CY

I didn’t accuse you of war mongering. Not at all. It wasn’t intended to be a confrontational comment...at all.

I have always understood your point about the balance of power in DC, and adding the GRIDLOCK part to it may help others, but I understood it the first time.

Maybe part of the problem is that while you claim not to ‘know’ what McCain will do, you DID go to the trouble to explain certain complaints against OBAMA, (like the ‘still on the table comment about Iran) and other references to his not changing anything in the relationship with AIPAC and/or Israel, and a few other things.

Needless to say, THOSE things have nothing to do with your gridlock and/or balance of power excuse.

I’m also not an ‘apologist’ for Democrats, and I wouldn’t accuse you of being an ‘apologist’ for the current regime, unless in fact you see yourself that way. But I’ve never thought that to be the case.

So, I was simply commenting on the fact that the reasons you gave (in addition to the whole power balance thing) for not voting for supporting McCain over Obama, seem exceedingly disingenuous, based on the fact that McCain himself IS a war monger. I mean come on, he’s actually talked about bombing Iran and staying in Iraq another 100 years. That could rhetoric, but the bottom line is that the concerns you sited on Obama are overwhelmingly larger concerns (damn near guarantees) with McCain. That was my point. If you think I’m ‘reading’ something into it, then I would beg to differ. I’m reading what you’re writing, and your reaction seems to be more revealing of your true intent than anything I would have considered myself. I’m generally inclined to take people at their word. When their words become contradictory, I generally try to clarify to make sure that I understand.

I don’t buy the gridlock argument in this day and age. It did tie Clinton’s hands to a degree, but he was still able to devastating harm. (NAFTA, huge cut backs in federal aid, etc)

As for the declaration of war, it’s been 7 years, and there hasn’t been A DECLARATION OF WAR from the US Congress - YET! Yeah, we’re in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran as well. But..NO DECLARATION of WAR from the Congress. So, that’s kinda lame as well.

The larger issue in our selection of the next President has very much to do with the replacement of the next SC Justices. As Obama stated very clearly (right here in this article), if McCain is elected, his appointment to the High Court will set womans’ rights/status back 50 years. There is very little to ‘deny’ there CY. And, it’s not just woman’s rights that will be set back 50 or more years.

Maybe you don’t care and that’s fine. But you can’t claim to care about a collective well being 1 minute, and not the next.

And yes, any appointment to the High Court would also have to be ‘approved’. You see that we have Clarence Thomas, (narrowly approved, but still on the Bench and wrecking havoc none the less). Same with John Roberts and the Ali guy. In short, we are now one Justice away from losing whatever it is that you claim to believe in, and a McCain presidency will seal the deal.

That’s not an ‘apologist for anybody’ position. It’s the reality. It is what it is.

In all honesty, (and again, this is just what it is) your gridlock/balance of power argument seems like an excuse to continue the destruction that began nearly 8 years ago. In other words, it’s like throwing the baby out with the bath water. In MORE other words, it seems like an excuse to avoid putting ‘the token’ in power, despite the fact that the other dude will continue the same policies that have us in this crash mode already..REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CONGRESS DOES OR DOESN’T DO!

That’s not to say that your argument/excuse doesn’t have superficial merit, but it’s not realistic. And, for anybody paying attention to what you’ve been writing, it just doesn’t seem to jibe, even with your own logic.

Well, I’ve gotta admit CY, this especially made rhetoric for Pro Israel addresses isn’t all that different from the more recent rhetoric to AIPAC, even if it was 17 months ago.
Obama: Iran threatens all of us
Won’t rule out force in speech in Chicago to pro-Israel group
March 3, 2007

BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter
Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called “a threat to all of us.”
Speaking before a pro-Israel crowd at a downtown hotel, Obama also repeated his call for a phased pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq and strongly backed a strong U.S. relationship with Israel.
Earlier in the day, the Republican National Committee took aim at Obama, issuing a research memo aimed at highlighting the Illinois freshman senator’s lack of experience on foreign affairs. That the gloves-are-off memo was even generated at this time is a testament to Obama’s growing strength in the Democratic primary field.
###
Admittedly, I’ve been tuned into what he’s said in more recent times that do NOT involve speaking to a Pro Israel crowd. I guess I’ve been mostly guided by his continued insistence on diplomacy over military force, and my sense is that Obama is still committed to that.
So, thanks for the story. I would have otherwise missed it, just as I wouldn’t have chosen to pay any attention to the speech that he made to AIPAC either, if everyone hadn’t gotten all up in arms about it.
Anyway, it sounds like what you’re suggesting is that because Obama has built a platform on changing the way Washington does business, he should be hollering for a suspension of aid to Israel, in order to prove that he means it.
Right.

I think that’s a wonderful fantasy, and I’ve spent far too much time dwelling in it myself, (Like some are inclined to do when dreaming of how they would spend lottery winnings). That’s about what the chances are of anybody suspending aid to Israel. In other words, there are those very limited odds that he actually MIGHT do that if he won the office. (or decrease the amount). There are ZERO chances that he would promise/threaten to do that as part of his campaign, change or not. That would be a bit like him saying, OK, I’m gonna climb this very huge mountain, but first, I think I’ll break both of my legs and go on a 6 month fast.

Meantime, use of force against Iran, (or anybody else) is not ‘off the table’ and my bat is still situated at the entrance to my humble abode, with another one conveniently located in my sleeping chambers. I have no intention of using them, but they’re still there.

And, I honestly have registered your point about the balance of party power in the government/leadership. I just think it’s a lame excuse for putting McCain in the office. Just because you know that he WILL bomb Iran, and that he will CONTINUE to aide and abet the crimes of Israel with our money, somehow doesn’t work out to be all that logical to me.

No insults or anything..just sayin’.

• “Obama supports an incursian into Pakistan. He supports keeping our troops in Germany. He supports aid (read war aid) for Isreal. He’s on board for a war with Iran.”

CY, I think you’re correct about the first part here. Obama HAS said that if they get actionable intelligence on where to catch up with some of these ‘al-Qaeda” dudes, and Musharraff wouldn’t do anything, (for that $6billion we’ve paid him so far) then he would be willing to use US troops. I don’t think that he made a distinction however, between that space between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is where they allegedly are. UNLESS he was referring (more recently) to the al-Qaeda that Bush is sending from Pakistan into Iran. That’s a recent sort of a thing I believe.

I think it’s a bit disingenuous though, to talk about the ‘aid to Israel’ as if that’s some new idea. We’ve only been giving it to them for multiple decades. So maybe his only crime on that point, is that he hasn’t promised to DISCONTINE this decades old aid to Israel. Think that might be a bit more of an honest way to put it?

As for being on board to do war on Iran..when did you hear Obama say that? I’ve heard the opposite, and on multiple occasions.

Do you think McCain might be likely to suspend that aide to Israel? (right). How about the bomb, bomb, bomb, bombing of Iran for McCain’s theme song? Think he’s likely to make sure none of the bombs fall on Pakistan?

Nope. Your original argument, (about not having a democratic congress and a democratic president, sounds less specious.) I don’t think those old measures matter a whit anymore, but there was a time when that was the standard wisdom, and it did work to keep Clinton’s hands tied for a whole bunch of stuff. 
But the reality is that Clinton ushered in the one party government, since he was basically a repug himself. Not the kind of repug you’re used to maybe...but a repug none-the-less. Didn’t we always pretty much know that? Some folks call them neo-liberals, but there’s not a whole lot (if any) difference between the corporatists and the neocons. Neo-libs, (DLC) and Neocons (PNAC) pretty much the same thing.

So, if that’s the point…just to make sure that the repugs can always keep anything from moving in a direction that might actually benefit the majority of the US public, then McCain can certainly wield his veto pen and/or do signing statements just as easily as bush has.

The other thing a McCain president would accomplish is a thinning of the population. Anybody that CAN get out, damn sure will. I’m headed either north or west. Canada or Australia. Bags are already packed. I wanna beat the rush if it comes to that, even though I’m sure it won’t. Obama will win unless Karl Rove works his magic again.

