Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 25, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Czeslaw Milosz: A Life

Truthdig Bazaar
Oklahoma City: What the Investigation Missed—and Why It Still Matters

Oklahoma City: What the Investigation Missed—and Why It Still Matters

Andrew Gumbel (Author), Roger G. Charles (Author)

Hard Road West

Hard Road West

By Keith Heyer Meldahl

more items

Email this item Print this item

It’s Not the Man, It’s the Movement

Posted on Jul 2, 2008

By Amy Goodman

  I was on a panel at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado this week when Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter asked me, “Is Obama a sellout?” The question isn’t whether he is a sellout or not—it’s about what demands are made by grass-roots social movements of those who would represent them. The question is, who are these candidates responding to, answering to?

Richard Nixon’s campaign strategy was to run in the primaries to the right, then move to the center in the general election. Bill Clinton’s strategy was called “triangulation,” navigating to a political “Third Way” to please moderates and undecided voters. This past week, Barack Obama has made some signal policy changes that suggest he might be doing something similar. Will it work for him?

  Take the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for example. A Dec. 17, 2007, press release from Obama’s Senate office read: “Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same.” Six months later, he supports immunity for the companies that spied on Americans.

  I asked Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., about Obama’s position on the FISA bill. He told me: “Wrong vote. Regrettable. Many Democrats will do this. We should be standing up for the Constitution. When Sen. Obama is president, he will, I’m sure, work to fix some of this, but it’s going to be a lot easier to prevent it now than to try to fix it later.”

Feingold and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., are planning on filibustering the bill. It will take 60 senators to overcome their filibuster. It looks like Obama will be one of them. Disappointment with Obama’s FISA position is not limited to his senatorial colleagues. On Obama’s own campaign Web site, bloggers are voicing strident opposition to his FISA position. At the time of this writing, an online group on Obama’s site had more than 10,000 members and was growing fast. The group’s profile reads: “Senator Obama—we are a proud group of your supporters who believe in your call for hope and a new kind of politics. Please reject the politics of fear on national security, vote against this bill and lead other Democrats to do the same!”


Square, Site wide
  Then there were the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on gun control and the death penalty. Obama supported the court in overturning the 32-year-old ban on handguns in the nation’s violence-ridden capital. It’s the court’s most significant ruling on the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years. And in a blow to death-penalty opponents, Obama disagreed with the high court’s prohibiting execution of those who were found guilty of raping children.

  In a Jan. 21, 2008, primary debate, Obama called the North American Free Trade Agreement “a mistake” and “an enormous problem.” He recently told Fortune magazine, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified ... my core position has never changed ... I’ve always been a proponent of free trade.” This, after the primary-campaign scandal of the alleged meeting between Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and a member of the Canadian consulate. A Canadian memo describing the meeting suggested Obama was generally satisfied with NAFTA. Goolsbee described the accounts as inaccurate. Now people are beginning to question Obama’s genuine opposition to NAFTA and “free trade.”

  Then there is the floating of potential vice presidential candidates. Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post was on the Aspen panel and noted that he has been receiving e-mails from gay men who angrily oppose former Sen. Sam Nunn as an Obama running mate. They can’t forget Nunn’s key role in shaping “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which prohibited gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The e-mails trickled up, prompting the writing of an influential Capehart column, “Don’t Ask Nunn.”

  It may be the strategy of the Obama campaign to run to the middle, to attract the independents, the undecided. But he should look carefully at the lessons of the 2004 Kerry campaign. John Kerry made similar calculations, not wanting to appear weak on the war in Iraq. Uninspired, people stayed home. There are millions who care about the issues from which Obama is distancing himself, from FISA to gun control to gay rights to free trade to the death penalty. Rather than staying home, they should recall the words of Frederick Douglass: “Power concedes nothing without a demand.”

  Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America.

  © 2008 Amy Goodman

  Distributed by King Features Syndicate

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Sepharad, July 10, 2008 at 12:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Beerdoctor—Thanks for reminding everyone on this thread that “determined minorities” HAVE managed to make the tough changes. Long ago I was one of those determined people registering voters down South—which for the record was not and is not the exclusively racially-bigoted region in the U.S. Stereotyping cuts both ways. But I digress. What is problematic is that voter registration could probably never have succeeded without the active support of the executive branch—e.g., RFK’s pushiness as attorney general, as well as LBJ’s perception that in addition to the Civil Rights Act a Voting Rights Act was necessary. And as hard as it may be to accept, it was the FBI and its infiltrators that broke the back of the KKK. So however determined we are, we still need a good President, and a smart President, to get this country turned around. 

The dilemma of course is that neither of the two main party candidates fill the bill. And so we are left with the choice of voting (again) for the lesser of two evils, or casting a vote of conscience with the result of putting the greater evil in office.

The only solution (beyond a major revamping of the election system, and breaking the two-party monopoly so that other parties have a chance to be heard and considered equally in the primaries) I can see is for all of us to let Obama know just how disgusted we are with his apparent duplicity—which of course he is now trying to explain away but can’t because the definition of duplicity is just as straightforward as the definition of “is”—and that if he does not speak truth to the people, those of us who believed he could make a difference and supported him are damned sure not going to vote for him.

It IS possible for a politician to be straightforward and follow through. But it’s easier when there are more than two parties that actually have a chance to get elected, under a system where parties who draw the most votes can jockey and form coalitions, as in Israel for example. I know a lot of you are not exactly fans of Israel, but that system does work. The costs, of course, are constant arguments and disagreements and inconveniences in the Knesset, but in the end the competing interests are heard, have a piece of the power in proportion to their support from the people who, in turn, project their voices by voting for the party that best reflects and actively advocates their specific visions.

Meanwhile, until a perfect system emerges, the best we can do is let Obama know that what we believe he stood for is so important to us that if he betrays the principles he stated, he’s not going to get our votes on election day. We have to communicate this immediately, before the convention and certainly before the general election campaigning is so far underway that it’s too late for him to change any of the statements he’s conveying to the voters at large.

If he takes us, and his own principles, seriously, then great. If not, well, I guess we’ll each have to decide how seriously we take our own ideas. Thoughts have consequences.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 9, 2008 at 4:15 am Link to this comment

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?

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 9, 2008 at 3:06 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Ernest Jude Navy, July 8, 2008 at 7:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Read The Truth At Half Staff by Ernest Navy.  He discuss the same topic in various essays.

Report this

By Max Shields, July 8, 2008 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By AnnMullins, July 8, 2008 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Maani, July 8, 2008 at 9:45 am Link to this comment


“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.


Report this

By jersey girl, July 8, 2008 at 3:53 am Link to this comment

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

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 smile

Report this

By jersey girl, July 8, 2008 at 3:37 am Link to this comment

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 ???

Report this

By cyrena, July 7, 2008 at 9:04 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Maani, July 7, 2008 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment


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.


Report this

By Sepharad, July 7, 2008 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Another Republican appointment to the Supreme Court might indeed be a disaster, but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote for an out-and-out liar. Bad Democrats aren’t any better than bad Repubicans, and there is absolutely no way of knowing who Obama would put up there. For that matter, there’s no way of knowing what an appointee will do once he’s on the court. Republican hand-picked Earl Warren was certainly a surprise to his old boys’ club.

However the youth of the recent appointments is something to worry about. Have to think on this a bit.

Report this

By atp2007, July 7, 2008 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Sepharad, July 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jersey Girl, could not agree more with everything you said, from-the-get-go Orwellian mantra to Paul Krugman’s progressive chops.

