All:

The link is to an NYT Op-Ed by Bob Herbert (who, for those who don’t know, is black), and speaks to the REAL difference between endemic racism and endemic sexism.

Peace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15herbert .html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Gomerspile, I would quibble only a bit, (and not to any significant degree) about the liberal label, as well as the conservative label, only because I’m convinced that neither has the same meaning in today’s political discourse, as it did back in the days of yours or my own origins.

Now, if you think the liberal view is one of my way or you’re dead wrong, that clearly doesn’t fit with my own view. On the other hand, ‘compromise’ in the general meaning of the term, OR..at least in respect to CONFLICT RESOLUTION, rarely works.

We like to think that it does, and we even try it, in various scenarios, generally using established sorts of ‘compromise’ type programs. In the end, it generally doesn’t work, because it will ultimately still favor one side over the other.

That’s where ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION mechanisms can sometimes be helpful, but it generally requires moving it out of the standard and established means that we’re accustomed to, (such as a court of law) to some other forum. And, it takes a while. It takes a while because it means sorting through a bunch of BS, to get to what the REAL issues are. Like, what do the conflicting parties REALLY want? You’d be amazed at the process of trying to actually find that out. At least I am, every time I become involved in any sort of mediation.

Still, it’s never ‘my way or the wrong way’ but rather the opposite. It’s more like ‘what works for the whole’. And amazingly, when individuals AND groups of them, can actually sort through to what it really is that they want, (or at least the substance of it) the ‘ideal’ resolution is that everybody CAN actually have it their way. Most folks don’t stop long enough to think through what they actually want, because they’re too busy banging down the other guy/girl.

But, I said all of that to say that conservatives, and liberals (if there even IS such a thing anymore, since those concepts have clearly broken down) CAN in fact manage quite well, without even calling it a ‘compromise’. Believe it or not, EVERYBODY can eat cake, once they’ve realized that it’s possible, and aren’t focused on making sure that the ‘other’ doesn’t get ANY.

Unfortunately, that’s pretty much where we’re at now, and it’s getting worse.

I’ve only proved that you’re ignorant and very, very tacky lib…as in no class. So, it’s foolish to thank me for that.

And, LESS is never better when it comes to intelligence, because we live in a society that depends on it’s populace to excercise whatever degree of it they can be expected to. You fail us miserably.

BUT, I did mean to ask you about your research on Barack Obama’s father, and all of his wives. Nobody else seems to know about, or be aware of them. And, it’s hard to get any real accurate information, since the guy’s been DEAD for so long.

So, how did YOU find out? Special research?

Thanks reason. I suspect you’ve ‘read me correctly’, which allows you to interpret the rest just as well.

Meantime, I responded to another comment that you made over on the thread that has decided that “Oh well, maybe Iran didn’t do it after all’. (my paraphrase of the latest piece explaining the hype of the alleged ‘provocation’ of the Iranian speed boats.

It doesn’t answer your question - directly - about the definition of ‘winning’ the Iraq war(or any other agressive actions in the ME) but you’ll be able to make the connections easily enough.

In short, it just continues to make clear what the ‘war’ is for, and about. Once we know that, (and it’s been clear to me since before it began) the definition of ‘winning’ becomes obvious.

In that case, ‘winning’ means being there for as long as there is oil to be stolen for the BIG Oil Industry.

Now Hillary say’s it’s to ‘protect American interests’. But in reality, that’s not the case, at least not if we’re talking about average Americans like us posting on this site, or pretty much the other 300 million of us. Because, at the end of the day, the price at the pump is still what it is, and we either pay it to the oil companies, or we don’t.

So, that’s what ‘winning’ is. It’s getting every drop of the oil from under the sands of Iraq, (at least for starters) and our troops (not to mention the millions of Iraqis) will continue to die in the process, unless someone can control the gangsters, and agree to start PAYING for the OIL, instead of stealing it.

Now THAT would make far more sense in my opinion, but of course I’m not running anything.

Still, imagine..for those of us who still buy gas at the pumps, (now up to $4+ a gallon in my area, which is why I’ve long ago switched to alternative transportation) it would actually be so much cheaper, if we were willing to BUY the stuff from the Iraqis, and they could use the money, to put their country back together. (or at least try).

But, I don’t see that happening, as long as the thugs are still in control.

That Hillary is another establishment, power elite pawn has nothing to do with sexism. Her very dirty game doesn’t either, nor the help whoever it is gave her with the fake pollsters calling Iowa voters with questions containing nasty implications about Obama.

And by the way, she probably didn’t win in New Hampshire any more than Bush did in either election. See this (never mind the title; this is a generic problem):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecdkCVD7mM&feat ure=related

Reason:

Re Cyrena, you say, “...many think personal insults and condescension are acceptable retorts to others that do not agree with them. I am glad to see that you are above that.”  Are we reading the same cyrena?  Here is a recent comment, just four posts below this - and it is by no means the only one of its kind:

“But, I see you’re proud to be from Texas, and that explains it all. My sympathies go out to you. It’s one ignorant hell hole of a place. You’re proof that it hasn’t changed. So, while I’m certainly not ‘radical’ (say like ron paul) YOU are certainly ignorant, and just downright, well…the others can figure it out.”

