lobbies all lobbies not just Israel, I do not admit anything except that if undue influences are the problem, and many of you seem to believe Isral is the only lobby in Washington, the elimination of lobbies would be a good start. All lobbies.

You are a Hillary supporter anyway, she is bought and sold by lobbies and special interests.

Report this

By jackpine savage, January 27, 2008 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

No, we still haven’t seen a white woman in the white house…but to the world at large, electing a white woman is no big deal.  We are simply way behind the times on that score.

Electing a president of mixed race is a big deal.  Britain has never had an Indian prime minister.  Germany has never had a Jewish prime minister.

And comparing the two is rather banal.  Gloria Steinem tried it with the “Black men got to vote 50 years before white women”.  But white women have never been lynched or enslaved.  It didn’t take 500,000 deaths, a century of violent discrimination, and a massive social movement for white women to get the vote.

I’d be happy to see a female president of the United States…and proud. (I actually voted for the World Workers Party in ‘96 because they nominated two women.)  But i think that the symbolism of electing a colored person is far, far more potent.

Finally, i’m not sure what horoscopes have to do with making a good president, but i’ll say this: i nearly married a woman who is a Scorpio and i don’t want one of those anywhere near the most powerful position in the world.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 27, 2008 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

Come on, Al Gore! Endorse Obama. You know you want to!

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 27, 2008 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

Oh, boy! White liberals flock to Obama’s banner. Can Clinton win the nomination without white liberals, when Obama is such an outstanding alternative - and there is also another good alternative in Edwards? I think it’s pretty tough.

Report this

By jackpine savage, January 27, 2008 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

Ok, people, this talk about AIPAC and supporting Israel is circular.  How many times has Paracelsus pointed out that to get to this level in American politics one must toe their line?  I was disappointed by the letter that Sen Obama sent to the UN recently.  But we should also consider that part of his family is Muslim.  We can assume that many Muslims in the world will see this as a sign of at least some progress, and, er, hope.

To suggest, as Mr. Chalmers does, that Sen Clinton will clear AIPAC out of Washington is disingenuous.  I watched her give a speech at an AIPAC conference where she said that under her, ‘all options’ would be on the table in regards to Iran.  Translation, “Trust me, i’d nuke Iran.”

Sen Obama has not produced enough substance to satisfy me, but my standards are high…and i long ago gave up on the idea that an electable candidate would rise to those standards.

No president is going to turn the country around.  Change, real change, comes from the bottom up…not the top down.  The biggest positive that Sen Obama brings to the table is that he seems capable of inspiring people to involve themselves in the process, and that is what we most need.  Yes, hope is overrated, but without it there is only apathy.  A hopeful population might have stood up against the Iraq invasion or the systematic looting of the treasury.  Our apathetic population does nothing.  It allows our nation to be plundered and commit acts of aggression, because it is apathetic.  That same apathy allows our political system to be manipulated by the likes of AIPAC.  An unapathetic electorate would make sure that America acts in America’s interest, not Isreal’s.

No, Sen Obama cannot change that singlehandedly.  But if he can make Americans believe “yes we can”, then he doesn’t have to make those changes.  Americans can make those changes.  And, after all, it is the job of Americans to make those changes in a government of, for, and by the people.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 27, 2008 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

#By Leefeller, January 27: “If Obama gets the Lobbies out of the halls of Washington, that would even mean the special words of wisdom coming from Israel…”

Ahh, Leefeller, you just said “some people attack Obama because he is said to support the plight of the Palestine people…” and now you admit its him supporting Israel. Do you even know which is which - really???

But, getting the lobbyists out of Washington is not quite the same thing as disconnecting from AIPAC, though. One means putting an end to the special interest games always being foisted onto government and thus onto the people by big business.

The other, however, means getting the shit about religion out of peoples’ minds once and for all. By that, I don’t mean to attack anyone’s religion but I do mean that the fantasy of Israel as “the chosen ones” has to come to an end rather soon.

That is rather hard to do while so-called Christain churches are still insisting on proselytizing such garbage in the first place. They all (the preachers) need to urgently get their minds into the 21st century and realize that they have not only led their flocks into a blind trap but that it also means the end for the world through nuclear anihilation.

