I saw that clip on countdown.  Obama said, as president he would “end the war”.  He didn’t say when. Of course, whether he ended it or not would depend on what the “generals on the ground” say or perhaps which way the wind is blowing.  What does THAT prove?

If the Obama supporters think it is fun to bash their candidate, think again. Ask Tim King at Salem-News, who experienced the wrath of the Obama faithful, by merely pointing out the discrepancies in his positions. On this site, when facts can not be so easily glossed over, the arguments then become personal attacks, that have nothing to do with the reality of the questions involved.
So that “infantile” minority who demand peace and civil justice might rain on the charismatic parade of their vacillating candidate. It should always be remembered that it has always been a determined minority that has brought progress to this world. Without that determined minority, blacks would still be slaves and women not allowed to vote.

Rachel Maddow isn’t exactly a non-partisan source. Second, she’s obviously doing what the MSM (and she is certifiably one) is doing - SPINNING. In this case for Obama which is what she has been doing for some time.

Rather than brush off the evidence posted throughout this thread as “a 3 minute research” project, I’d suggest looking at the links and deciding for yourself rather than calling up one more Obama shill.

I think there are some of us here who are more concerned about the massive mess we’re in than the parsing of Obama’s latest campaign message.

1.As Rachel Maddow pointed out on Countdown, three minutes of research will produce the evidence that Obama’s position on Iraq has not changed from any of the primary debates. The media should be diligent memory keepers not more lazy forgetters.
2. As three more minutes of research will show, Obama would support, not introduce, a ban on abortions, and only when the fetus is healthy and at least marginally viable and not endangering the mother. You implied that this is a betrayl of women, but a majority of women, including me, are creeped out by such late abortions.
3. Below the media radar, Obama has a radical position on community- his roots are in community organizing and he truly wants to empower communities, in dealing with crime and other social issues. Media portrayed this as supporting faith-based initiatives, but its the opposite. He wants to support all community organizations.
4. You may not like Obama, but do independent research and be fair rather than reporting other reports and letting scorn creep into your tone. Surely you don’t want McCain to win.

Cyrena:

“As much as I appreciated Cynthia McKinney and her guts in Congress, her own Constituency didn’t appreciate her enough to vote for her again...”

Actually, this is not true.

McKinney served from 1993 to 2003, winning re-election in 1994, 1996, 1998 and 2000 by large margins.  In the 2002 election, the G.O.P. pulled an outrageous stunt in which they got a huge number of Repugs (between 40,000 and 75,000) to switch parties just before the primaries, and they all voted for McKinney’s opponent.  This took McKinney out of the race.  They then switched back for the general election and voted for the Repug, who won.

McKinney sued in this regard, but the hopelessly conservative district court in Georgia upheld the election.  During her two-year hiatus, McKinney spoke all over the world in opposition to the Iraq war, and became a major force in the 9/11 Truth movement.

McKinney ran again in 2004 and won - again by a large margin.  However, when she ran in the 2006 primary, there was a run-off between her and the second highest-voted contender (in Georgia, you must have 50% outright to win a primary).  But during the preceding two years, the Repugs in Georgia had gerrymandered certain districts, and McKinney lost the run-off as a result of this gerrymandering.

Thus, to suggest that “her own constituency didn’t appreciate her enough to vote for her again” is historically inaccurate.

Peace.

Shepharad:  Many republicans have said they will vote for Nader.  They don’t like McCain and like we don’t want McCain they don’t want Obama.  So I’d say, since Nader already has 6% of the vote, vote Nader. Right now if he gets 10% in the polls, he’s in the google debates.  THEN the ball will really be rolling towards a true democratic debate.  Not that bs they tried to pass off as meaningful debates a few months ago.  Check out Nichols column in the nation http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080706/cm_thenatio n/45334812

Cyrena: As for this election being rigged.  You bet your a** I think it can and probably will be.  So, that’s why I’m voting for a candidate who speaks my language, not doublespeak.

To everyone who cares to read this:  In the end, if Nader can’t get that 10%, I may just decide to vote for Bob Barr, just as the repigs are voting for Nader, to steal that vote from McCain.

Knowing Barr’s chances are worse than Nader’s I will sleep soundly that night, knowing my conscience is clear and no one can accuse me of taking a vote from the democrat by voting for Ralph

cyrena:  Nader is for single payer healh care, same as DK was and as McKinney is. (as I believe is everyone running in the green party)

Nader and McKinney both rely on donations from “we the people”. Neither one is backed by corporations nor the dlc.  They just don’t have the funds to do the kind of extensive touring that Obama and McCain do.  So, if they don’t get to your town, perhaps you should send a few bucks to their campaign and ask that they do.