You call this type of sarcasm and mean-spirited denigration “being above” the behavior you chastise?

You might want to do a little more research on cyrena’s posts; she is among the MOST sarcastic, personally insulting posters on the site.

Peace.

Cyrena, Thanks for proving my point, sometimes less is better !!

I like your style Cyrena. I do not post my views on here as often as some but I do read many of the comments. It would be nice if more of the commentors were seeking friendly debate but it seems that many think personal insults and condescension are acceptable retorts to others that do not agree with them. I am glad to see that you are above that. Truthdig (for me) is a forum for views and ideas that can refine and expand my views and help me understand others. I sense from what you have written that you feel the same. It is nice to see you can stand your ground with some of the “dimwits”.

By lib in texas, January 12 at 4:16 pm #

Re: Re: Obama ,my ass
•  cyrena, I don’t believe I have seen anyone so infatuated as you seem to be with Obama.  Maybe you can apply to be one of his wives.  His father had 3, I guess 4 if you count his mother.  Since when do you have the monopoly on the truth.  I’ve seen several things you have written that you were misinformed about, but I am not going to get into a big long dissertation with you about it.  Not worth it since you are so radical.

Well lib,
I guess you haven’t been around much, or reading long. And, you’ve obviously not read my own posts much either, since I’ve been a staunch supporter of Kucinich for this election, since the beginning. I also like Edwards, but Kucinich and Gravel were my preferred candidates from the beginning, and I still like them a lot. It doesn’t look like things are working out for Kucinich though, so I certainly hope that Obama can win the nomination.

Meantime, yours is a really tacky shot on the whole thing with Obama and his father and all of the rest. Really pathetic. But, I see you’re proud to be from Texas, and that explains it all. My sympathies go out to you. It’s one ignorant hell hole of a place. You’re proof that it hasn’t changed.

So, while I’m certainly not ‘radical’ (say like ron paul) YOU are certainly ignorant, and just downright, well…the others can figure it out.

cyrena,  I don’t believe I have seen anyone so infatuated as you seem to be with Obama.  Maybe you can apply to be one of his wives.  His father had 3, I guess 4 if you count his mother.  Since when do you have the monopoly on the truth.  I’ve seen several things you have written that you were misinformed about, but I am not going to get into a big long dissertation with you about it.  Not worth it since you are so radical.

Gomerspile,

You sure do give this guy a whole lot of credit for stuff, all things considered. One minute, he’s an ‘obscure politician from nowhere’ and now you’ve got him responsible for everything that’s happened in Cook County for the last 30 years.

You’ve also got him teaching at the U of I, and unless I’m really off base myself, I specifically remember that it was DePaul University, and I KNOW that his field has always been civil rights, (and for you that make limited associations with words and phrases, civil rights that apply to ALL people) with an emphasis on Int’l Law as well.

I should add that I also lived in Chicago for a while, and although I don’t live there any longer, I can testify to the improvements that have happened since Obama entered the scene, which hasn’t been quite as long ago, as you would like to give him credit for.

So, why not just say that YOU don’t like the guy, for WHATEVER the reasons YOU might have…maybe you’re a racist, and don’t like ANY people of color, or maybe you’re just a bitter old fart who can’t stand anybody, including yourself. So, just say you don’t like him, instead of making shit up and passing it off as fact instead of your sour grapes opinion. I’m pretty sure that we’ve been through this before, and you pretty much don’t like ANYBODY.

So, go take it out on your dog, or better yet, beat your own self in the head. Or, go take a bribe.

“Vic you need to live in Illinois to see what Obams has not done”

I actually lived in Chicago…but not sure what you mean by “see what he has not done” - There is a lot to be fixed in every part of the country…how does that diminish what Obama HAS done?

Found this in Washington Post on Obama’s record:
Judge Him by His Laws

By Charles Peters
Friday, January 4, 2008;

People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements.

Since most of Obama’s legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there—and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously.

I am a rarity among Washington journalists in that I have served in a state legislature. I know from my time in the West Virginia legislature that the challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the “heart and soul” bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person’s character and ability.

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced—by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama’s bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to “solve” crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

Obama had his work cut out for him.

He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that “Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics.”

The police proved to be Obama’s toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, “This means we won’t be able to protect your children.” The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought—successfully—to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Obama didn’t stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state’s first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois “one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure”). Obama’s commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who “bundle” contributions for them.

Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a “unique” ability “to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people.”

cyrena, I hope you aren’t insinuating Obama is a suffering black man?  Obama led a privileged life thanks to his white grandparents.  His work in the trenches,so to speak, after he got his BA was only a few years, then he went to Harvard. He is the product of a white mother and Kenyan father who was never a US citizen. I laughed when I heard him talk about walking the picket line in heat and cold.  Wow !  Bill and Hillary Clinton have done more for black people than the priviledged Obama.

Cyrena:

Re Obama and Hillary and torture, let’s look at their respective statements.

Obama: “We have a legal definition of torture—it is the Federal Anti-Torture Statute. The techniques outlined in the New York Times article are inhumane and unlawful. This is the finding of the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines. When I am President, we will reject torture without exception or equivocation. It is illegal, immoral, and it does not protect America.”

Clinton: In October 2006, Hillary came out against torture, with a single exception: “if the suspect has knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans.”  However, she withdrew from this position shortly thereafter, and in her October 2007 remarks on the torture bill, stated:

“The rule of law cannot be compromised. We must stand for the rule of law before the world, especially when we are under stress and under threat. We must show that we uphold our most profound values.  The bill before us allows the admission into evidence of statements derived through cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation. That sets a dangerous precedent that will endanger our own men and women in uniform overseas. Will our enemies be less likely to surrender? Will informants be less likely to come forward? Will our soldiers be more likely to face torture if captured? Will the information we obtain be less reliable? These are the questions we should be asking. And based on what we know about warfare from listening to those who have fought for our country, the answers do not support this bill. As Lieutenant John F. Kimmons, the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence said, “No good intelligence is going to come from abusive interrogation practices.” This bill undermines the Geneva Conventions by allowing the President to issue Executive Orders to redefine what permissible interrogation techniques happen to be. Have we fallen so low as to debate how much torture we are willing to stomach? By allowing this Administration to further stretch the definition of what is and is not torture, we lower our moral standards to those whom we despise, undermine the values of our flag wherever it flies, put our troops in danger, and jeopardize our moral strength in a conflict that cannot be won simply with military might.”

Thus, at this point they are both against torture, and both have come out specifically against waterboarding.

It is interesting to note that NEITHER of them includes their positions on torture in their respective Wikipedia position sites. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack _Obama and ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_H illary_Rodham_Clinton]

A couple of other observations re the Wikipedia sites: Clinton’s says she is in favor of “benefit of the doubt” re executive authority, while Obama does not mention the issue on his site at all.  As well, something I did not catch re his Senate votes is this: “He has advocated closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but has not supported two specific bills that would have done so.”

Peace.

Cyrena:

Thank you for your more measured comments.  I will attempt to do the same, and hopefully neither of us will further engage in the emotion-laden intensity of our past exchanges.

Rather than go into detail about your most recent comments, I will only say that you have actually ended making my case for me - or at least saying what it is that I have been trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to say since Day 1.

That is that, no matter how “nice” Obama’s rhetoric may be, there is the practical reality of politics; i.e., that with respect to what he can ACTUALLY DO - rather than what he promises - he will be in almost exactly the same boat as Hillary would be if he gets elected: the need to work with others to accomplish his goals.  And as you just said (and I have been saying or alluding to for some time), “The very guts of the democratic system requires ‘deal making’ more than anything else.”  Obama will have to be no less a deal-maker than Hillary if he is elected.

And it is in this regard that “experience” DOES count.  As I have noted, Hillary has been among the most bipartisan senators almost since arriving in DC; this is acknowledged by both her own party AND by the GOP.  Obama is NOT seen that way, partially because he is a comparative neophyte senator and has simply not had the time to learn, but also because he has made little effort to do so, at least compared with Hillary.  And no, it is not simply that Hillary has similar views to the GOP, and thus works better with them.  While this may be true in some instances, she leverages this to get the things SHE wants for HER party as well.  As you note, and while we BOTH may hate it, THAT is how it works.

Re “political expediency,” I am surprised to hear you dismiss it so casually, even within the context of the “reality” of politics.  Rather, I hold BOTH of them accountable for this type of behavior - not taking a stand when they should or might have.  In this regard, my argument is that Obama seems to be getting a free ride re HIS political expediency, while Hillary gets vilified for it.

Indeed, another aspect of “political expediency” is copping your opponent’s positions, either brazenly or subtly.  I do not question that Hillary has copped some of Obama’s positions.  But he has done the SAME THING on occasion, most recently re the housing crises, which he did not even address for months while Hillary was “on it” pretty early on, yet he has now taken a remarkably similar stand to Hillary’s.  Yet here again, Obama seems to get a free ride when he does this, while Hillary is, again, vilified for it.

Finally, re Hillary and torture, I will address this and a couple of other things in an additional post.

Peace.

