Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Hydropower Illuminates a Piece of History






Truthdig Bazaar
In Reckless Hands

In Reckless Hands

By Victoria Nourse
$16.47

Beyond Bogotá

Beyond Bogotá

By Garry Leech
$17.13

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Obama Wins

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

Posted on Jan 3, 2008
Obama
AP photo / M. Spencer Green

Barack Obama is the runaway winner of the Iowa caucuses. What began as a virtual tie between the major candidates on election night quickly turned into a decisive victory for Obama. Hillary Clinton, who has frequently touted her electability, came in a close third behind John Edwards.


CNN:

With 76 percent of precincts reporting, Obama had the support of 36 percent of voters, compared to 31 percent for Edwards and 30 percent for Clinton.

Read more

More Below the Ad

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 cyrena, January 7, 2008 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

Douglas,

I wasn’t kidding. I actually DO have stuff to do, even though I also delight in jerking you around.

So…this is an upcoming heavy-duty load for me in my studies, and unless you wanna help out, (Int’l Law IV, Comparative Law II, and The Authoritarian State) then bug off.

Or, make yourself useful and carve me a nice cane, since I need one to hoist my lame/arthritic body around. (and maybe to beat people over the head with). I prefer hardwood. Make sure that it’s study and well-crafted, maybe with a steel beam inside of the wood.

Report this

By cyrena, January 7, 2008 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

Well Patrick Henry,

I don’t think that’s what got Obama rolling. He’s actually been on this roll, (even more than I realized myself) for a long time, and as a result of a very well managed grassroots campaign organization.

That said, I TOO hope that there is a place in the Obama organization for Kucinich. I should also say that I haven’t given up on Kucinich yet. I do like Obama, and I’m glad that he’s done as well as he has, but I definitely would want to see Kucinich in there as well.

Matter of fact, I’d like to think that if Obama gets the nomination, he would select Kucinich as his running mate. That would surely fix the PTB, who have keep him (Dennis) marginalized so far in this campaign.

Now hopefully, Obama has enough sense to know that. I think he does. If not, I’ll have a few words with him. wink

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, January 6, 2008 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment

I can’t help but feel that the bump Kucinich gave Obama got him rolling, I hope there is place in the Obama campaign and maybe future presidency for Dennis, Obama is going to need a few good advisers walking in to that circus of a job.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 6, 2008 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment

By cyrena, January 6: “Tony Wicher - “The link is floating around here somewhere, although I don’t have time to look for it now. No doubt DC has it….. I don’t have time to look at all of these video’s you’re posting. My ‘vacation’ time is winding down, and I’ve got real work to do…”

Lame, really lame, uhh!

Report this

By cyrena, January 6, 2008 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment

Tony,

BB, is Benazir Bhutto. She said in an interview with David Frost, (just last November) that Osama bin Laden had been murdered. In that particular interview, she DID NOT say ‘when’ this allegedly happened, so I don’t know where DC came up with 2001 or 2002.

She did say it rather matter-of-factly though, simply in explaining the various and sundry groups and individuals who might be after HER. So, it wasn’t like a conversation ‘about’ OBL, but just came up as a matter of course in respect to what they WERE talking about.

The link is floating around here somewhere, although I don’t have time to look for it now. No doubt DC has it.

Anyway, that’s what he was referring to be BB. And again, she does NOT say ‘when’ this supposedly happened.

PERSONALLY, I’m inclined to believe that OBL is dead. But, that’s just based on a lot of different things, and nothing that can be conclusively proven, one way or another.

So yeah, he could be hanging out in Dubai, for all we know. Probably not, but anything is possible.

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, January 6, 2008 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment

We say Obama is black only because half of him is black, and the custom in this country (and the world, I guess) is to assign someone to the black race if there are any black people in their genetic pool.  But Obama is just as white as he is black, and maybe more white than black culturally.  I don’t care what he is.  Clarence Thomas is black, but no friend of mine.

The vote on Iraq is over, but lives on whenever Bush asks for additional funding.  Both Obama and Clinton continue to approve funding for this occupation, but what bothers me most about this is that they don’t demand any kind of accountability for these monies.  How are these billions of dollars being spent, what are they being used for—to perpetuate an occupation, the get us in deeper and deeper so that it makes it more difficult to extricate ourselves? 

This was an occupation that was supposed to be funded with Iraq’s oil revenues.  What happened to that?  Why are we told so little of what is going on that country?  There are multinational corporations over there—what are they doing?  Are they restoring Iraq or are they extricating resources for their own business interests?  Do we have access to the oil over there?  Where is the discussion in the debates on the activities in Iraq that aren’t connected to the conflict?

Report this

By cyrena, January 6, 2008 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment

I thought I’d throw this in. An interesting read.

Sounds like the Obama team is pretty fired up. Even in New Hampshire. wink

Obama, Romney to Be Targets in ABC’s Saturday Night Debates
  By Rick Klein with Mike Elmore and Lauren Effron
  ABC News

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010508B.shtml

Now, if I watch this next ‘event’, it’ll be the first time in a couple of years (at least) since I’ve watched ANYTHING on ABC. Seriously.

But, it might be worth it.

Report this

By cyrena, January 6, 2008 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

Douglas,

There’s no snow here. Not the kind that the average person would shovel, and not the kind that you might be shoveling. This just isn’t the climate or the geographic location for it. If it ever happens that we get snow in this portion of the Pacific region, I’ll save some of it for you. (as long as the power is on, and the freezer works).

And, the same goes for any apologies from me. If I can think of any reasons for any additional apologies, I’ll be sure to extend them. So far…there aren’t any.

Sorry I don’t have time to look at all of these video’s you’re posting. My ‘vacation’ time is winding down, and I’ve got real work to do.

Toodles.

Report this

By cyrena, January 6, 2008 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

Tony,

You’re right. There’s nothing in Bill Clinton’s record that suggests he would have attacked Iraq, and my only complaint is that he continued the debilitating sanctions for as long as he did, because they didn’t harm Saddam, but rather the population. (a point that Saddam made himself). Unfortunately, it also did nothing to endear this generation of Iraqis to us.

Be that as it may, the Clinton administration did use militarism sparingly, and for the most part, successfully.

Of course the war mongers have also complained bitterly about that. (he didn’t give ALL of our money to the department of defense).

Meantime, I have to agree with troublesum about Hillary’s record since she’s been in the Senate. It HAS been pretty much on the conservative side. But, she’s not the only Democrat sitting on that side of the boat.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 6, 2008 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

All I have seen is vague rumors about bin Laden. For all I know he shaved his beard and is currently luxuriating in a six-star hotel in Abu Dhabi. I am curious about the sources that make you sure he is dead. I’m not sure what “BB” is. British Broadcasting?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 6, 2008 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena: Death penalty???

Oh, and by the way, cyrena, the “mama cut his hair with a bowl” video clip I meant to post was this one. I just couldn’t find it in time and then I realized that it was in ‘related videos’ with that clip anyway http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRiE3RpdqEk&feature=related

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 6, 2008 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment

Oh, this is typical left-wing blindness to obvious differences among establishment politicians. Hillary is not a neocon. She’s a DLC Democrat. I see nothing in Bill Clinton’s record to indicate that he would have attacked Iraq. Actually, his use of the military was limited and for the most part successful. You can certainly call them
“corporate Democrats”, but still, you have to look at what corporations they work for. They are actually on the left side of the corporate democratic spectrum.

The NIE proves that the neocons have lost the debate and that saner heads among our corporate overlords have prevailed. My question is whether we can do better than Clinton. I’m putting my money on Obama.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 6, 2008 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

For Christ’s sake…GET OVER YOURSELF!!

By cyrena, January 6: “I’m also beginning to think that you have some serious issues with yourself. Let me say this…THIS ISN’T ABOUT YOU!! So STOP…”

Oh, thank YOU for THAT, cyrena, uhh! So much for gesticulations and inflections in conveying meaning. What you really meant to say was that you would go to any length in being as pompously RUDE as you possibly could in order to avoid a second apology.

I won’t ask what is wrong with you as I already know. That IS what is the matter with the LEGAL MIND. Arrogance, conceit, self-righteousnesss…... and the ever-imperative willingness to always blame others for their mistakes and shortcomings. You WOULD make a good politician, uhh!

Now I realize that we’re all at a disadvantage in attempting to communicate with you. So go back to shovelling snow, cyrena. That is as good a “chill pill” as any these days, ha ha*** By the way, have you tried looking in a mirror lately???  PS: don’t forget to SMILE!!!

Report this

By cyrena, January 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

Nope, the last few comments suggest that he’s lost his f***ing MIND!!

Now he says he doesn’t know what to ‘do about’ me.

I’d suggest that he can’t ‘do’ a damn thing about me, and so he shouldn’t TRY!!

Report this

By cyrena, January 6, 2008 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

Oh Douglas,

For Christ’s sake…GET OVER YOURSELF!!

I wasn’t referring to YOU when I made the very basic reality statement that a lot of people would not vote for Barak Obama because he’s black, the same way that many people will dismiss Hillary Clinton, because she’s a woman. I’m sorry to say that basic human ignorance has not died. It’s getting better, and I believe that the current political environment shows that.

I’m also beginning to think that you have some serious issues with yourself. Let me say this…THIS ISN’T ABOUT YOU!! So STOP!!

As for the response on the other post, (on the interview with David Frost and Benazir Bhutto), I DID respond to you. I’m the one that POSTED the thing to begin with! Remember? What the hell is wrong with you any damn way?

I’m going to repeat this…It’s NOT about you. I was NOT suggesting that you were somehow racist, or anything even close. Now I realize that we’re all at a disadvantage in attempting to communicate via writing only, since it misses inflections, (including humor) and gestures, and all of the rest.

However, I’ve been posting here for long enough, (as have you) for you (and anybody else) to figure out what I’m saying. And let me repeat, if I was directing anything to YOU – SPECIFICALLY, I would have SAID that! I would have included YOUR NAME, since I always have in the past.

So, whatever the hell is wrong with you…GET OVER IT!! This isn’t personal. YOU are not running for office, and neither am I!

Now you’re starting to piss me off…DOUGLAS CHALMERS!! Take a chill pill.

