Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 24, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size


The Key to 2014




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Africa’s World War

Africa’s World War

By Gerard Prunier
$18.45

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

A Place Called Unity

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

Posted on Jun 27, 2008
Obama and Clinton
AP photo / Charlie Niebergall

After a long discussion on the matter, Obama and Clinton, shown here after a primary debate, chose Unity, N.H., over close seconds Love, Okla., and Smileyberg, Kan.

Hillary Clinton finally campaigned with Barack Obama, at a rally in the town of Unity, N.H. Never one to miss out on using overtly direct town names—remember Bill Clinton was born in a place called Hope—the Democratic Party may be trying a bit too hard to heal its wounds after a divisive battle in the primaries.


The BBC:

The rally in Unity, New Hampshire, was an opportunity for supporters of the party to come together after the divisive primary battle.

The event follows a joint dinner in Washington where Mr Obama offered help to clear Mrs Clinton’s campaign debts.

Mrs Clinton urged supporters at the Democrat rally to vote for Mr Obama.

“If you think we need a new course, a new agenda, then vote for Barack Obama and you will get the change you need,” she told the cheering crowd.

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 jersey girl, June 30, 2008 at 4:12 am Link to this comment

chringgram:  Right on.

Hillary wasn’t my choice either.  They left us with the two worst possible candidates for the people. Which is, of course, what they intended all along.  We really have no say in who becomes president. It’s all about those that rule.

May I also say that I’m glad all of you are voting for Obama even though you have the same doubts about him as I do. My entire family is included in that group. Since the whole election system is just a show to occupy us with other things while they do their dastardly deeds, I’m voting for a real progressive. It hasn’t been decided which one yet but it will probably be a black woman who is never afraid to speak the truth and has refused to compromise her principles. Or perhaps I’ll vote for Nader.  A man I’ve always admired in spite of his huge ego. Or maybe Bob Barr just to steal that vote from McCain. That may be the best idea of all.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 30, 2008 at 3:54 am Link to this comment

Louise:  If that is true.  That Obama has been himself “compromised” what do you think will happen when he becomes president? Will it get better or worse when he’s in office and truly beholden to the powers that helped him get where he is?  Do you think he will suddenly grow a spine and say I refuse to do the things you require of me, I’m going to instead, serve the people?  That’s kind of wishful, naive thinking, so I’m guessing you don’t believe that either.

That takes me back to what I was originally talking about on another topic.  That the two party system is corrupt beyond all repair.  That only a third, fourth, or fifth party participating can bring us back to any sort of democratic republic. Outside competition is necessary to keep the other parties honest and to give the people a real choice.  Not just the usual one of two corporate candidates whose benefactors are already in control of the government.

If that can’t happen, and judging by people’s loyalty to the two party system, it won’t.  Than all hope is lost.

Report this

By cyrena, June 29, 2008 at 11:19 pm Link to this comment

Re: Louise #166121 Part 1 of 2

Louise,

Thanks for posting the link to the entire text. I’d obviously NOT read the entire thing, even when I thought I was following the link to the entire thing, provided previously by some of the Obama hate mongers here on this site.

So that means that in all of my many previous concerns that I’ve posted here regarding the speech, (mostly the same as yours) I was responding primarily to the cherry picked portions that had been posted by the anti-Obama lynch mob. And, until the link posted by Outraged, I was concerned that he was pandering in a way that was beyond what he needed to ‘pander’. Yes, I wondered why. I wondered why because he’s been on the record (consistently) far too many times before, (albeit in the language of political caution) in speaking his opposition to some of the many crimes of Israel, but specifically in reference to the genocide and apartheid practiced against the Palestinians. And, I simply don’t believe that ANY person ever REALLY changes their stripes to that great a degree. Specifically NOT when these positions have been maintained long before the individual ever entered such a race as this most nasty one for the Oval Office.

That said,  my own reaction to some of these cherry picked portions was similar to yours, and I would add a few words to what you say here:

•  “[As you know, I do not think a two state solution will ever work. I also have a problem with always identifying Hamas as extremists, when equally extreme elements in Israel are ignored.]”

I also do not believe that a two-state solution will work, though there was a time, (albeit decades ago) when it may have. Even *then* it would have required that Israel –isolate itself - within its originally defined boarders, with a set-up not unlike that of the Vatican in Rome. They could have maintained their Holy State, and confined themselves to it, coming out to do business with the rest of the surrounding civilizations for whatever “survival needs” it required. Seeing as their Zionist ideology demands the bipolar opposite, (of expansion throughout the region) and since that’s what they’ve been practicing since the inception of that state, it ain’t likely.