As for the supreme court.  Alito and Roberts would not be sitting on that court if the dems didn’t give them the green light, right?  I think at best Obama will appoint a moderate, certainly not a progressive.

And lest we all forget, his appointment has to be approved does it not?  What are the chances a left leaning candidate will get through THAT process ???

And may I remind those of you who say Nader cost Gore the election.  GORE WON but “THEY” had no intention of letting him take office.  The die was cast, the fix was in, the game was over before the last vote (ha) was counted.

So Jersey Girl,

Based on this and all the rest of what you’ve said above, (and I agree that the MSM is state controlled, but I don’t agree that the elections are as ‘rigged’ in every state as they are in some, or Gore would NOT have won) why the hell don’t you think the same thing could happen again, with the vote count that close?

And why do you think that either Nader or McKinney represents my interests? As much as I appreciated Cynthia McKinney and her guts in Congress, her own Constituency didn’t appreciate her enough to vote for her again, and she’s not shown a hair on her head in my own state, to even ask from my vote. Neither has Nadar.

So, if they can’t be so flippin’ bothered to campaign, I’m not so sure why you expect us to blow off a candidate that WILL represent my interests, and the interests of most of the people in my own state, not to mention the majority of people in most other states.

Does McKinney have a wonderful health plan? I’ve not seen it. How about Nadar? Didn’t see anything on his flimsy website either.

Let’s be really clear here. Barack Obama has asked for the votes that got him the democratic nomination, and the MSM didn’t tell me to vote for him, nor did the MSM tell anybody else to vote for him.

He campaigned, and people decided. You didn’t and that’s fine. YOU should vote for Nadar. Anybody who believes in him that strongly should vote for him, and should stop attempting to bully everybody else who are at the least, equally capable of making up their minds.

Now YOU claim that Nadar didn’t cost Gore the election in 2000, since he actually did win. Let’s be clear there as well. Had the counts not been as close as they were, IN MORE THAN ONE STATE, the neocon thugs WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PULL IT OFF!

And, that’s only common sense. As long as we have an this broken electoral system, (that HRC swore to fix nearly 8 years ago) wasting votes is still wasting votes. Nadar hasn’t a snowball’s chance in winning anything, just like he hasn’t for the past 4 elections, and he’s never bothered to run for anything else.

Shoot your OWN self in the foot Jersey girl, but don’t try to take the rest of us with you, by having us wind up with John McCain and a right wing Judiciary that will set woman’s rights back to the flippin’ stone age, not to mention having all the rest of us begging in the streets.

atp2007:

I agree with you 100%.  If I vote for Obama, it will be almost solely with respect to the future Supreme Court, the far-reaching consequences of which MUST not be underestimated.  Clearly McCain would choose conservative judges, while Obama, no matter what his other center-moving faults, is certainly likely to choose at least centrist if not left-leaning judges.

This alone makes a vote for McCain insupportable.

Peace.

I thought that after the fiascos of 2004 and 2000 we could get through one election without the soul searching and navel rumination over the choice of candidates.  Keep it up and once again you’ll get the choice of the right wing, who won’t bother going thru these macinations as they head to the polls to elect their best shot at power.  Do you really want McCain appointing another 3 Rogers/Scalia types the Supreme Court as he pledges to do? While you ponder over Obama’s position on FISA (why are we talking about punishing telecoms when the government officials, who told them what they were asked to do was legal and patriotic, are not going to jail?)they are looking forward to more Judges that will expand government power and rob consumers of any rights against corporations.  Not to mention what’s going to happen in Iran when McCain carries out Bush’s plans if Bush doesn’t act first.  Keep worrying about the left wing purity of the candidates and we’ll have another war on our hands when the Neocons march to the polls.

leefeller: Every election voters are terrified (on both sides) of the other party’s nominee.  BOTH are false choices. We really don’t have a say in who the nominees are nor who becomes president.  Haven’t you already figured this out for yourself? 

Bush’s popularity is what? 28%?  Why then do you think the polls are showing the race as close as it is?  Do you believe those polls?  The msm is state controlled.  The election process is rigged from beginning to end.  We are fighting amongst ourselves instead of getting mad as hell and refusing to be scared into voting against our own best interests because we’re terrified of the other guy.

WAKE UP! For ONCE vote the person who represents YOU and what you care about.  Not some cardboard cutout that the nwo has “selected” for you.  They will be thrilled with either war mongerering, corporate shill that’s running.

And may I remind those of you who say Nader cost Gore the election.  GORE WON but “THEY” had no intention of letting him take office.  The die was cast, the fix was in, the game was over before the last vote (ha) was counted.