Report this

By jeff in chicago, January 6, 2008 at 10:42 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

Death penalty:

http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Death_Penalty

Single-payer:

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_on_Kucinich_s_plan_for_Single_Payer_Health_Care

Gay marriage:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/10/at_forum_six_democrats_grilled_on_gay_marriage/

Surgical strike against Iran:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_aipac_speech_text_as_pr.html

Now…I would like to amend my own position. I will admit to being a bit uninformed as to Obama’s stance on the single-payer plan. But I feel he’s being a little mealy-mouthed in his actual position. He says he’d like to be in favor of such a plan, but thinks we have to start with something that’s not quite single-payer and work toward it. Nonsense. It might be a challenge, but single-payer is do-able.

It’s this same wimpiness he expresses in the gay marriage area. Civil unions are just as good. My lesbian sister would disagree. I bet deep down he does support gay marriage, but believes saying so would doom his campaign.

As to my opinion about his “support” for a strike against Iran, please read my comments to TW a couple posts below this.

But Cyrena, I shall not respond to you again. Here’s why. I would only have characterized your posts as “misinformed.” You call me a liar. I have zero tolerance for people who sink to ad hominem attacks. And you sealed the deal when you comment on his haircut as if it were actually important. Could anything be more trivial.

Have a great day.

Since I’m new here, I’d like to say that while I am a Kucinich supporter, I think the good news is that I could happily vote for any of the Dems this year. I’m sad that Biden and Dodd have dropped out. This slate of Democrats could have (and I’m sure still will) prompt much substantive (no talk of hair cuts!) discussion of the issues of the day. I think we’re in for an exciting general election.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 6, 2008 at 9:16 am Link to this comment

So, who are you backing? What’s your alternative to Obama? You prefer Clinton? Or John McCain? Because that’s your choice, like it or not.

Report this

By troublesum, January 6, 2008 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

Hillary Clinton has the sixth most conservative voting record in the senate; she isn’t going to confront the neo-cons on anything.  The idea that she can’t speak out just yet because they are too powerful is horse shit.  Yes, she knows there is a vast rightwing conspiracy - she joined it when she got to the senate.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 6, 2008 at 7:26 am Link to this comment

Rude corn huskers and pig farmers comment.

By cyrena, January 6: ”...I never have a problem…. even with ‘perfect me’... ‘rules of war’.... like Barak’s haircut…”

I can understand that you’d be “tired and more than a little bit annoyed by comments” from some other posters, cyrena. That’s all part of the racial undercurrents. We are living in an essentially tribal society and the white tribe is one of the worst recidivists. That their unsustainable lifestyle is starting to show still hasn’t really dawned on most.

One thing that people will have to realize in this campaign is that they will still be voting for Barack Obama, if they so choose, but not for Michelle and the kiddies - just like if you vote for Hillary, you’re not voting again for Bill. I already said that it would have been better if Michelle had been running but, then, you didn’t seem to like my suggestion that Condi Rice would be the Republican’s “most experience and most qualified person” for the job if she ran, either.

If you think I’m “cherry picking” on the “surgical strike” thing, its because Obama said it in such a way that it could be interpreted by those who heard it as supporting attacking Iran or Pakistan while not being definite enough to be overtly war-mongering. Unfortunately, though, it has the same effect in the end.

Wars are brought into being by the military-industrial complex and those who seek total power over others. The consequences of making such threats and developing WMD’s is that other nations become afraid and rush to create their own WMD’s and build their armies. Thus, the USA is partly responsible for the resulting escalation of military-industrial complexes and militaries in other countries around the world.

It is not necessary for ‘man’ to fear ‘man’ anywhere upon Earth. A path to peace is easily found. The real problem is in dealing with those who don’t want peace for their fellow man. Each country has their own worst problems. Harassing N.Korea for decades has brought out the worst in their leadership. So too in the USA, leadership has been corrupted, usurped and subsumed by the vested interests and professional gangsters.

I’ll accept that that Obama was naïve in going along with accusations against Iran and N.Pakistan but that is something which is also as recent as in August last year, not just in 2004 or 2002,a nd that is waht I was so adamant. But that’s why I don’t think he is ready to be president. He is young enough that a decade (or whatever it is) as a vice-president wouldn’t hurt his career.

I don’t go much for either his sailor-boy haircut or his daggy suits, though. I think you’re really out of line there, cyrena, and into the realm of outdated fantasy, ha ha. That’s not a “mama cut his hair with a bowl” style, actually. One of the old “Three Stooges” had such a cut and women in some armies in the past did, too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfiXTUqnnEI&feature=related

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 6, 2008 at 5:34 am Link to this comment

By Tony Wicher, January 5: “U.S. imperialism is the cause of all the problems in the Middle East, and the best way to solve those problems is to withdraw all troops from the Middle East…”

I don’t know what I can do about cyrena, either, TW. She won’t respond directly to me, hasn’t responded further to my past comments in response to hers about the interview between David Frost and Benazir Bhutto, and has taken on an aggressively serious tone.

I didn’t care for cyrena to apply the rather obvious statement aimed at me that “there are a whole bunch of people who won’t vote for Obama, JUST BECAUSE he’s black!! And of course, none of them would actually SAY that…”, uhh. She should already know from experience that I am not a prejudiced or bigoted person.

Cyrena’s using the term “they come up with all sorts of other excuses, or they just make-up a bunch of shit, to discredit the person…” is not very nice either. She knows that I always honestly approach any topic. I had thought that BO would have made a good vice-president. Now, I’m not so sure.

It is the epitome of racism, I am sorry,  to say that I am racist because I have dared to criticize Barack Obama and that I must thus be a racist. Although I’m not black, cyrena doesn’t really know much about my background. Then again, perhaps it was a form of sexism on her part - I don’t know. Maybe people in California have just all gotten upset in the past few days because of the weather?

For me, this is NOT a Hillary vs Obama thing. In the end, everyone will have to wear the consequences of whoever the majority vote for - and its not always a wise choice. Just look at the one they voted in last time, uhh. In a way, this race is down to whether a BLACK man will become president or a white WOMAN will be. Both are first-time choices.

I hope that the three Democrats do “stay the course” in the caucusses, although I expect they will anyway. The issue with Osama Bin Laden is relevant not only because BB said he WAS killed (in 2001-2) but also that Massoud was NOT killed (in 2001) and was still alive. She mentioned several people and she was quite clear about all of it.

That then begs the question about whether anyone in the senate or the congress who has mentioned Al Quaeda or the Taleban, etc since they would have also known what she knew. In that case, the ongoing “war on terror” saga was that much more of a lie. Obama was one who did rely on the Al Qaeda/Taleban bogeyman for his campaigning.

Report this

By cyrena, January 6, 2008 at 5:21 am Link to this comment

Douglas,

First, I stand corrected on the corn huskers and pig farmers comment. I jumped the gun, in part because I was tired and more than a little bit annoyed by comments from other posters, who are normally reasonable and intelligent people. (or at least they generally come across that way)

So, my sincere apologies on that. I never have a problem with admitting when I’ve blown it, and that DOES happen on occasion, even with ‘perfect me’.

On this surgical strike thing though, you’re out of line, and into the realm of cherry picking. There is nothing at all in this statement that you’ve posted, that suggests that Obama is in FAVOR OF a ‘surgical strike’ on Iran. It says (political speak) just the opposite. He says it is NOT the optimal solution, to what was ‘perceived’ to have been a ‘problem’ with Iran allegedly wanting to acquire nuclear weapons.

AND, it said it in 2004, so….let’s get with the program here. At MOST, we can accuse him of being naïve, in going along with the bullshit perpetrated by the thugs in DC, that Iran was in fact attempting to do this. Because the reality is that Iran was not then, and is not now, attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Rather, they’ve only been about developing a CIVIL nuclear energy program, and it is within their rights to do exactly that.

So, I’ll say that Barak was naïve in going along with that accusation, (as did the rest of the world I might add) but there is nothing here that suggests that he ‘favored’ (at any point in time) a surgical strike on the place.

And no, I’m not twisting anything around because I have any overwhelming love for Barak. He’s younger than me, (though not by much and already has a wife and 2 kids. He can’t afford me. wink

And, if you’ll remember correctly, I have been mostly supportive of Kucinich, as well as Gravel, since the start of this thing. I should add that I supported Kucinich back in 2004 as well, but Kerry got the bid, and so I put my support behind he and Edwards then. They got swift-boated, and here we are.

Things change. Circumstances change. I would STILL prefer to see Kucinich in the job, but we’ve known from the beginning, that the polluted and corrupted nature of US politics is making his electability very doubtful. It pains me, but I do hope that he’ll hang in there.

I also would have no problems with a John Edwards candidacy, because I believe that he could win hands down against any repug, and that’s really the whole point. Who will do a better job at uniting the country, before we completely self-destruct?  NOT Hillary.

As for the concept of necessary war, or even ‘just war’ we can talk later. But, you’re naïve yourself, if you think that war is somehow an unavoidable condition in the history of human kind. I personally abhor war under all circumstances, but history has proven, on too many occasions, that it is unavoidable, which is EXACTLY why there ARE ‘rules of war’.

Now, I DO like Barak’s haircut in this photo. I see it as very practical and efficient. He looks like one of my nephews at the start of summer. (and I’ve taken on the same habit myself, out of necessity.). We call this TRULY ‘wash and wear hair’. A cut like this every 3 or 4 months, means we’re good to go, and always ‘lookin’ good’. No fuss, no much.  So, instead of saying that it looks like his mama cut his hair with a bowl, (like we used to do in the old days) this is now considered very ‘stylish’. wink

Report this

By cyrena, January 6, 2008 at 4:39 am Link to this comment

Tony,

I think you may have missed his obsession with Hillary, which dates back a while. He’s all but accused everybody on the site, as being misogynists if they make any criticisms of her. He’s been at that for months. Just a couple of weeks ago, he was claiming that Hillary wasn’t gonna settle for, or otherwise ‘accept’ any second or other position within the executive branch. Like gee, who cares?

So yeah, he’s been at it a while, and if he’s changed his tune that recently, I hadn’t noticed. (no power around here, for nearly a full 24 hours…the storms) And yeah, he could have switched up that fast.