The reason it will not work now, is because the ideological and the physical infrastructure of Apartheid is far too entrenched and permanent, and any attempts to COMPLETELY destroy the physical portion of it would maintain same chaos that has been 60 years in the making. The destruction has to be in the form of the bureaucracy that maintains it, (such as the Israeli Court system that dominates the West Bank and Gaza as one example) IN ADDITION TO the physical infrastructure of check points, barricades, special roads and special license plates (for Israel’s settlers) to access them. To remove these things alone will be trying enough, but in reality, doable. People can adjust to most anything when it is arranged and administered in a dynamic that guarantees stability rather than chaos. What they cannot do is to maintain the physical and ideological mentality of the current structure, and simply call it two states, without forcing a few million people into an enforced relocation.

I too am thoroughly sick of the consistent identification of an entire group, (in this case Hamas) as extremists and ‘terrorists’ when in fact they probably are NOT as extreme as the same elements in the Israeli regime, and when they have been the elected representative of the Palestinian people.

Then this

•  “The U.S. and our partners have put before Hamas three very simple conditions to end this isolation: recognize Israel’s right to exist; renounce the use of violence; and abide by past agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”

Your response

”[Again my two cents worth. Why not call on Israel at the same time to recognize Palastines right to exist? And renounce the use of violence and abide by past agreements with Palestine]”

Report this

By cyrena, June 29, 2008 at 11:18 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2 re Louise 166121

My own agreement to your response includes the reminder that in the multitude of attempted agreements in the past, Hamas (and before that other factions of Palestinian leadership) HAVE agreed to ‘recognize’ Israel’s ‘right to exist’ but Israel has consistently REFUSED to specifically define WHERE that should be! In short, Israel refuses to commit to any GEOGRAPHICAL definitions of this ‘existence’. This is why Israel doesn’t have a Constitution. A Constitution would require that they actually specify geographical borders of their ‘existence’ and the expansionist Israel refuses to do that. They want everybody else to sign on to blank sheet of promises that are not defined in writing. YES Israel, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST, just as soon as we agree on WHERE that is to be!

Obama basically said as much in the same speech, when he talked about Palestine having their own state with contiguous borders. When I pointed this out, I was attacked by the same lynch mob.

As for abiding by past agreements, WHICH ones? And, are there ANY that Israel has EVER abided by? Renouncing violence? Does that include the overwhelming presence of the IDF all over Gaza and the West Bank, with all of the war making equipment. Wouldn’t that also include the release of thousands of Palestinian men, women and children held in Israeli prisons for years for ‘political offenses’?

And what else is so obviously hacked about this speech? Why does it read *“The US and our partners”* have put these conditions before Hamas? That doesn’t even sound right, coming from Obama. Realistically speaking, why should WE (the US) even CARE what Hamas does or doesn’t do, let alone get involved in putting forth any ‘conditions’ for them? It’s just more sneaky shit from Israel, to put OUR dog in THEIR fight.

Nope. He may have read those words, but he didn’t write them. Now that I think about it, DID he even READ them? Has anybody seen a full clip video or other filmed version of his speech? I ask because I’ve learned in these past several years not to trust ANYTHING these people do, and the media tricks of the sale of the 9/11 official lie have been the ropes that I’ve learned most from on that.

So, I’ll end this with the same excellent wisdom I’ve gained from Louise long ago, and which I consistently remember now. “If we’re not paranoid, it means we’re not paying attention.” Obama wasn’t quite paranoid enough on this one. Even if he’d been careful enough to go over every single word of the speech himself, the night before, he couldn’t have memorized it or otherwise ad-libbed any last minute changes to what was presented on the teleprompter. He should know this from the multiple bills and legislation that have been worked up by various segments of Congress, only to be have a few word changes slipped into the final draft that is approved by vote, usually in the middle of the night, and unbeknownst to those who ultimately do the yea or nay part of it.

Chalk another one up to experience that hard way. You’re right Louise, he’ll grow a tougher hide, but at an expense. Took me a long time, and there is that expense. It’s the expense of not being able to take others at face value. It’s the expense of not being able to spontaneously trust. It’s the expense of having to consistently look over ones shoulder, and question everything. And it’s a damn expensive thing to give up for ones continued survival. It means having to PLAN on being set-up by ones enemies. But it doesn’t mean that one can expect to simply NOT participate (or otherwise compete) and expect to not be set-up. (I’ve learned that as well).