Two points:

1)If we are really going to say ENOUGH and vote for Nader or McKinney, shouldn’t we decide which ONE of them so we make the most impact? And thereby manage to have at least some clout in D.C.?

2)If progressives abandon Obama we do run the risk of electing McCain. I don’t think the race is going to be the walkaway for Obama some people seem to think. Truthfully, I think the main difference between McCain and Obama is their respective positions on Bush’s tax cuts for Bush’s base, the upper 1%. That’s important, but maybe not important enough to settle for the elite schmucks we’ve been settling for so long. Now if Obama was pushing decent health and economic issues I might not want to risk it because there are so many people in such great need right now that I wouldn’t want to risk their wellbeing, as precarious as it is.


Report this

By jersey girl, July 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By samosamo, July 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 7, 2008 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment

jersey girl,

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

Report this

By jersey girl, July 7, 2008 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

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….........

Report this

By Sepharad, July 7, 2008 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maani, Max Shields and Leefeller, thanks for responding to Cyrena’s diatribe re my posted comments so I don’t have to. (I agree it makes her look silly, and am glad to hear that someone else appreciates Paul Krugman, whose biggest fan is my radical progressive husband, farther left than me.)


1)If you don’t want a hawk you haven’t been listening to Obama lately. I’m beginning to wonder if he’s not more hawkish than bomb-bomb-bomb,bomb-bomb-Iran McCain.

2)My name’s Sepharad, not “Shepard”. “Sepharad” is Hebrew for “Al Andalus” as well as “Tree of Life.” Because I know how your mind works I must explain that I support the existence of the state of Israel (though would prefer the old secular-Zionist-Socialist-populist vision). I and my family there, all in the peace movement yet in despair post-Gaza and Hezbollah, have pretty much given up any hopes for peaceful coexistence. But even they, and I, don’t want anyone to bomb Iran. An Iranian friend recently took his son to Iran to show him the history on the ground and enroll him for graduate studies. On returning, he said he’d changed his mind because his beloved country is being run by lunatics. I love Israel, Ahmadinejad wants to destroy it, and I would be very happy to see him and his Hezbollah buddies vanish from the face of the earth. Even so, the WORST thing to do to a nation with a middle-class full of cultured, intelligent people all under the reign of fundamentalist death-loving fascists is to bomb or invade it. (Unless your goal is to convince the smart Iranians that their daft president and the mullahs were right all along.) Unfortunately, I’m afraid we’re going to have to somehow discourage Obama as well as McCain and Bush* in that regard, and the only way to do that is for the people who support Obama to criticize his incipient hawkishness BEFORE he’s elected. (*Seymour Hersch does not see Bush as a lame-duck President but as an aggressive guy who will put us into Iran if there is the slightest doubt in his own mind that the next guy in the Oval Office wouldn’t get on with it.) 

To Hagbard, Celine, from Drudge: Wish I could help you convince lefties that criticism of Obama is not a vote for McCain. The best time to get his attention is before he’s elected, and the criticism SHOULD come from his faithful supporters who put him where he is today.

Report this

By Maani, July 7, 2008 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment


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.


Report this

By Conservative Yankee, July 7, 2008 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Actually Adams and several other Federalists believed the US would revert to Monarchy I don’t think they thought it would take this long.

Most US citizens (not all, just most) need some “leader” “king” “nanny” to change their diapers, and sing them to sleep at night. They want the government to do everything for them, in return they will give up freedon, responsibility to do anything on their own, and the hassel of having to tell “employees” that they have over-steped their bounds.

It is for this reason, I initally thought Obama would be (just slightly) better than the other offerings Obama’s health care plan was not “mandatory” I took this to mean that he believed people should be allowed to “choose” for themselves… He seems to be way past that now.

This election (which could have changed EVERYTHING has evolved into a useless excercise in futility. Once again the best hope is that “the people” do a Jimmy Stewart and say “we’re not going to take this anymore”

I ain’t holding my hand on my ass waiting for that occurance.

Report this

By Max Shields, July 7, 2008 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment

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

Sounds awfully self-righteous.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 7, 2008 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, July 7, 2008 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

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,


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.

Report this

By Max Shields, July 7, 2008 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

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!

Report this

By Max Shields, July 7, 2008 at 11:39 am Link to this comment


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.

Report this

By Hagbard_Celine, July 7, 2008 at 9:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Help a lonely liberal posting over at, to convince the so called “left” to take their blinders off with respect to Senator Obama.  Seems that any criticism of Obama is viewed as coming from the right.  Help them understand that “Power concedes nothing without a demand,” and that criticism of Obama does not equal support of McCain.

Report this

By cyrena, July 6, 2008 at 11:05 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Sepharad, July 6, 2008 at 10:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Amy Goodman is spot-on, as ever, re Obama, and now you Obamatons are saying she’s wrong. The August ‘07 Atlantic Monthly had a cover article “The Buying and Selling of Barack Obama”, the NYTimes Magazine in late ‘07 ran a piece that clearly revealed his duplicitous tendencies ... and now you’re surprised? Kucinich was my first pick, Edwards second, and then I supported Hillary because she supported MANDATED universal health care, 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, but unfortunately Bambi’s weasely tendencies were so obscured by his giant fog of mind-numbing oratory that it left one New Yorker reporter so swept away by the rhetoric that he couldn’t remember what Obama actually said, if anything.

The man lies and lies and never shrinks from lying yet again. E.g., he even told AIPAC that he was in favor of a two-state solution with Jerusalem the capital of Israel, then when his Arab American friends complained said that what he had MEANT was that the Jews and Palestinians had to negotiate the status of that city. What is his next act? Donning a yarmulke and tallis while calling Allah’s faithful to prayer?

All he has going for him is a great tailor, good looks and the ability to sell more snake oil than any professional carnival barker in history. Much was made in the press of his support from Ted Kennedy and Caroline, whose main distinction has been to marry well, but practically no news stories noted the constant support for Hillary by RFK’s activist kids, RFK Jr. and his sister Kerry.

I don’t know who I’m going to vote for. It depends on the selection of the candidates’ vice presidents and cabinet members and advisors. Oh well. At least the trendy Euros think better of us for running a mixed-race Presidential candidate. But we, our children and grandchildren will have to live in the mess left by our continuing refusal to select candidates who actually have principles.

Report this

By atp2007, July 6, 2008 at 9:26 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Maani, July 6, 2008 at 11:55 am Link to this comment


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).


Report this

By samosamo, July 6, 2008 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By troublesum, July 6, 2008 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

The best take on Obama I’ve seen:

Report this

By troublesum, July 6, 2008 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

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

Report this

By JimM, July 6, 2008 at 6:32 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, July 5, 2008 at 3:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


“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”

Actually no, I was the one who believed (it ain’t over till it’s over) the Democratic establishment (REP-DEM clones) wanted Hill-the-business-shill and would fight for her by hook or by crook no matter what the people said. Although the “war” vote was appauling, it was never my primary, secondary or tirshery reson for opposing the corporate whore.