The people of ones’ own country should be regarded as the “chosen ones” as far as government is concerned. Some bunch of parasitic European Jews who arrived in Palestine in the 1950’s and onwards and decided that it was a good place to change the name of to the fantasy state of “Israel” shouldn’t rate a second thought.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 27, 2008 at 10:22 am Link to this comment

Anyway you look at it a lie from anyone is the same, a lie.  So why the white man comment?

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, January 27, 2008 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

There’s an old Indian saying, “White man speak with forked tongue.”

Now, if Obama’s elected, we’ll get to see if “Partially Black man speak with forked tongue, too.”

One tine is labeled “what I think I need to say, even though I know it’s a crock of shit.”  Another, “what I believe” and another, “PC stuff.”  The fourth is “the truth,” but this one’s seldom used.  Of course, you have to allow that “White man spoke with a three-prong forked tongue.”  I think the utensils I ate with while visiting historical Williamsburg did, in fact, have three prongs and they were not only English, I think, but did come from the era of “forked tongue speaking white men.”

Then, not to beat a dead horse, you also have to allow for the possiblilty, if not probability, that “white man ears are wired in four-channel stereo or surround sound.”  Then it does get a little confusing and complicated when “what I think I need to say, even though I know it’s a crock of shit,” enters the channel marked “the truth,” and so forth. 

I think this BS might perfectly sum up why we find ourselves in this tricky place in our lives and history.  The answer, of course, is to go back to monaural and eating with our fingers.

Report this

By don knutsen, January 27, 2008 at 9:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wouldv’e certainly rather had D. Kucinich oor Edwards riding this wave, but Obama is better the Billary as far as hopefully addressing the needs of the many. The question is, should he remain on top all the way thru the primaries, ( can you hear the hacking of the ballot machines yet )  will the special interests, and their subserviant repub.s allow him to live or will he meet the same fate as others in our past who were speaking of the kind of changes to take our country back from the corporate interests that this administration has pandered to ?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 27, 2008 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

The people have always been cannon fodder for the elite, some people attack Obama because he is said to support the plight of the Palestine people, so pick a side, if you want, I will prefer to clean up the mess at home. 

Sure Obama’s words are only words, what would you prefer?  Other candidates offer nothing more than words, at least Obama’s words seem to be more in tune with what I hope to see for our future and it seems the people of South Carolina agree.

After the lying bush, we can use some positive words of hope and change.

Report this

By Urban Mari, January 27, 2008 at 9:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If, by the time the presidential ballots have been printed, you believe that none of the candidates deserve your vote, then you should still go to the polling place. 

Register your protest vote—get it recorded!  Request a write-in ballot, and then write ‘No Confidence’—that would be more adult than writing in Mickey Mouse, and the subsequent news reports would indicate your collective seriousness.

Report this

By Urban Mari, January 27, 2008 at 9:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would like to interject that if Anyone has a point to make, and wishes to back it up with ‘evidence’ of ANY kind, that person should also do their homework and Choose the best link(s) that support their post.

It’s like posting with footnotes.  That way, Everybody can see who you take to be credible sources, and how well you can support your arguments.  It is also a common courtesy, as many people have many other things to do besides factcheck your argument.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, January 27, 2008 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

Here it is:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, January 27, 2008 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, it would be wisdom to vote or not vote for a candidate not simply for their words, but their actions.I do not think it is “sick” to question a foreign policy that puts the American people at great risk, simply because a few well connected people choose to embrace a Zionist myth. Check out:
http://www.chomsky.info/

Report this

By Urban Mari, January 27, 2008 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maybe I’ll just speak for myself, but Obama has never made my “BS” detector go off.  He speaks genuinely, unlike so many we’ve seen in all of our lifetimes.

To decide—from Latin decidere, literally, to cut off,
    OR
To choose—to select freely and after consideration

Anyone can make decisions based on an issue or two, but I have chosen Barack Obama.

Report this

By Maani, January 27, 2008 at 9:25 am Link to this comment

As noted, Cyrena, the reason you can say “I don’t know what to say about this Beerdoctor…I can only continue to say that it surprises me” is because you don’t do enough research NOT to be surprised.  Had you done research on this - something you claim is important to you - you would have known this.  But either you don’t do the research, or you cherry-pick what you research and bring in only those cites that support your pre-conceived beliefs.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, January 27, 2008 at 9:16 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

Yet again with the laziness; not wanting to do your own research.

troublesum is probably (though I am admittedly guessing here) referring to the fact that, despite Obama’s soarin anti-war speech prior to the invasion, once he arrived in the Senate, he voted identically with Hillary on every appropriations bill for continuing to fund the war.

