Well, You know A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN DC.

And you’re right. Why would any black folks (minus Condi, Clarence Thomas, and a handful of others) WANT to ‘be white’?

Well, DC probably does. Then again, there’s no way to know what he is anyway. My guess is that he’s a very, very, very sick and confused multi-ethnic, who probably doesn’t even KNOW what the hell he is.

Just my guess. What we call an internal racist. He’s probably at least partially black himself, and yet he hates black people.

His psychological dysfunction is on constant display here, so I’m sure it’s been figured out long ago, by anyone paying any attention.

I agree with the neo-cons and the neo-libs being very interchangable. But, for those who planed the ME invasion, (to begin with Iraq) didn’t really ever BELIEVE this part themselves…

“..All in the name of spreading democracy, protecting human rights, and similar claptrap…”

They were all part of the PNAC, and signatories to the Clean Break and all of that. So, they had long before planned their invasions, and I don’t think they came up with the spreading democracy part of the plan until later. (after WMD, and before the protecting Human Rights…as if they ever cared about that).

> Both of these candidates are inveterate hawks,
> and what we would be up against is a choice
> between the neoconservatives and the neoliberals
> as to who could be more adventurous in getting
> us into unjustifiable foreign wars.

Of course, as George Packer explains in “The Assassins’ Gate”, many (most?) of the neo-conservatives, such as Fred Kagan and Irving Kristol, were (neo)liberals in the sixties. Many neo-conservatives have stated that they view themselves as liberals. So it isn’t quite as surprising as you might expect that Hillary Clinton and John McCain are equally likely to commit us to foreign wars. All in the name of spreading democracy, protecting human rights, and similar claptrap.

Golly, DC, Wright has quite a record of service to the people in the area of his church. 

I really don’t think black people want to become “the same as the white majority.”  Why do you say that?

Don’t they simply want to be accorded the same considerations all the way around that are accorded the white folks?  I don’t want to be anything other than what I am and I feel pretty sure, despite whites trying to demean and abase Blacks for centuries, that Blacks has any interest whatsoever in being “White.”  I feel sorry for them if they do.

But, what do I know????

Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel
Extract from The Times of London Nov.2002.

From Stephen Farrell, Robert Thomson and Danielle Haas

ISRAEL’S Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete.

In an interview with The Times , Mr Sharon insisted that Tehran — one of the “axis of evil” powers identified by President Bush — should be put under pressure “the day after” action against Baghdad ends because of its role as a “centre of world terror”. He also issued his clearest warning yet that Israel would strike back if attacked by Iraqi chemical or biological weapons, no matter how much Washington sought to keep its controversial Middle Eastern ally out of any war in Iraq.

He made clear that western Iraq would be one of the first areas targeted by the US in any invasion, saying that lessons had been learnt from strategic mistakes of the 1991 Gulf War when Iraq successfully fired 39 Scud missiles into Israel.

Mr Sharon, 74, was speaking as he conducted high-level negotiations to keep his Government afloat after the desertion of his centrist coalition partners. Last night he survived three no-confidence votes, giving him more time to forge a coalition with small right-wing parties. He rejected calls for early elections.

By all accounts Ariel Sharon is still in a coma.

Well D.C., thanks for making my point. Awfully thoughtful of you.

Yes, Fascism is NOT an issue in Washington these days ... duh ...

That is exactly why we are obligated to point it out. One can hardly deny the reality of it, nor the blatant theft of the conservative party or Constitutional law!

And as you so kindly point out, the one similarity between Condi and Obama is they are somewhat the same color.

For you that may be very important. For me it doesn’t mean squat! The vast majority, not all, but the vast majority of serial killers are white. But that doesn’t make the vast majority of whites serial killers. And even though it appears to be very important for you to focus on race, for the majority of voters who support Obama, it’s not the color of his mouth, but what comes out of it that resonates.

Of course when one has to see the world through the classification of racial preference, one might find it difficult to listen to what comes out of the mouth. So carry on in your clear vision of slots and labels.

Hillary has become so enamored of her entitlement, she has seriously damaged her own credibility. Even her staunch supporters are beginning to recognize that all to common ailment that can overtake someone who starts to believe their own hype.

Wednesday, she was booed by some of her own supporters. That gas holiday thing. Everyone has figured out how bogus that is, how it not only would NOT offer temporary relief, but would actually make money for big oil and end up costing the consumers even more. In other words, it’s a campaign rhetoric diversion. Everyone’s figured that out. Well everyone but John McCain and apparently Hillary. How sad is that?

Oh but she is white, right? And for some with little comprehension of the true mess we are in I guess that’s really, really important.

Condi Rice is a the lap dog for Bush, an opportunist of grand dimensions like her bosses.  She supports the war monger fear monger agenda which is necessary to keep the people from looking at real issues. An off balance smoke and mirrors approach to the Washington road show.

Any association between Condi Rice and Obama would seem further from the truth, on the other hand one could associate Condi Rice to Hillary, because they both have the same approach to fear mongering and war mongering and a blind support of the war in Iraq comes to mind. Oh, and a bigot would say they are both women.

Association by race is what it is, racism. Back to that again?  We will probably see much more of bigots are us as Obama goes into the general.  Their is not much else for the Republicans to dish out.  Hillary has used up the kitchen sink, and only left the dish rag.

She was appointed by Bush and had the qualifications on bid day.  She goes with Bush, if and when we can get rid of him.

Yes they come in all colors.

By Louise, May 8:“Like I said, cyrena is consistent and thoughtful…...”

You must be joking, Louise, cyrena is anything but and you have been erratic yourself lately. This Barack Obama trance has got you all sliding off your chairs, ha ha.

The trouble is that what you and cyrena say about Condoleezza Rice you are still unable to face in Barack Obama, uhh.

If Condi…. has become more of a liability than an asset….. because she can so easily be viewed as a fascist…”

Hardly an issue in Washinton these days and I think you and cyrena just think that ‘dark chocolate’ is too strong and you’d prefer ‘milk chocolate’ in your politics.

Another “Oh my goodness!”

“Why is it the affluent are always waging war on the poor? The most destitute countries, ones who do not even have potable water, are still the proxy platform of choice for the rich to indulgence in abstract war. Thus, John McCain is considered an American Hero because he followed orders and dropped bombs on peasants in southeast Asia. As you might say: amazing!”

***

Cant argue with that. One thing jumps out though. The march on the poor is often the side affect of corporate acquisition of the wealth and resources of their nations. Cuba for example.

American corporate interests [with ties to Bush] had vast holdings in Cuba. The profits they made from the products and the railroads used to transport those products were increased exponentially by the use of cheap local labor.

That the people felt exploited by corporate America can’t be a surprise. That they decided following a communist who promised to throw the Yankees out and give the land back to the people cant be a surprise either.

Had corporate America been able to accept the land they stole was not theirs, the ongoing sanctions might not have happened. And absent a self-righteous belief that they should have it all, trade and commerce between Cuba and the so-called “free” world could have given the Cubans an opportunity to attain the wealth and success they still reach for. We blame communism and Castro. And choose to not see the share of the blame that rightfully belongs to a handful of wealthy corporate interests who dominate the republican party.

The same can be said for many other “poor” nations, who have resources our greedy corporates want to control. The promise is always to elevate the poor. The reality is to exploit them for their labor, stealing their water and land in the process.

The “leaders” of these nations are often despots or dictators, considered “valuable allies”. Only when the people rise up and try to through the American supported despot out, does the country become an “enemy.”

Why do the affluent wage war on the poor? Maybe a better question is why do the people of nations our corporate/government interests want to “help” always end up being poor?

Keeping the poor at the bottom is a must for those who want it all and more. There’s no room in their philosophy for the concept of share, or equal.

