Cyrena, the latest poll has Obama up 9% in head-to-head competition.  Polls a week ago had him up 6%.  The difference represents a 3% gain for Obama, which contradicts the claim that “Obama is losing support daily.”  Sorry if I wasn’t clear on that.

The problem with most polls is that they do not realistically examine what the race looks like with Barr and Nader in the race.  While one would think that Nader would take votes away from Obama, curiously, in a four way race, Obama’s numbers do not drop.  In the four-way poll I saw, Obama led McCain by six percent head-to-head, but by 13% in the four way competition with Nader receiving 5% and Barr 2%.  That would suggest that Nader is pulling votes away from McCain—Go figure!

Cann4ing writes:

“..Actually, outraged, the poll numbers show Obama’s support gaining daily rather than losing, going up 3 points in a head to head competition.”

~~~~

Isn’t their a piece here on TD that now puts Obama 9% ahead of McCain?

~~~

Meantime, with all due respect to Outraged and all others who feel that Obama has ‘sold us down the river’, is anybody willing to engage in some critical/reality thinking on specifics in that?

For instance, the FISA bill is surely one where he’s been raked over the coals for ‘selling us down the river’. and he could surely have made a different vote on that, which would have changed absolutely nothing.

And I know that Outraged is outraged about his plan to continue to allow non-governmental agencies with religious affiliations to provide social services, and even receive federal assistance in that process. I see it as a ‘corrective’ measure that enforces the prohibitions against discrimination, and also allows for government assisted training of new professionals in all fields..like medical science. (and by ‘corrective’ I mean the same scenario that we’ve been discussing on another thread in terms of Israel’s Zionist objectives of a Jewish Only state
( ie, the US should NOT support a Jewish Only State, and if Israel insists on being that, then they need to do it on their own dime.) Outraged sees this as a clear and absolute violation of the Church State clause, if any of those organizations has an association to a particular religious ideology, regardless of whether or not non-religious types are also associated.

Both seem to be legitimate enough claims, so where is there space for wiggle room? And, is this one of the points where you (outraged) seem to feel that we’ve been sold down the river? That’s what I’m interested in finding out now…in what SPECIFIC instances do any or many of us feel that we’ve been sold down the river, SPECIFICALLY by the sole actions of Barack Obama, (or by HIS stated plans or policy decisions).

I personally have some moderate concerns about the plans for Afghanistan, but they are concerns that could be alleviated if I were more informed of the exact intent of an increased operation there. I think there are lots of things to consider, specifically the conditions that may or may not be existent in terms of the Genocide Convention, or other standard rules of war. Exorcising global terrorist extremists is still relatively new as a concept for intervention, despite the fact that we’ve already ‘intervened’ 7 years ago.

I’m also dismayed by his call for Tehran to suspend their uranium enrichment. Now this has zero to do with selling US down the river, but it does still concern me, in that it is a violation of the NPT, which clearly designates Iran’s right to do that. ITW notices that even in Obama calling for this, he is specifically NOT calling for any military action against Iran, which is more than a minor relief, seeing as that’s exactly what Mad Dog Cheney has been angling for, for years. Still, it does give me pause.

All of that said, can we come up with any other specifics, (that I haven’t thought of) where Obama has personally “sold us down the river?”
Oh yeah. Nobody likes his health plan either. I agree it could be way better, but is also way better than the nothing we have now.

jenne, there are many in the U.S. who are exceedingly well informed; who have access to alternative media, extensive books, etc.  In my case, I have practiced law for 31 years, graduated 4th in a class of 277 from a major law school and hold both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science, and research extensively.  So you are perhaps a bit presumptuous in suggesting you are “better informed.”

I don’t know you personally, but when you start each post with rants about how the Jews control everything, media, money—well, those rants echo the Nazi propaganda that emerged in Europe during the 1930s.  I don’t think it productive to revisit that, and have no more use for it than the anti-Muslim propaganda I see daily from the American right-wing.

As to France, I believe that nation would have been better served if it had elected a socialist.

Actually, outraged, the poll numbers show Obama’s support gaining daily rather than losing, going up 3 points in a head to head competition.  Moreover, in a four way race entailing Obama, McCain, Nader and Barr, Obama’s numbers remain a constant while McCain drops 7%, Nader captures 5% and Barr 2%.

I think it is great that Nader, Barr and McKinney are in the race.  I would love to see the debates expanded (though it won’t happen) so that the scope of discourse will be expanded and Obama will feel progressive pressure, but in the end, it comes down to Obama or McCain.