The thing is, he wouldn’t be completely WRONG about people not liking Hillary, (or refusing to vote for her, regardless) JUST because she’s a woman. There are those on this very blog, who feel that way, though NOBODY would ever say that out loud, just because it isn’t ‘politically correct”.

But, the same thing goes for Obama. I don’t care what anybody claims, or even if we ARE in the 8th year of the 21st Century, there are a whole bunch of people who won’t vote for Obama, JUST BECAUSE he’s black!! And of course, none of them would actually SAY that. It’s like trying to ‘prove’ race, gender, age discrimination, or even political affiliation in the work place. They never SAY that’s what it is.

Instead, they come up with all sorts of other excuses, or they just make-up a bunch of shit, to discredit the person. (like Jeff in Chicago) I don’t ever remember Obama having anything to say about gay marriage at all, and I KNOW he can’t possibly be in favor of he death penalty. It goes against everything else that he believes, and specifically in his ideology as a civil rights attorney.

So, as usual, people either outright LIE, (and know they’re doing it) or they intentionally or unintentionally take things out of context, by picking pieces of words and sentences here and there. Like Ron Paul and so many others, who like to pair ‘secular’ with ‘far left’ and atheism. It’s become such a standard technique for the neoconners, for ages. So, it’s apparently rubbed off on the average joe as well, attempting to promote ‘their product’ and by whatever means necessary. A real Karl Rove bunch, since that’s exactly the way he and that gang operate. They lie, cheat, steal, - lie, cheat, steal, and then start it all over again.

Anyway, like you, I don’t necessarily agree with EVERYTHING that Obama comes up with. For instance, just recently, he referenced “those terrorists’ responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Amercians on 9/11.

Well, after these 6 long years after that horrific event, and lots and lots of study, I don’t believe that Arab or Islamic ‘terrorists’ WERE responsible for that. I’ll accept that they’ve been responsible for other terrorist activities, but not 9/11. And yes, I DO believe that OBL is dead. I’ve believed that for a long time, with little more than instinct to go on. But now, I’m even more convinced, after seeing that video conversation between David Frost and Benazir Bhutto, where SHE confirms it, and that was just a few months ago. She doesn’t say WHEN he was murdered, (and I was never certain that he was ‘murdered’ rather than having simply died of his ill health).

Be that as it may, the al-Qaeda movement, (with or without OBL) has grown ONLY because the Bush regime has allowed, if not encouraged it, just to maintain an excuse for their own perfidy and malfeasance in needing to continue to keep Americans and the rest of the world in fear.

Prior to 2001, OBL and his small gang were little more than a nuisance, created from the disease of Western imperialism. And, we’ve known for years that the US unconditional support of Israeli aggression against ALL of its neighbors in the ME, has created this very Frankenstein monster that is al-Qaeda. And since then, the gangsters have only added to it, in their support of puppets like Musharraff in Pakistan. Barak Obama knows it as well.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 6, 2008 at 12:59 am Link to this comment

“I’m not “handling the current situation in Pakistan”, TW. And it wouldn’t be a “situation” if I was, uhh. That is the entire problem, though. When peoples’ countries are “managed” from Washington, the boys’ clubs of the world run rampant.”
——————————————————————————
DC,

I’m not sure what you are saying here, but perhaps it is that U.S. imperialism is the cause of all the problems in the Middle East, and the best way to solve those problems is to withdraw all troops from the Middle East and stop being imperialistic? I’m with Kucinich and Ron Paul on that. Obama is like Jack Kennedy in some ways, and Kennedy’s biggest fault was his penchant for military action. I do worry about Obama that way, but what can I do?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 5, 2008 at 11:34 pm Link to this comment

Why are you so full of crap…

#By Tony Wicher, January 5: Re: Obama’ Iraq speechBy Tony Wicher… reducing yourself to this level…. Enough said…”

I’m not “handling the current situation in Pakistan”, TW. And it wouldn’t be a “situation” if I was, uhh. That is the entire problem, though. When peoples’ countries are “managed” from Washington, the boys’ clubs of the world run rampant.

But “expressions of love for Hillary”, ha ha, she’s the “most experienced and the most qualified person”.... enough said.


#By Tony Wicher: give me a link to the ENTIRE speech or article where he “supports a ‘surgical strike’ on Iran if they don’t agree to stop their nuclear weapons program”...”

You should pull yer finger out and search it on the net, TW. Instead, I had to….

Democrats and Iran - Look Who’s Backing Bush’s Next War: ....the Democratic Party’s rising “progressive” star Barack Obama said he would favor “surgical” missile strikes against Iran…...

As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, “[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?”...

He added, “[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in” given the ongoing war in Iraq. “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.” Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.” http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01202005.html


#By cyrena, January 5: “...why are you dogging Obama out…”

I’m not “dogging” Barack Obama, cyrena, but he is jiving us all, uhh. The “war on terror” IS real and that is what the problem is. It has been made to be real by the Neocons but the real terror is all for the people in Iraq, Iran, maybe Pakistan.

Obama seems happy with their suffering as long as it translates into votes in hometown USA. How is that different from the GOP? He is just another Neocon -only you don’t want to see it. NO wars are necessary, they are made to be so!

WW2 was not only about Hitler, it was also about Japan. Those are two different issues and the situation with Japan arose out of the USA’s 1890’s gunboat diplomacy. Just because cause and effect (karma) plays out over generations is no excuse for denying one’s involvement.

As you say, “He was making it very clear that he is NOT a pacifist, who doesn’t believe is war –ever” ...so, pay attention. “Laws of war” are garbage designed to be window dressing for the unpalatable and awful truth. Mass murder is not justifiable to anyone - except in the moth-eaten minds of legalists.

As for the “corn huskers and pig farmers” in Iowa, I did agree with your point there and I added to it. What was wrong with that? Now you are making something up to attack me. Were you really using it as an oblique means of justifying wars, cyrena - or just Obama’s wars?

Its not really accurate that “Hillary could have made a better showing, if she hadn’t chosen to continue backing the status quo” as she has done no more that make the usual lame utterances at AIPAC about “leaving all options on the table”. That is NOT the same as saying when are we going to have the next war?

She knows that there IS “a ‘right wing conspiracy’” and that it is a dangerous one to confront head-on just yet. Its called the Neoconservatives in case you have forgotten. So, there you have it, cyrena. Stop trying to twist stuff around, to spin it to your liking just because you love Obama.

Report this

By cyrena, January 5, 2008 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

Jeff,

All of this sounds REAL ‘new’ to me, though I must admit that I’ve not followed every word that Obama has spoken.

I’m relatively sure that I do NOT believe him to be in support of the death penalty. I KNOW that he is not opposed to a single-payer health plan, so that sounds like more fibs.

NEITHER is he in ‘favor of’ a surgical strike on Iran.

I’ve also never heard him say that he’s opposed to gay marriage.

In short, I think you have him mixed up with someone else, and I’ll continue to believe that, unless you can provide direct quotes from him, that would confirm or otherwise verify that he’s said these things.

Yes, I too like Dennis Kucinich, and I have from the beginning. But I think you’re LYING about Obama, because if in fact ANY of this were true, Kucinich wouldn’t have thrown his own support bakc to Barak, at the Iowa Caucaus, which is what their party rules allow them to do, if they don’t come up with the requisit number of votes.

On IRAN, Obama is the one who said that we needed to TALK with not only our so-called ‘enemies’ but anybody that we didn’t happen to like.

So, I’ve supported both of them (Kucinich and Obama) and I’ll continue to watch how this unfolds. But, I don’t believe that a vote for Kucinich, requires lying on Obama.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 5, 2008 at 7:25 pm Link to this comment

I have no problem with anything you say. Iran has as much right to have nuclear weapons as Israel, for example, and is probably less likely to use them if did have them. I mean to tell you, that Israel is one paranoid theocracy! Maybe I’m just a cynic, but this speech was given to AIPAC, so you might expect it to be a little more, er, bellicose than usual. Even so, if you read the whole speech, he only mentioned the military option being on the table once, whereas his repeated emphasis was on “tough, aggressive diplomacy”.

Report this

By jeff in chicago, January 5, 2008 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

And 63% DO NOT want Obama. Parsing numbers like this is not helpful.

Report this

By jeff in chicago, January 5, 2008 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

Hillary was never attorney general of Arkansas. When you make huge errors like this, it makes it difficult to take you seriously. You’re not a Hillary hater? I think you might just be.

Report this

By jeff in chicago, January 5, 2008 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

From the September 25, 2004 Chicago Tribune:

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that ... if (economic sanctions) fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran ...

Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board ...

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities ...

‘In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,’ he said ... on the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.  So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran’ ...”

More recently, in a March 2, 2007, speech in Chicago:

“The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to
have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we
should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained
and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our
primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.”

The whole speech can be found at

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_aipac_speech_text_as_pr.html

(Didn’t think I’d have the whole speech, did ya!)

And I’m not going to buy any argument that he merely “left it on the table.” IMHO, it should not be an option and he should have said so. No one would say boo if, say, Italy started a nuclear program. Just because we have lousy relations with Iran doesn’t mean we get to attack them for doing something we don’t like.

I agree with you in the NIE issue, but even if there were proof tomorrow that Iran DID have an active program, we still don’t get to bomb them.

As for the debate, I’d simply like them to be fair. If Bill Richardson gets to be there (surely he cannot win this thing) then so should Kucinich. If the media had actually given equal time to Mr. Kucinich, maybe he would be higher in the polls.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 5, 2008 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

cyrena,

DC seems to me a disgruntled Kucinich backer. I never read any expressions of love for Hillary from him. In any case, he certainly seems to have lost his cool.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 5, 2008 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

“Based on that statement alone, you must know that you are an idiot, TW, ha ha!”

I am disappointed in you, DC, reducing yourself to this level. Enough said.

How would you handle the current situation in Pakistan, then?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 5, 2008 at 5:22 pm Link to this comment

Well, Kucinich is at 3% in New Hampshire, and frankly, it doesn’t bother me that he is not going to be in the debate tonight. I would prefer to focus more in depth on the differences between candidates that actually have a chance to win.

I will be happy to discuss your criticism of Obama if you will give me a link to the ENTIRE speech or article where he “supports a ‘surgical strike’ on Iran if they don’t agree to stop their nuclear weapons program”. Not that it is very relevant, since the NIE made it clear that Iran no more had a nuclear weapons than Iraq did, and it has been clear since then that the Neocons have lost the foreign policy debate and there is not going to be a war with Iran.

Report this

By jeff in chicago, January 5, 2008 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

My problem is: one of the “necessary wars” Obama is willing to sign on to is the potential conflict with Iran. He supports a “surgical strike” on Iran if they don’t agree to stop their nuclear weapons program. This is one of several issues I disagree with him on, including his support of the death penalty, his opposition to a single-payer health plan, his support of the border fence and his opposition to gay marriage. While I still can, I’m supporting Dennis Kucinich.

Report this

By cyrena, January 5, 2008 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

Douglas,

Why are you so full of crap, and why are you dogging Obama out? How do you figure, that when Barak said that he wasn’t opposed to ALL wars, but only DUMB wars, that it must have implied that he was OK with the “war on terror” just because he didn’t explicitly include it in the “dumb wars’ category? For Christ’s sake. The ‘war on terror” isn’t even REAL. It’s not a war, it’s flippin ‘ SLOGAN, and a ‘theme’ for the Cabal to take raw and naked power.

So, let me explain, since you don’t get it. Obama meant exactly what he said, and pretty much anybody who has studied any of history, would get it. SOME ‘wars’ are necessary. If not, there wouldn’t be a jillion volumes written on the LAWS OF WAR. War happens, and there are defined reasons for when it becomes necessary to go to war. One can safely say that (at least in my opinion) WWII was a ‘necessary’ war, to stop some maniacs, specifically Hitler and his Nazis, at the time. There are another few thousands words written on the concept of ‘just war’.

So, THAT’S what he was talking about. Remember? He’s an attorney, and has been a professor of law. He would know this stuff. He was making it very clear that he is NOT a pacifist, who doesn’t believe is war –ever- because surely, that’s what SOMEBODY would have accused him of. So, pay attention.

You did the same thing with my comment on Iowans, and their choices for candidates at their primary. I was making the point that while there are many of us in many other states, throughout the nation, who may see them as simply corn huskers and pig farmers, the POINT is that Iowans are representative of MANY other states and communities that make up what we call the USA. THAT was my point. We don’t all live on a coast, and we don’t all have the ‘luxury’ of a cross-cultural population, (and I DO consider that to be a benefit) but they STILL have a place in the nation, and more importantly, in terms of this election, they have their own fair share, (maybe more than their fair share) of their population dying in Iraq. They also have enough sense to know, (just like Nebraska, or Missouri, or Kansas, or Oregon, or Ohio, or Michigan, and on and on)  that their economies are all dying just like every place else, because all of our blood and money are being laundered through the sands of the Middle East. THEY KNOW THAT!!

And they know that the status quo is responsible for that.

So, I made my own comment, to make it clear that corn huskers or not, they aren’t stupid, just like most of us aren’t stupid, and they voted for a change from this shit.

Now, we know you love Hillary, and that’s all fine and good. Hillary could have made a better showing, if she hadn’t chosen to continue backing the status quo, and the very things that have us all so deep in desperation. She’s chosen not to, so she buried herself. She can’t blame this on anybody else.

There’s no doubt that she’s been victimized in the past, by partisan and nasty politics. She wasn’t kidding about that a decade or even two ago, when she claimed a ‘right wing conspiracy’. There WAS one, and there still is. So, many of those who’ve been dogging her out lately, are the SAME ones who did it 2 decades ago, when they had no reason to. It was just the standard smears, and largely because they didn’t like her husband. How long ago did they start up with the Billary thing? Long before there was any ‘legitimate’ reason.

Well, fast forward. NOW, there IS. She’s NOT made a good showing, and she’s really messed up big time since she’s been in the senate, and there’s no excuse for the fact that she authorized a DUMB war, an ILLEGAL war, (and she should know it is, because she’s supposed to know the law as well.)

So, there you have it. Stop trying to twist stuff around, to spin it to your liking. The repugs have been doing that for decades now, and it’s old and lame, and people can see through it.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 5, 2008 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment

Obama’ Iraq speech

By Tony Wicher, January 5: “Even though I disagree with many things he has said, this speech alone distinguishes him for all other candidates… and is the main reason I continue to support him…”

Based on that statement alone, you must know that you are an idiot, TW, ha ha!
 

By Tony Wicher: “I don’t know where you get the idea that OBL is dead even now. I haven’t seen any official announcment or proof of this. Maybe he is, and maybe he isn’t, but Al Qaeda is still doing pretty well. They might even take over Pakistan any day now…”

Benazir Bhutto said it herself in an interview late last year. We have been trying to discuss this on the recent BB and Pakistan topics on Truthdig. You must be alseep, eh? Try this clip at about 2min20sec http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=f1uLdmct8_E

Of course, Al Qaeda is doing well. That is what happens when you bomb innocent people in wedding parties in Pakistan and starve people for a decade in Iraq and then try to impress them with “shock and awe”. More fool the USA for fingering Iran when now they most need them…....

Obama’s policy is just playing both sides of the game by pandering to as many as he can for both funding and votes. Thus, duplicitious statements are par for his course. None of the Democrats have the guts to make a real stand against the military-industrial complex.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 5, 2008 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment

I think you are the one with an agenda, namely a pro-Kucinich agenda, and your view of the Obama speech is therefore skewed. I say his speech was extremely prescient and shows great judgment. Even though I disagree with many things he has said, this speech alone distinguishes him for all other candidates (except Kucinich) and is the main reason I continue to support him. 

I don’t know where you get the idea that OBL is dead even now. I haven’t seen any official announcment or proof of this. Maybe he is, and maybe he isn’t, but Al Qaeda is still doing pretty well. They might even take over Pakistan any day now.

Report this

By Jeff, January 5, 2008 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary was never attorney general of Arkansas. If you could get your facts straight, it would be easier to take you seriously. Not a Hillary hater? I think you might just be.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 5, 2008 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment

Obama’ Iraq speech

By Tony Wicher, January 5: “Peace on this earth is the common longing and hope of all mankind…. We need a policy that really promotes human rights and democracy world-wide…”

Instead of merely taking up the page with double posts to become an apologist for Obama’s speech-writer, you could have simply posted a link to his speech, TW. I don’t know what you are doing there, but it is starting to sound like an agenda, uhh.

The point, though, is that this was NOT an anti-war speech, it was merely delivered to an anti-war rally in 2002 and was talking AT them but not TO them. If you bothered to analyse it honestly for yourself, you would see that.

Quote re 2002: “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda….

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars….”

If you look at just this paragraph, it contains two quite distinct statements. The first sentence can be seen as a clear approval of the Bush administration’s new “war on terror” despite the equivocation of the second sentence.

Latterly, he has re-interpreted the bit about “dumb wars” to accept the US attacking supposed terrorists in Northern Pakistan even though weddings and the like were bombed instead. Whose war and whose terror, then, TW?

“Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda…” is a further absurdity as OBL was already dead. What is more, al-Qaeda and the Taleban are effectively the world’s greatest supporters of the US military-industrial complex and are of great value to the Bush Neocons - and to Barack Obama!

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 5, 2008 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

DC,

Peace on this earth is the common longing and hope of all mankind. It is the universal basis of religion. But absolute pacifism is not a viable political philosophy. Obama mentions the Civil War as a war of necessity; I mentioned WW II. Once Hitler was on the march, war could not be avoided. There are wars of necessity, but what we need is policies that will prevent such wars from happening lead to war. We need a policy of generosity, not a policy of exploitation. We need a policy that strenghtens international law, not a policy that weakens it. We need a policy that really promotes human rights and democracy world-wide, not the Bush policy of using those beautiful words, dragging them in the dirt while doing the exact opposite of what they mean.

Instead of quoting little pieces of the speech, I am going to post the whole speech so people can judge for themselves.

By the way, would you mind leaving the ‘uhh’s’ out of your posts? I don’t know what they are doing there, but it is starting to sound like a nervous tic.   

——————————————————————————-
Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago by Barack Obama, Illinois Senator.

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

(speech continued below)

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 5, 2008 at 11:35 am Link to this comment

Full text of Obama’s 2002 Iraq speech (continued from previous comment)

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 5, 2008 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

Hey, Kwaggy - nice to hear from you. I agree with you as usual. The Israel Lobby is everywhere, including the Kucinich camp, by the way. They aren’t taking any chances. I see Obama as having less baggage than any of the other candidates and most likely to be able to chart a course that is good for the United States and neutral with respect to Israel. The Zionist project is a project for endless war. As long as the U.S. supports it there is no possibility for peace in the Middle East.

Report this

By Jacks, January 5, 2008 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

He’s fully embraced the Bush doctrine, in fact, he wants to embolden it: unilateral action, preemptive (aggressive) wars, which is the ultimate violation of international law, increased military intervention, increased “defense” spending, and increased “nation building.”

Next time bother checking out his rhetoric, voting record, or policy.  He’s the antithesis of anti-war.  He’s pro-Bush.  Yes, he’d probably be more competent, but when you realize the man is openly endorsing aggressive war, you’d be in denial to think it could possibly be benign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027_pf.html

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 5, 2008 at 6:00 am Link to this comment

By Tony Wicher, January 4: ”...I can’t agree with you here. Obama is more intelligent. What he has said is that he does not oppose all wars, but what is does oppose and wants to change is the kind of thinking that leads to war….. such a policy will not lead to war….”

TW, please, uhh. ”...it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes…” is hardly an attitude that in any way represents any kind of genuinely peaceful thinking or any kind of approach which would change the thinking that leads to war.

As you say, war is the final catastrophic result of decades of bad policies but Obama obviously doesn’t really give a damn as long as he is commanding the troops. That line about the civil war really qualifies ALL of his statements about war - past, present or future.

Thus, it is Obama who needs to change his thinking. Pity that so many have failed to see that but, instead, have only seen what they wanted to - in line with their own fantasies and desires. Thus, voters are forever caught in the trap. They are merely camp-followers, not citizens, uhh.