Poor people will work harder for less, because they have no other choice. Creating the notion that people are poor because they don’t like to work is important to keeping the middle masses in line and not looking to closely at the workings of their fascist leaders. Nobody seems to understand the term “working poor” so obviously the repub/corporate/fascist empires propaganda has been successful.

Vietnam. I cant begin to go into the history that led us there, or the government lies that kept us there. But a good resource can be found here: http://www.vietvet.org/jeffviet.htm

Vietnam offered an excellent opportunity for the political/military/corporate industry to make massive profits, while offering little to America. But war profiteering was quite enough to allow the sacrifice of more than 50,000 American lives on their alter of political/military/corporate greed.

Yep ... that’s fascism.

Blackwater. We have allowed the Bush and his associate fascists to deplete our military so badly, we cant support their current position without those “private” contractors. As abhorrent as they are, until we leave Iraq we need the dirty bastards. Not to many years back, everybody welcomed the idea of having services for the military handled by private contractors.

In spite of the many warnings we’ve had from previous presidents [including repubs] it never occurred to anyone how quickly we could accept fascism. But then we didn’t want to see how truly corrupt war profiteers like Bush and Cheney were! And that was long before junior strutted onstage!

Oh for shame on you!

I freely admit my prejudice, but my prejudice would never lead me to kill. cyrena is consistent, thoughtful and occasionally raised to rankle by yours or similar attacks on her person, rather than her comments. Where on earth did you get that “kill” question from?

How deep runs your prejudice? My goodness!

Like I said, cyrena is consistent and thoughtful. I find wisdom and value in her comments. Sometimes I find wisdom and value in your comments, then you go off the deep end and slide into the extreme of another view. One of hate and vindictiveness. Two extremes making it quite impossible to decide just where do you straddle this shaky fence of life?

“There is nothing new about power-grabbing for black people. Even if there were, Asia has a long history to study filled with more of the same.”

Of course you are correct. Power grabbing is part and parcel of WORLD history. Even today we see horrors committed by leaders in Africa and Asia against their own people. We marvel that there can be such violence and hatred in the world. But marvel not at all that those in power here, in our country, do the same thing to their own people. But in my mind, there is a clear difference between fascism and despotism.

The one operates at the direction of those who have the money. The other operates on a need to self-indulge. Both require a level of amorality that makes it possible to kill and steal with impunity. But in the fascist world, I guess you could say there is a level of democracy [not trying to be funny] the real boss is a group of bosses, and the door is open for personal gain to anyone who abandons personal morals and standards to become part of that group. Even “colored” folks and Jews.

Of course, just like in the world of dictators and demagogy, blood lines count and anyone is expendable. But the inner circle of fascism is easier to get into.

If Condi was viewed as having value to maintain the march of Fascism in the “party” she would become McCain’s VP. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, she has become more of a liability than an asset. Not because, or in spite of her color, but because she can so easily be viewed as a fascist. And that’s a no-no.

The “party” still functions on the notion that no-body understands fascism. Preferring to believe, as apparently you do, that it is a method of violence and destruction as opposed to a political method of theft and control. As I mentioned. Using racial prejudice, or any prejudice is a valuable tool for the fascist looking for a rallying cause. The prize for using this method simply has to go to the “white” people. The White Supremacist for example. A valuable tool to be used when necessary, but they are not fascists. [even though some of them think they are] They are simply racists.

“America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word “hope”, they instead hear, “handout”. A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as “something for nothing”.

Another “Oh my goodness!”

Only a hard-core, right-wing, conservative “fascist” would see [twist] a yearning for hope of a better future into seeking a handout. Perhaps you label yourself sir.

E pluribus unum means,  “One from many,” not many from one! Duh.

In other words, the great philosophy of together in common cause we can become one united. That sir is what this nation is supposed to be all about. An uncomfortable notion for those who see themselves as “deserving” a higher rung on the latter. Welfare and hand-outs are rampant in the higher echelons of fascist, corporate government ... epitomized by that great whore, the GOP. And sadly, not a few dems.

Oh yes.

Evil like goodness is a very human quality. Were it not so, there would be no need for law and order.

Unfortunately, when it comes to politicos and corporations, we see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Which opens so many doors for them.

Hard to understand.

By cyrena, May 8: “It IS about Fascism…. people like Condoleezza Rice… do not IDENTIFY themselves with the black race…”

Ahh, we now have cyrena’s very belated permission to think along the lines for which I have been repeatedly screamed at in the recent past for daring to mention.

Blcak Americans ARE their own worst problem. This is not confined to America and is evident in all predominately white societies where any black person, of African descent or otherwise, is part of a racial and color minority.

It is not so much their “souls” but the layer OVER their souls. The problem is not in black people being different from the majority of a country but that they want to become the SAME as the white majority in thought, word and deed.

Yes, Condoleezza Rice is one of the many actors in this nightmare but cyrena herself fails to see the obvious in her own desperate clinging to white mans’ legalism as a justification for her own existence in white society.

Thus black people willingly perpetuate and embrace the very system which spurns them, deprives them,a nd usurps them. In effect, contemporary blacks in a dominant white culture today have all become “Uncle Toms” to and against themselves.

The difficulty is that many can see it but are helpless to do anything about it. Its pointless to say “God damn America” when you are not creating positive change yourself within the nation which you live.

Dear Louise,

Thank you ever so much for your extraordinary contribution and for reading my mind, and explaining what I meant by my comment, which was without a doubt an emotionally ‘reactive’ rather than proactive or even objective, which I generally try to be. I was definitely ‘taking the bait’ which I can usually avoid. This was an exception, but they do happen.

Be that as it may, your post is even more valuable in calling this (and the Condi Agenda) what it IS, and not what it is NOT! It IS about Fascism, and has nothing to do with race or gender, and everything to do with POWER. That is what Fascism is about. And, that is ANOTHER reason why your post, and the timing of it, is like GOLD for me, as I struggle to complete some work on this very subject. I’ve been making my way though the work of Hannah Arndt, Giorgio Agamben, Zygmunt Bauman and many others, in my attempts to make these extremely important comparisons to the Fascism that we have been living with here, in a place where we never thought this could happen. Condoleezza Rice is of course one of the many actors in this nightmare, and you’ve expertly explained the how and the why.

I thank you!!

My own comment, being of the emotional sort, meant that I knew what I was talking about, and that many others would know as well. It meant simply that just because a person is of the black race, (or any race in the grand scheme of the power that corrupts) doesn’t mean they have any particular sympathies for that race, and oftentimes, it means that they have the SAME prejudices. I used Clarence Thomas as an example, but he is one of many. (it’s just that they don’t all manage to raise to the height of such power, or be used as a tool of the Fascist regime). To make the point more clearly, I recall the words of one of my own true heroes, the late Justice Thurgood Marshall. Specifically, I will never forget his words (or at least a paraphrase of them) just before or just after he retired from the bench, and the consideration of Clarence Thomas was in the works. Justice Marshall pronounced, and in the very direct language for which he could always be counted on Clarence Thomas to be ‘The WRONG kind of Negro!” (we need remember back only a short time, to the days when that was the politically assigned definition for blacks of African-Americans.) THAT was my point, and so I’m using this as an opportunity to clarify it, though you’ve done a far better job. 

To further clarify, I believe that these types of individuals are far more prejudice in their own race hate, toward their own genetically determined group, than millions of others from various other genetically defined race groups. The sociologists would call it self-hate, or internal racism, or some other academic term. And, at the personal level, that may very well be true. (We know that from the history of Clarence Thomas and his grandfather, and the distain that they both have for black women, including their own mothers and daughters).

There is also no doubt in my mind that people like Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas and the many others like them, (and no, I DO NOT put the republican Colin Powell in this bag) do not IDENTIFY themselves with the black race, or the history of the struggles of that group any more than they would any other. That is what I meant when I said that Condi was white, when in fact it would have been more correct to say that she is not black other than as determined by the genetics that create her physical appearance.