Conservative Yankee and Maani,

I agree, I am so sick and tire of the samo samo Bull F**king S**t and which is why it bewilders me to know end to see people’s fasination with upholding this dynasty rule by families. Of course the media will appoint who they want as front runners in a presidential race, probably in horse races also, and when you have a black and a women vying for the position it’s a new thing, great ‘publicity’ for our ‘election process’. I was amazed at how long edwards hung in the race because IT WAS too obvious who the msm wanted in the race. And this is why I object to hillary being picked for vp for obama, I think the possibility of him being assassinated are real, I wouldn’t want it to happen but the few groups out there that can pull it off making it appear to be some racist nut is a distinct possibility. So no hillary. Again, what part of bush, clinton, clinton, bush, bush, and still a possibility of clinton again if she is vp do people not understand, or better yet, what part of any of these administrations has made this a better and safer country and world?
Obama is a new face, he has the dem nomination, I plan on seeing who the independents on ballot in my state are before I would vote for obama but, I will not vote republican again for a long long time and yeah, just with obama sucking up to aipac is enough to make me believe electing him will be the samosamo BS.

jersey girl,

Well how bad can McCain really be, compared to what we have now?

I have never been a Hillary nor Obama supporter as everyone here aleady knows.  My only loyalty was to Dennis Kucinich who was a REAL liberal and a man for REAL change. But we were told over and over
again ad nauseum that he was “unelectable” by not only the msm but dems themselves.  Now look at what we’re left with.  The candidate the power elite chose and the msm catapulted forward with the fake “yes we can” “we are change” campaign.  Obama’s campaign has gone from “yes we can” to “no I won’t” awfully fast hasn’t it?  Damn, right from the
start that whole mantra sounded orwellian to me. A chant for the mesmerized sheeple to repeat over and over. It also reminded me of one of those old political satire movies about campaigns and their
adoring cult like followers.

It’s crunch time people.  Are you going to continue to support these
candidates chosen for you by the shadow government or are you going to
finally rise up and say ENOUGH!  If we all vote for Nader or McKinney we could turn this corrupt “one party system” on it’s ass. It comes down to us now.  Aren’t you tired of settling for the scraps the dlc
hands you?

trouble: That link you posted was awesome.  I sure wish Cyrena would read it. But someone who thinks Paul Krugman isn’t a true progressive but Obama is (lol).. hell, what can i say............

Cyrena:

Let me parse some of your latest diatribe.

“I don’t consider Paul Krugman to be a progressive.”

Do tell why this is so.  Please point to a position he has taken - on ANY of the myriad economic issues facing our country - that is not at very least “liberal,” if not blatantly “progressive.”

“And, I’ve been reading it all from the so-called progressives on this site for months now.”

“So-called progressives?” So, in other words, if a person doesn’t measure up to YOUR definition of “progressive,” they simply cannot be so.  How very humble of you.

“I’m sick of...the bushes, and the clintons, and more bushes, and more clintons. The US was never designed to be a monarchy, so why are so many people willing to have it remain as such?”

This raises an interesting question.  Suppose JFK had not been shot.  Would you have been okay with having JFK followed by RFK, then Ted Kennedy, then maybe John Jr., then maybe RFK Jr.?  If so, here again, it is YOUR definition of “monarchy” that is the yardstick by which you are measuring others.

“It’s truly disgusting to hear allegedly intelligent people continue to make the claim over and over again, that ‘the media’ or the ‘establishment’ choose these candidates, when in reality, the only reason Obama won the nomination is because they didn’t expect him to go anywhere in a country still very much tuned into the racism that established it.”

You are either very naive or in a severe state of denial.  In fact, I specifically remember that when this issue - the role of the media and establishment in “choosing” the candidates - was being discussed during the primary race, you were in full agreement that they had a disproportionate “control” in this regard.  Yet now, because you find yourself having to defend Obama against any and all criticism, you have changed your tune.  This makes you as much a creature of “political expediency” as he is.

“Obama wasn’t supposed to happen. So, why did he? I would suggest it was that ‘movement’ that nobody paid much attention to.”

Again, naivete or denial.  While the “movement” that built up around Obama certainly had a role to play in “why he happened,” so did media bias in his favor (a virtual “free pass”) and against Clinton.  But perhaps most salient here is that the “movement” was initially based on his anti-war stance (though other factors were also involved).  This is why I state again that, had Obama run on the positions he is taking NOW - including his ambiguous statements on changing his position on Iraq and troop withdrawal - that movement might never have occurred at all, and right now we would all be asking, “Barack who?”

“Now if you can honestly point to a better economic plan by any of the other candidates, I’d be interested to hear it. I’ve checked it out, and found virtually no difference, in the economic plans than I did in the health care plans, with HRC’s being the least acceptable.”

You obviously haven’t “checked it out” very carefully.  Hillary’s overall economic plan (housing crisis, taxes, health care, energy, environment, etc.) is SO superior to Obama’s that it is almost laughable.