Her advocacy of a pardon for the terrorists who bombed my father’s office building was the largest factor in my decission that business-woman wasn’t fit to be president. Her work on behalf to Tyson figured strongly; How can “working people” support someone who fights for the chicken-packing indrustry? Her chronic lie about being “pro-children” figgered in my process. She worked on CDF’s board for less than one year, and couldn’t even get “her friend” Marian Wright Edelman to endorse her.  Her stance on outsourcing, her NAFTA (for or against depending on the audiance) her approval of Bill Gates call for unlimited H-1b Visas, all made me feel she was working for some other entity…surly NOT the US working citizen…

Would Obama be better… not much, but he was a useful vehicle to slow down the Clinton Machine… You’ll remember I refered to him (during the primary season) as “Token”

You seem to forget that I am not a “supporter” of any of these sub-standard candidates.

Report this

By Maani, July 5, 2008 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment


“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.


Report this

By Max Shields, July 5, 2008 at 5:22 am Link to this comment

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!!

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, July 5, 2008 at 4:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


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

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”

I disagree with folks here who say The Democrats lose due to this/or/that… The Democrats lose because they are continually rewriting history.

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

Report this

By troublesum, July 4, 2008 at 10:56 pm Link to this comment

“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.

Report this

By Maani, July 4, 2008 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment


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.


Report this

By samosamo, July 4, 2008 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By troublesum, July 4, 2008 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment

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….

Report this

By Max Shields, July 4, 2008 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

“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.

Report this

By cyrena, July 4, 2008 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By troublesum, July 4, 2008 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

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

Report this

By troublesum, July 4, 2008 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

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

Report this

By troublesum, July 4, 2008 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Max Shields, July 4, 2008 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment


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.

Report this

By cyrena, July 4, 2008 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, July 4, 2008 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Max Shields, July 4, 2008 at 4:07 pm Link to this comment


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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 4, 2008 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By BMW60, July 4, 2008 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

On this Independence day I want to leave this with you all who are thinking of not voting…

Do not dispare or stay away from the polls… join PUMA’s, or, or… you have choices and people who will support you ... let’s change the system as to how the DNC nominates their candidates!!!  On this Independence day remember the words of Patrick Henry (These are the last two paragraphs of his famous speech):

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! ”

SAY:  WE will not shut up and sit down!!! We will not “JUST GET OVER IT”. WE WILL OVERCOME!!!!

Report this

By Max Shields, July 4, 2008 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, July 4, 2008 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment

“...By Dominick J., July 4 at 10:04 am #

I always appreciate Amy Goodman’s point of view, but every now and then she really steps in it, so to speak.  Fact-based reporting is very important, so when this most fact-based of reporters goes awry, she torques her entire effort. “

Dominick J.

Thanks for this very excellent post. I very much appreciated it, and I agree with you 100%. Amy generally does an excellent job, and I too appreciate her work. She does also screw up from time to time, like most of us. This is one of them.

Your point about the voting crimes of the 2004 election is very well taken. People DID NOT STAY HOME. They stood (in many places) in long lines in inclement weather, only to be jacked around in multiple ways, to prevent their votes from being considered.

In short, we’ve had two so-called elections stolen by the fascists.

There is a book review by Ruth Rosen posted on this site, on “The Populist Vision”. It’s an excellent piece, and actually addresses how none of what we have come to, was ever ‘pre-determined’ but came about as a result of battles lost by ‘the people’ to these very same more powerful political and economic interests. I thought of that review as I was reading your excellent comment.

So, check it out if you have time.

Report this

By cyrena, July 4, 2008 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

•  “What is the council on foreign relations?  Go to”


You’re right on this simplified version of what Chomsky says. The CFR provides -AMONG OTHER THINGS-  info on foreign policy to corporate interests.

That is a simplified version, since they do far more than that.

And, one can even go to as well, to find this out for themselves.

I’ll repeat for Maani’s benefit. The CFR (the original CFR with offices established originally in 1922 in NYC and DC) was an organization established like SO MANY OTHERS SINCE to provide input, -at the time- to PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT policy on foreign affairs. To the extent that corporations have formed SINCE THEN, I’m sure that some of their position and policy papers have been directed at and to corporate interests. That sort of seems like a no-brainer, since the associated foundation is the Rockefeller Foundation. However, I have not personally been through the data base to isolate out any specific documents that pertain to the corporate interests. From what I can tell here, NEITHER HAS ANYONE ELSE.

I am more personally informed on the NON-corporate work they’ve done, since everything falling under the umbrella of ‘globalization’ involves more than just corporate interests or this so-called NWO. And, I should allow that there is a new world order in the making, but the concept that I’m talking about isn’t the same conspiracy that is being addressed here.

That said, one needn’t depend on any given book to obtain an understanding of the phenomena that has been labeled, *globalization* nor SHOULD one depend on a single source to explain the dynamics of globalization, or any particular paradigm that exists within it.

To the extent that a so-called ‘new world order’ exists, it exists based on the change in relations between nations. In that respect, the world DOES need to be re-organized, in order to accommodate both the natural and human designed changes that have occurred over time.

To make it anything particularly ‘nefarious’ is to address those reactions to changes that have been specifically manipulated. I’m not suggesting that hasn’t occurred, but the latest sheeple ‘trend’ in painting these organizations as some sort of underground or other ‘invisible’ background government is naïve and a misinterpretation of what it is that they actually do. Anyone who actually wants to be informed can in fact research these position and policy papers with relative ease.

In short, they are NOT the PNAC, and they don’t ‘inform’ the likes of groups like Cheney’s secret energy commissions.

Maani, who is dense here;

•  “You then say of both CFR and TC that “they are NON-PARTISAN organizations.” What on God’s great earth does THAT have to do with ANYTHING?  In fact, their “non-partisanship” is based on the fact that they have their OWN agenda - which IS, in every sense of the word, “nefarious.””

Non-partisan, (for the interpretive purposes of most Americans who read the word in this context) means not attached to any particular political party. I’m sure you know that, and are doing your standard spin here.

If you are suggesting that the Red Cross, has it’s ‘OWN AGENDA” you’d probably be correct. They do. However, it is not a politically motivated agenda in the sense that they are repugs, dems, or ‘the elite’, or attempting to control ‘world order’. I don’t consider the agenda of that organization to be ‘nefarious’ either.

But to answer your question about what it has to do with anything, I would ask why you mentioned that Michelle Obama was on the BOD of the Chicago Council. What on God’s earth does THAT have to do with anything?

My point is that the Chicago Council, (regardless of when or how many times it has changed names) was not and is not the same entity that is being addressed on these boards as the CFR You were obviously confused about that, though the confusion is understandable, since they do similar work.

Report this

By Dominick J., July 4, 2008 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment

Sorry Max you seem to standing in the forest but can’t see the trees.

Report this

By Max Shields, July 4, 2008 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment

Dominick J.
“As I said, I admire Amy Goodman…until she gets into things about jabbing at the underbelly of the Democrats with false statements and generalized misrepresentations.”

I think Amy was quite clear on this point which is pretty much common knowledge. We can debate specifics, but ever since the McGovern loss in 1972; the Dems, collectively, believe the reason was George was too far to the left and too clear on the issue of exiting Vietnam.

That “lesson” has driven just about every Dem POTUS candidacy since. It has become doctrinaire in the DLC. And so when the DLC selects its handful of candidates - you get to pick from them wow eeeee!!! - they must adhere to this dogmatic “lesson”. It has pretty much defeated most of the Dem candidates with the exception of Bill Clinton (Obama is the reincarnation of B. Clinton’s triangulation) who is safe to say won the presidency because Ross Perot sucked up nearly 20% away from “out of touch” GHW Bush.