I’ll wind this up with a recommendation for anyone who has not had the opportunity, to read the wonderful work of WEB Dubois, “The Souls of Black Folk”.

Thanks again.

“Did your black father disown you for being too white or something….. “Condi is white.”...”

Oh, you guessed, cyrena (Carla)! But at least Condi is blacker than you, uhh….....

You are “so white” that you must be evil…........

Tks to Regular Guy for striking another blow in the so-called ‘war on error’ on Truthdig.

Louise :“cyrena’s “Condi is white” comment…. down through the history of same. The majority of fascists have been white…”

How many would cyrena kill if she had the chance, Louise? She is not as dark as Condi Rice, either, uhh, but she is already psychotic (manic-depressive).

But don’t forget that “the history” you refer to is only that of “whitey” (the Europeans). African history, especially since the whites left, is full of fascism.

There is nothing new about power-grabbing for black people. Even if there were, Asia has a long history to study filled with more of the same.

Its only the Republicans’ aversion to African-Americans ever holding real power that has keept Condileeza Rice from joining McCain on a dual ticket this election.

But then, there is nothing mysterious about Obama’s methods either….. “A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is,” wrote Karl Krauss. Americans are the world’s biggest suckers, and laugh at this weakness in their popular culture. Listening to Obama speak, Sinclair Lewis’ cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry comes to mind, or, even better, Tyrone Power’s portrayal of a carnival mentalist in the 1947 film noire Nightmare Alley…...

America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word “hope”, they instead hear, “handout”. A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as “something for nothing”. Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over… http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/jb26aa01.html pages 1 + 2

Well Louise you make some very good points. But let’s take this to another level. Why is it the affluent are always waging war on the poor? The most destitute countries, ones who do not even have potable water, are still the proxy platform of choice for the rich to indulgence in abstract war. Thus, John McCain is considered an American Hero because he followed orders and dropped bombs on peasants in southeast Asia. As you might say: amazing!
When was the last time the United States designated a nation as an enemy, that was not destitute, backwards, and or desperately poor? What do the vast majority of Palestinians in the occupied territories, the Mexicans trying to cross the US border, and the Egyptians rioting over the price of bread? They are all poor. The philosophy of the ownership class, has permeated every level of society, so now, many many people have been conditioned to believe that Corporate interests are the same as this country’s interests. Worse, they have convinced a substantial portion of the population that being poor is a sign that there is something wrong with you, or worse you could be a terrorist. It is no accident that the world’s most powerful military is used to wage war against what Frantz Fanon would have called “the wretched of the earth”. And have you noticed, none of the so-called main stream candidates for president will even address this? Everyone of them wants to keep this system of injustice in place. It is not surprising that Barack Obama refuses to rule out the use of the BLackwater mercenary army. And every jack one of them supports undying (until we are all dead) support for Israel. Poor little Israel, a nation even more insecure, because of their hydrogen missile stockpile.
The idea of money worship as a form of demon idolatry has been airbrushed out of the “prosperity gospel ministries” that I am sure Senator Obama will be told to approach, now that black liberation theology, aka Rev. Wright, has been effectively portrayed as anti-American.
A couple of decades ago, the myth of communism became unmasked. When will such a revelation become apparent to the myth of capitalism?
I am reminded of something Charles Bukowski said: “nobody suffers like the poor baby.”

No getting around it, we’re taking a chance on Obama.  No getting around it, we KNOW what chance we’re taking on Rodham. 

Douglas, I doubt that anything will be left in a post-nuclear environment - not Islam, not cats or dogs, not people… - cockroaches, perhaps.

Seems to me opportunity has more to do with Fascism then race. One need only look around the world, Could it be just a human factor?

“The first step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity. The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other.”
Bertrand Russell: Freedom, Harcourt Brace, 1940

***

I suffer extreme prejudice. Prejudice against the Republican Party. While I make no apologies for my prejudice, I am occasionally remise in reminding myself and others, not all republicans [particularly the ones who like us, daily fight to survive] are evil and amoral. But those who walk and talk in political circles usually are.

Now, take a dedicated Republican power seeker and a dedicated Corporate Shill and combine them, and what you have is an extremely dangerous fascist!

The goal, the guiding principle is to diminish the role and power of government and elevate the role and power of private corporations and money brokers.

Condi is the most perfect example of such a combination. She came to politics well schooled in Corporate power and privilege. Many repubs have. And many, many more work for the day they can use their political clout to slide into a cushy corporate slot, with tons of money attached.

Color, race and gender have absolutely nothing to do with the corrupt human soul. Corruption is, because it is. The underlying motive and drive are for personal power. The master served is self. Their is no “greater good” thing about it. That’s why we usually see more of this crap on the “right” side of the aisle. The left side tends to be composed more of people who are aware of the need to share.

Not to say the “left” side doesn’t have their share of fascists. They do, but very few!
And that raises the question: Why do we eagerly want to propel them into power over us?

Now, back to those repubs fighting to survive. There is a huge disconnect in the minds of many repubs between the Bill of Rights and the Rights of Government.

We, the governed elect those we want to govern us. Therefore, when we demean the value of what some call “excessive government” we in effect demean ourselves. We have no way of controlling the decisions some corporate blubber belly might make that will ultimately COST us dearly. So why on earth do we treat them with reverence and damn OUR OWN government which we DO have a means of controlling?

Because we do not understand. That’s why. And if we do nothing more with our daily lives than try and help ourselves and others understand the reality of fascism, we have done a great deal.

“Unhappy events abroad have re-taught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of a private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”
FDR: message to Congress proposing the monopoly investigation, 1938

***

People and politicians are afraid of the word fascist. So they avoid it’s use and they avoid it’s study. And by doing so, avoid recognizing it when it’s in their midst.

Perhaps having a president who seems to want more than anything to bring people from all spectrums together will restore Government by for and of the people. Will restore correct Constitutional law and raise us above the shallow and stupid divisiveness that we so often see coming out of the mouths of those who would be leader. Those who place value of corporate power above the value of we the people.
Those who believe they can buy election.
Those who love the lobbies.
One can only hope.

In defense of cyrena’s “Condi is white” comment. Apologies to cyrena if I misunderstand, but in my mind, when you contemplate the reality of fascism, you recognize that down through the history of same. The majority of fascists have been white, have been racist and have been for sale to the highest bidder.

Why is that?

Because those who would use power for personal profit need a cause to mask their personal greed. Causes are easily born if one simply taps into already existing prejudices. And like reverse psychology, those prejudices can work in your favor if you happen to “look” like one of the victims of prejudice.

I believe Condi stands as a good example of someone who has used her “color” and/or “gender” and a growing sense of public shame over racial and gender prejudice to propel herself into her position of wealth and power.

Agreed, she is not alone. Many have. But her particular position has been part and parcel of the fascist behavior of the Bush administration that has destroyed our credibility in the world, our Constitution and brought our economy to the brink of ruin.

And KILLED a lot of innocent people!

Even now, while millions lose their homes and join the already millions of homeless, the shameless republicans in Congress demand we pump money into private enterprise [specifically the financial Markets] to solve the Mortgage Crisis.

Amazing!

Already the Bush government has quietly siphoned millions into the failures of the very financial markets whose greed created the problem in the first place.

Yes my friends ... they are fascists. And Condi is one of their esteemed leaders. A woman who has so perfected the use of people’s trust and prejudice, she has successfully propelled herself into a position of incredible power.

Not all whites are corrupt. But most corrupt corporate shills are! Given Condi’s most perfect model of how to win and control in the world of private greed and public political trust, one has to look twice to remind ones-self she is NOT white!

Using the hawk analogy, in Hillary’s case could be appropriate if you use it in very general terms.  Using words to call attention to an issue is what we do as people.  For instance, one could call Hillary an imbecile for staying in the race this long the word imbecile is used to give and provide a negative
view in the direction of the subject, Hillary in this case.