As usual, your knee-jerk defense of Obama only ends up making you look silly.

Peace.

“Division seems to be the goal of the bludgeoning done by the self righteous and only supports status quo.”

Sounds awfully self-righteous.

The tipping point can be reached with respect of any candidate and for every person the tipping point is different.  Some of you believe your tipping point should be everyones.  Sorry it doest not work that way.

Evangelical approach to politics only distances even people who agree, at least in my case.

Division seems to be the goal of the bludgeoning done by the self righteous and only supports status quo.

and because NYT progressive economist Paul Krugman knocked himself out trying to explain, week after week, why Bambi’s health plan and economics generally really sucked,

Shepard,

I don’t consider Paul Krugman to be a progressive, and the health plan offered by Obama (while clearly NOT enough) is identical to the plans that HRC and John Edwards offered, with the exception of the mandatory requirement to purchase it.

Again, that health care plan is NOT single payer, (which is different from so called ‘universal’) and that’s what it needs to be. The only candidate to every offer that was Dennis Kucinich, and only Dennis Kucinich. My own hope, (because I believe it possible) is that the American people will demand more from that health care system, and that Obama will go along. We’ve already made multiple advances on that front, right here in my own state, specifically in respect to big pharma. That said, sometimes ‘we the people’ really DO need to get off of our asses and stop whining about what an administration or a president will or will not do. Seems to me like after 8 years of being used and abused by an administration that is totally unresponsive to the people, most would have figured that out by now. Guess not. Besides, it’s so much more fun to bash Obama, right?

And, I’ve been reading it all from the so-called progressives on this site for months now. They devote all of their energies to bashing Obama, and have yet to provide a viable alternative.

I too preferred Dennis Kucinich at the start of this thing, and would have been fine with John Edwards, though I certainly don’t get how he would be any ‘less’ of a DLC’er than Obama. I don’t believe either of them to be.

Hillary on the other hand, is very much a DLC’er, as is her husband. SHE was my very, very last choice, behind all of the other candidates in the running for the nomination. In my estimation, HRC is still the repug goldwater girl that she started out as long ago, and a hawk. I’m sick of hawks, and the bushes, and the clintons, and more bushes, and more clintons.
The US was never designed to be a Monarchy, so why are so many people willing to have it remain as such?

In so far as a movement behind or surrounding the man, that’s exactly what it is. It’s truly disgusting to hear allegedly intelligent people continue to make the claim over and over again, that ‘the media’ or the ‘establishment’ choose these candidates, when in reality, the only reason Obama won the nomination is because they didn’t expect him to go anywhere in a country still very much tuned into the racism that established it.

In other words, like Louise mentioned some months ago, Obama wasn’t supposed to happen! So, why did he? I would suggest it was that ‘movement’ that nobody paid much attention to. The same large portion of the population that the political elite NEVER pay attention to. Yep..THEM. THAT’S how HRC got wiped out, and it’s definitely fine with me. I wish that Kucinich could have hung in there longer, but he didn’t. Same with Edwards, even though he’s as close to Obama as it gets, without being black. Otherwise, there is little difference.

Now if you can honestly point to a better economic plan by any of the other candidates, I’d be interested to hear it. I’ve checked it out, and found virtually no difference, in the economic plans than I did in the health care plans, with HRC’s being the least acceptable.

Oh ya,cyrena, just in case you don’t read the link, it’s pretty safe to say that Obama is Mr. DLCer. And Bill Clinton could not have scripted his centrist campaign better - right out of 1992!

cyrena,

Just a little bit of political and social reality: there is no progressive/Dem “movement” supporting Obama.

Cheering fans does not a movement make. That’s the rockstar crap the MSM keeps fueling in lieu of leadership qualities.

You may not have read the link that troublsum posted. But here you go. It tells a very different story and one that seems to be playing out with greater vividness every day.
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Obama.html

CY...thanks for this reminder…

“.. Freud’s definition of insanity “Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.”

It’s pretty much the only thing “Freudian” that I ever much agreed with.

I’m not sure that it 100% to this current Democratic Party, because that party is splitting now, between the old and the new, and the ‘movement’ surrounding Obama is the new wing of it.

The ‘problem’ that he has in this, at least in my own opinion, is his attempts to be the hero that keeps the ever widening chasm from happening. In other words, he started out with the ‘hope’ (for lack of a better word) in reuniting the Democratic party, when in my opinion, that can’t happen. The damage has been done. It was a good and noble intent, but it’s an impossible task because the ideologies of the old blue dog established elite/dynasties of the 20th Century Dems can only hold back the progressive movement of the 21st Century.

So, if ya ask me, these old DLC’ers just need to move over to the repug side that they’ve always been on anyway. They would be far more useful on that side, at least to the balance of things.