I don’t disagree that there was massive fraud in both the 2000 & 2004 elections, but the numbers in FL 2000 are such that Gore would have won even with that fraud had the Nader votes gone to him.

Re: cann4ing

I don’t think it’s a “no-brainer” unless you think that people who DON’T THINK will vote for Obama or McCain.  Obama is losing support daily.  This is directly related to his actions of late.  So, when Obama sells the people down the river, they opt out.  No big surprise.

Personally, I think Obama lost any support he had from libertarians, conscientious conservatives and many liberals.  They don’t want McCain so who will they vote for?  These were people who were willing to band together to save America, however Obama shafted them along with the rest of the American public.  Nader would only have to garner little more than 33%...of the vote ...right?  Imagine a close race with a 3-way split.  Hmmmm…that seems doable to me.

I believe the 2000 and 2004 elections were fraudulent so your assertion that Nader was the reason the Dems lost isn’t valid.  Remember.

http://www.votefraud.org/News/2000/2/022400.html

Aside from that, here’s a clip of Nader’s running mate Gonzales from “The Largest Minority” site:

http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2008/07/23/vice-presidential-candidate-matt-gonzalez-national-latino-congreso/

Another article I stumbled upon was this one, appropriately called: “I’m Disillusioned and I Vote: How To Change The System In Five Years” by Chuck Dupree @ The Smirking Chimp site:

“Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose a society like ours in every particular but one: they’re so disillusioned they want to change things, and they begin voting for the candidates, laws, and propositions they think are the best on the ballot.

Take a moment before you say, That’s what I always do.

Many of us, myself included, employ voting strategies. We pick the main opponent of the person we detest the most, or the most likely to win of those we can stomach. This is precisely the thought experiment: suppose we dumped those strategies, and voted for what we really want, given the limited choices on the ballot, for three straight elections. For convenience, I designate those elections with numbers: 2008, 2010, and 2012.

First let me define my terms. Suppose you completely agree with Mike Gravel’s analysis of the Democratic establishment; fine, vote for him. Pick the choice that’s closest to yours. If you think John McCain has the soberest plan for victory, vote for him. If you detest triangulation, don’t vote for anyone who does it. If you respect anyone who’d spend $400 on a haircut, vote for them; if you think that’s equivalent to warmongering, vote against them.”

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9916

Outraged, when it comes to their substantive positions I would concur that Nader & McKinney both are superior candidates.  But, let’s get real.  Neither Nader nor McKinney are going to be the next president.  The real choice is Obama or McCain, and when examined from that perspective, the choice is a no-brainer.

If progressives make the same mistake they did in 2000, throwing their votes to Nader, and McCain is elected, you might not have to worry about 2012 as a McCain presidency portends to the final descent into fascism, not to mention perpetual war and a total economic collapse rivaling that of the Great Depression.

Part 2.

Ralph Nader:

“Now, if the liberals and progressives have this, “Gee, the Democrats have done good things, and they’re not all that bad, and don’t challenge from the outside, and push them the way the Anti-Slavery Party did, and the way the Women’s Right to Vote Party did, and the Labor Party, and the People’s Party in the 19th century.” I hope you’re glad that some voters didn’t go for the least worst between the Whigs and the Democrats on the issue of slavery and voted for the Anti-Slavery Party or the Women’s Right to Vote Party. You’ve got all these liberals and progressives; they’re letting it happen. They have watched while the corporate Democrats have taken control of this party over the years. They have let it slide more and more toward the corporate positions of the Democrats, department by department and agency by agency. If you want to pursue what you want to pursue, Robert, you have to hold the liberal and progressive wing of the party up to higher standards. They’ve got to be tougher, because if they are constantly freaked out by how bad the Republicans are, therefore don’t criticize the nominee, don’t make the demands of the nominee of a condition of support in the Democratic Party, every four years both parties will get worse. The least-worst voting mentality has no endgame. There is no endgame because there is no breaking point, because forever and ever in the future, one party will not be as a bad as the other party. But both of them become worse every four years unless you change that level of urgency….”