If we want to use the animal kingdom to describe a perceived character of someone, we should try to disclaim any insult to the animal named in reference. For instance if I said Hillary is a political whore.  I would apologize to the ladies of ill-repute. 
One political person called Hillary a monster, not that I like monsters, but shouldn’t we apologize to all those monsters out there in this case? 
Getting back to the animal kingdom, calling Hillary a hawk or hawkish should be a positive analogy, instead we see it being used here to describe Hillary as a war fear monger, should we apologize to war fear mongers?  No! I believe we should apologize to the noble hawk. 

In the first place the hawk is doing it’s own attacking, and not sending out other hawks or animals to do it’s work.  Second, a hawk is seeking and attacking only for food to feed itself and family of little hawks.  Now a long shot, one could say Hillary is seeking food for herself and her family,  but with the monetary system as it is, a hundred million dollars in the bank will still buy a lot of tasty rats, so seeking food is a very long shot in the Hillary case,

It seems mostly animals of prey are used in similar ways just like the hawk. Would we call Hillary a penguin?  No,  weasels come to mind, they seem slinky and evasive.  There is always the old standby snake,  of the Biblical stories nature.  How about Jaws?  The shark,  there is one you can sink your teeth into.  Hillary, could be a composite of all the animals mixed together and what do we have?  The one and only human political animal.

Me apologies to the penguin, weasel, snake and Jaws.

Who exactly needs to get a grip? First, Barack Obama was not on the national Senate scene (your phrase) until 2007. Obama became an Illinois Senator in 2005. Second, questioning where he gets his support is valid, all you have to do for starts, is read his 2007 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, to wonder whether any of the Martin Luther King philosophical stuff he samples is just more campaign nonsense. For example, his use of the phrase “the fierce urgency of now” comes from Dr. King’s blistering attack on the US Vietnam War. I tried to put this out in my article “Only When It IS Dark Enough, Can You See The Stars.” I know that people get emotional about these things, but I do think it is reasonable to consider Obama’s yea vote for the John McCain sponsored SECURED FENCE ACT, which enables George Bush and the gang to begin building the great southwestern Mexican Berlin Wall. Also, putting aside the unique cache of his biographical background, his stance on foreign policy might best be termed: Dick Cheney Light. How else can you explain the Illinois Senator’s visit to Palestinian students, in January 2006, two weeks before the elections, when he said: “the US will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel.” Never mind that the elimination and/or subjugation of the Palestinian people is always job one with the Israeli government. Obama’s rhetoric is indeed empty when he speaks of change and then simultaneously echoes the same propaganda arguments which enable this madness to continue.

“Israel is like a flea with an erection floating down the river on his back and demanding that the drawbridge be raised.”

Thanks for the best laugh I’ve had this week!  It is however difficult for me to view Israel as harmless.  I do think they have undo influence on our policies; the last slaughter of the Lebanese is one case in point.  Rice went out of her way to “not” stop this rolling war crime against a civilian population.  We could have stopped it: Why didn’t we?

“...Israel is absolutely the key to the whole thing…”

Israel is like a flea with an erection floating down the river on his back and demanding that the drawbridge be raised.

Sure; AIPAC controls some congressmen from both parties, but the PNAC band of thugs didn’t go to war in the mideast to please the Izzies—-it went to war to steal oil. If the same gang of criminals attack Iran, it won’t be to please the Izzies, it will be to keep the Iranians from coming to the aid of other arab countries from whom the US wishes to steal oil.

It’s not about the Izzies; it is about oil and always will be about oil. Oil is not “one of the” reasons, oil IS the reason.

As long as the Izzies support our oil pilfering and war on Lebanon at our command, they can be allowed to exist as a diversion in the mideast, but if they get in the way of our oil thefts, then they are as expendable as Iraq and Iran.

Thinking that there are OTHER reasons (than oil) for our mideast policy is not thinking at all, unless you consider WISHFUL thinking productive or useful.

In biology, this is referred to as ‘parasitic brooding’...a very daft analogy, don’t you think?

Two-year-old Ali Hussein is pulled from the rubble of his family’s home in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr ... The child, who later died at the hospital,.....

Most of you have only seen the first pic. Scroll through to see the rest…... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2009755/posts

Poor OR is on the stuff again….. soon to become as psychotic as manic-depressive cyrena, duh. Mind yer own marbles…...

Tyr not to think about it, OR…....

I can help you find your marbles, if you’d like..

Douglas Chalmers…were you John Yoo in another life or this one?

Still a sickie, eh douglas? Can’t tell the difference between skin color and anything else. Why do you have such serious issues with the black race?

None of the races created themselves, and weren’t even called races until somebody decided to create such a system, and not all that terribly long ago.

So, if you can’t tell the difference between a Condi Rice and a Clarence Thomas, compared to a Barack Obama, or a Martin Luther King Jr, then you’re just as sick as I’ve always known you to be.

What happened to you anyway. Did your black father disown you for being too white or something?

How ridiculous is it for you to suggest that Condi the Rice and Barack Obama are both on the Foreign Affairs Committee, as if it’s some conspiratorial thing that they worked out, when Rice is clearly the SOS at the bidding of the Bushes, and Secretaries of State would obviously be involved in Foreign Affairs?

Why would CondoLEZZA Rice be of ANY interest to Barack Obama? Why would CondoLEEZA Rice be of any interest to ANYBODY except for perverted white guys? I mean, come on!!Who besides Condi would sleep with either of the George Bushes?

Condi is white. Please don’t be confused by her skin color, even though I know it’s clearly your obsession.

By Max Shields, May 7: “Obama has put Iran on notice not Israel…. BTW, you do know that Obama actually voted FOR Condi Rice for Secretary of State…”

You must know what a modern-day “trojan horse” looks like, Max Shields. It never looks the same twice so people are always easliy fooled.

Condoleeza Rice IS Barack Obama’s handler.  They are there together on the Foreign Affairs Committee for all to see. It is NOT merely a black agenda, either.

Why do you think he is so keen to upstage Hillary? His chances of ever being elected to being US president will actually be LESS once he is the Dem’s nominee.

Figure the rest out for yourselves…....

No, actually Israel ISN’T, Non Credo. You ALL have a choice, politicians included, of whether you want to have a ring put through your nose for them to lead you around with, uhh.

The KEY = you have all chosen to believe what you WANT to instead of the REAL TRUTH…....

That is the shortcoming of “settler society”.

George McGovern announced that he is withdrawing his former endorsement of Hillary Clinton and is endorsing Obama.  He suggested that Clinton’s campaign should end for the good of the party.

Check out Stuart Littlewood at The People’s Voice.US presidential candidates neck-and-neck for job of Israel stooge-in-chief.

Obama and DLC Strategy Continued
By contrast, the 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns of Rev. Jesse Jackson won white support too, but embraced the burden of challenging white American assumptions about the essential goodness of America, about empire, and race and class. If you were organizing against police brutality or farm foreclosures, organizing a union or protesting the illegal war in Central America, the campaign in many cases came to you and augmented your local efforts. The Obama must campaign avoid this kind of activism like Dracula avoids crosses, because its candidate’s appeal is based on challenging none of the fake history, none of the racism, injustice and unearned privilege at the heart of American life.

The Jackson campaign, at least, was honest about the obstacles to a real politics of transformation in America.

For the 21st century’s first black presidential candidate, “change” is to be accomplished through a content-free sort of “unity”. Again, Dr. Reed helps us understand what is happening.