Jimmy Carter got a squeaker because the Repugs shot themselves in the foot (feud between Reagan and Ford) and the old Watergate halo that made life pretty miserable for the Repugs in the late 70s. But Carter didn’t last long. And the Repug dynasty began - starting with Reagan, then GHW Bush, the Repub-lite Bill Clinton and finally the shock and awe, in the bag, GW Bush.

Now we have a re-enactment of Kerry and Gore, except Obama adds a racial dimension and might be running a better campaign. BUT it’s the same ol same ol.

So, Amy has it dead right in terms of the basic nil differnces that allow the Repugs the last 8 years.

The other bit of truism is Bill Clinton (the only real Dem POTUS in a few decades, at least in name) governed from the center/rightish. So, don’t expect an Obama swing to the progressive side. It doesn’t work that way. Never has (except in urban myth-land).

Dominick J., Ya got to look beyond party to see the forest.

Report this

By Wall of Shame, July 4, 2008 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Has anyone heard this thug “Rush L.” recently. He is against any right wing nuts trying to meet the “liberals” even one third of the way. He represents the conscious, or lack thereof, of the Bushites, and he should be taken seriously. The ideological rigidity of thugs on the right was what solidified their base of brain-washed religious fanatics. It won them the landslide support for the contract on America, from whence all went from bad to worse.

Progressives should refuse to meet the right in any way or shape. We are marginalized because we consider our stand as less worthy of support, lack confidence, and attempt to win at the cost of our proclaimed principles.

I say, yield not an inch. Stop being disappointed with politicians who proclaim allegiance to our values but keep moving to the right. Instead, dis-appoint them. Their pandering to right wing war mongers and fanatics such as death penalty advocates, gun lobby, corporates, health industry, prison cartel, Christian fundamentalists, and AIPAC is more dangerous than that of the neocons.

They know that we should get out of Iraq, completely, no ifs and no buts, today before tomorrow. And yet, they continue provide the thug in chief with blanket financial, and even moral support for his continuing crimes. They argue that this was, is, and will always be an immoral war, and in the same breath, they talk about winning the war, and even expanding it to Iran. What a shame. They know that we need to impeach the thug in chief and try his cohort, yet they take it off the table and marginalize the efforts of the only true liberal among them. And in all of this they had our help. They compromised, but in fact, we taught them how to when we laughed Mike Gravel off, dismissed Kucinich, called Ralph Nader names, and as good girls and boys voted for Hillary and/or Obama, . We now reap what we sow.

Congratulation to us. As Mohammad said, “as you are so are your leaders” (I am not a good translator).

Report this

By Dominick J., July 4, 2008 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

I always appreciate Amy Goodman’s point of view, but every now and then she really steps in it, so to speak.  Fact-based reporting is very important, so when this most fact-based of reporters goes awry, she torques her entire effort.

In 2004, people didn’t stay home.  Look at what happened in Ohio, and also in Iowa, New Mexico, Georgia, and Nevada.  The facts in Ohio are much more available, with films and books written about the manipulation of voting facilities, for god’s sake, in which heavily Democratic areas were deprived of sufficient and of actually working voting machines, not to mention outright changing of cardstock ballots by putting stickers over votes for Kerry and marking them for Bu$h instead. Richard Hayes Phillips actually photographed them! The book’s available: And it proves Kerry actually won!

In New Mexico in 2004 (with Richardson as GOVERNOR, no less), systematic exclusion of voters going Democratic occurred in both of the main Native American communities by, again, manipulating the number and condition of voting materials, including some of those nasty touchscreen machines. In Georgia, similar things happened, as did they in Iowa and one other state that I can’t summon to mind right now.

Nevada’s Rethug Party was especially egregious. They hired a particular company (no time to look that up right now) to register tens of thousands of voters, and then threw out everyone registering Democratic. Most voters didn’t find that out until they went to try to vote, and they weren’t permitted to vote provisionally, either.

As I said, I admire Amy Goodman…until she gets into things about jabbing at the underbelly of the Democrats with false statements and generalized misrepresentations. She shows her bias when she does this, and she does this often enough to be dangerous to the body politic in extremely dangerous times here on earth.  And her bias is no better than that of all those overpaid corporate media shills she (rightfully, by the way) disparages. Bias is bias, and I’d like to think she’d try to hold herself to the same high standard she thinks she does…but she doesn’t in circumstances like this, and it’s usually Democrats she goes after.

In 2004, people didn’t stay home.  They tried to vote and got screwed.  People like Goodman can blame the Democrats and the Democratic Party for that all they want, bewailing the fact that the Dems haven’t managed to rebuild voting systems, etc, but they fail to take into account that criminals like the present Rethug gang have as their sole purpose for existence undermining ordinary Americans at every turn.  Criminals always do illegal things, and decent folks almost never do.  Decent folks (and I include lots of those national Democrats) do not know how to play dirty (takes one to know one, if you ken me) and so have gotten a late start on righting the ship of state (pardon the serious mixing and violation of metaphors here).

So, “eyes on the prize” is the rule. We have to get big majorities in Congress and as many states as possible AND a Democratic president. After that we can chastise them with stick and rod.

The Rethugs are playing for keeps. They are literally trying to kill the rest of us. Do I sound paranoid? Teaming up with killers in Colombia’s government? While the Arctic ice sheet melts, killing off whole species? While the Gulf Coast is trashed by global warming events and people drown, and the ones who don’t are left to fight off the predations of money schemes set up to let the BIGs (insurance industry especially) lay waste to the rest of us? While Monsanto and Ortho concoct and are now marketing a bug killer so powerful that one application to your lawn will render it absolutely bug-free all summer? That’s death, for god’s sake. That’s what Rethugs stand for. Death.

Amy Goodman You should know that there are worse things than voting Democratic, or even trying to.

Report this

By Maani, July 4, 2008 at 10:49 am Link to this comment


First, let’s get this out of the way: I was never a lawyer.  I served as a registered tenant advocate in NYC Housing Court, and litigated as a non-lawyer in NY Civil Court.

Second, this is why you cannot be trusted with research.  The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1922 AS THE CHICAGO OFFICE OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, founded in 1921.  They did not change their name to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs - and disaffiliate from the CFR - until the CFR came under fire as an NWO organization in the 1970s.  In fact, if you type “Chicago Council on Foreign Relations” into Google, it STILL takes you to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs website.

You then say of both CFR and TC that “they are NON-PARTISAN organizations.”  What on God’s great earth does THAT have to do with ANYTHING?  In fact, their “non-partisanship” is based on the fact that they have their OWN agenda - which IS, in every sense of the word, “nefarious.”

You then say, “And take further note; the organization in Chicago claims as part of it’s mission statement, that it is COMMITTED TO PUBLIC LEARNING.”

Are you really that dense?  “Public learning” is simply a euphemism for “conditioning” or even “brainwashing.”  After all, what do you think they are “teaching?”  They are teaching THEIR OWN AGENDA re the global order.

If you want to really learn something about the CFR, TA and other NWO organizations, I strongly suggest you read “The Bilderberg Group” by Daniel Estulin. It is by far the best, most thoroughly researched book on the NWO ever written.

Ultimately, as niloroth, troublesum and others suggest, the CFR, TA and BG have been, and continue to be, the “shadow government” behind BOTH U.S. parties (as well as some other governments).  In this regard, I am not singling out the Obamas.  The Clintons are also inextricably tied to these three groups, as have been almost every presidential candidate since (at very least) Nixon.