But, that is exactly what the caucussing process produces. It is an illusion that change is possible under such circumstances. Everyone is then already effectively off on some glorious military campaign. The real blood-shedding wars are only ever a hop, step and a jump away - and by design!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 5, 2008 at 3:49 am Link to this comment

Thank you mackTN: “The other candidates should be protesting this as well, balking at getting an advantage that comes from a corporate network instead of from the people.”

**Exactly!

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, January 5, 2008 at 1:21 am Link to this comment

I agree that this is outrageous—that the corporate media should determine who our viable candidates are is unacceptable.  By excluding these candidates they are influencing the vote by interfering with voters’ perceptions. 

I remember when Ralph Nader was unfairly excluded from debates in 2000. 

The other candidates should be protesting this as well, balking at getting an advantage that comes from a corporate network instead of from the people.

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, January 5, 2008 at 1:11 am Link to this comment

I do not like taking measure of race relations based on how people respond to one person.  Of course, racism is not like it was during slavery or during the civil rights movement.  But give black people credit in for changing this—we fought back and continue to fight back.  Because of our resistance, Barack can run for the presidency, a path smoothed out for him by many African American pioneers before him.  Both he and Oprah are reaping the fruits of the hard work and sacrifices of tireless civil rights activists before them, black and white. 

To depict us as professional victims robs us of our role in shaping this country, challenging it to make good on its democratic ideals. There are many worlds in this country, different realities for different people.  To make sure that equality extends to people who aren’t Obamas doesn’t mean that we are stuck in the past nursing old wounds—it means that we’ll continue to keep this country in forward motion by challenging attitudes that would deny equal access and fairness to any of us.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 4, 2008 at 11:11 pm Link to this comment

I sure hope you are right. I was shocked and appalled today when I told a white guy I thought was a reasonable person that I was for Obama, and he told me he saw on the Web that Obama is a Muslim and he refuses to wear an American flag tie lapel. I couldn’t believe my ears. It was like unexpectedly stepping in a pile of crap. Yuck! I’m afraid there are still big pockets of racism out there. I know the Republicans are going to pull out all the stops.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 4, 2008 at 11:03 pm Link to this comment

DC, I can’t agree with you here. Obama is more intelligent. What he has said is that he does not oppose all wars, but what is does oppose and wants to change is the kind of thinking that leads to war. A policy that makes peace, international law and human rights the highest priority, that understands that insecurity and injustice anywhere on earth makes everyone insecure, such a policy will not lead to war.

As an example of a necessary war consider WW II. In 1939, Churchill was right. Hitler had to be stopped. There was no alternative. But if the United States England and European countries had not pursued the policies they did starting with the Treaty of Versailles (“The Peace to End All Peace”), there would never have been a Hitler. War is the final catastrophic result of decades of bad policies.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 4, 2008 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment

I agree with you, Mike. Obama is much more intelligent. What Obama has said is that he does not oppose all wars, but what is does oppose and wants to change is the kind of thinking that leads to war. A policy that makes peace, international law and human rights the highest priority, that understands that insecurity and injustice anywhere on earth makes everyone insecure, such a policy will not lead to war.

Report this

By Kwagmyre, January 4, 2008 at 10:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As seemingly impressive as an Obama presidential victory might be, one of the true tests would be just how even handed he could be about curbing the influence of Israel and AIPAC in the American political arena.

I’m not terribly optimistic but he CERTAINLY would be more immune than Hillary Clinton could EVER be!

Report this

By mykebee, January 4, 2008 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Your headline reads…“What began as a virtual tie between the major candidates on election night…”

Exactly what election are you talking about?

Report this

By Ga, January 4, 2008 at 8:30 pm Link to this comment

We all should be “opposed to all wars”.

However, humans have proven, time and time again—through time immemorial as the saying goes—that war happens.

It is only flawed men who start wars, perhaps. But who among us, but a few noble pascifists, perhaps, would not defend themselves when attacked?

Cannot a “man of peace” defend himself?

Now, there always will remain questions. As, should a “man of peace” ever intervene to prevent war. One would think. But should he initiate a military action in order to prevent a larger war?

I disagree with Obama’s take on our Civil War. Certainly, without it slavery would have lingered on much longer, the Union could have dissolved (which was why the war was fought—Lincoln’s basic rationale for war was to preserve Union). But as certain, eventually, given all the forces involved, slavery would have ended, a divided Union may have come together, or even, perhaps, have prospered apart. Who can say. Neither you nor I.

But who would, having a god-like command of the world, cause a war that would slaughter thousands in order to, some time in the future, create something “better?”

Men like our current president would. I do not think Obama would.

Report this

By Denise, January 4, 2008 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Iowa has shown us that the American people can see through the Clintons’ 2-for-1 strategy, which we first heard from Bill back in 1992.  At President Bush’s first inauguration, Bill said, “We’ll be back.”  It’s part of Bill and Hillary’s life-long plan.  Fortunately, it’s been rejected, and we can only hope the rest of the country follows suit.

I did not ask for 2-for-1 then, nor do I ask for it now.  That’s just the life-long Clinton strategy that moves Hillary into a position for which she is not qualified. 

Every time Bill moves up (Gov of Arkansas), Hillary moves up with him (Attorney General of Arkansas).  Bill moves up again (President of the US); Hillary moves up with him (US Senate).  See the pattern, women?

Consider what America got with the first Clinton co-Presidency:

•      Abuse of the powers of the office of the President
•      Granting Presidential pardons to buy Hillary’s election to the Senate.  As a woman who made it on my own, Hillary’s need to ride Bill’s coattails and her sense of entitlement (as in “it’s my turn and Obama should wait his turn”) makes me doubt her capabilities. 
•      Hillary’s long-suffering marriage to Bill, enabling a lifetime of sexual trysts and trying to contain the Bimbo eruptions, gives me a President without the backbone to stand up to a man.  Hillary claims to be tough enough to play with the boys when, in fact, she is unable to leave a cheating husband.  How will she stand up to other male leaders who see this in “Mrs.” Clinton and walk all over her?
•      Being married to a former President does not make one qualified to be President.
Hillary has less experience in elected office than Barack.  She’s held elected office for one Senate term plus one year and has introduced no major legislation during that time. She showed us in the interview about Pakistani elections the extent of her foreign policy experience—she did not know what office the election was for or who was on the ballot!  Is this the kind of experience we want in the Oval Office? 

I am not a “Hillary hater;” I am an America lover.  Please consider very carefully which candidate the Democratic Party puts on the ballot.  The future of this country absolutely depends on it.

Report this

By reason, January 4, 2008 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment

This is going to be a tumultuous year for the ordinary person in many ways, the primaries, and political conventions and, ordinary people trying to make a living for themselves and/or their family. Many politicians seeking election recognize these not as problems and issues but political opportunities to be exploited.
For the average American they are more than just political problems and issues; they are factors dictating their present daily life and their futures. The convoluted process of the primaries and party conventions are so confusing that if I were into conspiracy theories I would be wondering what part the CIA was playing in it all. (Humor is like lying; in that it works best when based in truth).The average American can make little sense of the results and then there is the factor of the “media” who not only exaggerates the election process for ratings but also stirs the political pot to maintain interest.  Polling statistical data is not reliable unless you know the questions asked, and the condition under which they asked. Skewing the results of polls is common and none of them can be trusted unless proven that no bias was in play by the organization executing the polling.
I get most of the political news on internet where I can read numerous and varied views and the motives of those writing them. 
  I, Like most citizens (I think), want serious change and even reversal from the policies of the Bush Administrations time in office. But, voting for a party will not guarantee anything other than a new “face” talking down to us from a position so far removed from the reality of what the middleclass and poor know as “daily life”; they might as well be deaf, dumb and blind.
  I am a moderate by nature and it is logical to think that would be a reasonably comfortable political position when compared to the extreme views encountered in the news everyday, but my experience is that it is the most difficult political position of all. It seems we are so jaded with the American political process as to feel there are only two answers to issues.
Yes or no, right or wrong are not always the correct responses to issues. I propose we need a leaders who will analyze events/problems/issues as if they will be personally effected by the results of their decisions (not just politically) and lead us to what he or she believes to be solutions suited to benefit the majority of this country’s citizens.
    I would like Edwards for President and Obama as Vice President (or vise versa), presiding over a very non-partisan cabinet that will treat corporate lobbyists with the disdain they so richly deserve. This combination would offer real hope for healing the ills of our country and putting it on a path to healthy future in the world. I am not a democrat; I am an independent!

Report this

By Watch Reaper Online, January 4, 2008 at 5:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thankfully Obama has won. I was getting a bit worried with the others there. Especially the silly Ron Paul as well! People needed to put him in his place. I really hope Obama comes through in the end.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 4, 2008 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

By judeca, January 4: “Obama spoke against the war before we went in.  The speech he gave against the war was one of his most powerful, and showed true leadership.  Therefore, I trust him, more than the others, to end the war in the best way…”

So sorry to disagree with you (and others) on this,  judeca, but in the analysis, his speech was as full of political ploys and duplicities as any. I had to go “Search for “Barack Obamas Iraq Speech” in other texts” from that link you gave but I did eventually arrive at it.

It was NOT the words of a genuine man of peace. It was NOT the words of a man who is truly anti-war. In fact, it was an insult to the anti-war movement and a beguiling attempt at manipulation and simply just working the crowd. Hardly real leadership, uhh.

From the Iraq Speech by Barack Obama - Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago:-

“Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances….

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union…..

I don’t oppose all wars…....

I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance…..

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots…..

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war…..

I am not opposed to all wars…..”

Report this

By Fools on the Hill, January 4, 2008 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I get a kick out of those who said Hillary was the inevitable candidate last summer, now saying it’s way too early to predict anything.

Report this

By VillageElder, January 4, 2008 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment

Some of us other residents are watching their neighbors beginning to awaken from the slumber induced by Ronald Wilson Regan – a dream of an America as drawn by Norman Rockwell.  Rosy cheeked kids and the little woman at home baking cakes and cleaning the house in pearls while the male breadwinner went out to a well paying job so they only needed one income.  Hard work would let you get ahead, start your own business – just need a little gumption.  This opium like dream stayed with us from Regan through Bush II.  It has worn thin; no clothes for the emperor.