…the contention that the candidate can bring us all together despite our partisan differences is the same thing that the Democrats have been claiming consistently since at least, you know, Dukakis, to be post-partisan, to be post-political. And frankly, I think it appeals—it’s an appeal that gets greatest traction among people who want to take politics out of politics…

Taking the politics out of politics, and out of black politics in particular is what Barack Obama must do to carry out his DLC strategy and retain his white base without teaching them anything they don’t want to know. When the NYC police officers who pumped 51 bullets into an unarmed man and a hail of bullets into adjacent homes and a transit station were exonerated, Barack Obama could not bring himself to suggest that black life ought to be respected, that police officers should obey the law, that an Obama Justice Department would look carefully at this kind of thing, or even to feign concern for the victims and their families. His only comments where that we were “a nation of laws” and that we should “respect the verdict”. When 25,000 longshoremen on the US West Coast staged a one-day strike on May 1 against the war in Iraq, the Obama campaign said nothing about the power of people standing together to “bring change”. When US warplanes, which fire missiles and drop bombs almost daily over oil-rich Somalia killed 15 civilians last week, Obama was silent, despite having traveled in the region as recently as last year.

When he does speak, it won’t be good news. Republicans are sure tol escalate their demands, insisting that Barack Obama denounce a list of black and progressive organizations, activities, beliefs and individuals to retain his share of their base. And as long as Obama is wedded to the DLC strategy, he will eagerly comply.

If there was an actual mass-based progressive movement in the US, operating on the ground and independent of political parties and campaigns, it might have a prayer of holding Barack Obama accountable. But there isn’t.

Obama and DLC Strategy
It worked for a while. Barack Obama followed the DLC script to the letter for the last two years, publicly scolding Democrats for their insufficient piety, liberally borrowing from Republican talking points. He advertised himself as grounded by his personal relationship with Jesus, and by the faith tradition of the Black Church. But after Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race, in which he characterized his pastor as a crazy old uncle stuck in the fifties and sixties, the Black Church was compelled to speak for itself. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, retiring pastor at Trinity UCC made a series of speeches and appearances in which he likened US Marines to Roman soldiers, described hundreds of US bases around the world as “empire” before the National Press Club, and refused to retreat from the contention that 9-11 was a preventable consequence of US foreign policy.

To preserve his support among whites which Obama won without challenging any of their fundamental beliefs about America, empire, Obama was forced to denounce his pastor’s words as “akin to hate speech” and disavow his church, and with it the prophetic tradition of Christianity and the Black Church in particular. But this, and joining a prosperity-Gospel mega-church will not be enough. From this point on, all Republicans have to do is prove to their base that Obama is not as conservative as he once appeared, which they will do by pointing to his pastor and the prophetic tradition of the Black Church in general. They can, in fact, point to any stirrings of black or grassroots outrage or militancy anywhere, which Obama will want to ignore anyway, and demand a ringing denunciation from Barack Obama. When Obama gets his way, he will be silent, sticking to content-free appeals to “unity”. And when Republicans prevail they will force him to denounce at every turn the grassroots activists he should be supporting.

Strategy
by Bruce Dixon / May 7th, 2008

Back in 2003, when Obama was a candidate for the US Senate in the Illinois Democratic primary this reporter and Glen Ford challenged him on the fact that the Democratic Leadership Council, the right-wing, corporate-funded Trojan Horse inside the Democratic party had fervently embraced his political career, naming him one of its “100 to Watch” for 2003.

DLC endorsement is the gold standard of political reliability for Wall Street, Big Energy, Big Pharma, insurance, the airlines and more. Though candidates normally undergo extensive questioning and interviews before DLC endorsement, Obama insisted the blessing of these corporate special interests had been bestowed on him without these formalities and without his advance knowledge, and formally disassociated himself from the DLC. But like Hillary Clinton, and every front running Democrat since Michale Dukakis in 1988, Barack Obama’s campaign has adopted the classic right wing DLC strategy.

In the DLC playbook, the road to winning elections is appealing to Republican-leaning white voters – demographic groups which pollsters and consultants in previous elections called “suburban soccer moms”, NASCAR dads,” and before that “Reagan Democrats.” Candidates do this by decrying excessive partisanship, embracing “free trade” and “conservative” values, and displays of public piety, Though Obama has no formal ties with the DLC he has assiduously followed this prescription. Till a month ago Obama led every candidate among white men, an unprecedented achievement for a Democrat.

But after less than a month of sustained and often racist attacks from the likes of Fox News, CNN, Republican pundits and Hillary Clinton supporters, Obama’s support among Republican-leaning white voters has sharply eroded. Dr. Adolph Reed, a black professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania explained why an April 30 Democracy Now interview,

…Obama opened himself to this by leaning to—on the premise that he can appeal to Republicans and to conservatives and by parading his personal faith around. And frankly—this is, I guess, the crux of my argument in The Progressive column—that this is precisely the tactic that has been the undoing of every Democratic candidate since Dukakis, and I would frankly even include (Bill) Clinton in that, were it not for the fact that Ross Perot siphoned votes away from the Republicans each time. I mean, this is what happened with Gore in 2000, it’s what happened with Kerry in 2004. You present yourself as electable because you can appeal to conservative voters, and then the Republicans attack you for not being a true conservative and can characterize you as someone who’s trying to put something over on the American people.

Ernest and Cyrena

Here’s roll call

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002

Kerry, Dubin, Boxer, Byrd, Levin, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Jeffers, Reed, and Harkin all voted Nay.

Hillary and Obama voted to confirm - yea.

This was all in response to cyrena’s earlier response about the wretched Rice while heaping praise on Obama - one who provided complicitous confirmation vote. His was just one of hundred of votes he would share with Hillary. Hillary has actually distinguished herself when voting to protect the poor and middle-come Americans with their right to claims against corporate damages by voting against a recent bill to eliminate that legal right. Obama voted for YEA. (Some say this put in the good graces of the Corporatists who have since provide big finance support.)

Again, I ask, does this bother you? What makes you so certain (even vaguely) that this Obama is “progressive” and will be a vessal for change? So far he is a very conventional insider. Spine? When? Where? If he’s president what will he stand for?

Ernest, I’ve complained about your support for Obama because you have been so eloquent in your support of a true progressive. I think Edwards was a good second choice. But it’s bottom of the barrel now. As I say, vote for him if you must, but how can you actually “support” Obama. He is the wunderkind of the corporate media.

Peace
Max

Ernest,

Thank you and I stand corrected. I swear I thought he didn’t get to the Senate until this last round in 2006.

So again, I stand corrected.

As for him attacking Iran, or otherwise “putting Iran on notice’, that is bullshit, and I WILL standby that.

Cyrena, I am not certain of Obama’s vote but you are wrong about when he entered the Senate.  Obama was sworn in on Jan. 5, 2005.  The Rice confirmation hearings were held on Jan. 18 & 19, 2005.  While we did not have her more recent admissions regarding her involvement in the approval of torture, by that time most Americans had heard her dissemble apace during the 9/11 Commission hearings about an Aug. 2001 PDB only containing “historical information” and then being forced to read the title of the PDB, “Obama determined to strike America.”

I will continue to support Obama as the only viable option available for progressives now that Kucinich and Edwards have been eliminated, but a vote to confirm Rice, like the votes he made early on to approve Iraq supplementals, are not amongst his better moves.

cyrena,

Obama has stated repeatedly, and as recent as this past Sunday on Russert’s talking heads show that while he thought Hillary was sabber rattling and he would talk to adversaries, he said that he would attack Iran if they attacked Israel and reiterated the AIPAC line that they are our closest allies in the region. That’s putting Iran on notice.

As I remember the debate with Hillary and Obama 6 mos ago, he simple said he would talk to adversaries (Iran, Syria, etc.). Hillary said she would use underlyings before going personally. That’s NOT a difference, it’s a political ploy to show she would be more cautious in ultimately doing the same thing to prove her point about “experience”.

Both she and he were attempting to distinguish themselves from Bush. So, they split hairs.

Again, these two clowns (H and O) are in the same box. The only difference is the equivocating positions Obama takes (having fully market tested this stuff, btw) and the gullable souls out there who so want to have a choice, they pay no attention to his complete comments - just the part they want to hear/believe.