Part 1

Maani,

Let’s talk about this a little more, since I didn’t have the time or energy for a full response yesterday. Not just you, but many other Obama haters, have pointed out his alleged ‘no vote’ record, which is easy enough to tally. Some have even given percentages of his votes, for when he has voted in ‘agreement’ with the majority of the others in the Senate, and you’ve used this same tactic to claim that his policies are IDENTICAL to Hillary’s. MORE than that though, you consistently go above and beyond the mere statement of these ‘statistics’ by adding your OWN assessment of it. Specifically, you love to say that this is an indication that he is ‘not principled’ or that he won’t ‘take a stand’. I quote you here, but this is standard for you…

•  “It was not just one time; it was at least four times, if not more, so he had LOTS of chance to back up his rhetoric with his votes.”

Now, let’s consider something other than the spin that YOU put on this. There could be any number of reasons why Obama, OR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, may not vote at all, or may not vote in the way that we think they should, based on what we see as their stated policies, or how we perceive that they should, based on our own. You have intimated as much yourself, when you suggested that NO PRESIDENT could ‘change’ everything. (or something like that..I paraphrase).

So, for the record, I will AGREE that on many occasions, there is of course some measure of real politick in the operations of Congress. That’s just the way it is. I will also agree that many politicians DO in fact, wage their leverage with their constituency, by indulging in a certain amount of political sophistry. An excellent example of this is when Dennis Kucinich introduced a measure to impeach Dick Cheney. Ron Paul, who CLAIMS as a candidate, that he believes the bunch should be impeached, used some parliamentary bullshit to block the measure, because in reality, he’s just as teamed up with the Repugs thugs as he’s always been, and there’s no way he would EVER go along with an effort to impeach any of them. So, he did some typical bullshit stuff that I won’t even bother to repeat here. And, it fooled a lot of people, or at least those that want to support him, no matter what.

So yes, that sort of thing does goes on, because it’s part of the game of politics, and I admit that I hate it, and that it’s always been that way, so I’ve managed to see it in the grand scheme of things, and measure it case by case.

There are OTHER reasons however, why any member of Congress, (including candidates seeking higher office) may not register a vote on an issue. Oftentimes, they already know, IN ADVANCE (because if they’re on top of things, they SHOULD) what the vote on any particular issue is going to shake down to. If for instance, either Hillary or Barack already knew that their vote for or against Mukasey’s confirmation for AG was NOT GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, it was probably politically expedient to not bother casting a vote at all.
Now, I don’t know, (myself, personally) why neither of them did, and I also don’t know what the ‘issues’ were, on the 4 or more times you claim that Obama did not vote. However, on the Mukasey confirmation, we see that their votes would NOT have made a difference, because the Senate does NOT have what I would consider a real majority of Democrats, (I ‘THINK’ the split is 51/49 – so not a majority by any means). Just as your other Senator supported that confirmation, so did MY other senator – Barbara Feinstein, and so it’s time for her to go as well. (It’s also long past time to put Pelosi out to pasture and that’s the KINDEST way I can say that.)  However, they were not the only dems to vote to confirm, and it would have taken 60 NO votes, to block that confirmation. Do you follow me here?
TBC

Part 1
Maani,
Let’s talk about this a little more, since I didn’t have the time or energy for a full response yesterday. Not just you, but many other Obama haters, have pointed out his alleged ‘no vote’ record, which is easy enough to tally. Some have even given percentages of his votes, for when he has voted in ‘agreement’ with the majority of the others in the Senate, and you’ve used this same tactic to claim that his policies are IDENTICAL to Hillary’s. MORE than that though, you consistently go above and beyond the mere statement of these ‘statistics’ by adding your OWN assessment of it. Specifically, you love to say that this is an indication that he is ‘not principled’ or that he won’t ‘take a stand’. I quote you here, but this is standard for you…

•  “It was not just one time; it was at least four times, if not more, so he had LOTS of chance to back up his rhetoric with his votes.”

Now, let’s consider something other than the spin that YOU put on this. There could be any number of reasons why Obama, OR ANY OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, may not vote at all, or may not vote in the way that we think they should, based on what we see as their stated policies, or how we perceive that they should, based on our own. You have intimated as much yourself, when you suggested that NO PRESIDENT could ‘change’ everything. (or something like that..I paraphrase).
So, for the record, I will AGREE that on many occasions, there is of course some measure of real politick in the operations of Congress. That’s just the way it is. I will also agree that many politicians DO in fact, wage their leverage with their constituency, by indulging in a certain amount of political sophistry. An excellent example of this is when Dennis Kucinich introduced a measure to impeach Dick Cheney. Ron Paul, who CLAIMS as a candidate, that he believes the bunch should be impeached, used some parliamentary bullshit to block the measure, because in reality, he’s just as teamed up with the Repugs thugs as he’s always been, and there’s no way he would EVER go along with an effort to impeach any of them. So, he did some typical bullshit stuff that I won’t even bother to repeat here. And, it fooled a lot of people, or at least those that want to support him, no matter what.
So yes, that sort of thing does goes on, because it’s part of the game of politics, and I admit that I hate it, and that it’s always been that way, so I’ve managed to see it in the grand scheme of things, and measure it case by case.