And that includes the whole gang of the whiners on this site who consistently wallow in superficial criticisms without ever offering an alternative. EVER. At least you explain why you’re voting the way you are, whether it makes sense to me or anybody else. Far better than the waffling and whining that the rest of them indulge in, just ‘cause Hillary got beat.

It was time for Billary to go. Long past time. Time for McCain to sit his senile ass down as well. They’ve ALL managed to screw things up quite royally for the majority of the US population, (since that’s what dynasties do) and they’re all dead weight in the struggle for the rest of us to survive.

Obama’s mistake has been in trying to keep them in the program. It was a good effort, but he needs to practice some version of political chemotherapy at this point.

No more mr. nice guy.

AlGore wasn’t perfect, there won’t be any differnece between Gush and Bore, so what difference would it make if Bush won?
Kerry isn’t perfect, what difference would it make if Bush won again.
Now Obama isn’t perfect, so let’s just let MCain win, what difference could it possible make? 
It just goes on and on and they stay in control.

troublesum:

Thanks for the LBO link.  They’re saying alot of what some of us have been saying for quite some time, not least vis-a-vis Goolsbee (who I like to call Ghouls-bee).

Peace.

By Conservative Yankee, July 5 at 2:39 pm

I am with your idea about hillbillyhillary. It wasn’t really anything about her war vote, it was all about retaining the status quo, I could only best explain it by ask what the hell did anyone not understand about bush, clinton, clinton, bush, bush, then the possibility of clinton again. And some of my biggest fears were about bill’s intentions, he certainly wasn’t going to sit back and play a ‘first gentleman’. But the biggest was the conceptualization of 2 family dynasties in our government that combined with a traitorous congress and military(upper command career generals & colonels)have put this nation on the road to ruin without one jot of compassion or concern except for money.
I would sure like to get them all to explain why our vaunted military is absolved from any reprimand for ‘accidentally’ bombing weddings, birhday parties, funerals and family gatherings just because the of the greed and paranoia the bushs & clintons have. And least we not forget the person who signed the NAFTA that has almost finished hollowing out our manufacturing base and jobs.
No, I will not vote republican and I will wait until the ballots are posted in my state to see who the independents are on the ballot. IF is looks close I would throw my vote to obama but he is… well he’s a politician and you usually have to elect the politician and see how he plays out before you know if you voted right or fucked up.
The other part of this is who will the the vp picks for mccain and obama. What if ole johnny decided to pick cheney or someother criminal in w’s administration and obama actually picks hillary. Both would leave very little to be feeling good about as ole johnny probably ain’t but 2 steps away from a heart attack or stroke or alhziemer(sp)and what are obama’s chances of being assassinated should he start to do what the people of this country wants him to do, reign in the military, and try and get control of this country. If he was to be assassinated I still doubt the citizens of this country would find the outrage to find out who was responsible or verify who was responsible because even now the choices are few for the people or groups that would pull that off.

The best take on Obama I’ve seen:  http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Obama.html

Jim M
Pleasant dreams.  Once elected Obama will move quickly to the right.

Im still voting for him. There is a good possibility he will significantly liberalize his currently stated positions when he becomes president.
Besides, I’d vote for Chippy the Woodchuck rather than see another destructive Repug get in!

Excellent reporting from Amy G.

CY:

“The business shill got EVERY VOTE which could have possibly gone to her. She was a failure, a loser, and to apologists who believe otherwise I say ‘prove it.’”

Unfortunately, “proving it” is, as you well know, impossible.  However, you were among those (with Mike Mid-City leading the charge) who suggested that Hillary’s vote for the Iraq War resolution was and would be her ultimate downfall.  And this was specifically compared to Obama’s claim that he would not have voted for it (though this, too, cannot be proven), his general anti-war stance, and his early call for withdrawal of all troops within 12-13 months of his election (this has now been “upped” to 16 months - and only COMBAT troops...).

If Obama had not been seen as a STAUNCHLY anti-war candidate, then there was very little that separated him from Hillary vis-a-vis overall positions on the issues.

Given this, I repeat that it is a virtual certainty that had Obama NOT been seen as the “anti-war” candidate - i.e., had he been running on his NEW, CURRENT, more centrist position on Iraq (one that is arguably to the RIGHT of Hillary’s position, despite her lamentable vote), he would NOT have won the primary race.

Proof cannot be provided.  Common sense can.

Peace.

I think, relatively speaking, you’d be hard pressed to point to a solid stand Obama made during the primary that one would call a committed progressive conviction.

He equivocated on EVERYTHING. It’s one thing to weigh options; it’s quite another not to have a strong sense of core values as these relate to public good and goals. His was “transcendent” ala Bill Clinton. He was always the centrist candidate.