This stuff is on the record and can be readily verified. But it takes just a little effort and some critical thinking to even want to explore.

We’re talking about a presidential choice not American Idol - I don’t think that’s always clear to the Obamamania crowd (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not one of those irrational souls…)

Cyrena,

You’ve written so much off-the-wall stuff that responding is almost impossible. So, I’ll take them one at a time and post:

“To you have any idea how foolish it sounds for you to say that Barack Obama ‘voted FOR’ Condi Rice for Secretary of State? Max, NOBODY ‘VOTES’ for that postion. The Secretary of State, (like a million other of the same cabinet-type positons) and SELECTED by the President. Yes, they do generally have to undergo a confirmation process, but Barack Obama was NO WHERE IN SIGHT to ‘vote’ for Condi Rice as Secretary of State.”

Yes, Obama VOTED to CONFIRM Condi Rice for Secretary of State. Other Dems voted NO on the same committee.
Check it out, the info is available to even you.

Let agree the noble Hawk is a bird of prey, the political chicken hawk is nothing but a bird of talk, and one that would send everyone else to their potential demise, while they as chicken hawks make sure they go the other way.

One could say Bush and Cheney and Bill Clinton, made sure they did not go to Vietnam, so they fit the mold of Chicken hawks. For Bill Clinton, one could argue that he did not create a preemptive war, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt, he never did anything like Iraq a great deception.  So I guess we just have Bush and Cheney as the fear mongers extreme our classic Chicken Hawk. As an artist I must paint a chicken hawk!

Now McCain did go to Vietnam and was a POW, so on technicality, he should not be listed as a Chicken Hawk.

Please do not associate the noble hawk with slimy politicians, they have already imposed on the Elephant and donkey.

Felicity,

Thanks for the ‘reminder in comparison’. Actually, Robert Sheer isn’t the first one to note the overwhelming similarities between Iron Lady Thatcher and Iron Balls Rodham.

I didn’t realize that Thatcher and Ronnie were good buddies though, or that she’d advised him on Grenada. Thanks for that tip as well.

That’s also something new to consider in your take on her sense of inferiority. There’s no doubt that Bush has that, and it’s always difficult for me, (even though I should know better) to see that as the reason for most of the behavior that comes from the world’s worst bullies. As a general rule, we don’t usually ‘process’ the perception that way.

We see people being arrogant, obstinate, mean-spirted, inflexible, bullish and cruel, and we don’t think that it’s because of a deep seated inferiority, even though the logic tells us that it is.

So, thanks for the reminder.

Speaking of bullish and never give up, never back down…George McGovern is now calling for Hillary to quit. Just read a brief piece on it at News Max. According to him, as a result of yesterday’s contests, he now sees absolutely no chance of Hillary, (we pretty much knew that) and so he has put his support behind Obama at this point, and claimed that he’d be calling Bill Clinton to advise him, (or already had) and that he would continue to maintain his close friendship with the Clintons.

Something tells me that last part may not go over. I also don’t believe that Hillary is EVER gonna drop out of the race. I think she’ll still be in it after January 2009.

The Cuckoo is a more representave bird of a feather for Hillary and McCain than the noble raptor.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cuckoo

Primarily the cuckoo’s habit of laying an egg and sticking it with some other unknowing bird.

The cockoo’s chick then kills the other chicks and takes over the food source….very republican.

Max

I was “semi” with you, (or at least keeping an open mind to anything ‘new’ that you might present) until you stated with the propaganda, and the outright distortions.

To you have any idea how foolish it sounds for you to say that Barack Obama ‘voted FOR’ Condi Rice for Secretary of State? Max, NOBODY ‘VOTES’ for that postion. The Secretary of State, (like a million other of the same cabinet-type positons) and SELECTED by the President. Yes, they do generally have to undergo a confirmation process, but Barack Obama was NO WHERE IN SIGHT to ‘vote’ for Condi Rice as Secretary of State.

For Christ’s sake Max, GET A GRIP! Condi went from being Georges National Security Advsior in 2001, to adequately stabbing Colin Powell in the back between then and 2004, (not that he didn’t allow it by going along with all of the charades) so that at the beginning of Georgies 2nd reign of terror, she was ‘selected’ to take Colin’s old job as Secretary of State. Barack Obama wasn’t even on the national scene as a Sentator until 2007. HE COULDN’T VOTE for Condi Rice, or ANYTHING ELSE prior to 2007.

You’ve also said this…

“...Nevertheless Obama has put Iran on notice not Israel. He has followed the path from the time he has entered the national stage to now that is same ol same ol. This is not change. “

AGAIN…Obama didn’t arrive on the ‘National Stage” until 2007. He also hasn’t ‘put Iran on notice’. George Bush did that over 5 years ago in his State of the Union adress, when he included Iran in his “Axis of Evil”. And, between Cheney and Condi Rice, the sabre rattling has been on going ever since.

The FIRST mention of Iran from Barack Obama was in the very first Democratic debates, going back about 6 months ago. It was at THAT debate, that Barack Obama suggested that he would OPEN DIALOGE with Iran, and any of our other ‘self-appointed’ -enemies- which is when Hillary Clinton criticized him for being naive in making such a suggestion.

So Max, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and just suggest that you are EXTREMELY uninformed. It that is NOT, the case, then you’re just flat out LYING, and and intentionally spreading malicious propaganda. Again, you seem to believe that we don’t have eyes and ears to witness these events for ourselves, or can even manage simple pieces of information like, NOBODY “VOTES” for a Secretary of State. Rather, they go through a ‘confirmation’ process, and Barack Obama was no where around to be involved in that process when Condi Rice was confirmed.

Oh, you mean THAT button, PT?!?!

Now we are finally getting to the crux of it all, thanks, felicity. But can anyone argue this through without blindly favoring Obama who also suffers from his own psychological shortcomings and has already advocated expanding the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan???

The same was the very rationale of the original Christian Crusaders a 1,000 years ago. We are now inevitably headed towards a 1,000-year Reich, though, at least until the nuclear war that we so desperately want to have.

What comes after “a choice between the neoconservatives and the neoliberals” then? Islam??? That IS all that will be left in a post-nuclear environment, duh.

Well there is no need to rehash the foreign policy short comings of Barack Obama. But only the most knuckle headed can not see the symbolic significance of electing someone whose biography is as unusual as this. But his total capitulation to the Zionist lobby? Either it is cynical pandering, or worse, he actually believes that Israel is entitled to safety at the expense of all others, the recent attacks of Lebanon are a good case in point. Tomorrow Israel celebrates its 60th anniversary. For the Palestinians it is the 60th year of a catastrophe. A man made created catastrophe that few in this country will even acknowledge, including Barack Obama

Actually, Hitler, Stalin and Mao would easily surpass 70 million deaths.  In fact, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, and the Kim’s, all heroes of the left, would easily outweigh 70 million.

Pol Pot was relatively minor and the Crusades, while killing many, happened during a time when there really weren’t people in the millions to be fighting and dying.

Below is my response to:
By cyrena, May 7 at 10:31 am

Max

I agree with you about Israel as the one that is the greatest threat in the region.

Nevertheless Obama has put Iran on notice not Israel. He has followed the path from the time he has entered the national stage to now that is same ol same ol. This is not change.

Here it seems there are some posters (there are needless to say some Obamamaias as well) who are not taken by his “transcendence” double talk, but see him as the “best” option. Ok. I understand. Vote for him if you really think you have no other option.

But to make up half-baked stories about how he’s going to change America, etc. when what he’s provided (aside for vacuous speeches) are unimaginative alternatives to the existing America is beyond anything one might call thoughtful.