There are OTHER reasons however, why any member of Congress, (including candidates seeking higher office) may not register a vote on an issue. Oftentimes, they already know, IN ADVANCE (because if they’re on top of things, they SHOULD) what the vote on any particular issue is going to shake down to. If for instance, either Hillary or Barack already knew that their vote for or against Mukasey’s confirmation for AG was NOT GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, it was probably politically expedient to not bother casting a vote at all.

Now, I don’t know, (myself, personally) why neither of them did, and I also don’t know what the ‘issues’ were, on the 4 or more times you claim that Obama did not vote. However, on the Mukasey confirmation, we see that their votes would NOT have made a difference, because the Senate does NOT have what I would consider a real majority of Democrats, (I ‘THINK’ the split is 51/49 – so not a majority by any means). Just as your other Senator supported that confirmation, so did MY other senator – Barbara Feinstein, and so it’s time for her to go as well. (It’s also long past time to put Pelosi out to pasture and that’s the KINDEST way I can say that.)  However, they were not the only dems to vote to confirm, and it would have taken 60 NO votes, to block that confirmation. Do you follow me here?
TBC

Part 2
Let me add that while Obama did not vote, he DID make it clear, to a large percentage of the American population in several of his campaign speeches, (including Iowa) that torture is NEVER acceptable/allowable, in ANY FORM, at ANY TIME, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Therefore, I am satisfied with his position on that. (if only because this particular violation of domestic and international law on the part of the Dick Bush gangsters happens to be among the greatest of my complaints, if I had to rank them). IF Hillary has EVER addressed this AT ALL, I haven’t heard her.
Moving along…it’s pretty much the same way that many other issues shake down. None of these members of Congress operate in a vacuum. Yes, we expect them to appear in on their respective floors, and do their respective jobs in casting votes on issues. We also know that sometimes it does no good, and that an equally important part of their job involve coalition building, and the ability to sway other members to their side of an argument. Some do it better than others, and quite honestly, we have a jacked-up and whimpy Congress right now. If George Bush, (the ultimate moron bully) can threaten to make them ‘stay after school’ (or in this case, in session beyond their recesses) to demand that they give him legislation that he wants, and they DO it, (instead of telling him to kiss our collective asses) then that gives you a clue to what we have as leadership/representation these days. And, that’s on BOTH sides of the aisle. So, as a life-time democrat, I’m pretty pissed off with the entire bunch of them. (save a few)
Another thing to consider from a more nuanced perspective, is exactly what standards we’re putting on ANY of these candidates, respective to ‘votes backing up rhetoric’. You complain of Obama supposedly getting a ‘free ride’ but in reality, shouldn’t we look at ALL of the candidates, including those who are NOT in Congress, and don’t have to answer to their votes, and can talk all the shit they want?

Sue made the comment about Obama’s very strong stance against the war on Iraq, (long before it was launched) by claiming that compared to Hillary, (who voted FOR the attack and continued occupation) that it didn’t ‘count’ because Obama wasn’t a Senator at the time of that vote. Is she suggesting that if he had been a Senator at the time, that he MIGHT have voted in favor of the destruction of Iraq, for the purposes of stealing oil, and continuing the US imperialistic agenda?

And what about all of the others? The only repug candidate currently in Congress in Ron Paul. (tell me if I’ve missed one) Among the Dems, we have Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Kucinich, Obama. Maybe I forgot somebody here too. So, should we not consider all of that as well? Should we not hold them to an equal standard, if in fact they are in a position to be responsible for their votes? And if they are NOT currently members of Congress, should we not demand an explanation for where they DO stand on any given issue?

I ask that because more often than not, ‘we the people’ don’t ALWAYS know or understand the political logistics behind any given issue that may come up for a vote in Congress. The very guts of the democratic system requires ‘deal making’ more than anything else, even though I suspect we ALL would prefer to see a bit more of the emotional ideology and all of the ‘stands for statesmanship’ that are the stuff of movies and great leaders.

So, when I suggest looking at things from a larger perspective, I’m not just being arrogant.  I’m saying…LOOK at the whole thing, (at least to the extent that we can, based on what we know) and make your analysis from a broader view. Because, at the end of the day, you’ll be able to find SOME fault, with every single one of them.

Terry, you said it all, right here. And we KNOW that this is STILL the case. More black men are imprisoned for lesser crimes, (or none at all) and they are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, (even below black females, though we’re just one up the notch) and I could go on.

I should also mention that it’s been this way for decades.

I should also mention that degrees of ‘suffering’ aren’t what we should be using as a criteria for selecting the next President. However, looking at our history, (not to mention some of the current comments) I don’t know if we can expect such a thing as common sense judgment in these matters, minus all of the emotional BS and rhetoric.