So, he’s just gotta do what he’s gotta do anyway, and these set-ups will always be a part of it. It’s a matter of “knowing thy enemy,” and knowing that the enemy does change it’s face over time.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 29, 2008 at 11:09 pm Link to this comment

Re: By jersey girl, June 29 at 2:52 am

Unless I sleepwalk and of course sleepblog, cyrena and I are not one and the same.  Your imagination is getting the best of you.

I only meant to voice that shortly after I had posted a response to you I stumbled upon the article I linked to AND that politics is such an “under the radar” occupation that the truth is at times, difficult to ascertain.  Is the article true..?  I left that to your own determination, it was meant as food for thought. In politics sometimes… there’s just too much FOOD and so little thought.

Report this

By chringram, June 29, 2008 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

Unbeleivable! Obama has reversed himself on FISA, Public Financing, NAFTA and AIPAC’s insanity, but he can do no wrong and Hillery is still the bad guy.  First she is villified for running a hard campaign.  I’ve lived through and participated in every Dem campaign since JFK and none of them were even vaguely as tame as hers against Obama.  Then she is vilified for not dropping out, when there were less than a couple hundred votes difference. Then it appeared that every progressive with a voice was actively preaching that her lack of supporting Obama would cost him the election - AND if this great hope for change did lose it would be HER fault because her stubborn middle aged racist supportors didn’t support him.  She is always the culprit. She is always the blaggard, and no one here has anything negative to say about Obamas huge reversals.  For Heaven’s sake he is a Constitutional scholar-He has the words and charismatic power to speak directly to the American people and tell them why the FISA bill is anti-American and that every soldier fighting in every war fights to defend these Constitutional rights that this administration is trying to destroy!! On the campaign trail he swore to fillibuster the FISA bill to ovations. After he wins the nomination he caves quickly and willingly saying it is a fair bill:(! Does any progressive radio talk show host or television pundit call him on it. NO.  You can bet your bottom dollar if hillery had made a reversal like that she would have been burned alive. Obama places right-wing Dems on his team.  Does any progressive who tore hillery apart say anything? NO!!!  He has to win.  We have to stick together no matter how much he is beginning to act Chuck Hagel/Republican lite.  We’ll just keep on dinging Hill cause we have to blame someone for our stupidity and naivete!  All you Obama fans, your new Dem leader has suckered you. He wants to win at all costs and he does not care about change, especially if it might cost him the election.What I wanted was change.  Real Universal healthcare, real withdrawl from Iraq, real and fair peace according to UN standards for the Palistinians, real help for individuals ruined by these fraudulent loans etc. In short, I wanted a real frickin’ progressive plan that would reverse the damge done by Bush, which would begin the moment Obama took office. And what we are getting is the same- just in a different color and sex.  Bash Hillery all you want-she at least had a plan and you knew where she stood from the moment she began.  Now we have a wild card-and my bet is that before this campaign is done he will be to the right of Hillery on everything.  I will vote for him because Mc Crazy is beyond contempt and a danger to this country.  But I do so sadly because I really thought and hoped that he would actually do what he promised.  Say bye Bye ladies to ALL our Civil liberties, and hello to a great looking fraud for no change. Don’t blame Hillery.  Blame yourselves for being carried away by beautiful words and a promise.

Report this

By kath hussein cantarella, June 29, 2008 at 6:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Louise, there are things Mr Obama cannot criticize until he is elected, even if he is being perfectly fair while doing it. Because if he does he may not get elected.

Report this

By Louise, June 29, 2008 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment

jersey girl, June 29 at 3:14 pm #


louise:  “Set up by whom?”


AIPAC, Hillary, Rove, Hillary’s money people, Bill, some guy in the back of the room who wears a black cloak and works for the IDF, or mossad, the DoD, the CIA, the repubs, the blue-dogs, Cheney, Cheney’s hit men, heck I don’t know. I just know people with bright optimistic agendas, who think there is no problem that cant be solved if we all just come together ... people like Obama ... are easily set up. He’ll grow a thicker hide after a bit.

I hope. wink

If I were to guess, I’d guess a consortium of moneyed special interests with a heavy investment in war and Israel and Hillary. That would be my guess. But ... I really don’t know.

By the way, the rumor’s floating on the net that Bill still thinks Hillary can win the nomination at the convention. Some have quoted him as saying Obama will have to “kiss my ass” before he’ll support him. So maybe it was his doing. Discredit Obama before the election. Naw, that doesn’t make sense Hillary panders to AIPAC worse than Obama did. I think it’s those moneyed special interests. Nail him now and own him later.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 29, 2008 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment

louise:  Set up by whom?