H. Clinton began to look like a populace candidate in comparison - and that’s almost beyond believable. In an ironic way, Obama is really Bill Part II - only slicker. (I think this pisses off Bill more than Hillary’s loss - just speculating.)

When Kucinich and Edwards (and for different reasons Dodd, Richardson and Biden) were in the race Obama was a glaring wannabe, dear in the headlights “debater”. But the MSM (which the Obama supporters are now complaining about) annointed Hillary and Obama front runners last year and they made sure those were the two horses in the race by giving them the lion’s share of coverage.

The DLC figured either way they had their guy/gal running for POTUS on the Dem ticket. And so did the big money corporatist including the MSM.

It’s rigged folks. DLC with some help from their corporate friends, decide who’s running; and if you’re lucky/good you’ll (collective ‘you’) get to pick which of the bobsy twins will be the next Prez.

What a wonderful democracy!!

“If Obama had run in the primary on the positions he is taking NOW Hillary would have won the primary race.

Or Edwards may have won but definitely not Obama.  However it is traditionally the practise of the democratic candidate to move to the right in the general election after winning the nomination by playing to the party base.  They rationalize that the party base will have no where else to go and so come around to supporting the candidate come November.  But this is getting old and I hope people are waking up.  We must assume that the democratic primary contests are nothing but a campaign of lies.

Max:

You say, “If we had Instant Run-off Voting I think we’d have a whole different race.”

I’ll raise you: if Obama had run in the primary on the positions he is taking NOW, Hillary would have won the primary race.  Period.

As for Cyrena, you, troublesum et al might as well try teaching a goldfish to play poker.

Peace.

Man are we ever beating this dead horse. Now the parsing of what are facts is down to ‘if and then’.
I am still not convienced about obama, execpt that any moves to restore the constitution, reign in the military or regulate corporations will put his life in jeopardy or make him more liable to toe the line of current neocon agendas. This is sure enough about the neocon’s agendas and the probability that they will not give up power without a fight OR, paid heed, to their already publicly announced proclaimation that we will be attacked again which would be easy for them with the help of the izraelis and the blueprint of the 9-11 attack, this is a very real possibility.
So even for both candidates, each vp choice will be very important. Mccain ain’t that healthy and if you see dick cheney as his running mate, voting for adolph hitler would be better vote. I am still waiting for the ballot to see who will be on the independent tickets or if it is close and my state is chosen to be the swing state just as florida and ohio were, I will vote obama, anything to get us away from those nasty neocons and blue dogs.

cyrena you’re like the people around Bush who can never admit that their guy is wrong.  You defend Obama the same way John Yoo defends Bush.  If Obama becomes president and starts violating international law as every president since 1900 has done you’ll be there to say, “It depends on what the word violate means.  Obama isn’t violating international law what he’s doing is changing intenational law, bringing to a higher level because he’s always way ahead of us.  If people weren’t so stupid and emotional and could tell the difference between facts and feelngs they would be able to see that Obama is the gratest defender of international law we have ever had.  People are drinking too much to pay attention to these things.  My parents taugt me the difference between fact and feeling right after they toilet trained me.  If you’re a wino you probably never learned it so I hope anyone who doesn’t share my opinion gets run over by a truck or something....

cyrena,
“And as I said...FACTS are reality, not your opinion.”

Not really. It’s what you do with the facts; that’s reality.

But that little bit aside; calm down. Have no fear, I’m not running for POTUS.

If we had Instant Run-off Voting I think we’d have a whole different race. The suites would have to talk about real issues and Nader, McKinney and Barr would be real forces. Instead the dictatorship of the duopoly makes this one big frick and frack tragic joke.

It means we’ll have two guys that believe in military intervention, privatized health care, the death penalty, protecting Israel rather than supporting the human rights of the Palestinians, faith-based (actually I haven’t heard McCain on this)social services (and all the political/religious mess that creates for our constitution), continued occupation in Iraq (neither have stated they would do away with the massive US base in the Green Zone), nuclear options are fully loaded and on the table for both our energy alternatives and dealing with Iran; and oh yah, Iran is a threat to the ME region; both are supporters of free trade (clearly NOT fair trade which is code for NAFTA is more or less the type of trade agreements they would support (with tweaks?); Patriot Act and warrently “wire-tapping” is honkey dorey for both; the “war” on terror is a good way to frame and continue to use our military might; a build up (not draw down) of our military and related increased costs is a priority; the economy needs to “grow its way to prosperity” (the reason we’re in this unholy mess to begin with) is the mantra for both jackles…

The list goes on and on and on. McCain, the ol Maverick, can’t move far enough to the right without bumping into his old buddy, Obama.

Obama, Progressive??? Only in your very vivid imagination.