You have a GREAT deal to learn about the CFR, TA, BG and other NWO groups.  Try doing as much research on THEM as you do on other things and you will earn the right to debate them in fora like these.  Until then, stick to what you know.


Report this

By troublesum, July 4, 2008 at 8:39 am Link to this comment

What is the council on foreign relations?  Go to 
In the search box enter council on foreign relations.
There’s a lot of information here.  Chomsky says the CFR gives mainly the corporate input on foreign policy.

Report this

By Max Shields, July 4, 2008 at 8:39 am Link to this comment


I think you have the poster’s mo pretty well nabbed.

People come up with the most arcane and convoluted stuff and posted it as a reasoned apologia for the Dem/Repub - on TD it’s Obama.

A sweep of 20th Century US hegemonic history illustrates the incredible sameness in terms of these two Parties and the administrations that they foist up.

Obama is not unique - which is the PROBLEM - but one with the legacy of American Empire. Death squads have been created through out the world by administrations of both Parties. Millions of tons of bombs have been dropped on the unexpected civilians throughout the world. Obama will find his mantle in the deeds of those who came before - fear not. He is the system which is the threat to the world at large as well as at home.

History can show you song and verse that G.W. Bush has done nothing that previous administrations have not done - from both Parties.

We ignore this history at our own peril. What the US does in the world comes home to roost. It is coming home now with a vengence. Our neoliberal economics are here, in our gutted cities and devastated infrastructure, and privatized EVERYTHING.

Progressives need to take a hard look at who they are and what needs to be done- separate from the Parties and POTUSs who got us HERE.

Some have already begun.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 4, 2008 at 8:32 am Link to this comment


For what it is worth, I agree with you on the new world order.  Nationalism has become past tense, the worlds poor will suffer for it, as they always have but now in tandem the USA has been sold down the river.

Simplistic as it seems this explains our loss of liberties.  Dost not look good for the common person.

Report this

By niloroth, July 4, 2008 at 8:05 am Link to this comment


cyrena supports obama against all attacks.  I have pointed out that he is sponsored by the same people who support the NWO and the ruling class.  She has responded by trying to make groups like the CFR and the trilateral commission seem like nothing to worry about.

I am not arguing with myself, i am exposing her as someone who spreads disinfo and confusion and lies about the spread of the new world order.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, July 4, 2008 at 7:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Over the years I’ve enjoyed the propensity of folks whittling everything down to initials or an acronym.

National Biscuit Company
National Broadcasting Company
National Business Commission
Northern Border Crossing
No Bowel Control

Department of Human Services
Department of Holeland Security
District High School
Directional Highway signs
Department of Health and Sanitation
Dead Head Survivor

American Friends Service Committee
American Field Service Committee

American Bankers Association,
American Bakers Association
American Builders Association
American Breeders Association
American Bar Association

You folks arn’t dumb… you get the idea!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 4, 2008 at 7:41 am Link to this comment

Politics demands integrity be lost in the shuffle. My disappointment’s are many and they continue.  Those sponsoring in your face glee and who show love of other’s disappointments support nothing but a chasm to divide.

Report this

By Max Shields, July 4, 2008 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

The only case Dem progressives can make for Obama is when someone like Clark gets needlessly trashed.

This is all progressive Dems have, the stupid statements made that they slavishly feel they must defend against. In the process of “defending” Obama (in this case through proxy, Wesley Clark) they totally ignore any and all real issues.

Sorry, Obama is an empty suit. Take your power back people and stop giving it away to DLC/Repub-lites.

Amy, through she is laying out some facts, is tip-toeing through this issue of tweedle-dee/tweedle dumb choice, because too many of you have bought into the empty arguments these Party twins make(simply parting their hair on different sides so you can tell them apart):

That you have NO OTHER CHOICE - what a crock; and a spit in the eye to participatory democracy.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 4, 2008 at 7:08 am Link to this comment


Enjoyed your post and thanks for the CFR 101, if people insist on using abbreviations, it would be courteous to write out the full context at least the first time used during a post, but of course confusion is what is wanted plus some sort of special knowing coming with an inflated ego.

Confusion, seems to be part of the plan, for facts may never see the light of day, unless they are cherry picked for argument.

niloroth, maybe I missed it but Cyrena did not say she supported the topic of your argument with yourself?

Report this

By niloroth, July 4, 2008 at 5:42 am Link to this comment

Will the real CFR stand up indeed.  I can’t believe that you are trying to support them, and the trilateral commission, all because obama belongs to them.  Here is a bit about the CFR.

” If one group is effectively in control of national governments and multinational corporations; promotes world government through control of media, foundation grants, and education; and controls and guides the issues of the day; then they control most options available. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the financial powers behind it, have done all these things, and promote the “New World Order”, as they have for over seventy years.

The CFR is the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its’ “experts” write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.

To understand how the most influential people in America came to be members of an organization working purposefully for the overthrow of the Constitution and American sovereignty, we have to go back at least to the early 1900’s, though the story begins much earlier (depending on your viewpoint and beliefs).

That a ruling power elite does indeed control the U.S. government behind the scenes has been attested to by many americans in a position to know. Felix Frankfurter, Justice of the Supreme Court (1939-1962), said: “The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.” In a letter to an associate dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote, “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” February 23, 1954,

Senator William Jenner warned in a speech: “Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded.” “


Another source

Another source

So I guess you are showing your true colors, paid for by the NWO. Are you going to defend Bush next?

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, July 4, 2008 at 4:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


“...this is an adult forum”

OH… Now I know why it is so boring!  Yawn!

Report this

By jersey girl, July 4, 2008 at 3:04 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, July 4, 2008 at 2:24 am Link to this comment

Part 1 of 2 lesson on:

“Will the *REAL* CFR Please Identify Yourself?” (for Maani’s sake if nothing else)

Ok, ok…I admit that the average person wouldn’t find the irony or the paradox here; at least not enough to chuckle about it. But, I couldn’t help it. I’m temporarily bored, if only because I don’t feel like doing any of the real work that I have, so I thought I might have you all ponder some of your own sheeple behavior. You probably won’t think it funny, because most of you are incapable of laughing at yourselves, or admitting to any imperfections. I got over that decades ago, so can laugh at myself with no problems. In fact, I look for reasons to do it.

Anyway, Maani writes:

By Maani, July 3 at 8:14 pm #
And don’t forget that Michelle is on the Board of Directors of the Chicago office of CFR.
jersey girl:
Stop picking on Cyrena.  As you point out, it must be hard being her (or any Obamabot) right now.  And it’s not polite to gloat.  (LOL)
Now this is funny for several reasons. First, he claims that Michelle is on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Office of the CFR, which may or may not be true, but obviously has relevance to NOTHING.

But, let’s just entertain for a moment, the possibility that a person reading this forum doesn’t have a clue to what the CFR is, or what it might ‘mean’. Like is it a typo for CPR? Hum. Probably not, since that’s a technique for saving lives, and CPR probably doesn’t have a board of directors in Chicago. So, what might it mean?

Well, any ‘government type’ or lawyer, (didn’t you one time say you were a lawyer Maani?) might just automatically ‘assume’ that he or she knew EXACTLY what it meant, and might say something like, the CFR doesn’t have a BOD in Chicago! And then Maani would get all indignant and say, Well of course they do, and Michelle is on it. She’s the first Obamabot ever to be appointed!

And of course there would be some confusion, first because the ‘govn’t type’ wouldn’t be talking about the same CFR that Maani THINKS he’s talking about. Instead, that person would probably be thinking of THIS ‘CFR”.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Main Page
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation. Each volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar year and is issued on a quarterly basis. More.