Report this

By Louise, June 29, 2008 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment

jersey girl:

“Does it matter whether he actually wrote the speech or not?  After all, he is the one who is responsible for it in the end.”

~~~

Only to the degree that he has been so clear on so many issues. His past speeches that have come through with such clarity were written by him.

There is no “both sides of every issue” clarity to this speech. Rather it seems to be a campaigning for Israel propaganda speech. And you are correct, if he read it, it must be assumed he agreed with it. And if he agreed with it, it must be assumed he, like so many politicians, does not see with clarity both sides to this impossible issue.

Perhaps he rationalized the need to please AIPAC, because after all the speech was for them. But this fly’s in the face of reality when juxtaposed to Obamas condemning Special Interest Lobbies, because after all ... that is exactly what AIPAC is. And since no man can serve two masters, clearly support for AIPACS rigid view of Israel first can not comfortably sit with America first. And I guess I’m bothered by what I see as pandering. Obama as president owes his allegiance to the United States ... first, last and always!

So I’m left with only one other choice. He did not write it, or at least portions of it. And he does not see clearly every side to this issue. And that could be called blinded by the light of Israel, which is not necessarily a good thing. And, it does disturb me.

But, and this is a very important but ... Obama in his weakest moment is still Superman compared to McCain. And even Supermen are capable of recognizing at some point in time when they have been set up!

I liked his talking about the community of many races and religions where everyone got along in peace and harmony. Maybe that’s the vision he has of a future Israel, but it can never happen as long as Israel calls itself a Democracy but refuses equality to some of different ethnic and religious views.

I think Obama was set up!

Report this

By jersey girl, June 29, 2008 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

Louise: I’ve not only watched the entire speech Obama gave before aipac but read the entire text as well.
Like you, I find his words very disturbing.  Looks to me as if we will have war with Iran no matter who is sitting in the white house because that’s what aipac wants.  And what aipac wants, aipac gets.

Does it matter whether he actually wrote the speech or not?  After all, he is the one who is responsible for it in the end.

Report this

By Louise, June 29, 2008 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment

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

The complete text as written, of Obama’s speech to AIPAC. A few paragraphs copied below ... but read the whole speech. Frankly, I find the speech disturbing. And I find myself wondering, once again, did Obama write the speech?

“The Israeli people, and Prime Minister Olmert, have made clear that they are more than willing to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict that will result in two states living side by side in peace and security. But the Israelis must trust that they have a true Palestinian partner for peace. That is why we must strengthen the hands of
Palestinian moderates who seek peace and that is why we must maintain the isolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel’s destruction.”

[As you know, I do not think a two state solution will ever work. I also have a problem with always identifying Hamas as extremists, when equally extreme elements in Israel are ignored.]

“The U.S. and our partners have put before Hamas three very simple conditions to end this isolation: recognize Israel’s right to exist; renounce the use of violence; and abide by past agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”

[Again my two cents worth. Why not call on Israel at the same time to recognize Palastines right to exist? And renounce the use of violence and abide by past agreements with Palestine ...]

“We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians in Mecca last month. The reports of this agreement suggest that Hamas, Fatah, and independent ministers would sit in a government together, under a Hamas Prime Minister, without any recognition of Israel, without a renunciation of violence, and with only an ambiguous promise to “respect” previous agreements.”

[Again ... the principles behind the controlling political parties in Israel calling for a Jewish only state make it impossible for me to find solace, let alone sense in the above statement. Particularly when Israel has never ceased expanding into Palastinian territory]

“This should concern us all because it suggests that Mahmoud Abbas, who is a Palestinian leader I believe is committed to peace, felt forced to compromise with Hamas. However, if we are serious about the Quartet’s conditions, we must tell the Palestinians this is not good enough.”

[When will anyone tell Israel, half efforts backed up by force and a prison wall are not good enough?]

“But as I said at the outset, Israel will have some heavy stones to carry as well. Its history has been full of tough choices in search of peace and
security.”

[OK, this is accurate, as far as it goes ... Israel has some heavy stones to carry, why not identify them? Beginning with the decency to accept their fair share of responsibility for the problems identified.]

Report this

By troublesum, June 29, 2008 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