Change is wanted because the realization that during this period only the wealthy had growing incomes is waking folks up with a hangover.  The top 1% got it all and the top 0.1% really made out.  Legislation and regulation made it possible for these folks to keep even more of their money.  The working/middle class saw their jobs leaving to NAFTA and WTO agreements.  Jobs were lost and it was not acknowledged, except by Clinton.  He would tell them they were losing their jobs, but he could feel their pain.  Despite “feeling the pain” Clinton continued to policy of out sourcing jobs and corporate headquarters. 

The policies of Regan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush followed the corporate repuglican play book.  Clinton represented the DLC aka repuglican-lite.

Obama has voiced a message of hope, an emotion of great scarcity during this period.  He is young and he is obviously different.  The appeal is great to those who have been losing all these years

Report this

By buzzbike, January 4, 2008 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As I wrote on the Mother Jones blog, what is most important about the Iowa results is this: 70% of the Democrat and Independent voters DO DOT want Hillary. As a Progressive and card carrying Democrat, I find that to be very much a positive thing.

Report this

By judeca, January 4, 2008 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“...he would be wise to follow in Edwards’ footsteps on the Iraq withdrawal.”


Edwards voted for this war, and now he says he’ll yank the troops out immediately.  Is that realistic?  Would he really do that as Commander in Chief?  I doubt it.  The Iraqi people have been suffering a slow torture since America invaded their country.  Now that things have calmed down a bit, we owe it to them to leave, but in a way that will not result in more chaos.

Obama spoke against the war before we went in.  The speech he gave against the war was one of his most powerful, and showed true leadership.  Therefore, I trust him, more than the others, to end the war in the best way.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama’s_Iraq_Speech

Report this

By Beach Blanket Bingo, January 4, 2008 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Excuse me?
But didn’t Obama just get what he paid for…

9 million in ads.

Hillary 7.2 million
Edwards 3.2 million

Oh I see where the change is.

I’m still undecided but I do recognize “sampled” gospel rhetoric when I count it. Its easy to tout change when you have ZERO accountable history or experience.

I remember it being the very “status quo” that gave him his senatorial bid in the first place.

Afterall, Bush represented change… he changed how we wage war, the definitions of politics, the rights of americans and what is torture… so change?

So is change really what this country needs or does america simply require the experience to repair what damage has been done by Bushies.

Please see Carter’s presidency following Nixon’s.

If you lose your job, should you start remodeling the house? or perhaps you just hope for a new job?

Don’t be bought by change… and don’t be afraid to do hard work in a system that already exists.

Its called progress.

Report this

By Beach Blanket Bingo, January 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Excuse me?

But didn’t Obama just get what he paid for…

9 million in ads.

Hillary 7.2 million

Edwards 3.2 million

Oh I see where the change is.

I’m still undecided but I do recognize “sampled” gospel rhetoric when I count it. Its easy to tout change when you have ZERO accountable history or experience.

I remember it being the very “status quo” that gave him his senatorial bid in the first place.

Afterall, Bush represented change… he changed how we wage war, the definitions of politics, the rights of americans and what is torture… so change?

So is change really what this country needs or does america simply require the experience to repair what damage has been done by Bushies.

Please see Carter’s presidency following Nixon’s.

If you lose your job, should you start remodeling the house? or perhaps you just hope for a new job?

Don’t be bought by change… and don’t be afraid to do hard work in a system that already exists.

Its called progress.

Report this

By judeca, January 4, 2008 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama has a pretty liberal voting record. 

My stepfather, a lifelong Republican, became a Democrat just so he could vote for Obama in the primary.  He thinks Obama is very liberal… but doesn’t care about that anymore.  He thinks Obama is the only candidate who can unite the country…that our country has big problems that won’t get solved unless the people are united. 

We’ve fought about politics for the past 30 years, so it is a real shock to me, but he is definitely sincere.  83 years old and on hospice, he took the trouble to become a Democrat for the first time in his life.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 4, 2008 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

I received this email today and thought others might be interested in signing these petitions. 

“Once again, the corporate media is trying to tell you which candidates you’re allowed to vote for.

ABC and Fox News are sponsoring debates just before the New Hampshire presidential primary.

Both ABC and FOX are ruthlessly using their control of these debates to limit the choice of American voters—before the first vote is cast!

Here’s what they’ve done:

ABC NEWS HAS EXCLUDED KUCINICH, GRAVEL, AND OTHERS:  In an arbitrary decision that shakes our democracy to its very core, ABC News has set debate criteria that exclude Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Duncan Hunter from their Saturday debates.  New Hampshire has a recent history of open debates. As a result of these exclusions the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper has decided not to co-sponsor the debate.

FOX NEWS HAS EXCLUDED RON PAUL: Fox News has done ABC one step worse by calling it’s Sunday debate a “candidate forum” to avoid setting any criteria at all.  They’re using this technicality to exclude Ron Paul - even though the co-sponsoring New Hampshire Republican Party issued a statement saying they want all the candidates included.

FOX and ABC are using arbitrary criteria to exclude the diverse and anti-war voices in the Democratic and Republican primaries and limit the participation of independent voters.

IndependentPrimary.com is the independent watchdog on the electoral process -

Click here to join us in flooding ABC and Fox News with emails and phone calls demanding that all the candidates be included in the televised debates>

Thank you for working to take our country back from the party bosses, big money, and corporate media,

Jim Mangia & Linda Curtis
IndependentPrimary.Com”

**Petition Link:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2489/t/4823/content.jsp?content_KEY=3645

Report this

By Greg Jones, January 4, 2008 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama Campaign Proves
Much Less White Prejudice
than Blacks Thought !
By: Greg Peace Song Jones

One of the most incredible things that has arisen through Barack Obamas campaign has been the vision of mass numbers of white people at each of the Obama rallys showing great love and support for this credible, intelligent, gifted, strong leader….who happens to also be black. It has been incredibly eye-opening and uplifting, and it, for the first time, shows us blacks that we have actually been wrong in our assumption that most whites are prejudiced toward us. Although you do have the exceptions to the rule, the fact is….most whites ARE NOT racist toward blacks. This is a very important revelation. VERY !!!


We, as blacks have held on to our injured history, which we rightfully feel was caused by whites, to such a degree that we have never had the opportunity to see or learn that the prejudiced attitudes of whites does not exist today like it had in the past.We knew that a lot of whites like black music. We knew that millions of white women love Oprah, but we thought that was just a ‘woman thing’. But we had no idea, until now, that white people of all ages could be as supportive of a black candidate as they have shown in great mass. We, as blacks have been wrong !

Of course, we as blacks will have the specific cases of injustice and prejudice as displayed through examples like Jena 6, Genarlow Wilson, Katrina and the like….and specific cases like those should be dealt with accordingly. But we must not continue to allow certain negative occurances to misdirect our minds toward thinking that these negative examples speak for the entire white race. The majority of whites of today are actually on our side !


Obama’s campaign has already won by proving that whites and blacks can not only get along….but can work TOGETHER…for us all. And guess what my black family….America IS ready !!!

Report this

By rage, January 4, 2008 at 12:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Okay!

Good on him. One primary down, with a million miles to go! He’s gotta’ keep on pushin’! And, he can’t choke. It’s all up hill from here.

Report this

By Sharon Ash, January 4, 2008 at 11:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No one should get overly excited or unduly depressed by the results of the Iowa outcomes.  They chose, Mike Huckabee (believes that illegal immigrants are coming primarily from Mexico, followed closely by the millions(?) coming from Pakistan, and who appeared on the Jay Leno show, crossing picket lines because he was the last person on the planet not to know about the strike.  Can anyone say “Oh no, not another inept governor from the South that the Christian right just loves.”) And then there is Obama, great speech writer and giver, clueless as to how to run a complicated and complex country, other than to go around shouting change.  Well, hell yes, we need change, but if it’s not too much trouble, could you tell us how you propose to do that?  Or maybe he does not need to do that because Oprah said that “he was the one”.  To receive her blessing?  What?  The only explanation I have for Iowa is that too much corn must impair your ability to make informed choices.  Kansas has the same problem with the wheat.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 4, 2008 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

Obama could be called “middle of the road”. I prefer to say that he is a unifier of the party and of the country who is building a broad-based coalition for progressive change. I describe myself as a democratic socialist, and I agree with Kucinich on most issues. I’m actually to the “left” of Kucinich on some issues. I certainly agree with Kucinich on “single payer”. Yet, I feel that I have a “place at the table” with Obama, and therefore I am glad to support him. That’s the way democracy works.

Report this

By 57&thinking;, January 4, 2008 at 11:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

bg1,

you ever stop to think that “Republicans” have had enough of the hypocrisy’s of our party?
As a registered Republican myself, do you think I would consider Clinton or Edwards?
Republicans are not the enemy of the USA, just duped like Dem’s. Who are now bickering about the Iowa nominee!
They don’t have to fool us, we all (REP-DEMS) fight ourselves!
57 & thinking

Report this

By sharon ash, January 4, 2008 at 11:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No one should either get overly zealous or unduly depressed by the Iowa vote.  Let’s see how well Mike (thinks we are being primarily invaded by illegal immigrants from Mexico and Pakistan and who appeared on the Jay Leno show, going “what strike?”) Huckabee, and Obama, (who thinks he knows how to be president because he can write and deliver a good speech, and moreover, Oprah said he “was the one”),  does in a bellweather state such as Missouri.  Lacking a poll of that state upon which to base my belief, I still would bet that most likely Romney and Clinton will be the leaders in a bellweather state.  No scientific basis for this, but too much corn must inhibit ones abilities to make good choices. It is the only explanation I have for Iowa!

Report this

By Freedom Jenkins, January 4, 2008 at 11:13 am Link to this comment

And he still came in 2nd.  That says a TON!  We should all know by now… whoever the media likes is not in OUR best interest.  John Edwards is the ONLY candidate who is talking about ending this corporate rape of our country.  I already don’t recognize my country and I can’t speak about the truth openly because most people are brainwashed by the corporate propaganda.  This man has fought them before and he will continue to fight them, but we need to put him in there… and make sure he doesn’t get assassinated.