But, there’s no guarantee that Dems will control Congress, which is what you seem to think will happen. Why do you think that? We don’t get to replace ALL of them this time, so there will still be plenty of the DLC, (bluedog dems), and the repugs left. Certainly enough of them to give Obama plenty of heartburn.

Based on all of the above, I think your fears are probably unwarranted, IF that is in fact that reason you would support McClone.

Well ApprxAm, I thank you so much for your post. You’ve probably not gonna believe what’s happened since I read it, but I’ll tell you anyway.

I decided that I just *had* to hear my guy Sam Cooke singing our song about the -coming change-. (after you mentioned it). But, after my computer crashed some months ago, that was no easy task, since my entire music collection was wiped out with everything else. (no time or patience to try to recapture everything from the hard drive before reformatting).

So, that meant I had to go in search of it on the internet, and that started a whole long session of me listening to and downloading, and listening some more and on and on. (you know what I mean - one thing always leads to another).

So then I got a bunch of stuff downloaded, and then danced a bit. That was great until I triped over a box. (I’m in the process of moving..have been for weeks). That threw my back and hips out, but didn’t throw anything into a more corrected version of where it should all be.

So then, I crawled back to the computer, and decided I’d write this short note to thank you for the idea on the music - I think.

I also wanted to say that I too very much appreciate the work and enormous sacrifices of John Lewis and the other ladies and gentlemen who’ve made it possible for us to believe that these changes have come, and will continue to come. (I even use an excellent autobiography of his in one of my courses.)

Meantime, I’m going to carry my now disjointed ass to bed, if I can make it up the stairs. (no thanks to the CBC.)

If I’m lucky, (or not so lucky) I might have to move in with the Obama’s. Maybe get a job as a nanny to those smart spunky kids.

Thanks again…

cyrena,

My dear sister, you’ve graced me, no us, with the annecdotal fuel to fire the old school polity and usher in the new. To quote that must humble and heartening of songs, and my favorite, “A change is gonna come.”, and none too soon.

Backing “Cool Money” Jefferson in LA and electing Mama Kwame as the rotational chair at the head of the CBC shows just how backward this caucus is.  I can count on one finger how many times someone from the CBC has had national television time before the Obama explosion about anything the wasn’t about race or Africa.  (HECK...we is scared, just like white folk at being blowed up, too.)

I wasn’t too surprised about the support the Clintons had from the black community.  One thing Bill Clinton did as president, if not really addressed issues concerning blacks, was the listening part.  I have to admit how intoxicating that was for the leader of the free world to care about how we felt about things, hasn’t happened too many times. But that ended with the “Jesse/S.C.” quip.

But back to the CBC. I treasure John Lewis and the ladies & gentlemen who placed themselves at great risk to free America from it’s sins.  But nothing excuses us from holding them accountable for work done, or not.  No one, except Churchill, deserves to congressman/woman for thirty years without the assention to leadership or chairmenship of a standing committee. I fear a general lack of respect for those members and in effect, a failure to be “direct” with these members.  This must to end, and hopefully, beginning this election, the voters in these districts will do just that.  Look at His Honor, Kwame Kilpatrick and the people of Detroit.  Having the right to vote and voting isn’t much if you continue to put into office, ill-educated and ill-mannered power seekers.  Power to elect must be met with the expectation to perform and sadly, this hasn’t been the model in black politics. Change is due.

Troublesum,

I know you’re probably not going to believe this, but I actually know a handful of people (a few now dead) who are more negative and hateful that you. Now THAT is saying something. Is there ANYTHING that would make you happy? Can you think of ANYTHING at all positive to think or say about ANYBODY or ANYTHING in the whole wide world? Or is your glass just perpetually on full empty?

You’re not gonna like any of this either troublesum..but I just thought I’d give you some new bitching material.