Tee hee.. Guess that’s not the same thing, eh? Oh well. Maani ‘really’ meant, THIS:

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is a nonpartisan foreign policy membership organization founded in 1921 and based at 58 East 68th Street (corner Park Avenue) in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C. Many believe it to be the most powerful private organization to influence United States foreign policy.[1] It publishes the bi-monthly journal Foreign Affairs. It has an extensive website, featuring links to its think tank, The David Rockefeller Studies Program, other programs and projects, publications, history, biographies of notable directors and other board members, corporate members, and press releases.[2]

But ALAS…there *is* NO “Chicago Office” OR Chicago “Board of Directors” for THIS CFR, because as we can see from the above, the ONLY TWO offices are located in NY and DC. I think you don’t know what you’re talking about Maani. Are you confused?

Report this

By cyrena, July 4, 2008 at 2:22 am Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2 lesson on:
“Will the *REAL* CFR Please Identify Yourself?”

MAYBE you have it confused with THIS…

“The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, founded in 1922 as The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations,  is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning.
The Chicago Council brings the world to Chicago by hosting public programs and private events featuring world leaders and experts with diverse views on a wide range of global topics. Through task forces, conferences, studies, and leadership dialogue, the Council brings Chicago’s ideas and opinions to the world.”

Ya see Maani, they aren’t the same, despite the fact that they were established within a year or so of each other, and despite the fact that they have semi-similar missions and a semi-similar set up.

Having said that, neither of these organizations has any particularly ‘nefarious’ associations. They’re actually the fore runners to what are now more frequently referred to as “Non-Governmental Organizations” or NGO’s.  The CFR (that you’re talking about) along with the Trilateral Commission, just happen to have been established back in the early 1920’s, long before the NGO reference came of age in the new paradigm of ‘Globalization.”

I said that to say that you’ve apparently latched on to this conspiracy hype about the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission as being part of some conspired ‘New World Order”, when in fact they’ve been around since the ‘20’s and are as recognizable as the Red Cross, or the International Red Cross. (I’m sure they’ve even worked with that group in the past).  And, even THAT CFR is not the same ones that the Obamas are associated with in Chicago. That’s a whole different pea of a similar pod, if only because they all fall under an umbrella of similar organizations.

And, they are NON-PARTISAN organizations. That’s how they started out, and that’s pretty much the way they’ve managed to remain, though admittedly there have been several neo-cons associated with the CFR that most people think they’re talking about on this site.

And take further note; the organization in Chicago claims as part of it’s mission statement, that it is COMMITTED TO PUBLIC LEARNING.

Geeze…this is really a bad time, (this 21st Century) to try and manage that, eh?

Most Americans seem even more committed than the council, to the goal of remaining ignorant. Just follow the sheeple, wherever they may lead, as long as it’s a deeply partisan destination.

So sad.

Pay attention to the details next time. Sometimes these things may not seem all important. For instance, years ago I was chatting with my boyfriend of the time, who was a physician in training. (so we were pretty poor). He was bugging me to give blood, (yet again, since it was like a routine thing with him pestering everybody we knew to donate blood). I told him I couldn’t (at least that day and time) because I’d gotten OT. Well, he looked at me a little strangely, because to HIM, “OT” meant EITHER “out-patient therapy” or “occupational therapy”. For ME, (as an aircraft flight dispatcher) it meant OVERTIME. (which we needed). No biggie on THAT confusion.

But, if you confused fl370 (altitude 3700 feet on the jet route/airway) with Flt370 (as in the flight to Timbuktu) on the flight plan that I wrote for you, you’d probably crash into another plane and kill everybody on both of them, including yourself.

That’s why some of us have to pay attention to these details. It wouldn’t hurt to know the difference between these CFR’s either, and to know what it is that they actually do. That would help you understand the very limited relevance of any participation that Michelle Obama might have with the Chicago org. It’s just another NGO. Lawyers ARE involved with NGO’s.

Lots of them.

Report this

By cyrena, July 3, 2008 at 10:45 pm Link to this comment

Enthralled you say? Now THAT’S funny. You emotional neurotics love the spin of it all, eh? I can’t remember being ‘enthralled’ with a human being of late. Maybe a few that I personally KNOW, and have engaged with over time, have the capacity to ‘enthrall’ me with their intelligence, but I don’t ‘know’ Barack Obama, and he and I have never had a conversation.

So, not much to be ‘enthralled’ with here lately, including what you mistake for basic and often boring, FACTS. That’s what spinners never get. They have such trouble with the IT, being what IT *IS* and nothing more or less.

So, since the spinners (like you jersey girl, but you’re not alone) can never simply read the facts (or the words) and understand what they mean, they have to spin it to whatever they want it to mean. So, if I say that I’m concerned about the fires that are burning out of control in the mountains surrounding 3 sides of my community, and that I might just take off and head down to a less enflamed area of the state, you’ll accuse me of flip-flopping on my decision about where to live, and trying to wiggle out of paying my rent this month. You’ll probably even accuse me of being a corporatist, because you’ll mention how I’ll need to buy gas in order to get to that less enflamed area of the state, so I must be an oil tycoon on top of it.

That sounds pretty typical of your logic Jersey Girl. There’s always an almost immediate give-away with people like you. That is, those who base their entire life agenda on subjective emotionalism instead of the balance of reality. And reality is that life is hard, and far, far, far, from perfect. You’re just like any other juvenile or ideologue, whose entire world is, well…THEM. And the whole world is arranged in the ‘us against them’ or the me against them ideology.

So, rather than attempting to analyze anything based on the facts as they exist, you just create your own. Like George Bush et al. It’s been the Karl Rove baseline operational fundamental. “We’re an empire now, and so we can create our OWN reality”.

So, you are your own little empire, and you just create your own little alternative reality, based on how it makes you ‘feel’. And if something happens that you don’t like, well, you just stamp your feet, stick out your tongue, call the bad guy a ‘bo-bo head.”

It’s typical High School football banter, with stupid name calling and all the rest. Maani loves it. Where do you all come up with the Obamabots, and the Obamaites, and all of that stuff? Even the youth in my own family got away from that before they left elementary school.

Tell us what that ‘does’ for you? I mean, Maani and I have been through this a million times, because of course for him, this election is equally unimportant I guess since it’s more of the us against them thing. But neither of you, (most of the Obama bashers actually) EVER come up with alternatives, or even make semi-logical comparisons, based on facts. To be fair, Maani has tried, during those months and months of ‘supporting’ HRC, by way of bashing Obama and any other person who didn’t also hate him. He finally said it was because it would be nice to have a ‘woman’s’ touch in the white house.

So, when you finally figure out that things are more serious in this thing than just bashing one of the candidates, (should we assume that you’ll be just fine when McCain wins) maybe you’ll actually have an opinion worth sharing. Right now, you just sound like some silly girl giggling about a boy that has big ears, even though you actually like him, and desperately wish he would pay attention to you.

Talk about sheeple. You’re just right up there with the rest of the dummies.

I’m so sorry you “just couldn’t stay away.” But like I said, life just isn’t fair. People like you do exist, and there’s not much we can do about it.

Still, if I find out that Obama is worshiping, I mean Satan, that really will be the last straw for me.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 3, 2008 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment

divisive tendinitises seem to be predominate, for which the elite are thankful.

Report this

By niloroth, July 3, 2008 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

ha ha ha ha.