cyrena is the only person on earth who sees Obama’s AIPAC speech as pro-Palestinian.  Not surprising that she now thinks he is omniscient and will soon be walking on water.  If only the AIPAC speech could just be erased from the public record.
Obama gave the usual democratic candidates speech to the auto workers, the AFL-CIO, and others during the primary season and then moved sharply to the “Extreme Center” for the general election.  Nothing he said prior to June first means anyting at all.  It was all populist bs meant for the democratic base.

Report this

By Louise, June 29, 2008 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

I need to weigh in on the “Palestine/Israel” problem. Still remembering with stark clarity [that age thing] when we, the civilized world, were happily noting the creation of Israel had solved the “Jewish” problem. History will note, when any group takes it upon themselves to solve someone else’s problem, they usually make things worse.

I expressed dismay over Obama’s comment regarding Jerusalem, when a poster [sorry, cant remember who] helped me see something I hadn’t recognized. Got nothing to do with much of anything here, but has everything to do with my personal opinion ... for what it’s worth.

I happen to believe the “One State” solution is the best solution. Recognizing that will be the hardest solution for all party’s to accept. But if Israel and Palestine became one single nation, with elected officials to govern all, and equal rights guaranteed to all, wouldn’t that mean a lot of the stuff making this hellish problem go on and on would have to be done away with?

For example, the war party would have to remove their Jewish only rights clause from their party platform or risk being put out of power.

The “settlers” would be forced to do things the same way everybody else is forced to. In other words, buy the property they want to settle on from whoever happens to own it.

All the people would have to recognize the rights of ALL the people, and a standing military would be for the purpose of protecting the entire population ... not just the Jews.

The wall would come down. Health care and water and food and work for all would be available, and the really big thing ... drum role please ... We would have to get our friggin noses out of their business!  And likewise, AIPAC would have to get their friggin noses out of our business!

And of course, Jerusalem would be the capital and would be an open for business to all, city.

It is the only solution. The descendents of the original Jews moved there by an anxious to move them there society, would learn very quickly, it’s much easier to get along with your neighbors when you don’t have a gun in their back and they don’t have a rocket aimed at you.

But most important, the “Palestine/Israel” problem would stop being a handy excuse for everyone else to justify war and aggression.

Self-righteous Christians could continue to visit their holy Jerusalem. Likewise, self-righteous Jews and Muslims could continue to visit their holy sites. And the majority of Muslims, Christians and Jews, who don’t go around beating up their neighbors in the name of their respective Gods, could go about the business of running a country for the benefit of themselves and other citizens in that country.

OK, I know ... seems impossible. Especially given the years of inbred hate planted in the minds of the devout religiosity types, but it is possible. Probably not in my lifetime, but it is possible. I marvel at the changes I have seen, good and bad, but mostly good in my lifetime.

I think, unless we really want an Armageddon, which by the way does NOT promise to lift the “righteous” up to heaven ... this One State solution is the only solution that ultimately will work.

Or, Armageddon will work.

A nuclear holocaust that will pretty well wipe everybody ... including the “righteous” ... off the map. No more people ... no more problem.

Report this

By jersey girl, June 29, 2008 at 3:52 am Link to this comment

Wow Cyrena, That’s pretty clever.  Posting under different ids to back up your own argument ~

Personally, I think it’s OUTRAGEously dishonest but what anyone else thinks wouldn’t bother an arrogant, pompous ass such as yourself now would it?

Report this

By cyrena, June 29, 2008 at 3:35 am Link to this comment

Part 1 of 2 reply to Outraged’s gift in #166055
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080627_a_place_called_unity/

Outraged, you are a genius! Thank you for sharing this link. Felicity was right. Obama is a few steps ahead of us all the time. In time, all things shall be revealed. (that’s the closest I get to any kind of scripture).

•  “…Obama appeared to lavish praise on an organization that has unflinchingly supported the failed foreign policy of George W. Bush. In this rush to judgment of Obama’s obeisance to AIPAC, the backstory is rarely considered, and the political dimension of his strategy to confront John McCain appears never to have been taken into serious account…”

One should MOST DEFINITELY consult this full article to find out not just the back story, but to discover the speech that McSame Thug made as well, to this same group. Maybe then, some of the smarter ones among us will be able to tune right in to Obama’s strategy for confronting McSame Thug and all of the other dirty bastards.

Another excerpt:


•  The Republicans’ political strategy is now perfectly clear. Aided and abetted by their fellow neocons in the US and Israel, Republican operatives ultimately under the command of Karl Rove are in the process of defining Barack Obama as a closet Muslim and the hand-picked presidential candidate of Iran. Soft on Iran, soft on Iraq and not to be trusted with national security, Obama will be attacked by the Republicans as unfit for the presidency. These arguments are designed to gain traction on the back of open hostilities in the Middle East and will crystallize during a US and or Israeli assault on Iran that could take place at any time from now until the day of the election.


•  “In his remarks to AIPAC, Obama promised an aggressive pursuit of peace from the earliest days of his presidency, and he called for the removal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank. These were not popular points with his audience.”

Funny, I never ever heard these remarks from his speech.

•  “In contrast, Senator John McCain promised AIPAC a broader war in the Middle East spilling over into Iran, but he did not stop there. McCain advocated a permanent occupation of Iraq and many other sites in the Middle East from Kurdistan to Kandahar. But that was not all. Quoting suspicious sources, McCain led his audience at AIPAC to believe that the unpopular president of Iran had called for a resumption of the Holocaust. Of course, McCain’s remarks were absurd. For years, McCain and many others have painted Ahmadinejad as a denier of the Holocaust. When he addressed AIPAC, McCain depicted Ahmadinejad as the proponent of a Holocaust that he has been demonized for denying. McCain’s little studied speech to AIPAC was littered with absurdities, but they were absurdities designed to appeal to the deepest fears palpitating in the hearts of that august chamber.”


•  “In contrast to McCain’s absurdist nightmares of a renewal of the Holocaust and promises of a pre-emptive war against Iran plus the eternal occupation of Iraq and a future engulfed in global war, terrorism and economic deprivation, Obama’s statement emphasizing diplomacy, peace negotiations and the return of land to Palestinians should be interpreted as a bold model of rationality placed before a rabidly hostile audience.”

Funny how NONE of the MSM even covered McCain’s speech to AIPAC. And Obama’s was only ‘selectively’ covered.

Equally odd is how Obama’s speech has been consistently framed as major ‘pandering’ to AIPAC, when in fact he was telling them some stuff that they really didn’t wanna hear.

I won’t bother to remind that I *did* interpret the part of it that I WAS aware of, and what I believed it meant, that the AIPAC people probably didn’t much like. And of course I was attacked for that as ‘defending’ Obama again.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=9436

Report this

By cyrena, June 29, 2008 at 3:34 am Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2

Same here:

•  “The most egregious statement Obama made during his star-crossed speech to AIPAC involved the city of Jerusalem. Obama called for an era of peace in an “undivided” Jerusalem. Avnery reproached Obama for this remark, reminding him that Jerusalem had been the capital of Palestine, and there was no conceivable set of circumstances that could change that fact. After hearing the cries of those appalled by his mistake, Obama clarified his statement on Jerusalem with a refinement designed to reassure the Palestinians over the future of their beloved city. Obama’s clarification was revealing. In his clarification, Obama stated that he had meant that Jerusalem must not be divided by walls or barricades or check-points in a clear slap at current Israeli policy on the West Bank where the grotesque security wall has disfigured the landscape. But, Obama’s clarification came one day too late. A great deal of damage had already been done to Obama’s credibility in the Middle East.”

This WAS the most egregious part of the entire statement, *that I read*. (I didn’t read any of this other stuff, about returning Palestinian lands to Palestinians, and the MSM never published it that I’m aware of.)

Still, I remember wondering, (and commenting) on whether or not Barack knew of the long ago arrangement for Jerusalem. I’m still not sure.

In context with the rest of what we DIDN’T know about McSame Thug’s speech, it makes perfectly good sense that Obama told them that he would *eliminate any threat* from Iran,  (because I KNOW that he knows they are NOT a threat) and *without* blasting them to smithereens, but rather via the same diplomacy that he said he would employ now well over 6 months ago.

Oh yes…this is a must read article. It all makes so much more sense now.

Thanks Outraged! You’ve done it again.

(Of course the usual suspects either won’t read it, or will intentionally not ‘get it’.

The url address of this article is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=9436

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 29, 2008 at 12:56 am Link to this comment

Re: jersey girl

Then again..I found this article…..

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9436

I feel like, “Welcome to Politics” and how was your day?  But also, I hope you don’t like history and of course, “did you hear about the…?”

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 29, 2008 at 12:25 am Link to this comment

Re: jersey girl

“Has anyone had enough of this sickening “truman show” yet?  Are you getting the feeling you’ve been played all along by these two and those that rule and the msm?”

Although I’ve omitted your proceeding “reference”, for the record… I agree.  Nader is starting to look better and better.  Maybe we need to explore other avenues.  Unless you’ve a better option…I’m all ears…..

Report this

By cyrena, June 28, 2008 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

Ah rage..