Obama’s Speech to Auto Workers in Wisconsin

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obamas-speech-auto-work ers-wisconsin

Full Text of Obama’s Speech to the Alliance for American Manufacturing

http://thepage.time.com/full-text-of-obamas-speech-to- the-alliance-for-american-manufacturing/

Class, racism and Obama’s speech

http://www.workers.org/2008/editorials/class_and_racis m_0327/

Remarks for Senator Barack Obama: National Gypsum in Lorain, Ohio

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/24/remarks_for_sena tor_barack_oba_1.php

Obama’s Speech on Manufacturing and Trade
Published April 14, 2008

http://www.cfr.org/publication/16018/obamas_speech_on_ manufacturing_and_trade.html

By troublesum, June 27 at 2:39 pm

“After securing the nomination Obama felt it necessary to go through the usual democratic candidates rituals of “reassuring” Wall Street and AIPAC.”

troublesum--

besides crossing our fingers and having faith that Obama will “do the right things,” we, the working day progressives, must do a more persistent job of holding our elected officials accountable.  We all know that Obama, or any Democratic for that matter, would not get elected if he told Israel to go take a flying f...or if he told the CORPORATOCRACY that its days were numbered.  The forces that would rise up against him would be overwhelming. We have no choice but to support him and make our voices heard loudly once he is elected. 

This election is supposed to represent a turning point in this country and there would be a great many people highly pissed if Obama were elected and it was the same-o same-o We can’t continue to walk this path that allows Contractors and Countrywide to rape and pillage with impunity.  Nor can we continue to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and nothing in New Orleans or Iowa.  We are in a recession because of Iraq, a gigantic sinkhole pulling everything down in it. 

People must use their own power, which means voting, which means going to the city council meetings, which means hounding elected officials, which means organizing and keeping an eye on these people who represent us.  We have to force this change and make sure we get what we want from our next president (who better not be McCain).

When Jimmy Carter left office in 1980 the average wage for all Amarican workers was about $21/hr.  This included the value of benefits like health care.  When Clinton left office in 2000 the average wage was about $14/hr including benefits.  These figures are from the Department of Labor and they reflect the decimation of labor unions which took place under Reagan and Clinton as well as the loss of manufacturing jobs due mainly to trade agreements.  Clinton bragged about making the country “competetive” with the rest of the world, meaning I suppose the third world.  After securing the nomination Obama felt it necessary to go through the usual democratic candidates rituals of “reassuring” Wall Street and AIPAC.  He did not, of course, spend any time reassuring average working Americans that things would get any better for us.  No need of that now that the primary season is over.  Obama has chosen Clinton’s former treasury secretary as his chief economic advisor so it looks like the third worlding of America will continue if he wins.

“..I don’t know why Obamanistas hate Bill Clinton so much; Obama is Bill Clinton…”

Troublesum,

Who says that supporters of Obama ‘hate’ Bill Clinton so much? Just you it would seem, since you’re real into the ‘hate’ thing. I never ‘hated’ Bill Clinton. Voted for him twice as a matter of fact. (before he did some of his worst stuff, and NO..I’m *not* talking about Monica…I didn’t give a damn about that then, or now).

So, you use the ‘hate’ word pretty liberally, and make the same ‘comparisons’ pretty liberally, even when they don’t exist at all.

Nope. Barack Obama is NOT Bill Clinton. Barack Obama is Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton. And since Bill Clinton isn’t running for president, why the hell does it matter?

The Clinton’s are HISTORY troublesum. Quit living in the past. It’s not particularly great you know.

Bill Clinton also bit his tongue, when he was being overhauled by, “LEWINSKY.” Obama does not have to bit his tongue, spit it out not on Hillary, but on people who plays,” Race Card."Three tongues, Obama, Bill and Hillary, different approaches, rest is history.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25404397/

Should be http://www.counterpunch.com/reichel06262008.html

The MSM is reporting that Obama is making the traditional democratic candidate’s move to the center after winning the nomination.  Obama, they say wants to appear as a “pragmatic” politician who seeks the “vital center.” In France they call it “The Extreme Center” - combining right wing economic policy with politically correct speech on social policy.  I don’t know why Obamanistas hate Bill Clinton so much; Obama is Bill Clinton.  http://www.counterpuch.com/reichel06262008.html

MackTN,

On this..