Max…on this:

“Given the state of the world and particularly the economy, Obama if elected will be facing a tsunami like we’ve never witnessed before.

Ya think?

• Both these empty suits haven’t a clue and given their neoliberal and old Wall Street economic advisors we’re in DEEP shit.

Ah, but ALL of that would be so different and so much better if neither of these ‘empty suits’ is elected right? I mean, if we elect YOU, everything will be just spiffy.

That’s pretty much how stupid both you and troublesome bert sound.

So, thanks for nothing on the free ‘counseling’ and telling me what I believe. Troubled bert…just have another drink. You’ll be fine.

It’s not likely that Obama is going to commit mass murder with a machine gun. But, if he ‘accidentally’ ran your ass over as you wandered the streets hitting up other winos, I’d be willing to act as his attorney of record in defense of whatever he might be charged with.

Ok…have another drink bert. It’ll be so much better when you and Max team up to rule the world. You all have such wonderful suggestions, and you always tell us so much of what we don’t know.

And yes, I DO believe that Obama is a progressive, based on what I believe a progressive to be. But then, I don’t believe in fairy tales, or disregarding reality, and I’m very accomplished at separating the bullshit from the reality of the circumstances that exist at any given time.

And as I said...FACTS are reality, not your opinion.

Max,
You should know that only cyrena can use metaphor or simile here; anyone else who does is “making up lies.”

Obama’s AIPAC speech was secret code for defense of Palestinian rights.  Remember that one.

If Obama committed mass murder with a machine gun cyrena would spin it into an act of grace upon the whole nation.  If she had a legitimate defense to offer for him she could say it in less than 25000 words.  She believes her endless words make up for lack of substance.

cyrena,

Your a devoted believer, agonstic about God, perhaps, but Obama is your faith.

When JG says Obama “sounds” like a Republican she means what he is proposing, stands he’s taking (if you can call them “stands") are very Republican ala GHW Bush, perhaps (though he’s praised R. Reagan - as right wing a President we’ve had - shy of the current nut-case).

Obama is on record as saying he conduct foreign policy similarly to GHW Bush. That the invasion of Iraq in 1991 is the way he’d go about it rather than the way his kid has. Some progressive!?!

So, the facts are clear. But you BELIEVE and there’s nothing on god’s green earth that’s going to shake you from that belief. No facts, no statements, and if Obama is POTUS, no policies will shake your belief that Obama is a “progressive” but he’s just got to...(fill in the excuse).

Given the state of the world and particularly the economy, Obama if elected will be facing a tsunami like we’ve never witnessed before. Both these empty suits haven’t a clue and given their neoliberal and old Wall Street economic advisors we’re in DEEP shit.

The party’s over; the winner could very well be the biggest loser. Of course we’ll all be looking for shelter.

By jersey girl, July 4 at 2:04 am

cyrena:  The FACT is Obama sounds just like a republican. Not crazy like McInsane but a republican non the less.  As a progressive, I find no comfort in what he’s put forth in his campaign.. non whatsoever.

###

You’ve just proven my point again jersey girl.

It is not a FACT, that ANYTHING, ‘sounds’ like anything else. “sounds like’ is subjective and relative to who is ‘hearing’ or ‘reading’ whatever it is. In this case, it is also relative to what one assumes or interprets to be a republican.

That is the point with critical thinking, and you need to consider learning critical thinking. FACTS are objective. They are what they are. That is not to say that subjectivity isn’t important, because it is. FACTS are of limited use without the context in which they exist. The FACT that there are clouds in the sky isn’t particularly important until one needs to navigate the skies, or escape whatever potential danger they might pose to life and property. At THAT point, one would need to pay very close attention to the properties and location of those clouds.

Whether or not Obama ‘sounds’ like a repuglican is YOUR interpretation of him and of what republicans ‘sound like’. It is NOT a fact. It’s your interpretation. I’m not saying that your interpretation is correct or not correct, because it’s not a FACT, and so it can’t be assigned that sort of value.

For what it’s worth however, I’ve said the same about Bill Clinton, though I didn’t come to that opinion until he was several years into his presidency. By the time he was finished, I was willing to suggest that he’d been the best republican president we’d ever had, (at least since the parties swapped names and ideologies). His wife, Hillary Rodham, is even MORE of a repuglican than HE is, and that should come as no particular surprise, since she was a hardcore Goldwater Girl before she ‘switched up” and got on board with the Arkansas brand of Democrats. (must have been love at first sight..or something like that.)

That said, it could bolster some of the arguments here, that Obama is a clone of Bill Clinton. I disagree with the suggestion that Obama is a clone of Bill Clinton, but I will acknowledge similarities in their seeming positions. But, those are not ‘facts’. They are impressions, based on personal interpretations.

Now I have said this before, but I don’t mind repeating it again and again. I don’t agree with some of the statements that Obama has made, based on my own understanding of what he’s saying. However, I actually listen to what he’s saying, and what the words actually mean in the context of what he’s saying. YOU have complained that he talks a lot, without actually SAYING anything. I’d agree that he does hold a typically cautious ground in much of what he says, so I think that’s what you’re probably complaining about. Again, I don’t agree that it is a good or bad thing, because it depends on the circumstances and the context. But, you can’t really complain that he’s not saying anything, and then turn around and say that he ‘sounds’ like a repug, and claim it to be a fact.

Part 2 of 2 re: jersey girl

What you ALSO CANNOT do, (at least not with an iota of credibility) is to PREDICT what he or anyone else will do in any given set of circumstances, including current circumstances of which you cannot possibly be aware. For THAT, we are all left to our own judgment and analysis. We can share information, and we can share opinions. Some may be more influenced than others by that information/advertising/opinion. I happen to be one who is not particularly influenced by anything or anyone other than myself, and what I’ve been able to distinguish between fact/reality and hype/biased opinion. In terms of this political campaign, (and specifically Obama) that generally keeps me in a “wait and see” or what might otherwise be called an ‘observation mode.’

The reason this is particularly true of Obama, is because he has a much shorter ‘history’ of political decision making than those we are likely to compare him with, in the context of this election. Even if he DID have a longer ‘history’ there is a limit to that as a resource as well, because the environment does change in respect to the decisions that any person needs to make, whether they are a president, or an average citizen making decisions for his/her own personal agendas. My point is that I can agree, disagree, or maintain NO opinion on any number of things, and that includes what these political candidates put forth.

Here are some things on which do NOT agree with Obama’s position. I don’t agree with the posture he has taken in dealing with AIPAC, and I DO believe it to be problematic…the extent to which it is problematic is debatable for the moment, but it is something that I disagree with. I understand perfectly that he had to ‘deal with’ them, in the process of his campaign, because that’s the reality of the environment. (a distasteful reality, but a reality none the less). So my concern is that he could have and should have been far more cautious in the address that he presented to them.

I also don’t agree with his position on a 2-state solution for the Israel/Palestine Conflict, because I don’t believe it to be a realistic solution. However, that can and should, (at least in my opinion) be put aside for the next few months, while we address the concerns of our own nation, elect a president, and try to prevent GW from attacking Iran. It’s an imperialistic notion to expect this 60 year old conflict to be a major focus of Americans in deciding who our President should be. He’s not running to head-up the UN. He’s running for POTUS.

I don’t have a problem with his latest take on faith-based initiatives, and I say that as a committed agnostic, and for sure a die-hard secularist. The reality says that for the MAJORITY, (which doesn’t include me in this particular case) this faith/God thing is very important. Since it IS, it needs to be acknowledged as such, and given a PRODUCTIVE place in the society. Obama’s plan to unify those from various faiths, to work with the secular among us makes perfectly good sense to me, and I can hope that it will reverse some of the horrific effects that have been wrought by the GWB approach. But, that’s another wait and see thing, because like racism, the negatives of this faith thing have very deep roots.

Lastly…the title of this piece is better than the contents, because it IS in fact NOT about the man, as much as it is about the ‘movement’ and I believe it to be a PROGRESSIVE movement. To the degree that it is ‘about the man’ I believe that Obama’s campaign platform represents the agenda of that progressive movement. It may be unfortunate for some that reality still exists in the same space that the movement is being constructed, and that reality must be considered in light of whatever the movement can accomplish. But, it is what it is. Still, the movement is progressive, and Obama’s platform supports those ideologies more than any other viable candidate currently available, INCLUDING Ralph Nader.

Leefeller,

The MSM is integral to the process that has sustained the so-called two parties.

While I appreciate you desire for a different “world”; sadly, it is your acquiescence (along with millions of others) that keep us stuck; and it is exactly what the two headed hydra called the Repub-Dem Party counts on every election cycle.

And it is the lack of imagination, or the willingness to believe in your dreams with the conviction to make them a reality that preserves business as usual.

If my choice for president agreed with everything I believe in, this would be a much more healthy planet.  Since this is not happening, I will vote for Obama, only because I know my liberal self is nothing but a pipe dream.  As Obama keeps nipping away at issues important to me or at least seems to be nipping away, I will still vote for him, for the seems may be nothing more than Mass Media Bull Crap. 

Why does Obama seem to be changing stride in the middle of the river? Me thinks the media is playing a large part, but he may be playing a part too. Well, the show must go on.

Dominick J.,

No, unlike you, I am not a partisan. Partisan’s are awfully sensitive to the truth when it seems to bruise their candidate.