I love your comment. Definitely a keeper. Truth is always a beautiful thing. (well, maybe not always, but it can turn out to be, once we come to grips with it.)

Meantime Louise…since I *did* part with a small portion of my already minuscule ‘resources’ to throw in for ‘the team’ (by supporting the Obama campaign) I’m not at all happy about even a dime of it going to help the multi-millionaire Clinton’s pay off her bills, based on her very poorly and irresponsibly managed campaign. An uneducated single mother does better managing finances, because if she didn’t, she’s be homeless after a stern lecture from the eviction judge to be more ‘responsible’ with her money.

Why does this somehow not seem quite fair?

And then we’ve got the still bitter Hillary supporters, hoping and praying for Obama to lose. Shouldn’t THEY be paying off Hillary’s bills?

Silly me. What a foolish suggestion.

Report this

By cyrena, June 28, 2008 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

Ah…politics. Lovely, lovely politics…

•  “…Mrs Clinton’s advisers have warned Mr Obama that her ability to campaign on his behalf will be limited if she has to spend the summer raising money to pay off her debts….”
They’ve ‘warned’ eh? As in a bit of coercion and extortion type warning?

And, to what ‘gain’? According to this…not much..

•  “Latest opinion polls suggest that while Mr Obama has made headway in winning over Mrs Clinton’s supporters since she withdrew from the nomination race, one in five of them has indicated they will vote for the Republican candidate, John McCain.”

This poll says exactly what most won’t ever say in other language…

1 in 5 of them will vote for McCain. Very sad testimony of the reality of the American mentality…still.

BUT…I’m gonna close with…it *is* ‘BETTER’! We might actually make up a real civilization one day.

Report this

By bettym47, June 28, 2008 at 8:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m gagging. Unity my eye. It’s so nice Hillary and Barack were colored coordinated for their great event in New Hampshire yesterday. It seems like elections are all about images these days for TV. Hillary gave a great speech. I thought it was even better than Obama’s. She looked very relaxed and more energized than he did, but we all know that it was faked. She has to do it if she wants to be accepted by the Dems again. Obama had to do it to get her voters. The sad thing is that with seniors who don’t go on the internet much, it may work somewhat. My step-father fell for it hook, line and sinker. “Oh, they’d make such a great ticket! They would be sure to win if they ran together”, he swooned. He has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. I, of course, want Obama to lose, and fear such a ticket. However, since we know Obama can’t stand Hillary, and visa verse, and has no intention of making her his VP, I’d just prefer they’d be real and have a great big pillow fight. It would be more entertaining. Since I’m an angry Hillary supporter, I’m still hoping upon hope that they find something wrong with Obama’s birth certificate so he’s eliminated from being able to run. Seems the latest rumor is that he was born in Canada or Kenya. They are even claiming that the birth certificate that he did provide was doctored. Now that’s a great scandal, if it can be proven to be true! I hear droves of people are running through Kenya and Candada to find out if it is. I’m not hanging my hat on it, but wish them luck. Larry Sinclair is still out there. I have to hope the Rev. Wright’s blockbuster book will be out soon too. If it’s okay to mention it, please see my blog at http://www.elections2008online.com to comment further. Thanks.

Report this

By pleazzer, June 28, 2008 at 8:40 am Link to this comment

HE SOLD US OUT ON FISA AND WILL NOT GET A DIME FROM ME OR MY SUPPORT. WE ARE STARTING A MOVEMENT AGAINST HIM FOR SELLING US OUT. AT LEAST WITH McCAIN WE WILL HAVE OUR GUNS AND KNOW WHAT WE ARE GETTING FROM THE START. OBAMA IS A TWO FACED LIAR. HIS NEW SLOGAN FOR THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.

OBAMA, JUST ANOTHER LIAR.

Darrell

Report this

By jersey girl, June 28, 2008 at 4:43 am Link to this comment

Has anyone had enough of this sickening “truman show” yet?  Are you getting the feeling you’ve been played all along by these two and those that rule and the msm?  If not, I suggest you get your head outta your a**.

Orwell is indeed, rolling in his grave.  Never in his wildest imagination could even he have dreamed this sh** up.  The town of “unity” to present the two lovebirds in a united front?  Kumbaya, my lord, kumbayaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Excuse me, I’m gonna be sick.

Report this

By troublesum, June 28, 2008 at 3:34 am Link to this comment

The fact that they both received 107 votes in Unity, NH only underscores the fact that the race was a tie in terms of the popular vote.  It must have been Hillary’s idea to meet in Unity and Silly Putty agreed.

Report this

By Louise, June 27, 2008 at 5:21 pm Link to this comment

A feel good report abut a feel good visit to a feel good town with the very intentional motive of getting more money out of the feel good public.

Personally, if I had donated some part of my limited income to help Obama win the nomination, I wouldn’t feel good at all about being asked to bale out Hillary. And I do not feel good about the fact that she clearly does not know how to manage money [or much of anything else] In spite of her deep pocket supporters that Obama wants us to feel good about bringing on board.

Sorry folks, this whole thing does not feel good.