In reality, if we were a more ‘advanced’ society, none of this would be part of the discussion in the 21st Century, because we would have had both a FEMALE and/or a BLACK or NATIVE American president eons ago. That we are even discussing these issues now, just goes to show how thoroughly backward we are. And, I don’t see that changing. It’s been that way for nearly 300 years.

This whole line of thought is insane, sort of like mine is bigger than yours.

Well, if suffering is the criteria for selecting a president, seems McCane should be included in the equasion.

This is almost as bad as the Republicans arguing which kind of torture is the mostest.  Maybe they could get together and try some water boarding on the Republicans so they can catch up to Obama and Hillary suffering categories. 

I still say a little substance would go a long ways further, but what do I know?

Actually, you called me arrogant at least once, and I believe twice, in this or other threads.  But that’s okay; takes one to know one…

And “stupid” is SO un-P.C. I’m intellectually challenged…

Peace.  (Maybe…)

Wrong again Maani…like this:

•  Yes, but what makes YOU the expert on telling one from the other - with regard to EITHER Obama or Hillary?  Or is Hillary the only one who does this?

First, NOTHING make ME ‘the expert’ on this or anything else. If YOU think I am, well…what can I say? As for Hillary being the only one who does this…probably she isn’t. I’d say there are too many to count.

Then there’s this:

•  You are so blind to your OWN arrogance and your own culpability in “get[ting] yoursel[f] so entrenched in your ideological biases that you interpret FACTS in isolation of the larger and ever changing picture.

Here, you’re just full of more of your own pompous and petty shit slinging. I didn’t suggest that you were arrogant, and I didn’t even suggest (out of a matter of diplomacy) that you were stupid either. But, you are.

As for me being arrogant, that’s pretty much in the eyes of the beholder, now isn’t it? My opinion is as valid as any other opinion, specifically when it’s supported by fact. And, I happen to be a person that recognizes things for what they are. If the tree is green, that’s likely to be what I will say about it. If the tree is brown, then that’s what I’m likely to say about it. If I don’t KNOW what color the tree is, then I’m gonna say that as well.

If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it. That’s the beauty of it all.

FYI All:

The link below is to letters published in The New York Times on Fri, 1/11.  These letters speak directly to the topic of this thread, so I felt they would be germane.

Note that the policy of the NYT letters page (which I know because I have been published numerous times) is that, where multiple letters are published, it is according to the percentage received for each side of the issue.  In this case, the first two letters are “pro” Hillary, and the third is “anti” Hillary, which means ~66% of the letters received (and there may have been dozens, or even hundreds) were pro-Hillary and ~33% were anti-Hillary (the additional letters are published at the whim of the letters editor, and do not count vis-a-vis the percentage received for each side).

Needless to say, I really like the first one, while the Hillary-haters here will like the third.

Peace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/opinion/l11elect. html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

jackifus:

Thank you for your kind comments - a refreshing change from the vitriol and vituperation that usually come my way…LOL

You say: “Obama also questioned Clinton’s judgment in voting for last month’s Kyl-Lieberman amendment…Obama said the amendment included language that empowers the president to attack Iran.”

This irks me because, here again, Obama did not even vote on this: his vote was “NV,” meaning he was either absent or was present and chose not to take a stand.  This is one of the MAIN reasons I question just how “principled” he is - and even whether he has any right to attack Hillary on it, since he has done this on quite a number of critical bills re military and civil liberties.

Reason:

You say, “I do not think we need to make the division in this country greater by electing someone who feels her gender and her family name give her special privileges and consideration.”

Here is the crux of the biscuit: this statement is nothing more than a VERY cynical PRESUMPTION - one that is being made by all but a few people on this thread (and the site in general).  However, since so many people here seem to LIVE on presumption and cynicism about Hillary, I do realize that I am something of a lone voice crying in the wilderness…(LOL).

Cyrena:

Re Mukasey, I am MOST angry with my other senator, Chuck Schumer, who was the one who REALLY pushed for his confirmation.  You can be CERTAIN I will NOT vote for him next time.

You say, “[I]n regard to his ‘principled’ stand against the WAR ON IRAQ, I don’t believe that his failure to vote that one time negates everything that he has said or voted on prior to now.”

It was not just one time; it was at least four times, if not more, so he had LOTS of chance to back up his rhetoric with his votes.

“And this is…what you’re attempting to do…Let’s concentrate on finding out whatever ‘wrongs’ we can on Barack Obama, as some sort of perceived leverage for Hillary.”

Wrong.  I am simply trying to point out that Obama has been getting a “free ride” on his rhetoric, despite the fact that some of the FACTS put his rhetoric in SOME question.

You also say, “I also don’t have a problem with any person…changing their minds, as conditions change, or bona fide information becomes available…That is not necessarily the same as changing one’s mind and flip-flopping, based on political expediency.”