BTW, you do know that Obama actually voted FOR Condi Rice for Secretary of State (against most/all of the Dems on the committee)? Doesn’t that bother you? Doesn’t that make you wonder just how certain you can be about him? Maybe a little time with some other reading material like Black Agenda Report, but provide some perspective.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/

This just scratched the surface on the Hawks who are advising Clinton. Richard Holbrooke strongly supported the Iraq invasion, even criticizing Bush for not getting on with it.  He has wildly exaggerated the Iran threat, and was a strong supporter of Indonesia in the 70s, despite its brutal policies towards Timor.  He’s more of a neo-con than a neo-liberal, and in the end, frankly, I see little difference between then on foreign (or domestic) policy.  See the recent artcle “Hillary’s hawks—How Obama’s and Clinton’s advisors mirror their stands on the war”  by Paul Rogat Loeb, introducing a Stephen Zunes article
February 11, 2008, posted at The Free Press.

Mr. Scheer, interesting that you bring up Mrs. Thatcher, Britain’s Iron Lady, in an article on Rodham’s hawkishness.

That Iron Lady invaded the Falklands in ‘82 and voila in ‘83 she was re-elected Prime Minister - something experts agreed probably wouldn’t have happened had she not ordered the invasion.

(In ‘83, it was the same Thatcher whom Ronnie consulted, they were very close, when he was toying with invading Grenada. She advised him to do it especially if his popularity with the electorate was waning.  He did: Mission Accomplished.)

Wars have been waged by heads of state for eons and for a multitude of reasons, one being to satisfy an individual’s sense of his own weakness or inferiority.  I have continually believed that Rodham, like Bush, suffers from a sense of inferiority in spades so her willingness to consider war as a preferred option to settling anything seems a given.

Based on yesterday’s primaries, it seems assured that Obama will be the Dem candidate against McCain.

That said, Obama will still face the usual Republican attacks and unique attacks based on his ethinic background, remarks of Jeremiah Wright and other aspects of his positions on various issues.

It is time to start dealing with some of these issues, and upcoming attacks, in a straightforward manner so that middle-class and lower-educated whites can make intelligent choices in November, and not be scared away from voting for Obama.

Food for thought in the articles:

“Obama not ‘black’ enough for Jeremiah Wright?” (May 4, 2008)

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/60699

-  -  -

“Marine Jeremiah Wright, SEAL Jesse Ventura speak bluntly” (May 1, 2008)

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/60312

-  -  -

“Obama’s Iraq position, mixed ethnicity are key factors” (Feb. 22, 2008)

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53128

I’ll support him on the basis that he would use diplomacy long before there could or ever would be a need for nuclear weapons to be anywhere but on the table. Rhetorically speaking, Nuclear weapons have been “on the table” for over a half century. And that’s all this is. Rhetoric. Claiming one is prepared to obliterate an entire nation, not to mention EXTENDING a nuclear umbrella is a tad bit more of the sabre rattling, since we have every reason to believe that Hillary would do exactly that.

We are paying attention, (and for some of us at least..far closer attention than you might realize) so we don’t anticipate Obama needing to keep any nukes in sight, at least in reference to the Iranians.

He has long ago suggested talking to them, and they have long ago made numerous attempts to talk to the US, to normalize relations with US. The current regime of course, (led by Condi The Rice, at least ostensibly) has rejected their offers each and every time, and simply issued more of the rattles of the snake.

We KNOW that we can expect a totally different approach from Obama, based on his consistency in his underlying principles and outlook.

And yes Max, I would expect him to change whatever that might be, based on the actions that occur outside of the realm that cannot be controlled.

That might make for a more difficult question for all of them, based on a far more likely scenario…What would any of these candidates do if ISRAEL attacked Iran with nuclear weapons? THAT is far more given to a reality than the opposite, since it is Israel that HAS them, and Iran does NOT! Why would Iran subject their 70 million people to an attack anyway, when they’ve consistently said that they have been at the head of the efforts of the NPT, which calls for the ELIMINATION of WMD?

Paying attention IS important, and nothing is ‘pre-ordained’.

So yeah, I’ll support him because he will avoid war at all costs, which includes finding a way to obtain the resources we need without setting the entire world on fire.

One might easily imagine Max, that you have some definite ‘issues’ with Obama, which have nothing to do with his projected policies or what he has been saying for the past few years. It’s very curious. Then again, not really.

Anyway, that’s a huge reason to support Barack Obama. He’s capable of the kind of diplomacy that allows for us to avoid endless war.

a difference.

Sheer has set up the Hillary/McCain face off as hawk vs hawk. These two are really quite different. Yes, Hillary may be more cynical in her posturing, but McCain took away from Vietnam a bitterness that neither Hillary nor Obama could even fathom.

That said, Mr. Sheer deludes himself by indicating that Obama said Hillary was sabber rattling as if that was Obama’s last word on going to war with Iran. Yes, she was sabber rattling, but in Obama’s statement on the Russert, Obama was once again his equivocating self by ending his comment that atomic weapons were ON THE TABLE regarding a potential conflict between Iran and Israel. Atomic weapons - WMDS are on the TABLE!!! If that’s not sabber rattling in the “have it both ways” Obama style, I don’t know what is. Expect more of that in an Obama adaminstation - progressive Dems will be pulling their hair out for 4 years.

But back to the issue at hand. Both Obama and Hillary are clearly pandering to the AIPAC who they understand would swift boat their candidacies quicker than you can say OMG!

McCain is not (he actually believes that AIPAC is right). So I would submit that the language may have been a tad more severe thus offering Obama a neat little “anti-war” talking point, but he contradicted that stand with one of fierce hawkishness.

These are the signs of an Obama presidency. Pay attention now so you’ll understand it if he’s elected and as it unfolds.

Vote for him if you must. But support him, on what basis?

I’m cross posting this article here, since I know that both of these candidates HAVE to be aware of this, and it’s obviously being accomplished with their knowledge and blessing, because this is NOT new to the US. We have proven that we will go anywhere in the world that there are resources, and create whatever instability is required to steal them.

Call for Inquiry Into US Role in Somalia
  By Steve Bloomfield
  The Independent UK
  Wednesday 07 May 2008

  Nairobi - Amnesty International has called for the role of the United States in Somalia to be investigated, following publication of a report accusing its allies of committing war crimes.

  The human rights group yesterday listed abuses carried out by Ethiopian and Somali government forces, and some committed by al-Shabaab, an anti-government militia which the US designated a terrorist group.

  According to the report, based on the testimonies of refugees who have fled Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, in recent weeks, Ethiopian troops have killed civilians by slitting their throats. Ethiopian and Somali forces were also accused of gang-raping women and attacking children.

  A refugee, named Haboon, accuses Ethiopian troops of raping a neighbour’s 17-year-old daughter. When the girl’s brothers - aged 13 and 14 - tried to help her, Ethiopian soldiers gouged out their eyes with a bayonet. The Ethiopian government last night issued a statement strongly rejecting the Amnesty allegations and criticising the organisation’s “uncritical use of sources.”

  Amnesty called for an international commission of inquiry into allegations of war crimes and said the role of other countries that have given military and financial support to perpetrators should also be investigated.

  US troops trained Ethiopian forces involved in military operations in Somalia, and the US government supplied military equipment to the Ethiopian military.

  “There are major countries that have significant influence,” said Amnesty’s Dave Copeman. “The US, EU and European countries need to exert that influence to stop these attacks.”

  After attacks by Ethiopian and Somali forces on civilian areas in Mogadishu last year, European lawyers considered whether funding for Ethiopia and Somalia made the EU complicit. The results of their deliberations were never made public.

  The Amnesty report detailed a pattern of attacks. Refugees who fled the violence said al-Shabaab would launch an attack from a residential area. Ethiopian troops would respond with a security sweep, often going from door-to-door attacking civilians. Those who did not flee faced further reprisals.

  Increased military activity has turned Mogadishu into a ghost town. About 700,000 people have fled - out of a population of up to 1.5 million. The UN estimates that 2.6 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance - more than one quarter of the population.