Report this

By 57&thinking;, January 4, 2008 at 10:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Okay, Obama carries some baggage with him, a little cooperate bucks and is not ranting about the poor or war.
Now to me this seems to be a lot less baggage then Clinton & Edwards carry around their necks.

Clinton votes with Bush/neocons, plus part of the corporate money machine, and as Bill’s wife popularity to become a Senator and or President with imagined experience.

It’s real hard for me to believe a rich man (Edwards) really cares about middle-class or poor Americans finances or health care. After all, the guy was a senator and his record doesn’t reflect it. (He voted for Bush’s bankruptcy B.S. +)
Reminds me of the then Vice-President Gore not doing a thing about global-warming while he was in office, but is suddenly so re-concerned and passionate like he was before (Senator TN.) his 8 years of opportunity to make a difference.
Edwards also has a war voting record, but now that he doesn’t have the power to make a difference, He’s sorry and would like to have a do-over vote. Seems like just another rich man seeking power to become richer. Kicks off his Pres. campaign in ravaged New Orleans but I can’t find any evidence of his donations or support. After all the guy is rich!

I just think Obama an African-American coming from a single-parent home has more in common and identify with the middle & poor class then the others. I think He lived it. We keep dusting off the Cob-webs, pulling out the moth-balls and recycling the same class of types that has this country in shambles!

Kucinich/Obama or Obama/Kucinich, 57 & thinking.

Report this

By Homer Hewitt, January 4, 2008 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Obama wins in New Hampshire, a difficult task, I think he’ll also succeed in South Carolina and go on to get the nomination.

homer   http://www.altara.blogspot.com

Report this

By Homer Hewitt, January 4, 2008 at 10:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While I believe that either Hillary Clinton of John Edwards would be a good president, I think that Barack Obama might well be a great president. He would present a new and different face of the United States toward the world. Among the Democratic candidates, there is not a whole lot of disagreement on the issues. But I think only Obama would take a different approach that may transcend the sharp divide prevailing in our country.

I am optimistic about Obama’s chances for the nomination, but must note that my prediction record is not real good. I picked Romney and Obama as Iowa winners - 50%. New Hampshire is even more difficult. Huckabee won’t have his evangelicals; Romney has been bashed by newspapers; and so I’ll go with McCain. Because of the many independents, and partly from the heart, I’ll pick Obama on the Democratic side.

If Obama wins in New Hampshire, a difficult task, I think he’ll also succeed in South Carolina and go on to get the nomination.

Report this

By cyrena, January 4, 2008 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

Thanks Bill. It goes over his head, but I think the rest of us get it.

Then again, maybe not.

Let’s just say that SOME of us do.

Report this

By cyrena, January 4, 2008 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

Yes Tony,

Believe it or not, after reading all of these extraordinarily depressing comments, I actually AM going to volunteer.

I wonder why, because I admit that the pettiness and bickering of it all, can be overwhelming. But, maybe that’s just what I have to do.

Hope to see you there.

(PS…I was delighted to read your stuff on the international issues forum of the blog)

We might even survive, IN SPITE of ourselves! wink

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, January 4, 2008 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

Its too early in the campaign to make any rational conclusions though Obama’s success, in virtually all-white Iowa, is impressive.

Now I may be mistaken, but has Obama’s speech pattern taken on a decidedly MLK-like cadence?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 4, 2008 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

cyrena,

I’m thrilled to death! The Democratic party and the American people are uniting behind a leader who can restore our democracy and our country’s honor and position as the world’s leading democracy. This is the best chance I have seen in more than 40 years.

Are you going to voluteer to be a precinct captain?

Report this

By MackTN, January 4, 2008 at 8:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yes!  Republicat!  The more things change….

Horrified by Clinton’s disregard for progressives, I went green and supported Nader in 2000—Nader is a saint.  I happen to like both Gravel (but he is clearly too aged for this job), and I’ve always liked Kucinich, but don’t think he’d ever get elected president.  But that shouldn’t mean he can’t press on with his agenda and be tremendously influential.

Report this

By MackTN, January 4, 2008 at 8:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Actually, Bill Clinton severely weakened the Democratic party.  You may recall that Dems were running from the tag “liberal” when Clinton was running for President.  So to win, Clinton turned to the right and progressives fled, sickened by his turning the Dem Convention into a tightly scripted Oscar night.  Poor Gore, 8 years later.  The progressives he would have counted on had gone Green and Ralph Nader was the candidate of choice. 

Bill started apologizing for all this a few years ago, probably softening up the voter pool for his woman.  But I found his apologies enraging—to admit that you warped the party for personal gains is so like a politician.  (I recall writing him two letters during his presidency, both complaining about how quickly he and Hillary abandoned good people—Lani Guinier and Jocelyn Elders—when attacked.  I recall reading a Newsweek column Guinier wrote describing events of her nomination and how neither Clinton had the courage to tell her to her face that they were giving her up.  She remembered passing Hillary in a hall who simply walked by with a “hello, kiddo,” and that was that. Funny, how you don’t forget the little things.) 

That’s why I do agree that perhaps the younger crowd can help keel the ship—but youthful energy is often trumped by oldtimers who know how to play smart, and you and I both know that this can get dark and brutal overnight.  Soon enough, someone will bring out the “black ops,” and here we go….

Report this

By jeff chalk, January 4, 2008 at 8:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

exactly.

Report this

By Gordon Hill, January 4, 2008 at 8:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For many of us outside the United States, Mr Obama’s win in Iowa brings hope for a significant shift in the mood and outlook of Americans.  His emphasis on change along with the stress on fear-less unity offers the hope of a more humble, rational, considerate and reconciling approach within the country and beyond.  The politics of control by fear can only be perpetuated with the continuing rhetoric of threats to everyone’s safety, promising a false sense of security by the combination of bullying tactics and isolating self-interest. The entire nature of living in this, and the future, world do require radical change in how countries deal with each other in preventative ways to eliminate the need for xenophobic self-preservation.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 4, 2008 at 7:24 am Link to this comment

By Jaded Prole, January 4: ”...we shouldn’t feed into the corporate spin machine that places too much on one of fifty state caucuses. I wish they would just put the whole slate on paper ballots and let the entire country vote directly…”

Excellent idea, Jaded Prole. Its called democracy. Pity that it doesn’t suit the media’s corporate spin machine, though, uhh. They get a lot of mileage out of those silly caucuses.

Now, if electronic voting meant getting on your PC, registering online and clicking to vote, that really would send a message. Sadly, “they” don’t want that either.


By cyrena, January 4: “If you take a look at IOWA tonight, you’ll discover that they apparently didn’t much care about any of this. All they know is that Barak Obama was the ONLY ONE who spoke out, and spoke out FORCEFULLY, against this war that we’ve continued to let them die in, and they know that he did it BEFORE that war ever began…...

That’s what THEY know. Yep, just apparently a bunch of corn huskers and pig farmers that we wonder..eh, why should THEY matter? Well, maybe because they represent the SAME in hundreds of similar cities and towns, across this nation…”

I’m posting this clip again of “a bunch of corn huskers and pig farmers” fighting the useless fight in Vietnam some decades back. It shows what you describe, cyrena.

Looking at it, one would have to ask why they were there? Of course, There is no conscription these days. That isn’t an absolute if the forthcoming recession drags on, though.

Sadly, though, Obama didn’t seem to mind wanting to open a third front in N.Pakistan until recently. That could still happen…... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b1HdIfFtU4&feature=related

Report this

By RdV, January 4, 2008 at 7:19 am Link to this comment

Since our corporate overlords had an inkling that Clinton’s inevitability as their representitive was eroding they had to prop up the oily empty suit Obama as some agent of change—knowing full well he could be counted on to represent the status quo. Real change is a threat to the status quo—and the consequences result in automatic marginalization by our corporate overlords-obvious enough in the case of John Edwards and his subsequent dismissal. What change is a shift from the Bush-Clinton dynasty if the power brokers and the policies are still intact and unchallenged?
  John Edwards actually has better electibility odds—Obama can be easily dispensed with—he is a black man in a undeniably racist country with a foreign name that includes Hussein and rhymes with Osama. Give me a break, if people can be so easily suckered into beliving his empty feel-good rhetoric, what makes anyone believe people can’t be swayed by darker swiftboating efforts?

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, January 4, 2008 at 6:53 am Link to this comment

AMY GOODMAN: “Presidential candidates are scrambling to win last-minute support in Iowa ahead of tonight’s caucus. Thousands of reporters have also descended on Iowa this week, covering everything from Mike Huckabee’s haircut to John Edwards’s rally with singer John Mellencamp.

But little attention has been paid to perhaps one of the most important aspects of the candidates: their advisers, the men and women who likely form the backbone of the candidate’s future cabinet if elected president. Many of the names will be familiar.

Advisers to Hillary Rodham Clinton include many former top officials in President Clinton’s administration: former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Senator Barack Obama’s list includes President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross.

Rudolph Giuliani’s advisers include Norman Podhoretz, one of the fathers of the neoconservative movement. John McCain’s list of official and formal policy advisers includes former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, General Colin Powell, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. One of Mitt Romney’s top advisers is Cofer Black, the former CIA official who now serves as vice chair of Blackwater Worldwide. Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Elizabeth is advising Fred Thompson.

As for Mike Huckabee, it’s not clear. In December, Huckabee listed former UN Ambassador John Bolton as someone with whom he either has “spoken or will continue to speak,” but Bolton then revealed the two had never spoken. Huckabee also named Richard Allen, but the former National Security Adviser also admitted he had never spoken to Huckabee.”


http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us

Report this

By Sue, January 4, 2008 at 6:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Don’t think Hillary is out of the picture.

Now that Obama took Iowa, all news media will be on his every move and he better be on his toes at all times because of it. He’ll see no mercy as Hillary did. I for one welcome the change.

Hillary can now hopefully regroup and run her own campaign without the wolves salvitating all over her unfairly reporting every time she had a mis-step.

Experience is important, and all candidates
represent change.