• “…When Obama started this race, I was shocked at the number of black people supporting Clinton.  They started out with more black support than Obama had.  It wasn’t until Clinton patronized people in South Carolina, and probably unintentionally which is how that kind of stuff usually happens, that the tide turned combined with Iowa, of course. ..”

Me too. (shocked that is) And disgusted at the same time. The reasons of course, you’ve already stated.

• “…It’s not so much that Hillary and Bill lost, all their buddies lost their entre and status around the White House.  They were so sure about the outcome…”

Yep. I remember when some of them first started groaning about it…way back when. All about the patronage and the power. I remember hearing from Maxine Waters, (another big Clinton supporter from my own hometown district) and I was utterly disgusted, since I’d previously admired her. Made me feel like a real sucker. Needless to say, it was ‘learned’ that her own campaign and related efforts have long been supported by the Clinton’s and the DLC.

So, that’s why I’m with ApprxAm, and it’s worth repeating what he or she has written here:

• “…It’s obvious that Sen. Obama is going to have to stay away from the useless Congressional Black Caucus alone.  Hell, 3/5 of them didn’t support him in the first place and only after the rush of constituent 9 to 1.

• “…I can only imagine the stress they are putting him through and the petty request coming from on-low.  They can’t even keep the privacy of the meeting from the press for twenty minutes, the hell with them. I say ignore them and force them to stand-up publicly against him and leave them open to voter revolt.  The CBC hasn’t done anything of worth for blacks except singing the praises of Clintons and rolling over for Jesse, Al and the DLC….”

Yep, I agree 100%. It’s a shame to have to acknowledge it, but it IS the truth.
Ironically, I remember having a similar conversation with a former colleague, who was highly agitated at the fact that Al and Jesse hadn’t come out in public support of Obama far sooner than they did.
I explained as diplomatically as I could, the same thing that ApprxAm says here, though my whole point was..so what? Neither of them represents the interests of the greater black community anyway, and wouldn’t have any ‘play’ at all, if the white MSM didn’t create it.  Who needs that kind of ‘support’?
But, I don’t think my old friend ‘got it’. Obama does though. The CBC seems to be (at least most of them…not all) just an example of the old stereotype of ‘crabs in a barrel’. Time to move on. It’s a new dawn, and a new day….

michele..I wasn’t aware of the connection between the CBC kilpatrick and the thug mayor. (I knew about your thug mayor, but not that his mama was the head of the CBC). Yep, that’s scary.

kath...on this…

“… Any man who backs McCain is also wearing socially-crafted blinkers. If you hate Bush so much, why the hell would you elect McCain? Because you think he has bigger testicles?..”

I think it’s because they think he has SMALLER ones. That seems to be the big fear/insecurity. They wanna make sure that whomever is president, doesn’t have bigger ones than they do.

Seems to be a ‘guy thing’.

• ~In his response to Watson, Obama said, “Look, Diane. John McCain, if he’s elected, is going to pick a Supreme Court that will roll back every gain women have made in the last 50 years.”~

• “He can be pretty direct,” a CBC source said last week. “It was a pretty lively meeting.”

Ah HA! That finally explains the ‘infatuation’ that so many have accused me of. Well, it’s true I guess. I can admit it, now that I got the ‘prompt’ to know the source of it…

It’s this part…

“HE CAN BE PRETTY DIRECT..”

Oh yeah…that’s what does it for me. I’m just sooooo intellectually turned on by that ‘directness’. Ooo la, la.

Meantime, I know exactly what he means about biting his tongue. I’ve had to do that under the same circumstances. It’s very painful, but hey…a guy or girl has to do what she/he has to do. Now when he gets to be my age…like in another 81/2 years, he won’t have to bite his tongue..at least not as often.

I wonder why none of the CBC wanted to talk about what went on in the meeting? Inquiring minds wanna know.