  Peace talks between the Somali government and the main opposition alliance are scheduled to begin later this month.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050708F.shtml

The occasions when I have found myself in agreement with Chris Matthews have been few and far between but last night’s comments on MSNBC were smack dead on.  After doing the math and securing a consensus amongst the pundits that Obama was now the presumptive Democratic nominee, Matthews did something he rarely does, he actually tried to provide a substantive analysis for Hillary’s demise.

Matthews said that Clinton’s major political blunder occurred in 2002 when she voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.  Matthews made no suggestion that Hillary cast that vote because she was deceived by the Bush administration, and correctly so, for there was ample information available to any and all who would listen that the Bush administration had failed to make the case for going to war.  Robert Byrd saw that.  Dennis Kucinich saw it.  Barack Obama saw it.  So did the the millions who took to the streets in the world’s largest pre-war, anti-war demonstration in history.

No, Matthews said, Hillary’s war vote was the product of a cynical political calculus.  She was more concerned at the time with the impact voting against the war would have on her future political ambitions than she was with the impact that vote would have on so many innocents, including both the working class men and women in uniform made to serve multiple tours under “stop loss” and millions of Iraqi civilians.  She miscalculated.

Mr. Scheer may well be correct in suggesting that a Hillary vs. McCain matchup is hawk vs. hawk.  Certainly the language she uses suggests that it would have been.  But where McCain is crazy enough to mean what he says, it is difficult to know what to believe with someone like Hillary, for her public remarks are “always” grounded in a cynical political calculus—witness the latest pandering where Hillary joined with McCain in touting a “gas tax” holiday when what is needed is a serious discussion of how we can begin converting from a fossil fuel driven economy to a green economy that utilizes solar, wind, and the plug-in all electric vehicles that were the subject of the documentary “Who killed the electric car?”

Hillary Clinton is a liberal social engineer.  She believes one can shape America and world the way one thinks it should be as long as one pushes the right buttons.

Great comments!

What is a hawk?
A bird of prey, that’s what.

And they don’t sit around and define their position or their motives. They get hungry ... they go out and kill something.

Hillary is not necessarily a hawk, but she is necessarily rather stupid.

We have had stupid leading the nation for eight [almost] years and where has that gotten us? Where one might always expect to end up when they follow someone who doesn’t know where they are going, or why they are going where they are not sure, and what they will do when and if they actually figure out where they are going and why. Duh ...

Do we really need a female version of BUSH in the White House?

Hillary is one scary lady. But even more scary are the passionate supporters of Hillary.

She actually believes she is running for president because the Nation called her. I doubt if she’s ever realized she was set up years ago, to guarantee complete repub domination of the government for a decade or two. Reminds me of Bush firmly believing he is president because God called him. I doubt it’s ever occurred to him he was set up too!

And all those folks who want Hillary to be the FIRST woman president have not yet noticed, Hillary is sadly lacking in what some consider typical feminine traits. Like caring for the innocents and the children.

How many dedicated mothers and grandmothers do we know who march around calling for bombing the innocents and the children?

Well aside from a few repub congresswomen ...

And that experience thing? I seriously doubt Hillary spent a great deal of time raising her own child, or there might be a bit of empathy and compassion there ... but there is none.

So what exactly has she experienced? A personal career offering personal success and a personal fortune. A cheating [over and over again] husband, and somewhere along the way she gave birth.

Getting back to the reality of the set-up. Repubs may be crossing the line to vote for Hillary in the primaries, but it’s only so they can vote against her in the general.

As far as McCain goes ... well there he goes ... functioning on a promise and a kiss from dubya. Answering his calling.

And like Hillary, it isn’t because of a firmly held belief that he can straighten out the knots Bush has put us in. It’s just because he really, really wants to be president. And I guess that’s the bottom line. If a candidate can only do two things on the campaign trail, be very suspicious.

One, I am the best!
Two, here’s what’s wrong with the other guy!

That in a nutshell sums up Hillary and McCain, which should pretty well tell us ... it’s all about them.
Just them.
Just like Bush.

Groan ...

Someone up there said, “This is another example of how powerful the Israeli lobby is in America.”

AIPAC is the heart of the Clinton group of Noo Yawk thugs. Hillary isn’t a hawk, just a bought and paid for tool of the Izzies.

On the other hand, neither of these two “neos,” Clinton and McCain want to address the real reason for the Iraq war, nor do they talk about it—-much like Scheer, they know that the money will dry up completely the instant they start talking about OIL.

To the Bushitter thugs Israel is a pimple on the ass of the mideast, and she can be excised with impunity as far as that is concerned, AIPAC be damned. The main point is that without stealing mideast oil or SOME oil, we go down the tubes and the Izzies with us.

If you can’t talk about oil, you ought to just shut up, because whatever you are saying is irrelevant.

I dunno, Robert.  I’m not sure the term “hawks” is applicable any more. I think war junkies may be a more accurate description, especially when it comes to McCain.  He certainly looked pretty blissed out to me during that “ba ba ba ba, bomb bomb Iran” performance - sort of unnerving when you think about it.  And like other addicts he seems almost indifferent to everything else that is going on around him, including critical things like the U.S. economy, global warming, the housing crisis, jobs, and our deteriorating infrastructure.

The problem with Hillary is she has brass balls.  You walk into a men’s restroom and you see what testosterone does.  Jerks have JUST GOT to get relief and DESTROY something.  And when it is half way around the world people are no longer human beings.  No need to live Christian values.  Never read where Christ commanded the followers to go out and kill. 

Does anybody look at the background in the pictures from Iraq?  Anybody see nice clean buildings as there were before Shock and Awe? 

Why don’t Hillary and McCain walk down the streets of Baghdad without an entourage and without body armor?

Maybe we ought to be concentrating on getting the hawks and “yea” idiots out of congress.

The Bush veto has demonstrated that a veto-proof congress may be doves’ best defensive weapon.  The media may not have so much power in more local elections.

Media has been using Rev Wright to distract from the Real threat that such ‘white Evangelical’ as hagee present to our national and international Security.
His Plan makes a Pre-emptive strike on Iran the first domino to fall in his ‘End of Days’ scenario.
Other such cults had no possiblity to Making such a World wide disaster occur- but Hagee does, Look to his followers, supporters, Praisers and those who give a Nod & Wink in their Policies- far too many who hold Public Servant positons in Our Gov’t.
It is far past the time Media turns a spotlight on Hagee and his affliates.

Over all this campaign has been a load of chuckles.  How do we clear the air of the divisive stench created by Hillary and her supporters?  Lambasting Obama with bigoted and even racist comments.  Let’s face it, the bigots will still be opposed to Obama, because their anti support of him is based on intrenched fears or feelings about race. Add the fact non racist supporters of Hillary used the leverage as accepted political practice to conjure up anti Obama sentiment. Now we expect them to join Obama? 

Since my dislike of racism and bigotry is premier in my mind as one of the ugliest, divisive plays in the human condition, even over pedophile’s and sexual abusers and lovers of war.  How am I supposed to accept all is well in Democrat land? 

Looks like Obama may pull this off,  if the Hillary people who supported her, looked the other way when racism and her hawk approach to the world, was readily applied. how can we expect a change?  During the throwing of the kitchen sink they ignored the reality of their campaign’s own actions, and can the Obama camp accept the residual actions with open arms. 

Are Hillary and her supporters,  even able to accept a non racist, peace approach to move with into the future?

Mr. Scheer,

Thank you EVER SO MUCH for pointing this out. While many of us have figured out quite a while back, that Hillary is as much a hawk as the current regime of thugs, (neoliberals are no less dangerous than their neocon partners in crime) I think a lot of folks still miss that.

On the other hand, some don’t care. Still, it’s very helpful to have this so well addressed. These two would be presidents are essentially THE SAME, and we can pretty much wash away ALL hope, (not just peace) should either of them be allowed to extend The Coup that has kept us hostage for nearly 8 years.