Hillary has been in politics most of her adult life and wants to be president.  Why not?
She has the qualifications to be and the first woman president to boot. I admire her tenacity and courage to put herself in the fight.  It’s no longer a male’s world.

Congratulations to Obama for winning the good fight, but again I say, don’t count Hillary out.

Kudos also to John Edwards.

I think the democrats are here to stay this time!

Report this

By cyrena, January 4, 2008 at 6:43 am Link to this comment

“...Obama means more of the same damn accommodating and trying to work with the Republicans that Reid and Pelosi represent. Yet they are excoriated and Obama is applauded. I just don’t get it.”...

This might be because we aren’t listening to the right people. Maybe if we stop talking over each other for a minute, we MIGHT start to ‘get it’...

Consider this:

We all just keep talking over each other, and not paying a single bit of attention to…THE KIDS.

Remember them? The ones that have been fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? Remember them? The ones whose birthright we’ve allowed to be stolen, while we bicker and ticker around with petty politics? Do ya think they give a shit? NO! They want out of this war, and they’re willing to put aside the hate, and the petty stuff about Pelosi, and this one, and that one, and all of the other ones.

If you take a look at IOWA tonight, you’ll discover that they apparently didn’t much care about any of this. All they know is that Barak Obama was the ONLY ONE who spoke out, and spoke out FORCEFULLY, against this war that we’ve continued to let them die in, and they know that he did it BEFORE that war ever began!!

That’s what THEY know. Yep, just apparently a bunch of corn huskers and pig farmers that we wonder..eh, why should THEY matter? Well, maybe because they represent the SAME in hundreds of similar cities and towns, across this nation.

So yeah, I like Edwards and apparently a whole bunch of others do too, especially since he came around, and was big enough to admit that he’d made a mistake, and change course, and do it drastically. But, the most drastic of it came recently, and these folks know that Barak Obama was speaking out against this war, BEFORE IT HAPPENED!!Yep, I even saw him at a rally MYSELF, back in Sept of 2002. (nope, nobody else was much paying attention then, especially the MEDIA)

Do ya think they’ve noticed that he’s since made a few votes for funding? Probably not. Probably because they’re the ones fighting and dying, and he’s been against it from the beginning. THAT’S what they know. And they know it in Iowa, and they know it a whole bunch of other places as well.

Oh, there’s no doubt that we’ve ignored them for the past 5 years, since that’s been easy enough to do. We don’t see ‘em coming home dead, and we don’t see their families suffering, and we hardly ever see the ones that are wounded or blow themselves to bits after they’re home.

Guess what? They vote. The showed up in Iowa, and they soundly rejected Hillary, and they soundly rejected Giuliani. Why? They’re sick of war, and that’s the bottom line. They’re young, and we’ve allowed the thugs in DC to piss off their futures. And, Obama is the only one who’s been talking to them, and telling them that he’s gonna do something about it…FROM THE BEGINNING. So, they even rejected the standard race hate, because they’re sick of us ‘adults’ dickering around with their futures. And if we keep ignoring them, they’re gonna surprise us again. Oh yeah. They will.

Think this ‘change’ message is just a bunch of bullshit? Well, tell that to the ones who’ve been taking the biggest hits for the past 5 years. Tell them that, because THEY have been listening, even when we haven’t been.

So yeah…keep up your efforts on Edwards. But save the hate and the smears on Barack, because that’s not helping anybody. It could be time to start paying attention to the ones that have to inherit this country, AND take care of the rest of us.

Thank God someone has taken over from the ‘adults’. We seem to get so easily distracted by bullshit.


http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php

Report this

By Jaded Prole, January 4, 2008 at 6:27 am Link to this comment

He’s not even Edwards but I’m very pleased that he did well and especially pleased that Clinton came in third behind Obama and Edwards. Either would be better. Still, we shouldn’t feed into the corporate spin machine that places too much on one of fifty state caucuses. I wish they would just put the whole slate on paper ballots and let the entire country vote directly.

Report this

By PACRAT, January 4, 2008 at 5:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

At least the tiny group of democratic caucus goers in Iowa voted for change by selecting Obama in Iowa.
However, the Iowa caucuses do not represent Iowa voters and Iowa does not represent the US. Why Iowa was given this “privilege” of being the bellweather is out of all proportiion to reality - and their caucus process is confusing even though it is exciting. Statistics show that rarely do the Iowa victors become the party nominees! Nevertheless, this victory for Obama is a step in the right direction!

Another good result is that maybe Bill will stop interfering with Hillary’s chances - he has messed up her campaign - let’s hope that she kicks him out like she should have years ago. He doesn’t want her to win the nomination nor the White House!

Report this

By Expat, January 4, 2008 at 5:50 am Link to this comment

By sheila, January 4 at 3:08 am #
By Marjorie L. Swanson, January 4 at 3:27 am #

I for one am very happy to see independent voters/thinkers.  Carry on.

Report this

By Expat, January 4, 2008 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

No argument here either.  Good post.

Report this

By Expat, January 4, 2008 at 5:42 am Link to this comment

No argument there.

Report this

By David, January 4, 2008 at 5:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Great…Huckabee and Obama: two preachers void of substantive prescriptions for what ails us.

I like the fact that Guliani finished behind Ron Paul though.  Basically Iowa represents good only in what it was not - it was not a win for the corporate candidates - Clinton/ Guliani/ Romney.

Report this

By Marjorie L. Swanson, January 4, 2008 at 4:27 am Link to this comment

Some of us other residents of Wisconsin might have a thing or two to say about that. People that talk about “delivering” this state or that to a candidate don’t sound very “democratic” to me. And I will work just as hard for John Edwards who is the kind of fighter we need. Obama doesn’t mean change. Obama means more of the same damn accommodating and trying to work with the Republicans that Reid and Pelosi represent. Yet they are excoriated and Obama is applauded. I just don’t get it.

Report this

By cyrena, January 4, 2008 at 4:18 am Link to this comment

You’re right about this Poodle. And, I see it as such, even though I’m a middle-aged woman. I see disappointment from others my age, even people of color.

Barak was not my own first choice, since I would have preferred to see Kucinich, with Obama somewhere in the immediate circle. However, I think it says something far more important, that an average town in American, mostly white, and like so many others across America, could in fact manage this. And, I’m sorry that those of my own generation and the ones before, have missed that significance.

In reading up on the various breakdowns, the significance is explained. Most of Barak’s vote came from the younger generations. (I wish I’d kept that, it was very well done). And at the bottom line, that’s where these decisions belong.

WE…the oldsters, gave this country away, when we allowed the Cabal to take us down. And if the younger generations now want to do it a different way, we damn sure can’t give any directions. Because, THEY didn’t fail us. WE failed them.

Report this

By sheila, January 4, 2008 at 4:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Edwards is the only candidate who refused corporate money and took only the minimum you get if you do so..  You want change? That is a bold and courageous and honest way to go about it.  Mainstream media is absolutely ignoring not only his win over Clinton (Millions more spent in Iowa) but his great speech he gave tonight.  His speech was not repeated once because they are afraid of his message. Not to mention the fact that Mainsstream media is in the pockets of Hilary.  Just listen to this guy.  He could redeem our generation from the Clintons and Bushes of this country . Thank God Clinton came in third.  How on earth could this neocon be in the mix.  It is frightening.

Report this

By Expat, January 4, 2008 at 3:55 am Link to this comment

By mackTN, January 3 at 11:24 pm #
(105 comments total)

Republicans for Obama

I remember; the term Republicrat was coined specifically for Clinton.  Very accurate post.  Good on ya! 
I’m soured on everyone except Kucinich and Gravel (one cannot even say they have no chance).  This old man is finally giving up on politics.  The die has been cast and I cannot bear what has happened to our country.  We truly lost control (actually we gave it up because of fear) of our government:  There is no getting it back.  My naiveté has finally fallen by the roadside as the striking reality of the present is too loud to ignore any longer.  It is obvious that one of the candidates chosen by the media will win this, and, as continuity is so important to the corporatists they will be happy with any of the above.  Once again we will accept the meager offerings and grovel for it.  I guess the thing that makes me so disgusted is; we didn’t even fight.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 4, 2008 at 2:53 am Link to this comment

“The numbers tell us this was a debate between change and experience, and change won,” said CNN political analyst Bill Schneider…..

That is an incredibly naive statement except if it was interpreted as black = change. Then it would indeed represent change. Otherwise, “experience” was actually an advocate for change equally as much as her contemporaries.

Perhaps disappointingly, ‘woman = change’ was not seen as change, uhh. That won’t play out the same across the states. What hasn’t changed is the year-long travelling circus which has far less significance in the internet age.

Neither has anything changed in Washington and it would require a new political party to achieve that. Until positive changes in the voting system happen, it may not be possible. The USA is still living in the past.

But another telling change is the GOP’s Huckabee and it will be interesting to see how that upset develops. In the end, caucusing could become to be seen as detrimental to candidates’ overall campaigns and not worth the expense.

Report this

By cyrena, January 4, 2008 at 1:02 am Link to this comment

MackTN

You are a wealth of information. I had no idea that Big Willey Clinton had done that stuff, back in the day. Dissing Sistahsoulja. I did know about him throwing Lani under the bus though, and I was pretty pissed about that.

I too like Edwards, but don’t sell Barak totally down the river just yet. Let’s see how it works out.

Overall, I honestly think this is a really good sign for the larger picture. I agree with you that he now has to fine tune his message, and he would be wise to follow in Edwards’ footsteps on the Iraq withdrawal.

I say that because I DO believe that he’s aware of all the rest…what Enron did to us, as well as what the Corptocracy has wrecked. He’s also in closer tune to the international issues that are causing us the most grief, and probably far more than he has so far publically said. Maybe that’s just part of the way it has to work. It certainly is no LESS than any other candidate (besides Edwards) has been willing to take on. (or so far say in public).

So, I think he’s on the same page in respect to the things that you’ve laid out here. I’d just like to see him make the same committment to ending the occupation of the Middle East.

I DO understand your frustration with him, since I’ve suffered a bit of my own. But, I’m keeping my eye on him. I think it’ll work out. He’s got time to get up to speed on that.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
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.