....I don’t believe in a two-party that controls a gateway to tens of millions of people by controlling a debate commission of their own creation. I believe in a multiparty, competitive democracy. That’s the only way we are going to get new ideas to get an airing. That’s the only way we are going to get new agendas to get an airing. That’s the only way we are going to get new human energies coming in.  We have a system where it’s a one-party system for most congressional districts due to gerrymandering. Ninety-three percent of all House districts are Democratic or Republican. It’s not a contest. The left people are left with one candidate, the incumbent. It’s getting worse and worse and worse in that way as they carve up the districts depending on who controls the state government, Democrats or Republicans. I find it appalling that someone as promising as Obama is talking about leaving all options on the table against Iran. We know what that code word meant. He just said that we should pursue these terrorists right into Pakistan if [Pervez] Musharraf doesn’t do it; the U.S. military will do it. Doe he have any idea of the consequences of that? To even Bush’s buddy Musharraf in terms of a revolutionary move? And this is Obama. And Edwards? What’s Edwards got to say about the Palestinian/Israeli issue? Has he put forth the kind of constructive program that over half of the Israelis and Palestinians want in a bold way? He hasn’t done that. He hasn’t challenged the military budget. Have you heard Hillary Clinton or Obama or Edwards or Richardson challenge the military budget which is eating the heart out of the necessities of the American people by taking huge middle-class tax dollars and shoveling them into the arms industry and into the corporate welfare kings and etc.? Let’s have a little higher expectation level here, and a higher urgency level. Everything that Robert said should be done, but it’s not enough. I played this game 20 years. The least-worst game.”

Again, the link. (BTW, this was 11-05-07)

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page5/20071105_robert_scheer_debates_ralph_nader/

Obama’s speech definitely shows that he can “talk the talk”, however Obama has certainly NOT shown us he can “walk the walk”.

I thought it a fine speech, moving actually.  But where’s the grit and determination that it’s going take to turn this country around?  It’s certainly going to take more than “a fine speech” to make what is wrong, right.  Obama HAS NOT SHOWN that grit and determination.  He has catered to special interests in lieu of the constitution and hence the American people who, by the way….OWN this country.

With a strong congress and president, those who BELIEVE they own this country and in fact the world might find themselves at the behest of the RIGHTFUL OWNERS OF THIS COUNTRY, the American people.  It would not take much to return the resources and thereby the wealth of this country back to the ACTUAL owners using the rule of law.

In this regard, Obama has not shown himself to endorse this truth.  He along with many others VOTED AGAINST the interests of the American people.

McCain is NOT credible, but neither is Obama.

Please don’t attempt to soft-porn me with it’s “better than” McCain suppositions.  Those who you cannot trust to protect your interests are simply those you cannot trust.  This is not “ideological” as some attempt to suggest, it is simply LOGICAL REASONING.

To skew it otherwise is to attempt to assertain who was worse, Reagan or Clinton…?  A stupid premise.  BOTH sold the American people, the owners of this country, (that means YOU) down the river.  Does it matter their exact contribution..when the effect was one and the same..?  It is OBVIOUS each had their specific part, played it up, and fucked us over.

I could give a shit that Obama is eloquent in his speeches since himself and at least 10,000 other people could do the same.  Many people have this talent, this is not something exclusive to Obama ONLY.

I think Nader would appeal to the majority over McKinney.  Nader will not have a problem delivering “an eloquent speech” if need be.  Nader understands the criminal underlying interests of corporate America and their debauchery in graphic detail.  Nader will stand up to these interests as he has in the past.  Nader is our hope.  Use your head and the blunt facts. Think.

The truth is Nader foresaw this and he said as much when he spoke with Robert Scheer, back when.

Ralph Nader:
“We should always remember that when the Republicans get worse and worse, we tend to get amnesia about the Democrats, if not a little nostalgia. It was Clinton who signed into law the agro-business act, concentrated further power in the hands of fewer agro business giants in 1996. He signed the Telecommunications Act, which all good liberals know was a concentrating factor on the media in fewer and fewer hands. And he signed into law what Bob Rubin wanted him to sign into law, the so-called Financial [Services] Modernization Act, which was breaking down the separation of investment from the Glasspiegel Act, which separated investment from commerce and allowed more city, court, corporations, more concentration of the financial resources in fewer and fewer gigantic multinational financial institutions”....