~~~

By rage, June 27 at 1:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

“At this juncture, the party cannot afford to jeopardize this opportunity to take the White House in 2009 to continue to cajole and capitulate to you and Bill. It’s prime time for you Clintons to either go hard for Obama or go home to New York.”

Great comment, rage

Report this

By rage, June 27, 2008 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

““If you think we need a new course, a new agenda, then vote for Barack Obama and you will get the change you need,” she told the cheering crowd.”

C’mon, Hillary! Three of every four American taxpayers now feel that Forrest Dumya Gump has America circling the sixth of nine rings of hell at this point. Even Stevie Wonder can see the flames licking up off the pools of brimstone marking Amercia’s crazed descent into perdition.

Hillary, let’s just tell the truth and shame the devil here. Folks already got you loathe the black man who had the temerity to publicly whip a white woman, with DNC impunity. You’re only back on the stroll to troll for big monied suckers willing to assist you with debt reduction, grinning coyly to grope johns and janes for the spare change in their wallets. So, do try to be distractingly pleasant so the patsies you’re soft-touching aren’t made suspicious too early on. You and Bill are doing Obama no favors when the only reason you’re there is because Howard Dean made it a MANDATORY to assess your party fidelity and allegiance. You’re party-compelled to mend the fences you burned down, trying to blaze a trail from seven uneventful years in the Senate to eight years in the White House. Be honest!

Had Team Hillary effectively strategized to win the Democratic nomination, instead of fecklessly snoodling up to McCain while constantly kicking Obama in his nuts from behind, you might have gotten the Democratic Nomination. But, that would have required those idiots Penn and Ickes’ realization that big states don’t matter more than every single state with a potential vote for you, especially when you’re striving to memorably distinguish yourself from a pool of viable competitors who in most cases had more legislative experience than you. Meanwhile, Mark Penn fraudulently wasted your huge campaign fortune and squandered Clinton-brand clout, trying to prove how Obama couldn’t close the deal in November, gaming the system, hoping to drive this bewildered montrosity all the way to the Convention floor where he felt he could game the super delegates into a gimme when you couldn’t close the deal. Then, you lost to the unelectable Obama when no one but you and Penn wanted a Convention floor fight! You didn’t lose because you’re a derrided woman in an inherently mysogynistic society of overt sexists. You lost because your presumptuously arrogant campaign managers flagrantly misread all the glaring signs of your inevitable fall while foolishly underestimating your fierce competition.

Thus, the DNC is not offering you and that incorrigible, recalcitrant, estrogen-depleted herd of faux feminist McCain supporters an opportunity to say ‘I told you so’ in November, thus fueling your hopeful 2012 run. And, hell no, you are nowhere close to being added to the list of Obama VEEP hopefuls. Your mission, should you and Bill elect to retain any semblance of legitimacy whatosoever amongst Democrats, is to help your party put the winning Democratic nominee, Barak Obama, into the Oval Office in November.

Alas, Hillary, you Clintons are Democrats. And supporting Obama is the final offer Dems are making to you at this time. Do this convincingly, and the Dems just might help you stave off Moynehan’s aggressive pursuit of your New York Senate seat in 2010. Face it, that monumental $22 million testament to your stubborn self-intrested vendictiveness wouldn’t exist if you had wisely cut your losses the moment defeat was inevitable. So, handle your bills in a way that doesn’t screw the Dems in November. The Dems not only have an edge, but a certainty that Obama can vanquish Grampers in November. At this juncture, the party cannot afford to jeopardize this opportunity to take the White House in 2009 to continue to cajole and capitulate to you and Bill. It’s prime time for you Clintons to either go hard for Obama or go home to New York.

Report this

By Ted, June 27, 2008 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Now that we’re beyond Hillary, we can look forward to the first female VP, Sarah Palin, to become the first female President of the United States in 4 years!

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


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

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