Yes, but what makes YOU the expert on telling one from the other - with regard to EITHER Obama or Hillary?  Or is Hillary the only one who does this? This is of a piece with your comment about “sources” - as if yours are the only ones that are accurate and supportable.  You are so blind to your OWN arrogance and your own culpability in “get[ting] yoursel[f] so entrenched in your ideological biases that you interpret FACTS in isolation of the larger and ever changing picture. And in the process, you also throw in stuff that is far removed from the facts.”

Peace.

Yes Maani,

I DO agree that he should have attended the vote. He’s missed more than I would like for him to have missed lately, and I suspect that it’s because of the campaign. I’m not excusing it, because it is what it is.

I think I mentioned before, that NEITHER of them put forth a vote on the Mukasey confirmation, and I didn’t like that either. I think they should have voted against that confirmation, even if it wouldn’t have made a difference, because enough other DEMOCRATIC senators did vote to confirm him.

Since I’m not in contact with Obama, and since he doesn’t take orders or instructions from me, I can’t really control his senate activity. However, in regard to his ‘principled’ stand against the WAR ON IRAQ, I don’t believe that his failure to vote that one time, negates everything that he has said or voted on prior to now. And this is of course, what you’re attempting to do. Again, let’s concentrate on finding out whatever ‘wrongs’ we can on Barak Obama, as some sort of perceived leverage for Hillary. This is the mentality that is not just yours, but standard negative politics in general.

Like I said before, you pick things out in a cherry picking method, isolated from the general context, and then put your own spin on them. Example, “if he was so principled”…blah, blah, blah.

You did the same thing with his comment on Pakistan. You conveniently forget that it has been the Iraq war of aggression that he has always spoken out against, and that he said long ago, that it wasn’t that he “Didn’t believe in war, he didn’t believe in DUMB wars”. Now he put it far more mildly than I would of course, but here’s the bottom line.

For over 6 years, Bush has been giving billions of dollars to Musharraff to ‘combat terrorism’ in the region where al-Qaeda was known to be…that no-mans land between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And, this was AFTER the US failed to shut them down immediately after 9/11. Musharraff has of course, done anything BUT. (so, what was the money for?).

So now, after 10.7 billion of our dollars have been handed over to Musharraff, and he’s done nothing to counter the haven that we ‘presume’ al-Qaeda has set up there, (and I say that, because I don’t know WHAT al-Qaeda has going in the area) Obama says, IF WE GET ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE, and Musharraff FAILS TO ACT, then we will. I don’t have a problem with that, but you’ve decided that it makes him a hawk.

I also don’t have a problem with any person, (candidate or otherwise) changing their minds, as conditions change, or bona fide information becomes available. Someone else on this thread has said the same thing, and I’ve made the point myself before. If you haven’t changed your mind lately, how do you know you still have one?

That is not necessarily the same as changing one’s mind and flip-flopping, based on political expediency. For instance, we ALL know that Hillary had previously discounted any diplomatic conversations with the Iranians, and criticized Obama for suggesting that such conversations should take place. Now she’s willing.

This is the kind of stuff that I’m talking about. Is it so bad that she’s now seen the light? No, not at all. Still, you and people like you, get yourselves so entrenched in your ideological biases, that you interpret FACTS in isolation of the larger and ever changing picture. And in the process, you also throw in stuff that is far removed from the facts.

Now, I personally don’t agree with Obama in his belief that OBL is still MIA. I think he’s dead. But, there’s not much doubt that the area in question has provided cover for a terrorist element, and it’s important to address that.

No you just don’t have a clue!

I didn’t mean to promote any particular candidate at this point.  I brought up Obama to contrast with Clinton, didn’t intend to promote him - but your point is well taken “reason”.

I very much would like a candidate that emphasizes Reason and brings historical and international context to issues we face.

rgds,

Jack

I’m a woman, a baby boomer, and in no way view Hillary as a victim.
All politicians are “power-grubbing.”  It’s naive to think otherwise.
Power for power’s sake is dangerous (Dick Cheney comes to mind).
Garnering power to push an agenda is what pols do for a living - why
should Hillary be different? because she’s a woman?  You might rethink your own prejudices against woman and baby boomers.

Chris Matthews has recently been called out - on the air -  for his biased and inaccurate reporting by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Tom Brokaw, and
Dan Abrams.  Will Matthews in return be humbled or, better yet, dechatterized?

Noted, Maani, and thank you.  I am new to these boards, and will be more
observant in the future.  Hatred for Hillary, I suspect, has a component of liberal self-flagellation; it’s reflexive and irrational.

Maani & Jackifus

I was not promoting Obama’s nomination; I was voicing my suspicions of Hillary Clintons integrity as a politician (gender and race does not enter into my view). If I had to choose between one and the other, I would go with Obama because I sincerely believe he could bridge the issues that divide this country and get young people of all socio-economic levels interested.  A great many voters in the past have forgone voting because they were made to feel irrelevant. “It is time for a change”!
I sway toward Edwards for President and Obama for Vice President or vice/versa (who knows?). I love my country (democrats, republicans and, independents) and I do not think we need to make the division in this country greater by electing someone who feels her gender and her family name give her special privileges and consideration. We’ve had the Clintons for 8 years and we’ve had the Bush’s for 11; it’s now time that we have someone who knows first hand what everyday life is like for those of us who must worry about our finances and opportunities (not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren). I have one vote; with it, I chose hope over disingenuous chatter from a “talking head” whose prime interest is party politics and establishing a political aristocracy.