As well, his Senate voting record on issues relating to civil liberties is no better than Hillary’s.

I’ve already done this research - checking 15 pages of single-spaced votes for each of them, cross-referencing, and funding that Obama and Hillary voted identically 94% of the time, on every conceivable issue - the closest of any two senators.

For God sake, do your own research once in a while.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, January 27, 2008 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

As usual, you want everyone else to do your research for you.  You are unquestionably the laziest person on these boards.  Read Obama’s speech to AIPAC.  It is easily found by Googling; no one should have to spoon-feed you.

Peace.

Report this

By souljaEXVOTO, January 27, 2008 at 8:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bottom line, whose finger do we want on the trigger? Preferably someone who will not pull it. Obama seems like a human before he is politician and the Clintons are politicians before they are anything else. We all know this.

Seeing him speak a year ago here in Louisville was not like a political event, but more like a Motivational seminar mixed with an Urban Church Revival mixed with a Beatles Concert or something ... big, unique, historic. Every color race & gender was there in double loops around the block in a blizzard and this was a year ago! Before he had any security even. The man is on fire! Read Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement of him today in the NYT ~ A President Like My Father, and just try to imagine how much more he as a human will bring to our ailing nation than the Clintons with their mechanical agenda and their connections and piggish hunger for ultimate raw power. They act so entitled! It makes me sick how Bill Clinton is behaving.

I love Kucinich the most. And Gravel. I’m a woman and a feminist, but I am not at all fooled into thinking Obama will elicit the same hysteria that the Republicans would exhibit if the Clinton’s were back for the “Restoration”. Think of how much time they wasted when they were impeaching him. The reason the Christian Neocons took over was because the slimy man turned the Oval Office into the Oral Office. I, the liberal wonder woman,  will never forgive the bastard for that. I call it the BLOWJOB HEARD ROUND THE WORLD!!! That made Rove’s job so easy. What we really need is a Renaissance. And a cool finger on that fuckin trigger.

Report this

By cyrena, January 27, 2008 at 8:37 am Link to this comment

I don’t know what to say about this Beerdoctor, even though I admit that I’ve never seen this on his website, I’m willing to look again. (I haven’t looked recently)

So, I can only continue to say that it surprises me, because while I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised if he said NOTHING about it, or even ‘little’ about it, I have to stay suspended in a bit of disbelief about this, ONLY because of what I mentioned before, which was his rather long term committment to the Palestinian cause.

So, I’m certainly willing to go back and check his website, to see if these things are actually posted there. And if so, I’d give anything to ask him directly about it. Again, it’s totally contrary to his earlier work with Edward Said, (among others) on behalf of the Palestinians.

And, I can’t think of ANYBODY who actually believes that what Israel did to Lebanon last summer, was in anyway acceptable. (I mean, aside from Condi Rice and her bosses, since she probably flew the bombs over there herself).

So, I dunno. I try to stay open to even the biggest of the shockers, and even if the reality is more than I wanna believe. So, I’ll have to check this out more I guess. I don’t wanna be accused of closing my eyes to crimes, just because ‘my kids did it’. (or, you get my point).

As for the comparison of Obama to MLK, let’s be fair on that issue. Like so many other things, OBAMA himself, has never made that comparison or claim. So, I don’t want to put that on him. The MEDIA puts that on him, and the media these days, is simply no friend to ANY of us. That too is awful, but it’s also the truth.

Another example of the same, (though it wasn’t the media) was when Bill Clinton compared him to Jesse Jackson…just the other day. Now THAT, was nothing more than a dirty trick.

So, Obama is simply himself, whether one likes him or doesn’t like him. The comparisons shouldn’t be made, but that’s exactly what the grapevine will do. And, that’s how the rest of us get suckered every time.

So, I don’t think that Obama has forgotten that MLK said that America was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, and I haven’t forgotten that Obama was always adamantly opposed to the illegal war of agression that is being waged in Iraq, or that he still is.