“....And so, let’s not put the Democrats on too high a pedestal. Let us agree that there’s a least worst operating here, there’s a lesser than two evils. The point is, at what point do we say that there is a breaking point. What is your breaking point, if you support the Democrats, Bob, what is your breaking point? Can you give me a hypothetical of behavior by the Democratic Party, or series of behaviors, where you’ll break with them and support an alternative candidate? Or an alternative party, regardless of their status in the polls because you believe in what they’re advancing? What is your breaking point?”

http://www.truthdig.com/podcast/item/20071009_robert_scheer_debates_ralph_nader/

By deang, July 25 at 11:00 am #

“As the article suggests in the opening, there’ve been occasional comments that a large percentage of the crowd were likely non-Germans.”

~~~

This is like noting the large number of Mexicans, Arizonians, and damn near all other large numbers of people from all OVER of the US and the WORLD… in California.

Jeeze…look at a map for crying out loud. He was there to address EUROPEANS. Berlin was as good a spot as any…probably the best.

Considering your past posts touting the benefits of torture and the wondrous nature of war, Blackspeare, I would say that the problem is not Germans but Nazis like you.

Re CQuil

•  …Was I the only one to find the sight of several thousand Germans packed into a square listening enthralled to a speech just a little bit unsettling?..”

Nope, CQuil, you probably aren’t the ‘only’ one, but fortunately, you’re obviously among the few who see it as ‘hero worship’.

I found the sight of a couple hundred thousand EUROPEANS listening to the speech quite inspiring of progress and hope and was enthralled myself. But then, as a global citizen of the 21st Century, *I* ‘got’ it. It’s because I realize how crucially important it is for the world community to be united, and how much my/our own survival depends on it.

Those of “The Bitter Bone Marrow” would prefer to remain in the swamp of cynical negativity, but you are in a minority. Life goes on, and the newer growth demands solutions to the current realities of the day. So, I guess those among you will stay cramped or root bound (ideologically speaking at least) to the swamp and the waste left from the destruction of the past several years. It would be far better of course, if you of The Bitter Bone Marrow could join us. But nobody can force you, if you choose to stay behind.

So Obama gets it from both ends.  First there’s Bill the Zionist who ignores that during this past week Obama personally visited the Holocaust museum, leaving a fitting tribute in the guest book, but that is not enough for Bill, he wanted Obama to utilize a speech presented to a mostly German audience which cheered loudest when Obama called for an end to the Iraq war and a breaking down of barriers between Christians, Muslims and Jews, to scald his young audience for the sins of their grandparents.

Then there is jenne asker whose posts are so disturbingly anti-semitic that one envisions the Nazi propaganda of the past about Jewish bankers, and Jewish conspiracies.  Next thing we’ll hear from her that Obama is really the reincarnation of Sammy Davis Jr., who was both black and Jewish.

What is it about the eloquence of a Barack Obama that causes nuts like these to fall out of the trees.

The problem is not with Germans standing at rapt attention listening to an orator——the problem is when they begin to march!!!!

Since neither Bush or McCain have the ability or smarts to deliver the speech that Obama gave, their surrogates have no choice but to pout and engage in sour grapes comments. McCain couldn’t attract a crowd of 200 let alone 200,000, in Europe. McCain may be able to con many Americans, but the Europeans have seen enough of American “imperialism” to last them a lifetime. France and Germany were both quick to catch on to the Bush shell game in Iraq while our media and politicians just rolled over and sold out America, our military, and our values. Obama may be able to bring back a lot of the respect we have lost overseas but it will be a tough battle. More and more, even Republican’s are saying, “we just can’t afford four more years of the last eight years.”

As the article suggests in the opening, there’ve been occasional comments that a large percentage of the crowd were likely non-Germans. My first thought when I saw the 200,000 figure was that Americans from the vast US military bases in Germany contributed a lot of people. There are a lot of Americans living in Germany.

I heard a comment on PBS NewsHour yesterday by a German correspondent who was like a quivering schoolgirl as she described being near Obama on the stage. I felt the beginnings of nausea as I listened to her. She was definitely old enough to know better. It was embarrassing to watch, as if you’d burst in on someone while they were doing something private.

I listened to Obama’s speech and felt like I’d just consumed a bag of styrofoam packing chips - filling but not nutritious, lots of air but no substance.

I’m sorry, but Obama’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan into a new quagmire and his support of illegal wiretapping just blew it for me. Like a guy on a bungee cord, as soon as he got the Dem nomination, he snapped right back to the center and way into right field.

Was I the only one to find the sight of several thousand Germans packed into a square listening enthralled to a speech just a little bit unsettling?

I distrust hero worship, especially when the “hero” hasn’t actually done anything.

To the editors and staff of Truthdig.

Thanks for posting this speech.