Men are a minority.

If the women voters want to make men eat a shit sandwich via the vote, they can and in the case of local elections of state legislatures and judgeships, they do.

I guess HRC has proven as apt at selling used cars as the male candidates.

There is no doubt that both racism and sexism are alive and well in America.  They are both mean-spirited and ugly aspects of our culture (such as it is) which will remain with us, regardless of the results of this presidential election.

But have we descended to the point where our election process will be based on which is the greater ill to be rectified, sexism or racism?

These two themes dominate the political coverage of the Democratic nomination.  What about the issues facing this country?  They are immense and dangerous to our future and the lives of our progeny.  We aren’t talking about them, we’re talking about sexism and racism.  Neither of those are going to matter one iota if we don’t right this ship, and soon.

I would be incredibly proud and happy to see a woman sworn in as president of the United States.  I would be just as happy and proud to see a black man sworn in, and the swearing in of a black woman is just about too much to even imagine. (And by the way, having known a fair number of black women in my life, a strong black woman might be just what we need…i’ve never known one not more than willing to tell it like it is.)

These candidates should be stumping about what they’re going to do, not what they represent in some abstract manner.  Their femaleness and their blackness are letting them off the hook in terms of addressing our very serious concerns.

Just because this media narrative is better than previous narratives does not mean that it isn’t still a media narrative designed to shift our focus from where it should be, because the historic moment of swearing in a female or a minority won’t count for squat if that president must oversee the downfall of a nation.

Thanks Maani -

Your response was thoughtful and thought-provoking…

I look forward to learning something that will change my mind ... and may yet.

However, my Clinton/cheap impression remains - here’s a useful illustration ... still on Iran ...

from NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1 5251928

...On Thursday, Clinton said she’d meet with Iranian leaders “without preconditions” — a position she criticized Obama for taking earlier in the summer.

Obama also questioned Clinton’s judgment in voting for last month’s Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which identified the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Obama said the amendment included language that empowers the president to attack Iran.

—-

reversing positions is nothing to be ashamed of ...
was it Keynes who said “When my information changes, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir?”

But admit you made the change - and that you were wrong to criticize ...

—-

I did find when Obama first made reference to all options being on the table - I believe it was in a speach to AIPAC.  He really framed it by emphasizing diplomacy.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2808& issue_id=2

thanks again for your comments -
nice to get new information - not just folks yelling about what they already believe.

rgds,

Jack

Cyrena:

I need to correct a minor error.  Re the appropriations bill for funding for the Iraq war, Obama either voted Yes or “NV” (meaning he was either absent or abstained).

Re the NV votes, if he is so “principled” in his stand against the war, don’t you think he should have either attended so he could vote “No” or taken a stand by voting “No” and not “NV” when he was there?

Peace.

I have to hand it to my party:  In just two political events in two small states they managed to reject the most qualified people and bring to the front the two most polarizing, least experienced of the field.
We have gone for the symbolic candidates, a black man and a woman. I guess it just shows that we vote with our feelings rather than our brains.  Clinton has a hawkish record, and Obama lacks experience, but she is a WOMAN and he is BLACK and the significance of this appears to be more important than federally funded national health care, an immediate end to the Iraq war, or an end to the polarizing, crippling politics in Washington.
After 36 years as a Democrat, I think I’ve had enough of having to hold my nose to vote for the person who isn’t the Republican, and will just write in the candidate I like best.

Cyrena:

“Not all sources are equal…”  Really?  So I suppose YOURS are always the ones that count, and others can be discarded?  How arrogant.

My source for the voting records was Project Vote Smart, which tracks every vote of every candidate on every bill.  My complete exegesis of the votes of Obama and Clinton can be found here:

http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2008/01/09/ mb-civic-original-opinion-reality-check-who-is-barack-obama /

Re Obama’s Pakistan statement, I did NOT “spin” it. In fact, the comment I made was the opinion of the VAST majority of the media - including alternative media - when he made the statement.

However, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The point I am making is this:

Hillary is generally seen as hawkish, militaristic, hardline, etc.  Obama has fashioned himself as the “anti-war” candidate, focused more on diplomacy and “peaceful” efforts.

Yet with the sole exception of Iraq, Obama is no less hawkish, militaristic or hardline than Hillary - they have identical positions on Iran and Israel, for example - and MORE hawkish re Pakistan.

In addition, three things should be noted here.

First, even if Hillary’s original vote “for the war” (which was nothing