I think you are missing it.

Report this

By Maani, July 3, 2008 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment


And don’t forget that Michelle is on the Board of Directors of the Chicago office of CFR.

jersey girl:

Stop picking on Cyrena.  As you point out, it must be hard being her (or any Obamabot) right now.  And it’s not polite to gloat.  (LOL)


Report this

By jersey girl, July 3, 2008 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

cyrena:  Well well.. funny you should talk about broken promises when the man you are so enthralled with can’t keep his own. tsk tsk

If Obama were to say he worships satan, you’d make the excuse he was just doing it to get the devil worshipper’s vote.

Must be hard being you right now with all his flip flopping and pandering.

As for me coming back.. I just can’t stay away….....

Report this

By Tim Kelly, July 3, 2008 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Looks like Obama won the nomination by doing a better job of pretending to be what the left wanted.  How many times do we still have to hear “he can’t do anything unless he is elected?”  He won’t do anything if he _is_ elected.

The purpose of the Democratic Party is to prevent anyone from defeating the Republican agenda.

Report this

By cyrena, July 3, 2008 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment

“..cyrens’s spin was never convincing to those who can hear with their own ears and see with their own eyes…”

Ah Jersey Girl..what ‘spin’ might that be? What the hell exactly are you talking about, or could it be that you’re just talking shit?

Thanks sort of what it sounds like, when you come out of the blue with some vague accusatory statement like this, which no reference to anything.

And gee, this was after that promise you made not to post here anymore.

Makes one wonder about your true motives.

Well, not me. I’ve always known about the boulder on your shoulder, from the day you first posted.

If you want to address something that I’ve said Jersey Girl, (since I certainly have posted some really sincere questions) feel free. (since I knew you weren’t going to keep your promise to stop posting here anyway).

But if it’s just vague school yard stuff, then I think you should just STFU. Times are serious, and this is an adult forum.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 3, 2008 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment

cyrens’s spin was never convincing to those who can hear with their own ears and see with their own eyes. 

Some of us just don’t buy the hype just because it’s wrapped in an attractive package and can repeat the words.. “change” and “yes we can” over and over as some sort of sheeple mesmerizing mantra. 

I got news for you obamatons.. his “yes we can” has turned into “no I won’t”.

Report this

By troublesum, July 3, 2008 at 3:41 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul would have done a lot better in his run for president if he had left out the paranoid stuff about one world government and the crf.  They’re not interested in government, they’re interested in business.  They govern through organizations like the World Trade Organization, World Bank, IMO, etc.  They are not interested in uniting everyone into one country under one government.  They want the world to conform to the needs of international corporations before all else.  They don’t care how many puppet governments there are in the world as long as policy reflects their needs first.  In that sense we already have one world government.

Report this

By cyrena, July 3, 2008 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

Well CY, I guess it’s more ‘relevance’ in respect to Catholic Charities.

I’ve been heavily involved with them myself in California, in the largest Counties in the State, (Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego to name a few) and the situation is exactly the opposite. In fact, for most of the social services, not even the providers that are contracted by Catholic Charities aren’t even Catholic. In short, those operations are run just like any other non-profit, and I wouldn’t have known (when I utilized the services myself) that there was ANY connection, if not for the same.

The operation in Texas was slightly different. I once had to seek assistance with paying a utility bill. They paid it for me, and requested that I say a prayer. I was perfectly happy to oblige. It was a short prayer…something I made up all by myself. Thank you god, or whoever, for paying Halliburton on my behalf, so that I can have electricity in my house this month. Amem.

So yeah, it’s all relative.

Report this

By niloroth, July 3, 2008 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment

Obama is brought whole cloth by the NWO.  He is a member of the CFR, he is guided by Zbigniew Brzezinski (Kissingers friend and a memeber of the Tri-lateral commision), He is supported by energy interests, and related to Cheney.  He wants the North American Union, and will put us under the control of the UN.  Want proof?



He is the harbinger of the one world government.

Report this

By troublesum, July 3, 2008 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

NBC is reporting that Obama said today that his stated intention of bringing all the troops home from Iraq within 16 months is now open to change.  What the hell is going on?  I thought McCain had the republican nomination wrapped up.  Why is Obama going for it??

Report this

By Maani, July 3, 2008 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment

Now if this don’t beat all!  Obama is now backtracking - via spin, obfuscation, dissembling and semantics - on the one issue that originally put him out in front.  I’ve had it with this guy!

Peace.  (Maybe.)

Report this

By jersey girl, July 3, 2008 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment

OH hell yes, Obama is a sell out ! Are you kidding me? Just asking the question is redundant. It seems everyday he is trying to sound more and more like a republican..dare I say, George W Bush himself. The terrorists are coming the terrorists are coming !! Iran is bad ! For those of us who have been paying attention to the people he has surrounded himself with from day 1, we are not a bit surprised.

The so called “movement” he has inspired is nothing more than a cult of personality.  From Nafta to Fisa to Iran,Iraq, Pakistan, aipac and faith based initiatives, he is nothing at all about change and all about maintaining the status quo. 

No matter who wins the ‘08 election, the corporate warlords will be satiated and the people will once again be screwed.

Report this

By samosamo, July 3, 2008 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

By troublesum, July 2 at 6:21 pm

No difference. To say that the person who signed our jobs away (NAFTA) would not have happened if bushsr or dole became president is wrong. Either on one of those 2 would have signed on their first day in office.
And this presents a very hard case that the difference in a repub and a demo is really absolutely nothing. We have been sold out by the vast majority of our elected persons. They pander to the people to get elected and forget the next morning how they retained their job in washington dc and set about to find the nearest lobbyist to get that well earned vacation in before they line up the lobby money for their new homes and cars and free health care. Crap, what part of betrayal do you not understand?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 3, 2008 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

Thanks troublesum,

Naiomi Wolf not Black, yes the statement caught me eye, we seem to be getting double speak from the candidates selected for us, why not? 

It is such an easy tool, divisive tactics used to keep the masses engaged in non issues, so the real problems never are touched upon.

So we see Faith based support and the buzz word of the day, while the war keeps on trucking and our money is ripped from our pockets.

Report this

By troublesum, July 3, 2008 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

Naomi Wolf did say that Clinton and Obama were the last of the democratic candidates for president to sign the pledge that she presented to all the candidates which stated that he/she would restore all the constitutional rights Bush had systematically violated.  They had to be asked repeatedly to sign before they did.  Here we have a democrat running for president and he isn’t quite sure he supports the bill of rights.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 3, 2008 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

We may not hear again from Obama the words of excessive profits, special interests being a real problem, even the war has become a back burner issue.  From what I understand Naiomi Black said Obama   and Hillary had to be talked or begged into supporting the idea of returning the peoples rights in the Constitution.  Is this true? 

The idea of becoming president king with a tattered Constitution must be appealing to perspective candidates. Why tie their hands after all Bush has set up the office for refinement to be much more powerful, with the help of Congress.

Liberty will be becoming extinct with help from Dodo’s and opportunist. Are these really the changes we have hear so much about,  change marching down the road to corporate imperialism that is.