So yeah, I think there’s at least SOME change we can believe in. Can you think of anyone else who actually offers the change, whether we can believe in it or not? Maybe John Edwards, despite the fact that he was intitally all for it himself. Still, he has convinced me that he’s changed his view on that.
But, there’s nobody else who seems to remember those words from Dr. King. Or maybe they really don’t care that America is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world…especially when it makes them oodles and oodles of money.

Meantime, I’ll check out Obama’s website again, since this part about Israel is for sure the opposite of what he’s been saying for the previous decade, on this same subject.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 27, 2008 at 8:37 am Link to this comment

Obama’s rhetoric, stirred up the pot and Washington special Interests do not like his rhetoric, he is saying what the people want to hear, interests are not very happy with some of his comments.  Obama’s negative attack on lobbyists running the country and the need to stop them really hit positive buttons in me book. 

Special Interests,  pushing the old black against the white,against the Latino buttons harder will not work, the people are not as ignorant as the schools were supposed to make us.  We are all on the same boat. 

Obama supports Israel, which candidate doesn’t?  Your hate goes so deep some of you are sick folks.  If Obama gets the Lobbies out of the halls of Washington, that would even mean the special words of wisdom coming from Israel.

Obama says the words I want to hear, so why should I vote for someone else?

Change is in the air, accept it. Vote Obama

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, January 27, 2008 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

Obama isn’t stupid, to suddenly become critical of Israel and it’s foreign policy at this stage of the election would cause the majority of newspaper editors, political pundits and media talking heads to come out of the woodwork with burning torches and stakes.

Such is the Israeli control of our media.

Report this

By Hank Van den Berg, January 27, 2008 at 8:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What we have learned is that Obama is a great speaker.  That puts him head and shoulders above the other candidates.  We also notice that when he speaks, he actually makes sense.  His words are coherent, they have a serious meaning that people can grasp, and they are consistent.  This further elevates Obama above the field of blathering idiots and lying opportunists. 
What we don’t know, of course, is what Obama’s policies will be once he takes office.  But we don’t know that for any of the other candidates either, except for scary religious people like Huckabee or corporate tools like Romney.  The special interests will work very hard, and spend lots of money, to control government behind the scenes, Obama’s ability to speak and inspire should not be minimized.  He has the ability to mobilize the voters and the people.  Unity in numbers is the only couterforce to the day to day financial power of the special interests.  In fact, there is no hope of change without the oratory and leadership skills Obama has. 
Of course, there is no guarantee of success.  Obama’s speaking ability is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for change.  Still, that means he represents hope.  The rest of the field is simply hopeless.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, January 27, 2008 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

Dr. Ron Paul makes a very valid libertarian point, despite any of his bigoted shortcomings. To quote Mark Twain: “I am opposed to have the eagle put its talons on any other land.”

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, January 27, 2008 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

truthdweller, thank for checking out the DN! link. What do I think of this? Well check this out:
“Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America’s strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.”
Or:
“During the July 2006 Lebanon War, Barrack Obama stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria’s involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel’s right to protect its citizens.”
Or:
“Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.”
These are taken from Barack Obama’s official web site. I have heard Mr. Obama compared with MLK. Obviously he must have skipped the part where Dr. King said that America was greatest purveyor of violence in the world.
Change we can believe in?

Report this

By Sharon Ash, January 27, 2008 at 7:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama…Elmer Gantry recycled!

Report this

By coolrebel, January 27, 2008 at 7:26 am Link to this comment

there’s a new political affliction going around, like a bad cold. It seems that many formerly cool headed political journalists and commentators are OB’ing on Obama’s ‘transcendant’ rhetoric.

The opinion pages at the NYT seem to be enthralled, vast seas of voters desperate for ‘change’ seem to be captivated, even Republicans are getting the bug.

But the truth will out. Obama is a superb campaigner, as is his opponent. But BO is one step ahead. He realizes that substance has become a positive disadvantage. That we the tired, hopeless masses are looking for a political messiah to take us out of the thorny bush. The fact that Obama is a centrist and serial compromiser with no real hope of achieving his aisle-crossing magic is irrelevant. It’s the way he dreams that counts.

Will it carry him to victory on 2.5. Probably not. But if it does. The soaring rhetoric will have to end right there. Spouting de-contextualized ‘change’ is not a platform. It has a limited shelf life. The man will have to step up.

What we will see then is someone far more akin to Colin Powell (not a bad thing it has to be said). BO will position himself as someone perfectly positioned to steal independent minded Republicans. Combine that with his obvious oratorical skill and it’s a recipe for victory in November without a doubt.

Will a BO victory be the beginnnig of a national transformation? Not in a million years.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 27, 2008 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

By truthdweller, January 27: “BACK IT UP CHALMERS!!!. We wanna hear Barack Obama say what you’ve just said on his behalf…”

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response…... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 27, 2008 at 6:32 am Link to this comment

By Rasputin2010, January 26: “Lot of jaded remarks here….. “you still have made a choice.”..... After 8 years of f’in Bush, Obama would seem like a miracle…”

Interesting what you say about “seeing a black man in the White House….(as) a pretty powerful message to the world today…”, Rasputin2010. But we still haven’t seen a white woman in the White House yet, either.

It is also interesting to note that Obama is a senator in Illinois where Hillary was born. Additionally both Obama and her husband, Bill are Leos. Make what you like of that but she is a Scorpio and will win out over Obama in the end just as she has with Bill.

Hillary has set transformation as her goal and has accepted transformation in herself in order to reach that goal. When she does get into the White House, she will then implement a program of transformation which will take the country forward regardless of what the fools in AIPAC have to say about it:-


“Hillary Diane Rodham,  was born on October 26, 1947 ......first child, two brothers, Hillary’s childhood in Park Ridge, ILLINOIS, was happy and disciplined .........” 5’ 6”, blonde hair, blue eyes, Methodist - SCORPIO!  http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43 
“After graduation, Hillary ...... joined the impeachment inquiry staff advising the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives ...........”  http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/hc42.html  Her opponent, Barack Obama, represents ILLINOIS…....


Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961 (Hillary’s husband, Bill, was born 19 August 1946 - both are LEOS!) to an American mother and a Kenyan father ......his parents ......divorced .......Obama lived in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather for part of his childhood, returning to Hawaii to finish high school….......”  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930136.html 
“Obama represented the South Side of Chicago in the Illinois State Senate from 1996–2004 as a Democrat. In 2004, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, winning with 70% of the vote against the conservative black Republican   .........”  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-youth-story,1,4006113.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Report this

By truthdweller, January 27, 2008 at 6:02 am Link to this comment

This is a PS to the above post, which actually should have been posted as a reply to the link that thebeerdoctor posted for us, which is a link to an interview that AMY Goodman did with Ali Abunimah, on where the Presidential Candidates stand on the Israel Palestine Conflict.

So, here’s something else I noted from the interview, that makes it all the more curious. Ali ALSO says that Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have been the only ones to speak out AGAINST (and forcefully) Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians…here’s that quote:

“..The only ones who have taken forceful positions opposing the current US strategy are Dennis Kucinich on the Democratic side and Ron Paul on the Republican side…”

HUMM…now THIS is what one might definitely call a little bit of a twisting about, because the ONLY thing that RON PAUL has said, is simply that the US shouldn’t be IN IT - AT ALL!! He’s NEVER suggested that the US should maintain or change it’s policy to favor the Palestinians, or even to force Israel to pay attention to International Law. EVER! Ron Paul is clear that the US should have NO OPINION, one way or the other!!

Come on! This is the same guy who says that all Martin Luther King Day is, is “Hate Whitey Day”. He was opposed to making it a National Holiday, just as he’s opposed to anything else that favors any minorities of any stripe/creed/color/etc. And he’s DEFINITELY never taken a stand on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, aside from to say that it’s none of our business, and in effect, let them just fight it out with themselves.

So, this interview, and what Ali is saying, is sounding more and more suspect. Maybe I should write to Amy Goodman. She usually has far more credible folks on her show. Or, maybe Ali was just really confused. Or, maybe he didn’t know.

Report this

By truthdweller, January 27, 2008 at 5:44 am Link to this comment

beerdoctor…

Thanks for posting this link to Amy Goodman and her interview with Ali Abunimah. I read his publication often, though admittedly not lately, since my work has been otherwise directed.

HOWEVER, I said that to say, that I find him, as well as the Electric Intifada a generally reputable publication, and I’ve read his other work as well. His book, “One Country” was excellent. (or so I thought, a few of my colleagues have shown some criticism)

So, I am not really ‘disturbed’ by his comments regarding Obama and the Palestinian cause, until I get the part where he says this:

•  “….And just yesterday, he apparently sent a letter to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador at the UN, to urge the US not to allow any resolution to pass criticizing Israel and saying how Israel was forced to impose this barbaric medieval siege on Israel…”
Now, this sounded almost well…unbelievable to me. This is, at least in part, because I am aware of the extensive involvement that Barack Obama has had in the Palestinian cause, as well as the rather close relationship that he maintained with the late Edward Said, who was extremely involved in that effort. Although a scholar, it was in fact very much a part of his life’s work. And Obama was also involved, from way back, even prior to this 1999 event that Ali Abunimah relates.
So, I was like all fired up, and ready to track down Barack (if I could) on the campaign trail, or wherever he might be, or start firing off a whole bunch of letters and/or emails, to really give him a piece of my mind. (as if he might be inclined to listen, eh?)
But then, just for the heck of it, I decided to go back and look at the date of this interview. Well, it was 2 days ago, (or now 3) on the 24th of January. AND, he says that JUST YESTERDAY, he (Obama) ‘APPARENTLY’ (the emphasis/caps are mine) sent this letter to Zalmay Khalilzad, blah, blah, blah. Well ya know, THAT is very, very, ‘suspect’ to me, because I think there are probably several thousand witnesses that would put Barack in S.C on Wednesday, the 23rd of January, and while that doesn’t mean that he absolutely COULD NOT have dashed this letter off to Khalilzad at the UN, there is something that makes me very much question that, ESPECIALLY since I know what Barack’s position has been on this, for so many years. In short, I can see where he has not given the matter the same attention (since his campaign) as he did before, or even since he’s been in the US Senate, because he’s apologized for it, I simply find it impossible to believe that he’s done a 180 degree flip.

So, I read more, (just another sentence down) and while it might be a typo, read the last line again, when he talks about how Israel was forced to impose this blah, blah, on ISRAEL…So, if one were to read that, and take it at face value, he’s saying that this letter claims that Obama says that Israel was forced to impose these conditions on…ITSELF. (yes, I DO pay very close attention to language and other details).

Here again, maybe it’s a typo, or maybe Ali simply misspoke, since that can happen to the best of us. But, when I put that all together with what I’ve KNOWN to be Obama’s very long term support for the Palestinian cause, along with the thought that he would have been dispatching any letters to ANYBODY, on behalf of ANYONE, in the midst of this S.C. primary, I admit that I’m very, very doubtful about the whole thing.

So, it could be that I might have an easier time contacting Ali himself, to ask him about the ‘apparently’ part of his statement about this letter, to confirm whether or not he really knows this, and/or why he would say it otherwise.

I’ll keep you all posted, for anybody that wants to know, since I certainly do.

Report this

By Expat, January 27, 2008 at 4:14 am Link to this comment

Since the media decided who the candidates will be, what is the great problem here?  It will be either Obama or Clinton, with Edwards possibly crowning a king/queen.  We are back to a lesser of two evils.  What’s new about that?  How do we always end up there?  Sorry, rhetorical question.  Better the devil you know than the one you don’t?  No, I’ll take the devil I don’t know, because there are unknowns with him.  He is a great orator; we haven’t seen this since Kennedy.  I for one miss the absence, especially listening the present president butcher his native tongue.  It offends me.  Words aren’t action?  Ha, I say, because words inspire great possibilities.  After 7 years on the dark side are we so cynical we can’t hold out a little hope for some light?  The Clinton’s have shown a very dark side in their quest for their imagined dynasty.  Do we want that?  I for one do not and given the choices handed to us, I’m going for the gamble.  It couldn’t possibly be worse than the fascist we have now.

Report this

By truthdweller, January 27, 2008 at 3:47 am Link to this comment

Troublesum,

IF this is true, that both Hillary AND Obama have been enabling the bush gangsters in their impeachable offenses, (and it may be) then you’re right, we need to certainly be mindful of that.

But, I’ll have to invite you to prove it, and this link
you’ve provided has not.(at least not for Obama) So, do you have anything else? I’m all eyes and ears.

Report this

By truthdweller, January 27, 2008 at 3:43 am Link to this comment

•  He is still a very ordinary conventional dude in a suit who has declared his unbounded love for AIPAC and little else.

DC…

Can you provide some actual SOURCES for these statements that you love to make. (you and Maani make a great team by the way).

So, since you’ve said….on MULTIPLE occasions, that Obama has declared this allegiance to AIPAC and nothing else, would you be willing to finally back up some –even a tiny bit- of this shit that you put out there?

Now, we’ve already seen how the Israelis have voted, (on who they want for OUR leadership) and it’s been posted all over this site, so there is NO WAY that you, of all people, have missed it. So, we KNOW that they have selected HILLARY CLINTON and RUDY GIULIANI as their ‘first choices” based on what they will do for…ISRAEL, which is based on what they’ve either ALREADY DONE, or already PROMISED to do.

So Douglas, come up with something besides your own bullshit, that makes your claim, that you’ve stated right here…, and in YOUR OWN words…let me repeat the last of them for you…

“….who has declared his unbounded love for AIPAC and little else.”…

SO says Douglas Chalmers…

BACK IT UP CHALMERS!!!. We wanna hear Barack Obama say what you’ve just said on his behalf.

So, let’s just HEAR or READ Obams ‘declarations’ of this unbounded love for AIPAC.

Report this

By Jacks, January 27, 2008 at 3:01 am Link to this comment

Of course words matter, but it also helps when the corporate press is absolutely desperate for you to win.  He says nothing when you actually listen to him.  It fills you up, for sure, but there’s nothing there.  His policies are the least progressive of the three (Edwards being the best).  He doesn’t have the competence in policy matters as demonstrated by his repeated refusal to truly answer questions, but instead depend on rhetoric.

It worked.  It will likely work.  And we’ll lose in November once the corporate press turns on him.

Never underestimate the gullibility of a public.  Hell, about a third of Americans still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 27, 2008 at 1:56 am Link to this comment

The voters of South Carolina repudiated Clinton’s racist tactics by nearly a 30% margin. This was a great victory for those of us who believe that people can transcend their differences and stand united as human beings with common interests in one democracy, e pluribus unum. It was a crushing refutation of Clintonian “politics as usual”.

The Clintons must not be forgiven for this, either by blacks or by white liberals. They should be held up as the example of all that politics ought not to be. To Clinton supporters I say: forget those sleazeballs. Either Edwards or Obama is worth your vote. Kick the Clinton habit. You’ll feel better about yourselves.

Report this

By Rasputin2010, January 27, 2008 at 12:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Good point, jdogg. Lot of jaded remarks here, and understandably so, but you seem to lay out the situation as it exists. What are the alternatives? Kucinich is history, so let’s look at the existing field. I guess one can not vote, but to quote that quote by that Canadian band, “you still have made a choice.” If nothing else, Barack knows how to inspire an audience—that’s a start. Hardly the whole deal, but it’s a start. So would be seeing a black man in the White House. That’s a pretty powerful message to the world today, especially since it wasn’t so long ago that the authorities believed that police dogs and fire hoses were the proper tools for dealing with black folk. After 8 years of f’in Bush, Obama would seem like a miracle.

Report this

By jdogg333, January 27, 2008 at 12:08 am Link to this comment

What are our alternatives? McCain? Romney? HRC? Oh I know, BLOOM-BORG ‘08. He’s got money and…..um…money.(There’s a LOT of CHANGE in his pocket.) I for one don’t want another 4 years of the ReThugs in office. Who is it we should vote for? Should we vote at all? I’m all ears.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 27, 2008 at 12:00 am Link to this comment

By waxman, January 26: ”...AS A USED CAR MANAGER AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS FOR SURE…..I’D HIRE HIM ON THE SPOT…”

Well, Obama is not selling “used cars”,  waxman, but what is he selling, exactly - and who is he selling it to??? Most of the people in the pic above are white.

Its been said that a lot of disenchanted Republican voters have moved camp but they are then backing Obama’s “change”, not Hillary’s for what are obvious reasons to them. Its not the first time that such a thing has happened in a political party although it is not so usual.

In some other Anglo countries, their Democrats equivalent has also undergone change and has been co-opted by a trendy middle-class while the blue collar workers (the ones that Pelosi fancies as part of the new middle class simply because they have jobs) have become more conservative and also tended to move to the Republican camp. Its also part of the global surge in nationalism.

But what, really, is “change that you can believe in”??? As it is not backed up by any significantly different policies, it is most probably referring to Obama’s new wave popularity but not for his actual policies of which he still has not a lot. He is still a very ordinary conventional dude in a suit who has declared his unbounded love for AIPAC and little else.

Report this

By Bernard Freiwald, January 26, 2008 at 11:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank Goodness that someone has a sense of integrity and honesty.

I rather have Obama’s words and ideals then the rantings of Bush and the questional pragmatics of Hill and Bill.

Enough of the old. Change is a must to survive this country into one worth living in.

Report this

By peter, January 26, 2008 at 11:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

why is there no author listed?

and what is so transcendent about the speech? it’s like Obama’s PR chief is writing blog posts for truthdig.

obama might become a better prez than hillary, but that’s no reason to just make stuff up.

Report this

By troublesum, January 26, 2008 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment

Both Hillary and Obama and most of their colleagues are accessories to crime and have been enabling the Bush administration in its impeachable offenses.  We shouldn’t forget this in all the election year hype.
http://www.counterpunch.com/rothenberg01192008.html

Report this

By waxman, January 26, 2008 at 10:38 pm Link to this comment

SIS BOOM BAH….DON’T FORGET, BUSH WAS A CHEERLEADER TOO—-THINK WE NEED ANOTHER ONE ????

Report this

By BlogMoses, January 26, 2008 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

BlogMoses: Open Letter to Barack Obama – The Challenge

Dear Senator Obama,

I am a former Democrat turned Independent voter living in California and I want believe in an UNITED States of America again. I have been watching this primary season very closely and I am encouraged by the intense energy, interest and participation of young voters, new voters and previously disaffected voters. I attribute this enthusiasm more to your candidacy than I do Senator Clinton’s or former Senator Edwards’.  We have seen this in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and now, South Carolina.

I am not against either of your opponents. I love John Edwards’s message about the poor and working families in this country. I would have loved to see him at the top of the ticket in 2004. However, I think about his “fighting” message this election cycle and I wonder, do we want a President to be fighting lobbyists, fighting Republicans, fighting the insurance companies, fighting corporations, fight everyone for 4 years? If he spends all his time fighting all these interests, what will he actually get done? He will need some of these interests to achieve a lot of what he would like to do.

As for the junior Senator from New York, if she is to be the nominee and is somehow able to overcome her high negatives and polarizing persona, will she be able win in states that Senator Kerry lost in 2004? And let’s say she does etch out a one state victory, do we really need to start another dynasty in the White House? There were some great things about the 1990’s and there were some terrible things about the 1990’s, however the country would rather not rehash those battles for another 4 more years. Another Clinton in the White House would mean more fighting with the Republicans who would in turn stall any agenda that she would try to push through further insuring that nothing gets done. And recent events have shown that the Clintons are only concerned about winning at all cost, the Democratic Party, the American people and the country be damned.

Senator Obama I have heard all of your speeches. You talk about MLK’s belief in “the fierce urgency of now” in your speech. So here is my challenge to you Senator. In the next debate (your most challenging format) in California on January 31, can you tell America from the heart why you want to be President? Why should Democrats make you the nominee of their party in 2008? What is your vision for the future of this country and how do your policy proposals support that vision?

I believe these are the essential questions to your candidacy. Could you articulate your vision in a clear, concise and compelling way speaking from your heart and not a stump speech like other candidates? If you can, I believe the Democratic Party will follow, and in turn the rest of the country. I feel the country is ready to be united again. There is a fierce hunger for it. Black, White, Latino, Asian, Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Mormon, rich, poor and everyone else in between loves this country and would like to unite under one leader that represents them all whether they agree with them or not. Show the naysayers. Lead us. UNITE US. The country IS ready.

Sincerely,

BlogMoses
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Report this

By waxman, January 26, 2008 at 10:03 pm Link to this comment

I SPENT SEVERAL YEARS AS A USED CAR MANAGER AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS FOR SURE…..I’D HIRE HIM ON THE SPOT !!!!!

Report this

By troublesum, January 26, 2008 at 9:48 pm Link to this comment

“Transcendent”??  Words mean nothing.  Bill Clinton gave some great speeches during the ‘92 campaign and then promptly forgot every word he said once the election was over.

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.