Report this
skulz fontaine's avatar

By skulz fontaine, July 3, 2008 at 7:13 am Link to this comment

If/and/or/when these United States and that would be ‘we the people’ break the two-party strangle hold on ALL things political and governmental, then maybe real change can begin it’s evolutionary process. Repubs and Demos are the existential nightmare that feed on humanity’s soul like a blood-starved vampire. The two-party nightmare feasts on children. The two-party nightmare sucks up treasure and human dignity and human decency and service boys and girls and that which was honorable in America is tossed on a trash heap of arrogance. The two-party brutish warmongering demeans us all. How about we hold up one Sen. Joe ‘changeling’ Lieberman as the poster child for treasonous vermin. Remember, Israel needs a war on Iran and Lieberman and Ehud Olmert would very much like for the U.S. of A. to do it for them. Whoops, off topic sorry.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, July 3, 2008 at 5:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


“Catholic Charities has been providing a multitude of social services for a very long time..more than any other ‘faith based’ religious organization does, and they don’t use tax-payer dollars for it.”

This is a misstatement. Having worked at Cardinal McCloskey home and School in White Plains New York, and St. Ann’s Home in Methuen Massachusetts (both under the “Catholic Charities” umbrella) I know that they DO get the largest chunk of their money from taxpayers. The State of New York has a long-term contract with Cardinal McCloskey to provide services to “Children in Need of Services” (called CINS) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts pays St. Ann’s by the child, at a “group care rate.”

Both these institutions inflict their dogma on clients regardless of faith. The ubiquitous Crosses , and quotes from Bosco, Fitzbach and Savio are everywhere. Nuns (in habit) work for them, and St. Ann’s has a 40-foot statue of St. Ann in front of their facility.

Report this

By dihey, July 3, 2008 at 5:18 am Link to this comment

How ironic! Most Obama supporters did not want “another Clinton in the White House”. It now appears to be quite certain that they are going to get one but his name is Obama.

Report this

By luca, July 3, 2008 at 3:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So the world will soon get another, Iran-bombing, wire-tapping, god-invoking, American president without too many concerns about campaign funding. Shock! Problem is, if Obama narrows the policy gap until it’s just a question of age, race and patriotism, he will get a nasty surprise.

Report this

By troublesum, July 3, 2008 at 3:05 am Link to this comment

Its getting out of control.  Even cyrena can’t spin it for him anymore and sound convincing.

Report this

By cyrena, July 3, 2008 at 2:42 am Link to this comment

Well, this is a perfect example of what Kath Cantrella noted about one of the jillion other gripes and peeves, and what Keith Olbermann has said as well. Kath says..he’s damned if he does, and damned if he don’t. (Amen..ain’t that the truth). And Olbermann is advising him not to take the bait on the FISA thing, because the repugs are gonna bad mouth him no matter WHAT he does. This is just such another example. I hate these people.

Obama Takes the ‘Faith’ Out of Faith-Based Initiative

•  “In his speech today on faith-based programs, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) proposed that religious groups cannot compete for government contracts unless they give up their freedom to consider religion in their hiring decisions, a radical proposal that effectively repeals Charitable Choice:

•  In order to receive federal funds to provide social services, faith-based organizations … must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs.”

•  This is a complete reversal of the Charitable Choice language that President Bill Clinton signed in 1996. Obama’s plan says that when a faith-based organization takes federal dollars, it could be forced to hire an atheist or else lose its federal funding. Since people make policy, by losing the ability to control its people, the group would lose its ability to preserve its faith-based character. In other words, it would strike at the heart of the faith-based initiative.”

See what I mean? The left doesn’t want him to do anything to recognize ANY of these organizations that have ties to religion. (and in all honesty, I’m inclined to agree.) After all, Catholic Charities has been providing a multitude of social services for a very long time..more than any other ‘faith based’ religious organization does, and they don’t use tax-payer dollars for it. Matter of fact, they were the ONLY religious organization in Texas that has EVER provided social services, and they provide them for anyone who needs them. Yes, I have my own major beefs with Catholicism and all of it’s doctrinal hypocrisies and pedophile priests. REGARDLESS, I’m very familiar with the work that Catholic Charities does, and they provide as much (if not more) than any secular service like the Red Cross or Salvation Army, etc, etc. And, they don’t get government money. And they don’t preach any religion or any of the rest of that. Their services don’t require any adherence to Catholicism or any other religion. THIS I know. I’ve referred many people to them, for any number of needs, and they’ve been the most reliable about providing them.

That said, I think all of this faith-based stuff is just more hype to diss the man from both ends of the argument. In other words, he’s damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t.

So on this one, I think it’s just more hype. It’s the language usual. He’s gonna ‘expand’ the thing. Well, that’s not what he says in the video.

I think you can rest assured Outraged, that he’s not gonna turn us into a theocracy. Or, more correctly, his hope of combining secular and religious efforts might even move us back out of that.

We already became a Theocracy with that fool who claims he talks to God.

Report this

By cyrena, July 3, 2008 at 2:08 am Link to this comment

I hear you Outraged..

•  “.. History, Constitutional and Law scholars…this is an SOS…AGAIN.. an SOS… SOS..  SOS…”

It IS an SOS, and I’ve been one of the many on his campaign site that Amy speaks of.

What I’m unclear of though, (unless Amy has spoken directly to Obama and hasn’t mentioned it) is why SHE is so certain of this…

•  “Feingold and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., are planning on filibustering the bill. It will take 60 senators to overcome their filibuster. It looks like Obama will be one of them.”

Now Amy is certainly not the only one. There has been this absolute uproar and total outrage with Obama since the day the House passed this piece of crap bill that allowed for this retro-active immunity.

However, it would seem that *I* am the only one who didn’t ‘hear’ Obama say that he was ‘OK’ with this. At the risk of seeming to ‘cherry pick’ (because that really is NOT my intention) this is the portion of his comments that I guess I zeroed in on…

•  “..It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act…”

The entire remarks at here:

He does say earlier in the thing that he does see it as a good compromise, WITH THE EXCEPTION of this immunity thing. And he goes further to say that it isn’t what he wants, blah, blah, blah, and how if he’s president he can and will work with the rest of Congress to make any additional changes necessary.

And, THAT’S the part that Feingold seems to be addressing. So, am I the only one taking him at face value when he says that…”I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses”?”

I mean, I’m not trying to be coy or anything here, but I *am* trying (rather desperately I might add) to understand how we’ve come up with things like, “It’s the wrong vote”

Like this:

•  “..I asked Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., about Obama’s position on the FISA bill. He told me: “Wrong vote. Regrettable.”

Well for Christ’s sake, HE HASN’T VOTED YET! True, the vote has been delayed, but Feingold made this comment the day after Obama made his, before the Senate had even PLANNED to take it up. My frustration is that I’m back to one of those, “is it me?” moments, because it seems like I missed something. In other words, has Barack Obama said ANYTHING more about the House Bill on this, other than the remarks that I’ve read, (and posted a portion of here)? Because if so, I’ve missed it, and I really would like to hear, read, whatever else he may have said, aside from the fact that he did NOT like this immunity provision, and would work to have it removed.

OR…is there some other part of the House Bill that he IS ‘ok with’ based on what he calls a compromise, that is what has everybody up in arms? That could be the dimension that I’m missing, because I’ve not actually heard any complaints about the rest of the thing. Only the part about the immunity, which he has said he will work in the SENATE to remove.

So, that’s how I don’t get how Amy Goodman or all of the others are so certain that he will be one of the 60 to overcome the filibuster. Does anybody other than Felicity understand my frustration in not completely comprehending this, even though I want to?

Meantime, I have no clue to what he’s talking about with the ‘faith-based’ shit, but I haven’t read his comments on that, so maybe I should.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook